Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 142

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

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    7

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

    Apparent changes to original bill:

    Retains carry/possession prohibition at public demonstrations.

    Sets up vehicle carry only license for Alabama residents only.


    http://openstates.org/al/bills/2013r...s/ALD00015024/
    Last edited by RMcL; 04-05-2013 at 06:48 PM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The law sucks. I'd oppose it if I still lived in Alabama.

    A license to carry in a vehicle infringes on the right to carry as protected by the constitutions of Alabama and the US. The Alabama Supreme Court made it clear that one form of carry (they tended toward OC) must not be regulated. Requiring a license to open carry in one's car is a regulation on the form of carry that Alabama chose not to regulate.

    That they made obtaining and keeping such a license easier makes it no less an infringement. Supporting this bill supports the infringement. I won't support it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    As of right now I'll still support it as it gets rid of -52, clarifies that OC is legal, and states that OC'ing can not be used to charge someone with DC. There are parts of the bill I disagree with, but only so much can happen at one time. This bill originally called for the right to carry in a car without a permit but the ASA have been spreading lies since this bill hit the senate committee so a few things were changed to allow the bill a chance to pass. It's stupid to have an all or nothing attitude because that just means the laws will stay the way they are, but if we slowly chip away at the unconstitutional laws we might end up where we want to be. Progress is better than no progress.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The law sucks. I'd oppose it if I still lived in Alabama.

    A license to carry in a vehicle infringes on the right to carry as protected by the constitutions of Alabama and the US. The Alabama Supreme Court made it clear that one form of carry (they tended toward OC) must not be regulated. Requiring a license to open carry in one's car is a regulation on the form of carry that Alabama chose not to regulate.

    That they made obtaining and keeping such a license easier makes it no less an infringement. Supporting this bill supports the infringement. I won't support it.

    Yeah, everyone should oppose it because even though it is shall issue, even though its still 19 and not 21 for a license,even though they didn't add schools and bars as places off limits, even though nothing is lost but the gains aren't constitution carry, let's oppose it.

    How sad, Thankfully people in Ohio weren't of that mind set before they fixed alot of things for you, if they had your mindset, you still would be forced to open carry in a car and not be able to carry into most gas stations... Oh what a minute, Ohio would still be no issue with no preemption.


    Time and time again, gun owners are their own worst enemies.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Yep, they are their own worst enemies when they support infringements just because they are lesser infringements than before. Thank ya, massah, fuh whippin me only thutty-nine time stead of fawty!

    They just reclaimed the authority to license the Right and the people are agreeing. If it is licensed, it isn't a right. It is a favor from those in power, and you are ceding them authority they didn't have when you roll over and accept it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Yep, they are their own worst enemies when they support infringements just because they are lesser infringements than before. Thank ya, massah, fuh whippin me only thutty-nine time stead of fawty!

    They just reclaimed the authority to license the Right and the people are agreeing. If it is licensed, it isn't a right. It is a favor from those in power, and you are ceding them authority they didn't have when you roll over and accept it.

    So you dodge the question and main point. If everyone had an all or nothing position, Ohio would still be no issue and without preemption... Yet you take advantage of the improvements made by people in Ohio who live in the real world.

    Yes the right is licensed, the entire constitution is shredded and has been for over 150 years and Sander Spooner once wrote about. Don't kid yourself, we live in a police state.


    So what's your solution? Don't take any improvement over the current situation unless its 100% total gun freedom (which I would like to see)?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Most OCers in Ohio will tell you that Ohio was made worse by the passage of concealed carry. Open carriers lost rights (for example, carry in a car) when the bill passed. The only good thing about the change was preemption. Open carriers in OH did NOT support that bill, and I wouldn't have either.

    I do not support the Alabama bill for two reasons: (1) Alabama had already nailed preemption. Why they had to reword it I don't know. But you all may soon find out that that rewording is going to produce some strange interpretations by the Alabama courts. If they wanted to add civil consequences, they could have done so without changing the wording of preemption. (2) The one remaining infringement on OC in Alabama was vehicle carry. If they do not fix that one infringement, the rest is eyewash. Yes, it is nice that -52 would be gone. However, in court, it is already gone. The only problem remaining is that officers on the street may still try to use it. But officers will still find a way to harass OCers, even if -52 is gone.

