There is no simple explanation of the changes and no, that's not the jist of it.

The bill started out in the Senate repealing 13A-11-52:




Instead, the House version that was eventually passed by the republicans in both the House and Senate added even more language to the bill:




The changes in the law and the law itself doesn't make any sense. The law defines no punishment in its old or new language. It should have been repealed like the Senate version intended to do.

Back in 1911, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that this law applies only to pistols carried for offensive purposes:

Isaiah v. The State.
[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
176 Ala. 27; 58 So. 53; 1911 Ala. LEXIS 401
June 30, 1911, Decided




I don't know of any property owner in his right mind who would give permission for someone to bring a pistol onto his property for offensive purposes.


When the Supreme Court of Alabama has ruled on a subject, our legislature is bound to adhere to it:


Moore v. JUDICIAL INQUIRY COM'N OF STATE, 891 So. 2d 848 - Ala: Supreme Court 2004


The Association of District Attorneys and the Alabama Sheriff's Association even advise in their analysis that criminal trespassing or disorderly conduct should be charged instead of the new version of the law due to no punishment being defined for a violation of it.

Most of these gun control laws went into effect when the Uniform Firearms Act of 1936 was passed. The Act has never been challenged before the Supreme Court of Alabama on constitutional grounds.


As for the requirement for a pistol permit before entering a vehicle with a pistol, bear in mind that carrying concealed weapons is against the law. It was described by the Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama Attorney General and the Alabama Legislature in The State v Reid as an evil practice that is promotive of violence and bloodshed and the law against carrying pistols concealed was " ...intended merely to promote personal security, and to put down lawless aggression and violence, and to that end inhibits the wearing of certain weapons, in such a manner as is calculated to exert an unhappy influence upon the moral feelings of the wearer, by making him less regardful of the personal security of others."

Why would anyone want to carry pistols concealed if that is true? Why would sheriffs be allowed or want to sell permits for such an evil practice if it is conducive of violence and bloodshed and has such an unhappy influence on the morals of the bearer when it is not a protected and enumerated part of our fundamental rights according to the opinion of the Court of last resort in our state?

The requirement for a pistol permit to carry a pistol in your vehicle unless it is rendered inoperative and out of reach is similar to the requirement for firearms to be rendered inoperative in the Heller case that was heard in the US Supreme Court:


District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court 2008


The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled the same in The State v Reid:

There ya go clear as mud

seems to me like all the new gun law has done is prompt no gun signs to pop up everywhere. I heard the local police dept are putting passing them out.

If I did not want bicycles or dogs on my property or place of business, would the police department provide me with "NO BICYCLES ALLOWED" or "NO DOGS ALLOWED" signs?

Who's paying for these signs and where are they being handed out by the police? What cities? If they are in your city, post it.

We have recently had the no guns allowed signs put on every single door at work..contractors cant bring them on premises but employees can..just have to keep them in a locked vehicle.

Luverne is the city I was referring in my post. There are no guns signs all over town that I was told was put up by the city police dept.

Joined bama carry yesterday. I know Eddie Fulmer well and he is a good guy.

That's interesting how contractors can't but employees can, but at my plant nothing changed.....nobody is allowed to have a gun in their vehicles in our parking lot.

Btw Welcome back 49er we have not always agreed on things but you definitely have a good cause you are fighting for here and your passion for this cause is needed to keep our politicians in check. Stay passionate and stay positive!

If that is true, then your employer is breaking the law. One of the main provisions of the law was that an employer cannot prohibit an employee from having a gun in his/her car in the parking lot.

I am tried to tell him that already and they told him different so, he believes his boss.

I listened.......got a call into my state rep to see what he says, but a local attorney said that my plant could be considered a limited access facility. After I talk to my rep tomorrow since he sponsored the bill I will check back in on his definition on limited access facility.

popping up here to
if I see a sign I shop some were else
and let the owner know why

If you live there you need to raise a stink! are they paying for those signs with your tax dollars????

My advice is dont spend a dime in any business in Luverne that has a sign denying your 2nd amendment right.

let me restate that...we ALL need to not do business with ANY company that denies your right to self protection. let them know why you arent doing business with them as well. Hit them where it hurts,...their pockets!