Original Open Carry Statutes & Open Carry in 'Vehicle.'

imported post

Let's do some research and make sure we fully understand what the term 'vehicle' means in the original statutes and implementing regulations for open carry of a firearm.

I'm not a lawyer but I've studied law since 1989 and have litigated in my own person in the federal courts. That said, I have an idea and question about the inconsistency between the Right of Open Carry in Alabama, on foot or bicycle, and the apparent prohibition against carrying openly in a 'vehicle.'

The key word is 'vehicle.' I don't have the original statute for Alabama but one of you guys or gals with the time can easily find out how the term 'vehicle' is defined in the original statute and implementing regulations for open carry of a firearm. One would necessarily go back to the date of such original legislation to determine the original intent and definitions of that time. It would also be helpful to read the debates that took place during the passage of this statute to determine what the Legislature understood who and what their subsequent statute and regulations affected.

For example, there are some statutes that regulate the conduct of a driver or operator in a 'vehicle' but the original statute and implementing regulations defined and limited the definition of a 'vehicle,' for the purposes of those statutes, to school buses. However, one would never know this by reading the 'code' and not also researching the original statutes and associated regulations reading for oneself the definitions of objects regulated by law. Rarely do 'code' sections spell out the law. They merely condense it in a conclusive manner, and in most cases the 'code' is internal to government, and does not apply to private American inhabitants absent some commercial nexus.

It just may be that open carry in a 'vehicle' only applies to certain and specific government vehicles of one sort or another, and not necessarily privately owned automobiles and trucks, not involved in the privileged activity of commerce upon the public highways and byways.

Has anyone researched this already or should we head to the law library or online resource.

imported post

I think vehicle is explicitly defined in Alabama Code 32-1-1.1 Part 82

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/1975/32-1-1.1.htm

(81) VEHICLE. Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks or electric personal assistive mobility devices; provided, that for the purposes of this title, a bicycle or a ridden animal shall be deemed a vehicle, except those provisions of this title, which by their very nature can have no application.

Click to expand...

Does that answer your question(s)?

And from:
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/1975/13A-11-73.htm
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/1975/13A-11-74.htm

So, quite simply, you need a license to carry concealed and you are covered. Other than that, without the gun unloaded, covered, and secured; there is no open carry in a vehicle in Alabama.

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

I think vehicle is explicitly defined in Alabama Code 32-1-1.1 Part 82

Does that answer your question(s)?

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't answer my question. Clearly, your reading comprehension is at the bottom of the curve since you quoted the 'code' and not the original statutes and implementing regulations. I've addressed the issue of 'code' and why one must look at the original statute, implementing regulations, and the various debate(s) that took place during the passage of the original Open Carry Statute.

That you are incapable of reading and understanding my original post and continue to rely upon 'code' leads me to believe that you should refrain from posting further in this thread. You will not find any of this information in their private, copyrighted, 'code.' You did know that the Code of Alabama is a private, copyrighted work? Therefore, the 'code' is internal to government and is not applicable to those outside of government unless they are entangled by way of some adhesion contract.

I will look up the necessary information myself and find an answer to the question(s) I asked above.

imported post

ColMustard wrote:

tekshogun wrote:

I think vehicle is explicitly defined in Alabama Code 32-1-1.1 Part 82

Does that answer your question(s)?

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't answer my question. Clearly, your reading comprehension is at the bottom of the curve since you quoted the 'code' and not the original statutes and implementing regulations. I've addressed the issue of 'code' and why one must look at the original statute, implementing regulations, and the various debate(s) that took place during the passage of the original Open Carry Statute.

That you are incapable of reading and understanding my original post and continue to rely upon 'code' leads me to believe that you should refrain from posting further in this thread. You will not find any of this information in their private, copyrighted, 'code.' You did know that the Code of Alabama is a private, copyrighted work? Therefore, the 'code' is internal to government and is not applicable to those outside of government unless they are entangled by way of some adhesion contract.

I will look up the necessary information myself and find an answer to the question(s) I asked above.

Click to expand...

Why the hostility? A simple, "No, that doesn't help me" would have sufficed.

I was merely trying to help answer your question but you retort with an unprovoked insult.

Sir, I am rude to no human being and I show no malice toward anyone, so I have no idea where your spiteful attitude is coming from.

I can only assess that no one will help you if you intend to insult them for giving you an answer you don't like or approve of.

I will say, much to my chagrin in light of your insult, good luck in finding what ever it is you are trying to find.

Good day to you.

imported post

ColMustard wrote:

tekshogun wrote:

I think vehicle is explicitly defined in Alabama Code 32-1-1.1 Part 82

Does that answer your question(s)?

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't answer my question. Clearly, your reading comprehension is at the bottom of the curve since you quoted the 'code' and not the original statutes and implementing regulations. I've addressed the issue of 'code' and why one must look at the original statute, implementing regulations, and the various debate(s) that took place during the passage of the original Open Carry Statute.

That you are incapable of reading and understanding my original post and continue to rely upon 'code' leads me to believe that you should refrain from posting further in this thread. You will not find any of this information in their private, copyrighted, 'code.' You did know that the Code of Alabama is a private, copyrighted work? Therefore, the 'code' is internal to government and is not applicable to those outside of government unless they are entangled by way of some adhesion contract.

I will look up the necessary information myself and find an answer to the question(s) I asked above.

Click to expand...

I read through your post and did not see a single question mark. Therefore, your grammar skill should come into question as well. There is no need to be rude to people who attempt to help you.

That being said, what exactly is it that you are looking for? Is it the "legal" definition of "vehicle"? I have several sources that could be of assistance if need be.

imported post

ColMustard,

At the risk of further wasting your time, I suggest you may want to read a recent opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court.The attention to the wording was on the meaning of "carrying", rather than on the meaning of a "vehicle". It was suggested that the legislature might need to givethe word "carrying" some attention:



Ex parte City of Dothan

Supreme Court of Alabama,

October term, 2008-2009

March 13, 2009


(In re: City of Dothan v. Rustin McCardle) (Houston Circuit Court, CC-08-393)

　

"... Any concerns that in common parlance the word "carrying" connotes possessing on the person rather than transporting in a vehicle should be addressed to the legislature. Furthermore, even if the circuit court was satisfied that, under the facts of this case, the terminology used by the legislature in defining the offense was misleading in that it suggested that McCardle carried the weapon on his person and not merely in a vehicle, as McCardle contended in the circuit court, the circuit court did not have authority to order the complete removal and deletion of the record of McCardle's conviction... "

Click to expand...

imported post

smttysmth02gt wrote

There is no need to be rude to people who attempt to help you.

Click to expand...

What I am looking for is the ORIGINAL CARRY STATUTE AND ALL DEFINITIONS contained within it. Not the 'code,' and not a court case. I must have used the phrase "ORIGINAL STATUTE AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS" at least five times yet some here still don't get it.

If I hurt your feelings then my posts aren't for you. If you had read my post in its entirety it would have been very clear that I was suggesting. Does the definition of 'vehicle' in the ORIGINAL STATUTE define a private automobile or truck not engaged in commerce upon the public highways and byways, or in the alternative, a government owned vehicle used in the daily machinations of government by an employee thereof.

imported post

That said, I have an idea and question about the inconsistency between the Right of Open Carry in Alabama, on foot or bicycle, and the apparent prohibition against carrying openly in a 'vehicle.'

Click to expand...

You implied you wanted help researching this issue and to have a meaningful discussion about it. I posted a recent opinion I thought was relevant to your question above.

The terms you are setting for having a meaningful discussion on the topic are set so narrowly that Idoubt if you will get many more replies. Now that I understand how narrow you define your terms for discussion, I'll leave youalonewith noappology.

imported post

I'm of the educated opinion that the 'Code of Alabama' is a private set of rules and regulations that apply only to those who are intimately involved in the business of government. That is to say, those subject to it are either an employee of the State of Alabama or a political subdivision thereof, or they are considered to be under the in persona and subject matter jurisdiction of the State of Alabama and any political subdivision thereof by way of contract. Said contract being the nexus whereby one may be held liable to perform to every jot and tittle of the 'Code of Alabama' and be subject to the penalties thereof when s/he fails to do so.

I am not sure how many of you that read this fully understand the importance of distinguishing between one who is subject to and one who has no legal duty to abide by the 'Code of Alabama' in carrying on his daily life in the harmless pursuit of happiness. The law recognizes a clear distinction between these two groups of people.

How many of you believe that you must participate in the Social Security scam or that you must possess a Social Security number in order to get a job in America? I would venture to say most of you would think "it's the law" and "everyone has to have a Social Security number" to work in America.

It's just this sort of 'I heard on the television, radio, or read in the paper so it must be true' mentality that is the cause of America, and the Free Inhabitants of America, being stuck between the rock and hard place we find ourselves at this point in history.

Take a good, long look at the following official State of Alabama document. This document was available as of 1999 at every Alabama Department of Public Safety office in the state. In fact, they kept a stack of them at the receptioninformation desk just as you walk in to do whatever it was you went there to do.



Did you know that you cannot be compelled to participate in the Social Security scam if it violates your religious beliefs? Were you aware that the State of Alabama recognizes this lawful position and belief? Did you know that this form existed before now?

Take note too that the State of Alabama recognizes that there are so many people in Alabama that don't participate in Social Security because of their religious beliefs that they created an official state document just for them. Have you ever heard anyone speak of this fact on any television or radio program, or write about it in any newspaper or magazine? Of course you didn't. They want the people ignorant of their Inalienable Rights. After all, 'everyone must have a Social Security number, it's the law.'

This is one solid example of my theory that most of what is called 'law' or 'code' simply doesn't apply to the Free Inhabitants of the geographical area known as Alabama absent some nexus like an adhesion contract. (The Social Security application is one such adhesion contract.) The courts have ruled that a driver license is not a contract, therefore, this cannot be what the courts use to assume in persona jurisdiction over a man or woman in a criminal or civil case.

I suspect that it's one's participation in the Social Security program that strips a Free Inhabitant of all Inalienable Rights since one who participates in Social Security IS BY LAW considered a pauper. Paupers have no rights, inalienable or otherwise.

Note this passage from the Articles of Confederation which were included and incorporated into the United States Code.

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States"
--Articles of Confederation, Article IV.

American (and English) law have always made the distinction between Free Inhabitants who are free to go about their daily lives without encumbrance insofar as they do not trespass upon the rights of other Free Inhabitants, and paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice. The latter group is not free to carry on the business of their lives and pursue happiness because they are legally incapacitated. Participation in Social Security creates a legal incapacitation and presumption that you are not mentally capable of looking after your own affairs and are, therefore, a ward of the state. Thus, the state can regulate the behavior of all paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice using their statutes, codes, or whatever suits them.

"Objective of government.
That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." --Alabama Constitution, Article I, Section 35.

If you carry a firearm on your person as you have an Inalienable Right to, even in your car, without a license that doesn't mean the state and its minions won't try you under their private, copy righted 'code.' You just have to possess the knowledge of the law, your status under the law, and show on the record that you are not one subject to their private jurisdiction.

I suspect that if you participate in Social Security and they know this fact, the judge will take judicial notice and assume you're one subject to the in persona and subject matter jurisdiction of his private star chamber. After all, how many times a day are you asked for 'your Social Security number.'

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: ..." Hosea 4:6 (KJV)

imported post

Are you a U.S. citizen? Isn't everyone a U.S. citizen? Well no, they aren't.

How many forms do you fill out that have a check box next to a statement that says, "I am a United States citizen?" Have you ever stopped to think exactly what that means and why the creator of such documents wants you to confirm this fact and at most times under oath?

As it turns out the majority of people in America are not in fact "U.S. citizens" although I suspect that everyone asked that question would swear they were.

There were no "U.S. citizens" prior to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. So what were those people in America before that amendment? They were (and still are) American Nationals of the United States of America.

In almost every instance, a document asking you to swear or affirm under oath that you are a "U.S. citizen," is an adhesion contract of one form or another. U.S. citizenship is an inferior and is a statutorily created citizenship.

I was born in the geographical area known as Alabama, and as such, my proper status under the law is that of an American National of the United States of America, not a U.S. citizen.

