AL.com:

The battle over SB24 just keeps getting stranger. The legislation introduced by Senator Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa) removes the requirement for Alabamians to obtain a license before carrying a concealed pistol. The Alabama Sheriffs Association doesn’t want to change a thing.

Plenty of Alabama’s legislators agree that law-abiding Alabamians shouldn’t be forced to secure a license and pay a fee to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Twelve states already allow individuals to carry concealed firearms without a permit, and a few of them might surprise you. Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine all have less restrictive concealed carry laws than Alabama.

SB24 pits the NRA, which supports the measure, against the Alabama Sheriff’s Association opposing it. Testimony before the Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee led to a heated exchange between Alabama Sheriffs Association Executive Director Bobby Timmons and Jim Porter, former National President of the NRA.

A number of sheriffs have argued that the current law improves safety for law enforcement–a consideration that many legislators and Alabamians take seriously. Streamlining and reducing or eliminating the permit fees across the state makes sense as a potential compromise.

A recent internal email suggests that the Sheriffs Association isn’t necessarily negotiating in good faith. An email from Timmons called on sheriffs to contact their legislators “if you value your permit fund.” He specifically warned against a compromise that would clearly benefit Alabama’s gun owners. “The National Rifle Association WILL return next time the Legislature meets to bring back Jabo [Waggoner’s] ‘any county bill’ and will push for uniform — one cost — statewide permit fee…if any fee at all!”

If the Sheriffs Association’s opposition was primarily an officer safety issue, the big “push” email didn’t make it a direct focal point at all.

The email strongly suggests that money is the primary driver for the sheriff’s objection to SB24. Counties must adequately fund law enforcement, but pistol permits shouldn’t be the mechanism.

I told you so.  I denied that any of this has anything to do with “officer safety,” and said this.

It’s the revenue.  Don’t worry about slimming down and perhaps NOT buying those brand new Dodge Chargers and fancy comms gear.  Or perhaps laying off those unnecessary workers.  No, the pistol permit fee is a good way to raise money.

Other CLEOs have said the same thing as I’ve noted.

But opponents said it would have serious financial consequences for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, which administers firearms licenses issued under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act.

A fiscal analysis performed for the House indicates the measure would reduce OSBI’s revenue by at least $6 million and would lead to the loss of jobs and reduced operating expenses at the agency.

The reduction in revenue would be because firearms owners would no longer seek concealed carry licenses – which cost $100 for initial 5-year license and $200 for 10 years – if they could carry a gun openly without a license. There are now more than 238,300 Oklahomans with active licenses to carry handguns, according to state figures.

[ … ]

Perhaps it would be a good thing if the tax monies people allocated to your office were tied to the degree to which they see your services as good and needful, delivered in the right way.

Then Sheriff Blake Dorning, who must have been reading something, somewhere about this being all about the revenue, lied and said this.

“We hear it’s just a money thing,” Dorning said Wednesday.

“No, it’s not. It’s a life and death safety issue for our men and women because the equipment we’re able to provide them with drastically makes them more efficient and more able to address the situations that they come into every day.”

Dorning and other top department officials held a press conference Wednesday to follow up on the open letter the sheriff posted online over the weekend.

[ … ]

Jernigan said pistol permit fees are not an infringement on the Second Amendment, which provides for the right to bear arms. Jernigan it’s no different than paying a fee for a drivers license, marriage license, hunting license or car registration.

To which I responded this.

Thanks for self-identifying as a liar.  Driving a car is not mentioned in the constitution.  And if you really feel that the community wants the things you say you think you need, then why not make that case straight to the community and let them decide whether they want to fund them or not?

Oh, it’s because you have people who want to defend their lives over a barrel.  This is a forced tax of a targeted set of people for exercising what God and the founders consider an inalienable right.  You know it’s true.

In telling me it’s not all about the money, and then spending so much effort try to tell us what you need the money for, you’ve told us it’s all about the money.  So we’re back where we started, and you have no case.

And they still have no case.  They are saying one thing in public and entirely another thing to each other in private, and the proof is in the email.  I think that meets the definition of liar.