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.

[ … ]

The Alabama Sheriffs Association had opposed the legislation. “Alabama sheriffs are clear on the law taking effect Jan. 1 and have adjusted accordingly,” said Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones, president of the Alabama Sheriffs’ Association

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.

Or at least the pretensions of one.

Alabama lawmakers on Thursday advanced legislation aimed at resisting a half-dozen executive actions by President Joe Biden to combat gun violence.

The Alabama Senate voted 24-5 for legislation that would prohibit state and local officials from participating in the “administration or enforcement of any presidential gun control order.” However, the bill includes an exemption if doing so would jeopardize federal funding.

Nope.  Kill the bill.  It’s not good enough, you cowards.

Remove the exemption.

Go back to the drawing board and don’t leave the room before you get it right.

News from Alabama.

Today, a conference committee approved House Bill 272, constitutional carry. Then, both the House and Senate voted to adopt the conference report. It will now go to Governor Kay Ivey, who is expected to sign it into law promptly. Alabama is now just one more step away from becoming the 22^nd constitutional carry state and the first state to join that group in 2022.

Oh no!  It will be blood running in the streets.

“The Alabama House Public Safety Committee just chose gun extremists over public safety,” Harriette Huggins, a volunteer with the Alabama chapter of Moms Demand Action, said in a statement after the vote.

I think I’m classified as a gun extremist.  I think you are too.  More.

On Thursday, Gov. Kay Ivey signed House Bill 272, known as the constitutional carry bill, into law. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Shane Stringer, eliminates the permit required for concealed carry and revises certain restrictions related to carrying and possessing a pistol.

“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law-abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” Ivey said. “I have always stood up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and I am proud to do that again today.”

The passage of the bill did not come without controversy. Many gun-rights advocates argued people should not have to obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed pistol, but opponents of the bill, including some local law enforcement, argued the permits help fight crime and enhance public safety.

Shortly after Ivey signed the bill into law, Oxford Police Chief Bill Partridge tweeted the following statement:

“Alabama law enforcement lost another tool in the tool box to get illegal guns off our streets. Continuing to make officers’ jobs harder. Five of the six officers killed in the line of duty in Alabama in 2019 were killed with a stolen firearm.”

A stolen firearm.  What that has to do with constitutional carry is anybody’s guess.  It sounds like sour grapes to me.

Boss Hogg is not happy tonight.

Now.  South Carolina needs to undo the ridiculous preemption where cities can circumvent open carry the state legislature passed, and move on the constitutional carry.

Alabama will prove to you that blood doesn’t run in the streets, just like Texas did and like the other 20 states did.

Ammoland.

The Senate is taking swift action on constitutional carry as they previously promised. On Wednesday, at 1:00 PM, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear House Bill 272. After that, it will receive a final vote on the Senate floor on Thursday. Please contact your state senator and ask them to SUPPORT House Bill 272.

Uh oh.  Boss Hogg (Bobby Timmons) won’t be happy.  The good news is that he may blow a gasket before he tries to repeal the second amendment.

Do the right thing folks.  Don’t strike out.

Prior: Alabama House Passes Permitless Carry Bill

News from Alabama.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WBRC) – The Alabama House passed a proposal Tuesday to allow people to carry concealed handguns without a state permit.

House Republicans have named the handgun bill as a priority for the year.

The bill would do away with the requirement to get a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun concealed under clothes or in a purse or bag when they go in public.

Good.  That means they didn’t listen to the controller LEOs who are opposed to this, as they will be in every state.

Boss Hogg won’t like this one little bit.  It may be time to kick him to the curb, you think?

Now, Alabama Senate.  You’re up to bat.  Don’t strike out.

News from Alabama.

An Alabama House committee Wednesday approved a bill that would allow the permitless carry of pistols in the state, sending an Alabama House GOP priority bill to that chamber.

The 8 to 5 vote on the bill from Rep. Shane Stringer, R-Citronelle, took place after an hour of contentious debate that crossed party lines.

Stringer argued that the legislation would allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons without fear of legal retribution, and said permit laws did not deter crime.

