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.