    The bill failed to properly address the only infringement still enforceable in court. It messed with wording that worked, possibly damaging preemption. (We won't know until someone ends up in court.) These two flaws are absolute deal-killers. The law sucks. I cannot support it. Not because it is "imperfect," (if you had read much of what I post, you would know that I incessantly rail against calls for perfection), but because the very specific and enumerable (two) flaws it has are unacceptable.

    I urge Alabamians who believe in the RKBA to fight this bill as not moving that Right forward. Demand better (not perfect, better).

  8. #8
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    Choices

    EYE95 and JARED both make very good points. I mean it!!! After reading the posts and really thinking about it, I am in a dilemma. I like to see progress even if it is slow, but at the same time, it's nice to draw a line in the sand. If either position picks up steam, I am inclined to go with that. I know, I know, it is a cop-out. Both of you guys are "the best our country has to offer."

  9. #9
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    One point that a lot of folks have overlooked: With the vehement opposition of the Alabama Sheriffs' Association and the equally vehement opposition of the Alabama Business Council, this is, at this time, probably the best bill we could hope for. Please remember that it still has to get through the House and past Governor Bentley. It is not the giant step forward that we were hoping for, but it can be a beginning.

    There is a lot about the bill that I don't like, but, for now, I'll take what I can get. Hopefully, we can vote some of these sheriffs out of office and get some in who understand that they serve the people and not vice versa.
    "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."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Luckily we don't all have the mindset of Eye or else nothing would ever have the possibility of changing. I'm not 100% happy with this bill, but it does A LOT of good at clearing up language involving OC, removing -52, stating plainly that OC can not be a cause for disorderly conduct, changes may issue to shall issue, allows employees to keep firearms locked in their vehicles while at work, the only 2 things that are opposed to what we want is the vehicle carry permit (which really isn't a horrible compromise given the climate of the ASA), and this bill allows public buildings to put in security devices to not allow firearms inside (this part I'm pissed about, but this bill does too much good right now to oppose it for the 2 things that I don't like), we can always introduce a new bill next year to start righting the wrongs. It's going to be a long battle trying to get full preemption and constitutional carry, if we demand it all right now, we will end up with none of it.

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

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

    *sigh* When logic fails, make it personal.

    No matter. Changing your mind was not a goal. I am appealing to others who will read with an open mind. It seems that some have. Good.

    Moving on. I will pick up again when someone else joins with rational discussion.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I can see where eye95 is coming from here; I've lashed out at more than few permission-beggers out on the west coast for throwing elements of their right under the bus for scraps of privilege.

    I'm inclined to agree progress is preferable to all-or-nothing when nothing is the inevitable result, but I'm not convinced this is actually one of those situations.

    First of all: to all those who have convinced themselves that "progress" is made respecting anything you beg the beneficent state's permission for: you're gravely, deeply mistaken. Such "progress" is intrinsically transitory at best, and at worst nothing more than tomorrow's consolation prize to the defeated. That may sound like rhetorical flourish, but let California be your mirror into the future when that road is followed. Sure, some people will be always be allowed to own and carry guns, but – purely statistically – it probably won't be you.

    It seems to me that the right must be established and maintained – first – before progress which is anything other than illusory (fraudulent even) can be really made.

    But I could be wrong. Y'all do what you think is best for you and yours. I'll do the same.
    Last edited by marshaul; 04-07-2013 at 04:22 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Eye, you bring up legitimate concerns about preemption. The Alabama sheriffs will be opposed to shall-issue because they like may-issue, if shall-issue passes, when new sheriffs come in they will be used to it and not as anti-gun.

    Regarding Ohio, before HB 12 in 2004, vehicle carry was illegal so I don't see how open carriers lost anything, not to mention Ohio was littered with horrible local laws.

    Ohio still sucks, but the gun laws were worse in Ohio a decade ago then they are now.

    Fear not for Alabama, they will have better preemption in the next year or so, Doug Ritter has been on a roll with knife preemption and that would be the opportunity to pass a strong preemption law for firearms and knives.

