• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Rules in Alabama - Knocking on Neighbor's door

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,164
Location
here nc
49er, i'm sorry, but the OP's initial query doesn't have anything to do with advancing the defence of anybody's right to bear arms for defence nor did any of your out of context legalized responses.

the OP bought a gun because of a emotionally charged ******* contest over, SOD, Dogs, self defense, and potential consequences! The firearm, which the OP specifically states he has no knowledge of how to use, only shot extremely few rounds through it to pass his ccw live fire exercise, as well as specifically stating he hopes never to use it, wants to know from you advocates of self defence if he can carry it on his neighbour's property to 'discuss' the issues that are bothering him.

49er, you assist the post's conversation by spouting off partial context covering case law that you perceive is relevant about self defence, instead of, perhaps being an good and concerned AL citizen at the OP's light and pointing to AL Statute 3-6-1 which could resolve or mitigate his issues with his neighbours w/o further arms escalation between them. (which would preclude any type of self defence claims by either one of them in the future)

marshual, your discerning the OP's 'summary' was 'well written' bothers me ~ can you tell me what the OP's goal of writing the 'summary' was? what was the conclusion the neighbour is suppose to take away from the myriad of OP's topics presented? which one topic should the neighbour work on fixing first to mitigate the OP's issue(s)? my bet was on the trespass of the neighbour's partner, no, the sod, darn so hard to decide.

As i have consistently stated: why on earth would any citizen put themselves in harm's way and passively/aggressively by seeking a mode where someone must exercise your self defence rights; why would you knowingly put yourself in the path for judicial oversight for your actions caused by the first statement.

sorry, it is surely a lose/lose situation for both parties, especially if it continues to escalate with both carrying firearms.

IMHO, the OP posted out here to validate his thinking that his carrying a firearm over to his neighbour's property 'to discuss things' is justified by this group of gun carriers in his quest for justice for the SOD, Dogs, etc.. If you wish to condone his perception(s), then please you are of course allowed, it that is your opinion.

ipse
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
...specifically stating he hopes never to use it...

I've said the same thing before. Would you prefer he bought it with the express intent of shooting their dog? Or perhaps only people who write "manifestos" of which you approve ought to arm themselves in the face of uncontrolled, deadly animals?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Specious arguments regarding the level of training and the correlation to firearm ownership is eerily close to anti-2A speak.

It does not appear that the OP is/will be carrying beyond his property...other than to go to his neighbor's house, which is a unwise course of action in my view.
 

Kirbinator

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
902
Location
Middle of the map, Alabama
Document, document, document, document, document, document, document, document, document, document, record, and video.

Buy and install a video camera system covering the exterior. Pay a surveyor to come out and perform a survey of the property to establish the legal property lines. You know the law on the fence, now use it -- make sure yours is in the appropriate place legally. What sort of fence can be picked up? The fence doesn't sounds permanent (i.e: steel posts in concrete). Have the fence reinforced at the bottom to prevent the dog from digging through, i.e.: additional horizontal bars.

You need to work on your communication skills and start learning how the law works with regard to trespassing before you decide to arbitrarily exclude a single person without telling them. Written communication is best, perhaps through a lawyer. Further, if you intend to exclude his girlfriend from the premises, you need to post the premises and put up a fence in places other than the backyard to prevent casual, accidental, or incidental use. You're going to have to call the law on them when you catch them doing so and show the video to the police officer and have him communicate to them that they have been trespassed and ....

Finally, from the "self-defense" angle, you don't have much of a reason to carry unless the dog gets loose in your backyard, but you will have other problems then.

Don't fret over every little thing; neighbors are neighbors and you have to get along. But once the dog is on your property, the onus is on the owner to control his dog. If you had chickens in the backyard and his dog was eating them, you'd be well within your rights to protect your livestock.

Conversely, the opposite is also true, and rather hilarious: quoth some judge: "Let me get this straight -- his dog attacked your chicken which was trespassing on his land ... and you did nothing?"

You're well past the "time to move" point.

But self-defense and mentioning the firearm on the blog have no place, nor does carrying on your neighbor's property. If you've got something to say to him, do it through the mail or by police officer. You just upped the stakes; now, are you going to shoot your dog when you try to shoot his after it attacks?
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
bocraw: " ... Damn, this stuff is complicated! Someone simplify it for me please. "


The language of our constitutions is plain and simple enough. It's those who want to infringe on your rights that complicate matters. Many of them will claim that they support your right to bear arms for defense while advocating infringements.





For those who are citizens of Alabama, start here:


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

While the Federal Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, establishes minimum standards, the states have the power and are free to provide greater safeguards and to extend this protection through their own organic law—the State Constitutions. Indeed, the 9th and 10th Amendments to the United States Constitution envisage this fundamental truth.

