Alabama AG Opinions: Only one Pistol

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. :banghead:

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.

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. :banghead:

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.

Click to expand...

Even on mine, an unrestricted permit?

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. :banghead:

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.

Click to expand...

Even on mine, an unrestricted permit?

Click to expand...

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.

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. :banghead:

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.

Click to expand...

Even on mine, an unrestricted permit?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

: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.

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

: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.

Click to expand...

Please reread the post to which I was replying. The poster was concluding that, since we could not trust the old AGO regarding numbers of guns, we cannot trust the old AGO saying that OC was legal. The point of my post was that we are not relying on that AGO, but on the underlying law and SC opinions.

imported post

I reread it, and, although his post contained the line that you claim, I believe his point was the same as mine. We cannot rely on an AGO (even if it is but one piece of evidence among many) unless we acknowledge that they are sometimes wrong. We have to take the opinion (any opinion) on its own merits and see how it stacks up against the laws as written.

The 'one gun' opinion is clearly incorrect because the Alabama Code says that the singular also includes the plural. Who is to say the 1984 opinion could not also be ruled incorrect based on a new interpretation of what the Code says? That is why I still say your argument is in the wrong thread. This thread isn't about the legality of OC. You are, in a sense, preaching to the choir.

imported post

And, my point is that we are not relying on it.

From ALOC:

Three sentences

1. The AL Supreme Court says that the law cannot restrict both OC and CC and specifies a preference for OC being unregulated.

2. 13A-11-50, consequently not restricting both OC and CC, must be restricting CC because 13A-11-73 also restricts CC and is the later law and a complete revision of the matter.

3. Therefore, there is no law in AL that prohibits OC, and, absent a law prohibiting an action, that action is legal.

Click to expand...

No AGO's in that nutshell.