Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Alabama Open Carry To be Featured On The Danny Lee Show

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    189

    Alabama Open Carry To be Featured On The Danny Lee Show

    Alabama Open Carry To be Featured On The Danny Lee Show
    On Thursday Oct. 7th, Tony Shiflett our Director of Media Relations, will be a guest on the Danny Lee Show which airs on News Talk 1400 WFPA. Tony will be discussing and answering questions on all things Open Carry in Alabama. The show runs from 6:00am to 9:00am CST and the info we currently have is that AOC will be on the 7:00am to 8:00am segment or possibly longer. Any changes or updates will be posted at http://www.alabamaopencarry.com and on our Forum

    The show will be streamed live on ustream: The Danny Lee Show and we encourage everyone to dial in and show your support for Open Carry, the number to call is 256-845-7721. Lets make them want to keep us around til the end of the show! Thanks to the Danny Lee show for having us and also allowing Tony to Open Carry in the studio!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    What really needs to happen in Alabama is that The Alabama Legislature needs to either: 1. REPEAL Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-52 OR 2. ReWrite Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-52 by adding that the same does not apply on Public Property.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    189

    My Top 3

    My top 3 right now are:

    1. Make Alabama a Constitutional Carry Or Shall issue state, thus removing Sheriff discretionary issues.

    2. REPEAL Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-52 OR 2. ReWrite Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-52 by adding that the same does not apply on Public Property.

    3. Rewrite Disorderly Conduct & Disturbing the Peace, where they specifically say lawful Open Carry doesn't fit the criteria.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Mine:

    1. Repeal -52 or specifically add wording clearly making it apply to CC only.

    2. Reword -73 putting the word "concealed" back where it was, so that OC in a car requires no permit.

    3. Repeal the law against carrying at a demonstration.

    I'd rather not see the DC laws reworded to say that OC cannot, in and of itself, warrant a DC charge. Such an action smacks of making something legal by legislating it. Common sense says that the simple act of exercising one's right cannot be outlawed by something as vaguely defined as DC. Courts may have to establish that this is the common sense, however LEOs should not be off the hook until a court finally does so. Cops should exercise common sense without prior direction of the courts.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    Hopefully the guest open carries at teh studio and that fact comes out during the interview and call in.

  6. #6
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238

    Radio Interview Should Be Interesting

    I will be carrying to this interview and I already have permission to Open Carry. I hope it lasts longer the one hour but we will have to wait and see. It justs makes me wonder if any LEOs will be outside waiting for me once the interview is over!

    About Alabama laws:
    1. 13A-11-52 is necessary to allow LEOs to carry pistols onto private property in their official duties (it uses that phrase four times).The law should just say so and take out the part about "no one is allowed to carry...". Premises not their own or under their control is simply another term for "private property". In Johnson v State (1914) premises not their own or under their control is used interchangably with private property not their own or under their control. Therefore, 13A-11-52 does not apply to carrying a pistol on public property.

    2. Alabama should have Constitutional Carry as even the ALSC case of State v Reid says there is basically no difference between carrying open or concealed.

    3. Since carrying openly is absolute (State v Reid) and if you have an unrestricted concealed carry license, 13A-11-59 can not apply to open carriers or properly licensed concealed carriers.

    4. 13a-11-59.4 describes public places or public property. It says the general public has a "right" to access for lawful purposes. That is the same limited right you have on "premises under your control" as used in 13A-11-52. Premises under your control means you can do whatever the owner allows you do. The same applies on public property. You have limited access and control in both instances.
    Last edited by AL Ranger; 10-06-2010 at 02:25 AM.
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    1. The LEO section of -52 is only necessary because -52 exists. If -52 is repealed, the language excepting LEOs is no longer necessary. -52 does not give officers any authority. It just excludes them from those from whom the right to carry concealed is removed. However, -74 deals with allowing LEOs to carry concealed without a permit. -52 serves zero purpose and either needs to go or should be rendered harmless by explicitly stating that it only applies to concealed carry.

