found guilty tonight for 13a-11-52

[Shortbuseinstein]

Apparently you are not allowed off premisses not your own in Alabama with a firearm.

 

[trophyhunter]

Dont Understand what you are trying to say

 

[ramrunnr]

I'm guessing this bit of Alabama law.


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.

 

[Cowboy615]

Do you not have a permit?

 

[Tucker's Mom]

Apparently you are not allowed off premisses not your own in Alabama with a firearm.

That is interesting! Move! Quick smart.

 

[trophyhunter]

Am I to Understand, That Someone Can not Carry a Weapon on ones person, off your own Property, or onto someones else's Property. That doesn't make any logical sense.Even in New York State where I Re-side, having some of the
Strictest Gun Laws in the Country.We can Carry our weapon off our property, and onto someone else's without permission.Unless I'm Interpeting his Statement wrong???????????? Truly Confusing.So what happens to you now? Where you Formily Charged? Do you have to hire an Attorney?

 

[Doc Mustang]

Conviction in Jacksonville for open carry

After reading through some of the posts on the AL open carry board. It appears as though the Judge had an agenda. Interestingly enough it is actually a pro gun agenda. Only by issueing a guilty verdict does this case get appealed. It appears as if the judge believes that the law the OP was convicted under was "vaugue and possibly unconstitutional". It appears that he was not empowered to rule the law unconstitutional but returned a guilty verdict to allow it to proceed to a court that could. He issued the minimum fine of $50 and also stated that he was sad that this "test case" would be tried in Jacksonville as they cannnot really afford it.

While this conviction may appear to be a setback, It may end up clearing the books of an unjust and vague, unconstitutional law.

 

[trophyhunter]

Well, it looks like at least some of the Judges who sit on the other side of the desk.Are actually Citizens themselves.Good for him.It's about time.

 

[wild eyed willy]

Conviction in Jacksonville for open carry

After reading through some of the posts on the AL open carry board. It appears as though the Judge had an agenda. Interestingly enough it is actually a pro gun agenda. Only by issueing a guilty verdict does this case get appealed. It appears as if the judge believes that the law the OP was convicted under was "vaugue and possibly unconstitutional". It appears that he was not empowered to rule the law unconstitutional but returned a guilty verdict to allow it to proceed to a court that could. He issued the minimum fine of $50 and also stated that he was sad that this "test case" would be tried in Jacksonville as they cannnot really afford it.

While this conviction may appear to be a setback, It may end up clearing the books of an unjust and vague, unconstitutional law.

Doc, how many courts have to hear the case before one has the authority to declare the law unconstitutional?

 

[Doc Mustang]

Doc, how many courts have to hear the case before one has the authority to declare the law unconstitutional?

IANAL, The power of Judicial Review is vested in all courts including trial courts. Under some theories even a jury has the power of judicial review. However it is unusual to the point of of being unconventional for a trial court or the court of original jurisdiction to practice judicial review. At that level cases are usually tried on the law as it is written. I suspect the primary reason for this is that if trial courts were to review the constitutionality of every case to come before it the judicial system would become horribly bogged down. The process of Judicial Review or finding a law unconstitutional usually begins in a court with appellate jurisdiction. The next step would be either the Alabama Supreme Court or the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

To answer your question directly: Once the case reaches the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals or the Alabama Supreme Court the constitutionality of the law will likely be challenged. Given that the Alabama Supreme Court has already ruled the open carry of a pistol on property not your own to be an entirely legal activity as far back as 1840 I suspect that the appeal will go well.

 

[JPKirkpatrick]

To answer your question directly: Once the case reaches the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals or the Alabama Supreme Court the constitutionality of the law will likely be challenged. Given that the Alabama Supreme Court has already ruled the open carry of a pistol on property not your own to be an entirely legal activity as far back as 1840 I suspect that the appeal will go well.

Thanks Doc for doing the hard part for us, you know, thinking! Really, thanks for posting a good analysis of the state of things in Alabama.

 

[JPKirkpatrick]

Alabama needs constitutional carry, and this case is more proof of what I have been saying about that state all along.

G50AE; Constitutional Carry needs to be recognized nationwide! The 2A does not state that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be permitted by application only.":no:

What part of "...Shall Not Be Infringed..." is not clear?

 

[Oldgrunt]

Alabama needs constitutional carry, and this case is more proof of what I have been saying about that state all along.

G: There you go again, bad-mouthing the State of Alabama when it is so obvious you know very little about it. You read an article or two and seem to become the authority on how things should be done down here. Everything you write is critical of something, somewhere or someone. Lighten up son, and stick to your Concealed Carry Badge and other inane comments. I will have to say one thing for you, the most intelligent statement you have written is how you came up with the name "G50AE." I liked.

 

[Doc Mustang]

Thanks Doc for doing the hard part for us, you know, thinking! Really, thanks for posting a good analysis of the state of things in Alabama.

I live in the panhandle of Florida and routinely travel to Mobile on both personal and professional business. I routinely carry in Alabama and have followed this case with some interest as a result. I was quite outraged when I heard the result of this case. It simply did not make sense in the context of what I know of the existing case law and AG opinions. It is only through a very narrow reading of the law that the judge could make this decision.

I am aware of both the judicial and legislative battles to overturn or repeal 13a-11-52. I have only attempted to grasp at the few positive elements of this dreadful circumstance. I earnestly hope that this case and another similar case will ultamately result in expanded firearms rights for all concerned. It is even possible that this case or another like it could result in requiring concealed or open carry to be legal nationwide.

 

[adphamm]

Wisconsin assembly just passed...

...the CC bill yesterday, and I watched the process. Talk about politics at its best, I've never heard so much crap. I swear, half these people don't have a clue. It was,Yaa, it's not a lie if I believe it, and, it must be lawful if it helps me in my cause. This is on tape, the antis' pulling facts out of their *%@. At one point it was funny, the pro carry people were laughing. It was just...Hell,...I don't know, I'm glad despite the bull, it passed. Boar out. :jester:

 

[dcselby1]

I'm guessing this bit of Alabama law.


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.

Post says, "Except as otherwise provided in this article..."
Sounds like there's more to the law than just this excerpt.

From an earlier USA Carry Post: (Alabama) § 13A-11-75. License to carry pistol in vehicle or concealed on person –

Issuance; term; form; fee; revocation.
The sheriff of a county, upon the application of any person residing in that county, may issue a qualified or unlimited license to such person to carry a pistol in a vehicle or concealed on or about his person within this state for not more than one year from date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that he is a suitable person to be so licensed.

 

[hammer 7]

according to my brother-in-law that lives in Alabama all of his life and has had a chl for many years stated that does not apply if you have a permit

 

[Doc Mustang]

On the Alabama Open Carry forums the OP posted a link to donate to his legal defense fund. (Last post bottom of the page) Currently it appears as if he has listed his paypal info. I have not seen any other way to provide financial support. SBE if you are able to please provide an update on this. I would like to donate and a few others are likely to be interested as well.

Please note I merely posted a link to another site on this same topic. I have not divulged the identity of the original poster. I merely referenced a post where he provided his own personal information in a thread he started and referenced elsewhere on this site.

 

[wild eyed willy]

Doc, thank you for the informative answer to my question. This is an interesting case and your added explination have helped me better understand why things may be happening the way they are... Thanks again for your time.

 

[Doc Mustang]

I could of course be completely wrong. The Judge, could just be an anti-firearms crusader hell bent on a very narrow interpretation of a very badly worded piece of antiquated legislation. This case illustrates why "fiat" crimes of posession should all be unconstitutional.

Such crimes really stretch the definition of "guilty mind" (mens rea). In this case this gentleman was acting in accordance with what he believed to be the law. Admittedly the interpretation that open carry is legal is quite convoluted and is contained in the annals of case law and Attorney General opinions. Just laws should be clear to allow the governed to live as freely as possible. If the law has become so complex that it is impossible for a free man to know what is forbidden under the law he is no longer free but rather living under an arbitrary system of government and the most incidious tyranny imaginable.