Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: 2013 Legislative Session Senate Bill 129

  1. #1
    Regular Member Treborfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pelham, Alabama
    Posts
    42

    2013 Legislative Session Senate Bill 129

    This is the Bill BamaCarry has been working on with Senator Scott Beason ..
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beason / Weapons / Pending Committee Action in House of Origin /Business and Labor / 02/05/2013

    Firearms, concealed pistol permits, lifetime permit authorized, fees for issuance, Secs. 11-45-1.1, 13A-11-59 repealed; Secs. 11-80-11, 13A-11-7, 13A-11-52, 13A-11-75, 13A-11-85 am'd.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bill includes Preemption with teeth...

    http://alisondb.legislature.state.al...=SB129-int.pdf,,

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Can you post a link that works?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    2013 Legislative Session Senate Bill 129

    http://www.nraila.org/media/10869549/sb129-int.pdf


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    2013 Legislative Session Senate Bill 129

    I may have missed it, but where does the bill change the language so that a license is no longer required to carry in a vehicle? I see where it was struck from the language that describes the license, but won't there still be the wording where a license is required to carry in a vehicle?

    On edit: I searched for 13A-11-73 and found no reference to it in the bill. That means that that language will be unchanged. That language prohibits carry in a vehicle without a license. Is this an oversight???

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
    <O>
    Last edited by eye95; 02-05-2013 at 10:48 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    I am working on an analysis of this bill at this time. I will post it out when I am done.

    The short version right now: this bill is hostile to OC and infringes on the rights of property owners to protect CCers. This bill also enables public employers to regulate visible firearms but protects CC.

    This bill violates State v Reid, and severability (1-1-16) requires that the affected sections be trimmed from the law.

    Section 1-1-16: Severability of provisions of Code and statutes.

    If any provision of this Code or any amendment hereto, or any other statute, or the application thereof to any person, thing or circumstances, is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions or application of this Code or such amendment or statute that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end, the provisions of this Code and such amendments and statutes are declared to be severable.
    I'm beginning to think that 13A-11-52 wasn't edited; the other provisions of law were found unconstitutional and they were severed (edited) from the code.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I just read the bill and find it quite friendly to OC, except for the failure to edit the language in -73 referring to vehicles. The language was struck from the section on issuing licenses, but not from the section requiring the license.

    NRA-ILA reports that the bill does away with the requirement for a license to carry in a car. In its current form, it does not. Either that is an oversight on the part of the bill's authors, or NRA-ILA got it wrong. Again.

    I tend to think that the authors did not wish to do away with the license to carry in a car and that NRA-ILA got it wrong, as they seem to have an annoying propensity to do when it comes to what Alabama law actually says.

    Unfortunate, as I see this as the last remaining obstacle to unfettered carry.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Look up the definition of "instrumentality" and consider the bill from the position of being a public employee.

    11-80-11 as written means a public employer can't make any rules regarding carry/etc. in any way (a double protection without having to resort to the constitutional argument). Amending that...


    Rewriting 13A-11-52 turns it from an unenforceable law into an enforceable law, and removes Braxton v State, etc. from the list of jurisprudence.

    At present, it is not even an offense, and should not be considered with -73 at all.
    Last edited by Kirbinator; 02-06-2013 at 08:44 AM.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I have no problem with the criminalization of -52 because it no longer makes exercise of the Right a violation of the law. It prohibits carry into someone's private home without permission a crime. Good. That should be a crime. It makes carry on private property (that is open to the public) a crime if you have been asked to leave. Good. That should be a crime.

    So before: -52 violates our Rights, but is unenforceable (except through the means of getting a ride for "contempt of cop," which makes the current -52 unacceptable); and after: -52 criminalizes certain non-Right behaviors that should be criminalized, but does not make unlawful the practice of the Right!

    Win-win!

    Now, all they need to do is update -73 to match the edit they put in the licensing section. I really think this is an oversight and should be brought to their attention by an Alabama constituent.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Instrumentality includes departments of the state: board of education, APT, DPS, DOC, DOT, ADPH, AEMA, AU, UA, USA, JSCC, WSCC, etc.

    Right now they can't do anything (but that never stopped any entity) and it's an arguable point with a higher likelihood of winning without bearing the cost of a challenge based on constitutionality. 11-80-11 is like a double dose of Section 36 of the constitution.

