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

[49er]

Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901

Day 7:
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.


The language in this ordinance was considered by the delegates to the convention for adoption. It was rejected.

 

[Jared]

Let's clear this up. We are talking about state laws written by a legislature that was created by our state's constitution. You keep referring to 2A, when, in fact, the subject laws affect rights protected by our state's constitution.

This is what I mean... nobody cares. The Alabama Supreme Court doesn't seem to care, why? because the state constitution is also just words on paper written by a bunch of dead people. The people on the AL Supreme Court are bureaucrats (just like all other government employee's and court justices) and their loyalty is to the state for the most part because that is where they get their paychecks, health benefits, and pensions from.

Notice how courts in all states (federal included) almost always side with the state, except for semantic BS, that's because they are loyal to the government first and foremost (like most bureaucrats).

Please don't point out the one or two cases they got right, we all know a broken clock is right twice a day, like when Ted Kennedy pushed to deregulate airlines.

If the Alabama Constitution was worth a crap or if the justices were half way decent, they would have declared these laws unconstitutional, but they didn't and it also seems that all these sheriff's and other police have no problem arresting people for violating them either.

 

[eye95]

The problem is that no one is asking the ALSC to stand up for the Right. The Right is to bear arms, not to conceal them.

Quit fighting for the licensed privilege to conceal until you have eliminated the impediments to bearing arms. Right now, with few exceptions, you can exercise the Right by openly carrying. The only ways the law currently infringes are:

The need for a permission slip to carry in one's own car.
The bar on carry at a demonstration.
The bars on carry in public buildings where there the public in general is permitted and there is not legitimate security concern.
Misuse of -52 and DC laws.

That should be the focus. Once you have done that, the Right is uninfringed. Then would be the time to work on privileges or getting concealment recognized as part of the Right.

Right now, Alabama advocates are wasting their time on playing around with the rules for the privilege.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[ADobbs1989]

This is what I mean... nobody cares. The Alabama Supreme Court doesn't seem to care, why? because the state constitution is also just words on paper written by a bunch of dead people. The people on the AL Supreme Court are bureaucrats (just like all other government employee's and court justices) and their loyalty is to the state for the most part because that is where they get their paychecks, health benefits, and pensions from.

Notice how courts in all states (federal included) almost always side with the state, except for semantic BS, that's because they are loyal to the government first and foremost (like most bureaucrats).

Please don't point out the one or two cases they got right, we all know a broken clock is right twice a day, like when Ted Kennedy pushed to deregulate airlines.

If the Alabama Constitution was worth a crap or if the justices were half way decent, they would have declared these laws unconstitutional, but they didn't and it also seems that all these sheriff's and other police have no problem arresting people for violating them either.

What Alabama gun laws have been challenged that the courts sided with? Keeping in mind the levels of scrutiny the courts use, and which level is used when a citizen challenges a law based on constitutionality. Has anyone here looked at HB8 that passed? It's a constitutional amendment to be voted on in 2014 that will force the courts to place strict scrutiny on gun restrictions?

 

[Jared]

The problem is that no one is asking the ALSC to stand up for the Right. The Right is to bear arms, not to conceal them.

Quit fighting for the licensed privilege to conceal until you have eliminated the impediments to bearing arms. Right now, with few exceptions, you can exercise the Right by openly carrying. The only ways the law currently infringes are:

The need for a permission slip to carry in one's own car.
The bar on carry at a demonstration.
The bars on carry in public buildings where there the public in general is permitted and there is not legitimate security concern.
Misuse of -52 and DC laws.

That should be the focus. Once you have done that, the Right is uninfringed. Then would be the time to work on privileges or getting concealment recognized as part of the Right.

Right now, Alabama advocates are wasting their time on playing around with the rules for the privilege.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Good points on the AL Constitution, but don't hold your breath waiting for a national group to come in and take care of it. Alabama is friendlier than the majority of gun states. AL has concealed carry in schools, that's pretty friendly compared to most So called gun friendly states like TX, LA,FL, and MT.

If groups in Alabama don't want to roll the dice and seek court challenges, then it won't happen because no national group will.

Alan Gura was planning on suing a sheriff in AL for only issuing to U.S. Citizens but he won't now that the law changed... That was the only lawsuit I was aware of.

 

[Daylen]

We got hosed by the supposed gun rights advocates who couldn't handle the heat from the sheriffs and retail organization, yet wanted to be able to declare a win. I see NOTHING positive with this bill. Now there are prohibited places, where before I had none with my permission slip. Even worse, 52 got reinvigorated, all the case law we had to say it didn't mean what it really said is gone. It would be truly ironic if the guy (or are there two of them?) charged with -52 won their cases in appeal as it would be more positive precedent thrown away by pride.

 

[ADobbs1989]

We got hosed by the supposed gun rights advocates who couldn't handle the heat from the sheriffs and retail organization, yet wanted to be able to declare a win.

You mean the NRA?

 

[ADobbs1989]

Good points on the AL Constitution, but don't hold your breath waiting for a national group to come in and take care of it. Alabama is friendlier than the majority of gun states. AL has concealed carry in schools, that's pretty friendly compared to most So called gun friendly states like TX, LA,FL, and MT.

If groups in Alabama don't want to roll the dice and seek court challenges, then it won't happen because no national group will.

Alan Gura was planning on suing a sheriff in AL for only issuing to U.S. Citizens but he won't now that the law changed... That was the only lawsuit I was aware of.

That generally comes down to money, not willingness, unfortunately.

 

[Daylen]

You mean the NRA?

Not only, but yes them too.

 

[Ogre]

Of course carry without a government permission slip is possible NOW! It would take an amazingly simple bill to make it happen--and one that would probably pass more easily than the proposed convoluted one.

Remove the wording that requires the permission slip to carry in a car. Repeal -52 (not really necessary, but repeal makes it harder for rogue cops to harass OCers). Done.

There is still the Federal GFSZ, but we are talking Alabama law.

I beg to differ, as long as the current members of the ASA are in office and spreading lies concerning the effects of a "paper less OC" you will not get Permitless vehicle carry, nor will you get a repeal of 52.


Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.

 

[eye95]

I beg to differ, as long as the current members of the ASA are in office and spreading lies concerning the effects of a "paper less OC" you will not get Permitless vehicle carry, nor will you get a repeal of 52.


Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.

Someone might try to stop the bill, so don't try????

Better yet, try to pass some convoluted bill that doesn't advance the right, just the State permitted privilege.

Pffftttt.

Alabama started down the wrong path when the "owner" of ALOC decided to branch out and lost focus on the Right. I tried to warn folks that ALOC was headed down the wrong path because of one man running the show, but no one would listen. Now they believe me that ALOC was a huge CF, but they still aren't listening about fighting for the Right. Instead, you have BamaCarry which is just ALOC Part Deux with an oligarchy instead of a tyrant, and there is no interest in the only group in Alabama that is truly grassroots and is focused on the Right instead of the papered privilege.

You all have fallen a long way since the heady days of the blood drive.

What a pity.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Someone might try to stop the bill, so don't try????

Better yet, try to pass some convoluted bill that doesn't advance the right, just the State permitted privilege.

Pffftttt.

Alabama started down the wrong path when the "owner" of ALOC decided to branch out and lost focus on the Right. I tried to warn folks that ALOC was headed down the wrong path because of one man running the show, but no one would listen. Now they believe me that ALOC was a huge CF, but they still aren't listening about fighting for the Right. Instead, you have BamaCarry which is just ALOC Part Deux with an oligarchy instead of a tyrant, and there is no interest in the only group in Alabama that is truly grassroots and is focused on the Right instead of the papered privilege.

You all have fallen a long way since the heady days of the blood drive.

What a pity.

There are no other groups making a push in the legislature. Bamacarry, or at least all the ones who frequently post online tried our best to push the original bill and tried like hell to push against the house version. ALOC IMO are complete sellouts, they were happy with the house bill and tried to force all of their members to agree to it or they banned them. I would never be a part of the ALOC group, especially after their conduct during this whole mess, but overall I would say BamaCarry has a lot of good members who want to fight for the right, not the privilege. There is however, no other groups doing anything.

 

[Daylen]

There are no other groups making a push in the legislature. Bamacarry, or at least all the ones who frequently post online tried our best to push the original bill and tried like hell to push against the house version. ALOC IMO are complete sellouts, they were happy with the house bill and tried to force all of their members to agree to it or they banned them. I would never be a part of the ALOC group, especially after their conduct during this whole mess, but overall I would say BamaCarry has a lot of good members who want to fight for the right, not the privilege. There is however, no other groups doing anything.

In MS there are no local open carry groups that I know about, just plenty of individuals that talk to each other. MS just make their laws very clear about the legality of OC. My hypothesis is that groups can have a representative who can negotiate and compromise if it is a weak group and negotiator, angry individuals can't be bargained with. Perhaps its better on the local level to forget weak organizations and make our elected representatives be such.

 

[Kirbinator]

This is what I mean... nobody cares. The Alabama Supreme Court doesn't seem to care, why? because the state constitution is also just words on paper written by a bunch of dead people. The people on the AL Supreme Court are bureaucrats (just like all other government employee's and court justices) and their loyalty is to the state for the most part because that is where they get their paychecks, health benefits, and pensions from.

Notice how courts in all states (federal included) almost always side with the state, except for semantic BS, that's because they are loyal to the government first and foremost (like most bureaucrats).

Please don't point out the one or two cases they got right, we all know a broken clock is right twice a day, like when Ted Kennedy pushed to deregulate airlines.

If the Alabama Constitution was worth a crap or if the justices were half way decent, they would have declared these laws unconstitutional, but they didn't and it also seems that all these sheriff's and other police have no problem arresting people for violating them either.

The ALSC has no super-constitutional authority. What I mean to say is that because of Section 14 of the state constitution, the ALSC has no authority to countermand the constitution with respect to any of the sections (1-36) of Article I of the AL Constitution of 1901.

Yes, the ALSC generally favors the state, except that the criminal statutes must be read/interpreted (constructed) to be as easily understood as possible because of the importance of those laws. Ex Parte Cranman and Sections 14 & 36 of the state constitution are interesting in certain respects. However, the part that the ALSC has yet to consider is how those parts interact. While The State Shall Not Be Made Defendant, "Police Power" is not an inherently enumerated or protected authority (it is "inferred" from the sovereign authority of the people), but The Right To Bear Arms In Defense Of Self and State is.

 

[RMcL]

...AL has concealed carry in schools...

Madison County Chief Deputy Chris Stevens says the wording of the new law prohibits concealed carry in schools because in his area the schools have resource officers:

“Section 6b of the new Alabama law says a person may not possess or carry a firearm inside any building or facility to which access of unauthorized persons and prohibited articles is limited during normal hours of operations by the continuous posting of guards and the use of other security features."

“We contend that our SROs inside the school make this section applicable to them.”

http://whnt.com/2013/07/30/alabamas-new-gun-law-what-you-need-to-know/

 

[eye95]

You got the kind of bill that you guys fought for: and omnibus bill. It has one or two inconsequential things you wanted and a whole lot that you did not--including unnecessarily overcomplicating what was simple gun law.

Next time out, do it right. Fight for a bill that fixes one or two very specific things by making the law shorter and simpler. Then fix the next most egregious flaw. Take your time and do the job right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[77zach]

Madison County Chief Deputy Chris Stevens says the wording of the new law prohibits concealed carry in schools because in his area the schools have resource officers:

“Section 6b of the new Alabama law says a person may not possess or carry a firearm inside any building or facility to which access of unauthorized persons and prohibited articles is limited during normal hours of operations by the continuous posting of guards and the use of other security features."

“We contend that our SROs inside the school make this section applicable to them.”

http://whnt.com/2013/07/30/alabamas-new-gun-law-what-you-need-to-know/

Amazing. What retards. Was this the intent of the lawmakers?

 

[49er]

“ … Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence. …”
State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 35 Am. Dec. 44 (1840)


REJECTED during the Constitutional Convention of 1901:

Day 7: " ... 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."

Day 8" " ... The General Assembly shall pass such penal laws as they may deem expedient to suppress ... carrying pistols and other deadly weapons concealed.




“… Section 36 erects a firewall between the Declaration of Rights that precedes it and the general powers of government, including the authority to exercise judicial power, that follow it. …”
Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 - Ala: Supreme Court 2000


“`In the final analysis, the concept of law and order, the very essence of a republican form of government, embraces the notion that when the judicial process of a state or federal court, acting within the sphere of its competence, has been exhausted and has resulted in a final judgment, all persons affected thereby are obliged to obey it.' United States v. Wallace, 218 F.Supp. 290, 292 (N.D.Ala.1963).... ”
Moore v. JUDICIAL INQUIRY COM'N OF STATE, 891 So. 2d 848 - Ala: Supreme Court 2004

 

[Kirbinator]

Last case listed above: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4158592902035202454

 

[77zach]

I read the whole law. This smells like the NRA's doing. Needlessly complicated and disappointing but not all bad. The prohibited places (shouldn't be any) shouldn't burden the carrier with knowing if there is an armed guard somewhere on a posted property. Also, some are saying school resource officers would make schools prohibited places. The way I read it, only if there was some security system other than an unlocked door. I went to a school where you had to be buzzed in, I suppose that would qualify as other physical barriers. But even if there are police officers at a school, if you can walk into the school unimpeded, it would not be a prohibited place.