Any explaination for the first "rule" on back of CCL?

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

The sheriff does have discretion, but according to case law he must have a valid reason that someone shouldn't be allowed to possess a pistol. Key word here is possess, not carry. So if the Sheriff has a valid reason that Detour shouldn't possess a pistol than why does he say it's okay to carry it unconcealed?

I'm not going to cite any references here as it's been covered a bajillion times. Just search the forums.

Click to expand...

Kurtmax_O ....You are right by them just taking my permit only keeps me from ccw not ocw. They take the ccw to keep me from ocw unless im on foot walking everywhere ..Its just there way to get me to comply with what they want me and all of us to do.

Nothing I have done has anything to do with my ccw permit so why take it from me. And if they say OCW is illegal then why not arrest me. But you have to have that permit to get into a vehicle. Thats where they get you

I wounder if I got a rifle or shotgun with a sling and wore it around everywhere if that would alarm anyone. I sure wouldnt need a permit for those in my vehicle.

Thats why it just dont make any sence and that the reason for not needing a permit for rifles and shot guns they are hard to hide.... you cant put them in your pocket or under your shirt they areviewable thus no permit is needed but since a pistol is smaller and one can be hidden you need a permit unless you carry it in the open where it can be seen. This is so simple to see that its so hard to understand.

Thinkabout it guys what do pistols, rifles and shotguns have in common, answer they are all weapons, fire arms, they all shoot rounds, why have a permit for one and not the others makes no sence to me.

Only a non violant , lawfull personcanhave a permit.A crook will hide his weapon and and never have a permitno law or permit will change that. A criminal will not Ocw for fear of getting caught and going to jail.You can have a million laws, regulations and permits but do you think for one second a criminal will care NOOOOOOOOOT.. If that was the case and the laws and regulations worked for the lawfull person then we wouldnt need cops.. So why make it harder on the honest lawfull person. Criminals have weapons, hide them , rob, shoot and steal , and kill and has more rights than the man being lawful who has to pay for a permit just to carry concealed and get harrast for ocw and then have to come up with money for attorneys to fight for him when the law has worked against him but the criminal get appointed lawers, 3 meals aday, medical, and etc, etc, and who pays for that yep the honest lawful man....

I think the permit thing is all about money anyway they cant make anything if you ocw only if you hide it can they play with the laws, charge fees,or make the laws up for ccw as the second amendment wont let them change the part of right to keep and bear arms. So what do they do ahhhhh lets have a ccw law and permit and charge a fee since we cant infringeon the God givenright to keep and bear armsdue to the 2nd amendment ofconstitutionwe can regulate concealment without infringing on a persons right to keep and bear arms cause the constitution says nothing about the right to keep and conceal arms lol...

Sorry kurtmax_o I am just venting and I am very sorry for the long winded reply lol but some of the commnets I have seen others make (NOT YOU). Really fires me up lol and I will be asking my Attorney Mr.Hooper Monday about posting my whole story somewhere in here so everyone who ask or is new or who only knows some of whats going on can read it and then see that what was done to me and others like is wrong and has to be stopped and fought in court or we might as well just act like the 2nd amendment and the constitution dont exsist.Its just getting old repeated everything over and over and over and I know Ive had to repeat some of my stuff alot and im sorry for that but what do you do lol... ( post the story and have others to look at it) lol

imported post

Detour,

It appears that you totally misunderstood what I was saying. I think your sheriff
is wrong, but you are already seeing that the the law as it is currently written
makes it hard to fight a sheriff that uses his broad discretion to take away
your permit. The AG opinion supporting broad discretion is not binding, but
it is very persuasive according to court opinions that have been written in
other situations. Our interpretation doesn't matter much to them.

Your sheriff likes it that way. That's why I suggested getting a new sheriff with a better attitude as a possible solution. Changing the law would be even better.

I also pointed out that you are afforded more protection by the Constitution
of Alabama than by the US Constitution because it protects your "possessions"
from seizure. Your rights were flagrantly violated, and it should be no surprise
that your property was returned to you. That's the point I was trying to make.
It certainly would not have been returned if there was the same broad discretion
allowed as your sheriff seems to have in deciding to keep your pistol license.
I'm sure your attorney will not allow it to be taken so lightly that the officer that
took your weapon flagrantly violated your constitutional rights.

I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I wish you well.

imported post

ol_49er wrote:

Detour,

It appears that you totally misunderstood what I was saying. I think your sheriff
is wrong, but you are already seeing that the the law as it is currently written
makes it hard to fight a sheriff that uses his broad discretion to take away
your permit. The AG opinion supporting broad discretion is not binding, but
it is very persuasive according to court opinions that have been written in
other situations. Our interpretation doesn't matter much to them.

Your sheriff likes it that way. That's why I suggested getting a new sheriff with a better attitude as a possible solution. Changing the law would be even better.

I also pointed out that you are afforded more protection by the Constitution
of Alabama than by the US Constitution because it protects your "possessions"
from seizure. Your rights were flagrantly violated, and it should be no surprise
that your property was returned to you. That's the point I was trying to make.
It certainly would not have been returned if there was the same broad discretion
allowed as your sheriff seems to have in deciding to keep your pistol license.
I'm sure your attorney will not allow it to be taken so lightly that the officer that
took your weapon flagrantly violated your constitutional rights.

I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I wish you well.

Click to expand...

You are right I did misunderstand you and I am very sorry for that.

However that AGs opinion you posted was on if the sheriff could use the persons youthful offender statusto base his decisionon whether to grant or deny a pistol permit. The answer was the sheriffmay not deny a pistol permit based solely on the fact that the person was granted youthful offender status, he may not base his decision on any information concerning the completion of any court-imposed requirements under that statute.

That there to me sounds like hedoes nothave full discretion and he would be violating 15-19-7 if his decision was based on that at all...

Which takes me back to my case or complaint I was issued a permit when I applied and re issued again to only have it pulled again for the very same thing it was pulled for the first time and thats becauseI was OCWing. The LEO took my weapon and my permit for that reason and that reason only and even stated so. I was not arrested and I have the same record as whenI applied the first time. I have broken no laws and have a clean record and no violance in my whole life. He cant just revoke a permit just because he wants to or cause he dont like it because I ocw. 13A-11-75 statesHe has to have proof that im not a proper person. So Im asking wheres the proof. (Is it becauseI didnt want a baked potato).... lol

And yes you are very much right in the fact that the sheriff has wide discretion but he has limits and laws he has to follow as well and its up to citizens and the public to hold him accountableand as you stated voting is one way to do that but also holding them accountable for there actions and not balking or taking everything they say to be law they make mistakes to. theres no telling what the LEO told his chief and what the chief told the sheriff butI can tell you this if he told them really happen thenI would have my permit now.

Againg im sorry for misundersand you or if I sounded out of line....I meant no harm and as you can see this is whereI vent my frustrations lol...and I do see your point and what you were saying about the constitution. And thats why the attorney is sayingI was my rights were violated 15-5-31 is prettyclear. LOLthe attorney says he pretty much stole my weapon and kept it 3 days.

Thanks for the reply and for letting me vent lol

imported post

Nowhere have I been able to find that the Sheriff can revoke a permit for any reason. There have to be specific facts involved in each case that causes the Sheriff to believe a person should not own or possess a pistol.

For Detour, the Sheriff has said to carry a pistol.. but just not in a car or concealed.

Hess vs Butler

[...]we are unable to say that the respondent abused his discretion or that the refusal to grant petitioner a license to carry a pistol was arbitrary or capricious in light of the undisputed evidence that the petitioner has been repeatedly convicted of violating the criminal laws of this state.

Click to expand...

-

While the negative of this isn't established precedent (that is, it is arbitrary and capricious in the absence of any convictions), it's a pretty good chance it is.

In fact I can't find any cases where a permits was denied that didn't involve an actual crime committed.

In addition, a Sheriff must have specific facts in each case. Not just a whim:

AGO 91-227

The question of whether a person is a suitable person to be licensed to carry a pistol is a factual determination to be made considering the facts in each case

Click to expand...

It's also pretty obvious that a Sheriff cannot refuse to issue permits at all.

AGO 00-163

The Legislature intended that the sheriffs of the counties issue pistol permits in appropriate cases.

Click to expand...

In addition, the sheriff may refuse to issue a permit for two reasons:

- a person is not qualified to carry a pistol
- the sheriff may use his sound judgment to refuse to issue [...] if there are circumstances causing the sheriff to believe reasonably that the person should not possess or own a pistol.

In the first case, qualified in a legal sense means a specific set of conditions that must be met. For example, XYZ certification or training, criminal records, etc. If the sheriff is issuing permits to other people that have the same qualifications as Detour, than this does not apply to Detour.

In the second case it explicitly states reason to believe the person should not posses or own a pistol.... not carry. If the sheriff believed he should not possess or own a pistol, he would not have returned the pistol to him and had his deputies make it clear that he can carry the pistol unconcealed, but not in his vehicle.

Additionally, if the Sheriff were to find 'facts' in this case (which would be necessary if taken to court), I'm not sure if the reason for revoking the permit was OC it would fly. OC is constitutionally protected of course, and the Supreme Court of Alabama actually considers it to be a defensive method of carry.. as opposed to CC.

This whole thing stinks of official 'bullying' and trying to prevent a legal act through abuse of power.

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Nowhere have I been able to find that the Sheriff can revoke a permit for any reason. There have to be specific facts involved in each case that causes the Sheriff to believe a person should not own or possess a pistol.

For Detour, the Sheriff has said to carry a pistol.. but just not in a car or concealed.

Hess vs Butler

[...]we are unable to say that the respondent abused his discretion or that the refusal to grant petitioner a license to carry a pistol was arbitrary or capricious in light of the undisputed evidence that the petitioner has been repeatedly convicted of violating the criminal laws of this state.

Click to expand...

-

While the negative of this isn't established precedent (that is, it is arbitrary and capricious in the absence of any convictions), it's a pretty good chance it is.

In fact I can't find any cases where a permits was denied that didn't involve an actual crime committed.

In addition, a Sheriff must have specific facts in each case. Not just a whim:

AGO 91-227

The question of whether a person is a suitable person to be licensed to carry a pistol is a factual determination to be made considering the facts in each case

Click to expand...

It's also pretty obvious that a Sheriff cannot refuse to issue permits at all.

AGO 00-163

The Legislature intended that the sheriffs of the counties issue pistol permits in appropriate cases.

Click to expand...

In addition, the sheriff may refuse to issue a permit for two reasons:

- a person is not qualified to carry a pistol
- the sheriff may use his sound judgment to refuse to issue [...] if there are circumstances causing the sheriff to believe reasonably that the person should not possess or own a pistol.

In the first case, qualified in a legal sense means a specific set of conditions that must be met. For example, XYZ certification or training, criminal records, etc. If the sheriff is issuing permits to other people that have the same qualifications as Detour, than this does not apply to Detour.

In the second case it explicitly states reason to believe the person should not posses or own a pistol.... not carry. If the sheriff believed he should not possess or own a pistol, he would not have returned the pistol to him and had his deputies make it clear that he can carry the pistol unconcealed, but not in his vehicle.

Additionally, if the Sheriff were to find 'facts' in this case (which would be necessary if taken to court), I'm not sure if the reason for revoking the permit was OC it would fly. OC is constitutionally protected of course, and the Supreme Court of Alabama actually considers it to be a defensive method of carry.. as opposed to CC.

This whole thing stinks of official 'bullying' and trying to prevent a legal act through abuse of power.

Click to expand...

I could nothave said that any better......You are right it is bullying....They did a back ground check and what ever else is involved when they gave me a permit the first time and im sure another before they gave it back.. the second time when they got my weapon and permit and I was told 3 days later I could come get my weapon that as soon as they did a back ground checkto make sureI was able to have a weapon they would release it and they did that I was clean and got it back.

