Transport in vehicles / on property not your own

imported post



[align=left]§ 13A-11-73. License to carry pistol in vehicle or concealed on person --Required. No person shall carry a pistol in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person, except on his land, in his own abode or fixed place of business, without a license therefor as hereinafter provided.[/align]

[align=left]§ 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.[/align]

[align=left]Between these two statutes, unless you're own your own property or just walk / ride a bike everywhere,is it really legal to OC without a permit in Alabama on a regular basis? Specifically, how can you get to your destination without violating § 13A-11-73? Also, I've read that some court cases said § 13A-11-52 doesn't apply if you've got a permit (or something to that effect), but what about unpermitted OC? Thanks![/align]

imported post

Specifically, how can you get to your destination without violating § 13A-11-73?

Click to expand...

Section 13A-11-74
License to carry pistol in vehicle or concealed on person - Exceptions.

The provisions of Section 13A-11-73 shall not apply to marshals, sheriffs, prison and jail wardens and their regularly employed deputies, policemen and other law enforcement officers of any state or political subdivision thereof, or to the members of the army, navy or marine corps of the United States or of the national guard, or to the members of the national guard organized reserves or state guard organizations when on duty or going to or from duty, or to the regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or from this state; provided, that such members are at or are going to or from their places of assembly or target practices, or to officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a pistol, or to any person engaged in manufacturing, repairing or dealing in pistols, or the agent or representative of such person possessing, using, or carrying a pistol in the usual or ordinary course of such business, or to any common carrier, except taxicabs, licensed as a common carrier, or to any person permitted by law to possess a pistol while carrying it unloaded in a secure wrapper, from the place of purchase to his home or place of business, or to or from a place of repair or in moving from one place of abode or business to another.

what about unpermitted OC?

Click to expand...

The State v. Reid, Supreme Court of Alabama, 1 Ala. 612; 1840 Ala.
[align=left][font="Georgia, serif"] 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.[/font][/align][align=left]
[font="Georgia, serif"][/font][/align][align=left] [/align][align=left] [font="Georgia, serif"]KJ v. State, 690 So.2d 541 (Ala.Cr.App., 1997)[/font][/align] [align=left] [font="Georgia, serif"]... there is a conflict between the two statues. Section 13A-11-52, like § 13A-11-50, does not permit the carrying of a pistol outside of a person's own premises under any circumstances. However, that section does begin with the phrase 'except as otherwise provided in this article.'[/font][/align] [font="Georgia, serif"]§ 13A-11-73 does not prohibit carrying an unlicensed pistol if the pistol is unconcealed and the person is on foot ...[/font]

[font="Georgia, serif"]13A-11-52 applies only the extent that it is consistent with § 13A-11-73 because it is 'the later statue and a complete revision of the subject matter.'[/font]


[align=left] [font="Georgia, serif"]Morris v. State, 342 So.2d 417 (1977)[/font][/align] [align=left] [font="Georgia, serif"]However, the State failed to prove that the arrest was lawful. In fact it was not lawfully authorized because the defendant, was not carrying a concealed pistol. The State's evidence (Tr. p. 7) shows that the pistol was in a scabbard or holster, worn on the side and was not covered.[/font][/align] [font="Georgia, serif"]We call attention to Title 14, s 175, Recompiled Code 1958 [/font]
[font="Georgia, serif"][... author's note - the court cites the code section here, which has been re-codified as 13A-11-73, and is identical in wording ...][/font]
[align=left] [font="Georgia, serif"]It is to be observed that this law prohibits carrying a pistol (concealed or not) in any vehicle or 'concealed on or about his person, except... without license therefor . . ..' It does not prohibit an unconcealed pistol.[/font][/align][align=left]
[font="Georgia, serif"][/font][/align][align=left] [/align][align=left] [font="Georgia, serif"]Looney v. State, 41 Al. App. 582 (1962)[/font][/align] [font="Georgia, serif"]Code 1940, T. 14, § 175,
[/font]
[font="Georgia, serif"][author's note – again, is now codified in 13A-11-73]
[/font]
[font="Georgia, serif"]as amended, makes it an offense for a person who has no license therefor (except on his land, abode or place of business):[/font]
[font="Georgia, serif"]1) to carry a pistol in any vehicle; or[/font]
[font="Georgia, serif"]2) to carry a pistol concealed on or about his person.[/font]
[align=left] [font="Georgia, serif"]Thus, a permit is not required when a person afoot carries an unconcealed pistol.[/font][/align]



Welcome aboard astro_wanabe....hope the above helps...may I suggest that you visit/join http://forum.alabamagunrights.org/index.php ?

imported post

So under Section 13A-11-74you can transport a firearm in a vehicle if you are otherwise allowed to posses it (not a felon, etc.) and it is"unloaded in a secure wrapper," right? Like in a lockbox in your trunk?

