I don’t see a problem here.
I don’t believe it is the government’s and law enforcement’s job to actively prove individuals who are exercising their 2A Rights are legally able to exercise those Rights. I don’t really view a traffic stop as a “let’s make sure this guy who told us he has a gun can legally have it by running a full background check on him” kind of a situation
How does this make it a right?
Because that’s what a Right is? It’s something you can do because you can do it.
vs a privilege, where you have to receive prior written permission slip from the government.
I believe carry permits are unconstitutional and infringe on the RKBA by turning it to a privilege, whereas Permitless aka Constitutional carry is an actual Right
How so? Since that is what they are doing when they go to their patrol car. This falls into… Not a felon but can’t own a firearm legally, due to being adjudicated as mentally unfit, not eligible due to drug use.
I’m just not making my decisions on which 2A Rights to infringe based on how easy it is for police to run a full background check on you when you get pulled over for speeding.
What about all the people who own guns and transport them in the car, but don’t have a carry permit? Should we require a permit to possess a gun so that when people with guns get pulled over on the way to the range or on the way to hunt, the police immediately see proof said person is legally able to have that gun?
How does this make it a right. A Right is something that Government can not take from you. Whereas Alabama’s Constitutional Carry law just pushed the penalty off from being administered until you are caught.
Because that’s what a Right is? It’s something you can do because you can do it.
vs a privilege, where you have to receive prior written permission slip from the government.
I believe carry permits are unconstitutional and infringe on the RKBA by turning it to a privilege, whereas Permitless aka Constitutional carry is an actual Right
You still go to jail if you get caught possessing a firearm that you are not eligible for. Now it just adds complexity to the legal gun owners
How is it more complex for legal gun owners to no longer have to get a permit?
Edit: The signage carrying weight of law could do that. I get that. And it is annoying. But my personal stance (yours can be different, that’s okay) is that private property owners deciding they don’t want guns carried on their private property is reasonable
The USCCA reciprocity map currently shows signs do not have weight of law in AL.
Did that just change yesterday?
Do you have a link to it? They are going to need to get the rec map updated.
Do you have an actual point or is this trolling? Gun Ownership ANYWHERE in the United States of America is illegal if you are an ineligible person.
I have no problem with a property owner doing exactly that. If, and I mean If, that property owner is responsible for my security. But none of them are ever willing to be responsible for anything… So all that no guns allowed sign does is make me vulnerable.
This has been debated 100’s of times. A no guns allowed sign only benefits Criminals who are going to ignore the sign as breaking the law is the very definition of a Criminal
Edit: cleaned up typos.
The property owner isn’t responsible for your security if they don’t allow guns, and the private property owner isn’t responsible for other people’s security (from you) if they don’t ban guns, either. (generally, per my understanding, I’m not a lawyer).
You also don’t have to go to their private property if you don’t want to.
My point is that my opinion is that Constitutional carry aka permitless carry is an expansion of the Right to keep and bear arms. As a Pro 2A person, I completely support it, even if it means police have less background check run on people they pull over because those people maybe don’t have a permit.
I pretty much always go for the less government in people’s lives option on everything (and the signs on private property is being determined by the property owner in this case, not by the government)
I agree no guns signs benefit the criminals, which is why I generally choose not to go to those private businesses that have those signs. It can be annoying, yes.
Not everybody has to agree. I understand you would rather require a permit to carry, especially if the state government is going to force you to accept signage (which is super annoying) in order to get rid of the permit. As a person with a permit, you don’t personally gain much of anything from not needing the permit, after all. You personally don’t seem to gain anything here.
A lot of people won’t personally gain anything here. And given that, it’s not unreasonable to view the totality of this law change (as you have presented it, you seem knowledgeable on it I haven’t looked it up myself as a result) as a negative.
I totally understand your perspective and that you weigh different aspects of it differently. Me, I just can’t see past what I consider to be Right vs Privilege on requiring a permit to carry, or not requiring.
I also have no real skin in the game as I don’t live in AL. Although I do travel there so the signage carrying weight of law change is something I will have to update myself on. Might be annoying.
I am going to high level on this if you don’t understand how this makes it more complex for legal gun owners. Anyone who wanted to CC could by spending $12.50 per year and a NICS check every 5 years. This is demonstrably true, as Alabama has the Highest Percentage of CCi in the Nation.
Now we have to spend additional time in a traffic stop. We could prove we were legal by showing our CC card. Now we have to wait while they run background checks. Which still won’t help as all they check is your criminal record.
They don’t check if you have a dishonorable discharge. Have been adjudicated as mentally unfit. Are a user of illegal drugs. All things, that are checked in a NICS check.
Plus any legal CC is still going to get their CC permit as surrounding states will require a CC permit for reciprocity. So the only benefit is for those who are not felons but meet Federal requirements for being ineligible.
Anyways this has become a huge waste of my time. Do your own research.
If any legal carrier is still going to get their CC permit, why would they spend additional time on a traffic stop?
My experience FWIW: I have spent far, far more time in application processes to get permits, than I have on traffic stops. Knock on wood, I virtually never get pulled over, and when I have, it’s been very quick, much shorter than the lines I waited in to get permits
What about gun owners who don’t carry, but do transport? Should we require a possession or transport permit so they can prove they are legal if pulled over while going to the range?
Really… You can’t understand how it doesn’t make it take longer as this gives a LEO an extra weapon to extend a traffic stop into a pretext for CC to investigate.
I don’t understand how a traffic stop this year of a legal carrier with a carry permit takes longer than the same traffic stop last year of a legal carrier with a carry permit. If all legal carriers are going to get a permit anyway, what changes?
They do it as they have always done by travelling with it in their trunk or somewhere it is not readily accessible for the driver and/or passenger to reach.
I really don’t feel like this is going anywhere.
I think we got wherever it is we are going lol.
All good
.
.
.
…
As long as you are going there with a caliber. 