Section 13A-11-52

imported post

smttysmth02gt wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

And that is the point--they want everyone discouraged from ever trying.

if they can keep the people afraid of being charged with disorderly conduct which is a catchall charge they can use just because they don't like you--then they can keep the people pushed down and compliant and unwilling to try and change anything....I would personally like to see everyone who carries a gun to carry it OC. But that is just me.

imported post

smttysmth02gt wrote:

I would love the freedom to be able to do it, but I doubt I'd ever do it in public. I prefer concealed.

Click to expand...

then why are you on a website championing OC of firearms? You prefer concealed carry--why post or read a website on OC? This is a serious question--not wanting to start an argument, but I am curious as to your motive for coming to a website dealing with OC when you prefer CC....

just curious.

imported post

suntzu wrote:

smttysmth02gt wrote:

I would love the freedom to be able to do it, but I doubt I'd ever do it in public. I prefer concealed.

Click to expand...

then why are you on a website championing OC of firearms? You prefer concealed carry--why post or read a website on OC? This is a serious question--not wanting to start an argument, but I am curious as to your motive for coming to a website dealing with OC when you prefer CC....

just curious.

Click to expand...

Because there are too many things wrong with public perception of firearms and the ever expanding government. I support literally anything pro-constitutional. Plus I am interested in keeping up with what is going on here and learning about the law as much as I can. I prefer concealed because it's a 50/50 chance that during a situation should you need your gun, if you're the only one OC'ing somewhere, you will either be a deterrent or the first target. I'd rather conceal and not be a target. Now if there were 30 people there all OC'ing then I wouldn't care either way, but the liklihood of that happening is not very high. As far as home, or any relative or friend's house, it's open carry all the time.

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. 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.

Click to expand...

Huh. Did you read the supreme court case? Even if there is a law against it, the law in invalid; Unless the Alabama constitution has section 26 removed, or there is another ALSC case with a different outcome.

This isn't a 'mah raights' thing. It's plain as day, in written word, on an ALSC decision.

imported post

I support literally anything pro-constitutional.

Click to expand...

I've heard many people say that, but most don't realize they really don't support "anything pro-constitutional". For example, how do you feel about illegal immigration? Got your answer? Great. Now, would it bother you if I told you that, under the wording of the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate immigration? Constitutionally-speaking, there's no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant! However, SCOTUS manufactured the feds' power to regulate immigration...much like they manufactured their own power to review legislation. Alas, no one can be trusted to follow the Constitution.

imported post

HungSquirrel wrote:

I support literally anything pro-constitutional.

Click to expand...

I've heard many people say that, but most don't realize they really don't support "anything pro-constitutional". For example, how do you feel about illegal immigration? Got your answer? Great. Now, would it bother you if I told you that, under the wording of the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate immigration? Constitutionally-speaking, there's no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant! However, SCOTUS manufactured the feds' power to regulate immigration...much like they manufactured their own power to review legislation. Alas, no one can be trusted to follow the Constitution.

Click to expand...

My opinion on immigration is an entirely different subject, and completely irrelevant to this discussion. Why is it every thread I post gets high jacked and off topic?

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. 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.

Click to expand...

Huh. Did you read the supreme court case? Even if there is a law against it, the law in invalid; Unless the Alabama constitution has section 26 removed, or there is another ALSC case with a different outcome.

This isn't a 'mah raights' thing. It's plain as day, in written word, on an ALSC decision.

Click to expand...

Apparently you misunderstood what I meant. I don't see how, but you did.

imported post

Perhaps. You said:

someone cites a law prohibiting open carry - or fails to do so, in which case the supreme court ruling stands

Click to expand...

Which means you must think that the supreme court decision only stands if there is no law against OC.

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Perhaps. You said:

someone cites a law prohibiting open carry - or fails to do so, in which case the supreme court ruling stands

Click to expand...

Which means you must think that the supreme court decision only stands if there is no law against OC.

Click to expand...

