Connect with us

News

House Republican Caucus Responds To “Myths” About Amendment 3

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

By Brandon Moseley
Alabama Political Reporter

A pro-gun Republican dominated State legislature voted to put Amendment 3 on the Alabama ballot, even though the National Rifleman’s Association (NRA) endorsed the pro-gun amendment. As expected, there is some opposition building to adding more gun rights language to the Alabama Constitution. But, rather than coming from National anti-gun groups, the opposition is coming from a small, yet vocal segment of Alabama’s gun rights community who think the new language might weaken the existing gun rights language in Alabama’s 1901 Constitution.

The House Republican Caucus has released a statement promoting amendment three and urging voters to pass it into the state Constitution on November 4.

The Alabama House GOP Caucus wrote on Facebook, “Amendment 3 establishes that the right to bear arms in Alabama is afforded the highest constitutional protections against any potential state or local government infringement on the right to bear arms. It’s also endorsed by the National Rifle Association.”

The House GOP caucus said in a statement, “Amendment 3 makes it explicitly clear in Alabama’s Constitution that under Alabama law, the right of Alabama citizens to bear arms is a fundamental right, entitled to the highest protections of the law. It creates maximum constitutional safeguards against liberal judges and politicians in Washington D.C. and on the local level from trying to enact gun control measures in Alabama. It also provides greater gun rights protections from interference by unconstitutional international treaties or foreign laws.”

The Alabama Republican Caucus wrote that voters should vote for Amendment 3; because: “Amendment 3 establishes that the right to bear arms in Alabama is afforded the highest constitutional protections against any potential state or local government infringement on the right to bear arms. Alabama’s standards would make gun rights in Alabama stronger and more protected than the current standards of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The GOP State representatives wrote, “Currently, our Alabama Constitution does not contain language clarifying the right to bear arms as a fundamental right. In addition, rulings from the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have failed to establish the highest constitutional protections for the right to bear arms – also known as “strict scrutiny.” Amendment 3 ensures that our constitution has the greatest possible protections for your right to bear arms.”

Advertisement

Amendment 3 has been endorsed by gun rights organizations including, the National Rifle Association, the Alabama Gun Rights Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and the Citizens Committee on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Still many gun rights advocates are wary of the amendment. The Alabama House GOP responded to what they call a, “myth.” The argument of the anti-Amendment 3 people is that it potentially, “Opens the door for future courts or State legislatures, under the sway of leftists, to impose restrictions on Alabamians’ gun rights.”

The House GOP Caucus responds that: “Amendment 3 makes it more not less difficult for future state or local governments or courts to impose restrictions on Alabamians’ gun rights. Amendment 3 ensures that if any liberal-leaning state judge or government body tries to restrict gun rights in the future, those rights are protected by the highest possible constitutional protections – strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is a well-established legal term which provides constitutionally recognized fundamental rights with the highest protections of law against any proposed government infringement of that right. Amendment 3 provides greater constitutional protections than what currently exists, making it tougher for a court to approve any future law restricting your right to bear arms.”

Advertisement
Advertisement

The House GOP caucus says it is also a “myth” that: “Amendment 3 takes away the God-given and natural right of self-defense recognized in the existing wording of Section 26 of the Alabama Constitution and transforms it into a mere “fundamental right” which is subject to government restrictions. OR Our right to bear arms for defense is already recognized as a “fundamental” right in our Declaration of Rights in the Alabama Constitution.”

The Republican legislators respond to that argument that: “Fundamental rights are our most sacred rights under the constitution. The language in Section 26 of Alabama’s Constitution only refers to a citizen’s bearing arms as a “right.” Amendment 3 elevates Alabama’s constitutional language regarding the right to bear arms to a fundamental right that is given the highest possible protection under state law. Fundamental rights are provided more protection from government interference than other standard legal “rights.” Although the right to bear arms is one of our sacred rights, the current language of Alabama’s Constitution does not provide the absolute protection that some have argued because the right to bear arms is not defined and does not state what goes beyond simply “bearing arms.” Our state courts have also ruled that Section 2 of the Alabama Constitution gives ultimate authority to the citizens to legally and lawfully remove any provision from the Constitution which they previously put in or ratified, even our Declaration of Rights.”

Another myth that they address is that: “Strict scrutiny is already the standard for interpretation in cases involving gun rights or other fundamental rights.”

The GOP’s response is that: “Different courts have used different levels of scrutiny in cases involving gun rights. Nowhere in federal or state law or case law does it require strict security to be applied to cases involving gun rights. The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have failed to establish the highest constitutional protections for the right to bear arms – also known as “strict scrutiny.” As such, many state and lower federal courts have sometimes applied a lower level of protection (i.e., “intermediate scrutiny”) against government infringement. Amendment 3 specifically states that strict scrutiny must be used against a state or local government in cases where the right to bear arms is sought to be restricted.”

The Republican lawmakers addressed another “myth.” That: “The state is not currently permitted to impose any restrictions on your God-given right to self-defense, and Amendment 3 will give the government this authority.”

The Alabama House Republican Caucus responded that it is a “FACT” that, “Federal, State and local governments can and have imposed certain restrictions on gun rights for many years. Federal and State courts have generally agreed that government can impose “reasonable regulations” on the right to bear arms. For example, there is nothing about pistol permits or background checks in our state constitution, but they have been upheld by our courts and other courts around the country as reasonable regulations for the good of the public’s safety. Amendment 3 will make it much more difficult for state and local governments to impose restrictions on Alabamians’ gun rights, and will especially help prevent local governments from enforcing local ordinances that go beyond imposing reasonable regulations on gun rights.”

The House GOP Caucus also said that Amendment 3 will not allow felons to legally carry guns. The Caucus wrote: “Alabama law continues to prohibit felons from legally possessing firearms. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld bans in state laws against possession of firearms by felons. This is a prime example of a state or local restriction on firearms that would meet the “strict scrutiny” standard under Amendment 3. Louisiana had this same concern when the state passed its “strict scrutiny” constitutional amendment in 2012 and that argument has been laid to rest by the Louisiana Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision earlier this year, the Court held that its law preventing the possession of firearms by convicted felons (Alabama has a similar law) was not affected by their amendment (which was similar to Alabama’s Amendment 3) and that it withstands a strict scrutiny analysis.”

The voters will get to decide this matter on November 4.

Advertisement

Economy

Likely Republican primary voters reject Poarch Creeks “winning” plan

Bill Britt

Published

on

A survey of likely Republican primary voters obtained by APR shows that a majority do not support giving the Poarch Band of Creek Indians a monopoly over gaming in the state despite the tribe’s promise of a billion dollars.

Over the last several months, PCI has orchestrated a massive media blitz to convince Alabamians that they have a winning plan for the state’s future in exchange for a Tribal-State compact and exclusive rights to Vegas-style casino gaming.

The survey commissioned by the Republican House and Senate caucuses and conducted by CYGNAL, a highly respected Republican polling firm, found that only 34.1 percent of likely Republican primary voters are buying what the tribe is selling. On the contrary, nearly 50 percent of Republicans oppose the plan, with almost 40 percent voicing strong opposition.

Of those surveyed, females are against the plan by nearly 50 percent, with men weighing-in at almost 60 percent unfavorable to PCI’s proposal.

Perhaps most significant is that PCI’s monopoly plan was widely rejected in areas where the tribe already operates casinos. In the Mobile area, nearest Windcreek Atmore, over half of Republicans see a monopoly unfavorably. The same is true in the Montgomery area, where PCI has two gaming facilities.

Not a single big city surveyed in the state held a favorable view of PCI’s plan with Birmingham and Huntsville rejecting the tribal monopoly by almost 50 percent.

Very conservative, somewhat conservative and moderate voters didn’t view the plan as positive.

Advertisement

Ninety-one percent of respondents said they defiantly would be voting in the upcoming Republican primary on March 3.

PCI has lavished money on media outlets throughout the state, garnering favorable coverage, especially on talk radio and internet outlets. The tribe has also spent freely on Republican lawmakers.

Perhaps some good news for PCI is that Republican primary voters believe that state legislators are more likely to represent special interests above the interests of their constituents.

Advertisement
Advertisement

PCI lobbyists continue to push the tribe’s agenda at the State House in defiance of Gov. Kay Ivey’s call for no action on gaming until her study group returns its findings.

The survey found that Ivey enjoys a 76.3 percent favorability rating among likely Republican primary voters.

Continue Reading

Elections

Opinion | It’s time for Alabama Democrats to learn from Alabama Republicans

Josh Moon

Published

on

Democrats never seem to learn from Republicans. 

All around the country, and all around the state of Alabama, Democrats are still playing by the rules. Still listening to the cries and outrage from the other side. Still entertaining the idea that compromise and diplomacy are important to Republicans on some level. 

Still watching Lucy jerk that football away at the last moment. 

It’s time that stopped. 

It is time — actually, well past time — for Democrats to adopt the attitudes of their GOP colleagues, and just do whatever the hell you want to do. 

Whatever goal you set, go achieve it. Whatever policy is important, implement it. Whatever action you believe is right, take it. 

This is how Republicans have governed now for years. It is how they have wrestled control of the U.S. Supreme Court — just don’t hold a hearing for a duly appointed candidate — and how they have stolen elections — keep blocking attempts to secure elections. It is how they control half of Congress — thanks, gerrymandering! — despite representing nearly 20 million fewer people and how they have managed to offset a growing minority vote — put up every roadblock short of a poll tax. 

Advertisement

In Alabama, it has how they adopted the AAA act to funnel tax money to private schools — just completely rewrite the bill in the dead of night — and how they passed the most restrictive abortion ban — just ignore promises and public opinion. It is how they have stopped attempts to pass gambling legislation — by straight up lying about the law — and how they have steadily cut into ethics laws — pretend that no one can understand the laws they wrote themselves — and how a House Speaker convicted on 12 felonies still isn’t in prison three years later — just don’t send him. 

They don’t care. 

About rules. About the law. About public perception. About basic decency. 

Advertisement
Advertisement

And it’s time for Democrats, especially in Alabama, to adopt the same attitudes. 

Because if Republicans can behave this way to implement racist bills and roll back ethics laws and protect the income of the elites, then Democrats shouldn’t think twice about doing it to protect rural hospitals or new mothers’ health or workers’ rights or decent public schools. 

Now, this will be a big change for Democrats, so let me explain how this would look in practice, using the ongoing saga of Confederate monuments. 

Republicans shoved through an absurd bill last year that protects the state’s monuments to those who fought to enslave other human beings, and they’re shocked — shocked and outraged — that African Americans in Alabama might find it offensive to honor the men who enslaved their ancestors. 

The bill they passed last year was a dumb bill, right down to the portion which levied a fine on cities if those cities removed or damaged a monument. The bill completely screwed up the fines portion, failing to penalize cities for moving or damaging monuments over 40 years old and failing to place a per-day fine on those cities. Instead, the Alabama Supreme Court said the cities would be subject to one $25,000 fine. 

Birmingham has a monument that it desperately wants to move. It has already boarded up the monument in Linn Park, and the ALSC, in the same ruling, ordered the boards to come down. 

And this is the first opportunity for Mayor Randall Woodfin to approach this with a new attitude. 

Tear it down. 

Write out one of those big “Price is Right” checks for $25,000, hold a press conference and award that money to Steve Marshall like he just won at Plinko. 

At the same time, workers should be taking that monument apart piece by piece and moving it to the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, where it can be viewed for its historical significance instead of serving to honor traitors and racists. 

No apologies. No shame. Don’t even entertain their complaints. 

A similar approach should be taken by the city of Montgomery in regards to its occupational tax, which Republicans are attempting to stop through legislative action. 

Montgomery is going broke, and it can’t put enough cops on the streets. Part of that is because every day about 70,000 people flood into the city to go to work, and then they leave each afternoon and spend their money in — and give their tax dollars to — surrounding cities and counties. 

Montgomery has to do something to offset the costs, so an occupational tax has been proposed. But just as quickly as it was, the ALGOP — the kings of handouts to people who don’t need them — passed a bill to block it. 

So, some creativity is required.

Instead of an occupational tax, pass a public safety tax. 

If you work within the city limits of Montgomery, but live outside of those city limits, your paycheck will now be taxed an extra 1% to offset the cost of the police and fire services that you might use while in the city every day. 

No apologies. No shame. Don’t listen to GOP complaints. 

It’s a shame that things have to be like this, but they do. Democrats have tried for decades to force rational debate and to promote the value of compromise. Those pleas have fallen on deaf ears, which have been attached to toddler-like brains that have justified atrociously selfish behaviors and awful governance. 

At this point, it has gone on so long and been so successful for Republicans, the only thing that might break through is a taste of their own medicine. 

Give it to them.

Continue Reading

House

McCutcheon not optimistic about passage of “constitutional carry” legislation

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

Alabama House Mac McCutcheon, R-Monrovia, discussed gun legislation that could appear before the House of Representatives this year.

In past sessions, constitutional carry legislation has made it out of the Alabama Senate, but stalls in the House. This year, Rep. Andrew Sorrell, R-Muscle Shoals, is carrying the bill in the House. APR asked McCutcheon whether he anticipates it passing this time.

“The mood would tend to be the same that it was in the past,” McCutcheon said. “There is a bill out there now for a lifetime carry permit and a procedural check for a permit.”

McCutcheon said that under that bill a state database would be used for granting concealed carry permits instead of a local database. Each sheriff of each county would be doing things the same way by ALEA (the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency) being involved in this.

McCutcheon said that the House is “taking a very serious look at that bill.”

State Sen. Randy Price, R-Opelika, and State Representative Proncey Robertson, R-Mt. Hope, pre-filed the lifetime permit bill that would establish a cohesive and statewide management level process for administering and managing concealed weapons permits in the state of Alabama. The National Rifle Association has endorsed this legislation.

Robertson’s House version is HB39. It has been assigned to the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee where it is awaiting action. Price’s Senate version is SB47. It has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it is also awaiting action in committee.

Advertisement

Currently, the application process and managing of applicants is different county by county. Some rural county sheriffs have issued concealed carry permits, sometimes called pistol permits, without doing background checks. This resulted last year in federal authorities revoking Alabama concealed carry permit holders from being able to buy firearms without having to go through the background check system.

The sponsors promise that this legislation would create a streamlined process of standards for Sheriff Departments to implement and will be monitored by the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA). This bill creates a cohesive standard for background checks and will bring 21st century technology to Sheriff’s departments and all other law enforcement agencies across the state. Sheriff departments will now have access to electronic information of which all levels of law enforcement will have access to. It will also require municipalities to start reporting those that are convicted of domestic violence as well as Probate Judges to begin reporting individuals that have been involuntarily committed. Applicants will also now have the option to apply for a concealed weapons permit for one year, five years or a lifetime permit.

Sorrell told APR on Saturday that he opposes HB39/SB47 because it creates a statewide database with all of Alabama’s concealed carry holders.

Advertisement
Advertisement

In the State of Alabama, it is a Class A Misdemeanor to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

Sorrell’s legislation, Constitutional Carry, would eliminate that crime altogether and give every Alabamian the constitutional right to carry a firearm concealed if they so choose.

State Senator Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa) has introduced Constitutional Carry legislation in the State Senate; SB1. That bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it awaits committee action.

