Just my two cents

imported post

+1 to ignoring the approval you did receive...

Especially as we now see a bit of ignorance rear its ugly head in Hank's post. That war did not end for the "anti's". They are still fighting the same war. They did not drop their "previously held goal".... banning guns is still the goal. Many have found that they meet less resistance if they don't come out and say it on tv. But read their opinion pieces, read their stances on their own websites, just LISTEN to what they say!

No, those who want to take our guns away from us completely have not reduced their efforts. They have only begun a different tack. Obviously the subtlety is working on some.

imported post

Ok Eye95 one more time just for you. I'm not saying issue a permit to OC. Let's go slow.
1. In order to purchase a handgun legally in AL from a licencensed dealer you must pass a Background check.
2. To legally carry a handgun concealed in AL you must purchase a pistol permit and pass a background check.
3.A convicted felon can not do either of these things.
4.Reguardless of rights anyone who is mentally disturbed or is a convicted felon should not carry openly or concealed nor should they be allowed to obtain a hangun or any other firearm.

If the state of Alabama issued a permit that allowed law abiding legal firearm owners who are not mentally disturbed to carry those firearms openly or concealed whichever they choose , how is that silly or dangerous. All it would mean is that the bearer of that permit has been deemed a person who under already exsisting laws and regulations who can own and carry a handgun concealed or openly.

imported post

Alwaysdoubletap wrote:

Ok Eye95 one more time just for you. I'm not saying issue a permit to OC. Let's go slow.
1. In order to purchase a handgun legally in AL from a licencensed dealer you must pass a Background check.
2. To legally carry a handgun concealed in AL you must purchase a pistol permit and pass a background check.
3.A convicted felon can not do either of these things.
4.Reguardless of rights anyone who is mentally disturbed or is a convicted felon should not carry openly or concealed nor should they be allowed to obtain a hangun or any other firearm.

If the state of Alabama issued a permit that allowed law abiding legal firearm owners who are not mentally disturbed to carry those firearms openly or concealed whichever they choose , how is that silly or dangerous. All it would mean is that the bearer of that permit has been deemed a person who under already exsisting laws and regulations who can own and carry a handgun concealed or openly.

Click to expand...

I hope this isn't becoming a heated debate, because I don't want this to be impolite, but I'd have to agree with eye95. This line of reasoning is dangerous because when has the government ever gotten a small bit of power and then left it at that? No, government by its very nature is constantly grabbing at more power.

As it stands right now, Alabama case law has stated that the legislature cannot regulate OC in any way because it already regulates CC. So to regulate both would be in violation of Alabama's constitution. To create a law/permit process for the "right" to OC would 1. be unconstitutional, and 2. actually bring us backwards. From there you know that the gun ban crowd would only be constantly thinking of new restrictions to add to this permit. And more people to exclude from getting a permit. You know what, how bout anybody on that Homeland Security memo's list... you know, people who voted for Ron Paul, or are against abortion, those people shouldn't be able to get carry permits for sure. And on and on we would go. There is never just one step down that road, it is only the first step.

imported post

dixieborn wrote:

I hope this isn't becoming a heated debate, because I don't want this to be impolite, but I'd have to agree with eye95. This line of reasoning is dangerous because when has the government ever gotten a small bit of power and then left it at that? No, government by its very nature is constantly grabbing at more power.

As it stands right now, Alabama case law has stated that the legislature cannot regulate OC in any way because it already regulates CC. So to regulate both would be in violation of Alabama's constitution. To create a law/permit process for the "right" to OC would 1. be unconstitutional, and 2. actually bring us backwards. From there you know that the gun ban crowd would only be constantly thinking of new restrictions to add to this permit. And more people to exclude from getting a permit. You know what, how bout anybody on that Homeland Security memo's list... you know, people who voted for Ron Paul, or are against abortion, those people shouldn't be able to get carry permits for sure. And on and on we would go. There is never just one step down that road, it is only the first step.

Click to expand...

Who, exactly,is the "gun ban crowd" in Alabama, DB?

And can you provide a reference to their desire to "ban" guns in Alabama?

imported post

Hank please, don't get petty with me. If you refer back to page 1 of this topic, you might recall that you brought up the "gun ban crowd" in general when referencing the "antis". You seemed to be speaking in general terms (i.e. national); regardless of whether I misinterpreted your intent, I was speaking in general terms. No, I do not have references for this in Alabama as I was not restricting my point to Alabama. If you want a reference, please see the brady bunch.

Now please stop polluting a perfectly good discussion, and I will return to my long acquired skill of ignoring you.

Doubletap... please don't take this as a sign that I am typically impolite. It's just Hank has a bit of a reputation around here... read enough of his posts and you'll see.

imported post

Alwaysdoubletap wrote:

Aside from the fact that OC is apparently legal here in AL,
the majority of us also pay for a CC permit. I have a suggestion.
Why not give the state of AL the task of issuing a CC/OC permit.
They could perfom the background check and issue the permit
just as the sherrifs offices do. Let's say $30 per year, $15 to the state,
$15 to your county of residence. This way both entities
collect revenue and we as citizens get what we want. I may be wrong
but it just seemed to me that it would be a win win scenario.

Click to expand...

I decided to take another, calmer stab at this...

AlwaysDT, if I may call you that, thank you for clarifying that you are not in favor of issuing permits for OC because your initial post did create that implication. I agree with your stance that people who are prohibited from CC should also be prohibited from OC with certain exceptions that I will go into later. I, still, strongly oppose giving the government one red cent more than I already have until they prove that they can spend it responsibly. This goes doubly so for things which I believe should not have a permit associated with them.

I do agree with your unspoken implication that having a background check or permit to OC would create more of an air of legitimacy than the 'any John Doe off the street could carry a gun' mentality. I support any law that would allow a permit for those who chose to apply, as long as the ability to OC was not restricted only to permit holders. I think this perception thing is a problem with the society we live in and the people who were raised in it, and not the people who wish to exercise their RKBA. To sum up, why should I restrict myself just to look more legitimate in the eyes of someone with whom I don't agree?

1. In order to purchase a handgun legally in AL from a licencensed dealer you must pass a Background check.
2. To legally carry a handgun concealed in AL you must purchase a pistol permit and pass a background check.
3.A convicted felon can not do either of these things.
4.Reguardless of rights anyone who is mentally disturbed or is a convicted felon should not carry openly or concealed nor should they be allowed to obtain a hangun or any other firearm.

If the state of Alabama issued a permit that allowed law abiding legal firearm owners who are not mentally disturbed to carry those firearms openly or concealed whichever they choose , how is that silly or dangerous. All it would mean is that the bearer of that permit has been deemed a person who under already exsisting laws and regulations who can own and carry a handgun concealed or openly.

Click to expand...

1. True.
2. Also true.
3. ...That is true, but I don't lie where you're going.
4. I knew it. I agree that a prohibited person (as defined in Alabama law) should not be allowed to carry. The felon thing is, IMO, just a way for the government to decide what types of people they want to restrict. I think we can agree that anyone who commits a crime of violence should not be allowed to purchase or carry a gun. However, not all violent crimes are felonies, and not all (by far) felonies are violent crimes. The fact that the government calls a certain crime a felony, but that is otherwise completely unrelated to the right to bear arms, should not automatically preclude the right to bear arms.

The only way I would support a permit that didn't specify OC or CC would be if OC were still legal without the permit. It works in other states, why couldn't it work here.

We've established I probably shouldn't post first thing in the morning, let's hope last thing at night comes across better.

imported post

dixieborn wrote:

Hank please, don't get petty with me. If you refer back to page 1 of this topic, you might recall that you brought up the "gun ban crowd" in general when referencing the "antis". You seemed to be speaking in general terms (i.e. national); regardless of whether I misinterpreted your intent, I was speaking in general terms. No, I do not have references for this in Alabama as I was not restricting my point to Alabama. If you want a reference, please see the brady bunch.

Now please stop polluting a perfectly good discussion, and I will return to my long acquired skill of ignoring you.

Doubletap... please don't take this as a sign that I am typically impolite. It's just Hank has a bit of a reputation around here... read enough of his posts and you'll see.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a statement by the Brady Campaign specifying that it wants to ban all our guns, DB?

imported post

Gentlemen, history has taught us that the hoplophobes of any anti-gun organization has "gun-banning" as their ultimate goal. They do their work "one bite at a time". First, it's a 3 day waiting period, then 7 days, then 15 days and so on. Just look around the country to see the various waiting times in the different states. Then there is banning gun designs...military looking firearms are only for the police and military, as they say! There is the limited magazine capacity. If they can limit it to 10 rounds, they can limit it to 6 (after all revolvers only have six shots) and so on. If they can limit it to six they can limit it to three. After all, how many shells do you have in your shotgun when you hunt? They will use any and every jusification to make their limitations work.

What pro-gunner hasn't heard this statement? "What do you need guns for anyway?" Does that sound like they just want "sensible" gun legislation? To me, that sounds like gun elimination and/or total restriction.

There is no such thing as "sensible" gun control legislation when it comes to hoplophobes. They are scared of guns and gun owners. They confuse the gun with the criminal that commits crimes which proves they are not using common sense. They want guns banned so they don't have to be scared anymore. Permits are just another step in that direction. They want to control who can carry, when and where they can carry. It's never been about GUN control, but PEOPLE control.

imported post

You posted this is another topic and I replied. This is not want people want and you won't make a good name for yourself here if you keep pushing these types of ideas. This sounds like something the Brady Campaign would want. My original reply is below.

Nota win win scenario....

1) Alabama is a "may issue" not a "shall issue" state. They can take your permit when they want and then all your rights would be gone if they "permitted OC".

2) I will not pay for a "permit" to open carry. CC is a privilege and OC is a right. Why do you want to make both a privilege?

3) That's a terrible idea....


4) I pay $7.50 for my CC permit. Why would I want to pay $30 for something I get for free? OC is a right. I won't pay $22.50 extra for a right. That's makes no sense

imported post

Alwaysdoubletap wrote:

Ok Eye95 one more time just for you. I'm not saying issue a permit to OC. Let's go slow.
1. In order to purchase a handgun legally in AL from a licencensed dealer you must pass a Background check.
2. To legally carry a handgun concealed in AL you must purchase a pistol permit and pass a background check.
3.A convicted felon can not do either of these things.
4.Reguardless of rights anyone who is mentally disturbed or is a convicted felon should not carry openly or concealed nor should they be allowed to obtain a hangun or any other firearm.

If the state of Alabama issued a permit that allowed law abiding legal firearm owners who are not mentally disturbed to carry those firearms openly or concealed whichever they choose , how is that silly or dangerous. All it would mean is that the bearer of that permit has been deemed a person who under already exsisting laws and regulations who can own and carry a handgun concealed or openly.

Click to expand...

The insulting nature of your post is intolerable. I may take your idea to task. It is silly and it is dangerous to the LIBERTY that is the right to bear arms. However, I did not insult your intelligence. So, here is something for you to read really S L O W L Y.

M o v i n g o n .

Maybe someday, you will discuss IDEAS and not each other.

imported post

In response to your reply let me first say that I'm not as you say " pushing an idea". As far as making a name , well I can't help it if you pass judgement on me based on one post that you find fault with. My intention is not to offend , insult, or otherwise anger anyone. I was under the impression that this was a forum in which we could share ideas , asks for other peoples opinions , and educate ourselves and eachother. If I am mistaken by all means let me know and I will not return. If I have offended anyone , especially (Eye95) then I apologize. Concerning the previous post that I made that obviously wasn't well recieved, It was only suggested. I have read here about how people are being harrased due to the lack of clarity and or lack of understanding in relation to some law enforcement agencies. I do not now or will I ever support gun control or open carry restrictions. The only point I was trying to make was that up to this point getting the state of AL to pass a shall issue status has been unsuccesful. Also as you well know there are numerous law enforcement agencies here in AL that dispute the legitamacy of our right to open carry. I also realize that we should not have to pay for something we already have the right to do. I only suggested doing so because I thought if the greedy people who have the abilty to make changes or at least clarify what is already in place might see an opportunity to profit
from it therfore possibly making changes that we would support.we shouldn't have to pay taxes either but we all do it even though it's not really something we enjoy. Never the less it was just an idea , in retrospect not a very good one, I never said I was perfect.

imported post

Here is something to consider. Some of us pay for CC permits. We also pay for hunting and fishing licenses though we should not have to pay to fish in public waters or hunt public land. Now if all it took was to pay a reasonable fee to carry as we please without fear of being harrassed or arrested would it be worth it? I know it isn't fair or even remotely popular with most people but neither is a few thousand in legal fees to defend ourselves if we are arrested for OC even though it is legal. That is all I meant by suggesting what has since made me so unpopular here. I wonder what the first people who had to buy hunting and fishing license did to the poor fool who suggested that idea? But today we pay for them so the game wardens don't right tickets and so on. Oh well that's all I have to say about it.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

...I did not insult your intelligence.

So, here is something for you to read really S L O W L Y.

Click to expand...

imported post

Alwaysdoubletap

Click to expand...

wrote

Although there are places and times that CC gives
you the tactical advantage and that's not a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Here's the thing: If you're open carrying, it's a deterrent. If you're concealed carrying, it's not a deterrent until you pull it. Until that point, the would-be aggressor has no reason to believe that he can't vanquish you through physical force.

In short, concealed carry is only useful if you want an excuse to kill someone when they try to rob you. Read "want an excuse" as "legal defense."

If that dumb f*** is going to commit the crime anyway, then he's going to catch lead from either carrier. If he's not stupid enough to attack the open-carrier, he's just going to attack someone who doesn't present a clear threat to his own safety.

imported post

How could anyone even consider licensing OC, just look over the border at TN.
Kwikrnu, showed them his license, but they didn't like his choice of weapon.
Unfortunately we have even more corrupt 'leaders' then they do.
No as long as the government proves they cannot read, and will not follow the law,
you do not even bring up giving them more ways to interfere with the people they
lord over. After they prove they can read, and obey the law, then you do not give
them the power to let a future crook lord over the people.
Very simple, very easy to understand.
I prefer the local sheriff have the choice, would prefer even he would have to prove
you shouldn't, but no way would I ever let those yahoo's in montgomery have the
final say.