Ah, I worded that poorly. My bad. Any law (or city ordinance) that defies a supreme court ruling is null and void. That is per the analyst from the state legislature I spoke to as well.

imported post

13A-11-52 is about the fact that NO ONE can carry a gun on private property EXCEPT the groups listedbut only in the performance of their official duties. This means that even cops or sheriff deputies can't carry a gun on your property without it being in the performance of their official duties. An off-duty cop walks onto your property to tell you that your dog peed on his wife's flower bed can't carry a firearm unless he has your permission. Talking to you about a personal problem is not the official discharge of his duties.

This is not a gun control law but a private property protection from persons with guns law. That's why discharge of duties is mentioned four times. Just change the property not his own or under his control to PRIVATE PROPERTY and it makes sense.

imported post

The requirement to be on duty is mentioned four times because the law mentions four classes of people exempted from that section, not because its significance warrants repetition.

But, more to the point, -52 is dead law. The courts have ruled that it applies only to CC, not OC, and -73 is a complete rewrite on the subject of CC. Unless one accepts that last sentence as the absolute legal truth, one would also have to argue that OC is almost completely illegal.

If you can make your argument in terms of -73, or some other live law, it would hold water.

I want to think you are right about the effect of the law on off-duty cops. And, if Eastdale Mall can tell me I can't carry on their premises, then they ought to be able, absent a law specifically stating otherwise, to tell an off-duty cop that he is not welcome on their premises while armed. I should have that same ability on my property.

I just don't think -52 provides the basis for the argument.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

...then they ought to be able, absent a law specifically stating otherwise, to tell an off-duty cop that he is not welcome on their premises while armed. I should have that same ability on my property.

Click to expand...

As far as the business is concerned, Wal-Mart has a policy against hiring police officers who are required to carry while off duty. The only jobs they can be hired to perform are armed security, which most Wal-Marts don't use. Also, Wal-Mart has reserved the right to let their store managers decide if they want to turn away customers for any or no reason. Make of that what you will, but I am of the firm belief that I can tell anyone, even an ON duty cop, to get off my private property unless they have a reason to be there, and the paperwork or RAS to back it up.

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

eye95 wrote:

...then they ought to be able, absent a law specifically stating otherwise, to tell an off-duty cop that he is not welcome on their premises while armed. I should have that same ability on my property.

Click to expand...

As far as the business is concerned, Wal-Mart has a policy against hiring police officers who are required to carry while off duty. The only jobs they can be hired to perform are armed security, which most Wal-Marts don't use. Also, Wal-Mart has reserved the right to let their store managers decide if they want to turn away customers for any or no reason. Make of that what you will, but I am of the firm belief that I can tell anyone, even an ON duty cop, to get off my private property unless they have a reason to be there, and the paperwork or RAS to back it up.

Click to expand...

That's my point: -52, which is dead law, does not give me the authority to tell an armed off-duty cop to leave my property. My innate property rights do.

imported post

It will not be easy, but we cannot allow the law to be broken by the very people sworn to protect and enforce it.

Click to expand...

Those people are sworn to defend our constitutions:

"I, …, solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God."

Click to expand...

In the discharge of their duties, they are charged with upholding the law. This is one of them:

Section 13A-1-4

When act or omission constitutes crime.

No act or omission is a crime unless made so by this title or by other applicable statute or lawful ordinance.

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §110.)

Click to expand...

Read this case. It addresses some of your concerns:

http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?full-path-file-name=%2Fdata%2Fdrs%2Fdm%2Fdocuments%2Fndd%2F2009%2F09%2F08%2F0002561429-0000000000-08cv00994.pdf



Edit:

smttysmth02gt

You say that you prefer to carry concealed.Our state government enacted laws early on that prohibit that, stating their purpose as:

"to suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly,"

Click to expand...

The state, by way of the attorney general in The State v Reid argued:

The Attorney General for the State, argued that it was competent for the Legislature to prohibit the wearing of concealed weapons, that such a law did not conflict with the constitutional provision, which guarantied to the citizen the right to bear arms in the defence of himself and the State. That the statute under which the defendant was convicted, did not impair that right, while it proposed to discountenance by punishment, a practice which had been greatly promotive of violence and bloodshed.

Click to expand...

In effect, when our legilators decided to issue a license for concealed carry, it was licensing a practice that was considered to be evil and promotive of violence and bloodshed. That is why you have to pay for the privilege of carrying concealed.

imported post

I have read that case thoroughly. (It is near and dear to my heart due to my own recent run-in with a LEO.)

How does it relate to the current discussion as to whether -52 prohibits carry by LEOs who are off-duty while on private property not their own?

imported post

Sorry for the confusion Eye95. I was addressing comments about the original topic by smttysmth02gt. I should have made that clear.

The Fourth Ammendment and Section 5 of our Alabama Constitution of 1901protects our property. It is further protected by Code of AlabamaTitle 13A, ArticleI which makes it a crime to enter or remain unlawfully on premiseswhere you do not have license or privilege to remain. I don't seeanything that excludes officers on duty without a proper searchwarrant that have not witnessed a crime taking place in their presence or officers that are off duty:

Section 13A-7-1
Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:

(4) ENTER OR REMAIN UNLAWFULLY. A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not licensed, invited or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person. A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of the building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privileges unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of such land or other authorized person, or unless such notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.

Click to expand...

imported post

I see. Just one more thing, though:

Those officers would have the same rights as ordinary citizens. Until the private property owner says, "Git!" they can stay.

imported post

Noticibly, Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-52 does begin with the clause, 'Except as otherwise provided [by] this Article...'

Alabama code 1975 13A-11-73 says that it is Illegal to Carry a Pistol:

1. In, on, or within a Motor Vehicle, or

2. Concealed about the Person, except in His own Home, Land/[Property], or Place of Buisness/[Place of Employment].

Alabama code 1975 13A-11-73 makes good on the clause citied in paragraph 1.

Case citied: KJ v.State of Alabama 690 So.2d 541, Ala.Cr.App. 1997. This Case was decided by The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Court of Appeals held that Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-52 applies only the extent that it is consistent withAlabama Code 1975 13A-11-73, because; it is the later statue and a complete revision of the subject matter.

Therefore, Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-52, 163 supra, is held to be Bad Law, it being rewritten by Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-73, 175 supra, and also Preempted Statewide by both Alabama Codes 1975 11-45-1.1 and 11-80-11.

Alabama Code 1975 11-45-1.1 Preempts all Pistol-related matters Statewide, specifacally affording that protection solely for Pistols.

Alabama Code 1975 11-80-11 Preempts all other Firearm, Gun Show, and Firearm Lawsuit matters Statewide, which affords the protection for all Firearms, including Pistols.

imported post

13A-11-50 thru 13A-11-55 all relate to concealed weapons... except 13A-11-52.

That makes me wonder if the word "concealed" could have been ommitted by mistake and was justnever corrected. Why would ithave beenany less offensive to carry long guns onto someone else's property in an open manner?

Just a thought.

imported post

Section 13A-11-55
Indictment for carrying weapons unlawfully; proof.
In an indictment for carrying weapons unlawfully, it is sufficient to charge that the defendant carried concealed about his person a pistol, or other description of firearms, on premises not his own, or a bowie knife, or other knife or instrument of the like kind or description, or other forbidden weapon, describing it, as the case may be; and the excuse, if any, must be proved by the defendant on the trial, to the satisfaction of the jury; and if the evidence offered to excuse the charge raises a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, the jury must acquit him.

(Code 1852, §586; Code 1867, §4136; Code 1876, §4809; Code 1886, §3779; Code 1896, §4424; Code 1907, §6425; Acts 1919, No. 204, p. 196; Code 1923, §3491; Code 1940, T. 14, §166; Code 1975, §13-6-125.)
Good analysis, and I have never thought of that before. This justs adds one more point to any future argument that I may make, in additon to others. Thank you, again. I placed bolded print on the relevant words, those words, being underlined as it pertians to Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-52, which is, by all standards, been defaulted.