| Author | Post |
|---|
denthack
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 3rd, 2008 07:09 pm |
|
I just came across this AGO i have not seen before.
http://www.ago.alabama.gov/oldopinions/8100044.pdf
"At no time may a person have more than one pistol in a vehicle or concealed on or about his person."
Brings up several interesting questions/arguments
1) Can a person OC one pistol and CC another?
2) Must trips to the range/gunshop be limited to only one pistol at a time?
3) Must permitted carriers a transport 2nd 3rd 4th and so on pistols unloaded and locked in a secure compartment as non permitted persons must transport one pistol? or does i mean only one gun in he vehicle?
4) What if 2 permitted persons went to the range in one vehicle both with their pistols. Are they breaking the law.... which one of them is actually breaking the law?
Most LEO's I know carry a backup weapon. (Usually a Glock 27 on the ankle) 1 - CC and 1 - OC
I've been a lurker on the site for quite a while and appreciate everyones opinions and information. look forward to meeting and shooting with some of you
Jared
Attachment: one pistol ago.pdf (Downloaded 45 times)
|
WVCDL
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon May 5th, 2008 06:24 am |
|
| I would take issue with that opinion, which itself is not mandatory legal authority (but might be found persuasive by a like-minded judge). Most states have a rule of statutory construction providing that unless a very specific statement to the contrary is used, a reference to a term in the singular includes the plural and vice versa (see subsequent post below for Ala. cite). Setting aside CA, NV, and NY (which list specific guns on their permits), only NM has a specific one-gun rule. Last edited on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 02:38 am by WVCDL
|
buketdude
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 184 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 5th, 2008 04:39 pm |
|
sounds like a bunch of BS..and a major violation of the 2nd amendment...i don't believe we have anything up here in CT like that...
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Mon May 5th, 2008 04:45 pm |
|
| I do not see any cite to authority by the AG justifying a limit to carrying only one pistol. Most or all state statutes refer to carrying "a concealed handgun" in their carry permit statutes - this has never been read to be "on;y one" pistol in any state courts as far as I know. The opinion was written in 1980 and seem pretty sketchy.
|
denthack
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 5th, 2008 05:59 pm |
|
I agree with the the the stament that a singular refers infers a plural and vice versa, that's why this AGO caught my eye, because i and always understood that "a pistol" mean more than zero pistols.
Mike no the AG does not have any authority to cite a limit, but his position, like the position of judges is to interpret the law. As far as the opinion being dated, we here in alabama point to an AGO dated March 21 1984 quite a bit when it come to the legality of of OC. If the AG interpreted the law as one pistol then i feel very strongly that a judge might do the same, especially upon reading this AGO. And whoever that unlucky individual was, would be spending quite a bit of money to get a reversal through appeals court.
All i'm saying is we can't point to one AGO and totally dismiss another. Simply put gun laws in alabama need clarification... but then again if we rock the boat the revisions may benefit the anti's...
Like i said... it raises some interesting questions...
mike you are absolutely correct that the permit says nothing about only carring one pistol, in fact do not most permits have space to list 3 differt pistol S/N's?
|
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Auburn, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 772 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 5th, 2008 11:38 pm |
|
This particular AG opinion has no case law background. Most likely you'd never get prosecuted for carrying more than one pistol, and even then the judge would probably laugh it out of court.
The AG op on OC, however, does cite several cases. An AG's opinion is not law, and they have been wrong in the past. Since there was no previous case law on this I assume the AG just made something up.
Again, don't really consider AG opinions to be more than that: opinions. The more important thing is to look at case law, and AG ops can be useful for that (they often base their opinions on case law...).
Last edited on Mon May 5th, 2008 11:40 pm by kurtmax_0
|
Comp-tech
State Researcher
| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 935 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 6th, 2008 02:41 am |
|
denthack wrote: mike you are absolutely correct that the permit says nothing about only carring one pistol, in fact do not most permits have space to list 3 differt pistol S/N's?
There is no place on a Alabam PL for serial numbers....they are not required unless you are issued a "qualified" PL that limits you to carrying a particular pistol and limits you as to where/when you may carry....
I have never seen a "qualified" PL.....all I have ever seen say "unrestricted" on the front.
That said, most PL's I've seen also have restrictions on the back...even though they are "unrestricted"....go figure.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue May 6th, 2008 01:28 pm |
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: This particular AG opinion has no case law background.
Right - this is the problem with it - not cite to authority that under Ala. law a permit to carry "a" thing limits one to carrying only one thing at one time.
i would not worry about this opinion, and besides, the opinion is limited to concealed carry and carry in vehicles - so openly carrying one handgun on foot, and another concealed, would not even run afoul of this weird opinion.
|
denthack
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 6th, 2008 02:57 pm |
|
Yes the fact that it has no case law to back it up I believe does tend to make this opinion have much less weight. I'm sure if an LEO wanted to aresst you certainly would not be the first charge that would come to mind. I appreciate all the comments and view points btw.
|
ttus
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Dothan, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 17th, 2008 11:10 pm |
|
I Totally agree with the Statement I Underlined in the "Quote"
denthack wrote:
I'm sure if an LEO wanted to aresst you, it certainly would not be the first charge that would come to mind
Last edited on Sun May 18th, 2008 05:00 pm by ttus
|
grr
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 10th, 2008 01:14 pm |
|
| What bugs me is this is pretty much what AL permit law says! Only one allowed. There are many like me that compete in various handgun competitions around the state. On any given weekend, you'll find me and many others on the road with their carry gun and a competition gun (and a backup) in the car. AL law says you can transport a handgun back and forth to a gunsmith or gunshop and that's it! No provision for practice, competition, backup piece. I'd like to see the law updated.
|
WVCDL
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Nov 11th, 2008 02:38 am |
|
Ala. Code § 1-1-2 provides, as do the laws of almost every other state, that, absent a very clear legislative intent otherwise, "[t]he singular includes the plural, and the plural the singular." Click here to go to the Ala. Code home page.
Harris v. Walker, 199 Ala. 51, 74 So. 40 (1917), and Boman v. Belyeu, 255 Ala. 281, 51 So.2d 27 (1951), have affirmed this principle of statutory construction in Alabama.
I found no cases dealing directly with a contention that a licensee may only carry one pistol.
Since this forum is dedicated to OC, I will note that Looney v. State, 41 Ala.App. 582, 141 So.2d 535 (Ala.App. 1962), and Morris v. State, 342 So.2d 417 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977), affirm a person's right to OC on foot without a license in Alabama.
|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20th, 2008 01:30 am |
|
Whew! I'd be in doo doo in Kentucky. I wear a Glock 21, have a .45 in glove box, an AR15 on passenger side and a Kukri on my dash.
|
Mr.Advocate
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sat Feb 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 06:53 am |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: Whew! I'd be in doo doo in Kentucky. I wear a Glock 21, have a .45 in glove box, an AR15 on passenger side and a Kukri on my dash.
damn you think you carry enough there Mr Mitch, @#$% , your a rolling arsenal. I mean I totally love guns, pro gun 100% , but @#$%, are you paranoid or do you just live in a extremely bad neighborhood,lol
|
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Auburn, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 772 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 06:46 pm |
|
WVCDL wrote:
Ala. Code § 1-1-2 provides, as do the laws of almost every other state, that, absent a very clear legislative intent otherwise, "[t]he singular includes the plural, and the plural the singular." Click here to go to the Ala. Code home page.
Harris v. Walker, 199 Ala. 51, 74 So. 40 (1917), and Boman v. Belyeu, 255 Ala. 281, 51 So.2d 27 (1951), have affirmed this principle of statutory construction in Alabama.
There you have it. That answers the question pretty well. Thanks WVCDL.
|
Mr.Advocate
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sat Feb 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 08:58 pm |
|
| I don't get it kurtmax0 what are you trying to say the law is saying, can you or can you not carry more then one gun with you. I hate the way the Al. law reads, its completely crazy to read and not to mention extremely confusing
|
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 10:38 pm |
|
Mr A....I'm not paranoid......but.....methinks my neighbors are now.
|
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Auburn, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 772 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:56 am |
|
It means you can carry more than one pistol. That singular means plural and plural means singular unless there is clear legislative intent to mean either.
Upon reading of the code pertaining to pistol permits, there doesn't seem to be any clear intent to restrict you to one pistol. 'a' is used casually in the sentence. IANAL.Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:57 am by kurtmax_0
|
Mr.Advocate
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sat Feb 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:43 am |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: Mr A....I'm not paranoid......but.....methinks my neighbors are now.
HOOAH! I understand Mr.Mitch
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 6th, 2009 03:53 pm |
|
TheMrMitch wrote: Whew! I'd be in doo doo in Kentucky. I wear a Glock 21, have a .45 in glove box, an AR15 on passenger side and a Kukri on my dash.
How did you convince the wife to sit in back so you could remove the passenger seat
for the AR? Mine does allow me to 'holster' the shotgun on the back of her seat,
but kicking her out of it is a whole lot more than I have the guts for.
Back in my 20's I did remove the passenger seat so I could fit my r/c helicopter,
but didn't have the wife to deal with then, and that car is long gone. Would
love another one, 40mpg's is sorely missed nowadays. Plus storage boxes for
pistols in front and back of car. Cop finally kicked me out of a drug search zone
when he became exasperated with my suggestions that I could hide drugs in this
storage box after the 5th suggestion he better look here also I was on my way.
I had to cooperate, there was a open 1/5th in the seat, and the mandatory
self protection concealed in car for when I was not in the DC crime free zones.
3 police searches and not one ever found a pistol, there is no way I will rely
on official protection for my person. I can understand a small revolver being
missed, especially when it is mounted to be concealed, but a big bottle of
booze is inexcusable. Like the car the radio that concealed the pistol was
also discontinued, they always get rid of the good stuff it seems.
|
Current time is 02:09 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
