Alabama Senate passes watered down carry reform bill. SB-286

[eye95]

He's normally a better guy than that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[herman48]

He's normally a better guy than that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I guess this time he was abnormal.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,,

]I have nothing against open carry, but while recognizing the right others have to carry openly, and being quite willing to promote this right, I myself would feel conspicuous and awkward toting my hogleg visible on my hip. As to why I joined this forum, I was cruising the Internet looking for information on the Alabama omnibus bill, and this thread popped up. As far as I am concerned, there shouldn't be any need for permits or licenses to carry concealed, openly, in the car, on public transportation (airplanes included), in public buildings, in private homes, etc.--the way there is no need for licenses or permits to exercise our other rights recognized and protected by the Bill of Rights. But I am also familiar enough with the political process to understand that you can't obtain immediately all you want, and that at times one needs to compromise to obtain something. And something is always much better than nothing. I insist, at the cost of being boring, that this omnibus bill, though far from perfect, is a step in the right direction. Its positives outnumber its negatives. And once this bill has been passed (and it will be, from what I hear and read) it will be easier to change it for the better, especially once the bloodbaths that the sheriffs and the media have predicted will not follow the change from "may issue" to "shall issue" and the other positive changes that this bill ensures. And even the enemies of Open Carry will have the wind taken out of their sails once the anti-gunners have been proven wrong once more.
As to why I myself would not carry openly--besides feeling awkward--allow me to explain some other logical reasons: 1. I feel that when many people carry concealed, as in Florida, for example, criminals are more afraid to attack civilians, not knowing whether they are armed or not. Uncertainty is a deterrent. 2. If open carry is the norm, then criminals may assume that those who do not carry openly are not carrying concealed, either, and are a soft target. This may increase attacks on unarmed people. 3. Not all of us are Wyatt Earp or Bat Masterson and none of us have eyes on the back of our head. Guns are a priority target for criminals and terrorists. A nice bop on the head while you are walking in the street or pecking away at the keyboard at an Internet café, and the gun changes hands, hopefully without first having saluted its previous owner with a slug in the back. 4. There are real baddies out there, and they often go around in packs. Imagine some average fellow with a gun on his hip surrounded by a dozen thugs armed both with guns and knives rip-snorting to prove their manhood and show the guy that the gun does not make him ten feet tall. He may be brave enough to shoot one or two, but he's going to get killed anyway, and not in a pretty way.
[/SIZE]These are some of the reasons that make ME prefer to carry concealed, without attracting trouble or scaring some sheeple who automatically assume that "gun equals bad guy." Then if others want to carry on their hip, in their hand, or any other visible way, it's still a free country, but not if Obama can help it. And if Obama is followed by Hillary or Biden, or Bloomberg, or Christie, then concealed or open will be just a moot point--we won't be able to carry anything else but our heads down in shame.
Peace, brother--I'm on your side!

Ask the folks in Virginia,
Ask the folks in Washington state,
Ask the folks in Michigan,
Do ,,, any of them agree with you??

I dont need... no manners.. not good..nor bad...

Your post could have been written by
an anti gun grabber,
an anti OCer,
Unckle Ted Nugent,
an NRAer,
Any EX or current LEO.,
Or many Concealled carry trainers!

I will say that I am suprized,,, that no one in the Alabama forum, including Eye95, did not call you out
for your silly, stupid views about Open carry of self defense guns,
On this very Open Carry web site!!!!

 

[eye95]

I did say that I disagreed with him on almost everything. I just chose a tack that, if he discusses those differences with me, might actually change his mind. Your approach will shut him down to anything you have to say.

I have seen you get strong with folks, just not right from the get like you did here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[herman48]

I did say that I disagreed with him on almost everything. I just chose a tack that, if he discusses those differences with me, might actually change his mind. Your approach will shut him down to anything you have to say.

I have seen you get strong with folks, just not right from the get like you did here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Please do discuss those differences. I welcome a serious, mature discussion on this and other subjects. I am always open to arguments presented in a polite and logical way, not to Neanderthalian grunts by someone who should be carrying openly a club or a mammoth bone rather than a gun...

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

I did say that I disagreed with him on almost everything. I just chose a tack that, if he discusses those differences with me, might actually change his mind. Your approach will shut him down to anything you have to say.

I have seen you get strong with folks, just not right from the get like you did here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I thank you,,, Eye95... you did disagree with his post,,, and I did dis him and his post,,, and I was rude!

But his 2nd pargraph was a screed,,,,, against Open Carry,,, by anybody!!

And a new reason....

That when No One!! Open Carries.... Bad Guys... Will See Unarmed Victoms as
possible ,,, maybe ,, concealleled carriers,,,,... so the y will not attackk them....

 

[herman48]

I thank you,,, Eye95... you did disagree with his post,,, and I did dis him and his post,,, and I was rude!

But his 2nd pargraph was a screed,,,,, against Open Carry,,, by anybody!!

