Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: Alabama HB364

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Huntsville, AL, ,
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    Hey Everyone,

    Representative Craig Ford has sponsored HB364 to mandate that employers (public and private) cannot prohibit you from storing firearms in your locked vehicle including handguns for self-defense. The bill is in the Commerce committee and a vote is expected to take place February 24th. Please contact those Commerce committee members and your representatives and urge them to pass this bill. We need this now! I have copied the entire text of the bill below.

    HB3641
    116625-12
    By Representative Ford3
    RFD: Commerce 4
    First Read: 19-JAN-10 5

    Page 0
    116625-1:n:01/18/2010:KBH/th LRS2010-4071
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    SYNOPSIS: This bill would prohibit a business entity,8
    property owner, tenant, or public or private9
    employer from establishing policies against persons10
    transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition11
    when the person is otherwise in compliance with all12
    other applicable laws under certain conditions.13
    14
    A BILL15
    TO BE ENTITLED16
    AN ACT17
    18
    Relating to firearms or ammunition in motor19
    vehicles; to prohibit a business entity, property owner,20
    tenant, or public or private employer from establishing21
    policies against persons transporting or storing a firearm or22
    ammunition when the person is otherwise in compliance with all23
    other applicable laws under certain conditions.24
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:25
    Section 1. The Alabama Legislature finds that:26
    Page 1
    (1) Section 26 of the Official Recompilation of the1
    Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, and the Second2
    Amendment to the United States Constitution, protect the right3
    of an individual to bear arms in self-defense, and this right4
    is a fundamental right derived from the inherent principle of5
    self-preservation of individuals who have a need to protect6
    themselves in both their homes and in their movements7
    throughout this state.8
    (2) The enjoyment of this right would be impaired if9
    individuals were deprived of the means of self-defense in10
    their personal motor vehicles.11
    (3) Individuals are deprived of the means of12
    self-defense in their personal motor vehicles when property13
    owners, tenants, employers, or business entities forbid their14
    invitees, customers, employees, and others who are lawfully15
    permitted on their property to possess and store firearms in a16
    locked and privately owned motor vehicle.17
    (4) A locked and privately owned motor vehicle of an18
    individual is not a public space and an individual has a right19
    to furnish his or her motor vehicle with items that the20
    individual may legally possess and that enhance the comfort,21
    security, ease of movement, and enjoyment of liberty of the22
    individual.23
    (5) Property owners, tenants, employers, or business24
    entities that allow privately owned motor vehicles on their25
    property are not unduly burdened by the presence of legally26
    Page 2
    possessed items that the owner of the motor vehicle has1
    secured out of sight within the motor vehicle.2
    (6) The passage of this act is for the benefit and3
    protection of those individuals who choose to exercise and4
    enforce their fundamental right to bear arms in self-defense5
    in their movements throughout this state, including in their6
    personal motor vehicles.7
    Section 2. (a) A business entity, property owner,8
    tenant, or public or private employer may not establish,9
    maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits or has10
    the effect of prohibiting a person from transporting or11
    storing a firearm or ammunition when the person is otherwise12
    in compliance with all other applicable laws and the firearm13
    or ammunition is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove14
    box, or other enclosed compartment or area within or on a15
    privately owned motor vehicle.16
    (b) Any policy or rule that is established or17
    maintained in violation of subsection (a), or the attempted18
    enforcement of any policy or rule in violation of subsection19
    (a) is contrary to public policy, null and void, and without20
    legal force or effect.21
    (c) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a motor22
    vehicle that is owned by a business entity, property owner, or23
    employer while it is being used by agents or employees of the24
    business entity, property owner, or employer in the course of25
    their employment or facilities, lands, or property owned,26
    Page 3
    operated, or controlled by any entity engaged in the1
    generation, transmission, or distribution of electricity.2
    Section 3. This act shall become effective on the3
    first day of the third month following its passage and4
    approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.5
    Page 4

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    53

    Post imported post

    Well it's a step in the right direction and hopefully it will pass this year without a lot of exceptions be added like last year.

