• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

AL Senate Bill (SB420) to Strip Self-defense Immunity

Neo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
181
Location
Huntsville, AL, ,
As I read AL Code 13A-3-23 (d) & (e) now, I cannot be arrested at the scene if it appears I acted in a justifiable manner.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.


The new law (first reading attached) appears to say that you will now be charged up front and will have to prove self-defense at a pre-trial hearing in order to have the charges dropped. This is a huge step backwards. I JUST heard about this today and have included a link to a news article below.

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/05/bill_updating_alabama_self-def.html
 

Attachments

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
So much for innocent until proven guilty. I thought the burden was supposed be on the state to prove that it was NOT justifiable in any sense, rather than the other way around.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Now you understand why I want laws that read that if guy is on your property that you can shoot and kill. And, no, it will not lead to wholesale slaughter (that's the argument that antis made about carry and it is not so).

No you have to prove a guy was there to ABOUT to rob, rape, etc you?

You gotta wait until his pants are off ladies ! Don't laugh, this will be a state argument for some unfortunate lady sooner or later.


My idea is better than this bill-o-crap.

Ask these politicians when is it clearly evident that a guy is going to rape a lady? Well? Some may say "when penetrated" . Lets face it, these guys hate America.
 
Last edited:

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,753
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Since the legislature adjourned today, ending the regular session, I suspect this bill and SB14 are dead. SB 14 would have removed the requirement to have a pistol permit to have a loaded handgun in your car.

The original statute in the Code of Alabama (13A-11-73) was, if I am reading the cites correctly, renewed in 1956 in response to the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Guess which group could not get a pistol permit until recent years.
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Road to hell, good intentions, and all that.:(

Glad to hear the bill is dead. If anything, it should have been a hearing where the persec.... prosecution laid out their argument for why immunity does NOT apply, at which point the charges could simply be dismissed if the prosecutor was simply trying to punish a lawfully armed citizen.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,274
Location
White Oak Plantation
In Missouri a citizen must claim SD, affirmative defense is the term. Cops are pretty good about knowing a justified use of force when the first see it...in liberty centric states that is. It is good that the proposed law is not going to the Alabama governor's desk.

Be vigilant, those politicians will be back and I fear that Bamers will need to defend against this legislation in the future.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
In Missouri a citizen must claim SD, affirmative defense is the term. Cops are pretty good about knowing a justified use of force when the first see it...in liberty centric states that is. It is good that the proposed law is not going to the Alabama governor's desk.

Be vigilant, those politicians will be back and I fear that Bamers will need to defend against this legislation in the future.
And that's all BS too ... now you have to spend $$$$$$ to show you just defended yourself ... retardation. You should work to have that law changed.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,753
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Our problem in the Great State of Alabama is the fact that there are several PACs joined at the hip with the law enforcement "unions". One of the "unions", which is also a PAC, is the Alabama Sheriffs' Association.

In the past, that group has fought almost every pro-Second Amendment bill introduced into our state legislature. There are several reasons for this, but the two most glaringly obvious are the fact that many of the sheriffs do not want to lose any part of their "powers" over the citizenry and the fact that almost any change to the pistol permit requirements will cost them fees. FWIW, those sheriffs who journey to Montgomery to speak against bills they oppose do so at taxpayer expense. According to the Code of Alabama, that is an ethics violation, but I have yet to see one charged with it.

I will also admit that we do have good sheriffs as defined by the fact they remain true to their oaths of office.
 

Kirbinator

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
902
Location
Urban Skeet City, Alabama
Even better: the ASA dues can be paid by the county. We don't know what those dues are, but I suspect they are sizeable since ASA is active.

Yes, a violation of the state constitution -- taxpayer money being used to pay for a lobbyist who works against the taxpayers and represents 67 registered voters over the interests of the thousands of members of the various gun rights groups in the state.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
This calls to mind a great quote by Justice Brandeis... " The greatest danger to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

Regards

CCJ
 
Top