  14. #14
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    I don't know, this is a tough one. It does take away a little more power away from the sheriffs in issuing licenses. That may help smooth the path to permitless carry. But I don't understand why they just don't make car OC legal. I don't know the situation in AL, but OC was defeated in Florida not so much due to the FSA (they were strident in their opposition) but because of the Retail Federation. The business council in Al shouldn't care at all about OC in a car. LEO lobbies are always against our right to bear arms, so really nothing new there. I'd hope the NRA and other pro voices in Al could overcome.
    Last edited by 77zach; 04-07-2013 at 04:29 PM.
    “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.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

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

    What Ohio law forbade carry in a car? I wasn't there at the time, but every OCer I have spoken to on the subject said that carry in a car was legal. Potentially some jurisdictions may have had a law against it, but I have been told that the State did not.

    I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong on a fact.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What Ohio law forbade carry in a car? I wasn't there at the time, but every OCer I have spoken to on the subject said that carry in a car was legal. Potentially some jurisdictions may have had a law against it, but I have been told that the State did not.

    I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong on a fact.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    It was the older version of ORC 2923.16. It forbade accessible firearms in or on motor vehicles.

    One of the criticisms in the Leis case that declared open carry a fundamental right was that they didn't invalidate the vehicle carry ban or any local laws that forbade open carry.

    While today a license is needed to carry in a vehicle (concealed or not), before 2004 there was no way for the average person to have a loaded firearm in a vehicle. That's why when Ohio's famous open carry marches took place in 2003/2004, people had to retrieve their handguns from the trunk of their vehicles (or from locked containers).
    Last edited by Jared; 04-07-2013 at 05:43 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I can see where eye95 is coming from here; I've lashed out at more than few permission-beggers out on the west coast for throwing elements of their right under the bus for scraps of privilege.

    I'm inclined to agree progress is preferable to all-or-nothing when nothing is the inevitable result, but I'm not convinced this is actually one of those situations.

    First of all: to all those who have convinced themselves that "progress" is made respecting anything you beg the beneficent state's permission for: you're gravely, deeply mistaken. Such "progress" is intrinsically transitory at best, and at worst nothing more than tomorrow's consolation prize to the defeated. That may sound like rhetorical flourish, but let California be your mirror into the future when that road is followed. Sure, some people will be always be allowed to own and carry guns, but – purely statistically – it probably won't be you.

    It seems to me that the right must be established and maintained – first – before progress which is anything other than illusory (fraudulent even) can be really made.

    But I could be wrong. Y'all do what you think is best for you and yours. I'll do the same.
    I've been watching this bill since it was first introduced to the Senate Committee, when the bill was first introduced it was IMO an excellent bill. Cleared up language, kept full preemption, got rid of permit for vehicle carry. But this bill would NOT have passed the Senate had all of those things remained. It would not have passed a majority vote if a few things wasn't changed, many senators said they would support if the sponsors worked with the ASA and ABC to "give in" a bit. Is it what we want? No, but it's 100% impossible at this point to get everything we want passed. I watched every bit of the Senate deliberation on this bill via live stream and it was met with quite a bit of backlash. It's not like this is the only bill we can ever introduce, if this one passes, next year we will start working on another one to try and right some of the wrongs that still exist. The most important part for me right now is getting the language regarding OC cleared up and getting a shall issue permit system. I'm not too worried about the vehicle carry at this point because frankly I'll have a CC permit regardless until the point in time we can push for constitutional carry, which isn't very close. With the heavy anti-gun climate this country is currently facing it's useless to possess an all or nothing attitude because you will most definitely get nothing.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    I've been watching this bill since it was first introduced to the Senate Committee, when the bill was first introduced it was IMO an excellent bill. Cleared up language, kept full preemption, got rid of permit for vehicle carry. But this bill would NOT have passed the Senate had all of those things remained. It would not have passed a majority vote if a few things wasn't changed, many senators said they would support if the sponsors worked with the ASA and ABC to "give in" a bit. Is it what we want? No, but it's 100% impossible at this point to get everything we want passed. I watched every bit of the Senate deliberation on this bill via live stream and it was met with quite a bit of backlash. It's not like this is the only bill we can ever introduce, if this one passes, next year we will start working on another one to try and right some of the wrongs that still exist. The most important part for me right now is getting the language regarding OC cleared up and getting a shall issue permit system. I'm not too worried about the vehicle carry at this point because frankly I'll have a CC permit regardless until the point in time we can push for constitutional carry, which isn't very close. With the heavy anti-gun climate this country is currently facing it's useless to possess an all or nothing attitude because you will most definitely get nothing.