And is § 13A-11-52 either a feel good law saying that felons, minors, etc. can't carry on your property (since they can't carry at all, and thus are not "provided" for due to § 13A-11-72 or § 13A-11-76) or is a reaffirmation or your ability to kick me off of your private property, due to § 13A-11-73 being a "complete revision of the subject matter"?

It's hard to believe how much gray / conflicting / confusing area the AL firearm laws have, considering at first glance they look 100% straight-forward.:banghead:

Although after seeing some others' posts regarding LEO's in AL, maybe I'll just try to talk the Madison county sheriff into allowing me to get a permit at 18 (19 by the time it actually got issued). The lady at the desk said the minimum age was 21 here, but failing to see a county ordinance stating such from before the state preemption (please correct me ifanyoneknows of one), maybe they would be flexible after actually meeting me.

Thanks for the info !

imported post

Hold the presses...(servers?)!!

Did I just read that right?? A State Supreme Courtopinion that only OC is efficient for self defense?? You can be CERTAIN I'll be using THAT opinon many times in the future and carrying it with me on the old PocketPC!



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.”

imported post

astro_wanabe wrote:

So under Section 13A-11-74you can transport a firearm in a vehicle if you are otherwise allowed to posses it (not a felon, etc.) and it is"unloaded in a secure wrapper," right? Like in a lockbox in your trunk?
Yes..that is correct

And is § 13A-11-52 either a feel good law saying that felons, minors, etc. can't carry on your property (since they can't carry at all, and thus are not "provided" for due to § 13A-11-72 or § 13A-11-76) or is a reaffirmation or your ability to kick me off of your private property, due to § 13A-11-73 being a "complete revision of the subject matter"?
Not sure what the deal is with sec 52...the phrase "concealed about his person" was in there at one time...not sure why that was changed.

As for the clerk...ask them what Code section states that you must be 21 to have a Pistol License...if your told "it's just policy" etc...point out the fact preemption allows ONLY the state legislature to regulate handguns etc.

Click to expand...

Section 13A-11-76 Delivery to minors, habitual drunkards, etc.

No person shall deliver a pistol to any person under the age of 18 or to one who he has reasonable cause to believe has been convicted of a crime of violence or is a drug addict, an habitual drunkard or of unsound mind.



Section 11-45-1.1 Subject matter of handguns reserved to State Legislature; power of municipality to adopt certain ordinances; concurrent jurisdiction of municipal courts with district courts.

No incorporated municipality shall have the power to enact any ordinance, rule, or regulation which shall tax, restrict, prevent, or in any way affect the possession or ownership of handguns by the citizens of this state. The entire subject matter of handguns is reserved to the State Legislature. This section shall not be construed to limit or restrict the power of a municipality to adopt ordinances which make the violation of a state handgun law a violation of a municipal ordinance to the same extent as other state law violations, or to limit or restrict the power of a municipal court to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the district court over violations of state handgun laws which may be prosecuted as breaches of a municipal ordinance.



Section 11-80-11 Regulation of gun shows, etc.; authority to bring or settle certain lawsuits reserved to Attorney General.

(a) No county or municipal corporation, instrumentality, or political subdivision thereof, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows, the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, registration or use of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, firearms dealers, or dealers in firearm components.....

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Hold the presses...(servers?)!!

Did I just read that right?? A State Supreme Courtopinion that only OC is efficient for self defense?? You can be CERTAIN I'll be using THAT opinon many times in the future and carrying it with me on the old PocketPC!



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.”

Click to expand...

Nice one eh BobCav?....even though it is an 1840 case, we haven't found anything reversing the opinion....we're not lawyers though

imported post

Of course, regardless of what the law is, the sheriff still has much power over who to issue a permit too. If he doesn't issue you one you then have to take it to court, which if it's the 18-21 issue it could very well take longer than waiting until you are 21.

imported post

Thanks for the info and cases! BTW, I think I once saw something that specifically stated the types of thingson which a sheriff could decide if a person was "suitable" or not. Does anyone know what I'm talking about / where to find it, or is this just one of those things you *think* you saw at 4 AM?

imported post

astro_wanabe wrote:

Does anyone know what I'm talking about / where to find it, or is this just one of those things you *think* you saw at 4 AM?

Click to expand...

From AGO 91-00227.....

