Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Alabama AG Opinions: Only one Pistol

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Madison County, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    So, I have nothing better to do with my free time and was browsing the AG Opinions. I think I read every opinion that has anything to do with firearms and came across this one:

    http://www.ago.alabama.gov/oldopinions/8100044.pdf

    Has anyone else seen this? Yes, I realise it discusses concealed carry (feel free to delete if it annoys anyone too much), butthis is the only forum I havefound with a significant number of actual Alabama residents familiar with AL firearms laws.It appears to say that you can only have one pistol on you at a time. Does anyone else know of anything more recent? If it's there I haven't found it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Well, if that opinion is still in force, then it is of interest to OC in Alabama since we need a permit as a matter of practicality to get from one place of OC to another.

  3. #3
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238

    Post imported post

    The criminal code 13A-11-75 does mention it is a license for A pistol, not PISTOLS. So, if you have a concealed license you can carry as many as you want openly and one concealed. That makes sense to me! LOL
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    So, if a law said that it was legal for a person to own a house, they may only own one?

    I'd love to hear from a lawyer, or a law student, as to how the word "a" is interpreted in court. Does it mean "one"?

    Of course, everything hangs on what the meaning of "is" is.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Madison County, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    The real concern to me is the vehicle. While I rarely carry multiple on my person, I do carry multiple in my vehicle when headed to the range. It would seem a little idiotic to have one up front and the rest locked in the trunk:quirky.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Opelika, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    EYE95 wrote:
    So, if a law said that it was legal for a person to own a house, they may only own one?

    I'd love to hear from a lawyer, or a law student, as to how the word "a" is interpreted in court. Does it mean "one"?

    Of course, everything hangs on what the meaning of "is" is.
    Yes, even slick Willy don't know what the meaning of the word" is" is! LOL

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Florence, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    My local Sheriff says I can CC as many as I want.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    47_MasoN_47 wrote:
    My local Sheriff says I can CC as many as I want.
    Well, we all know how well we can rely on what a sheriff says. About all its worth is to find out what they will and won't hassle you for!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    That was dated 1980 holmes.You must have really been browsin' to get into that old stuff!They got rid of the whole "qualified" and "unlimited" permit junk that restricted CC abilities. Don't now where right off hand but do some more super browsing and you'll find it. lol.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    I enjoy the fact I can carry as many pistols Concealed asI want. I want to look like Neo in the Matrix. Trench Coat.... 40 guns. LOL

    If I did that, then had to open the coat to get my wallet at a store.... is that brandishing?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    Section 1-1-2
    Tenses; gender; singular and plural; joint authority.
    Words used in this Code in the past or present tense include the future, as well as the past and present. Words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter. The singular includes the plural, and the plural the singular. All words giving a joint authority to three or more persons or officers give such authority to a majority of such persons or officers, unless it is otherwise declared.

    (Code 1852, §§1, 3; Code 1867, §§1, 3; Code 1876, §§1, 3; Code 1886, §§1, 3; Code 1896, §§1, 3; Code 1907, §§1, 3; Code 1923, §§1, 3, 9533; Code 1940, T. 1, §1.)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    Hollowpoint38 wrote:
    I enjoy the fact I can carry as many pistols Concealed asI want. I want to look like Neo in the Matrix. Trench Coat.... 40 guns. LOL

    If I did that, then had to open the coat to get my wallet at a store.... is that brandishing?
    Not as long as you don't unholster a single one.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Thewhole "tense" thing got me rememberinghow intelligent the founders were when drafting those precious documents. They covered the 2A perfectly...

    The right to keep- (present tense) owning, possession,storing, maintaining.

    and bear- (present tense) using, wearing/carrying, transporting, producing.

    arms- (plural) implements of war, weaponry: firearms, ammo, blades, explosive ordinance, shields/armor, ect.

    shall not be unreasonablyinfringed- (present and future tense)

    that's how it always ends up right? I was unaware of a justices power to rewrite a constitutional amendment as he/she/both sees fit.But whose gonna stop them, the people? hah.What justice was it that put that interjection in there again?(D.C. v Heller) ? oh ya, Stevens and heller's attorney agreed.Don't be mistaken thatcase did more harm than good!

    Most of you know this already, but it's nice to revisit once in a while. They covered it all. All flavors and fashions. What good does keeping arms do if you cannot bear them? And obviously have none to bear if you cannot keep. It's flawless if you ask me. Most importantly they new something that most today do not. That this rightisan unlimited right. If we give up one little piece (like the interjection) next thing you know the dam has fallen. For who is to define what unreasonable is?

    No government should own any arms that the people cannot. No Nukes or bio'sshould exist, everything else is fair game.

    If they wanted to enforce the laws by the tense in which they are written, would that mean if we wanted to bear arms we would have to carry 2 or more? Enjoy!:celebrate



  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    "Shall not be infringed" is a future tense. The past participle is indicating that, at the point in the future, the action will be (or, in this case, will not be allowed to be) completed. In other words, at no time in the future should we look back and find that our right has already been infringed.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    double tap

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    ^ Like
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  17. #17
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Ummmm when im on duty i have one concealed shirt holster under my vest then one on my duty belt does this meet his opinion??? Opinions are like A**holes everyones got one

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    stuckinchico wrote:
    Ummmm when im on duty i have one concealed shirt holster under my vest then one on my duty belt does this meet his opinion??? Opinions are like A**holes everyones got one
    Read 49er's post above. The singular includes the plural. So, you're good to go.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    So open carry your primary sidearm, and conceal your back up. Easy.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    So open carry your primary sidearm, and conceal your back up. Easy.
    The way this was explained to me, was when this AG opinion was made in 1980, we had to register the SN of the weapon so the permit only applied to only one weapon. We don't register the SN on permits anymore so this AG opinion is outdated and no longer valid.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    Hollowpoint, I went back and looked, and what I told you was only partly true. As far as I can find, the qualified permits were the ones where you had to register the SN of your carry weapon. However, the AGO refers to a limit of one even on unqualified permits.

    After reading section 1-1-2 I think that the AGO opinion is wrong. I wish we were able to solicit opinions, because I would like to see a fresh review of that statement.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  22. #22
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    mcdonalk wrote:
    Hollowpoint, I went back and looked, and what I told you was only partly true. As far as I can find, the qualified permits were the ones where you had to register the SN of your carry weapon. However, the AGO refers to a limit of one even on unqualified permits.

    After reading section 1-1-2 I think that the AGO opinion is wrong. I wish we were able to solicit opinions, because I would like to see a fresh review of that statement.
    Even on mine, an unrestricted permit?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Madison County, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Hollowpoint38 wrote:
    mcdonalk wrote:
    Hollowpoint, I went back and looked, and what I told you was only partly true. As far as I can find, the qualified permits were the ones where you had to register the SN of your carry weapon. However, the AGO refers to a limit of one even on unqualified permits.

    After reading section 1-1-2 I think that the AGO opinion is wrong. I wish we were able to solicit opinions, because I would like to see a fresh review of that statement.
    Even on mine, an unrestricted permit?
    That's the way the opinion reads. It specifically says on an unqualified (which I take to mean unrestricted) permit. The reason I brought it up in this forum, was to see if there was anything more recent. We are relying on an old (1984) AGO to say OC is legal. I'd hate to see the local LEO rely on something like this one to say, "Yea, well, you're driving with two in your car, so even with your permit, you're breaking the law."

    Maybe that's a stretch of paranoia, I don't know.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    MSteve wrote:
    Hollowpoint38 wrote:
    mcdonalk wrote:
    Hollowpoint, I went back and looked, and what I told you was only partly true. As far as I can find, the qualified permits were the ones where you had to register the SN of your carry weapon. However, the AGO refers to a limit of one even on unqualified permits.

    After reading section 1-1-2 I think that the AGO opinion is wrong. I wish we were able to solicit opinions, because I would like to see a fresh review of that statement.
    Even on mine, an unrestricted permit?
    That's the way the opinion reads. It specifically says on an unqualified (which I take to mean unrestricted) permit. The reason I brought it up in this forum, was to see if there was anything more recent. We are relying on an old (1984) AGO to say OC is legal. I'd hate to see the local LEO rely on something like this one to say, "Yea, well, you're driving with two in your car, so even with your permit, you're breaking the law."

    Maybe that's a stretch of paranoia, I don't know.
    We are not relying on the AGO. It provides the reasoning and a verification of the legality of OC. What we are relying on the the AL Constitution and a SC ruling saying that AL law cannot restrict both OC and CC. Since AL law chooses to restrict CC, OC is unrestricted.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    We are not relying on the AGO. It provides the reasoning and a verification of the legality of OC. What we are relying on the the AL Constitution and a SC ruling saying that AL law cannot restrict both OC and CC. Since AL law chooses to restrict CC, OC is unrestricted.
    :quirky Wrong thread, eye. We're talking about the opinion that says only one gun is legal, and that opinion flies in the face of Alabama Code. Even if you are taking the position that OC is unrestricted (which all* of us are) then you still wouldn't be allowed to have your OC gun and your BUG in the car with you at the same time, according to this AGO opinion.

    We cannot hold up an Opinion that helps us, brooking no argument from anyone as to its validity, all while trying to ignore Opinions that may hurt our cause. We have to meet them head on with reason and the law itself. That is why we need -52 amended or struck, because nothing is stopping an AG from issuing a new, incorrect, opinion that -52 does restrict OC.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

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
  •