    This also opens the door for restricting long gun rights, and all firearms other than pistols.

    Right now, you can't carry concealed anything except pistols. So you have to OC that SBR, SBS, rifle, shotgun, etc.

    This will also turn -52 into a misdemeanor, and complicate the entire sections after it (50-5x and 70-8x). Right now that law isn't an offense -- it doesn't fit the definition of violation, felony, or misdemeanor.

    In short, we're "fixing" things that aren't broken, and while we're getting rid of a few things, we're opening the doors to a lot more and the possible later introduction of language that would limit other forms of carry.

    Right now, they are saying we have a right to bear arms. But bear in mind we've had it all along and THEY have been the ones slow to recognize it.

    And the requirement of the sheriff not to issue a pistol license to someone involved in a court case which might curtail his firearms privilege... that's futurecrime. We have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Someone who is on bail waiting to appear for a crime -- whether justly or unjustly charged -- may have a reason to fear for his life and a need to bear arms for self-defense.

    Another issue I take here is that the exceptions listed for law enforcement have to go. We have one class of citizen in Alabama. LEOs carry guns for the same reasons we do: self-defense. That is IT. They are not specially enfranchised citizens. They are not Knights of The Realm. They are not Samurai, given a license by the Emperor to kill at will and depart without questions being made of them. The Army is forbidden from operating on our soil for good reason. The sheriff has posse commitatus, but that doesn't give him the ability under law to direct the execution of a human being.




    We don't want this to devolve into something like FL or TX where a provision was omitted "because it wasn't being used".
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I have no problem with the criminalization of -52 because it no longer makes exercise of the Right a violation of the law.
    It's not an enforceable law and we never noticed before.

    It prohibits carry into someone's private home without permission a crime. Good. That should be a crime. It makes carry on private property (that is open to the public) a crime if you have been asked to leave. Good. That should be a crime.
    This is already a crime, it is called criminal trespass. Between the various sections, definitions, and so on, it is spelled out.

    So before: -52 violates our Rights, but is unenforceable (except through the means of getting a ride for "contempt of cop," which makes the current -52 unacceptable); and after: -52 criminalizes certain non-Right behaviors that should be criminalized, but does not make unlawful the practice of the Right!
    -52 doesn't violate our rights as currently codified. It is not enforceable. It is not a violation, a misdemeanor, or a felony. It does not have a fine attached to it, nor does it have a jail sentence. No section of The Code Of Alabama can be construed to make -52 into an offense.

    Section 13A-11-52: Carrying pistol on premises not his own; who may carry pistol.

    Except as otherwise provided in this article, no person shall carry a pistol about his person on premises not his own or under his control; but this section shall not apply to any sheriff or his deputy or police officer of an incorporated town or city in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to United States marshal or his deputies, rural free delivery mail carriers in the discharge of their duties as such, bonded constables in the discharge of their duties as such, conductors, railway mail clerks and express messengers in the discharge of their duties.

    (Acts 1919, No. 204, p. 196; Code 1923, §3487; Code 1940, T. 14, §163; Code 1975, §13-6-122.)
    It is an absolute; it is a commandment. No such law may exist as a penal law without being clearly defined, strictly construed, and easily understood. Nothing in the construction of law under Title 1 or Title 13A supports 13A-11-52 being an offense in any manner. Tulley v State.

    NO FINE, NO JAIL, NO OFFENSE. It's that simple:

    Section 13A-1-2

    Definitions.

    Unless different meanings are expressly specified in subsequent provisions of this title, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

    (4) CRIME. A misdemeanor or a felony.
    (8) FELONY. An offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year is authorized by this title.
    (9) MISDEMEANOR. An offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment not in excess of one year may be imposed.

    (10) OFFENSE. Conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment, or the death penalty, or to a fine is provided by any law of this state or by any law, local law, or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state.

    (16) VIOLATION. An offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment not in excess of 30 days may be imposed. (Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §130; Acts 1978, No. 770, p. 1110; Act 2001-971, 3rd Sp. Sess., p. 873, §2.)
    Section 13A-5-1

    Applicability of provisions.

    (a) Every person convicted of any offense defined in this title, or defined outside this title, shall be sentenced by the court in accordance with this article, unless otherwise specifically provided by law.
    (b) Penal laws enacted after January 1, 1980 shall be classified for punishment purposes in accordance with this article.
    (Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §1201.)
    Section 13A-5-2

    Authorized dispositions.

    (a) Every person convicted of a felony shall be sentenced by the court to imprisonment for a term authorized by Sections 13A-5-6, 13A-5-9, and 13A-5-10.
    (b) In addition to imprisonment, every person convicted of a felony may be sentenced by the court to pay a fine authorized by Section 13A-5-11.
    (c) Every person convicted of a misdemeanor or violation shall be sentenced by the court to:
    (1) Imprisonment for a term authorized by Section 13A-5-7; or
    (2) Pay a fine authorized by Section 13A-5-12; or
    (3) Both such imprisonment and fine.
    (d) Every person convicted of a felony, misdemeanor, or violation, except for the commission of a criminal sex offense involving a child as defined in Section 15-20-21(5), may be placed on probation as authorized by law.
    (e) This article does not deprive a court of authority conferred by law to forfeit property, dissolve a corporation, suspend or cancel a license or permit, remove a person from office, cite for contempt, or impose any other lawful civil penalty. Such a judgment, order, or decree may be included as part of the sentence.
    (f) Every person convicted of murder shall be sentenced by the court to imprisonment for a term, or to death or to life imprisonment without parole as authorized by subsection (c) of Section 13A-6-2.
    (Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §1205; Act 2005-301, 1st Sp. Sess., §1.)
    Section 13A-5-3

    Classification of offenses.

    (a) Offenses are designated as felonies, misdemeanors or violations.
    (b) Felonies are classified according to the relative seriousness of the offense into three categories:
    (1) Class A felonies;
    (2) Class B felonies; and
    (3) Class C felonies.
    (c) Misdemeanors are classified according to the relative seriousness of the offense into three categories:
    (1) Class A misdemeanors;
    (2) Class B misdemeanors; and
    (3) Class C misdemeanors.
    (d) Violations are not classified.
    (Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §1210.)
    Section 13A-5-4

    Designation of offenses.

    (a) The particular classification of each felony defined in this title, except murder under Section 13A-6-2, is expressly designated in the chapter or article defining it. Any offense defined outside this title which is declared by law to be a felony without specification of its classification or punishment is punishable as a Class C felony.

    (b) The particular classification of each misdemeanor defined in this title is expressly designated in the chapter or article defining it. Any offense defined outside this title which is declared by law to be a misdemeanor without specification as to classification or punishment is punishable as a Class C misdemeanor.
    (c) Every violation defined in this title is expressly designated as such. Any offense defined outside this title without specification as to punishment or as to felony or misdemeanor is a violation.

    (Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §1215.)
    Section 13A-5-6

    Sentences of imprisonment for felonies.

    (a) Sentences for felonies shall be for a definite term of imprisonment, which imprisonment includes hard labor, within the following limitations:
    (1) For a Class A felony, for life or not more than 99 years or less than 10 years.
    (2) For a Class B felony, not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.
    (3) For a Class C felony, not more than 10 years or less than 1 year and 1 day.
    (4) For a Class A felony in which a firearm or deadly weapon was used or attempted to be used in the commission of the felony, or a Class A felony criminal sex offense involving a child as defined in Section 15-20-21(5), not less than 20 years.
    (5) For a Class B or C felony in which a firearm or deadly weapon was used or attempted to be used in the commission of the felony, or a Class B felony criminal sex offense involving a child as defined in Section 15-20-21(5), not less than 10 years.
    (b) The actual time of release within the limitations established by subsection (a) of this section shall be determined under procedures established elsewhere by law.
    (c) In addition to any penalties heretofore or hereafter provided by law, in all cases where an offender is designated as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Section 15-20-25.3, or where an offender is convicted of a Class A felony criminal sex offense involving a child as defined in Section 15-20-21(5), and is sentenced to a county jail or the Alabama Department of Corrections, the sentencing judge shall impose an additional penalty of not less than 10 years of post-release supervision to be served upon the defendant's release from incarceration.
    (d) In addition to any penalties heretofore or hereafter provided by law, in all cases where an offender is convicted of a sex offense pursuant to Section 13A-6-61, 13A-6-63, or 13A-6-65.1, when the defendant was 21 years of age or older and the victim was six years of age or less at the time the offense was committed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
    (Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §1225; Acts 1981, No. 81-840, p. 1505; Act 2005-301, 1st Sp. Sess., p. 571, §1; Act 2011-555, p. 1037, §1.)
    Section 13A-5-7

    Sentences of imprisonment for misdemeanors and violations.

