This law seems to prohibit a lot of OC

[eye95]

imported post

Mike wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Thanks, 45. Here is something from KJ that seems to say that -52 is still the law on open carry:

As authority for his contention, the appellant cites Stinson v. State, 190 So. 303, 304, 28 Ala. App. 559, 560 (Ala. App.), cert. denied, 238 Ala. 272, 190 So.305 (Ala. 1939), in which the Court stated: "[The Uniform Firearms] Act prescribes punishments and penalties for violations of any of the provisions of the Act, and in Section 22 thereof is provided: 'This Act is intended as an entire revision of the subject matter contained herein and all laws or parts of laws inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.' "It would appear, therefore, that Section 3487 [**3] of the Code of 1923 [now § 13A-11-52] has been repealed and Form 32, of Section 4556, ceases to be the form prescribed in charging a defendant with a violation of Section 5 of the Acts of the Legislature, Extra Session of 1936, page 52. [*543] "The inhibition against the possession of firearms is now contained in Section 5 of the Acts of the Legislature, Extra Session of 1936, page 52 [now § 13A-11-73], which reads as follows: 'No person shall carry a pistol in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode of fixed place of business, without a license therefor as hereinafter provided.' It will be seen that this is an entire change of the former law on the subject." This Court is cognizant of the fact that the court's holding in Stinson seems to infer that the precursor to § 13A-11-52 was repealed by the enactment of the Uniform Firearms Act; however, the legislative history of the current § 13A-11-52 shows that the Legislature re-codified that section on two separate occasions following this Court's holding in Stinson, in 1940 and 1975. "It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that in enacting [a] statute the [**4] legislature had full knowledge and information as to prior and existing law and legislation on the subject of the statute." Miller v. State, 349 So. 2d 129, 131 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977). We hold that § 13A-11-52 is still in effect as evidenced by the following cases where defendants were charged under this section: C.D.J. v. State, 671 So. 2d 139 (Ala. Cr. App. 1995), and A.M. v. State, 623 So. 2d 421 (Ala. Cr. App. 1993).

I bolded the portion that says -52 is again in force, despite at one point in time having been repealed.

Is there anything that refutes this?

I can see how this seems confusing to everyone, and it does to me as well and i can see why folks might not want to open carry until the law is more clear - however the case above was a case was about a juvenile carrying a concealed pistol and concluded by ruling that the state did not have to prove that the Defendant did not have a license to conceal as he was not old enough to getsuch a license.

It appears to still be valid law that "Section 13A-11-52 applies only the extent that it is consistent with § 13A-11-73." C.D.J. v. State, 671 So. 2d 139, 142 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995).

It is true that the text of “Section 13A-11-52 . . . does not permit the carrying of a pistol outside of a person's own premises under any circumstances. However, that section does begin with the phrase ‘except as otherwise provided in this article.’ Section 13A-11-73 clearly allows a person with a pistol license to carry a pistol in a vehicle or concealed on the person. Furthermore, in Morris v. State, 342 So. 2d 417, 418 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977), and Looney v. State, 41 Ala. App. 582, 141 So. 2d 535, 536 (1962), this court held that § 13A-11-73 does not prohibit carrying an unlicensed pistolif the pistol is unconcealed and the person is on foot. . . . Section 13A-11-52 applies only the extent that it is consistent with § 13A-11-73 because it is ‘the later statute and a complete revision of the subject matter.’ Braxton, 350 So. 2d at 755. Therefore, the state should have been required to prove all of the elements of a violation of § 13A-11-73.” C.D.J. v. State, 671 So. 2d 139, 142 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995) (emphasis added). See also 2006 Ala. AG LEXIS 145 (Ala. AG 2006) (“Section 13A-11-52 of the Code of Alabama . . . must be read with section 13A-11-73 of the Code of Alabama, which states that "[n]o person shall carry a pistol in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person, except on his land, in his own abode or fixed place of business, without a license therefore as hereinafter provided." ALA. CODE § 13A-11-73 (2006).”); 1984 Ala. AG Op. #84-00205 (“Section 13A-11-73 takes precedence [over Section 13A-11-52] (citing to Braxton v. State, 350 So.2d 753 (1977)), available at http://www.ago.state.al.us/oldopinions/8400205.pdf.

I quoted this post because it is the post that convinced me that OC is legal in AL.

 

[Bird Dog]

imported post

Dianosis wrote:

Sorry I'm Johnny-Come-Lately to this post. it was alot to read..... One thing that really stuck with me when I was reading through all the law documents was this in particular:

The State v. Reid,
Supreme Court of Alabama, 1 Ala.
612; 1840 Ala.
But the court say that it is a matter
which will not admit of legislative
regulation, and in order to test the
correctness of its opinion, supposes
one Legislature to prohibit the
bearing arms secretly, and a
subsequent Legislature to enact a law
against bearing them openly; and then
asks the question, whether the first,
or last enactment would be
unconstitutional. Under the
provision of our constitution, we
incline to the opinion that the
Legislature cannot inhibit the
citizen from bearing arms openly,
because it authorizes him to bear
them for the purposes of defending
himself and the State, and it is
only when carried openly, that they
can be efficiently used for defense.


That really summed it up for me..."Under the
provision of our constitution, we
incline to the opinion that the
Legislature cannot inhibit the
citizen from bearing arms openly,
because it authorizes him to bear
them for the purposes of defending
himself and the State, and it is
only when carried openly, that they
can be efficiently used for defense."


How else could you defend yourself or the State if you could only do so at your house? Thats when the light clicked on for me and I felt alot better about OC.

You're quoting an 1840 opinion as authority for how the Constitution of 1901 would be interpreted today. Do you realize the opinion you're quoting was written before the current version of Alabama's constitution was even enacted?

Furthermore, the 1840 opinion states the court was "inclined" toward a certain view. That issue was not actually before the court and, therefore, was not decided. The legal term for judicial statements like that is "dicta." Dicta is not a binding holding.

You may want to read the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' 1980 opinion in Hyde v. City of Birmingham, 392 So. 2d 1226. The courtconsidered the constitutionality ofa Birmingham city ordinance that stated: "No person shall disturb the peace of others by having a firearm in his possession in a public place or within public view under circumstances where the natural tendency of such possession would be to provoke a breach of the peace.”

The Court of Criminal Appeals held that this ordinance did not violate Article I, Section 26 of the Constitution of 1901, which is the current Alabama constitutional provision on the right to bear arms. InExparte Hyde, 392 So. 2d 1229, the Alabama Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion.

I wonder whether those of you who supportopen carry have fully considered the ramifications of this issue. While you people are honest law abiding citizens who have a good faith belief in the Second Amendment, there is anotherelement of our societythat would use open carry for sinister reasons.

How would you like to be a cop patrolling the high crime areas with every drug dealer and gang banger on the street corner carrying a holstered .40 caliber semi-auto on his hip? Remember, a permit isonly required for concealed carry and carryin a vehicle. Unless these criminals have already picked upa conviction for certain offenses, they could open carry without even being screened forpistol permit - no matter how many resisting arrest, DUI, and misdemeanor possession charges they have been convicted of!

I think we're all safer if honest people (like yourselves) just carry concealed with a permit.

 

[eye95]

imported post

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, We Declare: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.

That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state

The first quote is the 1819 Constitution.

The second is 1901.

Can you explain what changed that would nullify the precedent of the 1840 SC ruling?

 

[Bird Dog]

imported post

Mike wrote:

It appears to still be valid law that "Section 13A-11-52 applies only the extent that it is consistent with § 13A-11-73." C.D.J. v. State, 671 So. 2d 139, 142 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995).

...

Furthermore, in Morris v. State[/i][/b], 342 So. 2d 417, 418 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977), and Looney v. State[/i][/b], 41 Ala. App. 582, 141 So. 2d 535, 536 (1962), this court held that § 13A-11-73 does not prohibit carrying an unlicensed pistolif the pistol is unconcealed and the person is on foot. . . . Section 13A-11-52 applies only the extent that it is consistent with § 13A-11-73 because it is ‘the later statute and a complete revision of the subject matter.’ Braxton[/i][/b], 350 So. 2d at 755.

You are correct that 13A-11-73does not prohibit carrying an unlicensed pistol if the pistol is unconcealed and the person is afoot. However, it does not authorize people to dothat either. In fact, 13A-11-73 does not address that issue one way or another; it only addresses the carrying of a pistol concealed or in a vehicle.

Because 13A-11-73 does not address the situation of carrying an pistol unconcealed on foot, it does not conflict with 13A-11-52 on that issue. It stands to reason that 13A-11-52 remains the only statute that specifically addresses situations in which people carry pistols unconcealed while on foot, and it makes it illegal to do so on the private property of others.

The 1984 attorney general's opinion quotes Looney v. State, 141 So. 2d 535, for the proposition that "a permit is not required when a person afoot carries an unconcealed pistol." That is a poorly written opinion. If you read Looney itself, you will see that the defendant in Looney was only charged with carrying a pistol without a permit under the Code of Alabama (1940)version of the carrying a concealed pistol law (the 1940 Alabama Code version of 13A-11-73). That law only addressed concealed pistols and pistols carried in vehicles. The Alabama Court of Appeals held that a person did not need a permit to carry a pistol unconcealed under that law. The Alabama Court of Appeals did not address 13A-11-52 (or the 1940 Code equivalent) because the defendant was not charged under that statute.

The correct interpretation of Looney is that while "a permit is not required when a person afoot carries an unconcealed pistol," there is another law (13A-11-52) that restricts where the person can carry that pistol while it is unconcealed.

 

[Bird Dog]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, We Declare: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.

That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state

The first quote is the 1819 Constitution.

The second is 1901.

Can you explain what changed that would nullify the precedent of the 1840 SC ruling?

While the language everybody quotes from the 1840 opinion was part of the court's reasoning, it was not the actual holding. The entire judicial opinion is notthe holding.

The holding is limited to the Court's resolution of the central issue presented - in that case, the only issue was whetherthe statute prohibiting concealed carry was unconstitutional.

The court in 1840 was not asked to consider whether a law prohibiting open carry was unconstitutional. There apparently was no such law at the time or, if there was, the defendant was not charged with violating it.

In reaching its holding, the court reasoned by analogy to a hypothetical situation in which a future legislature might enact a law against open carry. The court said how it would be inclined to view such a law. The language might be "persuasive authority" for a court to consider today, but it is not binding precedent.

The Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion I cited, however, is now binding precedent for Alabama's lower courts unless and until the Alabama Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court overturns it.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Bird Dog wrote:

eye95 wrote:

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, We Declare: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.

That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state

The first quote is the 1819 Constitution.

The second is 1901.

Can you explain what changed that would nullify the precedent of the 1840 SC ruling?

While the language everybody quotes from the 1840 opinion was part of the court's reasoning, it was not the actual holding. The entire judicial opinion is notthe holding.

The holding is limited to the Court's resolution of the central issue presented - in that case, the only issue was whetherthe statute prohibiting concealed carry was unconstitutional.

The court in 1840 was not asked to consider whether a law prohibiting open carry was unconstitutional. There apparently was no such law at the time or, if there was, the defendant was not charged with violating it.

In reaching its holding, the court reasoned by analogy to a hypothetical situation in which a future legislature might enact a law against open carry. The court said how it would be inclined to view such a law. The language might be "persuasive authority" for a court to consider today, but it is not binding precedent.

The Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion I cited, however, is now binding precedent for Alabama's lower courts unless and until the Alabama Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court overturns it.

I notice that you did not answer the question asked. You simply tried another tack.

While expected in a political debate, such is disingenuous in an intellectual debate.

Can you address my question, or can we consider the point you raised which prompted my question to be disposed and discarded? If so, we can move on to the point you tried to use as a distraction.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

imported post

Bird Dog wrote:

You're quoting an 1840 opinion as authority for how the Constitution of 1901 would be interpreted today. Do you realize the opinion you're quoting was written before the current version of Alabama's constitution was even enacted?

Furthermore, the 1840 opinion states the court was "inclined" toward a certain view. That issue was not actually before the court and, therefore, was not decided. The legal term for judicial statements like that is "dicta." Dicta is not a binding holding.

These are very good points. If this were the only leg we had to stand on, it would certainly be cause for concern. However, combined with the Attorney General opinions we have in our favor, the court cases we have in our favor, and the numerous city and district attorneys who have acknowledged the legality of OC, this Supreme Court decision was always kind of a bonus (or a starting point, depending on how you look at it).

You may want to read the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' 1980 opinion in Hyde v. City of Birmingham, 392 So. 2d 1226. The courtconsidered the constitutionality ofa Birmingham city ordinance that stated: "No person shall disturb the peace of others by having a firearm in his possession in a public place or within public view under circumstances where the natural tendency of such possession would be to provoke a breach of the peace.”

The Court of Criminal Appeals held that this ordinance did not violate Article I, Section 26 of the Constitution of 1901, which is the current Alabama constitutional provision on the right to bear arms. InExparte Hyde, 392 So. 2d 1229, the Alabama Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion.

I will look at these when I get home from work tonight.

I wonder whether those of you who supportopen carry have fully considered the ramifications of this issue. While you people are honest law abiding citizens who have a good faith belief in the Second Amendment, there is anotherelement of our societythat would use open carry for sinister reasons.

How would you like to be a cop patrolling the high crime areas with every drug dealer and gang banger on the street corner carrying a holstered .40 caliber semi-auto on his hip? Remember, a permit isonly required for concealed carry and carryin a vehicle. Unless these criminals have already picked upa conviction for certain offenses, they could open carry without even being screened forpistol permit - no matter how many resisting arrest, DUI, and misdemeanor possession charges they have been convicted of!

I think we're all safer if honest people (like yourselves) just carry concealed with a permit.

And here is where you fail. Emotion overrides logic and you resort to the oldest of arguments. Tell me, please, what would be the difference between the gang-bangers wearing a pistol on their hip and wearing it illegally under their shirts like they already do?

The difference would be that the LEOs would know at a glance which ones were armed, and would thus be safer. Why are you against LEO safety? Hmmm? Please point to one case where someone has worn a weapon in plain view for "sinister reasons". Please explain to me why a nonviolent criminal should have his rights infringed. Be careful with this one, because every totalitarian government targeted the 'criminals' first.

I will admit that people like yourself would feel a lot safer if you didn't have to look at guns. I feel sorry for you, really. To be scared of the very sight of an inanimate object is really kind of pathetic. I hope you are able to work through those fears and come to realize that restricting the rights of OCers affects CCers as well. First they say you can't carry open, then they say you can no longer carry concealed, and then the only ones who will carry will be those aforementioned gang-bangers. So much for your illusion of safety.

 

[Bird Dog]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

I notice that you did not answer the question asked. You simply tried another tack.

While expected in a political debate, such is disingenuous in an intellectual debate.

Can you address my question, or can we consider the point you raised which prompted my question to be disposed and discarded? If so, we can move on to the point you tried to use as a distraction.

I'm sorry, I thought I addressed it. To be clear, I don't see any difference between the two constitutional provisions.

My point was that the 1840 opinion (State v. Reid) is not binding precedent on the open carry issue because that issue was not raised by the parties before the court. The topic of opencarry only arose in an analogy the court used to reach its decision on the constitutionality of the concealed carry law. In the legal realm, this type of reasoning by a court is called "dicta" and it is not considered binding precedent. (If you Google "dicta," you will see what I mean when I use that term.)

If you don't believe me, read the Hyde opinion. In Hyde, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged State v. Reid (the 1840 opinion) and actually quoted part of it. However,the Court of Criminal Appealsstill upheld the constitutionality of the Birmingham city ordinance prohibiting open carry.

When I Googled "dicta," the first site I found was www.lectlaw.com. It gave this definition:

The part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge's editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory.

Dicta are judicial opinions expressed by the judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case.

Dicta are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered; it frequently happening that they are given without much reflection, at the bar, without previous examination.

The reason dicta holds little authority is that it often addresses issues that the parties did not intend to litigate - such as the legality of open carry in State v. Reid. Because the parties in that case were focused on the legality of concealed carry, they likely did not address open carry in their briefs and arguments to the court. Therefore, the court would not have had the benefit of a vigorous debate on both sides of the open carry issue.

 

[Bird Dog]

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

And here is where you fail. Emotion overrides logic and you resort to the oldest of arguments. Tell me, please, what would be the difference between the gang-bangers wearing a pistol on their hip and wearing it illegally under their shirts like they already do?

The difference would be that the LEOs would know at a glance which ones were armed, and would thus be safer. Why are you against LEO safety? Hmmm? Please point to one case where someone has worn a weapon in plain view for "sinister reasons". Please explain to me why a nonviolent criminal should have his rights infringed. Be careful with this one, because every totalitarian government targeted the 'criminals' first.

I will admit that people like yourself would feel a lot safer if you didn't have to look at guns. I feel sorry for you, really. To be scared of the very sight of an inanimate object is really kind of pathetic. I hope you are able to work through those fears and come to realize that restricting the rights of OCers affects CCers as well. First they say you can't carry open, then they say you can no longer carry concealed, and then the only ones who will carry will be those aforementioned gang-bangers. So much for your illusion of safety.

Not every gang banger carries a gun under their shirt now because when you don't have a permit it's a crime and they can be arrested for it.

If you allow open carry without a permit, those who fear being caught with a pistol would no longer have to fear it. It would be legal. Therefore, more gang members will carry guns.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Therefore, your argument that the decision preceding the 1901 Constitution invalidates it fails.

Your second argument fails because the Birmingham law did not prohibit OC. It only prohibited OC "under circumstances where the natural tendency of such possession would be to provoke a breach of the peace." While that language is vague, it can represent a lawful and reasonable exception. For example, brandishing would be such a provocation and, therefore, illegal.

Of course, unless the State were to pass such a law and it were challenged in court, the point is now moot. Preemption makes any such city ordinance illegal. In this case, the law has changed, leaving the ruling behind!

In this day and age, with the tendency of courts not liking vague laws, I don't think a law like the Birmingham law (of course, as a State law) would pass constitutional muster.

Anyway, since the Birmingham law did not outlaw OC, but behavior that goes beyond OC, your refocused point fails.

So, fail on change of constitutions and fail on a law banning OC (it didn't) being upheld.

 

[Kingfish]

imported post

Bird Dog wrote:

Not every gang banger carries a gun under their shirt now because when you don't have a permit it's a crime and they can be arrested for it.

If you allow open carry without a permit, those who fear being caught with a pistol would no longer have to fear it. It would be legal. Therefore, more gang members will carry guns.

Um...What do you think the term "gang BANGER" means?

So, in ALL the states that that have unlicensed OC (what is it 14?) could you please show us all the gang members sporting their Glocks OC. I spent a week in Colorado last month and I sure didn't see any.

If someone has a fear of being caught with a weapon then why are they in fear? If they are in fear because they are a prohibited person then they cannot legally OC as they cannot legally posess a firearm....Thus, they will just CC as they do now.

So, I am not understanding what your issue is with OC.

One of my reasons for OC is that I am a big guy and the southern heat is a killer for me. I wear shorts and a t-shirt that fits....Nowhere to hide a full sized gun (I am not carrying a mouse gun.) If I am sloppy with CC and someone sees that i am hiding a gun...To me that would be far more dangerous than just OCing in a proper retention holster.

 

[PT111]

imported post

I thank all of you for your posts, discussion and links on this.I read all of them including the AG opinion but did not get to read the court case. I think I now understand the reasoning behind the opinion of OC being legal in AL as it appears the interpretation of laws in AL is a little different from either what I have been accustomed to or I am either plainly wrong.

I do agree with the previous poster who said that the AG opinion was pooly written, IMO that is an understatement. I think that the AL codes on this are so confusing that if you wind up in court you will be facing a judge that you hope is having a good day and on your side and the legislature should get their act together and revise thes codes to something understandable even for lawyers.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Bird Dog wrote:

mcdonalk wrote:

And here is where you fail. Emotion overrides logic and you resort to the oldest of arguments. Tell me, please, what would be the difference between the gang-bangers wearing a pistol on their hip and wearing it illegally under their shirts like they already do?

The difference would be that the LEOs would know at a glance which ones were armed, and would thus be safer. Why are you against LEO safety? Hmmm? Please point to one case where someone has worn a weapon in plain view for "sinister reasons". Please explain to me why a nonviolent criminal should have his rights infringed. Be careful with this one, because every totalitarian government targeted the 'criminals' first.

I will admit that people like yourself would feel a lot safer if you didn't have to look at guns. I feel sorry for you, really. To be scared of the very sight of an inanimate object is really kind of pathetic. I hope you are able to work through those fears and come to realize that restricting the rights of OCers affects CCers as well. First they say you can't carry open, then they say you can no longer carry concealed, and then the only ones who will carry will be those aforementioned gang-bangers. So much for your illusion of safety.

Not every gang banger carries a gun under their shirt now because when you don't have a permit it's a crime and they can be arrested for it.

If you allow open carry without a permit, those who fear being caught with a pistol would no longer have to fear it. It would be legal. Therefore, more gang members will carry guns.

Wow what a logical (actually illogical) leap! Your argument would seem to have been leading up to more OC, not more carry. Anyway, that conclusion fails, too.

OC is recognized as legal (with the exception of a few rogue LEAs). I still have never seen a single gang-banger OCing. Not one. Have you?

I am sure it is because mere possession is illegal for most of them and that they are, by nature as thugs, dishonest and deceptive.

 

[eye95]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

I thank all of you for your posts, discussion and links on this.I read all of them including the AG opinion but did not get to read the court case. I think I now understand the reasoning behind the opinion of OC being legal in AL as it appears the interpretation of laws in AL is a little different from either what I have been accustomed to or I am either plainly wrong.

I do agree with the previous poster who said that the AG opinion was pooly written, IMO that is an understatement. I think that the AL codes on this are so confusing that if you wind up in court you will be facing a judge that you hope is having a good day and on your side and the legislature should get their act together and revise thes codes to something understandable even for lawyers.

This is why, before I would OC, I wanted to know what the MPD and sheriff thought on the issue. The sheriff was already on record as saying OC is legal. MPD sat on the fence until they detained me for OC. The city attorney researched the issue and determined that OC is legal.

Yes, Birddog, as of a few weeks ago the city attorney determined that the State AG need not even be contacted to determine that OC is legal. OC is legal.

On Tuesday, Jonathon Norris and I passed a Birmingham officer strong side. He noticed our firearms and wished us a good day. Birddog, you raise some interesting debate points that have been refuted. However, you are wrong.

 

[Armorer]

imported post

How do we then get these law enforcement angencis and Sheriff's on the same page? It's almost like the Bingo issue.

Here in Houston County where I live, Sheriff Hughes has made no mention of previous court cases and is critical of the attorney general's opinion. I left a message yesterday asking to speak with him so I could bring up the topic of case law and ask him to check with a county attorney, etc. I'm considering calling my Dothan commissioner to have him check into the issue with the city attorney and Dothan PD to come to some sort of an understanding and standard procedure. What else could be done?

 

[Bird Dog]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

I think that the AL codes on this are so confusing that if you wind up in court you will be facing a judge that you hope is having a good day and on your side and the legislature should get their act together and revise thes codes to something understandable even for lawyers.

I agree that the best solution is to rewrite all of these laws in a way that everyone can understand. I would support open carry for law abiding citizens wholeheartedly. I believe the pistol permit process can screen that effectively.

I would prefer to see a law that authorizes open or concealed carry for people who first obtain permits and that recognizes permits from other states, but that also prohibits both forms of carry without a permit.

 

[Bird Dog]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

So, fail on change of constitutions and fail on a law banning OC (it didn't) being upheld.

You still haven't addressed my argument that 13A-11-73 only addresses the subject of concealed carry and weapons carried in vehicles with a permit and does notconflict with 13A-11-52 onthe subject of open carry on the premises of others.

You also haven't addressed my argument that the language from the 1840 opinion is mere dicta.

The Birmingham ordinance did ban OC under certain circumstances, and it was upheld in the Hyde case despite the dicta in the 1840 case. I tend to agree with you about the ambiguity argument, though. I also agree with you on the difference (or lack thereof) between the two constitutional amendments.

You may not be aware of this, but there is some authority that 13A-11-52 only applies to private property owned by another and not to open carry on public property. This interpretation seems to conflict with the plain language of the statute, but nevertheless it appears to be the law.

In E.T. v. State, 682 So. 2d 508, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that a juvenile did not violate 13A-11-52 when he carried a pistol on a public street: "The Alabama Supreme Court interpreted a former codification of this prohibition to apply only to the carrying of a pistol on the private property of others-not on any public property. Isaiah v. State, 58 So. 53 (Ala.1911).§ 13A-11-52."

I wonderwhether the current Supreme Court would still interpret 13A-11-52 as expansively as its predecessors did in 1911.

Interestingly, in the E.T. case, the Court of Criminal Appeals also wrote: "To a limited extent, § 13A-11-73 does provide an exception to the general prohibition set out in § 13A-11-52; however, this exception is limitedto those cases in which a person carries a licensed pistol on the property of others." In other words, the exception that 13A-11-73 creates for13A-11-52 only applies when the person has a license, according to this opinion. (The E.T. case was decided in 1996.)

 

[Kingfish]

imported post

Bird Dog wrote:

I agree that the best solution is to rewrite all of these laws in a way that everyone can understand. I would support open carry for law abiding citizens wholeheartedly. I believe the pistol permit process can screen that effectively.

I would prefer to see a law that authorizes open or concealed carry for people who first obtain permits and that recognizes permits from other states, but that also prohibits both forms of carry without a permit.

So, you don't believe in a RIGHT to bear arms? Only a state granted PRIVILEGE.

Ok, I see where you are coming from.../ignore. Nothing more to see here.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Bird Dog wrote:

eye95 wrote:

So, fail on change of constitutions and fail on a law banning OC (it didn't) being upheld.

You still haven't addressed my argument that 13A-11-73 only addresses the subject of concealed carry and weapons carried in vehicles and does not address the subject of open carry on the premises of others.

It does not need to address OC. Anything that is not specifically illegal is legal. That is the mistake that the sheriff in Houston County is making. He keeps saying that there is no law that OC is legal. There need not be.

Is there a law saying that you may possess a computer. No. Yet, you clearly do.

The only law that comes close to addressing OC is -52. The AL SC has ruled that -73 is a complete revision of -52. -52 is dead law. (Yes, it would be better if it were physically deleted from the Code.) Unfortunately, it is dead law that you, the sheriff, and (at one time, but no longer) I have cited to say that OC is illegal.

We all are (well, I was) wrong.

 

[eye95]

imported post

kingfish wrote:

Bird Dog wrote:

I agree that the best solution is to rewrite all of these laws in a way that everyone can understand. I would support open carry for law abiding citizens wholeheartedly. I believe the pistol permit process can screen that effectively.

I would prefer to see a law that authorizes open or concealed carry for people who first obtain permits and that recognizes permits from other states, but that also prohibits both forms of carry without a permit.

So, you don't believe in a RIGHT to bear arms? Only a state granted PRIVILEGE.

Ok, I see where you are coming from.../ignore. Nothing more to see here.

He may have misspoken. Please give him a chance to answer whether he believes in the Right to keep and bear arms.