Edgewood City Council rejected a proposed ordinance prohibiting concealed weapons in the city building. The move would not have barred guns from the city property; instead, it would have required that those carrying guns on site make it visible.
A recent incident involving the displaying of a gun by a resident, which made some staff members uncomfortable during the course of business, prompted the proposal.
Mayor John Link and City Administrator Brian Dehner hoped to have the city adopt an ordinance that would allow them to ask people to reveal that they are armed.
State statute allows for people in Kentucky to carry a concealed weapon, or to carry one openly, with some exceptions.
“In a public building like the city building and public spaces, an individual has the ability now to conceal a weapon or open-carry,” Dehner, the city administrator, told LINK nky. “What we were trying to do is say that we would prohibit concealing it and it would just have to be open-carry.”
Dehner explained that the state statute does not allow for cities to penalize anyone over violating the proposed ordinance, but city officials could ask someone to leave and then cite them for trespassing, if necessary, he said.
On Monday night, the proposed ordinance was shot down in a 4-3 vote.
“My knee-jerk reaction to this is to vote no on this,” said Councilman Ben Barlage, who said he had thought that municipal buildings were gun-free zones. “I would have guessed that was already the rule here, but it’s not. I’m not in the a position to infringe on someone’s right to conceal-carry. Maybe there’s some more security-type things we could implement, but my gut is to vote no.”
A resident who spoke from the back of the room objected to the ordinance, which would lead to signs posted on the door that prohibit guns in the building.
“Who thinks this will deter someone who is bent on violence?” the man asked. “I don’t understand the logic behind this. Somebody’s intent on violence and they’re going to see this sign and say, ‘Huh, I can’t come in there!’ This simply restricts honest people. I think the logic behind this is very flawed.
“In fact, it won’t deter anyone. If you think that’s the case, you’re mistaken.”
Councilman Joe Messmer said that unless metal detectors are installed inside every door, the sign wouldn’t serve any purpose, except possibly to violate some rights. Messmer said that he had received more phone calls about this proposed ordinance than any other in his council career.
Councilman Jeff Schreiver said he had received feedback from residents, too.
“This isn’t going to stop anything,” Schreiver said. “I wish there was another solution.”
“So, the issue gets down to, it’s not about about stopping them. It is about possibly getting people not carrying them in, and complying with it,” Dehner said. “And then something doesn’t escalate to a situation to where someone loses their control or whatever and pulls out a firearm and uses it.”
“But the people you are going to stop are the law-abiding citizens,” Councilman Messmer responded.
“Again, we have had an issue with a resident that shows his firearm,” explained Dehner. “The staff has asked if we can do whatever we possibly can, if (someone with a firearm) would read that sign and say, Hey, I will keep the weapon in the car, and not bring it in. That’s one more step that we can do to protect the people who work here.”
In a separate interview, Dehner said that no one at the city building was in favor of restricting federal or state gun rights.
“This is a strange, weird world. We do a lot of things where we have to tell people no, or that they are not allowed, and (staff was) just asking, can we put anything in place to give us one last chance to know who was bringing a gun in,” Dehner said in a separate interview. “No one was arguing that people don’t have a right. We just want you to have to display it when you walk in.
“If someone is getting irate or out of control I’d like to know if they have a weapon on them.”
In the meantime, Dehner said that the city is measuring for bulletproof glass, installing cameras, sealing off fire and police department doors with code access and metal detectors.
“I remember when (former) Chief (Tony) Kramer used to sit back there in the back and say, I hate to tell you but if someone pulls out a gun with the intent to harm someone here, and someone else pulls out a gun to stop them, he’s shooting them both because he doesn’t know their intent,” Dehner said at Monday night’s meeting.
“That’s asinine!” the same resident shouted from the back of the room.
“No, it’s not,” Dehner said. “He doesn’t know what intent all the people have who pull a gun out. He has to take action to it. He has to de-escalate it.”
City Attorney Frank Wichmann helped to explain the issue.
“You can carry, unconcealed, a weapon anywhere,” Wichmann said. “If somebody walks into this room with a holstered gun, there’s nothing anybody can do about it. Now if he takes the gun out of the holster, that’s a whole different story.”
Wichmann went on to say the state statute that authorized the ordinance on the table specifically prohibits penalties. He told council that the conundrum with it is that if someone walks into the room with a weapon that is concealed, and someone recognizes it and tells the person he can’t be in the room, all he has to do is unconceal it, and no one could do anything about it.
“So it is a moot point,” said Councilmember Darla Kettenacker.
Wichmann agreed, saying it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
He explained that the only thing the law would accomplish was to authorize metal detectors, and authorities can ask people to walk through the metal detectors, and if they have a concealed weapon they will have to un-conceal it or they can be asked to leave.
“So just so I’m clear, this ordinance should only prevent you from coming in with a concealed weapon,” said Councilmember Dale Henson. “If I have a gun, I put it on holster, and it’s on my hip, and you can see it, I can still walk in the building even if we pass this ordinance.”
“Absolutely,” said Wichmann.
“So we are not prohibiting anyone’s Second Amendment rights,” said Henson. “We just want to know it’s there.”
Henson qualified that if a person is brandishing a weapon, that could be taken as a threat and the person could possibly be arrested.
Dehner confirmed that could happen but said the county attorney would then decide about charges.
“In the situation that we had, we were very clear that we don’t think the incident was taken as a threatening gesture at the time,” Dehner said.
This was the second reading of the ordinance, so a vote was called for. Rob Thelen, Darla Kettenacker, and Dale Henson voted in favor while Jeff Schreiver, Joe Messmer, Ben Barlage and Kim Wolking voted against. (Edgewood has seven council members.)
Wolking wanted to make sure no one thought that her ‘no’ vote meant she didn’t value the safety of the people working at the city building, but she thought there were better ways to ensure their safety.
Michael Monks contributed to this report.