A better idea would be, every state income tax form have a permit on the bottom,
you file your taxes, and you validate the permit. If the state doesn't want you to have
a gun they can exempt you from taxes. Either way everyone wins.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Alwaysdoubletap wrote:

Hank T,
Thank you for actually reading my post and being open minded enough to look at the big picture. So far you seem to be the only respondant to do so.

Click to expand...

Somebody has to take an adult approach to the reality of regulation of carry behavior, ADT. That's what you did, too.

Most of the ideologically-driven seem to think that if they oppose ANY idea about ANY regulation that they're doing good.

Those folks are fighting the last war--where it made sense to oppose ALL attempts at regulation--since the object by the antis was to ban guns.

The next (actually, current) war is one of negotiating the new regulations (those that are constitutional) that will come to the CC and OC communities--not to ban guns, but to restrict certain behaviors while carrying a gun that are anti-social. Another example is drinking while carrying. Astonishingly, most states don't have a law against carry a gun while being, say, at .15 BAC. Yet ALL states have specific DUI laws/enforcement structures--because it benefits their populations. The new wave of gun carry regulation (that which is constitutional) will eventually produce CUI (carrying under the influence) laws that will parallel the DUI laws/enforcement structures.

I have no problem with that kind of stuff if it's done right. As long as states and the antis stay away from their previously held goal of banning guns, as long as states and antis respect the 2nd Amendment, they will be able to introduce plenty of new (reasonable) laws for gun carriers.

We'd better get used to the idea and be part of the process--rather than fighting the last war.

We won the last war, by the way. The antis lost. Why is that so hard for some to understand? It's not some complicated concept like Shrodinger's Cat or something...

Click to expand...

I'm not from Alabama, but have lived and worked there before, hope I'm not
precluded from posting here.
Well I'm gonna do it anyway.
Hank T,
If you think this war you speak of is over, you are sadly mistaken!That's the kind
of apathy that almost lost it all in the first place!
For you to say that, with people like Barry,Nancy and Harry in power, boggles the
mind.Not only are we in danger of losing more and more rights, but are in imminent
danger of losing our entire nation.:banghead:

imported post

HankT wrote:

Alwaysdoubletap wrote:

Aside from the fact that OC is apparently legal here in AL,
the majority of us also pay for a CC permit. I have a suggestion.
Why not give the state of AL the task of issuing a CC/OC permit.
They could perfom the background check and issue the permit
just as the sherrifs offices do. Let's say $30 per year, $15 to the state,
$15 to your county of residence. This way both entities
collect revenue and we as citizens get what we want. I may be wrong
but it just seemed to me that it would be a win win scenario.

Click to expand...

Seems like a good idea, especially if it would standardize whatever restrictions are in place for carrying a gun. For example, it doesn't make any sense to do a backround check for a CCer and not do one for a OCer. Makes no sense, say, to prohibit someone who has a domestic violence misdemeaner from CCing legally--but allowing someone with the same DV rap to OC legally. Similarly, it makes little sense to prohibit CC in a state to those 21 and over, but to allow people under 21 to OC. Should be the same age restriction for CC as for OC. Pick an age: 18, 19, 20, 21, whichever age a state decides is right for its residents.

If the background check and restrictions decided upon by a given state'slawsare under the reasonable regulation rubric (and therefore constitutional)then it would be best to make the restrictions the same for both CC and OC.

That's where we are headed anyway.

Click to expand...

Just because SCOTUS said it doesn't make it Constitutional.

Also, I would rather every nut job in the country OC than have one law abiding citizen denied the RIGHT to. Guess it's just the liberty loverin me.

MT

MT

imported post

Right now, Alabama's CC license IS a defacto license for Open Carry. Because you can't transport a firearm in a vehicle without a CC license, Open Carry without a CC license is heavily restricted. Since CC licensing is entirely at the discretion of your local Sheriff (since Alabama is a 'may issue' State) your right to both CC and OC can quickly be infringed at anytime by an activist Sheriff.

While having an additional license for open carry might seem reasonable at first consideration, the additional power that such a license would place in the hands of an Alabama High Sheriff is unconscionable. What we need is a solution to the LEO problem, not to OC "problem."

Self defense is a natural right. As such, it should not be infringed upon by requiring a license in order to exercise that right. Driving an automobile is a privilege, as you must drive upon roads that have been constructed by and for the public at large. Your life, however, is your own and it is unreasonable to require someone to apply for a license in order to defend it. Especially if that license can be denied on the basis of one man's (the Sheriff's) discretion.

imported post

Dang Jaiotu, glad to have you aboard. You seem pretty knowledgeable.

imported post

jaoitu, you are right on OC licensing. If Alabama has to power to license OC, then we do not have the right to OC. Privileges, not rights, are licensed.