The U.S. Government recognizes at least two different forms of citizenship evidenced by the following official document.


You are either a Free Inhabitant unencumbered by the private 'code' of the State of Alabama or you are their slave subject to every whim that strikes some bureaucrat's fancy. You have enough information now with which to do some further study on your own and you have two official state and federal documents to support the conclusions in my last two posts.

Have you noticed that the ATF forms that one is required to fill out when purchasing a firearm from an FFL dealer applies only to "U.S. citizens" and that there is no provision made for American Nationals of the United States of America?

Have you noticed that there is a question and check box that asks if you have ever 'renounced your U.S. citizenship' and if you check that box 'yes' your purchase will be declined? Of course an American National was never a U.S. citizen to begin with even if s/he may have been temporarily duped into thinking otherwise. Have you also noticed that the yellow form has you declare under penalty of perjury that you are a 'U.S. citizen?'

Could it be that this yellow form doesn't apply to American Nationals of the United States of America and that no provision is made to abridged their Inalienable Rights related to firearm purchase and possession? Now that doesn't mean that an FFL is going to risk his license and sell you a firearm absent a properly completed yellow form just because you're an American National likely exempt from such forms and not a 'U.S. citizen.'

I can't legally sign a yellow form because I've previously signed an affidavit, under oath, stating that I am an American National. If I then signed the yellow form, under oath, stating that I am a U.S. citizen I've committed perjury punishable by fines and imprisonment.

If we had honest courts and just law, it would be interesting to see a court case questioning the authority of the federal government to require an American National to complete a form that provides no provision for the purchase of firearms by American Nationals. Why isn't there a provision for American Nationals? Are they exempt from such forms? If so what is the procedure that an American National would take to purchase a firearm from an FFL dealer?

imported post

ColMustard wrote:

Words...

Click to expand...

Ok, before the tin foil completely takes over in here let me say that I am a LONG time reader of this board, but only now have I been prompted to finally register and post if for no other reason than to set a few facts straight (and hopefully end what I would consider the badgering of the Alabama posters into finding arcane legal references that the OP is apparently unwilling or unable to find on their own). So, without further delay...

You and the other aforementioned "Free Inhabitants of America" may be of any "educated opinion" you choose. I can't tell you what to think; neither can anyone else. However, saying gravity doesn't apply to you doesn't make you weightless.

You stated before:

I was born in the geographical area known as Alabama, and as such, my proper status under the law is that of an American National of the United States of America, not a U.S. citizen.

Click to expand...

Umm, in a word - no.

US Constitution Amendment 14 was ratified in 1868. I'll go on a limb and say that you were probably born after 1868. "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..." Effectively this says, "Born in Alabama? This means you." Congratulations, you ARE a citizen of both the U.S. and of Alabama.

The U.S. Government recognizes at least two different forms of citizenship evidenced by the following official document.

Click to expand...

The term "American National" when used apart from "American Citizen" applies to only a small portion of the U.S. population as outlined in Sec 308 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (individuals born in outlying possessions of the U.S. with those being American Samoa and Swain's Island). "Sec. 308. [8 U.S.C. 1408] Unless otherwise provided in section 301 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens of the United States at birth:

(1) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States on or after the date of formal acquisition of such possession;

(2) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person;

(3) A person of unknown parentage found in an outlying possession of the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty- one years, not to have been born in such outlying possession; and

(4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a national, but not a citizen, of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than seven years in any continuous period of ten years-

(A) during which the national parent was not outside the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of more than one year, and

(B) at least five years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

The proviso of section 301(g) shall apply to the national parent under this paragraph in the same manner as it applies to the citizen parent under that section.
Once viewed WITH Sec. 301, which states "Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"
it becomes very clear that if you were born in the U.S., you ARE a citizen "AND" national, not "or."

There were no "U.S. citizens" prior to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. So what were those people in America before that amendment? They were (and still are) American Nationals of the United States of America.

Click to expand...