Gilbreath v. Wallace, 292 So. 2d 651 - Ala : Supreme Court 1974

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

"State courts, in determining the scope of rights guaranteed by their own constitutions,... may, in fact, provide more protection for private rights than the United States Constitution requires." 592 So.2d at 170. See also Ex parte Boykin, [Ms. 1921336, Oct. 8, 1993], 1993 WL 394750 (Ala. 1993) ("the United States Supreme Court has recognized that a state may confer procedural protections of liberty interests that extend beyond those minimally required by the Constitution of the United States"); Ex parte Love, 513 So.2d 24, 30 (Ala.1987); Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 300, 102 S.Ct. 2442, 2449, 73 L.Ed.2d 16 (1982)…”
Brooks v. Hobbie, 631 So. 2d 883 - Ala: Supreme Court 1993)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“State courts cannot rest when they have afforded their citizens the full protections of the federal Constitution. State constitutions, too, are a font of individual liberties, their protections often extending beyond those required by the Supreme Court's interpretations of federal law. The legal revolution which has brought federal law to the fore must not be allowed to inhibit the independent protective force of state law-for without it, the full realization of our liberties cannot be guaranteed.”

Justice Brennan of the United States Supreme Court
Brennan, State Constitutions and the Protection oj Individual Rights, 90 HARv. L. REv.
489, 491 (1977).


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX




Constitution of Alabama 1901

Article 1 Declaration of Rights.

That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

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.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



Every single one of our state officers are required to take the following oath:

Constitution of Alabama 1901
SECTION 279
Required of members of legislature and executive and judicial officers; form; administration.
All members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation:
"I, …, solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God."
The oath may be administered by the presiding officer of either house of the legislature, or by any officer authorized by law to administer an oath.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



The penalty for violating a solemn oath in an official proceeding is defined as a class C felony:

Code of Alabama 1975
Section 13A-10-101
Perjury in the first degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of perjury in the first degree when in any official proceeding he swears falsely and his false statement is material to the proceeding in which it is made.
(b) Perjury in the first degree is a Class C felony.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §4905.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX




There are plenty of unconstitutional gun control laws in the Code of Alabama 1975 that have never faced an all-out challenge to our court of last resort. Those laws are complicated and complex by design, and no amount of discussion here can simplify them.

If you want to keep it simple, then hang on to our constitutions with all that is in you.
 
Last edited:

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
Language that would have delegated authority to our government in Alabama to regulate bearing arms for defense (as in many other states) was REJECTED:


Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
REJECTED:
@ 172
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.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

REJECTED:

@ 215-216

Day 8
Ordinance No. 131, by Mr. Murphree:
Relates to duelling, concealed pistols and other deadly weapons.
Be it ordained by the people of Alabama in convention assembled, That
Section 47, Article IV of the Constitution of Alabama, be and is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
The General Assembly shall pass such penal laws as they may deem expedient to suppress the evil practice of dueling and carrying pistols and other deadly weapons concealed.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



RATIFIED:


Constitution of Alabama 1901
Article I, Declaration of Rights

That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

... SECTION 2
People source of power.

That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

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


... SECTION 35
Objective of government.

That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.

... 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.
 
Last edited:

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
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.



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



We note that "ection 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, 401 (Ala. 2000). Sections 1 through 35 of Article I set out basic and fundamental rights guaranteed to all Alabamians, and § 36 provides that no branch of government has the authority to impair or deny those rights.

1568 Montgomery Hwy. v. City of Hoover, 45 So. 3d 319 - Ala: Supreme Court 2010


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



Article I, § 14, Const. of Ala. 1901, states that 'the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity. This constitutional provision `has been described as a "nearly impregnable" and "almost invincible" "wall" that provides the State an unwaivable, absolute immunity from suit in any court.' Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro, 950 So.2d 1203, 1206 (Ala.2006) (quoting Alabama Agric. & Mech. Univ. v. Jones, 895 So.2d 867, 872 (Ala.2004); Patterson v. Gladwin Corp., 835 So.2d 137, 142 (Ala.2002); and Alabama State Docks v. Saxon, 631 So.2d 943, 946 (Ala. 1994)).
Ex parte Burnell, 90 So. 3d 708 - Ala: Supreme Court 2012

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



MOORE, Chief Justice, (dissenting).

B. Alabama's Declaration of Rights
"The use of an information is severely restricted in Alabama." Committee Comments to Rule 13.1, Ala. R. Crim. P. This originates in Art. I, §§ 6 and 8, Ala. Const. 1901. Section 8 provides:

"No person shall for any indictable offense be proceeded against criminally by information ... otherwise than is provided in the Constitution. In cases of misdemeanor, the Legislature may by law dispense with a grand jury and authorize prosecutions and proceedings before any inferior courts as may be by law established."

