• 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.

Alabama HB364

Neo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
181
Location
Huntsville, AL, ,
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
 

REB

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
53
Location
, ,
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.
 

smttysmth02gt

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
230
Location
Eight Mile, , USA
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.
 

Monkeytown

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
107
Location
Wetumpka, AL, ,
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?
 

Neo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
181
Location
Huntsville, AL, ,
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/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----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?
 

Monkeytown

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
107
Location
Wetumpka, AL, ,
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
 

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
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/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----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).
 

Neo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
181
Location
Huntsville, AL, ,
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.
 

Monkeytown

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
107
Location
Wetumpka, AL, ,
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
 

Neo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
181
Location
Huntsville, AL, ,
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
 

greenhat11

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
3
Location
Trussville, Alabama, USA
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?
 

Monkeytown

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
107
Location
Wetumpka, AL, ,
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.
 

Deacon Blues

Newbie
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
124
Location
Birmingham, AL
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!
 

REB

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
53
Location
, ,
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.
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
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.:lol:
Are you at the banks mercy till you pay off the loan?

Alas my rep has no contact except by postal.:cuss:
 

boogm

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2
Location
, ,
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 :(
 
Top