This law seems to prohibit a lot of OC

[Daylen]

Notably, the courts have decided that there are two ways to decide if a Section of Code is effective; one is by declaration of punishment, and the other is by declaration of offense. Misdemeanors and Felonies are differentiated by length of jail sentence and/or fine. -52 contains no punishment, and no section of law above it declares it to be a crime. Nor does anything else specifically declare it to be a violation -- no where in this section does it mention "unlawful", "illegal", or other reference to law.

Would you mind making a conclusion?

 

[ALOC1911]

-52 does not refer to open carry and through another law, -55, refers to CC ONLY. Also, -52 only applies as a law as it is consistent with -73; this is all clarified in Braxton vs State and C.D.J vs State. Please read more than one sentence before making up rumors that can get people arrested.

How bout you show me where I "made up a rumor that could get somebody arrested''. Obvioulsy you need some explaining. -52 does not refer to any type of carry. It refers to carry period and says if you're not one of the exempted people listed you cannot carry period on any property that's not own or that you are not in legal control of except as otherwise provided. -55 and -73 are "otherwise provided". -55 says the proof that somebody unlawfully carried a weapon on premises not his own is that it must have been concealed.

"In an indictment for carrying weapons unlawfully, it is sufficient to charge that the defendant carried concealed about his person a pistol,..."

-73 says a license is not needed to carry concealed on your own property.

" except on his land, in his own abode or fixed place of business"

I said the fact that the sheriff's office sells licenses is proof that -52 and -73 are in direct conflict with each other and that -52 must be a worthless law because -73 says I don't need a license on my property and -52, in and of itself, says I can't carry anywhere else. That being the case why would one ever need a license from the sheriff if you couldn't carry anywhere but your own property where a license is not needed anyway. If you try to find some way to disagree with this then your are not a proponent for OC.

 

[ALOC1911]

Would you mind making a conclusion?

The conclusion is that -52 is not and never was a law you could be penalized for breaking because there is no penalty attached to it nor is there anywhere that says upon a conviction for breaking it a judge can make up his own penalty for it. Nowhere in title 13 does it says anything to the effect of if any statute in this article doesn't have a penalty listed with it then the penalty for it shall be XYZ. If you know where any of this exists then post it up or it doesn't exist.

 

[Kirbinator]

-55 is a perfect example. And sorry about not finishing my thought. The old neural matter isn't what it used to be.

 

[ixtow]

I'm still confused.

I understand how pre-emption works. How a law of a lesser entity is nullified by a higher authority. Makes sense.

But if the SAME authority writes a new law, why doesn't the old law go away? It's confusing as all hell.

It seems as if made specifically to ensure Qualified Immunity through "How the hell could any officer reasonably know this?"

Even if OC is legal in AL, it seems there could never be any recourse for one unjustly arrested/detained, etc.

"It seems" is not a phrase I want to use when trying to keep my butt out of jail...

 

[Kirbinator]

I'm still confused.
But if the SAME authority writes a new law, why doesn't the old law go away? It's confusing as all hell.

It does, but only if the law is a complete revision. The problem is that 13A-11-52 and 13A-11-7x were written at two different times in Alabama history, and at one time carrying a firearm was "illegal" without a license or permit. That's how 13A-11-7x got into law. It's only been since about 2000 that things have been clearer. The Alabama Constitution says that only one law shall exist for a specific given topic. The courts have pointed out that -52 and -73 conflict, but the later statute -- "being a complete revision of the subject matter" becomes the law that rules.

-52 and -73 is one of the things we're trying to get cleaned up, for a number of reasons. And -52 tends to be what most police officers cite when wanting to charge someone for carrying off of their own property. Conveniently, they ignore jurisprudence to do this -- never mind that jurisprudence established what latter became known as a Terry Stop.

It seems as if made specifically to ensure Qualified Immunity through "How the hell could any officer reasonably know this?"

Even if OC is legal in AL, it seems there could never be any recourse for one unjustly arrested/detained, etc.

"It seems" is not a phrase I want to use when trying to keep my butt out of jail...

AL law is sufficently screwed up as to protect LEOs from the crimes of ignorance, to a certain point.

How about this?

Constitution of Alabama 1901

SECTION 2

People source of power.
That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

SECTION 26

Right to bear arms.
That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

SECTION 36

Construction of Declaration of Rights.
That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.

SECTION 279

Required of members of legislature and executive and judicial officers; form; administration.
All members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I, …, solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God."

The oath may be administered by the presiding officer of either house of the legislature, or by any officer authorized by law to administer an oath.

Code of Alabama 1975

Section 13A-10-101
Perjury in the first degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of perjury in the first degree when in any official proceeding he swears falsely and his false statement is material to the proceeding in which it is made.

(b) Perjury in the first degree is a Class C felony.

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §4905.)

Ex parte Cranman
Supreme Court of Alabama
June 16, 2000.
Opinion Modified on Denial of Rehearing November 22, 2000

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing statement of the rule, a State agent shall not be immune from civil liability in his or her personal capacity

(1) when the Constitution or laws of the United States, or the Constitution of this State, or laws, rules, or regulations of this State enacted or promulgated for the purpose of regulating the activities of a governmental agency require otherwise; or

(2) when the State agent acts willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his or her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.

... along with this:

The State v Reid
Supreme Court of Alabama
June, 1840

...A statute which, under the pretence of
regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them
wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly 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 defence.