    The one thing I don't understandis thisthis bill states "The enjoyment of this right would be impaired if individuals were deprived of the means of self-defense in their personal motor vehicles" and then turns right around and gives an exception to "any entity engaged in the generation, transmission, or distribution of electricity" If it is a constitutionally protected right under the Alabama constitution then how can one industry be granted permission to deny an individual this right.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eight Mile, , USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Well I called the state legislatures office right when I got the email from the NRA ILA about it. Told them about this one and HB330 and that I want them voting for them. Of course I just left a message.

    What is weird is, I got a phone call from someone (I don't remember her name) who claimed to be my state house representative and she was on her cell from the house floor (I heard a bunch of background noise). She wanted to ask me about what I was calling about. She told me that she "needs to talk to the big companies with government contracts before voting". In other words, "I need to see how much money I will get for voting against it". I pleaded my case of common sense and law to her and she mentioned how there was a shooting about 2 years ago at Austal (who has govt contracts) and that they probably want them voting against it. I argued that if that ever happens again, the only thing this will do is prevent those who obey the law from being able to stand a chance in that type of situation. She ended with "let me talk to them and we'll see". She did state that she did vote FOR it last session and I ended the call with "I really hope you vote for it again this session because a lot of people were upset when it did not pass last session".

    Oh well. They don't give a flying crap about any of us any more. It's all about who has the money.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL, ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    I saw a spot on the news this AM where Senator Bedford was introducing this Bill again in the Senate. Hopefully we can get this in place this year.

    On a separate note, they stated that CHL holders were prohibited from carrying in governments building and schools due to Federal Law. I've researched this and it appears to be false as the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act of 1990 had an exemption for CHL holders.

    Anyone know anything about this?

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Huntsville, AL, ,
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    Monkeytown wrote:
    ....On a separate note, they stated that CHL holders were prohibited from carrying in governments building and schools due to Federal Law. I've researched this and it appears to be false as the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act of 1990 had an exemption for CHL holders.

    Anyone know anything about this?
    You can read the text of Title 18 USC, Section 922 (Gun Free School Zones) here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

    It does say that, in order for a CCW holder to be exempt from the Gun Free School Zone Act, they must have a CCW permit issued by the state in which the school is located and that state's CCW issuing process must have required a background check. So, technically, an AL CCW does not meet this standard. But, due to reciprocity, I wonder if a FL permit issued to an AL resident would meet that criteria? Comments?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL, ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    AL does not conduct a background check? I assumed they did an NCIC type background check? Hmmm....you learn something new everyday.

    Thanks Neo,
    Shaun

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    Neo wrote:
    Monkeytown wrote:
    ....On a separate note, they stated that CHL holders were prohibited from carrying in governments building and schools due to Federal Law. I've researched this and it appears to be false as the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act of 1990 had an exemption for CHL holders.

    Anyone know anything about this?
    You can read the text of Title 18 USC, Section 922 (Gun Free School Zones) here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

    It does say that, in order for a CCW holder to be exempt from the Gun Free School Zone Act, they must have a CCW permit issued by the state in which the school is located and that state's CCW issuing process must have required a background check. So, technically, an AL CCW does not meet this standard. But, due to reciprocity, I wonder if a FL permit issued to an AL resident would meet that criteria? Comments?
    Alabama pistol licenses do qualify for the federal Gun Free School Zones Act exemption within the State of Alabama. U.S. v. Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2000).
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Huntsville, AL, ,
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    WVCDL wrote
    Alabama pistol licenses do qualify for the federal Gun Free School Zones Act exemption within the State of Alabama. U.S. v. Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2000).
    Really? I'll have to check that out.

    Hey MT,

    Sheriffs DO perform a background check, but it's not REQUIRED by AL law. That's the point I was sticking on. I had assumed that our CCW did meet the qualifications to exempt us from the Gun Free School Zone. I'll have to check out the case cited by WVCDL above.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL, ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Neo wrote:
    WVCDL wrote
    Alabama pistol licenses do qualify for the federal Gun Free School Zones Act exemption within the State of Alabama. U.S. v. Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2000).
    Really? I'll have to check that out.

    Hey MT,

    Sheriffs DO perform a background check, but it's not REQUIRED by AL law. That's the point I was sticking on. I had assumed that our CCW did meet the qualifications to exempt us from the Gun Free School Zone. I'll have to check out the case cited by WVCDL above.
    OIC, thanks.