    2. If -52 is corrected or repealed and if the law is changed so as not to restrict OC in a vehicle, constitutional carry is unnecessary. Everyone who has the right to possess will be able to carry everywhere he would with constitutional carry. If the State does not restrict carry, restricting hiding the weapon does not infringe on the right to carry.

    Don't get me wrong. I would prefer constitutional carry. I just don't see it as necessary. Also, pressing for constitutional carry right now could interfere with making corrections that are necessary. I hope we don't press this.

    3. True. Which is why DC had to be used to charge the July 4th carriers. Which is why we need the AG and DAs to acknowledge that DC cannot be used to restrict otherwise lawful OC.

    4. 13-11A-59(a) specifically limits the definition to section 59 only: "For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this subsection..." 13-11A-59(a)4 has no effect on the meaning of -52.

  8. #8
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238
    1. The LEO section of -52 is only necessary because -52 exists. If -52 is repealed, the language excepting LEOs is no longer necessary. -52 does not give officers any authority. It just excludes them from those from whom the right to carry concealed is removed. However, -74 deals with allowing LEOs to carry concealed without a permit. -52 serves zero purpose and either needs to go or should be rendered harmless by explicitly stating that it only applies to concealed carry.
    No one can violate private property rights including LEOs. The title "Who Can Carry On Premises Not Their Own" let's you know that the LEO section is the primary section of this law. Why? Because you can order them off your property. But, in the performance of their duties they can come with a warrant but you can still tell them "no firearms allowed" because firearms are not necessary to serve a warrant. -52 allows them to come onto private property armed. We can keep -52 if we just chop off the first two segments and rewrite it aimed directly at those LEOs listed.

    2. If -52 is corrected or repealed and if the law is changed so as not to restrict OC in a vehicle, constitutional carry is unnecessary. Everyone who has the right to possess will be able to carry everywhere he would with constitutional carry. If the State does not restrict carry, restricting hiding the weapon does not infringe on the right to carry.
    Even State v Reid states that "For in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibing (sic) the wearing concealed arms, and [*618] a law prohibiting the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise." I'm not pressing the fact of constitutional carry (although I much more prefer it), even a revision of -73 back to it's 1955 status would suffice as open carry in a car was allowed. But, we need to get away from licensed concealed carry within the state as it really doesn't make much sense and it was evident in the above State v Reid quote. A lot of what you say sounds like it came right out of that case.

    4. 13-11A-59(a) specifically limits the definition to section 59 only: "For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this subsection..." 13-11A-59(a)4 has no effect on the meaning of -52.
    While your statement is true, the fact that is written in the section of "guns in public places" and 13A-11-56 uses the same term "Using firearms while fighting in public places". This is the only description given of "public places" in Article 3: Offenses Relating To Firearms and Weapons. This definition is from 13A-11-1: "PUBLIC PLACE. A place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, and includes but is not limited to highways, transportation facilities, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds and hallways, lobbies and other portions of apartment houses not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence; provided, that no private dwelling and no place engaged for a private gathering is included within the meaning of public place with respect to any person specifically invited therein. Plus, the case of Johnson v State still uses the term "private property" interchangably with the wording in -52.

    This fact is proven time and again in that all AG opinions state that you can carry openly almost anywhere as long as you are on foot. NOTE: If you take all the gun laws, court cases, AG opinions, etc. into account, the only illegal carry at a demonstration is concealed carry w/o a permit.
    Last edited by AL Ranger; 10-06-2010 at 03:36 PM.
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by AL Ranger View Post
    No one can violate private property rights including LEOs. The title "Who Can Carry On Premises Not Their Own" let's you know that the LEO section is the primary section of this law. Why? Because you can order them off your property. But, in the performance of their duties they can come with a warrant but you can still tell them "no firearms allowed" because firearms are not necessary to serve a warrant. -52 allows them to come onto private property armed. We can keep -52 if we just chop off the first two segments and rewrite it aimed directly at those LEOs listed.
    The title is "Carrying pistol on premises not his own; who may carry pistol." The "LEO portion" is an exception to the law which basically says that you cannot carry (implied concealed) on premises not your own. The combination of -73 and -74 provide the same restriction to CC and the same exception for LEOs, with two differences: The LEO does not have to be acting in his official capacity, and a CPL allows CC by non-LEOs.

