Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Castle Doctrine VS The Code of Alabama

  1. #1
    Regular Member FF/EMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Anniston, Alabama
    Posts
    8

    Castle Doctrine VS The Code of Alabama

    Ok, everyone from Alabama should know that, per Alabama Code, you can't have a handgun in a vehicle without a CC permit but you can CC at home, right? But with this Castle Doctrine thing (which Alabama HAS adopted) your vehicle becomes an extension of your home, right? So why should I have to have a CC permit anymore since OC IS in fact legal?

    If I am right about this, folks like Jonathon who have had their CC permits pulled for "various reasons" shouldn't have to worry about needing a CC permit when they are out and about, and get ready to load up and come home.

    Yes, I know. This is OCDO and I've ranted on about CC but the guys that know me from ALOC will understand why I'm posting this here instead of ALOC. Let the harassment begin!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member FedFirefighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Hattiesburg, MS.
    Posts
    103
    You've got a good point, but I think it's something that should definately be brought to a lawyers attention. I wouldn't expect to hear what you wanna hear though, but it's worth checking into with a DA or attorney.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338
    Well I noticed they didn't charge the mall shooter with having a gun in the car without a permit. Charged with shooting into a car though. So maybe only applies to LAC, so much for equal protection.
    Well if you get your house foreclosed on and live in your car, you really have a better case. But don't hold your breath for logic to rear it's ugly head anytime soon. Plus you are asking a judge to balance one 'Good' law (you can't have a gun) against an evil law (you can defend yourself). Hmm that will be a real tough one to figure out. As you have no "Right" to a home, and cars are a privilege you are going to loose every time with government school educated judges. And LEO have already ruled that castle doctrine is nullified by juvenile involvement in crimes. I think the quote was "But they are just children" implying the law doesn't matter.

    AZ resident on AL highway would be ok to have gun in car as it is legal under their law to drive with a gun in the car for them. Won't help from the illegal detention and fines. But it is what the law says. Also since AL recognizes AZ constitution they would have to recognize they have a carry permit. They can't claim they honor the drivers license which gets it's authority from the constitution and not recognize the commanding authority itself. Hopefully theirs will fit in the car when traveling, ours wont.

  4. #4
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238

    Castle Doctrine

    The Castle Doctrine v concealed permit depends upon the wording of the Alabama law. While the Castle Doctrine recognizes your right to self-defense it may not force the idea of a pistol. You can still use a knife, ax, shotgun or rifle in a car without a permit. You'd need to read the Castle Doctrine and find out how pistols are mentioned in relation to protection in a vehicle.
    Last edited by AL Ranger; 08-05-2010 at 01:53 PM.
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by AL Ranger View Post
    The Castle Doctrine v concealed permit depends upon the wording of the Alabama law. While the Castle Doctrine recognizes your right to self-defense it may not force the idea of a pistol. You can still use a knife, ax, shotgun or rifle in a car without a permit. You'd need to read the Castle Doctrine and find out how pistols are mentioned in relation to protection in a vehicle.
    You're correct. Castle Doctrine is an absolute defense for using deadly force. It does not--and should not, concern itself with the form within which the deadly force exists. A fireplace poker or .44 Magnum is irrelevant to the law.

Posting Permissions

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