Section 13A-11-52

imported post

Code of Alabama - Title 13A: Criminal Code - Section 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.


I did speak to 2 mobile city cops, one of which I'd venture to call a good friend, and both had the same answer, but my buddy actually looked up the laws on open carry. Basically, you can open carry on public property on foot, but you risk causing "disorderly conduct". This is very vague and one was quoted as stating "it means incites fear in the public". So, you're damned if you do and safe if you conceal.

If the above code can be removed or edited (specified that public disorderly conduct is not an acceptable means of "law breaking" in this situation), then open carry would be completely legal in AL.

Looks like we are screwed for open carry in AL for now.

imported post

There have been many discussions regarding -52. Yep, OC law would be a lot less ambiguous if we could convince a legislator to push getting it repealed.

imported post

First of all, your buddy is wrong. Disorderly conduct is not "inciting fear in the public." There are very specific conditions that need to be satisfied to commit disorderly conduct. I suggest you look up the law yourself.

Secondly, the law isn't ambiguous. Sec. 52 states 'except as otherwise provided.' Well, it has been otherwise provided, and been confirmed by court cases and a few AG ops.

Sec. 52 makes sense if you follow the history of firearms laws in AL.

All of this is moot anyways. The Alabama Supreme Court already tackled this issue in State v. Reid. Open carry is constitutionally protected by the Alabama constitution. In fact, CC is not. So even if there were statues prohibiting OC (which there are not), those statues applied to OC would be unconstitutional and invalid.

imported post

Also, the definition of "public property" includes the outer storefront. There was a case, I'll try to find it but Kurt will probably beat me to it, where the police caught some guys trying to break into a soda machine in front of a store. One of them tried to stash a gun behind the machine so he wouldn't be caught with it. Anyway, it was determined that area in front of the store's doors was public property. The private property begins at the door.

imported post

Ah... the .9 millimeter firearm

I haven't read it lately, but I don't remember it saying anything about public property and whatnot.

imported post

Interesting. I didn't read the entire law, but it seems to me that it only mentioned concealed and never open. Regardless, read the code I mentioned above. I understand the state constitution trumps all, but the criminal code is what cops have to go by. Sooner or later you're gonna get trouble open carrying like that. Be prepared to deal with it I suppose. I would love the freedom to be able to do it, but I doubt I'd ever do it in public. I prefer concealed.

imported post

Again. You need to read the code. I said that the constitution protects OC. The code does not prohibit it (and does not need to 'condone' it).

You cannot read 52 alone, but must read it in conjunction with the rest of the code. It cannot be taken out of context.

If you search the forums here you can find threads explaining in detail what everything means.

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Again. You need to read the code. I said that the constitution protects OC. The code does not prohibit it (and does not need to 'condone' it).

You cannot read 52 alone, but must read it in conjunction with the rest of the code. It cannot be taken out of context.

If you search the forums here you can find threads explaining in detail what everything means.

Click to expand...

Well it would be really nice to find the last state law referencing this topic. I have a mobile city cop sitting 5 feet from me for the remainder of the evening.

imported post

A quick summary from the Alabama AG:

http://www.ago.alabama.gov/oldopinions/8400205.pdf

I also have some relevant (and not-so-relevant) cases copied here:

http://kurtbogle.com/guns/Open Carry/

Here is a very old AG op I scanned in from the AU library:

http://kurtbogle.com/guns/qrep/

It's referenced in some of the cases, and is the best summary imo. While the code has changed slightly since the opinion, it hasn't changed enough to make the interpretation any different (basically, the only change since the opinion was the shifting of the location of the word 'concealed' to prevent carrying in a vehicle at all). That is, the opinion says you may carry an unconcealed handgun in a vehicle without a permit. This is no longer the case. Everything else is valid though.

S163 and 175 are virtually identical to the current 52 and 73, respectively.

One of these days I need to go get all the old CoA books and make a timeline diff of the changes.

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

A quick summary from the Alabama AG:

http://www.ago.alabama.gov/oldopinions/8400205.pdf

I also have some relevant (and not-so-relevant) cases copied here:

http://kurtbogle.com/guns/Open%20Carry/

Here is a very old AG op I scanned in from the AU library:

http://kurtbogle.com/guns/qrep/

It's referenced in some of the cases, and is the best summary imo. While the code has changed slightly since the opinion, it hasn't changed enough to make the interpretation any different (basically, the only change since the opinion was the shifting of the location of the word 'concealed' to prevent carrying in a vehicle at all). That is, the opinion says you may carry an unconcealed handgun in a vehicle without a permit. This is no longer the case. Everything else is valid though.

S163 and 175 are virtually identical to the current 52 and 73, respectively.

One of these days I need to go get all the old CoA books and make a timeline diff of the changes.

Click to expand...

Well what is stopping someone from taking this issue head on and getting it resolved once and for all...if not the state, then a city would be a start. Personally, I think I would like to have the option, but I prefer concealed.

imported post

smttysmth02gt wrote:

kurtmax_0 wrote:

A quick summary from the Alabama AG:

http://www.ago.alabama.gov/oldopinions/8400205.pdf

I also have some relevant (and not-so-relevant) cases copied here:

http://kurtbogle.com/guns/Open%20Carry/

Here is a very old AG op I scanned in from the AU library:

http://kurtbogle.com/guns/qrep/

It's referenced in some of the cases, and is the best summary imo. While the code has changed slightly since the opinion, it hasn't changed enough to make the interpretation any different (basically, the only change since the opinion was the shifting of the location of the word 'concealed' to prevent carrying in a vehicle at all). That is, the opinion says you may carry an unconcealed handgun in a vehicle without a permit. This is no longer the case. Everything else is valid though.

S163 and 175 are virtually identical to the current 52 and 73, respectively.

One of these days I need to go get all the old CoA books and make a timeline diff of the changes.

Click to expand...

Well what is stopping someone from taking this issue head on and getting it resolved once and for all...if not the state, then a city would be a start.  Personally, I think I would like to have the option, but I prefer concealed.

Click to expand...

Huh? The issue is pretty much resolved when the supreme court has considered it, not to mention the rest of the stuff. There is currently a lawsuit going on with one of the members here iirc. TBH most people don't have problems carrying.

I mean... what are you looking for? Any case over this is going to end up like these: http://kurtbogle.com/guns/Open Carry/41_Ala._App._582,_141_So._2d_5351962_Ala._A.PDF

http://kurtbogle.com/guns/Open Carry/342_So._2d_417,_1977_Ala._Crim._App._LEXIS_.PDF

imported post

Then why is it that most of the accounts of people (including on this very board) asking law enforcement about it, ends with law enforcement stating it is illegal and they could be arrested?

That's what I am talking about hitting this head on. Supreme court rulings are worthless unless law enforcement recognizes it. You're still gonna get jailed and possibly have your 2nd amendment rights revoked because of it. I am j/w when someone is going to take it through the top and make it KNOWN that it IS legal, if it in fact is, which I have not determined yet as I have not found the last ruling on the issue. The most recent one I believe is from 1984.

imported post

Update:

I have called the Mobile County Sheriff's Office, D.A.'s office, State Troopers Office, and the ATF office in Mobile.

SO: Spoke to a very nice deputy who told me he was told years ago that open carry in AL was illegal. I faxed him the tri-fold and then called him back. He said after he got off the phone with me, he asked his Sgt., who told him that it IS legal. He is going to read the tri-fold and see if he can find out a definite answer. I told him I am not looking for a verbal answer from law enforcement, but an answer with sources cited directing me to the law that prohibits open carry. He told me if he can find out anything about this, he will give me a call back.

D.A: The D.A.'s office told me that AL state law regarding firearms is handled by the Feds, in which I laughed and told her that I am looking for AL state law, in which the Feds have nothing to do with. At this point she told me they only handle civil issues and could not tell me anyone else to call.

State Trooper: I spoke to 2 state troopers. One could not answer me, the other told me he had arrested 2 people recently and went to the court hearings and they were found guilty by the judge. He then stated it was because they did not have a pistol permit. At this time I told him the pistol permit, according to the sheriff's office, is designated for concealed carry, which he told me was incorrect. Besides that point, he also admitted both cases had people wearing them concealed without a pistol permit, therefore discrediting his answers in this case. He then proceeded to tell me in 2 ways, that I knew more about this than he did. Once he said "It sounds like to me, you know a lot more about this than I do.". Another time after I asked who I might be able to call who can direct me to the law and he said "It sounds like you have already found the law.". I said, "If I found the law why would I be arrested for open carry then?" which he could not give an answer.

ATF: Left a message requesting a call back.

I called the AL state legislature (house of representatives) and spoke to a law analyst. We went over 13a and I cited the state vs reid and she said if that is what the supreme court ruled, then that is what the law is.

I called the Sheriff's dept back and spoke to the same deputy, who said that there is a mobile city ordinance that prohibits open carry within the city of Mobile. He directed me to the mobile police department and said I should call and ask for a detective, in which I did and was told I would receive a call back from one.

imported post

Wow. Seems like you did plenty of work!

The analyst is correct. The last ALSC case (that I know of, and I've searched through several law databases and even been to Auburn's special Alabama records sections searching) is the ~1840 one. Even though it's old, it's the latest ruling.

A mobile ordinance against carrying a firearm unconcealed would not be valid against handguns (possibly valid against long-arms). Alabama state preemption on handguns is absolute. Localities cannot even regulate discharge of handguns, or even prevent their employees from carrying at work. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. Most localities have restrictions on carrying firearms. Auburn and Opelika both have restrictions that overstep their bounds, but they wouldn't be valid in the case of handguns.

From my personal experience, it seems most of the older LEOs know OC is legal. It's mostly the younger ones that don't. They probably don't get any training on it at the academy or in their department.

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Wow. Seems like you did plenty of work!

The analyst is correct. The last ALSC case (that I know of, and I've searched through several law databases and even been to Auburn's special Alabama records sections searching) is the ~1840 one. Even though it's old, it's the latest ruling.

A mobile ordinance against carrying a firearm unconcealed would not be valid against handguns (possibly valid against long-arms). Alabama state preemption on handguns is absolute. Localities cannot even regulate discharge of handguns, or even prevent their employees from carrying at work.

Click to expand...

Well I just think it is absolute BS that law enforcement could possibly be arresting people and tainting their public record when they are not breaking any laws. That isn't law enforcement, that is tyranny.

I somehow doubt that neither the ATF, nor the detective will end up calling me back. I'm not sure about how the ordinance thing works. I'm not too terribly educated in law, I am just a guy who wants to know what the law actually is.

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Wow. Seems like you did plenty of work!

The analyst is correct. The last ALSC case (that I know of, and I've searched through several law databases and even been to Auburn's special Alabama records sections searching) is the ~1840 one. Even though it's old, it's the latest ruling.

A mobile ordinance against carrying a firearm unconcealed would not be valid against handguns (possibly valid against long-arms). Alabama state preemption on handguns is absolute. Localities cannot even regulate discharge of handguns, or even prevent their employees from carrying at work. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. Most localities have restrictions on carrying firearms. Auburn and Opelika both have restrictions that overstep their bounds, but they wouldn't be valid in the case of handguns.

Click to expand...

After my research is completed (someone cites a law prohibiting open carry - or fails to do so, in which case the supreme court ruling stands), something will have to be done.

We will have to pool our resources together across the state and attempt to educate law enforcement. It will not be easy, but we cannot allow the law to be broken by the very people sworn to protect and enforce it.

imported post

smttysmth02gt wrote:

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Wow. Seems like you did plenty of work!

The analyst is correct. The last ALSC case (that I know of, and I've searched through several law databases and even been to Auburn's special Alabama records sections searching) is the ~1840 one. Even though it's old, it's the latest ruling.

A mobile ordinance against carrying a firearm unconcealed would not be valid against handguns (possibly valid against long-arms). Alabama state preemption on handguns is absolute. Localities cannot even regulate discharge of handguns, or even prevent their employees from carrying at work.

Click to expand...

Well I just think it is absolute BS that law enforcement could possibly be arresting people and tainting their public record when they are not breaking any laws.  That isn't law enforcement, that is tyranny.

I somehow doubt that neither the ATF, nor the detective will end up calling me back.  I'm not sure about how the ordinance thing works.  I'm not too terribly educated in law, I am just a guy who wants to know what the law actually is. 

Click to expand...

Arrest != Conviction. Some companies do break the law by considering arrest records, so it can be a problem.

Most likely if you are arrested for something that isn't against the law, you can get the judge to remove the arrest from your record.

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

smttysmth02gt wrote:

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Wow. Seems like you did plenty of work!

The analyst is correct. The last ALSC case (that I know of, and I've searched through several law databases and even been to Auburn's special Alabama records sections searching) is the ~1840 one. Even though it's old, it's the latest ruling.

A mobile ordinance against carrying a firearm unconcealed would not be valid against handguns (possibly valid against long-arms). Alabama state preemption on handguns is absolute. Localities cannot even regulate discharge of handguns, or even prevent their employees from carrying at work.

Click to expand...

Well I just think it is absolute BS that law enforcement could possibly be arresting people and tainting their public record when they are not breaking any laws. That isn't law enforcement, that is tyranny.

I somehow doubt that neither the ATF, nor the detective will end up calling me back. I'm not sure about how the ordinance thing works. I'm not too terribly educated in law, I am just a guy who wants to know what the law actually is.

Click to expand...

Arrest != Conviction. Some companies do break the law by considering arrest records, so it can be a problem.

Most likely if you are arrested for something that isn't against the law, you can get the judge to remove the arrest from your record.

Click to expand...

Well, I wish there were more recent court cases on this subject matter. Whether it was ruled as legal or illegal, just would like something more recent to present.

The problem is that illegal firearms possession could be a felony, in which you would no longer have your 2nd amendment right.

imported post

Carrying a firearm illegally is only a misdemeanor in Alabama. Just don't rob someone or some such with a firearm.

Illegal possession might be a felony (I don't know for sure), but you'd be violating it if you owned a firearm, whether you were carrying it or not.

imported post

I will only say one thing on the stupid 13A-11-52 law.
If the gun is on my hip I can state without hesitation that the area I am standing in
is under my control. No ambiguity there. The state might take issue with it, but
if they didn't think I was in control of the area, then why did they approach me to
begin with? Aren't they trying to take control from me? If so then they admit I am right.

Now all I need to find out is what booze my drunkard rep gets loaded up on,
so I can write my concerns on something he will want to get his hands on.:lol: