Posted by Last week the legislature saw a lot of legislation surrounding the issues of ethics and transportation. This week we move on to another hot button topic for Alabama citizens- guns. State Representative Jeremy Oden has sponsored for the second year in a row legislation to allow for short barreled guns to be owned in Alabama. House Bill 2 would repeal the section of the Alabama statute that prohibits the possession, sale, receipt, or use of rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long. These rifles are already legal under federal law when properly registered. For whatever reason Alabama has never followed the federal government’s lead on this issue. The bill had its second read in the House Judiciary Committee last week and is scheduled to be on the first Special Order Calendar of the session this Tuesday. I supported this legislation in committee and plan to do so again when it comes up for a vote however there is some opposition to it from legislators with law enforcement background. These legislators have expressed concern about the dangers such guns pose for law enforcement personnel. I think Rep. Oden’s bill was never designed to be an anti-law enforcement measure but instead was designed for gun enthusiasts who often collect these kind of guns at trade shows. In the end I cannot imagine that this small difference of opinion between the law enforcement side and the sponsor will prevent the bill from passing. Hopefully both sides can get this issued resolved in a way that keeps the intention of the bill intact.
|
||||
   Sen. Steve French, Sen. Zeb Little, Rep. Ken Guin, and Rep. Cam Ward will be blogging here during the 2010 Legislative Session. 9 comments to From Ethics to Guns |
ChangeI wish my friend Hinton Mitchem godspeed and good luck after his retirement from public service. Hinton, on Monday, announced what many had suspected — he will not seek re-election. I remember meeting Hinton for the first time while I was a student at Auburn University. He served the people of his [...] Ten Minutes in the House, Senate Moves On Here is a quick preview of the upcoming week in Montgomery. This week will be a standard legislative schedule for the House. We will be in session on Tuesday and Thursday with committee meetings scheduled for Wednesday. Back in the Day... Tent City at Camp Sheridan near Montgomery, ca 1918 |
The Alabama Line is being updated and will return perhaps as soon as the first week of February. The Alabama Line and its contents are the creation of Doc’s Political Parlor, reflect consensus from insiders and well-connected folks on both sides of the aisle, and will be updated as conditions change. These odds are meant to inform, entertain, and provoke, not to serve as actual means for losing money. Permission granted to use this material if PoliticalParlor.net is cited as the source. |
||
|
Copyright © 2010 Doc's Political Parlor - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Cam, with all due respect to those members with law enforcment experience, how does a shorter barrel translate into greater danger? Rifles are less accurate, Pistols and shotguns are close quarter weapons. A 16″ barrel is no more deadly than a 20″ barrel. I can fully appreciate the issue with so called “sawed-off” shotguns, but the homeowner who maintains one for safety is far different from the criminal who retrofitted his 20″ barrel for illicit use.
Although I fully support the measure, I wonder will bills such as these make it to the floor with the economy and education budget the way it is? Let me put it another way, will the senate approve and pass a bill after it has left the house, as your side of the capitol seems rather effective at cranking out bills.
I think with the bill moving as fast as it is this early in the session it does have a good chance in the Senate. Assuming it gets out of the House there are still several legislative days left (a month or two) before the budgets will ever see the floor of either chamber. The only hold up I can see in the Senate is if it did get caught in line behind something like gambling.
Cam,
Firstly, you need to clearly state to every legislator that short-barrel shotguns (SBS) and short-barrel rifles (SBR) fall under the oversight and regulation of the ATF.
SBS and SBR are available for legal ownership in every Southern state except Alabama, per current legislation.
SBR require a transfer tax of $200 paid to the ATF, plus an extensive background check with fingerprint cards attached, and the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of the jurisdiction of the buyer on the ATF Form 4.
SBSs require a transfer tax of $5 paid to the ATF, plus an extensive background check with fingerprint cards attached, and the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of the jurisdiction of the buyer on the ATF Form 4.
So all of those legislators with “law enforcement backgrounds” that are not so well informed on the wording of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 needs to know that the County Sheriff has to give his/her final blessing before authorizing the transfer of ownership to an individual from a Class 3 firearms dealer.
The same procedure/policy holds fast to the ownership/transfer of machineguns, submachine guns, full-automatic rifles, and suppressors/silencers in Alabama.
Currently, per statute, ownership/transfer of machineguns, submachine guns, full-automatic rifles, and suppressors/silencers in Alabama is legal and regulated by the ATF.
I have a shoulder stock that I purchased in Mississippi for my Glock 17 9mm pistol. But if I were to attached it to my pistol, I would be in violation of current state law.
In Mobile County, deputy sheriff Eric Pettway, who is on the SWAT team, owns A&E Guns on Airport Blvd. He is the largest Class 3 firearms dealer in Mobile. He sells “civilian-legal” suppressors and pre-1986 fully-automatic weapons. All these weapons require the signature of Sheriff Sam Cochran on the ATF Form 4 and final approval of the ATF for transfer of ownership.
It is really not to hard to see the irony here???
Rep. Spencer Collier could not be anymore clueless. He has added an amendment to HB2, that basically states “(c) This section shall not apply to any individual who possesses a federal firearms license for a weapon as described in subsection (a).”
Ok, what this basically interprets to is that only individuals with a “Federal Firearms License” can possess a SBR or SBS. The ONLY individuals that have a Federal Firearms License are gun dealers.
Individuals do NOT have have federal firearms licenses. The federal government does NOT issue federal firearms licenses to individuals, unless they are engaging in the business of selling firearms.
So that means a gun dealer can purchase an SBR or SBS, but he cannot sell it to a private citizen, like this bill was intended to be.
So Rep. Collier, who always tries to act like a “know-it-all” about something, has done gone and totally ruined the whole purpose of this bill with his little amendment. Just because he WAS a former state trooper does not make him an authority on gun laws. The authority on gun laws are the gun dealers themselves who deal with it everyday.
Looks like Rep. Collier finally caught himself and realized what a “bumfuddle” he just made?
His amendment “C” to HB2 has been completely retracted. Imagine that folks? Looks like the NRA gods sent down a lightning bolt on the House floor.
So to save face, he made the following amendments to HB2. Now the bill is worded as such:
“…hereby amended to read as follows:
§13A-11-63.
(a) A person who possesses, obtains, receives, sells, or uses a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun in violation of federal law is guilty of a Class C felony.
(b) This section does not apply to a peace officer who possesses, obtains, receives, sells, or uses a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun in the course of or in connection with his or her official duties.”
Nice save, Spencer??? Next time, do your homework before throwing out an amendment on the House floor that you are totally clueless about.
Let’s see how the Senate Judiciary discusses your amendment. I bet Marc Keahey and “Jolly Roger” Bedford, both avid gun supporters, come up with something better???
Just so everyone knows, SBRs and SBSs are NFA Title II weapons that are regulated and taxed by the ATF. The civilian ownership of Title II weapons require the approval of the ATF on an ATF Form 4 – Tax Paid Transfer.
* (Can you visualize Sen. Bedford quail hunting with a sawed-off??? Now that would be a Kodak moment!!!)
Darryl,
I believe that SBR’s and SBS’s actually only require a $5 transfer fee, not the $200 stamp that normal class 3 weapons require. They are classified under the “AOW” or “Any other weapons” category. I am with you on this, they should be legal in Alabama.
Saltaire, you are wrong. The SBR requires a $200 tax stamp. The SBS requires a AOW $5 tax stamp. Please do your homework before assuming, as it misleads the public who are not familiar with NFA weapons.
I am pretty sure both of you are wrong on the SBS. AOW stands for any other weapon, by definition not rifle not handgun. Put a stock on a SBS means $200 tax stamp, and SBR means $200 tax stamp. AOW is only category that is $5 tax stamp. So in Alabama you can have an AOW like a Mossberg without a stock and a 10″ barrel if registered properly, but try to buy a similar weapon that is little easier to aim and safer with a shoulder stock (ie. to be responsible) and Alabama current law turns you into a criminal though Federal Law would just call you a legally registered firearm owner of an SBS if registered properly and with the $200 tax stamp.
Technically current Alabama Law without House Bill 2 arms criminals because it makes people who legally own these weapons federally, criminals when they move to Alabama. Without out House Bill 2, current law makes criminals out of law abiding citizens who own these weapons and protects no one. Ultimately, it keeps people from moving to Alabama, just like California gun law does. Ask a gun owner if they would ever move to California, I doubt it but the criminals keep moving their because the targets “innocent citizens” are softer targets. If you think gangs don’t check out areas before moving to them, think again.
As a law enforcement officers those on the street far and away, and not by a small margin, support passage of House Bill 2. I called Lowell Barron’s secretary and indicated I favored the bill. I asked her if other officers have called and she said yes and in favor of the bill.
Law enforcement supports this bill, and saying we don’t is a red herring from people who are truly ignorant on an issue. The only thing this bill will do is put SBR’s and SBS’s in the hands of law abiding citizens, because Federally only the law abiding can own these weapons and only they will go through the process to register. Criminals don’t obey laws any way so existing laws won’t prevent them from acquiring them just allow another charge on top of Federal charges which are more serious anyway. Not to mention but usually offenders are currently allowed to be prosecuted Federally. The current law is a waste of time for real criminals too, the Fed’s hook them up already. Alabama law regulating SBS’s and SBR’s ought to be repealed altogether, but House Bill 2 is a good start.
Every time the law abiding are given the ability to self defend, crime goes down further which is good for us all. I don’t see how any self respecting law enforcement officer wouldn’t be for something that protects honest hard working American’s. Better communities to live in, safer environments for families, property values and property taxes go up, more jobs are created with population growth, more people like to live in safer places, and gun owners can defend themselves and do all the time. Law enforcement is safer because citizens are safer. Criminals move away because the citizenry is better armed harder targets.
This bill ought to be called the “Alabama Security & Protection Bill” because of the benefit it provides Alabamians and “ASP” would be a good acronym because law enforcement ought to carry it to our legislature because it protects us in a way like the “ASP” batons we carry on our hips when on duty. This law will make it more practical for law enforcement to purchase these weapons for their own self-defense and protection of their families. This law would allow them to continue to own these weapons after leaving law enforcement when they retire or leave for other reasons, because the criminals they place behind bars don’t retire and will possibly seek retribution.
I am proud of all the politicians who are working on behalf of this bill. It will make us all safer. Thank you.
David, I stand corrected. I’ve got to go. Got some homework to do!