Posted: 9/4/2014 2:45:36 PM EDT
|
Has anyone seen the proposed amendment to strengthen Alabama's gun rights that is supposed to be on the ballet this November? I have seen several news stories about this amendment which was passed last year and will be on the ballet this fall. I cant seem to find the actual text of this amendment.
|
|
http://alhousegop.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/01/Alabama-Firearms-Protection-Amendment-HB8.pdf From: http://alhousegop.com/wedaredefend/to-bear-arms/ ETA: Based on this alone: Amend Section 26 to add: "Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny" My initial reaction is "Hell No". What the heck is "Strict Scrutiny"? We gave it a very strict look for 5 minutes and passed a restriction anyway? It seems meaningless to me and potentially a problem. Section 26 already says: SECTION 26 Right to bear arms.That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Pretty damn clear and unambiguous as it is. On first read this bill appears to seek to weaken the language by admitting the possibility that restrictions are within the scope of the State, which is expressly prohibited in Section 36: SECTION 36 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. How you can bypass section 36 to add a meaningless potentially loophole inducing clause to section 26 with room for restrictions and not violate the constitution at present puzzles me... I'm also not sure the second part would stand up to ratified treaties being law of the land if it came to supreme court: No citizen shall be compelled by any international treaty or law to take an action that prohibits, limits, or otherwise interferes with his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state Would rather see the time spent on restoring the civil right bear arms in defense of self that section 26 already protects but current laws infringe on frankly. My initial take is dump it, unless someone can persuade me otherwise. |
|
In our judicial system no rights are absolute, you have the right to free speech but you don't have the right to use that free speech to slander someone else.
A long help president in our judicial system is all rights are subject to scrutiny under three levels, strict, intermediate and ration basis. There are times when the courts will rule on what level of scrutiny will apply to an individual right but I don't know of any president in Alabama as to section 26 of the Alabama constitution, I need to go back and look at some of the older Alabama supreme court rulings. Either way this would guarantee that in the future any further restrictions or reviews of current restrictions would be subject to the highest level of scrutiny. |
|
So the intent then is to define how courts will approach adjudication on anything that has impact to rights protected in section 26. Ok, makes more sense with that definiton. ETA: As an example, when evaluating an issue such as carrying a weapon in a vehicle, this clause would require a court to look for more than just a "rational basis" e.g. "Public safety" before upholding the law. Where as strict scrutiny might find planket prohibition as an overbroad means of securing public safety? |
|
Quoted: That is correct. I'm sure we will see a lot of anti groups coming out against this amendment. Mostly on account of what they know will happen down the line as opposed to the specific change itself. With some explanation of the legal background I'd expect a lot of folks to get behind it though. Thanks for your explanation :) |