    (a) Sentences for misdemeanors shall be a definite term of imprisonment in the county jail or to hard labor for the county, within the following limitations:
    (1) For a Class A misdemeanor, not more than one year.
    (2) For a Class B misdemeanor, not more than six months.
    (3) For a Class C misdemeanor, not more than three months.
    (b) Sentences for violations shall be for a definite term of imprisonment in the county jail, not to exceed 30 days.
    (Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §1230; Acts 1978, No. 770, p. 1110.)
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    2013 Legislative Session Senate Bill 129

    Fine. Don't support it. However, as a victim of an "unenforceable" -52, I am glad to see it changed to something enforceable that should be (and you say already is) illegal.

    Folks, this bill is a huge step forward. Examine it for yourself. Don't take my word or anyone else's for that.

    Moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  12. #12
    Regular Member Treborfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pelham, Alabama
    Posts
    42
    One of the first things I did was Email Scott Beason about the langusage left in '73 after I read the bill last night.
    But when you think about it...If they don't issue license for vehicle carry you cannot have one for it..

    They had audio of the Senate Committee today adressing the bill...The audio stunk...One thing I did hear was a Sheriff saying a hand gun was considered conceaaled in a vehicle...The Sheriff wanted us have to violate the 5th admendment by telling LE we have a firearm in the vehicle...

    I do not see the things Kirby seems to see...Long Guns are included in the language..

    Page 15 of SB 129...(page 16 using pdf numbering)

    Line 11: (4) FIREARM. This term has the same meaning as in
    Line 12: Section 13A-8-1(4), Code of Alabama 1975.

    Section 13A-8-1:
    (4) FIREARM. A weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder.

    I think rifles and shotguns are considered weapons where a shot is discharged by gun powder..

    From page 16 of the Bill...(page 17 of pdf)
    12 (7) PUBLIC OFFICIAL. Any person elected to public
    13 office, whether or not that person has taken office, by the
    14 vote of the people of a political subdivision or its
    15 instrumentalities, including governmental corporations, and
    16 any person appointed to a position at the municipal level of
    17 government or its instrumentalitiesincluding governmental
    18 corporations.

    I read this to mean that any appointed Public Official, elected or appointed can be sued for passing laws or rules restricting our RKBA...


    I am with Eye on this...It is not perfect in by any means...But it is much better than it was...

    I am still trying to find where Kirby says they can restrict carry in state parks and on the U.S.S. Alabama...I cannot find it..

    Please post what page and line number you are speaking of Kirby...That is why they are there..Makes it easier to find what you are speaking about..

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    2013 Legislative Session Senate Bill 129

    They may not issue a "license to carry in a vehicle or concealed," but -73 still requires the CPL to carry in a vehicle, so that is a problem with the bill. Either -73 is modified or one is subject to arrest for carry in a vehicle without a license, whatever they choose to call it.

    I really think that not modifying -73 is an oversight.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    When you make the argument on the constitutional basis, you yourself bear the cost of supporting that argument. 11-80-11, being a later statue, reinforces that the legislature, in their infinite wisdom, are all knowing on the topic. It also exists in conflict with other statues, which may have in the past been used to construe that a particular board or entity has a delegated power to control arms. Since it was written in 2000, and Braxton v State shows that the later statue rules when a conflict exists, 11-80-11 has a broader reach -- and as a more recent law, stands to overrule any argument to the contrary because it is a more recent law.

    This is a huge game changer in Alabama. To the point where we're going to have to look at how the landscape has changed and reconsider how/when/etc. we can OC. Some of the parts of it I do not like. Some of the objections previously raised were solved in a more elegant way than I expected.

    We have wondered about that last part tacked on the bill. I think the explanation is that since we are talking about money (pistol license fee), and there are local laws that regulate the use of that money in some places, it is likely something related to that. IANAL, business law isn't my specialty.

    Eye95: Yes, I was threatened with 13A-11-52, but I gave the officer a card and he did some research and came to the same conclusion as I.

    At the moment, the briefs from Tulley's case are some of the best cumulative research in the state, along with the other case out of Shelby County. Both of those men have excellent legal representation.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    alabama
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirbinator View Post

    This is a huge game changer in Alabama. To the point where we're going to have to look at how the landscape has changed and reconsider how/when/etc. we can OC. Some of the parts of it I do not like. Some of the objections previously raised were solved in a more elegant way than I expected.
    .
    Senator Beason and Senator Linda coleman were on one of the local talk radio shows this morning and discussed SB129 ... Senator Coleman is very much against it and referred to Senator Beason making it a "wild west" by "allowing" open carry to be allowed. Senator Beason did jump in and tell her that open carry was already legal in Alabama but the present "legality" of it didnt get discussed.

    I promptly replied to her office with a email stating that it wasnt the law abiding citizens that were committing firearms crimes and that no amount of gun control laws will effect criminals (ie: Chicago for example) Mandatory sentencing with no possibility of early parole for those committing crimes with firearms would be a good place to start..
    kentucky was not brought up , but Vermont, Arizona and Alaska were brought up as open carry states and were replied to as the wild west by Senator Coleman.

    For anyone in Ky, or other open carry states who who would like to drop Senator Coleman a email and explain to her how open carry is working in your state her address is linda.coleman@alsenate.gov
    Last edited by Rmart30; 02-18-2013 at 12:36 PM.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Welcome to OCDO!

    Check out the other gun rights group in Alabama. Click on the link in my sig.

    I live in OH now, but still have family in Alabama and will be there often until the house sells and occasionally thereafter. I appreciate you helping to fight the good fight with our elected representatives. Thanks.

    I'll be fighting the good fight up here, where it may be a pain in the butt to carry in a car without a license, but at least it is possible!

  17. #17
    Regular Member Treborfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pelham, Alabama
    Posts
    42
    Rmart30 BamaCarry is having a meeting tonight 2/18/13 @ Dreamland BBQ in Northport...We start around 6pm..

    Here is a link to the video of the Senate Committee Meeting pertaining to Senate Bill 129

    The Sheriffs don't know the law or constitution which is obvious in the video..



    Published on Feb 8, 2013

    MONTGOMERY, Ala. - The Alabama Senate Business and Labor Committee debates an open carry gun law, but voted to submit the bill to a subcommittee to study the law and consider information from law enforcement and the business community before sending it to the full Senate for a vote.

    For more information, watch the video and read the story in The Locust Fork News-Journal @ LocustFork.Net: http://blog.locustfork.net/2013/02/al...
    Last edited by Treborfoot; 02-18-2013 at 02:30 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Why do pols or anybody care what LE thinks about gun laws? Sit down, shut up.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  19. #19
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Why do pols or anybody care what LE thinks about gun laws? Sit down, shut up.
    The politicians care what the top level of LE think about gun laws because the top level of LE are politicians themselves. Also the top level of LE, especially the county sheriffs, have quite a bit of political pull.

    A sure way for a representative in Montgomery to risk getting voted out of office is to oppose either the Sheriffs' Association or the Alabama Education Association. Another group, especially in this state, that carries a lot of political pull is the Alabama Baptist Convention, which is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

    Unless and until we, the citizens of Alabama, find some way to either change the minds of these three groups or to reduce their power, we are going to be fighting an uphill battle on a lot of our rights, not just gun rights.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  20. #20
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    The politicians care what the top level of LE think about gun laws because the top level of LE are politicians themselves. Also the top level of LE, especially the county sheriffs, have quite a bit of political pull.

    A sure way for a representative in Montgomery to risk getting voted out of office is to oppose either the Sheriffs' Association or the Alabama Education Association. Another group, especially in this state, that carries a lot of political pull is the Alabama Baptist Convention, which is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

    Unless and until we, the citizens of Alabama, find some way to either change the minds of these three groups or to reduce their power, we are going to be fighting an uphill battle on a lot of our rights, not just gun rights.
    I guess it's kind of like the teachers unions. I hope Alabama stays strong. I plan on bailing there if/when south Florida takes over Tallahassee politics.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •