Let's Support Dianosis With His Dothan Problem

imported post

Good to see ya back online BamaFF. I agree, I have talked to DPD too, and they agreed to its legality. ????

imported post

eye95 wrote:

If we educate the officers on St John v. Alamogordo, that the officers themselves are at financial risk for seizing an OCer or his property just because he OCed, that limited qualified immunity does not protect them in this specific instance, then the officers (even if the department does not change policy) will be hesitant to make anything of OC.

Click to expand...

The case you're calling "St. John v. Alamogordo" is actually St.John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp 2d 1155 (D. N.M. 2009). It is a decision by a United States District Court in New Mexico. It has absolutely no application in Alabama.

First off, the decision is based onNew Mexico's handgun laws, which are much clearer than Alabama's. Unless the law is clearly established, an officer has qualified immunity for his interpretation of it. Alabama's law is so muddy that qualified immunity isassured.

Second, New Mexico's handgun laws cannot clearly establish the law in Alabama, and neither can a decision by a United States District Court from New Mexico.

New Mexico is in the Tenth Circuit. Alabama is in the Eleventh. "In this circuit, the law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state where the case arose." Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1197 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002).

Unless there is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, or the Alabama Supreme Court that clearly establishes a right to open carry in Alabamanotwithstanding 13A-11-52 - and there isn't - qualified immunity shields officers from liability when they enforce 13A-11-52.

If you don't like the laws on the books, you need to ask your legislator to change them and stop threateningwell-intentioned cops with bogus civil suits.

imported post

When there is conflicting precedents in different circuits and the SCOTUS has not ruled, you are right. If there are no conflicting precedents, cases can and are cited from other circuits.

So, as an officer, you go ahead and believe that you are not at risk. Just take this one piece of advice: don't take my gun.

Anyway, your malicious streak is starting to show, and, while I am usually the most tolerant of trolls around here, hoping to convert them into useful posters, I give up on you.

Have a nice life. Moving on permanently.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

When there is conflicting precedents in different circuits and the SCOTUS has not ruled, you are right. If there are no conflicting precedents, cases can and are cited from other circuits.

So, as an officer, you go ahead and believe that you are not at risk. Just take this one piece of advice: don't take my gun.

Anyway, your malicious streak is starting to show, and, while I am usually the most tolerant of trolls around here, hoping to convert them into useful posters, I give up on you.

Have a nice life. Moving on permanently.

Click to expand...

Trust me, I have a lot more experience in this area ofthe law than you think.

You can call me malicious, but I'm not the guy using inapplicable legal decisions to threaten cops with bogus lawsuits.

By the way, why don't you tell us which other circuits have interpreted Alabama's gun laws? (As if that matters.)

imported post

"threaten cops with bogus lawsuits." -- Really?

Are you kidding me? If you took the time to read what eye95 is talking about, you would see the reasonable way he has gone about his interaction with the local law enforcement after they clearly violated his civil rights. If you don't agree that this was the case, then you should probably just ask MPD... I bet they would confirm it.

No one is blindly threatening or bashing LE here ok? No need for you to get all defensive and smear people. As long as you make it a point to respect people's rights when you're on duty, then you should have nothing to fear from lawsuits, legitimate or bogus.

Just because by this point I'm curious, are you the type of cop that would tase someone you found OC'ing, steal their gun, etc, or would you actually uphold the law?

imported post

eye95 wrote:

When there is conflicting precedents in different circuits and the SCOTUS has not ruled, you are right. If there are no conflicting precedents, cases can and are cited from other circuits.

So, as an officer, you go ahead and believe that you are not at risk. Just take this one piece of advice: don't take my gun.

Anyway, your malicious streak is starting to show, and, while I am usually the most tolerant of trolls around here, hoping to convert them into useful posters, I give up on you.

Have a nice life. Moving on permanently.

Click to expand...

+1,000,000 When I am arrested for OC, immediately exonerated, and win my lawsuit against the officers involved, I will givesome of the money to a legal fund to help others "lawyer up."

Might even invest in some of Earnest P. Worrell's famous "Troll away spray," from EarnestScared Stupid. Hahaha. How often do you literally make yourself lol?

imported post

dixieborn wrote:

"threaten cops with bogus lawsuits." -- Really?

Are you kidding me? If you took the time to read what eye95 is talking about, you would see the reasonable way he has gone about his interaction with the local law enforcement after they clearly violated his civil rights. If you don't agree that this was the case, then you should probably just ask MPD... I bet they would confirm it.

No one is blindly threatening or bashing LE here ok? No need for you to get all defensive and smear people. As long as you make it a point to respect people's rights when you're on duty, then you should have nothing to fear from lawsuits, legitimate or bogus.

Just because by this point I'm curious, are you the type of cop that would tase someone you found OC'ing, steal their gun, etc, or would you actually uphold the law?

Click to expand...

Don't bother. This guy doesn't have the decency to add his location to his profile, tell us about himself, and interact in a congenial way on any other topic. He's a one-trick troll who came here to make trouble. My guess is that he is a LEO from Houston or Coffee counties. (He reminds me of Sandy.)

At any rate, let him rant for a while and ignore him. He will tire an leave.

On edit: I know this is a bit ninja. And, I hate ninja. But, the alternative was to appear to respond to a troll. Notice in the post below that he virtually admits to being a LEO. Notice how he doesn't come right out and say it. Also, notice how does not have the courage to mention his LEA, even though he has been pretty well outed.vvvvvvvvvvvvv

imported post

dixieborn wrote:

"threaten cops with bogus lawsuits." -- Really?

Are you kidding me? If you took the time to read what eye95 is talking about, you would see the reasonable way he has gone about his interaction with the local law enforcement after they clearly violated his civil rights. If you don't agree that this was the case, then you should probably just ask MPD... I bet they would confirm it.

No one is blindly threatening or bashing LE here ok? No need for you to get all defensive and smear people. As long as you make it a point to respect people's rights when you're on duty, then you should have nothing to fear from lawsuits, legitimate or bogus.

Just because by this point I'm curious, are you the type of cop that would tase someone you found OC'ing, steal their gun, etc, or would you actually uphold the law?

Click to expand...

I don't fear a lawsuit over something like this.

You guys are trying to impose your lay opinions on cops who are doing their best to do their jobs.

I have addressed this issue extensively today in another thread. The so-called legal support for your position on this issue is just not there.

imported post

Gotcha, I guess I should have assumed that by the fact that you were moving on permanently... but yes, the motives are clear. Guess I just hate to give in to the fact that some people just refuse to see reason.

Edit: Just so I'm clear (editing so as not to bother adding another post for this purpose), I'll take eye's advice and not bother giving this cop the pleasure of a worthless argument anymore. Please find another web community to bother man.

imported post

dixieborn wrote:

Gotcha, I guess I should have assumed that by the fact that you were moving on permanently... but yes, the motives are clear. Guess I just hate to give in to the fact that some people just refuse to see reason.

Click to expand...

You guys are the ones who refuse to see reason. I shot holes in your arguments in another thread. Your buddy ran out of steam and finally gave up.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

At any rate, let him rant for a while and ignore him. He will tire an leave.

Click to expand...

You're right about this.

I took you on over the legality of OC in Alabama on the other thread, picked apart all your arguments, and you gave up.

My work here is done.

imported post

Bird, I don't doubt that you have some good points, but please refute this :

That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state. - Alabama State Constitution

imported post

Jonathon Norris wrote:

Bird, I don't doubt that you have some good points, but please refute this :

That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state. - Alabama State Constitution

Click to expand...

The pistol permit law, the state law governing certain persons prohibited, the federal law governingconvicted felons, the federal law governing domestic violence convictions, and the state law governing guns on school grounds are just a few examples of laws that impose limits on this right. They have all been upheld. There are also laws prohibiting short-barreled rifles and shotguns.

Hyde v. City of Birmingham, 392 So. 2d 1226 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), upheld the following city ordinance as constitutional: "No person shall disturb the peace of others by having a firearm in his possession in a public place or within public view under circumstances where the natural tendency of such possession would be to provoke a breach of the peace.”

imported post

Bird Dog wrote:

Jonathon Norris wrote:

Bird, I don't doubt that you have some good points, but please refute this :

That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.  -  Alabama State Constitution

Click to expand...

The pistol permit law, the state law governing certain persons prohibited, the federal law governing convicted felons, the federal law governing domestic violence convictions, and the state law governing guns on school grounds are just a few examples of laws that impose limits on this right.  They have all been upheld.  There are also laws prohibiting short-barreled rifles and shotguns.

