Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Court Opinion life span

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    I've found something from a 1840 ALSUPCO case that I consider good information for Alabama folks who would like to OC.....my question is, is this information still "valid" being from so long ago?


    THE STATE v. REID, SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, 1 Ala. 612; 1840 Ala.
    But the court say that it is a matter which will not admit of legislative regulation, and in order to test the correctness of its opinion, supposes one Legislature to prohibit the bearing arms secretly, and a subsequent Legislature to enact a law against bearing them openly; and then asks the question, whether the first, or last enactment would be unconstitutional. Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defense.


  2. #2
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech wrote:
    I've found something from a 1840 ALSUPCO case that I consider good information for Alabama folks who would like to OC.....my question is, is this information still "valid" being from so long ago?





    THE STATE v. REID, SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, 1 Ala. 612; 1840 Ala.
    But the court say that it is a matter which will not admit of legislative regulation, and in order to test the correctness of its opinion, supposes one Legislature to prohibit the bearing arms secretly, and a subsequent Legislature to enact a law against bearing them openly; and then asks the question, whether the first, or last enactment would be unconstitutional. Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defense.





    No.Gun rights only operate on a 70 year "Miller" test time frame. Constitutional rights are void were prohibited by law. Nice opinion though.

    Seriously, it is valid precedent, unless superseded by a more recent contrary opinion by the same court or a constitutional amendment revision or repeal.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Comp-tech wrote:
    I've found something from a 1840 ALSUPCO case that I consider good information for Alabama folks who would like to OC.....my question is, is this information still "valid" being from so long ago?

    No.Gun rights only operate on a 70 year "Miller" test time frame. Constitutional rights are void were prohibited by law. Nice opinion though.

    Seriously, it is valid precedent, unless superseded by a more recent contrary opinion by the same court or a constitutional amendment revision or repeal.
    If you're saying what I think you're saying, this is good yes?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    "Constitutional rights are void were prohibited by law."

    I almost just fell out of my chair laughing. Probably the funniest thing I've heard all week.

    AFAIK, no other ALSUPCO decision has reversed this. (Some lower courts perhaps came to different ruling, I don't quite remember. There are alot of cases :/) If so, than this is the answer. Since it bases it's decision completely on the constitution, and not on a specific state code, than it should still be binding. Section 26 (the RKABA part) of the Alabama constitution hasn't changed at all if I remember correctly....

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    "Constitutional rights are void were prohibited by law."

    I almost just fell out of my chair laughing. Probably the funniest thing I've heard all week.

    AFAIK, no other ALSUPCO decision has reversed this. (Some lower courts perhaps came to different ruling, I don't quite remember. There are alot of cases :/) If so, than this is the answer. Since it bases it's decision completely on the constitution, and not on a specific state code, than it should still be binding. Section 26 (the RKABA part) of the Alabama constitution hasn't changed at all if I remember correctly....
    I thought lower courts had to follow precidents set by higher courts.....does this "just go to show what i have to think with"?

Posting Permissions

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