Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 106

Thread: This law seems to prohibit a lot of OC

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Am I misreading the law, or does the bolded portion specifically disallow my OC on the neighbor's property or at the local Wal-Mart? I have read the AG's opinion, which seems to say that OC is permitted almost "anywhere."
    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;

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Mobile, AL, , USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    If you want clarification on the laws/revisions/legal jargon, etc, go to www.alabamagunrights.org

    Check out the link for the Tri-fold summary to get a great sum-up and explanation of how the laws in Alabama play out...

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    I know. I have read that information. I have been exploring the OC and CCW sites. I have read the AG opinions and the Alabama code.

    I am raising a specific question with the hope of creating a discussion that works through the logic that leads to saying that OC is generally legal in Alabama.

    Believe me, I want that to be true. But, as one who has insisted on the plain reading of the Second Amendment, I am doing plain reading on Alabama law, and I am not reaching the same conclusion as the erstwhile AG.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Alabama Code 1975 has two Statutes dealing with [carry]... of a Firearm... in general.

    The first Statute is 13A-11-52..., which, prohibits: Carrying a Pistol on premises not His [your] own, and

    The second Statute is 13A-11-73..., which, prohibits: Carrying aPistol without a License.

    13A-11-73 and 13A-11-52 seem to conflict, and in fact they do conflict, as they each govern certain conduct that the other seemingly allows, or likewise, prohibits.

    13A-11-73 only prohibits carrying a Pistol concealed on or about your Person, or in a Motor Vehicle.

    13A-11-52, which was the old Alabma Law, prohibited carrying a Pistol seemingly everywhere.

    Therefore, where the old Law and the new Law conflict, then, the new Law shall govern..., it being the complete revision of the subject matter.

    With that having been said you may Openly Carry a Pistol, or any other Firearm, anywhere in Alabama, provided; you are not a Prohibited Person under applicable Federal/State Law, AND you do not carry it to or while at any: 1. Public Demonstration, as is codified under 13A-11-59, or any 2. K-12 School, unless such is incident to 'Lawful Purposes' and you have a Valid Alabama Pistol Permit with no intent to use the Firearm, as is codified under 13A-11-72.

    All other Public Places in Alabama are Legal, but Private Property Owners may still bar you from entering their property and refusing to leave is Criminal Trespassing.

    In Alabama... under 13A-11-73... if you conceal a Pistol on your Person or get into a Vehicle with it, then, you need a Pistol Permit.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Again, I have seen the whole argument laid out. Let's take it step-by-step. Yes, I know this will take a bunch of posts. But, I am willing to take the time with anyone else who is.

    OK, so let me try to pull out the next step in the chain. If I have incorrectly selected or stated that next step, please post what you think it should be.

    Somehow, we move from 152, which talks about generic carry (no mention of OC or CCW), to 173, which mentions only CCW and generic carry in a vehicle. How is this significant to 152 prohibiting generic carry on premises other than one's own?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    The reason for the 'Generic' Prohibition of carrying of Pistol under AC1975 -152, supra, is because of the 'perception' that is given to Pistols by the 'Southern' community..., namely The Southern Baptist.

    The 'Generic' Prohibition was then changed to '...[more Specific/al]' Prohibitions at a later time..., as a rewrite of Alabama Law that ocurred in 1975, thus; the reason... Official Code of Alabama 1975.



  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    aadvark wrote:
    The first Statute is 13A-11-52..., which, prohibits: Carrying a Pistol on premises not His [your] own, and
    Is your body your own or does it belong to someone else? I carry on my body which are my own and which is under my control.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Interesting explanations as to why the laws say what they say, but I am trying to establish how the plain reading allows OC on premises not your own or find actual legislation that clarifies the wording.

    As to "premises," that would plainly mean land and buildings that are owned by someone. It is a nice argument that somehow a person is premises, but I can already hear a judge (and possibly a jury) laughing at that one.

    I seriously would like someone to help me step through this process.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Mobile, AL, , USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    I'm no lawyer/judge/english major and don't pretend that I am... but in my humble understanding of the subject, the key words concerning -52 are "complete revision of the subject matter."

    Therefore, -73 is now THE law concerning carry of handguns and the earlier statute no longer applies.

    Once again, I don't claim to be all wise on the subject, but is that not what the courts and past attorney generals have stated? That -52 is only applicable as it is consistent with -73, and in every other way, the matter has been revised?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Great. But, you are must be citing something other that -52 or -73, since there is no mention of complete revision in either. Can you direct me to where the complete revision occurs?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Mobile, AL, , USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    Yes indeed, that specific wording is used by the court's interpretation of the law in the case KJ v. State. (Can be read on www.alabamagunrights.org)

    This provides the case law that we must use to interpret the law today.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Sorry, but your link did not work.

    On edit: I found the pamphlet (which I had read previously). However, what I am looking for is the actual legislation that causes -73 to completely supercede -52. A pamphlet represents the author's understanding of some judge's understanding. That can change on a dime, and I wouldn't want to be the defendant if that happened. So, can I be pointed in the direction of whatever caused -73 to completely supercede -52?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Mobile, AL, , USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    Just type in <alabamagunrights.org> to your browser.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    I edited my post while you were posting.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    Interesting explanations as to why the laws say what they say, but I am trying to establish how the plain reading allows OC on premises not your own or find actual legislation that clarifies the wording.
    The plain reading of the Constitution of Alabama 1901 is where you must firststart. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that our state government could not outlaw both concealed and unconcealed carry of firearms. The state chose to outlaw concealed carry.

    Reading 13A-11-52 in context with those supreme court opinions along with the 13A-11-50 thru 13A-11-55, it is clear that the legislature was not attempting to write an unconstitutional statue that banned both concealed and unconcealed pistols being carried "about one's person". Open carry was guaranteed by our Constitution, not by the legislature. The subject at hand was the carrying of concealed pistols about one's person, which is clearly stated in the language of 13A-11-55.

    The legislature knew that restricting open carry was not an option since it had already chosen to restrict concealed carry. It could not have it both ways. The people and the courts had already made that clear. When 13A-11-73 and 13A-11-74 were written, the legislators were aware they were changing the law as it concerned concealed carry in 13A-11-52. The legislature is allowed to overule its own laws, but it cannot overule our Constitution.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    All this is great, but can someone say, "Read this. Now read this. Now read this," etc., referring me to primary sources. Everything I have been told, or directed to, save for -52 and -73 are conclusions. I am looking to trace the primary sources.

    And, plain reading of -52 and -73 clearly prohibit OC except on your own premises or places not considered the premises of others, such as public byways.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    Only if you refuse to read 13A-11-52 in context with the rest of the law and it'ssubordination to our Constitution and our court's opinions.

    Do you assume thata constitutional right can be restricted to one's own property and abolished elsewhere by an act of the legislature? Freedom of speech only on one's own property? Freedom of religion only on one's own property?



    You obviously did not attempt to read the law in context with those around it.

    13A-11-55 sums up the subject the legislature was addressing... which was concealed weapons:



    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.)

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Once again, I am getting opinions and conclusions.

    Can someone direct me to primary sources?

    -55 clearly is nor all-inclusive, as it fails to mention pistols in automobiles. If it does not describe all indictments that can be brought for illegal carry, then the possibility remains that open carry result in indictment.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    The "primary" source is the will of the people in the Constitution of Alabama 1901 that every agent of this state has sworn to defend before assuming their duties:

    SECTION 26

    Right to bear arms.
    That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
    SECTION 36

    Construction of Declaration of Rights.
    That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Great. Now, how is -52 (another primary source) in conflict with the right to bear arms? Can someone cite a primary source on that or some other reason why I can OC in my neighbors front yard despite -52?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    ...this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.
    Yourdefintion of "primary source" as it relates to a statute is misplaced. Statues aresecondary to constitutional guarantees.



    Heller v Washington DC
    ...After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all...
    [emphasis mine]

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    "Primary source" is a historical term. It refers to original documents or widely accepted copies, as opposed to documents containing opinions, conclusions, and paraphrases. For example, the web copies of the Alabama Constitution and the code of Alabama could be considered primary sources. The tri-fold pamphlet is not. Web copies of actual legislation and court rulings would be. Summaries of the above are not.

    So, can anyone take me on a tour of these primary sources?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

    If you are a peace officer, do what you took an oath to do. If you have ever taken the military oath, do what you swore to do. If you are a citizen and have not taken an oath, defend the Constitution anyway:



    SECTION 279

    Required of members of legislature and executive and judicial officers; form; administration.
    All members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation:

    "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."

    The oath may be administered by the presiding officer of either house of the legislature, or by any officer authorized by law to administer an oath.

    ENLISTED OATH OF OFFICE

    I (state your full name) ________________ do solemnly swear

    That I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice,

    So help me God,

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Apparently, you cannot provide what I am asking for. That's OK, but the snark was unnecessary.

    Can someone else lead me through the primary sources, and not just the rhetoric? It would be a valuable tool that anyone could follow and know directly for themselves what the law says.

    Too many people satisfy themselves with what other people say the law says. Jails are filled with those people. I am not one of them. I truly want to know what the actual legislation and court rulings say.

    Can anyone provide this?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Mobile, AL, , USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    eye95... you're getting obnoxious. You've been directed to plenty of primary sources. The Alabama constitution, Alabama statutes, case law, attorney general opinions. Those things are all actual legitimate sources, not just forum filler. And all of these things have answered your questions... I don't see what is confusing about it anymore.

    Try getting someone else to sit down with you and go through the all the evidence and sources and explain it all. This is obviously just not getting through.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •