• 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.

Arrested for open carry. Waiting for a ruling from the Court of Criminal Appeals

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Sorry that is unreadable on my iPad. Based on my research, -52 reads very similarly to the way it read before. However, a few exceptions have been added. Unfortunately, as you point out, -73 can no longer be considered an updating provision. -52 and -73 are now coequal.

Another example of how the Alabama carry movement totally f'ed up. Dumb, dumb, dumb.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
My iPad has a few PDF readers. I'd say the problem lies in Tapatalk which does not recognize what was attached. It displays an image icon that appears to be physically broken, telling me that it thinks the link is to an image, but is flawed. Knowing that not to be the case, I conclude that Tapatalk is being ignorant.

It's OK. I poked around and found a website that described the changes in the law. Daylen's assessment seems to be spot on, and I added the conclusion that the carry advocates in Alabama really f'ed up. The solution was to repeal -52, not to "fix" it. Y'all lost the nature of -52 having been essentially replaced by -73. Now it is no longer dependent on -73, but has a life of its own. Nice going.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,754
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
My iPad has a few PDF readers. I'd say the problem lies in Tapatalk which does not recognize what was attached. It displays an image icon that appears to be physically broken, telling me that it thinks the link is to an image, but is flawed. Knowing that not to be the case, I conclude that Tapatalk is being ignorant.

It's OK. I poked around and found a website that described the changes in the law. Daylen's assessment seems to be spot on, and I added the conclusion that the carry advocates in Alabama really f'ed up. The solution was to repeal -52, not to "fix" it. Y'all lost the nature of -52 having been essentially replaced by -73. Now it is no longer dependent on -73, but has a life of its own. Nice going.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
Guess which four groups were responsible for gutting what would have been a pretty good law.
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
154
Location
Central Alabama
Tulley's appeal challenged the old version of -52 on constitutional grounds because it failed to give notice of any punishment for a violation.

The new version of -52 is no different on those grounds. The Court will have to create it's own punishment if it upholds the statute and a guilty verdict is rendered. The law did not define one, and it still does not.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Guess which four groups were responsible for gutting what would have been a pretty good law.
They tried to do too much with an omnibus bill. If they had tackled one or two problems at a time, it would have been a more controllable situation. For example, it would be a drastic change to a bill that only repeals -52 to make it into a bill that rewords -52. In an omnibus bill, the exact same edit looks more like a "tweak" that folks are willing to accept in order to get everything else.

All those tweaks took a bad bill and made it horrendous. Good job, guys.

Now start fixing it one item at a time. Or you can ignore this advice again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Tony_B

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
55
Location
The South
I believe this has little to do with open carry and more to do with the police teaching the OP a lesson about what happens when a civilian complains about the behavior of a cop to his department. Been there, done that, and didn't end well for me or the cops.

If one feels compelled to complain then it should be done in writing, sent certified mail, with a copy of that letter sent to the city's attorney. Sending a copy to the city's attorney is very important and if this situation had been handled in this manner it's likely no warrant would have issued. I can't say for certain but just have that feeling since the city attorney should know Alabama law and likely could\would have contacted the police chief when he received his copy to discuss the matter.




(This is not to be construed as legal advice. If you need legal advice seek the services of an attorney.)
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
154
Location
Central Alabama
SFCRetired,

"Guess which four groups were responsible for gutting what would have been a pretty good law."


In truth, there is only one group that bears the full blame ... the Republican Party of Alabama. They can no longer point their fingers at democrats and blame Alabama's unconstitutional gun control laws on anyone but themselves. They can't blame the NRA, the Alabama Sheriff's Association, the Alabama Association of Police Chiefs, or even Alabama Open Carry/Alabama Gun Rights. Only the members of our republican led legislature and our republican governor had the power to correct unconstitutional errors in our laws, and they all failed.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
America
SFCRetired,

"Guess which four groups were responsible for gutting what would have been a pretty good law."


