I'm voting no.

I am also

They are making something that is simple and easy to understand porous and open to interpretation, maybe even a very liberal judge's interpretation.

I'm in the NO camp.

I've changed my mind after reading some y'all's post. I'm A NO!

Me too....


SECTION 26 states:
Right to bear arms.
That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Section 36 goes on to say:
Construction of Declaration of Rights.
That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.

Since we already have laws on the books in the state that were not allowed by te constition such as needing a permit to carry concealed or in a vehicle, the constitution has already been inored. Who's to say if A3 is passed, it won't be misinterpreted as allowing restrictions on our 2A right??

This. Plus, it's something they're putting out there to play to the crowd and make it look like they're really doing something. For all it's bluster, let the Feds come in and say, fine, we'll cut your federal highway money and other federal funds and they'll cave in and do what DC tells them to.
If they really want to impress us, what they should do is balance our state budget, cut waste and be able to give the feds the finger when they threaten to cut off federal money.

I'm from the "if it ain't broke,don't fix it" crowd.

So why is the NRA and Gun Owner's of America supporting the amendment if it's a bad thing? Both say to vote "YES" on this amendment.

The House addresses points of argument(they call "myths").

http://alreporter.com/politics/6914-house-republican-caucus-responds-to-myths-about-amendment-3.html

The writer can't even get the damned name of the NRA right in the first sentence?

'National Rifleman’s Association (NRA)"

It doesn't take a hell of a lot to double check the name of the NRA.

For this to be some kinda back door gun grabbing amendment it sure does have a ton of support for it from pro gun rights groups and advocates.

http://www.examiner.com/article/alabama-...cid=db_articles

Y'all do realize that under this amendment the strict scrutiny standard would make it much more difficult for any legislation restricting your gun rights to be upheld by a "liberal" judge.

No, frankly I dont. But I want to understand it so that I can make an informed decision. I've been hoping someone would explain it in a clear way so I could grasp how this would keep a liberal judge from doing harm.

Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.

Let's say a municipality passes a law that no one can possess a handgun within the city limits. The amendment would require the court to determine whether the municipality has a compelling governmental interest in enacting the law. This is a very stringent standard of review and the municipality would have to show why it enacted said law and that it is narrowly tailored to address the interest. This is a much more difficult burden to overcome than the rational basis standard. Essentially, the strict scrutiny standard makes it much more difficult for laws restricting a constitutional right to be upheld by the court.

“If the challenged government action [infringes upon] a fundamental right, ... a court will review that challenged action applying strict scrutiny.” Price–Cornelison v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 1103, 1109 (10th Cir.2008) (citations omitted). Under the strict-scrutiny analysis, a statute that infringes upon a fundamental right is presumed to be unconstitutional, and the State bears the burden “to prove that the [infringement] ‘furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.’ ” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876, 898, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) (quoting Federal Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 464, 127 S.Ct. 2652, 168 L.Ed.2d 329 (2007)).

Strict scrutiny is the highest burden available to review the constitutionality of laws. As a practical matter, all that language does is reinforce that it is a fundamental right.

Yes sirs, but here is the part I don't understand...

If the review of the court is the last say, and the job is only to prove that a new infringement on the right is justifiable in the governmentminterest, then what would preent a liberal legislature from passing an anti gun bill, presenting it to a liberal court, and then having the liberal court say it meets the standard of serving the government interests?

This is an amendment to the Alabama Constitution. Are you worried that the state is somehow going to be taken over by gun grabbing liberals with majorities in both houses of the legislature and then liberals are going to take over the appellate courts? If so, you might want to pay closer attention to Alabama politics. We are living in a state where the number of guns each candidate for AG owns is a topic of discussion on AL.com.

There is precedent the courts have to follow, but in the most general since: nothing. However, the language in this Amendment doesn't create that opportunity, it already exists. However, if the right is not declared a fundamental right, a lesser standard of review would be applicable, making your hypothetical easier for restrictions to be upheld.

I understand, but it may not always be that way. My granddaddy probably never would have considered a great deal what's happening in this country now would come to pass either though.