Guns

Huge Win for Gun Rights in Alabama Election

|

Credit: Ratha Grimes / Foter.com / CC BY

Alabama voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly favored a revision to the state constitution which will provide greater legal protections for the right to keep and bear arms. By a vote of 73 percent to 27 percent, voters amended the state constitution to include the following provision:

(a) Every citizen has a fundamental right to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

(b) No citizen shall be compelled by any international treaty or international 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, if such treaty or law, or its adoption, violates the United States Constitution.

Strict scrutiny is the most exacting level of judicial review employed by the courts. For a gun control law to survive strict scrutiny, the state must prove that it has a compelling interest that both justifies and necessitates the regulation in question. Among lawyers, strict scrutiny is frequently characterized as "strict in theory, fatal in fact." Lawmakers receive no deference from the courts under this approach.

Put differently, this new constitutional provision is a huge win for gun rights and a major defeat for gun control advocates in Alabama.

NEXT: Anti-GMO Initiatives in Oregon and Colorado: Science Wins in Centennial State - Outcome Uncertain Science Wins in Beaver State Too!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. O noes wut abut teh chuldrinz?!.1

  2. “Alabama Voters Support Increased Mayhem and Violence – Minorities and Childrenz Predicted to be Hardest Hit!”

  3. Not really. None of the Democrats who were shown shooting guns in their ads won their elections.

  4. No citizen shall be compelled by any international treaty or international law to take an action that prohibits, limits, or otherwise interferes with his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms

    I’m not too sure that they thought this one through very well. They probably should have replaced ‘international law’ with ‘federal law’.

    1. You can work “international treaty” in as a restriction on federal law, or at least on the Senate’s power to ratify such a treaty.

      1. Yeah, but it’s not an international treaty that they should worry about, it’s the feds, OUR feds.

        1. Oh, I agree. But that Commerce Clause is one motherfucker; whaddya gonna do?

          1. Overturn Wickard. It’s a POS decided under threat of the grand MoFo FDR to pack the court.

        2. I think they are building in a legal challenge in the unlikely event that the U.N. Small Arms Treaty was ever ratified. Or the slightly more likely event that our current president signs it, it’s not ratified and the president directs agencies through executive order to enact policies that conveniently mirror the UNSAT (while denying it has anything to do with UNSAT, of course).

          In reality it just sort of strikes me as a middle finger to the UN.

          1. That’s the conclusion I drew, as well. It’s just worded for a very specific set of circumstances.

    2. They probably should have replaced ‘international law’ with ‘federal law’.

      You’d think somebody would’ve already penned a document restricting the Federal Government from taking guns from Alabamans.

      1. Yeah, but the Emperor has a pen and a cell phone. And the 1994 Brady Act already neutered that 2nd amendment thing anyway. The best thing states can do is pass bills that reject federal gun laws in their entirety. The 2nd amendment is clear, ‘shall not be infringed’. But it’s already been infringed.

        1. Yeah, but the Emperor has a pen and a cell phone.

          The AL constitution penned in 1819 says nothing about ‘shall not be infringed’ and the law above has adopted ‘shall not forego strict scrutiny’ as opposed to ‘shall not be infringed’.

          This law is fighting the fight that is coming. Not the one that was lost during the Clinton era.

  5. What is this, Christmas? Mary Landrieu is being sent packing and Alabamans start packing all in one day.

    Looking at the wording of those provisions I read ‘Fuck the UN’. Nice.

    1. I thought that Landrieu is going to a run off? Did something happened after I went to sleep last night?

      1. Judging by the results of the primary, unless something weird happens in the next few weeks, she’s toast.

        1. The referendum is in Dec? I kept hearing some murmurs last night about it not being until next year.

          1. I think the GA runoff would have been next year, but since the R won more than 50% of the vote, it’s irrelevant. The LA runoff is scheduled for December 6th.

      2. Yeah, there’s a runoff – but something like 3 Republicans split about 59% of the vote. The Dems only got about 41%. If the Reps vote their party and the Dems do the same, she’s go-o-o-ne.

      3. Her funding has been pulled…

    2. Hey Suthenboy- I was in your great state two weeks ago and every time I saw people waving those “I’m with Mary” signs at intersections, I thought about you and started laughing.

