Alabama Senate to Debate Omnibus Gun Bill SB 286 20 May

A

Alabama Shooter

New member
This bill does a whole lot of nice things but has some issues that are being debated within the GOP ranks. Bill is widely expected to pass.

to provide for the issuance of a lifetime vehicle-only permit authorizing a person to carry a pistol in a vehicle; to require a sheriff to issue a lifetime vehicle-only permit and concealed pistol permit within a certain time frame; to increase the renewal period; to provide certain eligibility requirements for the issuance of permits; to provide for the revocation of a permit; to provide an appeals process for denials and revocations of permits; to further provide for the permit fee; to provide for the issuance of permits to applicants who are not United States citizens under certain conditions; to require a report from the National Instant Background Check System as part of the investigation process relating to the issuance of a concealed pistol permit; to amend Section 13A-11-85, Code of Alabama 1975, to authorize the Attorney General to enter into reciprocal agreements with other states for the mutual recognition of licenses to carry pistols;
Click to expand...

Currently Alabama does not issue permits to non-residents. Permits are good for one year only and must be renewed annually for a charge (my county is $15). The bill has been amended to go from "lifetime" to five years instead. Five years would be great and save me the trouble of stopping in annually.

Reciprocity is also a mess. This bill would make it universal, even if the other state does not recognize the Alabama Permit.


to amend Section 40-12-143, Code of Alabama 1975, relating to the levy of business license taxes on persons participating in gun shows; to allow employees to transport or store a firearm in the employee's privately-owned motor vehicle under certain conditions; to prohibit an employer from inquiring whether the employee is transporting or storing a firearm in a private vehicle;
Click to expand...

While this would be a big step it would not affect government agencies so employee carry would be restricted there. School employees are already not restricted from carry though. Bill also authorizes compensation for harassed/ fired employees.


to prohibit a business entity or property owner or legal possessor from establishing policies against persons transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition when the person is otherwise in compliance with all other applicable laws under certain conditions; to further provide for the carrying of pistols on private and public property; to provide a list of prohibited places where a person may not knowingly possess a firearm without permission;
Click to expand...

The law has been unclear on this for while. Some places (rarely) post "no gun" signs. This has been the big sticking point on the debate. The bill will make the signs legal and enforceable by law.

Private property rights vs Gun Rights. If the bill gets shelved it will be over this.

This would be a big victory for open carry; the legality of is a an open debate depending upon what county/ city you live in. In regard to disorderly conduct:

(c) It shall be a rebuttable presumption that the mere carrying of a visible, holstered firearm in a public place, in and of itself, is not a violation of this section.
Click to expand...

However guns would be prohibited at demonstrations.

Limits lawsuits and liability to businesses:

to specify that a person or business entity has no duty to guard against the criminal acts of a third party; to provide that an employer is not liable for the actions of its employees outside the line and scope of employment;
Click to expand...


Bill would also prohibit mass release of permits:

To knowingly publish or release to the public in any form any information or records related to the licensing process, or the current validity of any license, except as authorized in this subsection or in response to a court order or subpoena, is a Class A misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

Clarifies the use of Deadly Force. This will allow deadly force usage in any kind of burglary, theft or robbery.

person reasonably believes that another person is: "(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
"(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
"(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
"(4) Using or about to use physical force against an owner, employee, or other person authorized to be on business property when the business is closed to the public while committing or attempting to commit a burglary, theft, or robbery.
"(4)(5) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, business property, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, business property, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring.

The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is
justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:
"a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, business property, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; "b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; "c.

The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or "d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.
"(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground. "(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if: "(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person. "(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
"(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
"(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.
"(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
Click to expand...



http://legiscan.com/AL/text/SB286

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/onpolitix/alabama_onpolitix/ala-house-debates-gun-bill

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/05/after_solomonic_ruling_on_scho.html
 
Just read it passed House on May 2nd. Missed that...lol

Been keeping an eye on it since it was first introduced until third shift work started kicking in.

They need to null and void some of our old Section 13A-11 ordinances. Especially since they have two with OC on public ground...one is written and deemed as a bad law, and the other makes sense.

I am speaking of that case where in Jacksonville, AL the guy was arrested and charged when he walked into a bank. Listened to the officer and then later was arrested.
 
Last edited:
After the Senate votes it will go back to the House for any changes. It is expected to pass without any debate the second go around.


They need to null and void some of our old Section 13A-11 ordinances. Especially since they have two with OC on public ground...one is written and deemed as a bad law, and the other makes sense.
Click to expand...

The OC thing is annoying. I refuse to OC in AL at all because of it. I do OC on my land and property and that is it. I prefer not to OC most of the time anyway but sometimes it is advantageous over CC.

This bill should clear it up.
 
I hope it does clear it up. You do know of the story I am speaking of correct?

Yeah it was sad to see so much of the bill scratched off from the first go around.
 
Silver00LT said:
You do know of the story I am speaking of correct?
Click to expand...
Alabama Shooter may know the case to which you refer, but this is a public forum, not a private conversation between the two of you. How about telling the rest of us what you're talking about?
 
Alabama Shooter may know the case to which you refer, but this is a public forum, not a private conversation between the two of you. How about telling the rest of us what you're talking about?
Click to expand...

http://alabamaopencarry.com/forum/index.php?topic=3862.0

The whole problem with our state is even though 13A-11-73 supersedes 13A-11-52 arresting officers often use 13A-11-52 instead of 13A-11-73.

Tulley vs Jacksonville. A google of Tulley vs Alabama will bring up a couple more articles. Last I heard it is heading to appeals court still.

Same ordinance cited a arrest for someone Open Carrying onto Wal-mart property.
 
Yeah it was sad to see so much of the bill scratched off from the first go around.
Click to expand...

Everyone was salivating at life time permits. Just about everyone I know socially has a permit and it is a small PIA to go down there annually. The Counties would have lost some change over it but they also could have reduced their hiring requirements as well.
 
I have a cousin in Alabama and he renews his cc permit by mail. Maybe it's different from county to county.

Edit: I just called him and he said that every 5 years he has to renew in person and get a new picture taken. Then he renews by mail after that.
 
Last edited:
My current county does not require it either, but I know Etowah does.

I'll find out if my new county does when I renew.

I moved addresses, but I wonder if this will grandfather people in with current permits.

I do agree with removing the lifetime...loss of revenue and people's background checks change almost over night if they get arrested.
 
I moved addresses, but I wonder if this will grandfather people in with current permits.

I do agree with removing the lifetime...loss of revenue and people's background checks change almost over night if they get arrested.
Click to expand...

The moving part is part of the debate.

I have no problem with lifetime permits. Easy enough to revoke in the computer. Life time permits would also open the door to getting rid of permits altogether.
 
Well I gotta renew before that bill even sees the daylight of being signed into law. So one more time of annual renew. lol

What time does it vote today?
 
Forget to mention the law will also defund any government sponsored "buy back" programs, while at the same time allowing for gun safety programs.

Also appears as though it will allow deadly force against people attempting child molestation on public/ business property.

Back to the house and then to the govenor to sign.



So one more time of annual renew
Click to expand...

Looks like counties will only offer the option to renew for a period of time 1-5 years. I bet the longer times cost more.
 
yearly cost

Looks like counties will only offer the option to renew for a period of time 1-5 years. I bet the longer times cost more.
Click to expand...

Nope. The bill specifies cost per year, times number of years. You choose the number of years, 1 to 5.

AFM
 
If nobody knows yet, I am now in Alabama - Rainsville to be precise.

Let's be clear here: they left in the part about banning carry during a political demonstration? Or is that repealed?

Does anybody know when that law was passed? Is it a leftover of the Civil Rights era?

It can't possibly be constitutional and in fact, challenging it in Federal court in either Alabama or Georgia might be a great vehicle to get a "right to carry" out of the federal court system...?

I was with OccupyTucson (AZ) and we had guns in camp. Needed 'em, too: for one thing we had zero instances of police assault, for another there were threats and in some cases shootings by spun-up "Glenn Beck fans" and drunken idiots in general all over the country.
 
Jim - I would get with a lawyer who specializes in this area. I am seeing if the lawyer in my unit is familiar with it. He does broad law not just specialization in a single field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top