• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The upside to being 'may' issue.

Brimstone Baritone

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
4

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
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:
[align=left]... "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. ...[/align]


[align=left]
Click to expand...
[/align]
[align=left]... 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
Click to expand...
[***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[/align]


[align=left]
Click to expand...
[/align]


[align=left]A sheriff may issue or revokea license for an evilprivilege such as carrying weapons concealed. [/align]

[align=left]Our constitution protects our right to bear arms, which has been defined byour courts as the right to carry them openly for defense.[/align]
 
Brimstone Baritone

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
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.
 
4

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
H

Hollowpoint38

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
387
Location
A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
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.
 
4

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
156
Location
Central Alabama
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.
Click to expand...


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. :uhoh:
 
4

45 Auto

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
8
Location
, ,
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top