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

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I see a contradiction in your line of thinking: If it took a bill to enable you to carry a gun, that bill would already be the government's permission for you to carry a gun. But if you believe that carrying a gun is your innate right as a U.S. citizen, then you should not even wait for that bill and carry your gun without any permission--and face the consequences. If we all did it, there wouldn't be enough jail space for all of us. But expecting that many of us would take that chance is nothing but a pipe dream. As I said, reality almost always trumps idealism.

You see a contradiction in what you think my line of reasoning is.

Reread my post. You will notice that I am only asking for repeals of and removals of words from laws that infringe, making things the way they ought to be to be in accord with the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that acknowledged that OC is the Right.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

You see a contradiction in what you think my line of reasoning is.

Reread my post. You will notice that I am only asking for repeals of and removals of words from laws that infringe, making things the way they ought to be to be in accord with the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that acknowledged that OC is the Right.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

OK, but you are still asking for governmental intervention and permission (the removal of words from laws, which can only be effected through the legislative process) to be free to exercise a right which, you stated, has already been recognized by the Alabama Supreme Court and, therefore, should need no amendments to the law or governmental permission to be exercised freely and without any interference. If you believe that it is your right to OC, then do it without waiting for permission. I'm sure that in court you'll be able to invoke the Alabama Supreme Court ruling to be acquitted. You may even obtain that the A.S.C. strike down the parts of the laws that infringe the RKBA and do us all a favor.
But enough of this back and forth--I'm afraid we are beginning to resemble the Alabama legislature... :lol::lol::lol:

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Eye, What you suggest here is exactly what was tried. It passed the Senate relatively unscathed. When the bill moved t the House, it was seized by the sheriffs association, apparently with help from members of a group formed out of the splintering of what you'd remember as ALOC.com. I hove lots of ideas and opinions about how all this transpired, but at the bottom of it, while different individuals were staking out various ideological territories on how the OC movement should move forward, work with/ignore LE, what should or should not be legal, illegal etc, etc, etc... foes of OC quietly lined up and situated themselves n positions of political alliance which enabled the sheriffs to poison the bill at the same time ensuring it's passage.

No. What was tried was a lot more complicated--and drew fire for also including the "may issue" language.

Like I said, a simple bill, containing only those two provisions would probably pass easily, as the sheriffs would not feel challenged by it.

This is just advice from an expatriate, but forget the omnibus bills. Fix problems one or two at a time. I recommend starting with the infringements that require paper to carry or that can be misinterpreted as barring OC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

No. What was tried was a lot more complicated--and drew fire for also including the "may issue" language.

Like I said, a simple bill, containing only those two provisions would probably pass easily, as the sheriffs would not feel challenged by it.

This is just advice from an expatriate, but forget the omnibus bills. Fix problems one or two at a time. I recommend starting with the infringements that require paper to carry or that can be misinterpreted as barring OC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

You can thank the NRA for cramming a pet bill of theirs into the bill that was designed to do just that.

The NRA "parking lot at work" bill that failed to pass in Alabama last year added six pages of language to the bill this year that would have repealed -52 entirely and provided for an optional free lifetime permit to carry in a vehicle. (The free optional permit for vehicle carry would have allowed Alabama residents to travel out of state with their pistols where reciprocal agreements are in place. No permit at all would have caused problems in that area.)

The NRA "parking lot" provisions caused the Business Council of Alabama to get involved in opposition to the bill. The BCA is still opposed to the bill after the bill was murdered but kept the "parking lot" provisions at the insistence of the NRA.

Without the NRA insisting on the "parking lot" provisions, we would only have been fighting the Alabama Sheriffs Association and their buddies.

Here's the NRA's map showing why they are willing to support the substitute bill with unconstitutional provisions in our law to just to make them look better on their map:

http://nraila.org/media/7700180/al-map2.jpg


While the parking lot bill does address legitimate concerns, -52 and -73 contain unconstitutional provisions that needed to be repealed. Those provisions were allowed to remain in the substitute version of SB286, and the NRA is in full support of that bill.

I will not support the NRA if it will not support our state's constitution.

So, author a tiny little bill, and give it to one or two of the sponsors of the mega-bill. See what they can do.

It shouldn't need to be but a paragraph or three long.

Excellent summary, 49er. Thanks for helping us understand what's going on behind the scenes.

Well, the House passed the final version of the bill. I understand that many Alabamans would have liked this law to be more Second Amendment-friendly, but it's still an improvement. Open carry is recognized as being legal, though it is idiotic not to allow it in vehicles if the gun is visible. We should stand united and try to change this nonsense in the next legislative session. We can do it, if we do not bicker amongst ourselves. It is true that the concealed carry went from may to "shay" issue, still giving the sheriffs too much latitude in denying permits (though it's much harder for them to do it arbitrarily and capriciously now), but it's still better than it was before. This, too, should be changed in the future. Once again, let's do it together, and let's stop the mud slinging at the NRA. If you don't like some of the stances it has taken, join it, become active in the State Association, run for the Board of Directors, and try to influence the decision-making. But don't just stand on the sidelines booing, hissing and throwing empty beer bottles at the players--your team's players. It's a lot easier to change things from the inside than from the outside.

I used to belong to the NRA. I pointed out some fallacies they published about the law in Alabama. They wouldn't even look into it.

The hell with them.

Again, I will move heaven and earth to make unpapered carry a total reality. I don't give a rat's ass about papered carry and will only work to help a papered carry bill if it FIXES unpapered carry completely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I'm with ya Eye95. But I'm also a little :cuss: from :banghead:.

So Alabama moved in the the right direction? In other words, the Governor made Alabama better than it was yesterday? That's what it seems like to me.

Did I miss the bill being finalized and signed by the Governor?