And a new reason....

That when No One!! Open Carries.... Bad Guys... Will See Unarmed Victoms as
possible ,,, maybe ,, concealleled carriers,,,,... so the y will not attackk them....

Shall we start this discussion all over again without forgetting that--albeit with some philosophical differences--we are indeed on the same side--that is, the side of the Second Amendment? I have, after all, written that although I would feel awkward carrying openly in an urban context, and although I have some concerns about open carry in general--concerns which I have listed--I am not out to deprive anyone of his right to carry openly if he wishes to do so--though really I don't know (I admit here a certain degree of ignorance) why anyone would want to carry openly, unless it were to make a statement of some sort. And--please re-read my posts--I have also stated that there shouldn't be any limitations to civilian carry, whether open or concealed, nor should there be any need for permits, licenses, or other bureaucratic nonsense that transforms what should be a God-granted, innate right into a government-granted privilege.
I am not asking for an apology for the "dis," but I would appreciate at least some respect in the future if not for my opinions, at least for my humble person. Those who admit absolutely no deviation from their creed and demonize those who disagree even slightly with it remind me too much of the liberals who would gladly take away your guns as well as mine in the name of their sacred (to them) beliefs.
And now let's start anew--or not continue at all.

 

[eye95]

To me "being on the side of the Second Amendment" means that we support unlicensed carry of any firearm (or knife or club or...) that has a civilian purpose and can be used in a pinch as one's personal military weapon(s) should we be needed to defend the People of our State or of the United States.

In Alabama, the State Supreme Court ruled (correctly, IMO) that the State could not license Open Carry. Open Carry is the default carry. It is only in recent decades that concealed carry became a preferred method of carry by the good guys. Previously, good guys almost exclusively open carried and bad guys concealed. In that court ruling, the justices referred to CC as the "evil practice of concealment."

I don't care if they restrict, outlaw, or license concealed carry, as long as open carry is 100% unregulated in my home, in my car, on the public thoroughfares, on private property (as long as the owner does not disapprove), and on public property (with a very few exceptions such as not allowing carry in your local PD's armory or not allowing carry on the flightline at the air base). I arrived at this place out of the realization that open carry is just carry and that concealed carry is carry plus separable concealment. If they regulate the concealment, I don't care. They just need to stop regulating carry.

So I am fundamentally opposed to any bill that sacrifices even the tiniest amount of carry just to make concealment easier. I see this bill as doing this.

In Alabama, the fix is this (and only this): Repeal -52 as it is often unlawfully used against OC. Repeal the ban on carry near demonstrations. Remove the requirement to have a license to carry in your car. Carry in you car is just carry. It is not concealment.

On the federal level, GFSZ must go!

If you with to conceal and the State wants to regulate your concealment, more power to the both of you. However, the push to make CC easier is getting in the way of completely deregulating OC (really just C).

 

[FTG-05]

Guys, no offense, let's try to keep this on AL SB-286 please. Herman, politely, you're full of crap; please go read up on OC and then start another thread, where thereby we can abuse, vilify and insult your heritage, mother and ancestors with free abandon (or not). No offense.

Where does everyone stand on the latest incarnation of this bill - you know, SB286, the purpose of thread? I think I know where Eye stands.

Me? I'm getting more and more like Luke from Star Wars: "I'm getting a bad feeling about this!"

Really? We don't need a permit (i.e. permission slip" from the gov't to carry in a vehicle, we just have to keep it a) unloaded, b), away from the driver *and passengers* and c) locked up. Oh yeah, I can see where we are getting our rights back here, this is definitely a good step forward!!!!


NOT!!!!!!!!!

 

[herman48]

Well, I see your points and I agree that one should be able to carry visibly a loaded handgun in the car without a permit. As far as open carry goes I am not against it, but I feel that those of you who think that OC is going to remain legal (where it still is) or (where it's not) to become legal, in Alabama or anywhere else in today's America, are unrepentant dreamers. The sheeple will never allow it. The Alabama bill is going to pass as it is, whether you like it or not, and if you want to carry openly in Alabama you'd better get busy, regroup and start pushing for an amendment to the firearms bill in the next legislative session.
I wish you good luck in this endeavor, and hope you'll be successful--though I truly doubt you will. But you never know...

 

[ADobbs1989]

Well, I see your points and I agree that one should be able to carry visibly a loaded handgun in the car without a permit. As far as open carry goes I am not against it, but I feel that those of you who think that OC is going to remain legal (where it still is) or (where it's not) to become legal, in Alabama or anywhere else in today's America, are unrepentant dreamers. The sheeple will never allow it. The Alabama bill is going to pass as it is, whether you like it or not, and if you want to carry openly in Alabama you'd better get busy, regroup and start pushing for an amendment to the firearms bill in the next legislative session.
I wish you good luck in this endeavor, and hope you'll be successful--though I truly doubt you will. But you never know...

Might not pass, time is running out in the legislative session and since they completely changed the bill from the senate version it's going to have to go back to the senate, or a committee of house and senate members could be used to merge the two bills together. Don't be coy, the Sheriffs didn't introduce a compromise bill because they were happy with it, they did it to cause time delays in the process. If it does pass it's probably going to come down to the last few days of session.

About OC..what do you mean? This bill still allows for OC and it doesn't put any restrictions on it other than the prohibited places where no carry is allowed, which I think is bs.

 

[RMcL]

Here is a link to the actual House Substitute bill

There are many subtle and nearly hidden aspects to this bill:


http://alisondb.legislature.state.a...ableinstruments/2013RS/PrintFiles/&INST=SB286


Note: If it comes up as session expired - just click OK

 

[herman48]

The House passed it

and from what I read, I think it's going to make OC easier and more trouble-free.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/05/house_of_representatives_appro_8.html#incart_river

 

[FTG-05]

I see where a certain AL gun rights org has fully endorsed this bill, even though they never asked nor polled their so-called membership. :banghead:


Wait, what???? Did I just agree with Eye? There can only be one reason: I'm drunk; that's my story and I'm sticking to it..... :lol:

 

[eye95]

Top-down seeks to control and is evil.

Bottom-up is grass roots, respects Liberty, and does not seek to control.

 

[49er]

May I jump in and offer the substitute bill for SB286 that our legislators, our sheriffs, the NRA, Alabama Gun Rights/Alabama Open Carry and some of you have all rejected?


Rejected:

Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of 1901
Ordinance No. 87, by Mr. Ferguson:
An Ordinance concerning the right of citizens to bear arms.
Be it ordained by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That in lieu of Section 27 of Article I. of the Constitution of 1875, the following provision shall be enacted:

Section ---. That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State, but the General Assembly shall have the power to regulate the bearing of small arms, shall define the same, and shall pass laws requiring a license for the bearing of such small arms.

Note--For the benefit of the Committee the following authorities are cited:
Miller vs. Texas, 153 U. S. P., 533, and authorities there cited: 92 U. S. P. 542 ; 116 U. S. P. 252.
Referred to Committee on Preamble and bill of Rights.

Link:
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/...1/proceedings/1901_proceedings_vol1/day7.html
……………………………………………………………………………………………

Ratified:

Constitution of Alabama 1901
Article I
Declaration of Rights

SECTION 26
Right to bear arms.
That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

SECTION 36
Construction of Declaration of Rights.
That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.

 

[eye95]

Uh oh.

I just noticed a flaw in the Alabama Constitution. You can bear 'em. Nowhere does it say you can keep 'em! It can be argued that what is protected is the carry, but not the ownership!

Of course, I hold that the 2A bars every governmental level from infringing (even without and before incorporation) on the Right to Keep, but watch out for sleazy legislative types who will try to regulate ownership!

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

I'm sorry, but where do you see the state government (or the fedgov, for that matter) is given the authority to decide what you can and can't own? Maybe it was understood by the framers that the government didn't have the authority to keep you from owning a pistol, but that they might want to give the government the power to regulsate where/how you carried it. Good thing for us they voted against giving the government that power. I don't know where we'd be right now...

 

[herman48]

Uh oh.

I just noticed a flaw in the Alabama Constitution. You can bear 'em. Nowhere does it say you can keep 'em! It can be argued that what is protected is the carry, but not the ownership!

Of course, I hold that the 2A bars every governmental level from infringing (even without and before incorporation) on the Right to Keep, but watch out for sleazy legislative types who will try to regulate ownership!

You are right! One of the "sleazy legislative types" could try to pass a law similar to those that were common in countries ruled by a totalitarian government and that today can be found even in some "democratic" countries like the UK: one could "bear arms" to hunt or target practice, but the guns had to be stored in government facilities and checked out before and checked back in after a day in the field or at a public range.
All gun control is about control, not public safety. A recent survey shows that 29% of U.S. citizens think that an armed revolution may be necessary in the near future to preserve our liberties. That's what the Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Schumer/Feinstein crowd is afraid of, not the yearly 346 victims of "assault" rifles. If they were concerned about safety, they should ban knives, that kill 13% of all homicide victims--while rifles (all rifles together: semiautomatic, pump, lever single-shot, bolt) kill only 3% of all homicide victims. Even hammers, or fists and feet, kill more people than rifles in this country!

 

[49er]

How can a person bear arms without keeping arms to bear? I guess I missed the point somewhere.

"Excepted out of the general powers of government" means the whole matter of bearing arms is reserved to the people. Keeping arms is a necessary part of bearing arms as you pointed out.

The rejection of the ordinance in the Constitutional Convention of 1901 amounts to a statement by the people that:

"... the General Assembly shall 'NOT' have the power to regulate the bearing of small arms, shall 'NOT' define the same, and shall 'NOT' pass laws requiring a license for the bearing of such small arms."