Posted on 09/22/2006 12:23:01 PM PDT by neverdem
Associated Press
(LOUISVILLE, Ky.) -- Fadi Mohammad didn't think there was anything wrong with storing a gun in the center console of his car.
He found out differently when he was charged with illegally carrying the weapon during an arrest for drunken driving in Louisville.
When his case went to court, a judge dismissed the charges, saying the center console fell under a provision in Kentucky law allowing guns to be carried in a glove compartment.
But the Kentucky Supreme Court reinstated both charges on Thursday in a split decision issued in Frankfort, saying a center console is not a glove compartment.
"A glove compartment is a small storage cabinet in the dashboard of an automobile," Justice Donald C. Wintersheimer wrote in the opinion.
Mohammad's attorney, Larry Simon of Louisville, did not immediately return calls seeking comment Thursday. Bill Patterson, a spokesman for the Jefferson County Attorney's Office, which prosecuted the case, said he's glad the court clarified the law.
"When it gets to court, it's going to be easier to define if a crime took place," Patterson said.
The opinion, backed by four justices, centered on what constituted a glove compartment and whether the Kentucky General Assembly intended to include other compartments built into the cab of a vehicle when it allowed gun owners to carry weapons inside their vehicles.
Kentucky's concealed weapons law allows someone to carry a gun in the car, either in the glove compartment "regularly installed in a motor vehicle by its manufacturer," on the seat or in the trunk.
Mohammad asked a Jefferson County judge to dismiss the charges, saying the center console between the seats qualified as a glove compartment under the law. The judge agreed and dismissed the charges. The Kentucky Court of Appeals overturned that decision and sent the case to the state Supreme Court.
Wintersheimer wrote that the General Assembly didn't include all manufactured-installed compartments in the car, which means they must have meant to include only the glove compartment in the exception.
"Whether gloves fit into other compartments is immaterial because the phrase 'glove compartment' was expressly adopted by the General Assembly and retains the plain meaning as a compartment located in the dashboard of a vehicle," Wintersheimer wrote.
In a separate opinion, Justice Will T. Scott said the majority opinion refers to a compartment that always has a "locking mechanism," a requirement not listed in the General Assembly's definition of glove compartment.
"Moreover, there is nothing in the statute that requires it to be in the 'dash board,' much less on the 'face' of the dash board, as is commonly assumed," Scott wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Joseph Lambert.
Scott also noted that several newer vehicles do not have glove compartments as defined by the majority of the court.
The legislature should amend the law to correct the court's ruling, because the Supreme Court cannot amend the law on its own, Scott wrote.
"That's all the better reason to reinsert 'console compartment, or some other similar compartment' back into the statute," Scott wrote. "But, that of course is not for us to do."
With a bias toward common sense. Amen.
But that still doesn't make sense because having the gun laying on the seat is okay. I haven't seen any seats with lids. So, the purpose of the lid isn't even clear.
Interesting. Whether or not you break a law (and have your freedom deprived of you) depends on pricise meanings of phrases like "glove compartment".
It's hard to see the law as having anything to do with morality or safety. It's hard to respect it either.
Trafic tickets are just tolls. I can stop and proceed at a thousand red lights before I actually get a ticket. That is a CHEAP toll.
Double jeopardy?
SCOTUS kicks cases back to federal district courts on a routine basis, IIRC.
Yah, I agree.
The intent of the law was clear, and clearly, the court didn't like the law.
Guess I mistakenly thought Kentucky's Supreme Court was above picking nits.
Sounds like the statute or the judges are all screwed up - or both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.