    3. I’ve been packing for a while. 911’s have a sweet arm rest in the door that opens to reveal a fairly large compartment. Just the right size for my Beretta .40 S&W. I kinda feel like James Bond but in a better car than a Jag or an Aston.

  6. my friend’s step-sister makes $82 an hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 6 months but last month her payment was $16204 just working on the computer for a few hours. More Info….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

    1. This time it’s 197.6 hours.

  7. Was there an alt-text ballot initiative?

  8. Last I read, the strict scrutiny requirement was met in about a third of case heard by SCOTUS, which is hardly fatal.

    I agree and am happy with the new law, but let’s not assume that gun grabbers won’t try an end run around this somehow.

    1. Its not fatal but it prevents judges from just reading the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution.

    2. With the 2A being incorporated against the states with McDonald, and with strict scrutiny protection being uncomparable to any other kind of test SCOTUS uses, I don’t think you have to worry.

      1. Considering the words “shall not be infringed” in the “Constitution” once seemed pretty iron clad, I am not sure how much I agree with your characterization.

  9. The first paragraph misspelled “in defense of himself against the state.” That seems like a pretty serious typo.

    1. +1

      Also second paragraph has a pretty important “if” that shouldn’t be there.

  10. Unless they use this to nullify federal firearm laws, such as background checks, then it has no more teeth than “…shall not be infringed.”

    1. Exactly what I’m saying. The only laws states can pass that will actually protect their citizens from 2nd amendment violations is to say that federal gun laws outside of the 2nd amendment are effectively null and void in their state.

  11. Huge win for Alabama, huge loss for Washington. And the gun grabbers tightened their grasp in Oregon’s legislature yesterday so we’re going get more control in Baja Washington. Yippee.

    1. Well I’m sure gun crime will plummet as criminals realize it’s illegal for them to carry a gun around.

  12. Any restriction infringement on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny illegal.

    There. Now it’s constitutional.

    1. If you are retarded maybe. I am pretty sure locking you up for years is an infringement on your rights. And yet the government can and should be able to do that in some cases, like if you are a murderer or thief or something.

      Here is the thing, “rights” are not positive things. They are restrictions on what the government can do to prevent you from doing things. You don’t have a “right” to do anything. What you do have or should have is a government that cannot stop you from doing things, absent due process of law and for a compelling reason like the fact that you are a criminal out harming people.

      1. Jesus John, that is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen you post. It’s Ken level stupid.

        Read the 5th Amendment and get back to us pal.

      2. Oye, Statism in a nutshell.

  13. Lawmakers receive no deference from the courts under this approach.

    But legislators are the embodiment of the will of the people!

  14. Yes indeed, and all in a state that is so rich in Redneck Culture, that it would not make any difference anyway, for people who are already armed to the teeth regardless of the law, or state constitution or anything else that would stand in the way of their “Moonshine Rights” to be “loaded for bear”. Long live Alabama and Old Dixie!!

    1. Regionalism the Progressives officially sanctioned form of bigotry.

      On the other hand, we do have lots of guns even in a wealthy tech haven like Huntsville, so if you ever come to town keep your yap shut or some toothless red neck might drop you.

      1. Eggs,

        Huntsville? Really? I have friends there. That’s where the out of state progressive intellectuals live. Surely, you must be talking about some place else in Alabama?

  15. for people who are already armed to the teeth regardless of the law, or state constitution or anything else

    So you are talking about criminals, right?

    1. What do you think I am talking about NealAppeal?

  16. This act is unconstitutional; it violates the constitution itself because everything in the Declaration Of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government and is forever inviolate.

    Strict scrutiny is the standard to which any case is held when constitutional rights are involved. So strict scrutiny is already applied, irrespective of this act. What this does is attempt to abridge the existing rights recognized and guaranteed under the constitution by making the right conditional upon the determination of the court. In other words, it converts the right into a privilege.

    This act is dangerous, because it is assumed that once a law is passed, an authority figure may act on that law. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read, learn, and know. Because knowing is half the battle. And there’s 50 different systems of law out there, each that has different jurisprudence attached to it.

  17. Way to go, Alabama!

  18. But, but Bloomberg said he won….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.