I was reading through reciprocity issues while planning a road trip, and noticed there are states that won't recognize Alabama CCW because it is a "locally issued" permit rather than a state issued permit.  
DPS already issues state driver's licenses, why not have them issue the conceal carry permits?  Could such a move potentially improve CCW recognition for Alabama?  Given that a number of sheriff's offices have openly come out against supporting the people's right to bear arms in defense of themselves while driving a car because it might reduce their revenue:





Could such a move help resolve that conflict of interest?
What's your take?
 
 

It's not that it's just a locally issued permit.

Some states have more stricter requirements for getting a Carry permit, just two examples below.

Washington State requires finger prints for a permit and Alabama doesn't so WA will not reciprocate to AL

Ohio, requires finger prints and training for a permit and Alabama doesn't so OH will not reciprocate to AL


The best outcome would be for the national reciprocity bill to pass congress and then be signed by the president.

What he said.

While I don't think it would really help with other states recognizing Alabama permits it would standardize the proccess.  I don't have any problems in Limestone county but I know people in other counties where the process is still a pain because the sheriff wants references and takes longer than I think it should to issue the permit.  

I don't see it happing anytime soon because the sheriffs make too much money off them.

I solved this problem years ago by also getting a non-resident Florida license.

Maybe you guys would be happy with a Tier 1 CCW Permit that was standardized across the State, administrated by the Sheriffs and required fingerprints, a photo, training and was acceptable to the half dozen States that won't accept Alabama's current permit.

There used to be some concern that this "local permit" issue might also mean that Alabama CCW permits do not fall under the exception to the federal law (can't remember name) that forbids possession of firearms within so many feet of a school.

I'm will not be surprised if a PAC will eventually be necessary to "purchase" back the attention of legislators to uphold the civil rights protections enshrined in the AL constitution vis-a-vis the "right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state".  Blocking open carry vehicle in the name of permit money is a clear betrayal of the public trust given to the county chief law enforcement functions in Alabama.  If they will not show themselves good stewards of the people's trust to protect their liberty, it would seem worth considering that the function that causes them the conflict of interest (permits) be moved to another portion of the state administration.
So my question is this:  On a legislative plate that has no item on it related to RKBA for the sheriff's association to object over, other than the transferring of the permit system to the state level to remove the existing and publicly stated conflict of interest, what valid objection can the sheriff's association bring forward?  How can the usual arguments that the "streets will run with blood" be employed if the agents currently acting against civil rights have their conflict of interest removed and the powers transferred to a separate state level body?  Will the people really be sympathetic to cries by the sheriff's assocation that ensuring civil rights are protected by removing a known conflict of interest dries up their slush fund?  And suppose they strong arm legislators into protecting their practice?  Will people's be long sympathetic to such legislators, particularly if there's some effort made to call them on it?
I think it would all be fine if the existing system continued and sheriffs just got out of the way of improving civil rights related to RKBA for the people of Alabama, but they seem to have dug in pretty hard about permit revenue over rights.

I really don't see why you think moving the permitting systen to the Stae level would make things better.  Alabama has withheld highway money from counties that did not vote for the governor. And someone has to do the work and the sheriffs are already set up to do it.  And right now, it is faster to see the sheriff than to stand in a DMV line.

Are you sure about that?

You might want to read 13A-11-85, top of page 27:  AL Gun Laws - see pdf



§ 13A-11-85
Reciprocity for licenses issued in other states.
(a) A person licensed to carry a handgun in any state shall be authorized to carry a handgun in this state. This section shall apply to a license holder from another state only while the license holder is not a resident of this state. A license holder from another state shall carry the handgun in compliance with the laws of this state.
(b) The Attorney General is authorized to enter into reciprocal agreements with other states for the mutual recognition of licenses to carry handguns and shall periodically publish a list of states which recognize licenses issued pursuant to Section 13A-11-75.
(Act 2001-494, p. 862, § 1; Act 2013-283, § 2.)

I don't think Madison county is asking for references, but I've heard of another AL county still doing it as of a couple months ago.

Dorning and company (MC) will take very bit of 30 days to issue a first time permit.  Limestone takes about 15 minutes from most reports - so 30 days is complete bullshit.

I am for the Sheriff's doing it and even keeping their slush funds, however I would want all permits to be the same and also to cost the same so one person in one county doesn't pay less or more then another county.

I'd like to say "you're kidding" but I'm guessing that has happened.  Fair point about moving the existing infrastructure and the current process working relatively well.



The key ill as I see it is the conflict of interest in deriving funding from not giving section 26 full faith and credit.  Hardshell brings up a good point that no one has really made a fuss over the practice yet on a large scale.  Still... for a state that "dares defend its rights", I'm a bit astonished that folks put up with it.  I'm guessing it's my "wild west" upbringing showing.  



I'm all for minimal changes and well funded sheriffs... But it's the holding civil rights hostage for profit that rubs me the wrong way and I'd like to think Alabamans could be motivated to bring some change there.  



At any rate, clearly time to start looking under a few rocks to understand this machinery in detail.
 

It would be just awesome if Federal, State, and Local governments would just follow the Constitution.

Problem(s) solved!

I wonder how well it would be received if freedom of speech, or freedom of religion required a permit.

Jefferson County.  The problem is you have to have the time and recourses to challenge these Sheriffs that are still trying to make up their own rules.

I know the laws.  I have both an Alabama and Florida permit, hence the word also.  The Florida permit, they call it a license, for traveling to states that do not recognize the Alabama permit.  

Ok, good.

I say no......Why?
because sheriff's are elected
which keeps the power of the voters  involved in the decisions.
what happens if the dps decides to make ccw's a pain in the butt to
Acquire. Its a lot easier to pressure a sheriff up for re-election than the
DPS
jmho