• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

This law seems to prohibit a lot of OC

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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;
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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?
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
74
Location
, ,
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

dixieborn

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
130
Location
Mobile, AL, , USA
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?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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?
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
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.)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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?
 
Top