Hyde v. City of Birmingham, 392 So. 2d 1226 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), upheld the following city ordinance as constitutional: "No person shall disturb the peace of others by having a firearm in his possession in a public place or within public view  under circumstances where the natural tendency of such possession would be to provoke a breach of the peace.”

Click to expand...

So you're saying the city of Birmingham's firearms ordinance preempts the AL firearms preemption statutes?

imported post

This guy is a LEO trolling the board for the purpose of defending the actions of the Dothan police and the Coffee County Sheriff. I wouldn't give him the time of day again.

imported post

Bird Dog wrote:

Hyde v. City of Birmingham, 392 So. 2d 1226 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), upheld the following city ordinance as constitutional: "No person shall disturb the peace of others by having a firearm in his possession in a public place or within public view under circumstances where the natural tendency of such possession would be to provoke a breach of the peace.”

Click to expand...

Subsequently overruledby state preemption statutes - the law of the land.

imported post

Bird Dog wrote:

There are also laws prohibiting short-barreled rifles and shotguns.

Click to expand...

On April 22, Governor Riley signed HB2 into law. Didn't notice, huh? This, along with the date you signed up here, makes me suspect that you had little interest in what was happening with our laws until you felt the need to publicly defend yourself, your department, or whoever.

Perhaps you should reconsider your purpose here.

imported post

Bird Dog wrote:

Jonathon Norris wrote:

Bird, I don't doubt that you have some good points, but please refute this :

That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state. - Alabama State Constitution

Click to expand...

The pistol permit law,

Click to expand...

Which licenses the otherwise "evil practice" of carrying a weapon concealed.

the state law governing certain persons prohibited

Click to expand...

Which the supreme court has declared legal, because it does not reasonably restrict the defensive carry of arms.

the federal law governingconvicted felons,

Click to expand...

Which I believe, considering the wantonness with which new felonies are being added to the books, to be unconstitutional. Let's not go there in this thread.

the federal law governing domestic violence convictions

Click to expand...

Already a crime of violence in Alabama, thus you are repeating yourself.

and the state law governing guns on school grounds

Click to expand...

Which, ironically, never applied to permit holders even before the Federal ban (which also doesn't apply to permit holders).

There are also laws prohibiting short-barreled rifles and shotguns.

Click to expand...

As someone else has pointed out, now the only restrictions on these are at the Federal level.

Hyde v. City of Birmingham, 392 So. 2d 1226 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), upheld the following city ordinance as constitutional: "No person shall disturb the peace of others by having a firearm in his possession in a public place or within public view under circumstances where the natural tendency of such possession would be to provoke a breach of the peace.

Click to expand...

Has been preempted. This law is now illegal and invalid.

You may be a cop. You may even be in law school. That doesn't mean that anything you post here is anything other than your opinion. Have a nice day.

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

Hyde v. City of Birmingham, 392 So. 2d 1226 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), upheld the following city ordinance as constitutional: "No person shall disturb the peace of others by having a firearm in his possession in a public place or within public view under circumstances where the natural tendency of such possession would be to provoke a breach of the peace.

Click to expand...

Has been preempted. This law is now illegal and invalid.

You may be a cop. You may even be in law school. That doesn't mean that anything you post here is anything other than your opinion. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

The ordinance may have been preempted by a more recent state law that reserves the regulation of firearms to the legislature, but it was not declared unconstitutional. Those are entirely different matters.

In other words, the Hyde decision still stands for the proposition that such a law does not violate the constitution.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Bird Dog wrote:

Hyde v. City of Birmingham, 392 So. 2d 1226 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), upheld the following city ordinance as constitutional: "No person shall disturb the peace of others by having a firearm in his possession in a public place or within public view under circumstances where the natural tendency of such possession would be to provoke a breach of the peace.”

Click to expand...

Subsequently overruledby state preemption statutes - the law of the land.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Several people on here were arguing that -52 could not possibly prevent open carry because they claimed such a restriction would be unconstitutional. I was using Hyde to show that it would not be unconstitutional for -52 to prohibit open carry.

The fact that Birmingham's handgun ordinance may have been preempted by a state law does not change the validity of the Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling that the ordinance did not violate the constitution.

By analogy, a state statute restricting open carry must also be constitutional. Hence, the argument that interpreting -52 to restrict open carry is unconstitutional does not fly.

By the way, a statestatute is not "the law of the land."