    So what type of preemption does this amended version of the bill have? Alabama preemption was pretty weak before. It only applied to pistols and left rifles,shotguns, and other weapons like knives completely unprotected.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Section 7. (a) The purpose of this section is to
    21
    establish within the Legislature complete control over
    22
    regulation and policy pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and
    23
    firearm accessories in order to ensure that such regulation
    24
    and policy is applied uniformly throughout this state to each
    25
    person subject to the state's jurisdiction and to ensure
    26
    protection of the right to keep and bear arms recognized by
    27
    the Constitutions of the State of Alabama and the United
    Page 27
    1
    States. This section is to be liberally construed to
    2
    accomplish its purpose.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    Section 7. (a) The purpose of this section is to
    21
    establish within the Legislature complete control over
    22
    regulation and policy pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and
    23
    firearm accessories in order to ensure that such regulation
    24
    and policy is applied uniformly throughout this state to each
    25
    person subject to the state's jurisdiction and to ensure
    26
    protection of the right to keep and bear arms recognized by
    27
    the Constitutions of the State of Alabama and the United
    Page 27
    1
    States. This section is to be liberally construed to
    2
    accomplish its purpose.
    That seems to be pretty good language. Am I missing something?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Yep. That is just the statement of purpose. It isn't the actual preemption.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    87
    The problem in Alabama is that our rights were severely infringed in the 1930's when the current concealed carry law was passed. Then during the mid 1950's the concealed carry law was changed to include vehicle carry to disarm civil rights workers. The position we are in in Alabama is not one of simply making law, but one of undoing bad law. If we can get this through both houses, and signed, it will overall be a victory, and show people that change can be made which gives us a chance to change things in future. As it stand, with no change, every sheriff, chief of police and "wanna be a big boy" cop, deputy and municipal judge is free to twist bend and manipulate the law to intimidate and infringe on the peoples freedom. I wonder just how many Californians would want to have a free lifetime permit to carry in their vehicle which the sheriff had to issue...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    I've been watching this bill since it was first introduced to the Senate Committee, when the bill was first introduced it was IMO an excellent bill. Cleared up language, kept full preemption, got rid of permit for vehicle carry. But this bill would NOT have passed the Senate had all of those things remained. It would not have passed a majority vote if a few things wasn't changed, many senators said they would support if the sponsors worked with the ASA and ABC to "give in" a bit. Is it what we want? No, but it's 100% impossible at this point to get everything we want passed. I watched every bit of the Senate deliberation on this bill via live stream and it was met with quite a bit of backlash. It's not like this is the only bill we can ever introduce, if this one passes, next year we will start working on another one to try and right some of the wrongs that still exist. The most important part for me right now is getting the language regarding OC cleared up and getting a shall issue permit system. I'm not too worried about the vehicle carry at this point because frankly I'll have a CC permit regardless until the point in time we can push for constitutional carry, which isn't very close. With the heavy anti-gun climate this country is currently facing it's useless to possess an all or nothing attitude because you will most definitely get nothing.
    And this is the point that I come down on: OC and shall issue.

    The lifetime and free vehicle permit was and is an obvious sop to the anti-gun and pro-gun/people control sheriff's association. It sounds good in theory but I don't think they've thought it through: It's free i.e. they will not get any $$$ from it like the pistol permit process and therefore will be nothing more than a drag on budget and people resources. My bet is that this time next year they'll be glad to get rid of it.

    With all respect to Eye and his non-all or nothing objections (despite what some have said here) I say let's take what we can get this time and start working next year's bill as soon as this one is passed.

    Ethical self-disclosure required: It forking pisses me off that Blake Dorning (Madison County Sheriff) deliberately takes +6 weeks to issue a permit for new timers. This is inexcusable. For entirely emotional reasons, I want to take this shall issue/30 day response time bill and shove it down his throat! Ok, now that I have that out of my system, let's return to the debate.....
    Last edited by FTG-05; 04-08-2013 at 06:39 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    7

    NRA position on Alabama Senate bill as passed

    This is an upbeat article, that essentially says everything is wonderful, we're winning now break huddle and go get 'em!

    Take a look:

    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...=&st=10465&ps=

    What do you think?

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

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

    The NRA's judgment is suspect. For years I pointed out flaws regarding how they presented OC in Alabama. They didn't care. I ditched my membership. I don't know what the NRA is after, but it ain't what I'd call the RKBA.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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