    MT

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Huntsville, AL, ,
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    WVCDL wrote:
    Alabama pistol licenses do qualify for the federal Gun Free School Zones Act exemption within the State of Alabama. U.S. v. Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2000).
    I just read U.S. v. Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2000) and all I can say is, "Thank you WVCDL!" Knowledge IS power. So, AL CCWs DO qualify us for an exemption under the Gun Free School Zone Act. Any of you can read a copy of the ruling here:

    http://openjurist.org/202/f3d/1320/united-states-v-tait

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    This is good Legislation.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trussville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Hello-New here and wanted to shine light on one sticking point/area of concern.

    A few Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ) now exist in the state. These areas are considered 'Federal' jurisdiction. I wonder how the employee parking lots adjacent to these FTZ businesses (i.e. Mercedes-Benz in Tuscaloosa) will be handled and if Federal statutes might override state sovereignty?

    Just a layman's perspective. Any thoughts?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL, ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    greenhat11 wrote:
    Hello-New here and wanted to shine light on one sticking point/area of concern.

    A few Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ) now exist in the state. These areas are considered 'Federal' jurisdiction. I wonder how the employee parking lots adjacent to these FTZ businesses (i.e. Mercedes-Benz in Tuscaloosa) will be handled and if Federal statutes might override state sovereignty?

    Just a layman's perspective. Any thoughts?
    What is this State Sovereignty of which you speak. Don't you know there was war in the 1800's that decided that issue for us? Well at least according to the RINO's and leftist's it was.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trussville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    That's exactly why I'm asking the question. Any other thoughts?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trussville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    I believe congratulations are in order.......
    Alabama Senate votes to allow people to keep guns in cars at work
    http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/02/..._bill_tha.html

  16. #16
    Newbie Deacon Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    Victory! Well, not not just yet; it still has to make it through the House. I'm very hopeful at this point. Here's to moving forward!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    53

    Post imported post

    Considering the House passed a version of this bill last year and it died in the Senate I think we have a good chance.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Huntsville, AL, ,
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    Now is the time to contact your AL House Representatives and urge them to support HB364!

    You can look up your representative at the link below and get a telephone number and/or email address.

    http://www.legislature.state.al.us/house/house.html



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Maybe if we start a rumour that gamblers flee at the site of guns
    "It's the LAW" Riley will get on board.
    But how does an electric car fit in? It transports power around the state.
    Are you at the banks mercy till you pay off the loan?

    Alas my rep has no contact except by postal.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    REb,
    Sorry for the lateness in this response,new to the site.The reason that the
    clause is in about electrical power generation is due to the immense
    power and pressure APCO bears in the state.They have a policy,that
    all contractors must sign stating that said contractor's(boilermakers,like me
    for example) firearms are barred from their property including the construction/
    contractors parking lots. A violation of this rule,which you must sign for
    employment, will get you permanently barred from APCO/ Southern Company
    property.The stories i could tell you all on this one

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Huntsville, AL, ,
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    According to the NRA ILA site, SB360 (the counterpart to HB364 that passed in the AL Senate) will be heard TODAY AT 9 AM! Please contact the members of this committee (listed at the link below) and respectfully urge them to vote for it.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/39013.html

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Florence, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    Has anyone heard the results of the voting? I have been looking all over and the NRA ILA hasn't updated their site yet either.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eight Mile, , USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    47_MasoN_47 wrote:
    Has anyone heard the results of the voting? I have been looking all over and the NRA ILA hasn't updated their site yet either.
    There was no vote. It was only passed to committee, and it remains there (I called the state legislature's office Friday).

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Florence, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    So what now then? When will we know something? I'm tired of my employer having the power to take away my ability to defend myself.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Alabama needs to pass this Law.

    Georgia, my Home State, has already passed this Law.

    However, Georgia is behind Alabama on some Firearm-Rights issues.



    Foreign Trade Zones 'FTZ's' are covered under Federal Law, but I would conclude that:

    1. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 930 would apply to prohibit Firearms on that Premises, but

    2. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 930(d)(3) does make an exception for Firearms possesed..., '... for Lawful purposes or pursuant to Hunting.' However, it is unclear what 'Lawful Purposes' really are, and

    3. Would not matter anyway,because 18 U.S.C. 930(a) must be posted at the entrance to The Federal Facility, The Federal Trade Zone, and if it is not, then, no Conviction under Federal Law can be had pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 930(h).



Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •