| Author | Post |
|---|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 04:28 am |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: Code of Alabama - Title 13A: Criminal Code - Section 13A-11-52 - Carrying pistol on premises not his own; who may carry 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 as such, bonded constables in the discharge of their duties as such, conductors, railway mail clerks and express messengers in the discharge of their duties.
I did speak to 2 mobile city cops, one of which I'd venture to call a good friend, and both had the same answer, but my buddy actually looked up the laws on open carry. Basically, you can open carry on public property on foot, but you risk causing "disorderly conduct". This is very vague and one was quoted as stating "it means incites fear in the public". So, you're damned if you do and safe if you conceal.
If the above code can be removed or edited (specified that public disorderly conduct is not an acceptable means of "law breaking" in this situation), then open carry would be completely legal in AL.
Looks like we are screwed for open carry in AL for now.
And that is the point--they want everyone discouraged from ever trying.
if they can keep the people afraid of being charged with disorderly conduct which is a catchall charge they can use just because they don't like you--then they can keep the people pushed down and compliant and unwilling to try and change anything....I would personally like to see everyone who carries a gun to carry it OC. But that is just me.
Last edited on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 04:39 am by suntzu
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 04:32 am |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: I would love the freedom to be able to do it, but I doubt I'd ever do it in public. I prefer concealed.
then why are you on a website championing OC of firearms? You prefer concealed carry--why post or read a website on OC? This is a serious question--not wanting to start an argument, but I am curious as to your motive for coming to a website dealing with OC when you prefer CC....
just curious.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 12:19 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: I would love the freedom to be able to do it, but I doubt I'd ever do it in public. I prefer concealed.
then why are you on a website championing OC of firearms? You prefer concealed carry--why post or read a website on OC? This is a serious question--not wanting to start an argument, but I am curious as to your motive for coming to a website dealing with OC when you prefer CC....
just curious.
Because there are too many things wrong with public perception of firearms and the ever expanding government. I support literally anything pro-constitutional. Plus I am interested in keeping up with what is going on here and learning about the law as much as I can. I prefer concealed because it's a 50/50 chance that during a situation should you need your gun, if you're the only one OC'ing somewhere, you will either be a deterrent or the first target. I'd rather conceal and not be a target. Now if there were 30 people there all OC'ing then I wouldn't care either way, but the liklihood of that happening is not very high. As far as home, or any relative or friend's house, it's open carry all the time.
|
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Auburn, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 772 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 05:01 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote:
kurtmax_0 wrote: Wow. Seems like you did plenty of work!
The analyst is correct. The last ALSC case (that I know of, and I've searched through several law databases and even been to Auburn's special Alabama records sections searching) is the ~1840 one. Even though it's old, it's the latest ruling.
A mobile ordinance against carrying a firearm unconcealed would not be valid against handguns (possibly valid against long-arms). Alabama state preemption on handguns is absolute. Localities cannot even regulate discharge of handguns, or even prevent their employees from carrying at work. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. Most localities have restrictions on carrying firearms. Auburn and Opelika both have restrictions that overstep their bounds, but they wouldn't be valid in the case of handguns.
After my research is completed (someone cites a law prohibiting open carry - or fails to do so, in which case the supreme court ruling stands), something will have to be done.
We will have to pool our resources together across the state and attempt to educate law enforcement. It will not be easy, but we cannot allow the law to be broken by the very people sworn to protect and enforce it.
Huh. Did you read the supreme court case? Even if there is a law against it, the law in invalid; Unless the Alabama constitution has section 26 removed, or there is another ALSC case with a different outcome.
This isn't a 'mah raights' thing. It's plain as day, in written word, on an ALSC decision.Last edited on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 05:02 pm by kurtmax_0
|
HungSquirrel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 05:02 pm |
|
I support literally anything pro-constitutional.
I've heard many people say that, but most don't realize they really don't support "anything pro-constitutional". For example, how do you feel about illegal immigration? Got your answer? Great. Now, would it bother you if I told you that, under the wording of the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate immigration? Constitutionally-speaking, there's no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant! However, SCOTUS manufactured the feds' power to regulate immigration...much like they manufactured their own power to review legislation. Alas, no one can be trusted to follow the Constitution.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 05:05 pm |
|
HungSquirrel wrote: I support literally anything pro-constitutional.
I've heard many people say that, but most don't realize they really don't support "anything pro-constitutional". For example, how do you feel about illegal immigration? Got your answer? Great. Now, would it bother you if I told you that, under the wording of the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate immigration? Constitutionally-speaking, there's no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant! However, SCOTUS manufactured the feds' power to regulate immigration...much like they manufactured their own power to review legislation. Alas, no one can be trusted to follow the Constitution.
My opinion on immigration is an entirely different subject, and completely irrelevant to this discussion. Why is it every thread I post gets high jacked and off topic?
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 05:06 pm |
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
kurtmax_0 wrote: Wow. Seems like you did plenty of work!
The analyst is correct. The last ALSC case (that I know of, and I've searched through several law databases and even been to Auburn's special Alabama records sections searching) is the ~1840 one. Even though it's old, it's the latest ruling.
A mobile ordinance against carrying a firearm unconcealed would not be valid against handguns (possibly valid against long-arms). Alabama state preemption on handguns is absolute. Localities cannot even regulate discharge of handguns, or even prevent their employees from carrying at work. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. Most localities have restrictions on carrying firearms. Auburn and Opelika both have restrictions that overstep their bounds, but they wouldn't be valid in the case of handguns.
After my research is completed (someone cites a law prohibiting open carry - or fails to do so, in which case the supreme court ruling stands), something will have to be done.
We will have to pool our resources together across the state and attempt to educate law enforcement. It will not be easy, but we cannot allow the law to be broken by the very people sworn to protect and enforce it.
Huh. Did you read the supreme court case? Even if there is a law against it, the law in invalid; Unless the Alabama constitution has section 26 removed, or there is another ALSC case with a different outcome.
This isn't a 'mah raights' thing. It's plain as day, in written word, on an ALSC decision.
Apparently you misunderstood what I meant. I don't see how, but you did.
|
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Auburn, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 772 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 05:14 pm |
|
Perhaps. You said:
someone cites a law prohibiting open carry - or fails to do so, in which case the supreme court ruling stands
Which means you must think that the supreme court decision only stands if there is no law against OC.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 05:18 pm |
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: Perhaps. You said:
someone cites a law prohibiting open carry - or fails to do so, in which case the supreme court ruling stands
Which means you must think that the supreme court decision only stands if there is no law against OC.
Ah, I worded that poorly. My bad. Any law (or city ordinance) that defies a supreme court ruling is null and void. That is per the analyst from the state legislature I spoke to as well.
|
Current time is 10:38 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