“The fact of the matter is criminals don’t adhere to laws,” Stringer said. “They don’t obey the laws we have now. We cannot legislate an evil heart from Montgomery.”

The bill passed with an amendment that would require gun owners to declare that they were carrying firearms when asked by a police officer. But there was confusion about a second amendment proposed by Rep. Proncey Robertson, R-Mount Hope, that appeared to create separate penalties for bringing firearms in areas where they are currently restricted and led Stringer to call Rep. Mike Jones, R-Andalusia, not a member of the committee, to explain it.

Rep. Allen Farley, R-McCalla, a retired assistant sheriff for the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, said getting rid of the permits would amount to “defunding the police” and endanger law enforcement officers.

Uh huh.  Defunding the police and endanger LEOs.  I see.  This is a slight variation on the objection that “They sky is falling, the sky is falling, there will be blood running in the streets.”

That’s what they said about open carry in Texas.  That’s what they said about open carry in South Carolina.  That’s what they said about constitutional carry in Texas.  They said it in Arkansas.  That’s what they say everywhere.

It never happens.  But of course, he’s a retired LEO so he’s going to carry water for LEOs.

Anyway, it’s good that it left committee.  That’s where most bills die.

Tom Knighton writing at Bearing Arms.

However, there are a couple of other bills that, if they pass, will put them squarely at odds with the federal government.

Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 7 would both create the Alabama Second Amendment Preservation Act. This act would prohibit state law enforcement from enforcing any federal law, or other legislation, regarding the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories or ammo.

The bills would also set up penalties for whatever agency violates the proposed bill. The penalty for a first offense is a class C misdemeanor with a fine no less than $500 or more than $5,000. For all other offenses, it is a class B misdemeanor with a fine no less than $1,000 or more than $7,000.

In other words, it’ll be much like Missouri’s law that went into effect earlier this year.

That law hasn’t really been tested in the courts yet, so we don’t know how that will go, so Alabama following suit may or may not be a great move for them.

However, there’s another bill that may cause far more problems.

A different bill, House Bill 13, would prohibit state law enforcement from enforcing any federal bill or other legislation pertaining to the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories or ammo, just like Senate Bill 2. However, this only pertains to those made and sold in Alabama.

Under existing constitution law, Congress is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This bill would provide that firearms, ammo and firearm accessories that are made in the state and are only traded within the state are not subject to federal law or regulation.

Now, on the surface, this looks great for Alabama and I happen to agree with the reasoning behind this bill.

That said, Kansas passed a bill like this a while back. There are now people in prison because they figured the law would protect them, but the courts disagreed.

Alabama is free to pass the bill, of course, but if you live there and think that once it does, you can go out and build yourself a machinegun, well, I have some very bad news for you.

It should be noted that the prosecutions in Kansas have been upheld by the courts, so there’s no reason to believe Alabama residents would have any better luck.

Frankly, this is a bill that probably shouldn’t be passed. Yes, it’s pro-gun and yes, I agree with the reasoning and thinking behind it. However, there are people who will think this gives them license to do things that it really can’t. It’ll hurt good, decent people who simply don’t realize they’re doing anything wrong.

That doesn’t benefit anyone, I’m afraid, so it’s probably for the best if this doesn’t actually get passed.

I think Tom gets this wrong on every account, and this certainly isn’t the first or twentieth time I’ve disagreed with the folks at Bearing Arms, and it won’t be the last.

To begin with, yes Alabama should pass both of these bills and they should be signed by the governor.  First and foremost should be the constitutional carry bill, but if they get this far, they should pass the balance of the pro-2A bills as well.

But then Kansas passed such a law and people are in jail because of it, right?  Well, not so fast.  We covered it.  Kansas passed a 2A sanctuary law and I covered it.  It was more of a nullification law, and had the express purpose of allowing the purchase of NFA items without seeking approval of the controllers inside the beltway.  I said at the time that unless the governor was willing to send state and county police to arrest and imprison FedGov agents who attempted to make arrests in Kansas for said actions, it was weak tea and not really a nullification law.  Even the sponsor of the bill said that it mostly symbolic.

The Alabama bill seems a bit different, focusing on whether agents of the state can participate with FedGov agents in making such arrests.  They are taking incremental steps.  Some state is eventually going to have to broach this issue sooner or later, but until a governor is willing to battle FedGov agents, we’re left with what we’ve got.

I see the last sentence of the paragraph … “This bill would provide that firearms, ammo and firearm accessories that are made in the state and are only traded within the state are not subject to federal law or regulation” … is the tricky part.  I wouldn’t test that part of the bill, if indeed it has that proviso.  As for prohibiting agents of the state from aiding the enforcement of any new federal laws, Alabama can certainly do that, and Missouri has thus far been quite successful thus far in preventing cooperation with the FedGov, which is a good thing.  Finally, if this portends to be a weak nullification law, I see it as possibly targeting FedGov control over things like semi-automatics and AR-15s as anything else.

As for the Missouri law not being tested in court, I seriously doubt that the word of a federal court will stand as the law if the governor of the state makes it clear that the state law will be enforced, and that agents of the state who aid the FedGov will indeed lose their ability to work in law enforcement ever again.

That’s the whole point.  There are certain things a state can do regardless of what a federal court says.  This is one of them.

Alabama should pass both bills, but only after focusing first on a constitutional carry bill.

Via David Codrea, the ATF flexes its muscle.

Because county sheriffs have issued CCP permits s without completing a full NICS check, firearms have been transferred to felons and other prohibited individuals in violation of federal law, thereby creating a substantial public safety concern. For this reason, the standards set forth in the Brady law require us to find that Alabama’s CCP permits no longer qualify as a NICS check alternative. In the interest of public safety, and effective immediately, FFLs in Alabama may no longer accept CCP permits as an alternative to a NICS check. Unless another exception applies, a NICS check must be conducted whenever you transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person even if the individual presents an unexpired CCP permit.

First of all, I agree with the second comment at David’s place.  I have no sympathy for the Alabama Sheriffs.  Virtually ever one of them is a gun controller.

Second, I disagree with the notion that the ATF gets to decide how a Sheriff complies, but this is what happens when you have a FedGov that licenses FFL (as opposed to the righteous practice of no FedGov involvement at all).

AL.com:

A group of Alabama sheriffs said Tuesday that current state gun laws limit their discretion in granting concealed carry permits and proposed legislation could further complicate their ability to confiscate weapons from potentially dangerous people.

Louisiana movie theater shooter John Russell Houser was denied a concealed weapons permit in Russell County in 2006. However, Sheriff Heath Taylor said Houser likely would have been given one under legislation passed in 2013 that says sheriffs “shall issue” concealed carry permits instead of sheriffs “may issue” them in cases involving applicants without felony convictions or other outstanding circumstances.

Taylor told a press conference in Phenix City that current law allows sheriffs to deny applications if they can provide reasons to support the denial in the interest of public safety. But he noted that law enforcement decisions may be overruled if the officials can’t provide strong enough documentation or details despite personal knowledge of an applicant’s past behavior.

Republican State Rep. Ed Henry of Decatur said law enforcement officials must simply provide reasons in writing for denying concealed carry permits.

“There’s nothing in the law that says the sheriff has to issue a permit at 18, there’s nothing in the law that removes their discretion, period,” Henry said. “What they can’t do — and what they loved to do before — is deny a pistol permit and not give a reason.”

A portion of the state’s concealed carry law says a sheriff must consider how much time has passed between a questionable incident and the date an application is made. Sheriffs who deny applications are required to provide written statements and evidence unless disclosing those details would interfere with an ongoing investigation.

I didn’t know this about Alabama law.  AL.com makes it sound much like North Carolina where Sheriff’s have a right to deny purchase permits – a throwback to Jim Crow laws that helps the Sheriff’s department raise revenue.  There isn’t much one person can do about it, since we are unfortunately controlled by Charlotte and Raleigh, two hotbeds of liberalism.  Alabama can do better.

So Alabama Sheriff’s have too much control over gun permits (when there shouldn’t be any such thing as a gun permit at all), and they want even more!  Totalitarians don’t just live up North.  They ensconce themselves wherever they’re allowed, and Alabama had better nip this in the bud.  You don’t need boys like that hanging around causing trouble.