So I know of 2 if not 3 times they run checks on me and I am pretty sure before they gave me my weapon back they were looking for any reason not to...

But guys this case is to simple the fact are what they are and all that happen that night was just a LEO saying OCW was illegal and I had no reason to have it taken from me either time my weapon or permit. Just there shift in there story of its illegal to well if it is legal you are alarming the public but yet they have no records of phone calls from anyone in the public for a man with a gun as I sure would have been the first to know as evey LEO in radio distance would have been on me like they did to Mr.Mathis at the walmart Plus i wasnt ever arrested.

So what other reason would they say they are not giving me my permit back and why would the city that took my weapon and permit give my permit to the sheriff the night they took it all and 3 days later return my weapon and tell me I would have to get my permit back from the sheriff. No law was broken and I think the city if they had my weapon they should have kept my permit unless they were going to have arrested me or at least waited to see what the DA said about the law. It just dont make any since other then They just dont want people here in this county to OCW they said that over and over and even said if it is legal it shouldnt be...I mean here you have LEO that should know the law and enforce it but yet dont even know what the law and are trying to enforce something thats not law...

imported post

I'm not aware of a crime 'alarming the public' existing in Alabama.

There is disorderly conduct. The only thing that could apply in this case is 13A-11-7(a)(1):

Engages in fighting or in violent tumultuous or threatening behavior

Click to expand...

This is the closest you are going to get to a law 'prohibiting' OC. The problem is this statue is referring to 'fighty or fisticuffs' type behavior, not wearing weapons.

In addition you have to meet either of these conditions:

- intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm
- recklessly creating a risk thereof

The first one requires the establishment of intent. In Detour's case this would be pretty hard. I'm sure the reasons are evident.

Recklessly creating a risk would be the only one applicable, except that in the absence of any law prohibiting OC, and the presence of court cases supporting OC, it's hardly a reckless creation of risk.

I actually like Alabama's disorderly conduct statue as it's one of the most narrowly defined I've ever seen. Most states it's a 'catch-all' statute that can pretty much get slapped on anyone for doing anything.

imported post

I strongly suggest that the OP immediately cease all conversation here, contact an attorney and take such action as required to get his permit back. File suit to properly educate this sheriff and other LEs across the state that this type of action will not be tolerated.

This is a mirror image of the Melenie Haun debacle on the Pa. forum. She won the first step and is now well into stage 2.

It is unfortunate that this type of action is sometimes necessary to cause LE agencies and even individual officers to obey both the spirit and intent of the law. Neither personal opinions nor prejudices have any place in the fair enforcement of the law.

Do it for yourself and the rest of us. Maybe you will get a new motorcycle out of it.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

I strongly suggest that the OP immediately cease all conversation here, contact an attorney and take such action as required to get his permit back. File suit to properly educate this sheriff and other LEs across the state that this type of action will not be tolerated.

This is a mirror image of the Melenie Haun debacle on the Pa. forum. She won the first step and is now well into stage 2.

It is unfortunate that this type of action is sometimes necessary to cause LE agencies and even individual officers to obey both the spirit and intent of the law. Neither personal opinions nor prejudices have any place in the fair enforcement of the law.

Do it for yourself and the rest of us. Maybe you will get a new motorcycle out of it.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

An attorney has been hired and papers are being filed very soon in the nothern districtcourt of alabama. We dont want this filed local and only want a judge to hear the case no jury or what every.. A federal judge willwe hope go by the law and have no ties or bias to this case or people in it...

And as far as the posting of this story its no secret a complaint has ben filed against the LEO so its on record and we are jsut talking facts and opinions here

Or atleast the parts of my story are facts as they happend and reported..I have nothing to fear and the truth is the truth and facts are facts and as long as you tell both the justice system will work. its just sad that its takeing money to fight a legal law and wrong doing but nothing worth having comes free and and is worth fighting for as long as youare right

Always tell the truth and be honest and when its all out on the table a judge will see the wrong doing and so will alot more people

imported post

Keep us posted as you can & good luck.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Keep us posted as you can & good luck.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Thats a big 10-4 ....will do