(Emphasis added.) "The effect of [§ 8] and §§ 15-15-20 through -26, [Ala. Code 1975,] is to limit the use of an information in Alabama to the situation where a defendant, before indictment, pleads guilty to a noncapital felony offense." Committee Comments to Rule 13.1, Ala. R. Crim. P. Simmons was not accused of a felony, and he cannot be prosecuted by information in Alabama…

… A court's constitutional power must be exercised in conformity with the Constitution. Section 36 of Art. I, Declaration of Rights, provides that "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." Art. I, § 36, Ala. Const. 1901. "`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.'" 1568 Montgomery Highway, Inc. v. City of Hoover, 45 So. 3d 319, 342 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392, 401 (Ala. 2000) (emphasis added)). Section 36 forbids the courts of Alabama from exercising judicial powers, i.e., jurisdiction, so as to violate or encroach upon the fundamental rights retained by the people of Alabama in the Declaration of Rights. Under the majority opinion's view of Seymour, the circuit court's jurisdiction overrides the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure and §§ 6 and 8 of the Declaration of Rights. The majority opinion, in trying to uphold the circuit court's jurisdiction in this case, denies Simmons his constitutional and statutory right to demand a copy of the accusation and so deprives Simmons of his liberty without due process of law…”


EX PARTE STATE, Ala: Supreme Court 2014
 
Last edited:

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
bocraw,

Here are some thoughts in plain and simple language about unconstitutional laws from judges on our state's court of last resort that you may want to keep in mind when you read the complex and confusing gun control laws in our state code:



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

…Long before Alabama acquired statehood, judicial decisions had recognized the power—as well as the duty—of the judiciary to review, and, if necessary, nullify, acts of the legislature it deemed to be inconsistent with the fundamental law of the land. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) ("an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution is void" and it is the duty of the judiciary to declare it so)

ex parte James, 713 So. 2d 869 - Ala: Supreme Court 1997


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX





“...It is generally recognized that

"[a]n act of a legislature not authorized by the constitution at the time of its passage is absolutely void, and, if not reenacted, is not validated by a subsequent amendment to the constitution or by the adoption of a new constitution which merely permits the passage of such an act...."

Bucher v. Powell County, 180 Mt. 145, 589 P.2d 660, 662 (1979), quoting C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 45 (1984) at 141; Porto Rico Brokerage Co. v. United States, 22 C.C.P.A. 236, 71 F.2d 469 (1934); Stockyards Nat'l Bank v. Bauman, 5 F.2d 905, 906-07 (8th Cir.1925); City of Little Rock v. Cavin, 238 Ark. 333, 381 S.W.2d 741 (1964); Banaz v. Smith, 133 Cal. 102, 65 P. 309 (1901); State v. Bates, 305 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1981); State v. O'Malley, 342 Mo. 641, 117 S.W.2d 319 (1938); In re Graves, 325 Mo. 888, 30 S.W.2d 149 (1930); State ex rel. Woodahl v. District Court, 162 Mont. 283, 511 P.2d 318 (1973); Whetstone v. Slonaker, 110 Neb. 343, 193 N.W. 749 (1923); Fellows v. Shultz, 81 N.M. 496, 469 P.2d 141 (1970); Paluck v. Board of County Comm'rs, Stark County, 307 N.W.2d 852, 855 (N.D.1981); and State v. Chaney, 23 Okla. 788, 102 P. 133 (1909).

The rationale underlying such a rule is explained in Whetstone v. Slonaker:

"It is held in Finders v. Bodle, 58 Neb. 57, 78 N.W. 480, that an act of the Legislature, passed in violation of the Constitution, is void from the date of its enactment, and —

"`An unconstitutional statute creates no new rights and abrogates no old ones. It is for all purposes as though it had never been passed.'

"It is held by the United States Supreme Court in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442, 6 Sup.Ct. 1121, 1125 (30 L.Ed. 178), that —

"`An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.'

"Cooley in his work on Constitutional Limitations (7th Ed.) at page 259, lays down the rule thus:

"`When a statute is adjudged to be unconstitutional, it is as if it had never been. Rights cannot be built up under it; contracts which depend upon it for their consideration are void.... And what is true of an act void in toto is true also as to any part of an act which is found to be unconstitutional, and which, consequently, is to be regarded as having never, at any time, been possessed of any legal force.'"

Id., 110 Neb. at 345, 193 N.W. at 749.

We adhere to this general rule, ...

Ex parte Southern Ry. Co., 556 So. 2d 1082 - Ala: Supreme Court 1989
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
Excuse me, but when have we been authorized to use words like 'Specious' in this here forum?

I don't have any authority whatsoever on this forum, but I support people using every word they can find to support our constitutions and the rights that are recognized and protected by them.

"Specious" is an excellent word to use to describe those who pretend to support our constitutions while advocating infringements on the very rights they are designed to protect. I agree with the context of its use in this thread.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Excuse me, but when have we been authorized to use words like 'Specious' in this here forum?
The absence of a rule is sometimes enough.

Authorization comes from our NATURAL or GOD given rights and protected by the 1st Amendment of the the US Constitution! LOL:shocker::shocker:
1st Amendment right on a private forum? What'll be next? :uhoh:
 
Top