Yeah, actually there were. The third sentence (right after the preamble, if you got that far) even uses the term "Citizen of the United States" when referencing qualifications to be a representative. As it was post-Civil War and post-Emancipation, the 14th Amd only sought to clarify that the slaves who had been born in the geographic boundaries of the U.S. were actually citizens and therefore were entitled to representation as citizens. By spelling it out, it removed any doubt that they were equal to any other citizen, regardless of how their ancestors may have gotten here whether of their own free will or not and removed any "three-fifths" arguments.

Did you know that you cannot be compelled to participate in the Social Security scam if it violates your religious beliefs? Were you aware that the State of Alabama recognizes this lawful position and belief? Did you know that this form existed before now? Take note too that the State of Alabama recognizes that there are so many people in Alabama that don't participate in Social Security because of their religious beliefs that they created an official state document just for them. Have you ever heard anyone speak of this fact on any television or radio program, or write about it in any newspaper or magazine? Of course you didn't. They want the people ignorant of their Inalienable Rights. After all, 'everyone must have a Social Security number, it's the law.'

Click to expand...

True. For those who belong to a religious group whose receipt of insurance or other benefits violates their religious beliefs, they can opt out if their group is among those listed with the SSA. Keep in mind though, don't expect to file a claim for Supplemental Security benefit payments if you are injured and unable to work or Social Security benefits if you retire. You are still responsible for paying federal taxes on income, and the form to opt out of SSA payroll taxes even makes it perfectly clear. Don't want an SSN? Fine. You still have to have an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number if you have taxable income. For the vast majority of folks, the SSN concurrently fulfills that same function. No idea what this has to do with open carry, but I aim to please.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf

Preemptively: don't even get started on whether or not the federal gov't can tax your income - they can. [I just figured it would be coming next.]
Amendment 16 ratified in 1913: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

You do not meet the requirements of the status of "American National" without also meeting those of "citizen." Just because you got some knucklehead (who likely didn't know the difference) to accept a photocopied form at the Alabama DMV means nothing to anyone except the DMV, and even then most of the folks there have probably never heard of Swain's Island and couldn't find it or American Samoa on a world map. Actually, most would likely consider American Samoa as their favorite Girl Scout cookie (right behind Thin Mints and just before Tagalongs).

Note this passage from the Articles of Confederation which were included and incorporated into the United States Code. "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States" --Articles of Confederation, Article IV.

Click to expand...

The U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as a whole upon ratification on June 21, 1788. Referencing the AoC is akin to referencing a recipe from Southern Living - completely irrelevant (unless it's for this cake my wife made for the holidays which was outstanding!).

If you are so insistent that you not be an American citizen, here is my suggestion. Renounce your citizenship (which was so unmercifully foisted upon you) in accordance with 8 USC Sec. 1841:
§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
...(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State...

Mind you this has to be done in a foreign country, as other "Free Inhabitants" like yourself have tried this before while in U.S. Territory. From the Department of State website: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

"In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), plaintiff was a United States citizen and resident of Puerto Rico, who executed an oath of renunciation before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because the plaintiff wanted to retain one of the primary benefits of U.S. citizenship while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. The Court described the plaintiff as a person, "claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, [while] Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, return and reside in the United States." See also Jose Fufi Santori v. United States of America , 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16299 (1994) for a similar case. A person who wants to renounce U.S. citizenship cannot decide to retain some of the privileges of citizenship, as this would be logically inconsistent with the concept of renunciation. Thus, such a person can be said to lack a full understanding of renouncing citizenship and/or lack the necessary intent to renounce citizenship, and the Department of State will not approve a loss of citizenship in such instances."

I can speak to this with authority, as I have the authority vested in me to act as a U.S. Consul in accordance with US Code.

So, in summary for those of you just joining us:

You were born in the United States... In Alabama... You ARE a U.S. Citizen. So sez the Constitution.

You do not have to participate in Social Security if you can prove a religious exemption. So much for using your monthly SSA retirement benefit to buy guns if you so choose, 'cause you won't be getting a check.

You do have to pay federal taxes on income. So sez the Constitution.

You can travel outside of the U.S. and renounce your citizenship there to a U.S. consular officer.

You are not, nor do you qualify to be, just a "U.S. National" regardless of whatever blank form you choose to submit to the Alabama DMV.

