VANCEBURG — A lawsuit has been filed by an incoming Vanceburg City Council member against the Mayor, Police Chief and Assistant Police Chief of Vanceburg.
John Grabill has filed suit against Mayor Dana Blankenship, Chief of Police Joseph Paul Gilbert and Assistant Chief of Police Joseph Billman.
Court documents stated that the defendants, “violated this clearly established law in their arrest of the plaintiff on Aug. 5, 2024, and they continue to violate state law by prohibiting the open carrying of firearms by citizens.”
Court documents claim that Blankenship, “is and was at all times relevant hereto, the duly elected Mayor of the City, and pursuant to KRS 83A.130, all executive power regarding the City is vested in the Mayor, and, among other things, he has the power to direct city officers, officials, and employees. As is relevant here, Defendant Blankenship acted at all times relevant hereto under color of law. He is sued in his official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, and in his individual capacity for damages, including punitive damages.”
Gilbert is listed as being “at all times relevant hereto, the appointed Chief of Police for the City, and, is relevant here, Defendant Gilbert acted at all times relevant hereto under color of law. He is sued in his official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, and in his individual capacity for damages, including punitive damages.”
Billman was also said in court documents to have, “acted at all times relevant hereto under color of law. He is sued in his official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, and in his individual capacity for damages, including punitive damages.”
Court documents stated that the venue is “appropriate,” because, “the deprivations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights occurred in Lewis County, Kentucky, and Defendants reside in this District and Division.”
According to the filed complaint, in the spring of 2024, a citizen who was addressing the council was revealed to be carrying a concealed firearm.
On approximately June 25, 2024, Grabill “observed a sign on the door from the outside and into the City Council room at the city building, for the city that read: ‘Firearms are prohibited.’”
Similar signs were alleged to be present on other doors as well.
According to the complaint, the signs were installed “by direction of, and consultation with, defendants Blankenship, Gilbert, and Billman.”
The complaint goes on to say that no city ordinance authorized or directed the firearm signs.
Allegedly, court documents say that Grabill researched into his rights and obligations pertaining to this matter.
Court documents stated that Grabill scheduled a meeting with Lewis County Sheriff Johnny Bivens and Lewis County Attorney Ben Harrison to discuss the firearms signs and asked them both for clarification on the matter where he was informed by the county attorney that he “would conduct legal research on the issue and get back to plaintiff.”
On July 15, 2024, Harrison reached back out to Grabill via email with a five-page letter with a Kentucky Attorney General Opinion concerning a “similar incident” that occurred in Ashland. The letter included information that was “consistent with Kentucky law,” which provides, at KRS 65.870.
Point one stated;
“No existing or future city …, or any person acting under the authority of any of these organizations may occupy any part of the field of regulation of the …ownership, possession, carrying, storage, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, components of ammunition, firearms accessories, or combination thereof.”
Exhibit one continued with point two;
“Any existing or future ordinance, executive order, administrative regulation, policy, procedure, rule, or any other form of executive or legislative action in violation of this section or the spirit thereof is hereby declared null, void, and unenforceable.”
Documents stated that Grabill attended a City Council meeting on Aug. 5, 2024, while openly carrying a firearm which was consistent with the advice of Attorney Harrison and Kentucky law.
The city council meeting was alleged to begin at 5:30 p.m. Grabill arrived in the time between 5 p.m. and 5:15 p.m.
While standing near the seating area in the City Council room, Gilbert allegedly approached him and asked him to step outside with him. Grabill complied.
Once outside, Gilbert informed Grabill that he could not carry his firearm. He pointed to Grabill’s firearm and then to the firearm sign.
Court documents explained that Grabill then told Gilbert that the sign, “was not worth the paper it was written on.”
Gilbert responded by telling Grabill that he wished he would not reenter the building for the meeting which led Grabill to respond, “I’m going in.”
As Grabill reentered the building, Gilbert stated that he would be back.
Grabill reentered and sat in the City Council room quietly and did not say anything.
Gilbert returned after collectively agreeing with Blankenship and Billman that they would enforce the firearm sign and firearm restrictions against Grabill.
Upon returning, court documents stated that Gilbert confronted Grabill with a paper that “discussed concealed carrying.” Grabill asked Gilbert if his firearm was concealed in any way which led Gilbert to respond “no.”
Gilbert allegedly pulled out a second page that prohibited carrying firearms in courtrooms, schools, and places that served alcohol. Grabill pointed out to Gilbert that none of those locations were the City Council room or meeting.
Gilbert “reluctantly” agreed and retorted, “Let me make sure I’ve got it all, alright? Hang on.”
After conferring with defendants Blankenship and Billman, a conclusion was collectively determined that they would continue to enforce the firearm sign and firearm restrictions. Blankenship directed defendants Gilbert and Billman to place Grabill under arrest if he continued to insist on attending the meeting while open carrying.
Gilbert returned to Grabill once again with a paper indicating that “a property owner could restrict the carrying of firearms on their property,” to which Grabill retorted that this applied to private property which did not apply in this case.
Gilbert responded that he could enforce the private property restriction by forcing him to leave. Grabill replied that he did not believe that this was applicable and that he had a right to attend the meeting as it was a public meeting.
Billman approached Grabill and said, “John, they are not going to start this meeting until this is resolved.”
Grabill responded, “So you are telling me that they [the Mayor, who presides] are not going to start the meeting?”
Billman answered in the affirmative. He continued to address Grabill, “We have always gotten along,” and asked him again to take his firearm to his vehicle. Court documents stated that Grabill perceived this statement to be a threat.
Grabill responded that he had an opinion from the Kentucky Attorney General’s office which indicated “that he could open carry legally at this meeting, and in response, Gilbert said he did not need or want to see that information.”
Billman turned to Grabill’s wife and encouraged her to convince Grabill to take his firearm to the car to which she responded, “I am not going to have him violate his constitutional rights.”
Court documents stated;
“For the avoidance of all doubt, the plaintiff, in his interactions with defendants Gilbert and Billman, never raised his voice, got upset, spoke in an antagonizing manner, or otherwise acted in a disorderly manner.”
Gilbert responded to Grabill saying, “Well I’m going to have to arrest you then,” which led Grabill to respond, “just do what you gotta do then.”
Grabill reminded Gilbert and Billman that he had an opinion from the Kentucky Attorney General’s office which indicated that he could “carry legally at this meeting.” Gilbert responded that he did not need or want to see that information.
Gilbert then said to Grabill, “All right, come on.”
Grabill informed Gilbert with Billman in earshot, that he could be sued personally for this and “under prevailing law would not have qualified immunity,” to which Gilbert responded that he did not care.
Grabill was escorted by Gilbert to the police area of the building and had his firearm seized. Billman joined Gilbert for the firearm seizure and arrest.
Court documents stated that these actions were contrary to Kentucky law which stated that any “person, unit of government” from “impair the validity of the right of any person … possess, carry, or use a firearm,” and went on to say that “[n]o unit of government shall…at any other time…take seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm…from any person,” which is subject to exceptions not applicable here.
Grabill was charged then with criminal trespass in the third degree. KRS 511.080 which stated;
“(1) A person ‘enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises when he is not privileged or licenses to do so;” and “(2) A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license or privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person.”
Court documents went on to say that “there was no lawful order given to the plaintiff to depart prior to arrest, as required by KTS 511.090, as the firearm sign and restrictions were unlawful.
Once Grabill was placed under arrest, he was turned to the custody of the Lewis County Jailer who escorted him to the Mason County Detention Center.
Grabill was issued an orange jumpsuit, a towel and a pair of flip-flops. He was told to shower and put on the items and hand over his personal clothing and shoes.
Once he completed the aforementioned, Grabill was then issued a mat, pillow and blanket and was led to a cell with another inmate in it.
An officer came by and asked if he needed anything or wanted to go out in the yard. Grabill agreed to go outside and was later returned to the cell.
Grabill was released the following day and on Aug. 7, 2024, he was allowed to retrieve his firearm from the defendants.
According to court documents, Grabill then hired an attorney to defend the “baseless” criminal charge. The charge against Grabill was dismissed on Nov. 26, 2024, after the County Attorney confirmed that Grabill was not disruptive and did have a legal privilege under the Open Meetings Act to attend the meeting.
Court documents stated that at the time of the filing, the firearm signs were still up and the defendants are continuing to enforce them even though there are “notwithstanding legal prohibitions on doing so.”
Court documents went on to say that Grabill has a “present intention to open carry firearms at City Council meeting at the City, but reasonably fears doing so given defendants past enforcement against him.”
Grabill is seeking “injunctive relief against the official capacity defendants,” stated court documents.
Grabill claimed to have been damaged as a consequence of the foregoing which include: “(i)economic damages in the amount of $5,000 for attorney fees to defend against the baseless false arrest and violation of the Second Amendment; and, (ii) mental distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, and other damages in an amount to be determined at trial.”
Grabill is further seeking punitive damages individually since “the actions complained of were motivated by evil motive or intent, and/or involved reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of plaintiff. Plaintiff demands judgment on these punitive damages against these Defendants, in their individual capacities, in an amount to be determined at trial,” court documents stated.
