Alabama State Amendment 3: Gun Rights Proposal

[PacadermaTideUs]

Started this thread to address this post and so we don't further derail DBF's voting machine thread.

Seems to me the "God-given" vs. "fundamental" right distinction is less significant than the "strict scrutiny" clause. As far as I know, the second amendment to the US Constitution forbids any infringement at all. It doesn't provide for a qualified infringement such as one that has been "strictly scrutinized". This amendment seems to turn an always illegal action into a usually illegal action. It's a softening of the right to bear arms, not a strengthening of it.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Started this thread to address this post and so we don't further derail DBF's voting machine thread.

Seems to me the "God-given" vs. "fundamental" right distinction is less significant than the "strict scrutiny" clause. As far as I know, the second amendment to the US Constitution forbids any infringement at all. It doesn't provide for a qualified infringement such as one that has been "strictly scrutinized". This amendment seems to turn an always illegal action into a usually illegal action. It's a softening of the right to bear arms, not a strengthening of it.

That's exactly my problem. It seems practically to invite scrutiny by sheriffs, and sheriffs have been known withhold permits, based on politics and personal enmity. It's actually weaker than the present statute...

 

[MOAN]

Strictly scrutinized by whom is the question to me. Someone strictly scrutinizing to find a reason to take them away or someone strictly scrutinizing to find a way to keep them? Depends on the agenda of who is strictly scrutinizing!

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Strictly scrutinized by whom is the question to me. Someone strictly scrutinizing to find a reason to take them away or someone strictly scrutinizing to find a way to keep them? Depends on the agenda of who is strictly scrutinizing!

Well, it's not going to be the applicant scrutinizing the permit, that's for sure...

 

[CrimsonPride25]

So this would basically strengthen the sheriff's ability to withhold a permit from an individual with weaker reasoning behind denying it than is now required?

 

[jthomas666]

The amendment basically a half-a**ed excuse for the AL GOP to scream about how Obama wants to take your guns.

 

[RTR91]

The Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama has a summary and background for each amendment. This is the summary for Amendment 3.

Proposed Amendment Three would add language to the Alabama Constitution’s guarantee of individual gun rights. Currently, the Declaration of Rights in Article 1. Sec. 26 of Alabama’s 1901 Constitution states “every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

The new language would specify that in Alabama the right to bear arms is a “fundamental” right, and
that any state or local law that attempts to restrict gun rights would be subject to “strict scrutiny” by the
courts. Under strict scrutiny, the burden is on the government to prove that a restriction on rights grows
out of a "compelling governmental interest" and that in passing the restriction, the regulation was
narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

The proposed amendment also adds language specifying that the right to bear arms cannot be curtailed
by any treaty entered into by the federal government with other nations. The National Rifle Association
has endorsed the Alabama Amendment.

A similar amendment, approved by almost 75 percent of Louisiana voters, was added to that state’s
constitution in in 2012. It was used to mount a legal challenge to a state law that banned felons from possessing guns. Earlier this year, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the state law that banned gun
possession by felons is a permissible restriction on gun rights.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Started this thread to address this post and so we don't further derail DBF's voting machine thread.

Seems to me the "God-given" vs. "fundamental" right distinction is less significant than the "strict scrutiny" clause. As far as I know, the second amendment to the US Constitution forbids any infringement at all. It doesn't provide for a qualified infringement such as one that has been "strictly scrutinized". This amendment seems to turn an always illegal action into a usually illegal action. It's a softening of the right to bear arms, not a strengthening of it.

LOL! My comments should have been in blue but I was on my phone last night. I was poking a little fun at someone but the intent was missed.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

So this would basically strengthen the sheriff's ability to withhold a permit from an individual with weaker reasoning behind denying it than is now required?

That would appear to be the end result, intended or not...

 

[CrimsonPride25]

Well if the NRA supports it, then this guy supports it.