The history line that appears in the current version of the statute appears as follows:
(Acts 1919, No. 204, p. 196; Code 1923, §3487; Code 1940, T. 14, §163; Code 1975, §13-6-122.)
The history of our current state constitution, the supreme law of our state, includes a Declaration of Rights that dates back to its ratification in 1901:
"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."
Our courts tell us that they make every attempt possible to uphold a statute without violating our constitutions. Our constitutions do not protect the bearing of arms for OFFENSIVE purposes. The former statute was upheld by our state's court of last resort only on those grounds.
Here's how they have explained it more recently:
"In Monroe v. Harco, Inc., 762 So.2d 828 (Ala.2000), this Court restated the long-standing rules governing the review of an act of the Legislature under constitutional attack:
"`In reviewing [a question regarding] the constitutionality of a statute, we "approach the question with every presumption and intendment in favor of its validity, and seek to sustain rather than strike down the enactment of a coordinate branch of the government."' Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So.2d 156, 159 (Ala.1991) (quoting Alabama State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1, 9, 18 So.2d 810, 815 (1944)). Moreover, `[w]here the validity of a statute is assailed and there are two possible interpretations, by one of which the statute would be unconstitutional and by the other would be valid, the courts should adopt the construction [that] would uphold it.' McAdory, 246 Ala. at 10, 18 So.2d at 815. In McAdory, this Court further stated:
"`
n passing upon the constitutionality of a legislative act, the courts uniformly approach the question with every presumption and intendment in favor of its validity, and seek to sustain rather than strike down the enactment 973*973 of a coordinate branch of the government. All these principles are embraced in the simple statement that it is the recognized duty of the court to sustain the act unless it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that it is violative of the fundamental law.'
"246 Ala. at 9, 18 So.2d at 815 (citation omitted). We must afford the Legislature the highest degree of deference, and construe its acts as constitutional if their language so permits. Id."
762 So.2d at 831..."
Quoting: Kirby v. State, 899 So. 2d 968 - Ala: Supreme Court 2004
link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...+an+act+of+the+Legislature"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,64