Anyway, I don't see unpapered carry being better in Alabama after the bill than before. I see the need for paper having been strengthened. The Right was not advanced. The privilege was advanced, but the privilege is only what the State allows. What the State giveth, the State can taketh away.

So be happy in any "victory." Those who would control you now have more ways to control you.

The PKBATWAA: The Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms the Way Alabama Allows.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

Did I miss the bill being finalized and signed by the Governor?

Anyway, I don't see unpapered carry being better in Alabama after the bill than before. I see the need for paper having been strengthened. The Right was not advanced. The privilege was advanced, but the privilege is only what the State allows. What the State giveth, the State can taketh away.

So be happy in any "victory." Those who would control you now have more ways to control you.

The PKBATWAA: The Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms the Way Alabama Allows.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Well of course, the United States Government bombs brown people around the world constantly, they claim to own you and will tax you and come after you if you do not pay even if you move to the Czech Republic and never return.

The state is already exercises unlimited control whenever they decide to activate it. So don't kid yourself.

But I digress, we will never have paperless carry in the United States as "guaranteed" by the 2nd Amendment because it's a fantasy, no matter how much people claim it should be that way on the Internet, the facts speak for themselves.

This bill did advance one thing with paperless carry in AL,they added that disorderly conduct can no longer be slapped against people for OC'ing, so at least that should be a win in your book.

Your silly prefatory rant aside, there is paperless carry in some places in the US, so your "never" statement is just plain false. Based on your outlook displayed in your post, why bother to do anything?

On the DC thing: It is neither a win nor a loss. Under the law as it had been written, OC, in and of itself, already couldn't be DC. One could be arrested, even convicted at the lowest level, but it wouldn't stand up over time. Great, now they clarified the law, so the cops should know not to arrest you for DC. Ask Roy Call here in Ohio how the fact that they couldn't arrest him for DC (or their other favorite up here, inducing panic). They arrested him for obstruction.

The law should never have to say what a charge isn't, only what it is. To get them to put into black and white what the crime already wasn't is a shallow "victory."

Face it. You guys took your eye off the OC ball and passed a silly little CC bill. Congratulations.

eye95 said:

Face it. You guys took your eye off the OC ball and passed a silly little CC bill. Congratulations.

Click to expand...

No, the NRA did that when the caved to the ASA and revised the entire bill. Myself and most of BamaCarry was against the House version of the bill, the problem is that by that time some people were so invested they wouldn't admit that killing the bill was a possibility, they wanted something passed. They compromised on what the intent was for this bill and decided to just take what was given in order to say they finally got a gun bill through. I don't know anyone, personally, who is happy with this bill.

eye95 said:

Your silly prefatory rant aside, there is paperless carry in some places in the US, so your "never" statement is just plain false. Based on your outlook displayed in your post, why bother to do anything?

On the DC thing: It is neither a win nor a loss. Under the law as it had been written, OC, in and of itself, already couldn't be DC. One could be arrested, even convicted at the lowest level, but it wouldn't stand up over time. Great, now they clarified the law, so the cops should know not to arrest you for DC. Ask Roy Call here in Ohio how the fact that they couldn't arrest him for DC (or their other favorite up here, inducing panic). They arrested him for obstruction.

The law should never have to say what a charge isn't, only what it is. To get them to put into black and white what the crime already wasn't is a shallow "victory."

Face it. You guys took your eye off the OC ball and passed a silly little CC bill. Congratulations.

Click to expand...

I meant constitution carry nationwide. So the statement is true. My outlook is simply based in fact, the fact is that you need a drivers license and a social security card to do almost any commerce in the united states, so you are already "papered", the other fact is that most people don't care about a shall-issue license, it's a burden but given all the things the government already does as I explained in my last post, you're all bent out of shape over a license when your whole life is already licensed by the government in one way or another, and the fact of how the government claims to own you by taxing you worldwide and the fact that they can and do send drones around the world and kill people via executive fiat ( you know, that pesky jury trial amendment).

Besides, I thought this bill was a good step in the right direction, so that's my outlook, with your outlook, why bother to do anything?

I just don't understand the whole 2nd amendment purists on here. They seem to be ok with all the other infringements in their lives but when it comes to the 2A, they get their pants all in a twist. The government has passed more laws than you could read in FOUR LIFETIMES, they trample on all your constitutional rights, yet people like yourself are delusional to expect the government to recognize the 2A without any restrictions.

To think this really shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how governments work and a lack of awareness of all the restrictions on your freedom in the first place. The government controls almost all aspects of our lives in one way or another but somehow they are supposed to stay out 100% of 2A activities. I wish they would,but they won't.

This bill repealed a lot of protections in 11-80-11 and replaced them with weaker language.

This bill introduced gun-free zones, where before there were none.

This bill requires people obtain pistol permits where before none was required.

This bill introduces the sheriff's own arbitrary 30-day waiting period for a permit.

This bill introduces infringements on methods of carry, replacing "firearm" with "pistol" in many cases.

Jared said:

... To think this really shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how governments work and a lack of awareness of all the restrictions on your freedom in the first place. The government controls almost all aspects of our lives in one way or another but somehow they are supposed to stay out 100% of 2A activities. I wish they would,but they won't.

Click to expand...

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.

"... 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




Alabama's constitution is different from the constitutions of the states that border it. Language that would have authorized our legislature to define, regulate and license small arms was rejected during our constitutional convention.


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.



TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
§ 26. Weapons; right to bear arms
That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.



CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA
ARTICLE I.
BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION I.
RIGHTS OF PERSONS
Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.




THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
ARTICLE 3 BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 12. Right to bear arms.
The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.




Constitution of Florida,
Article Declaration of Rights
SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.–
(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.
History.–Am. C.S. for S.J.R. 43, 1989; adopt