In truth, there is only one group that bears the full blame ... the Republican Party of Alabama. They can no longer point their fingers at democrats and blame Alabama's unconstitutional gun control laws on anyone but themselves. They can't blame the NRA, the Alabama Sheriff's Association, the Alabama Association of Police Chiefs, or even Alabama Open Carry/Alabama Gun Rights. Only the members of our republican led legislature and our republican governor had the power to correct unconstitutional errors in our laws, and they all failed.
No. There were and are groups/people who were advocating and negotiating (supposedly on behalf of OC supporters) for that bill. Many predicted this problem when sb286 was introduced, myself included. Yet still some "OC" groups still pushed it and gathered signatures and continued that support after it was basically replaced with something horrible. The entire problem started when someone from a "OC" group sat down as a stakeholder with lawmakers and sheriffs reps.
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
154
Location
Central Alabama
The "groups/people who were advocating and negotiating" didn't have a vote like the lawmakers and our governor did. They took an oath to support our constitutions, and they violated that oath when they voted to pass this bill or, in the case of the governor, when he signed it into law.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No. There were and are groups/people who were advocating and negotiating (supposedly on behalf of OC supporters) for that bill. Many predicted this problem when sb286 was introduced, myself included. Yet still some "OC" groups still pushed it and gathered signatures and continued that support after it was basically replaced with something horrible. The entire problem started when someone from a "OC" group sat down as a stakeholder with lawmakers and sheriffs reps.
Yep. They pushed for a bill to fix everything, despite prescient warnings to tackle the problems one (two, at the most) at a time. History tells us that lotsa crap gets piled into omnibus bills.

Dumb move by the [strike]leaders[/strike] "owners" of the OC movement in Alabama.

Wake up Alabamians, and disavow these "owners."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
A bank, with people who may not be comfortable (even if it is legal) with a weapon in the open, and then a person telling you to leave, is not the place to debate. I say this because debate usually leads to anger, which leads to disrespect (on BOTH PARTS), which may lead to yelling, which usually leads to bad things.
Not for most people, debate is debate.
Does the person who asked you to leave work for the bank? If so leave or be trespassed. If not do your business and carry on as normal. I carry into banks all the time......never had this issue. The reality is I am wanted in my bank.

Man yelling in a bank with a gun? Bad. Even if he's yelling , or talking sternly, about the Federalist Papers.
This assumes the man with the gun will start yelling, what a horrible assumption, it has nothing to do with argument.

A man yelling on his front lawn with a gun, about anything, ALOT BETTER.
Yea sure.......:rolleyes:

I use the bank for a few reasons, they can be a hostile place for OCers, and if the situation gets out of hand it can be misconstrued AGAINST the OCers. You can insert a few other sensitive places, mainly stores or places of business where money or service is exchanged. So I'm giving you free advice.

BUT, you have the right to debate and speak whatever you want wherever you want. I'm just trying to help you out. Enjoy, and be safe while debating.
Besides your ridiculous assumptions and condescension, please cite why Banks would be any different than any other place?

As far as WHEN. I'd recommend debating when NOT being detained for any disturbance. So if you want a debate partner, go to the local station and ask to see an officer. Then politely engage him in a debate. Then it will just be two dudes debating law.
Nah don't do that your safety is at risk, I was arrested for trying to file a complaint.

If you "debate" during a detainment it can lead to things like Disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, etc.
Yep, bogus ad on charges are not uncommon. Recall the boiler plate words I brought up in another post.

For example, I hear guys debate things all the time.. "Nah It wasn't my fault I didn't mean to break her nose when I punched her in the face!! She slapped me first!!"....
Fallacy alert! That isn't a debate.
Finally, the good old Constitutiton and many State constitution sets up the Court as a place for you to "debate" laws. So blame those pesky founding fathers.
I will take every chance I get to remind people how the courts and the police and prosecutors and judges and legislatures have worked hard to destroy our right to resist unlawful arrests. Just because a government don't like it don't mean the right disappears.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
Can't argue to reality of your points. Unless another cop chimes in the answer can only be that the cop decides when a constitutional/legal debate is appropriate, the citizen, not so much.

A citizen must never debate a cop on the sidewalk/side of the road. The citizen will always lose the debate. Being unreasonable begets unreasonableness no matter how right the citizen is.

Stick to the law and speak very little when detained by a cop. Record the encounter. Whatever law the cop is using at the time of the encounter is the law. It is a rare cop who can be, or is willing to be, educated on the sidewalk/side of the road, judges are better educators.
I personally find it quite refreshing when someone brings up constitutional issues. To me this means we have another informed individual in society that knows the limits the government must abide by, and we are seriously lacking this type of individual in today's society with reality t.v. and video games. If someone I am speaking with believes I have done something that I shouldn't have I will absolutely take the time to listen to their side of things and determine whether or not they are right. I am very open minded and have a strong belief in community policing. At times tensions run high when dealing with certain individuals, and it really helps when you have a rational individual that can talk clearly and work through things with you. This rarely happens with LAC because I never contact these types of people unless they are stopping me to chat or unless I start a casual conversation with someone on the street just to chat with those in the community. All of my time is spent dealing with criminals that are known to me and every other officer in this county. I know their past and what they are capable and incapable of. It is rather sad really because I have developed a first name basis with many of these individuals, which is something I wish didn't occur. Obviously, this says plenty about our "justice" system, but that is for another conversation.

But to answer your question from my perspective, I love when I am challenged and/or engaged in constitutional talk. This is what I wish everyone I contacted was concerned with, but sadly most of them are more worried about their meth cook or their dope they no longer have to shoot up. I don't bother most people because they are free to do as they wish, but the meth heads I do not care for, as they are destroying my county at an alarming pace. These people are most certainly a harm not only to themselves, but also to everyone around them that they rob, beat and steal from to feed their habit.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Don't risk running into an unreasonable cop by assuming that the cop would react reasonably as above. Follow OC's advice to the letter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
I personally find it quite refreshing when someone brings up constitutional issues. To me this means we have another informed individual in society that knows the limits the government must abide by, and we are seriously lacking this type of individual in today's society with reality t.v. and video games. If someone I am speaking with believes I have done something that I shouldn't have I will absolutely take the time to listen to their side of things and determine whether or not they are right. I am very open minded and have a strong belief in community policing. At times tensions run high when dealing with certain individuals, and it really helps when you have a rational individual that can talk clearly and work through things with you. This rarely happens with LAC because I never contact these types of people unless they are stopping me to chat or unless I start a casual conversation with someone on the street just to chat with those in the community. All of my time is spent dealing with criminals that are known to me and every other officer in this county. I know their past and what they are capable and incapable of. It is rather sad really because I have developed a first name basis with many of these individuals, which is something I wish didn't occur. Obviously, this says plenty about our "justice" system, but that is for another conversation.

But to answer your question from my perspective, I love when I am challenged and/or engaged in constitutional talk. This is what I wish everyone I contacted was concerned with, but sadly most of them are more worried about their meth cook or their dope they no longer have to shoot up. I don't bother most people because they are free to do as they wish, but the meth heads I do not care for, as they are destroying my county at an alarming pace. These people are most certainly a harm not only to themselves, but also to everyone around them that they rob, beat and steal from to feed their habit.
Kudos to you, this speaks much about you as a person.

The reality is I have personally experienced just the opposite happening, and sadly the empirical evidence points that too many don't feel like you and so the safest way to protect ourselves is to limit our discourse and interaction with LEO.
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
154
Location
Central Alabama
Getting off topic again....... Anybody know what happened?????????????
Jason's case was heard before the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in April 2013 and we are still waiting for a ruling.

The Alabama AG chose not to prosecute the case, so the case was prosecuted by a prosecuting attorney for the City of Jacksonville. That's strange since the case involves a challenge to the statute on constitutional grounds.


Here's a quote from the Alabama AG website:

"What are the duties of the Attorney General?
... The Attorney General defends the state in all lawsuits in which the state is named as a defendant. He represents the state in all court proceedings wherein the constitutionality of a state statute is challenged..."
 

Tony_B

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
55
Location
The South
They sure are taking their time to issue the opinion. I don't think I've ever seen it take so long for any opinion to issue. Roughly seven months so far. Taking this long leads me to believe that there might be some act of sophistry taking place to excuse a clear and direct attack of an Inalienable Right. I'm of the opinion that anyone not lawfully barred from possessing firearms may carry concealed or open without having to first seek the permission of a city, county, state, or any other individual or body to exercise said Right.

Someone else mentioned not debating leo on a sidewalk, etc. in an earlier post. I was approached for the very first time in some five years of open carry and at least four years of open carry in this particular establishment. There can be no doubt that I have been observed by this establishment's security people on camera open carrying while engaging in the business for which I was in that establishment.

The above said, who I believe was the head cashier (not even the store manager) and someone claiming to be an off-duty Satsuma, Alabama police officer (who, by the way, flashed his credentials so fast that I didn't even see them), said that they had gotten a complaint from someone who was 'askeered' when she (undoubtedly, or he I suppose) saw my beautiful .45 auto carried openly exposed between the unzipped sweatshirt I was wearing at the time. Normally, I'm dressed casually but wasn't feeling well and needed some food and didn't feel like taking a shower or changing clothes. Had I been dressed as I normally am the idiot complainant likely wouldn't have thought twice about it.

Before anything was said I politely stopped them both and turned on the recording app of my phone. Then after it was recording, right off the bat I told them both that Alabama is an open carry state and that I'm sure the officer knew this fact. He agreed with the open carry statement regarding Alabama and went on to mention that I was in a private business upon which I agreed and understood that I could be asked to leave. I told them both that I had been open carrying for at least some five years and four of those in that particular business. Additionally, I said that there could be no doubt that over the years their security people had observed me under their roof on many an occasion carrying openly and going about my routine in an orderly and lawful fashion.

He and I verbally sparred calmly and politely for a couple of minutes, he being dressed in jeans and white t-shirt and looking a bit worse for wear than I, but realizing that wasn't a good tack I made mention of the fact of my age, my previous service, and my profession, and that I wasn't there to cause anyone any problems including either of them. I asked both of them if there was any observable behavior that I was engaged in that concerned them other than merely carrying a firearm and they more or less evaded the question since my behavior was low key, quiet, and lawful.

During our brief debate he told me that the open carry law stated that if someone complained that I had to cover to conceal the firearm. I told him that would be a problem for me since I don't possess a CWP and that I was too old for any legal problems. I do have a gun safe securely attached to the inside of my car and when traveling it meets the letter and spirit of the augmented legislation that went into effect August 1 (I believe that's the date).

Neither of them asked me to leave by the way and I believe after talking with me realized I wasn't some raving lunatic about to go on a shooting spree. After all, I had been there some 30 minutes already and had several items in the basket including groceries having made my way from the back all the way up to near the registers by that time. Hardly the M.O. for a mass shooter now is it?

I did check myself at one point since I have a tendency to get pissed off when I feel the exercise of my Rights are being questioned or violated and in the past would raise my voice with pressured speech but age is mellowing me in that department and wisdom took over. That was when I gave them a brief background of myself (never gave them my name or any ID, they never asked) professional credentials and explained that normally I'm not dressed so frumpy but that I wasn't feeling well and needed a few grocery items. I told them both that in fact I was just about to wrap up my shopping, check out, and leave. They seemed satisfied after talking with me and since I normally spend a lot of money in that store the store rep didn't make a production out of it. I think she was letting this off duty (store security maybe? not sure) Satsuma officer take the lead.

Anyway, that was the first encounter I've ever had while open carrying. The off duty officer was not an ******* and didn't cop a hostile attitude with me which I am grateful for as I didn't need it at that particular time. He was reasonable as I see it and although likely would have preferred that I weren't open carrying knew that what we discussed on the law was correct.

Maybe I should have put this in its own thread, but wanted to relate my opinion on their taking their time to release an opinion in this case and of my own recent and first encounter in open carrying.
 
Last edited:

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
947
Location
, ,
Jason's case was heard before the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in April 2013 and we are still waiting for a ruling.

The Alabama AG chose not to prosecute the case, so the case was prosecuted by a prosecuting attorney for the City of Jacksonville. That's strange since the case involves a challenge to the statute on constitutional grounds.


Here's a quote from the Alabama AG website:

"What are the duties of the Attorney General?
... The Attorney General defends the state in all lawsuits in which the state is named as a defendant. He represents the state in all court proceedings wherein the constitutionality of a state statute is challenged..."
So he was convicted? And has appealed and is waiting on a ruling? What is the basis for the appeal?
 
Top