The following definitions apply in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Booby trap device" shall have the same meaning as set forth in KRS 237.030.
(2) "Deface" means to remove, deface, cover, alter, or destroy the manufacturer's serial
number or any other distinguishing number or identification mark.
(3) "Destructive device" shall have the same meaning as set forth in KRS 237.030.
(4) "Firearm" means any weapon which will expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive.
(5) "Handgun" means any pistol or revolver originally designed to be fired by the use of
a single hand, or any other firearm originally designed to be fired by the use of a
single hand.
Effective: July 15, 1994
History: Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 391, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1994. -- Created
1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 234, effective January 1, 1975.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Jones, 283 S.W.3d 665 (Ky. 2009).
Commonwealth v. Jones, 283 S.W.3d 665 (Ky. 2009).
· cites it 8× “" KRS 527.010(4). At trial, the Commonwealth established that in 1995 Jones was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief, a class-D felony (KRS 512.”
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 355 (Ky. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, conviction of this offense requires proof only that the weapon was a handgun, as defined in KRS 527.010(5), and that the defendant was under the age of eighteen at the time the handgun was possessed.”
Thacker v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 287 (Ky. 2006).
· cites it 2× “KRS 527.010(4) sets forth the definition of "firearm" as "any weapon which will expel a projectile by the action of an explosion.”
Posey v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 170 (Ky. 2006).
· cites it 2× “and has not: (a) been granted a full pardon.... (2) Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a Class D felony unless the firearm possessed is a handgun in which case it is a Class C felony.”
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 90 S.W.3d 39 (Ky. 2003).
“” KRS 527.010(4). Thus, the shotgun, which was found in Walters’ home where Johnson resided, was direct proof of a violation of KRS 527.”
Campbell v. Commonwealth, 260 S.W.3d 792 (Ky. 2008).
“Both KRS 527.010(4) (applicable to carrying concealed deadly weapons cases under KRS 527.”
Michael Davidson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2019).
· cites it 5× “”14 Davidson argues that the Commonwealth failed to produce any evidence that the firearm in question was “originally designed to be fired by the use of a single hand” because no one testified about the way it was originally designed.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 527.010(4) — 9 cases
Commonwealth v. Jones, 283 S.W.3d 665 (Ky. 2009).
“" KRS 527.010(4). At trial, the Commonwealth established that in 1995 Jones was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief, a class-D felony (KRS 512.”
Thacker v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 287 (Ky. 2006).
“KRS 527.010(4) sets forth the definition of "firearm" as "any weapon which will expel a projectile by the action of an explosion.”
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 90 S.W.3d 39 (Ky. 2003).
“” KRS 527.010(4). Thus, the shotgun, which was found in Walters’ home where Johnson resided, was direct proof of a violation of KRS 527.”
Campbell v. Commonwealth, 260 S.W.3d 792 (Ky. 2008).
“Both KRS 527.010(4) (applicable to carrying concealed deadly weapons cases under KRS 527.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 527.010(5) — 7 cases
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 355 (Ky. 1999).
“Furthermore, conviction of this offense requires proof only that the weapon was a handgun, as defined in KRS 527.010(5), and that the defendant was under the age of eighteen at the time the handgun was possessed.”
Posey v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 170 (Ky. 2006).
“and has not: (a) been granted a full pardon.... (2) Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a Class D felony unless the firearm possessed is a handgun in which case it is a Class C felony.”
Michael Davidson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2019).
“”14 Davidson argues that the Commonwealth failed to produce any evidence that the firearm in question was “originally designed to be fired by the use of a single hand” because no one testified about the way it was originally designed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.