We've misread 13A-11-52

[AL Ranger]

imported post

13A-11-52 CARRYING PISTOL ON PREMISES NOT HIS OWN; WHO MAY CARRY A PISTOL
Except as otherwise provided in this article, no person shall carry a pistol about his person on premises not his own or under his control, but this section shall not apply to any sheriff or his deputy or police officer of an incorporated town or city in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to United States marshal or his deputies, rural free delivery mail carriers in the discharge of their duties, bonded constables in the discharge of their duties as such, conductors, railway mail clerks and express managers in the discharge of their duties.

Read that section above carefully but change "premises not his own or under his control" to PRIVATE PROPERTY. The above statement actually says that no citizen at all shall carry a pistol about his person onto PRIVATE PROPERTY except the gun-toting agents listed here but only in the "DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES!" My property is mine, your property is yours, but someone elses property is HIS and that is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Any state or local LEO can not come onto PRIVATE PROPERTY except in the "official discharge of his duties!"

We are OC in PUBLIC, on PUBLIC STREETS, going into places that are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. We are not going onto PRIVATE PROPERTY! What happens when we do? If they ask us to leave, we leave or it's trespassing! If they say we can stay, we have permission to OC.

Next time a LEO tells you that 13A-11-52 says you can't carry, tell him that it actually means that armed LEO's can't go onto private property except in the discharge of their offical duties! Oh, I can see the smoke now!

 

[carracer]

imported post

Am I reading correctly that rural MAIL CARRIERS can carry?

 

[AL Ranger]

imported post

Abso-frickin-lutely! So can animal control agents but that's in another part of the legislation.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

imported post

It helps that most rural mail carriers have to use their own vehicles. If I had to put up with some of those people, in my own vehicle, I would want my gun too.

That makes me wonder if they have to get a CCP to keep the gun in their mail delivery vehicle (especially if it is their private vehicle).

 

[aadvark]

imported post

At any rate Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-52 is moot Law, and is held as Bad Law, as it has been superceeded by Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-73.

Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-52 does begin with the pharse, 'Except as otherwise provided by this Article...', and Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-73 makes good on that exception.

The case that holds the following true is:KJ v. State 690 So.2d 541 Al.Cr.App., 1997.

Open Carry, in accordance with Alabama Code 1975 13A-11-73, is the Law in Alabama.

 

[AL Ranger]

imported post

Section 52 is what the LEO's use to harass gun owners and try to make us sound like we are breaking my law. The point I'm trying to make is that it gives us an argument to take back to them on that section. Another one we can use it section 55.

13A-11-55 INDICTMENT FOR CARRYING WEAPONS UNLAWFULLY; PROOF

In an indictment for carrying weapons unlawfully, it is sufficient to charge that the defendant carried concealed about his person a pistol, or other description of firearms, on premises not his own, or a bowie knife or other knife or instrument of the like kind or description, or other forbidden weapon, describing it, as the case may be; and the excuse, if any, must be proved by the defendant on the trial, to the satisfaction of the jury; and if the evidence is offered to excuse the charge raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, the jury must acquit him.

The only illegal act in carrying a gun, according to this section, is to carry it concealed. We know that but the LEO's have to be informed of it.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

imported post

Bump for BirdDog. As he points out, Isaiah v. State provides good support for Ranger's 'private property' argument.

 

[UncleWolfie]

imported post

A man or woman openly carries a firearm upon his or her body. Who does your body belong to and is it under your control?

I'm not being sarcastic or splitting hairs when asking this question. Is your body your property and under your control or does it belong to someone else and is it under their control?

By the way, public means government in most cases where the term 'public' is used in statutory construction. A 'public' building is a government building of one sort or another. A coffee shop located on private property is not 'public.'

 

[49er]

imported post

Section 13A-7-1
Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:

(1) PREMISES. Such term includes any "building," as herein defined, and any real property.

 

[49er]

imported post

A coffee shop located on private property is not 'public.'

Section 13A-7-1
Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:

(4) ENTER OR REMAIN UNLAWFULLY. A person "enters or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not licensed, invited or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person. A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of the building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privileges unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of such land or other authorized person, or unless such notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.

[emphasis added]

 

[PT111]

imported post

premises not his own or under his control" to PRIVATE PROPERTY.

I think that you would have to change that to NOT HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY. I believe you left a word out and premises would be the same as private property but have to leave the NOT in there.

 

[49er]

imported post

13A-11-52

Where did it come from??? Boy have I learned something tonight. In searching for
the Uniform Firearms Act that was mentioned as being adopted in Alabama in
K.J. v Statewhere it was argued that the Act repealed the precuror to 13A-11-52,

I found some interesting information about where theAct and thelaw came from.

"Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame the Uniform Firearms Act of 1930. ... Salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to the local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery." Remember, I'm not asking whether you think these are good ideas. I'm asking whether the NRA is the pack of wild-eyed, take-no-prisoners, "pure language of the Second Amendment, take my gun from my cold dead fingers" radical extremists which the national press corps would have us believe. In fact, can the NRA rightly be said to be a "gun rights" organization, at all?

[emphasis mine]

Quoting from this link:

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june_2001/americas_largest_gun_control_organization.htm

I still have not been able to find the complete text of the Uniform Firearms Act. If anyone can find it, please post a link.

 

[49er]

imported post

13A-11-52 was not writtenin our state legislature by our state representatives. It waswrittenin Washington DC and adopted by our legislature. No wonder our state constitution and state case law was ignored when this model for national gun control laws was adopted.

[align=center]THE UNIFORM FIREARMS ACT[/align]

[align=center]

After the World War the growing current of public opinion against the right of individuals to possess or carry freely revolvers and pistols became more assertive. An effort was made in a number of states to adopt the rigid provisions of the Sullivan Law in New York, which is the severest anti-firearm legislation in the United States. As the result the United States Revolver Association endeavored to draft legislation of a less drastic nature to be urged as uniform legislation throughout the states, in order to forestall laws which might seriously interfere with the privileges of pistol shooting and hunting.[/align]
This proposed uniform firearm law, which adopted various provisions from existing state firearm laws, was called to the attention of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1923. The substance of these provisions was enacted in the California, North Dakota, and New Hampshire Firearms Acts of that year. In 1925 the first draft of the proposed "Uniform Act to Regulate the Sale and Possession of Firearms" was discussed at the Conference, and, after numerous changes, was adopted by the Conference in 1926. This proposed act at once was severely criticized as not being sufficiently drastic.

These criticisms were principally made by law enforcement officers. The National Crime Commission received so many protests that it organized a committee to study and propose uniform firearm legislation. The resulting uniform act was considerably more drastic than the act proposed by the Conference. As the result both the Conference and the American Bar Association reconsidered the previous act. For four years there were frequent meetings between committees of the National Crime Commission and the Conference, and eventually the present Uniform Act was presented. This proposed law is summarized as follows:

1. The carrying of a "pistol," defined as any firearm with a barrel less than twelve inches in length, in a vehicle or concealed on the person is forbidden to all except law enforcement officers and certain others, except upon the issuance of a license. (No license is required, therefore, for the purchase or possession of a pistol so long as it is not carried beyond the limits of the owner's abode or place of business.)

2. A crime of violence committed by one armed with a "pistol" carries a penalty in addition to that prescribed for the crime, and the fact that one charged with a crime of violence is armed and has no license is prima facie evidence of his intention to commit such a crime.

3. The delivery of "pistols" is forbidden to certain classes of persons, such as drug addicts, habitual drunkards and minors under eighteen, if there is reasonable cause to believe that the applicant is in one of the designated classes; and possession is prohibited to any person convicted of a crime of violence.

4. The sale of "pistols" is regulated by licensing the dealer. The sale may be made only after forty-eight hours have elapsed from the time the purchaser makes application for the firearm, and such application must contain certain information identifying the applicant and the weapon to be sold. A copy of this application must be sent by the dealer to local police authorities. Moreover, the seller must personally know the purchaser.

5. The pawning of pistols is forbidden.

6. A penalty is imposed for altering or removing the identifying marks of the firearm and the possession of a weapon from which the identifying marks have been removed is prima facie evidence that the possessor removed such marks.

This Act with minor changes was adopted for the District of Columbia by the Congress in 1932, and by the State of Pennsylvania in 1931.

Quoting from:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Brabner-Smith1.html





The language looks a bit familiar when compared to the language of the Code of Alabama, Title 13,Division 2Pistols doesn't it?

 

[SlackwareRobert]

imported post


5. The pawning of pistols is forbidden.

Wow, I guess that is why they have so many, you have to sell it to them.
Does this effect revolvers which are NOT PISTOLS?

I look at 13A-11-52 as the reason the leo get so in your face, if they get you to
relinquish control of the spot you are standing on, you are breaking the law by
having the gun.
I defy anyone to tell me how and armed individual is not the one in control of where
they are standing unless they give it up to someone else.

 

[SlackwareRobert]

imported post

Double post!

 

[eye95]

imported post

49er wrote:

Section 13A-7-1
Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:

(1) PREMISES. Such term includes any "building," as herein defined, and any real property.

Premises cannot mean the spot you are standing on.

-52 cannot be used to outlaw OC for the following reasons (as recognized by the courts and AGs): OC cannot be banned. Therefore -52 is discussing CC. -73 is a complete revision of the matter of CC. So, -52 is essentially dead law. It has nothing to do with some obscure interpretation of the word "premises."