State v. Reid

imported post

From the same court decision that gave us:

Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defense.

Click to expand...

I give you:

The constitution in declaring that, "Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defence[sic] of himself and the State," has neither expressly nor by implication, denied to the Legislature, the right to enact laws in regard to the manner in which arms shall be borne. The right guarantied to the citizen, is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places, but merely "in defence[sic] of himself and the State." (emphasis added)

Click to expand...

Please discuss your views on the above and whether you think this is in defense of or opposition to every-day open carry.


I would point out that Reid was at the time a sheriff, and had the power to arrest and imprison lawbreakers, and yet he felt he needed to carry a concealed weapon to defend himself. The Supreme Court put paid to that idea when they said:

But in the present case, no such necessity seems to have existed; and we cannot well conceive of its[the need to conceal a weapon] existence under any supposable circumstances.

Click to expand...

imported post

For me it states that you have the right to defend yourself by openly carrying a firearm when you feel that you need to defend yourself. I interpret that as carrying anywhere I can because I have no idea when I might have to defend myself.

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

From the same court decision that gave us:

Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defense.

Click to expand...

I give you:

The constitution in declaring that, "Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defence[sic] of himself and the State," has neither expressly nor by implication, denied to the Legislature, the right to enact laws in regard to the manner in which arms shall be borne. The right guarantied to the citizen, is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places, but merely "in defence[sic] of himself and the State." (emphasis added)

Click to expand...

Please discuss your views on the above and whether you think this is in defense of or opposition to every-day open carry.


I would point out that Reid was at the time a sheriff, and had the power to arrest and imprison lawbreakers, and yet he felt he needed to carry a concealed weapon to defend himself. The Supreme Court put paid to that idea when they said:

But in the present case, no such necessity seems to have existed; and we cannot well conceive of its[the need to conceal a weapon] existence under any supposable circumstances.

Click to expand...

The Looney v State explains that in detail when it gets to the AGO 1984-205 in answering the second question statingthat carrying "anywhere" is a broad term. There may be individual or specific restrictions......" Check out the AGO and it backs up the stuff above. As we know, we can't go anywhere we want armed, only where they allow us to go...like Starbucks!

Click to expand...

imported post

I agree with AL Ranger. I think the court was pointing out that there needs to be respect for private property rights and they did not want the opinion misrepresented to mean you can OC anywhere at anytime in violation of the property owners rights to ban you from carrying a weapon on their property.

However IANAL so my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

MT

imported post

The entire opinion in State v Reid was based on an erroneous assumption because the judges either did not read the Constitution of Alabama of 1819, or they misrepresented what they read.

Compare this: ...

The constitution in declaring that, "Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defence[sic] of himself and the State," has neither expressly nor by implication, denied to the Legislature, the right to enact laws in regard to the manner in which arms shall be borne. The right guarantied to the citizen, is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places, but merely "in defence[sic] of himself and the State." (emphasis added)

Click to expand...

... to what the Constitution of Alabama 1819 expressed in no uncertain terms:

Constitution of Alabama 1819



SEC. 30. This enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people: and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, or any transgression of any of the high powers herein delegated, we declare, that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Click to expand...

The long dissertation in State v Reid supporting the law in question should haveonlyaddressedthe words ofthe people of Alabama spoken inSection 30 of the Constitution of Alabama 1819. Short, clear, and to the point...

... we declare, that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Click to expand...

Case closed.

imported post

^^^ Wow. I really need to get around to reading the whole Constitution. I wasn't aware of what you posted above, and I am glad that I am now. This is even better than State preemption. :shock:

As far as the court opinion, it is rather convoluted because they compare that case to some other cases in other states, but on the whole seems to recognize that to ban OC, at least, would be wholly unconstitutional. The part I am most interested in is the discussion that, to paraphrase, would make invalid any law that would make bearing arms unduly burdensome (*cough* illegal to carry in a vehicle *cough cough*).


The only reason I brought the whole thing up, I was searching for the text of the decision and noticed that the case was cited in a Brady report because it upheld the authority to restrict concealed carry.