Hello,

I'm looking for a gunsmith near Louisville that can pin and weld a muzzle device to a 14.5" upper. I'm in Bullitt county but will drive if need be. Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

Hi y'all.

Going to be staying in KY for business next month, and I wanted to see if anyone knew whether Hotel Distl was gun friendly, or at least turns a blind eye to concealed carry

You know of any dealers in Kentucky or cool reputable shops I'm also into private dealers preferably!

After applying on the 9th. I went and looked on the online application portal. And it is saying Denied. Will a decision be that fast or is it in Denied because a decision hasn't been made yet? I have a clean record and don't use drugs. I passed a background check as well to become a state employee recently.

Been around pistols 30+ years but just now getting into rifles. Any classes around Jefferson County area to get an "introductory" class for me and my wife? Proper cleaning, zeroing, how to use long range optics, etc.

I'm new to the Covington and was looking for decent ranges. I've looked into impact and are they worth it?

Hello, I am moving from IL to KY and want to apply for my CCDW once I am able to. I currently have a Gun Permit here in IL and am eligible for a license here but wanted to check with KY (I know it is a permitless carry state but still want a permit). I had a simple battery/making physical contact in IL 14 years ago in college for a bar fight (NOT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE). I don't see simple battery as a charge in KY, rather Harassment or Assault in the 4th degree with a 3 yr disqualifier. I was looking at the KSP website and read the below and am wondering if it is just worded incorrectly or if im seeing that regardless if it was domestic or not, it would need to be classified as that. The top part says they need to investigate, the bottom--im reading--as it would be treated as such regardless.

The following misdemeanors under Kentucky law are deemed to be possible misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. If you have been convicted of any of the following offenses, your application must be reviewed to determine whether your offense involved domestic violence:

• KRS 508.030 Assault in the fourth degree (note that this is a three year state disqualifier even if domestic violence was not involved).
• KRS 508.040 Assault under Extreme Emotional Disturbance
• KRS 508.120 Criminal Abuse in the third degree
• KRS 509.030 Unlawful Imprisonment in the second degree
• KRS 510.120 Sexual Abuse in second degree
• KRS 510.130 Sexual Abuse in third degree
• KRS 510.140 Sexual Misconduct
• KRS 525.060 Disorderly Conduct
• KRS 525.070 Harassment

Note that there is no three-year limitation as with state disqualifiers. If you have been convicted of any of the above offenses, a domestic violence determination must be made regardless of how long ago you were convicted. A domestic violence determination must also be made if you were convicted of similar misdemeanors in federal court or another state or territory. You are not disqualified, even if domestic violence was involved, if your conviction was expunged, set aside or pardoned. If your conviction is determined to be a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, you are not only ineligible to possess a CCDW license; federal law prohibits you from possessing a firearm. Individuals subject to this disability should immediately lawfully dispose of their firearms and ammunition.

I got a ar style mag fed simi auto shotgun would I be aloud to carry it sitting in my passenger seat or even buy a mount for it ?

Going to buy my 1st NFA item (suppressor) and looking for least painful and least expensive way to go about it. I'm in the Louisville area so where would I need to go to get best experience considering transfer fees, help with trust, etc? I'm not too concerned about length of turnaround time.

I have a similar auto 12gauge with a 15rd drum and a Anderson arms ar-15 would I be able to cart in my car legally if both are bought through me

Does anyone have recommendations for a shop in or around Louisville that would be able to install suppressor height irons on a Beretta 92? And what something like that might cost? I haven't bought taller irons to clear my RDO yet - mainly because I know it'll be a bear to try and swap them myself, and a sight pusher would be $200 for a likely one time use item so I don't want to have to buy one of those either.

Thanks in advance

Moved close to Ashland recently, any gun clubs you would recommend?

I am currently 19 and I travel a lot and sometimes end up in some shady places, just wondering if 1 . I am allowed to keep a loaded pistol in my car 2. Where can I legally keep it? 3. Can I cross into Tennessee with said firearm? I only want to keep one for self-defense because id much rather have it than not but id prefer to do it legally haha.

New to the state and have been trying to find a non-club range indoor or outdoor near Northern KY that goes to at least 100 yards. Anyone have recommendations for ranges I should check out?

I am eventually looking to get a membership at Impact, but have a few buddies who want to shoot with me in the meantime. Not looking for any other club ranges at this time, only state or public ranges.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Case name is US v. Denico Hudson. Case number is 24-5697.

Background

There were three people in the crime: Demarco Sturgeon, Isaiah Smith, and Denico Hudson. According to US’s Sentencing Memorandum as to Denico Hudson, that as to Isaiah Smith, that as to Demarco Sturgeon, and the indictment to all three, sometime between 1/1/2020 and 1/25/2023:

1.      Smith manufactured plastic conversion devices in Ohio and sold many of them to Sturgeon in Kentucky.

2.      Sturgeon, the central hub of the conspiracy, then sold the bulk of them to Hudson and others in Northern Kentucky and Southern Ohio

3.      Hudson also assisted Sturgeon in making multiple sales of these devices to other people, including members of two known violent gangs in Cincinnati who, like Hudson, engaged in drug trafficking and acts of violence.

In 2022, the ATF opened an investigation into individuals who were selling and possessing firearms and full auto conversion devices to individuals engaged in drug trafficking and other criminal offenses. These devices had been linked to numerous calls of shots fired in Cincinnati as well as completed assaults. The investigation was predicated on information from cooperating sources, who identified Sturgeon as a primary source of supply of firearms and machinegun conversion devices to groups in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky.

After further investigation, the ATF confirmed that Sturgeon was regularly trafficking in full auto conversion devices supplied by Isaiah Smith and others. ATF agents obtained video footage showing Sturgeon at Mark’s Guns (an FFL in Florence, Kentucky) firing a handgun with the conversion device installed. A review of Sturgeon’s FB account revealed photos and videos of those conversion devices, firearms, illegal drugs, and numerous messages sent by Sturgeon advertising, selling, and purchasing full auto devices, firearms, and illegal drugs during the latter half of 2022. For example, messages in August 2022 revealed that Sturgeon agreed to meet Hudson to provide two black machinegun conversion devices in exchange for a quantity of drugs; Sturgeon indicated in the conversation with the Defendant that he intended to repackage the drugs for further distribution. The messages further revealed that Sturgeon regularly kept illegal drugs, firearms, and machinegun conversion devices in his possession and available for sale and that he instructed others how to install the conversion devices to convert firearms to fully automatic weapons. Sturgeon supplied Clifton Barnett and Cylis Rowe with firearm conversion devices that Barnett sold to others who could not lawfully possess them.

During the execution of a search warrant on Sturgeon’s residence in Kenton County on January 25, 2023, agents located a firearm and a quantity of marijuana in his room. Sturgeon admitted to extensive trafficking in firearms and conversion devices during the time alleged in the indictment and provided information identifying Isaiah Smith as the primary supplier of the machinegun conversion devices.

According to Sturgeon and Facebook communications, Hudson bought multiple machinegun conversion devices from Sturgeon and paid him with money and drugs (marijuana and fentanyl). Hudson also sold these conversion devices and eventually served as a middleman for the Sturgeon to assist him in selling conversion devices to individuals including gang associates of the Defendant in Cincinnati who were using them unlawfully.

Sturgeon’s information proved to be reliable when agents obtained and executed a search warrant on Smith’s Ohio residence on April 4, 2023 and seized a metal Glock switch and a loaded Glock semiautomatic model 19X pistol bearing serial number BSLE615 from Smith’s bedroom. Smith confirmed that he had manufactured and distributed over 80 Glock switches and identified the location of the printers and computer that he used to make them, which agents subsequently seized. Smith admitted to distributing numerous switches to Sturgeon and to purchasing multiple firearms from him.

Sturgeon and Smith each independently admitted that members of the conspiracy distributed over 25 machinegun conversion devices during the charged time. They also confirmed in written plea agreements that all members of the conspiracy were aware that they were distributing these devices to individuals who were using and disposing of them unlawfully.

Hudson was detained after his arrest in this case. While in custody, he engaged in recorded phone and chirp conversations with associates attempting to persuade a witness to provide false testimony and convince associates to retaliate against other witnesses in this investigation. All three were later indicted under the following charges:

1.      18 USC §§ 922(o) & 2: Aiding and abetting one another, and knowingly possessing and transferring a machinegun

2.      26 USC §§ 5861(j) & 2: Aiding and abetting one another, and knowingly transporting, delivering, and receiving, in interstate commerce an unregistered machinegun

Judicial Proceedings

All three have filed the motion to dismiss both charges under NYSRPA v. Bruen.

1.      Hudson’s MTD

2.      Smith’s MTD

3.      Sturgeon’s MTD

Both Smith’s and Sturgeon’s MTD claim that the two charges infringe on 2A rights, and that the government must meet the burden. Unfortunately, all three don't mention why. While it is true that the Defendants don't need to do anything, they should have mentioned why to bolster their arguments. In US’s Response to MTD, to which all three Defendants didn’t reply to (big mistake in my opinion), it misreads Bruen, Heller, and Miller (the “grandfather” of the 2A cases) to claim that the right to keep and bear machineguns is not textually protected as they are not “in common use” (which comes from the historical inquiry, not the textual inquiry) and cites to pre-Bruen circuit cases saying that the text doesn’t protect machineguns, and even cites to the en banc opinion in Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017), which upheld that semi-automatic firearms (mainly rifles) designated as “assault weapons” aren’t even textually protected because they are like full auto guns (slippery slope!). US then claims that if the text presumptively protected full autos, it claims that the “historical tradition” of “prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” suffices the ban on possessing machine guns. In reality, the historical tradition refers to the manner of bearing arms, not the mere possession of arms. US even claims that the common-use limitation is consistent with the prefatory clause, as “[t]he traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense.” It also claimed that Heller recognized that “[i]t may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in [modern] military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause”, and that statement refers to militias. In reality, the militia, which comprises of private civilians and is there to keep the US free, typically brought ordinary military equipment to militia musters, and while machine guns are in common use by the military, they are not by law-abiding citizens because they are banned for civilians. That’s why one may object (and will most likely definitely object) the machine gun ban as that implicates the operative clause and more so the prefatory clause. In fact, according to Federalist No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

The historical events and sources actually support the private ownership and usage of military arms.

Unfortunately, as usual and expected, District Judge David L. Bunning denied the MTDs. Judge Bunning said that Bruen and Heller said that there is no “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” to uphold § 922(o). That may be consistent if both opinions said that there is no right to keep and carry any weapon (and just that), not that “whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. One has to read that statement in conjunction and in full. The full statement is there to indicate that there are actions that fall under 2A’s plain text, but are otherwise historically unprotected after doing the historical analysis. Anti-gun judges cite this statement to uphold certain arm bans. He also cites the fact that Bruen struck down proper cause as that prevented law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising 2A. The judge then said that possessing and transferring full autos is not an ordinary self-defense need (interest balancing!), as “[t]he Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes…” per Heller. He also cites pre-Bruen case Hamblen v. US, 591 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2009), and the fact that no district court outside of the 6th has struck down § 922(o). He therefore concludes that the conduct is not covered by the plain text.

As for § 5861(j), Judge Bunning says that § 5861 regulates unregistered possession of NFA firearms as defined under 26 USC § 5845 (see § 5845(b) for full auto definition). He then makes an ipse dixit by saying that § 5845 firearms are considered unusual or dangerous without doing the historical analysis, and concludes that the NFA firearms are not even textually protected (how is a non-NFA semi-auto firearm textually protected but not the NFA version despite the different lengths?). Bunning then notes that while the 6th Circuit district courts have yet to address § 5861 post-Bruen, other courts have upheld the statute.

All three Defendants have pleaded guilty. Hudson didn’t submit a written plea agreement, but Sturgeon and Smith have done so, and both plea agreements explicitly claim that Sturgeon and Smith waive their right to appeal the guilty plea and conviction. Per Hudson’s sentencing memorandum, as for Hudson, who is currently 21 years old and doesn’t have any juvenile adjudications, he was raised by his mother after his parents divorced when Hudson was about 11 years old. He has 5 siblings, 2 children, and a good relationship with his family. Unfortunately, he has a limited substance abuse problem.

Hey all, I’m looking at honing my skills with my firearms. I’ve shot all my life but never really put any effort into becoming a good shot but I’m wanting to start. Are there any classes or competitions in southern/central Kentucky that I could look into?

I like and dislike multiple things about appendix carry. My biggest fear is that someday my guns gonna shoot my tater tots off. I carry a Glock in a stealth gear holster. Anyone else have this fear or ever seen a discharge from in a holster?

The other gripe I have with appendix carry is the discomfort. I’m not sure if that’s a short term deal that you get used too, but when I’m sitting it’s typically pinching something.

My husband is a class A felon for some incident when he was a teenager. I would like to own a small handgun to carry with me when I’m out with my daughter, but I’m getting mixed responses about the law in Ky. I’ve heard he cannot be in the same house as one, but I could legally own one. Not sure where I would put it if we can’t have it in the house.

Opening brief here.

Background

Brooks became a prohibited person because of two felony offenses: Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a Police Officer (Ohio, 2021), and Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs (Ohio, 2021). Regarding this specific case, Maysville Police Officers located the Defendant-Appellant in a red Ford vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. Officers conducted a probable cause search of the vehicle and recovered suspected methamphetamine and marijuana, and two firearms: (1) a weapon made from a Harrington and Richardson Topper model 88, 12-gauge shotgun, bearing serial number AX472867, that had been modified to have an overall length of less than 26 inches and a barrel length less than 18 inches (and not registered to him in the NFRTR), and (2) a ZhongZhou Machine Works, model JW-200, 12-gauge shotgun, bearing serial number JWC108214. The Defendant-Appellant admitted that he knowingly possessed the firearms charged in the Indictment. Both firearms were operable at the time the Defendant-Appellant possessed them. Brooks also knew of the H&R shotgun's dimensions, and that it wasn't registered to him in the NFRTR.

Argument

Brooks says that § 922(g)(1) and the like didn't appear until the 20th century. The district judge mentioned that the former is part of "the people," but because the judge thought that Brooks' felonies are violent, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him. Brooks counters that the drug trafficking conviction is not a violent offense by referring to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The USSG points out the difference between a violent offense and a controlled substance offense. "By its omission from the enumerated offenses that are violent it is clear that drug trafficking is in the controlled substance offense category." As for failure to comply with the police, the 6th used to consider it as a crime of violence, but SCOTUS said otherwise, and it is not a crime of violence as of today.

As for 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), Brooks argues that the jurisprudence in US v. Miller is different from today's. Brooks points out that Heller misinterprets Miller (which looked at 2A from a militia standpoint instead of the people standpoint) by saying that the “Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 625 (2018). Brooks counters that by pointing out the history of SBS's being used for lawful purposes. Miller held that "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and cannot therefore say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizens the right to keep and bear such a weapon." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 178 (1939). The district court said that failing to register an SBS is outside the scope of 2A because the SBS is an "unusual and dangerous" firearm and hence not covered by the plain text. The district judge got it backwards. Here, the SBS is a firearm as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) and hence an arm, which is explicitly mentioned in the plain text. Criminalizing someone for failing to register such an arm like this is the historical burden on the government. The government must show that it's "dangerous and unusual." Although SCOTUS has yet to elaborate on that as Justice Thomas pointed out in his statement in the denial of cert in Illinois's AWB and mag ban cases, that phrase refers to conduct, not a class of arms.

Finally, Brooks points out that because of his prior felony convictions, it was impossible to comply with registering this firearm. He then mentions that

In a like manner the Government has argued “The Defendant could have easily complied with §922(g) and §5861(d) by declining to possess the firearms alleged in the Indictment.” That is akin to stating that a citizen’s complaint of a 4th Amendment search violation could be avoided if a citizen declined to possess illegal contraband. The ends never should justify the means in a constitutional inquiry. The entirety of this issue circles back to Defendant-Appellant being a convicted felon (violent or nonviolent) being prohibited to possess or register a firearm based on his status which is unconstitutional as outlined above.

Hmmm, this is somewhat shaky as Haynes has addressed this issue. Also, regarding the non-violent status for his drug trafficking crime per the USSG, I wonder if Brown v. US (which is about the ACCA for drugs) rebuts this argument.

Looking for places in/near Louisville that have reasonable NFA fees.

Kygunco charged $85 - $50 for the NFA transfer and $35 for silencershop kiosk fees.

I'm contemplating attending a baseball game at slugger field, their website says that "pursuant to KY law, no person shall be permitted to knowingly be in possession........blah blah blah". So under the law in KY it is lawful to concealed carry firearms on public property. Slugger field is owned by the city and leased to the team, the only exceptions to that "public place/property" rule are places where the government functions or other areas where carry is prohibited federally, schools etc. Sporting events and arenas are not specified.

I found out that the stadium has security screening prior to entry and that persons lawfully possessing firearms will be denied entry. My question is two fold, isn't this a violation of both my state and federal firearms rights? What actions are available to me if I tried to concealed carry at the stadium which is legal under state law and was then denied?

Let's be honest downtown. Louisville is a shit show, hell the current mayor had an assassination attempt on his life during the campaign at his campaign headquarters near downtown.

Curious how this hypothetical might play out.

I’m moving to Pikeville soon from Pennsylvania and looking for any information about gun ranges? I tried to look on google and didn’t find much besides the East Kentucky Sportsman Club, but I’ll be a grad student with not a lot of money to spend on dues. Anyone know of ranges/places to shoot around Pikeville?

We've decided to relocate outside of Louisville (Bullitt County) and would love some recommendations on places to shoot and the best shops in the area. I'm really looking forward to moving to this great Commonwealth and appreciate any responses. Thanks in advance.

The case name is US v. Brooks, which involves an SBS and 18 USC § 922(g)(1). Dalton Brooks became a “prohibited person” under 922(g)(1) because he had 2 Ohio felony convictions for failing to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and aggravated drug trafficking. Brooks tried to get the charges dismissed as applied to him by citing to cases like US v. Bullock and Range v. Garland, and said that because of his felony convictions, it was impossible for him to comply with gun registration. He also points out that there’s no tradition of requiring arms registration. Brooks in his reply also points out the reading from Heller below is erroneous:

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

Here, Scalia in Heller is basically trying to “translate” the words in Miller to the words we understand today, or apply the Miller holding from the militia to the “people”. In reality, the words “typically possessed” and “in common use” are rather a historical description of arms that the militiamen would bring to militia musters at the time when they existed. In reality, Miller said this:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and cannot therefore say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizens the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

This implies that the Miller Court is unable to determine if the SBS would be an effective weapon of war, which according to case law actually receive more explicit protection than others like butterfly knives and stun guns.

Brooks actually gives evidence that SBSs are used for lawful purposes:

Historically the short barreled shotgun was used for legitimate lawful purposes. In the 1920’s and 1930’s commercial weapons like the Ithaca “Auto and Burglar” gun being manufactured, marketed and sold. These were pistol grip shotguns with barrels less than 18”. They were legal at the time and meant for civilian defensive purposes. Approximately 2,500 were manufactured from 1921 to 1925. A double barrel version was available in 1925. Wikipedia, Ithaca Auto and Burglar

Furthermore, short barreled shotguns were favored by law enforcement on stage coaches. Historically the short barreled shotguns have been referred to as “coach guns”. They were also utilized in mariner warfare in naval battles.

Finally, Brooks actually points out the emphases of both Heller and Miller: Miller focuses mainly on the militia, its definition, and whether SBS’s are “typically possessed” and “commonly used” by militiamen at musters, while Heller mainly focuses on the “people” because Petitioners like Heller wanted to keep handguns irrespective of militia service.

The judge denies Brooks’s MTD for the following reasons:

1. 922(g)(1): He cites decisions upholding that statute in the district courts within the 6th Circuit, as well as US v. Jackson from the 8th. He doesn’t buy the Range case because Range merely made false statements on a food stamp application, while he cites US v. Torres-Rosario to say that drug offenses like trafficking are inherently violent offenses.
2. SBS: The judge cherry-picks quotes from Miller, Heller, and Bruen in upholding the NFA as applied to SBS’s, which he deems “unusual OR dangerous” and “unusual AND dangerous” (mainly the former). He also notes that judges in every criminal case that had to consider the constitutionality of the NFA upheld it. He agrees with the US that the plain text doesn’t guarantee the right to keep an SBS because it’s “dangerous and unusual.” The judge hereby conflated the textual and the historical thresholds altogether with very scant evidence on why SBS’s are “dangerous and unusual” when being carried in such a way to terrify the public.

Personally speaking, there can be violent instances when trafficking drugs, but apparently, I don’t see any factual findings of him exhibiting any acts of violence. If anything, Brooks, who grew up in a fatherless home, is non-virtuous at the very least. See docket entry.

Also, judges including Republican appointees (like this one) jump the upholding bandwagon for the NFA every time someone tries to throw it out on 2A grounds. If we are not vigilant enough, more judges will keep on upholding them, and we will eventually get anti-gun or anti-constitutional circuit precedents in even the more conservative circuits like the 5th. For example, in US v. Seekins, which challenged 922(g)(1) on the Commerce clause grounds, the 5th refused to rehear en banc. Enough is enough! It’s time that we call our pro-2A groups to file amicus briefs! No more games!

Note: There’s an as-applied 922(g)(1) case on appeal named US v. Goins that has been orally argued on 3/21/2024 in front of Julia Gibbons (GWB), John Bush (Trump), and Eric Murphy (Trump). I have yet to listen to that oral arguments. There’s another 922(g)(1) case named US v. Taylor that has been fully briefed, but not argued yet.

Starting up an ammo collection for display and wondering if anyone knows of any shops that have old and hard to find stuff. Loose ammo is fine. I’ve had some luck at the Louisville gun show, but not much in Lexington or Cave city.