Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The upside to being 'may' issue.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    Hear me out. It has been brought up in other threads that since Alabama is a MAY issue state (the sheriff can exercise discretion even on people who otherwise meet the requirements) instead of SHALL issue (the permit is issued to every applicant who meets the requirements) that the sheriff can also use his discretion to revoke said permit.

    I would like to draw attention to Section 13A-11-75
    License to carry pistol in vehicle or concealed on person - Issuance; term; form; fee; revocation.

    ...The sheriff may revoke a license upon proof that the licensee is not a proper person to be licensed.
    Let me rephrase, "The sheriff is allowed to revoke a license if he can prove the the licensee has been convicted of a crime of violence, is a drug addict or drunkard, or is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a pistol."

    May is a defined term, meaning is allowed to but doesn't have to. Proof means evidence. Proper person is a defined term, with additional restrictions added by Federal law. Nowhere in here is it implied or stated that the sheriff is authorized to revoke a permit without due process, and so anyone who has this happen to them has legal standing to sue based on a 14th amendment violation.

    Does anyone disagree?
    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"

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    The defining factor in my mind is that the legislature and our courts have both defined concealed carry as a privilege toinvolve yourself in"the evilpractice of carrying weaponssecretly", and it is not a right. Constitutional rights are not subject to what sheriff or what county you happen to be involved with; privileges are. Rights do not end when you enter a vehicle.

    That leaves only open carry asour constitutional right to bear armswhich cannot be in fringed by 13A-11-52 or any other law or action by our government. It would take an ammendment of our state constitution to do that, becausethe right to bear arms for defensehas been excluded from the general powers of government by Section 30 of the Constitution of Alabama.

    Even though the general exclusion from the powers of governmnent wasdisregarded in the case, it was stated in Isaah v State:


    ... "The question recurs: Does the act, 'to suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly,' trench upon the constitutional rights of the citizen? We think not. ...




    ... A statute which, under the pretense of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purposes of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional. But a law which is intended merely to promote personal security, and to put down lawless aggression
    [***11] and violence, and to that end inhibits the bearing of certain weapons in such a manner as is calculated to exert an unhappy influence upon the moral feelings of the bearer, by making him less regardful of the personal security of others, does not come in collision with the Constitution






    A sheriff may issue or revokea license for an evilprivilege such as carrying weapons concealed.


    Our constitution protects our right to bear arms, which has been defined byour courts as the right to carry them openly for defense.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    Just to be clear, you're saying that you disagree that the Section I quoted puts limits the sheriff's authority to revoke a permit?

    I also have to point out that some of those quotes from Isaiah are actually them quoting part of the Reid decision, and that the Reid decision predates the licensing of CC.
    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"

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Re 'proof'; there are many standards of proof, ranging from the mathematical and logical, through the legalistic (beyond a reasonable doubt and by the preponderance of evidence) and descending to the 'proof' of the court of public opinion where "damned on my say so" is adequate.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    mcdonalk,

    Just to be clear, you're saying that you disagree that the Section I quoted puts limits the sheriff's authority to revoke a permit?
    No. I agree with your point that proof of unfitnessto is required to revoke the licensethat allowsthe privilege of "engaging in the evil practice" of carrying a pistol concealed.

    My intent is to make it clear that the privilege to carry a pistol concealed should not be confused with the constitutional right to carry it openly for defense. That's the way I understand our current law and the opinions of our state courts.

    I suppose you couldargue that you have a right to a pistol license unless you meet the criteria in the statues that prohibit you from being issued one. You may be right. But that statutory right would be separate from your constitutional right to bear arms openly for defense according to current interpretation.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post




    Open Carry is not a right.

    Here is the issue I have with the CC permit. I can have as many pistols in my home as I please. My car is an extension of my home under the Castle Doctrine. I don't need a permit to conceal in my house, why do I need one for my car? If Open Carry is a right, as everyone claims, not a privilege, I should be able to: walk out of my front door OCing, get in my car, go to the store, and come home without a permit. But I need a permit to get in my car? How is OC a right if I cannot be on my own property (car), which is an extension of my home without a permit?

    OpenCarry is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right, the sheriff could revoke my permit and I would still be able to Open Carry away from my home. Walking everywhere you go isn't always workable, and if they can stop me from carrying in my car by pulling a permit, and I can no longer drive around with my gun, and lets face it, who can walk everywhere they need to be 7 days a week because they can't get a permit for their car?, that makes OC a privilege... not a right. We need to fix this problem.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Alabama
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    The only firearm you possess legally that you need apistol licensefor carry inavehicle is a handgun with a barrel less than 12".



    Section 13A-11-70
    Definitions.
    For the purposes of this division, the following terms shall have the respective meanings ascribed by this section:

    (1) PISTOL. Any firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches in length.

    Get you a shot gun arifle and four-wheel drive, (or a handgun with a 12" barrel) and remember: " A country boy can survive."



    Enjoy your right to bear arms.

    Just be sure you don't intend to alarm anyone. Bird Dog may be watching you.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Hollowpoint38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Inside of a car, the best defense is a pistol. Nota shotgun

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Hollowpoint38 wrote:


    Open Carry is not a right.

    Here is the issue I have with the CC permit. I can have as many pistols in my home as I please. My car is an extension of my home under the Castle Doctrine. I don't need a permit to conceal in my house, why do I need one for my car? If Open Carry is a right, as everyone claims, not a privilege, I should be able to: walk out of my front door OCing, get in my car, go to the store, and come home without a permit. But I need a permit to get in my car? How is OC a right if I cannot be on my own property (car), which is an extension of my home without a permit?

    OpenCarry is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right, the sheriff could revoke my permit and I would still be able to Open Carry away from my home. Walking everywhere you go isn't always workable, and if they can stop me from carrying in my car by pulling a permit, and I can no longer drive around with my gun, and lets face it, who can walk everywhere they need to be 7 days a week because they can't get a permit for their car?, that makes OC a privilege... not a right. We need to fix this problem.
    You have the right question, but come to the wrong conclusion. Why you need a permit to carry (concealed or open) in your vehicle is certainly a good question (and a vexing problem), but does not imply that open carry isa privilege, simply that the existing law desperately needs revamping. You are also correct about walking everywhere being exceptionally inconvenient to the point of rendering it impractical to not have a concealed carry permit in Alabama, but again, this does not imply that open carry is a privilege,since infringing aright makes it an infringed right, not a privilege. I would venture a guess to say the law as written was formed back when not too many folks even had cars, again evidence that the law could use a little changing, and perhaps some streamlining to boot.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is a problem that needs fixing, though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •