Source.
Alabama on Jan. 1 will become the latest state to allow people to carry a concealed handgun without a state permit that requires a background check.
The new state law ends the requirement for a person to get a permit to legally carry a concealed handgun in public. A person can still choose to get a permit if they want to do so.
The proposal had been introduced unsuccessfully for years in Montgomery, before winning approval this year. The legislation was championed by gun rights advocates who call it “constitutional carry,” in reference to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents, including state sheriffs and others in law enforcement, argued the permits help combat crime and enhance public safety.
[ … ]
Jones and Stringer said there are still reasons a person might consider getting a permit. Jones said, “maintaining an Alabama concealed carry permit is wise when traveling out of state; reciprocity applies — other states may require non-residents to have a permit from their state of residence.”
Boss Hogg won’t be happy with the loss of control or the loss of revenue from the permitting scheme. But there is this dark language in the law.
Lawmakers included language in the new law reiterating an officer’s ability to temporarily take a handgun during a traffic stop or other investigation. An officer with a reasonable suspicion that a person was about to engage in criminal conduct can temporarily take a handgun and run it through databases to see if the gun was stolen.
An officer could also temporarily take a weapon if it is necessary for the safety of the officer or others. The weapon must be returned unless there is an arrest, or the person is posing a safety threat.
If I’m not mistaken, South Carolina also had to include that language to get open carry passed (constitutional carry still awaits further legislative action).
We’ve discussed this before. It’s the height of stupidity to touch another man’s weapon. Don’t do it. Just don’t.
There is the risk of negligent discharge (and Lord knows there have been plenty of those where LEOs were the ones responsible). There is the risk of dropping the weapon (which is a problem if someone tries to catch it). And if no one tries to catch it, a weapon gets scratched and banged up, reducing the resale value of the firearm. There are various and sundry types of handguns, from no safety, to pistols with trigger brush-guards, to 1911s with a classic safety, SA only, DA/SA pistols, pistols that may have been modified by their owner, etc., etc.
No one can know everything, and to assume that a weapon can exchange hands in all cases without unsafe things happening is the height of arrogance and stupidity.
That language is more likely to cause safety problems than make anyone safer. There are exceptions of course, when all the rules of gun safety have been and are being followed, there isn’t a round in the chamber, no one muzzle flags anyone else, and so forth, as if you were at the range. But in such a case, why does exchanging control of the weapon make anyone safer?
Do … not … touch … another … man’s … firearm. Period. If it’s being left alone, then continue to leave it alone. That language in the law is idiotic.