    If authority is needed for a LEO to go armed onto private property, it must be found elsewhere. Both -52 and -73 apply to CC only, and LEOs routinely OC.

    Even State v Reid states that "For in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibing (sic) the wearing concealed arms, and [*618] a law prohibiting the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise." I'm not pressing the fact of constitutional carry (although I much more prefer it), even a revision of -73 back to it's 1955 status would suffice as open carry in a car was allowed. But, we need to get away from licensed concealed carry within the state as it really doesn't make much sense and it was evident in the above State v Reid quote. A lot of what you say sounds like it came right out of that case.
    The quote is not from State v. Reid. It is from a Kentucky case and is quoted in State v. Reid. It is not binding, but is a part of their reasoning. They were trying to resolve a seeming contradiction between what a Kentucky court had decided and what they were deciding. The Alabama Court differed from the Kentucky Court in that Alabama determined that the State could constitutionally legislate against either CC or OC, but not both. The Court went on to incline towards OC.

    As I said, while I would prefer constitutional carry, I see that as a battle to be fought after much more pressing issues are resolved, to wit those that are creating problems with OC. (I laid them out in an earlier post.)

    While your statement is true, the fact that is written in the section of "guns in public places" and 13A-11-56 uses the same term "Using firearms while fighting in public places". This is the only description given of "public places" in Article 3: Offenses Relating To Firearms and Weapons. This definition is from 13A-11-1: "PUBLIC PLACE. A place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, and includes but is not limited to highways, transportation facilities, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds and hallways, lobbies and other portions of apartment houses not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence; provided, that no private dwelling and no place engaged for a private gathering is included within the meaning of public place with respect to any person specifically invited therein. Plus, the case of Johnson v State still uses the term "private property" interchangably with the wording in -52.
    Public places and public property are two separate concepts. Public places are essentially places where the public is commonly found. Public property is property owned by the public as a whole, i.e. held by the government. To confuse the two is legally dangerous. IIRC, we have had the Johnson v State discussion before, and you are relying on an inference you are taking from the decision, again legally dangerous.

    This fact is proven time and again in that all AG opinions state that you can carry openly almost anywhere as long as you are on foot. NOTE: If you take all the gun laws, court cases, AG opinions, etc. into account, the only illegal carry at a demonstration is concealed carry w/o a permit.[/color]
    I agree on the first sentence. Since the prohibition of carry near demonstrations is very specific, and not a general prohibition, I don't think it runs afoul of State v. Reid if it is applied to all carry. This, of course, is my opinion and not the Court's. Until the Court makes a specific opinion otherwise, I strongly recommend not OCing at a demonstration or near a demonstration after a LEO advises you of it. It is not wise to rely on what we infer from a court decision. Let the courts and the AG do this. If the courts disagree with one of our inferences, the consequences could be grave.

    I guess my overall point is that we are trying to win over the hearts and minds of those who are not a part of our movement. We always need be mindful of how reasonable our rhetoric is perceived by the public at large.

  10. #10
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238

    The Danny Lee Show

    I just returned from the fastest hour in radio. I tried my best, but between commercials and stuff there isn't a lot of time to get things across to the audience. By the time you anser the host's questions, it's time for a break. By the time you finish with one caller, it's time for another break. At least I got the point out as well as plugging the website. We'll have to see if it generated any interest in the next few days. Danny will be forwarding a copy of the show to go on our site.

    I tried my best with what I was given, guys!
    Last edited by AL Ranger; 10-07-2010 at 10:47 AM.
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Thanks, man.

    Please link up the download when it is available. As you know, we couldn't get the live stream.

  12. #12
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238
    I was invited once again to be on the Fort Payne, AL WFPA-AM Danny Lee radio show on Monday, January 17, 2011. I will be on for the last hour of the show (8AM - 9AM). Hopefully, we can get more OC topics covered this time around. It should be broadcast live on their website which I think is www.1400wfpa.com.
    Last edited by AL Ranger; 01-13-2011 at 02:56 AM.
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

Posting Permissions

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