Skip to comments.Montgomery Officials Not Happy with New Gun Legislation
Posted on 04/06/2013 9:02:33 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Montgomery officials are speaking out against new legislation that was passed by the Senate that some say makes Alabama gun laws more lax.
Both Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange and Public Safety Director Chris Murphy are against parts of this new bill, saying it could be dangerous for Montgomery.
The new legislation, drafted by Senator Scott Beason of Gardendale, would make gettting and carrying a gun easier. There are several sections of the bill that have people talking but two parts especially, have Montgomery officials upset:
1. Would allow Alabamians the right to have a gun in their car
with a free, lifetime permit.
2. Would allow Alabamians the right to be able to carry a gun to a rally without a permit.
Public Safety Director Chris Murphy says these parts of the bill are just asking for trouble.
"In Montgomery, as you know, we've had a number of homicides and our aggravated assaults are up and since January we've seized over 240 illegal weapons," he says. "
Mayor Todd Strange echoes Murphy saying these parts of the bill are in direct conflict with what public safety's goals are.
"It's going to make it more difficult on law enforcement," says Strange. "In Montgomery, as we've alluded to, we have people clamoring because the police department is not doing enough and we'll accept that responsibility. But with so many other things in the national scene, they're tying our hands. They're making it more difficult to keep the bad guys off the streets."
We went out to the streets to find out what some people thought of the bill. Montgomery resident Willie Joe Moss found carrying a weapon without a permit to a rally disturbing.
"Emotions are high and then somebody steps on your toe, and you're ready to go and get your gun," he says. Any of these criminals could have thrown their weapon in their car and go 'you cant touch this.'"
Some people say having a free, lifetime permit to carry a gun in a car shouldn't be viewed as negative.
"Having the right to own the weapon for the rest of your life is not a problem," says Montgomery resident Stuart Lawrence. "I think the biggest problem we've had with gun violence is a problem with our mental health system, not our gun registration system."
So get rid of the officials who do not like it.
They work for the voters.
Not the other way around.
Sounds like they have a lot of mental health issues in Montgomery! I am amused that they are afraid of giving honest citizens the right to do what criminals do no matter what the law is!
Must be some good laws.
Some people commit crimes; therefore, government is entitled to punish everyone.
It worked for Stalin, didn’t it?
Pack their asses up and move ‘em to con-ecticut. They should be delighted to live there.
“Since January we seized 240 illegal guns”.
How many “legal guns” did they seize from the criminals?
One question they don’t want to answer.
PS: I’m against a lifetime carry permit. People change over time, sometimes for the worst, so a checkup every 5 years or so would be reasonable.
I undergo a security check every 5 years (in process now) because my financial situation could change to the detriment of those who I work for. No problem with the check.
It all depends on the “threat” assessments and known situations in the environment - more illegal drug use, more alcoholism and drunk drivers, more illegal immigrants, more gangs in town, more mental illness.
When we face up to the “degree” of the problems in our society, then we can begin to realistically plan to address them in a pragmatic way without destroying the Constitution.
The Obama regime refuses to do that as do many Democrat-controlled cities and states. A little mental health check of these officials is well past do, as a start.
These dumbasses think criminals are going to apply for a permit? Really?
homicides have been cut in half since the 90s. In that same period of time, the number of people with concea;led weapons has doubled. Don’t give us that bull***t about how increasing numbers of concealed firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens increases homicides.
Should we also require people who own Bibles or who seek to post opinions on the internet get checked up every five years too? Because people change there, too, and we can’t be too careful.
I think he is essentially correct about that. The problem is, if the government controls evaluations of "mental health", the only thing the scumbag politicians have to do is proclaim everybody insane and then they can take away the guns of law-abiding citizens.
The only people who will find the new gun laws dangerous are those criminals who are stupid enough to try do what they were able to get away with in the past.
probable cause blows the guy’s “you can’ t touch this it’s in my car” argument out the window. why would you say someone’s a criminal, done something criminal, without probable cause?
no probable cause, no touchy.
When was the last time you heard of anyone shooting someone with a Bible?
As for changes of “opinion”. If I mentioned some of the political/journalist people I’ve known who have changed their way of thinking over the past 43 years, you’d be surprised at just who they are (one of the advantages of being a journalist in DC is getting to know a lot of significant people).
Just look at the children of famous people who went in the opposite direction of their parents, sometimes with tragic results. Over a long period of time, you could see the change. The same with Adam Lanza, Loughner, Oh, etc.
My views on most things have been pretty consistent over 60 some years. If tomorrow I came out for bestiality, you’d know that something was wrong as compared to what I had been saying for the past x number of years.
You just have to know what to look for. That is what the whole mental health debate should really be about.
Texans have been able to have a gun in their car without any permit for quite some time now. Road rage shootings haven’t gone up as far as I know. They’ve probably gone down because, well, you never know...
what part of “shall not be infringed” justifies a periotic screening?
A license makes a right into a privilege.
If the intent of the Constitution had been followed there would be no gun laws today.
The sooner all states have Vermont carry the better.
If you are against a lifetime carry permit,you probably oppose the gun laws in the 4 states, (Alaska, Arizona, New Hampshire, and Wyoming,) where the residents are not required any permit to carry however they choose.
How about legislation that if you buy a gun in Alabama you get a free switchblade or gravity knife?
If the effing pols don’t like the legislation, then they can start a movement to rescind the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights or shut their effing pie holes.
It’s not up to them to like it or not like it; it’s the Constitution of the United States, which lays out citizens’ UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Sorry Willie but that's not the reaction of a normal person.
I'd consider that a good thing. Any law that makes it easier to get and carry a gun is positive. The other half of that equation should be laws that make it easier to lock up dangerous predators who carry or use guns when committing crimes - lock them up for a very long time. I'm okay with a mandatory extra 20 years for using a firearm during armed robbery, rape, or similar crimes. How do the "anti-gun" liberals feel about penalties for the misuse of firearms, as a substitute for restrictions on the rights of ordinary people?
Emotions are high and then somebody steps on your toe, and you're ready to go and get your gun," he says.
Sorry Willie but that's not the reaction of a normal person.