You can choose to be of any "educated opinion" of your choosing, but the State of Alabama (and its elected representative legislature) and the U.S. Government (and by that I mean the elected Congress that represents you at the federal level) would wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that the "Code of Alabama" (or similar federal code) is as you put it "a private set of rules and regulations that apply only to those who are intimately involved in the business of government."

I suspect you're proceeding on a path that will one day allow you to be an official "resident" of the State of Alabama. Set those lofty goals high and achieve them! At least you'll get three square meals a day.

Just because you "choose" not to agree doesn't make it any less the truth. You don't want to sign your ATF form when purchasing a firearm? Fine - more for us.

The good news? You can use your tax refund to buy as much tin foil as you like.

Did I mention first time caller, long time listener? Hopefully I cited well enough to get Citizen's approval.

Now...can we all get back to talking about open carry?

imported post

I have a headache now. Thanks, guys and gals.

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

I think vehicle is explicitly defined in Alabama Code 32-1-1.1 Part 82

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/1975/32-1-1.1.htm

(81) VEHICLE. Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks or electric personal assistive mobility devices; provided, that for the purposes of this title, a bicycle or a ridden animal shall be deemed a vehicle, except those provisions of this title, which by their very nature can have no application.

Click to expand...

Does that answer your question(s)?

And from:
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/1975/13A-11-73.htm
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/1975/13A-11-74.htm

So, quite simply, you need a license to carry concealed and you are covered. Other than that, without the gun unloaded, covered, and secured; there is no open carry in a vehicle in Alabama.

Click to expand...

Thinking about this for a second... concealed carry being required means that anyone riding in a bus must conceal any weapon.... I wonder if this is debris from the civil rights era...

imported post

FWIW: the following defintions apply to Title 13 (not those in Title 32)

Section 13A-1-2

Definitions.

Unless different meanings are expressly specified in subsequent provisions of this title, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

15) VEHICLE. Any "propelled vehicle," as defined in subdivision (9) of Section 13A-8-1. The term includes any propelled device by which any person or property is transported on land, water, or in the air, and includes motor vehicles, motorcycles, motorboats, and aircraft, and any vessel, whether propelled by machinery or not.

　

　

Section 13A-8-1

Definitions generally.

(9) PROPELLED VEHICLE. Any propelled device in, upon, or by which any person or property is transported on land, water, or in the air, and such term includes motor vehicles, motorcycles, motorboats, aircraft, and any vessel propelled by machinery, whether or not that machinery is the principal source of propulsion.

imported post

49er wrote:

FWIW: the following defintions apply to Title 13 (not those in Title 32)

Section 13A-1-2

Definitions.

Unless different meanings are expressly specified in subsequent provisions of this title, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

15) VEHICLE. Any "propelled vehicle," as defined in subdivision (9) of Section 13A-8-1. The term includes any propelled device by which any person or property is transported on land, water, or in the air, and includes motor vehicles, motorcycles, motorboats, and aircraft, and any vessel, whether propelled by machinery or not.

Section 13A-8-1

Definitions generally.

(9) PROPELLED VEHICLE. Any propelled device in, upon, or by which any person or property is transported on land, water, or in the air, and such term includes motor vehicles, motorcycles, motorboats, aircraft, and any vessel propelled by machinery, whether or not that machinery is the principal source of propulsion.

Click to expand...

That's all well and fine but does the ORIGINAL STATUTE define or limit such a 'propelled vehicle' as one operated by the government and its agents? There are very few instances where the Right of a private Citizen can be regulated to the extent to render such a Right null and void.

When I get a free moment I'm going to the law library to look this up. Will report what I find.

imported post

Well, if you are of such an educated opinion why dont you just find the original statutes yourself?

imported post

"Take note too that the State of Alabama recognizes that there are so many people in Alabama that don't participate in Social Security because of their religious beliefs that they created an official state document just for them. Have you ever heard anyone speak of this fact on any television or radio program, or write about it in any newspaper or magazine? Of course you didn't. They want the people ignorant of their Inalienable Rights. After all, 'everyone must have a Social Security number, it's the law.'"

My parents got mine when I was 10, as the school required it for admission starting that year. So I never legally applied for it, nor was I required to do anything to continue or discontinue my involvement in SS at age 18.