SB1 would allow all Alabama citizens who have not had their gun rights revoked to carry firearms concealed without having to have a concealed carry permit. That legislation could not get out of committee in the Senate last year.

Sorrell told APR that there is momentum in the Alabama House of Representatives for Constitutional Carry and that he hoped to have as many as twenty cosponsors when he introduces his bill.

It is currently legal in Alabama to openly carry firearms without a permit, if your gun rights have not been taken away. A citizen can lose their gun rights due to a felony conviction, being declared mentally unfit by a probate judge, or a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. While every citizen, who still has gun rights, may openly carry without a concealed carry permit; it is against the law to have a loaded handgun in a vehicle without a concealed carry permit.

Handguns must be unloaded and locked in a box or trunk out of reach. Similarly, if a person is openly carrying a handgun on their side, were to put a jacket on so that the gun was no longer visible that would also be a misdemeanor as they are now carrying concealed, unless they have a valid concealed carry permit allowing them to conceal their handgun. Persons with a concealed carry permit are allowed to have their gun on their person while riding in a motor vehicle or within reach like in the glove box, loaded or not. This does not apply to long guns (rifles and shotguns). All Alabama citizens, who still have their gun rights, may carry their shotgun or rifle with them in their vehicle, without having to obtain a concealed carry permit to exercise that right.

To get your concealed carry permit you must go to the sheriff’s department in your home county. The fee varies from county to county.

Twenty percent of adult Alabamians have a concealed carry permit, the highest rate in the country. The Alabama Sheriff’s Association have steadfastly opposed Constitutional Carry legislation. According to the National Association for Gun Rights, fifteen states, including Mississippi, have Constitutional Carry already.

Continue Reading

Elections

Maggie’s List endorses Jessica Taylor in 2nd Congressional District

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

Maggie’s List, a national political action committee dedicated to electing conservative women to federal office, endorsed Jessica Taylor in Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District.

Sandra B. Mortham is the Chairman of Maggie’s List and the former Florida secretary of state.

“Jessica Taylor is a proven leader who brings dedication and heart to Alabama,” Mortham said. “We know Jessica is the right person to represent Alabama’s Second congressional district in Washington because she respects the need for increased personal responsibility, fiscal conservatism, and will help move Alabama forward.”

“As the Alabama Chairwoman of Maggie List, I am proud that the organization has officially endorsed Jessica Taylor for Congressional District 2 here in Alabama,” said Alabama Chairwoman Claire H. Austin. “Jessica holds the conservative policy values as a fiscal conservative, less government spending, and more personal responsibility, and a strong national defense. Jessica will stand strong in Washington for our conservative Alabama values.”

Jessica Taylor thanked Maggie’s List for the endorsement.

“I am humbled to be chosen as one of the 12 conservatives women endorsed by Maggie’s List,” Taylor said. “I entered this race because I am sick and tired of far-left radicals like AOC, Ilhan Omar, and the rest of “The Squad”, thinking that Democrats can have a monopoly of the women’s vote. I put together the Conservative Squad to challenge that narrative and fight back. It’s an honor to have the support of Maggie’s List. I look forward to working with them and conservative women around the country to take back the house in 2020!”

The criteria for an endorsement from Maggie’s List includes electoral viability as well as a commitment to promoting fiscal conservatism, less government, more personal responsibility, and strong national security.

Advertisement

To date, Jessica Taylor has been endorsed by Maggie’s List, Empower America Project, Susan B. Anthony List, former Arkansas Governor and GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, Winning for Women, VIEW PAC, Empower America Project, and former Second Congressional candidate Rep. Will Dismukes (R-Prattville).

Jessica Taylor is married to former State Senator Bryan Taylor. The Taylors live in Prattville with their four children. She has her own business which helps small businesses and nonprofits apply for government grants.

Incumbent Congresswoman Martha Roby is not seeking another term representing the Second Congressional District.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Authors

Advertisement

The V Podcast

Facebook

Trending

.