Friday, January 14, 2011


The following is an op-ed piece by former Legislative Aide to Council District 25....

By Scott Harrington

Anti-second amendment legislators are once again taking advantage of a tragic shooting to rally support for stricter gun control laws. On the morning of the shooting, Jared Loughner left his house carrying his 9mm Glock and stopped by Wal-Mart to purchase ammo before attending a public meeting hosted by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Allegedly, it is believed that Loughner attended the meeting with the intent on assassinating the congresswoman. The mass murderer fatally wounded six people including a nine year old girl and wounded fourteen other people including his attended target.

My prayers go out to all the victims and survivors of those who were fatally wounded. My sorrow can’t comprehend what these families are going through and I cannot offer enough words to comfort their loss.

As part of the healing process, it is only natural for us to review the events of this tragedy in an effort to understand why this happened and, most importantly, what could be done to prevent such future tragedies. Inevitable, the focus will turn to gun control.

I must disclose that I am a gun owner and posses a (CCDW) carry concealed deadly weapon permit. I became a gun owner two years ago and assume the responsibilities that go along with exercising my second amendment rights.

Some lawmakers, in my opinion, are taking advantage of the Tuscon shootings to advance their gun control agendas. For example, Kentucky Congressman John Yarmuth (D) in an interview encourages his colleagues to consider banning assault rifles. Loughner used a hand pistol, not an assault rifle.

Representative Darryl Owens (D) wants to ban individuals from carrying handguns in the state capitol building. Kentucky Revised Statute 527.020 already prevents concealing a weapon to “Any meeting of the governing body of a county, municipality, or special district; or any meeting of the General Assembly or a committee of the General Assembly, except that nothing in this section shall preclude a member of the body, holding a concealed deadly weapon license, from carrying a concealed deadly weapon at a meeting of the body of which he or she is a member.” In addition, persons issued a CCDW permit cannot bring a gun to a school, government building, courthouse or other buildings where federal laws prohibit carrying a concealed weapon.

Representative Jim Wayne (D) is considered one of the most anti-guns legislators who will surely use the Tucson shootings as a tool to gain support for his bill that mandates destroying firearms used in a commission of crime. Wayne has supported all anti-gun legislation and I foresee him introducing more limiting public policy in the months that follow.

On the other side of the debate, lawmakers are looking towards guns as a means of self-protection. In an interview with The Washington Post, Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz (R) and Tennessee Representative Steve Cohen (D) both are considering carrying a concealed weapon in light of the Tucson shootings. Ironically, Cohen added that he would not carry a gun to public events though. Virginia Congressman Morgan Griffith (R) is considering applying for his permit since he acquired his newly elected position.

Keeping the American public safe is a tremendous responsibility so I commend all legislators who are mentioned in my article for taking the time to carefully review this matter. No politician or their supporters should have to fear for their safety when exercising their right to assemble. But at the same time lawmakers must act accordingly to preserving our constitutional right to bear arms.


  1. I fully support all three proposals by Yarmouth, Owens and Wayne. These are all common sense laws, nothing that bans gun ownership.

  2. From this weeks LEO - she wants to manage our money but she can't manage her own!

    For Councilwoman Judy Green, D-1, the scandal surrounding her sketchy jobs-for-youth summer program could be the least of her worries.

    In November, Jefferson Circuit Court Judge James M. Shake ordered the sale of the city lawmaker’s home as a result of a civil lawsuit brought against Green and her husband, James Green, by Louisville businessman Gus Goldsmith.

    On Oct. 22, 2003, Goldsmith loaned the Greens $140,000, according to court papers obtained by LEO Weekly. In the fall, a final summary judgment against the Greens ordered the sale of their west Louisville home in order to pay Goldsmith the remaining $136,000 balance.

    In a telephone interview, however, Green’s husband said a settlement has been reached and the couple is not being forced to sell their property. “It will be dismissed. We’ve reached a loan modification agreement,” James Green says. “Goldsmith’s attorney actually should have done that some time ago. It’s been resolved, and they should have filed their paperwork earlier than they did.”

    But the case file obtained Jan. 7 does not show any motion to dismiss, and the commissioner’s office confirmed with the newspaper earlier this week that their records show the sale of the Green home has been approved.

    “My recollection is that the case may be resolved, but I couldn’t swear on that right now,” says attorney Thomas Carter, who represents Goldsmith. “I don’t know the specifics, but a lot of times these cases are ongoing and resolutions are reached outside of court … my belief is it is resolved but hasn’t been dismissed yet.”

    Court records show Councilwoman Green has other debts, including $55,411 owed to the Internal Revenue Service in unpaid taxes going back to 1998, and a hefty student loan for $374,896 stemming from a judgment in 1989.

    A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney David Hale’s office says she is hopeful the IRS will receive payment for the back taxes and that the student loan debt will be repaid, even though a statute of limitations gives the federal government no legal recourse to recoup the student loan.

    “We believe she has a moral obligation to pay back this money,” says Stephanie Collins, public affairs officer for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Louisville.

    These personal financial troubles underscore a scathing internal audit and police investigation of a $55,000 grant Councilwoman Green used to fund the “Green Clean Team,” a summer program for at-risk youth in her district.

    The audit found that 12 of Green’s relatives worked in the program and collected $3,580, and that $28,270 was unaccounted for due to poor bookkeeping.

    Those results were forwarded to the police department’s Public Integrity Unit, and although no charges were filed against the councilwoman, a police report stated there was the “appearance that criminal activity could have been taking place.”

    In response, Green has disputed the audit’s claims and indicated she will go forward with the program again this summer.

  3. Thanks anonymous. Isn't it amazing that yet another story I uncovered made its way into another news source with no credit given?

    I expected better from LEO since I give them credit as a source.

    More importantly it is time to see a full investigation into Judy Green and her foster children.

    Thanks for writing.

  4. Honorable Chjarles RangelJanuary 18, 2011 at 2:57 PM

    Dear Louisvillians,
    I stand shoulder to shoulder with Judy Green,
    and will state that her character is beyond
    reproach. Its all been a big misunderstanding.
    Once again, the IRS is picking on the little guy,
    and must be put in their place. If Judy Green
    says its so then its so. Now just get over it.

    Honorable Charles Rangel
    (D) Harlem, N.Y.

  5. lol "Rangel" at least if you are going to impersonate someone by hiding try to spell their name correctly.

  6. SIR,


Thank you for reading LNP. Open and honest discussions of local politics and relevant issues is important to voter understanding. Please listen to the "Ed Springston Show". We broadcast Monday through Thursday evenings at 7 PM on local media outlets. Please check for the links.
Yours truly,
Ed Springston


The Metro removal hearing case against Dan Johnson ended about the way it began. With many in disbelief. I could not understand how the &q...