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Of course, regardless of what the law is, the sheriff still has much power over who to issue a permit too. If he doesn't issue you one you then have to take it to court, which if it's the 18-21 issue it could very well take longer than waiting until you are 21.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what the law is?...the law is what determines what a sheriff's power is....in any matter.
I've seen two 18 year olds get their PL, after first being denied, without going to court...one was my daughter.
In most cases, it seems to be a matter of misinformation and/or misunderstanding of the law...once the facts are presented, they may well issue without any further problem. It is, however, up to you to determine how far you're willing to go to make those facts available.
A friend of our family, a probate judge, called on my daughters behalf... and, IIRC, it was a lawyer that called in the other instance....again, a friend of that family.

imported post

WRT State v. Reid,found the entire text of the ruling. Mind you, it's an 1840 ruling, but it still stands and is FASCINATING reading. There was a HUGE movement back then when America was free "to suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," [Acts of 1838-9] and were wholly supportive of Open Carry as it was recognized for what it is...an extremely effective deterrent to crime. As such, many were being prosecuted for carrying concealed and this text speaks to the legality of BOTH methods and is quite informative.

Here's the link to the full text:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/state_v_reid.txt

I love this part regarding the RKBA:

Let history speak for itself!

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Of course, regardless of what the law is, the sheriff still has much power over who to issue a permit too. If he doesn't issue you one you then have to take it to court, which if it's the 18-21 issue it could very well take longer than waiting until you are 21.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what the law is?...the law is what determines what a sheriff's power is....in any matter.
I've seen two 18 year olds get their PL, after first being denied, without going to court...one was my daughter.
In most cases, it seems to be a matter of misinformation and/or misunderstanding of the law...once the facts are presented, they may well issue without any further problem. It is, however, up to you to determine how far you're willing to go to make those facts available.
A friend of our family, a probate judge, called on my daughters behalf... and, IIRC, it was a lawyer that called in the other instance....again, a friend of that family.

Click to expand...

I wish I knew some lawyers. Of the 20 or so I called, only 2 would even speak to me and I was only able to meet one... in two counties away.

imported post

A Small loophole that might work, you don't ride "in" a motorcycle, you drive "on" one.
But, oh the pain if you lay it down on your gun side.....
Robert

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

A Small loophole that might work, you don't ride "in" a motorcycle, you drive "on" one.
But, oh the pain if you lay it down on your gun side.....
Robert

Click to expand...

That dog won't hunt....a bicycle is even considered a vehicle here.....ie, anything that is not considered "on foot" is considered a vehicle

imported post

Yes, it is a vehicle, I fought University of Al on that, parking permit for motorcycle, the car a second vehicle was cheaper than a car by itself.
But you would be hard pressed to find anyone, let alone 12 people that could
find a way to be inside a motorcycle, or bike. A head on with a train probably
wouldn't even get you in one. The law as posted here requires you to have it
'IN' the vehicle. On your hip, while on a bike is clearly not IN it.
Robert
Alas it does require a grasp of language by the LEO, and this is a bad state for that.
I remember explaining the seat belt secondary offence law to one, and had
to go to court so the judge could explain it to him.

imported post

You very well could get away with the 'in' the vehicle. It's been done in other states with similar laws. Most likely the legislature wouldn't bother rewriting the code.

@Comp-Tech. I wasn't saying that the law allows the sheriff to make any choice he wants. I am saying if he doesn't follow the law it's going to cost you alot of money (unless you have family friends that are a judge/attorney). I was able to get a permit by just asking, and there was no other feasible way. Even if I felt like spending a ton of cash, it would take longer to run the case through the courts than to just wait until I was 21.

IIRC a bike is only considered a vehicle under the vehicle law section, but not under other sections...

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

Yes, it is a vehicle, I fought University of Al on that, parking permit for motorcycle, the car a second vehicle was cheaper than a car by itself.
But you would be hard pressed to find anyone, let alone 12 people that could
find a way to be inside a motorcycle, or bike. A head on with a train probably
wouldn't even get you in one. The law as posted here requires you to have it
'IN' the vehicle. On your hip, while on a bike is clearly not IN it.
Robert
Alas it does require a grasp of language by the LEO, and this is a bad state for that.
I remember explaining the seat belt secondary offence law to one, and had
to go to court so the judge could explain it to him.

Click to expand...

I agree but, problem is, you won't have a jury trial on a misdemeanor....it would be a local judge who "makes the call" on what the law says/means.

A judge would likely interpret the law to include "ON" as well as "IN" as following the spirit of the law, IMHO
For example, how much sense would the law make if it stated "ON" a vehicle to the average citizen? I would tend to think that when the law was written (in the 30's IIRC), motorcycles weren't nearly as common as they are today.