So, does this case mean that there is no law that controls OC because OC is not explicitly mentioned?In Tulley's case, however, it is undisputed that the pistol he was carrying was unconcealed on his person and not in a vehicle. The language of § 13A-11-73 simply does not address an individual carrying a pistol unconcealed on his or her person. Thus, there is no conflict in the instant case between § 13A-11-52 and § 13A-11-73, and C.D.J. and K.J. are not controlling here.
SECTION 89: Municipalities not to pass laws in conflict with general laws of state.
The legislature shall not have power to authorize any municipal corporation to pass any laws inconsistent with the general laws of this state.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that these judges contorted themselves to the nth degree to affirm the trial judges decision. OC ain't mentioned so the case law about where you can and cannot carry is moot.
They sure are taking their time to issue the opinion. I don't think I've ever seen it take so long for any opinion to issue. Roughly seven months so far. Taking this long leads me to believe that there might be some act of sophistry taking place to excuse a clear and direct attack of an Inalienable Right. I'm of the opinion that anyone not lawfully barred from possessing firearms may carry concealed or open without having to first seek the permission of a city, county, state, or any other individual or body to exercise said Right.
In an unpublished memorandum, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on Friday, February 28, 2014 upheld the conviction of BamaCarry member Jason Dean Tulley. Tulley held a valid pistol permit and carried his holstered pistol openly on his side in his own defense as he conducted business in Jacksonville, Alabama. He was confronted as he entered the building by an off-duty police officer who also carried a holstered pistol openly on his side as he performed his moonlighting job as a security guard. Tulley offered to leave and the off-duty officer/security guard ordered Tulley to put the weapon in his vehicle or go to jail. Tulley briefly stated that his order was unconstitutional, but then complied with the order.
Tulley was emailed a warrant for his arrest 4 days later and was charged with violating 13A-11-52. The charges were later changed to a City of Jacksonville Ordinance No. O-514-0, which adopts § 13A-11-52, Ala. Code 1975. The local ordinance forbids a person from carrying a pistol “about his person on premises not his own or under his control”, and defines a violation of the local ordinance as an offense against the City of Jacksonville. The statute contains an exception for a “police officer of an incorporated town or city in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office”. The off duty officer/moonlighting security guard was not charged.
Tulley was convicted in the Jacksonville Municipal Court, where he was ordered to pay a $50 fine and $200 in costs. Tulley appealed to the Calhoun County Circuit Court and filed two motions to dismiss the charge against him; the circuit court denied both. Following a trial without a jury, Tulley was convicted and sentenced to 30 days imprisonment and ordered to pay court costs and a $200 fine. The circuit court suspended Tulley's 30-day sentence and placed him on six months’ probation. Tulley then appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
After nearly a year of deliberation, the Court released its “unpublished memorandum”. The Court determined that the penalty defined by the local ordinance of the City of Jacksonville was enough to sustain the validity of the statute, although Section 104 of the Constitution of Alabama 1901 prohibits local ordinances “fixing the punishment of crime”. 11-45-1.1 Subject Matter of handguns reserved to State Legislature also prevents
the city from adding a penalty. Even Governor Patterson’s interpretation of the law as Attorney General was found by the Court to be wrong, yet the Court determined through its bizarre line of reasoning that the statute on which the ordinance was based was not unconstitutionally void for vagueness.
The exceptionally long memorandum amounts to “no opinion” under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, and has “no precedential value” even though it has the effect of affirming Tulley’s conviction. However, it sets precedence for cities to enact their own laws. This is very dangerous for gun owners! You could potentially become a criminal by simply crossing into a different city.
Mr. Tulley and his family relied on all the government officials involved in his case to support the clear language of our Declaration of Rights, Article I, Constitution of Alabama 1901 as each of them swore before God to do in taking their constitutional oaths of office. Tulley believes they failed to do that when they violated his right to bear arms for defense of himself.
Mr. Tulley and his family along with his fellow members of BamaCarry support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of Alabama 1901 and continue to rely on our on it as the supreme law of our nation and our state. We urge you to support their endeavors to submit the case to the Alabama Supreme Court.
A fund has been set up to support Mr. Talley’s very expensive Alabama Supreme Court challenge. For more information please visit Bamacarry.org or Facebook: BamaCarry
Donations can be sent to via PayPal to the following address: Jason.firstname.lastname@example.org
BamaCarry (a non-profit corporation) exists to educate and inform Alabama Citizens concerning their rights protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama. BamaCarry centers on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We strive to restore, protect and maintain these Rights, given us by our Creator and protected by our Constitution, by educational programs and legal means if necessary, We proudly defend the Constitutional Rights of Alabama Citizens to carry a weapon in defense of Self and State.
Excuse me but an e-mail is not a valid warrant with attached signed affidavit. If you respond to an e-mail without having in your possession a copy of the signed affidavit and subsequent warrant then shame on you for being so stupid. You walked right into a trap.Let's just say Jacksonville is a small town and once contact was made with "management" it became easy to notify Mr. Tulley.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather get an email before a man shows up on my doorstep. Because at that point, if he sees me or knows I am inside, he can kick the door in. (Of course, that's one of the arguments about the entire process as it is -- it's entirely too adversarial. People need to get affairs in order.)
If you consent to a prosecution and agree to be a defendant by responding to an e-mail notification instead of a proper arrest warrant with attached, signed affidavit IT IS a done deal. Forget the Supreme Court as they are going to uphold this conviction if they even decide to entertain it at all. I hope I'm wrong, but think not.Done deal? Volunteered to be prosecuted?
I don't think so.
The Alabama Supreme Court is the court of last resort in our state. Tully intends to give the court of last resort a chance to honor our constitutions.
Many things are considered "delivered" even if only "sent" via regular mail. Don't know if the same would apply to emails, but I suspect it well might.What that's not how it works? I thought you had to consent to getting charged and prosecuted. You can just say "haven't checked my email sorry" lol
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk