• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Arrested for open carry. Waiting for a ruling from the Court of Criminal Appeals

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The answer is in one of the posted briefs. Short version is that the defendant argues that the uniform firearms act, enacted subsequent to the statute you quoted, is in conflict and permits his conduct.
He is unfamiliar with the peculiarities of -52. -52 has been overridden by -73, but remains on the books for some strange reason. Every time someone has been convicted under it, the conviction has been overturned. It is like one's appendix. It might have had a function at one point in time. It does not now. Even more to the point, there is no penalty in the law for "violating" this non-law.

However, I would not expect that troll to try to figure that out before jumping into a conversation in which he is worse than ignorant, and pretend that he knows something. Hell, there is an audio recording of him out there that clearly demonstrates that he does not even understand his own State's law (CT, BTW; he does a lame job of hiding that fact).
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
154
Location
Central Alabama
1. Jason Tulley did not enter the credit union with a pistol for "offensive purposes":

Isaiah v. The State.
[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
176 Ala. 27; 58 So. 53; 1911 Ala. LEXIS 401
June 30, 1911, Decided

"...Said section 2 is not violative of section 26 of the Bill of Rights, as it merely prevents the carrying of arms for offensive purposes, and does not deprive a person of the right to bear arms in defense of himself or the state..."






2. Officer Clayton erroneously charged Jason Tulley with an offense for an action that Clayton himself was involved in, i.e. possessing a pistol openly on the premises of another. A cop who moonlights as a security guard is acting in his individual capacity as a private citizen and not as a peace officer of the state:



" ...Here, Jones was pursuing a personal activity—performing the duties of his "moonlighting" employer, the bank. There was no prior offense committed in his presence upon which he was acting. Therefore, because Jones was not engaged in the active discharge of his lawful duties as a peace officer at the time of the assault, the conviction must be reversed. See generally, Hutto v. State, 53 Ala.App. 685, 304 So.2d 29, cert. denied, 293 Ala. 758, 304 So.2d 33 (1974); Curlin, supra; and Williams v. State, 45 Wis.2d 44, 172 N.W.2d 31 (1969)..."

Robinson v. State, 361 So. 2d 1113 - Ala: Supreme Court 1978
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3172416731589915101&q=moonlighting&hl=en&as_sdt=4,1




"... The clear import of these cases is that when an off-duty police officer witnesses a criminal offense or suspects criminal activity, the officer's status changes and, from that point on, he is considered to be acting in his capacity as a police officer and not in his capacity as a private citizen, i.e., he is considered to be "on duty." ...

Johnson v. State, 823 So. 2d 1 - Ala: Court of Criminal Appeals 2001



Even if Clayton had witnessed a crime while moonlighting as a security guard for the credit union, he was not acting as a peace officer before seeing a crime being committed. If Tulley is guilty, then Clayton is guilty of the very same crime he charged Tulley with committing.
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
154
Location
Central Alabama
eye95,
"...It was the carry itself that is the violation of the law. It would be nice if -52 gets tossed because of this case. Unfortunately, I think the only possible value of -52 has just been clearly illustrated."


I believe you are clearly wrong.


The scope of the Alabama statutes forbidding the carrying of pistols onto property not one's own or under one's control has been defined by our state's court of last resort since 1911:

"...Said section 2 is not violative of section 26 of the Bill of Rights, as it merely prevents the carrying of arms for offensive purposes, and does not deprive a person of the right to bear arms in defense of himself or the state." (See: Isaiah v. The State.[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 176 Ala. 27; 58 So. 53; 1911 Ala. LEXIS 401 June 30, 1911, Decided )



Jason Tulley did not enter the credit union for "offensive purposes". He entered the credit union while armed with a pistol for his own defense to conduct legitimate business there.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
You have a great point if -52 is Section 2. Is that demonstrable? A continuous, unbroken lineage from the statute called "Section 2" and today's "-52"?

BTW, well formed argument in those two posts! Thanks for that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
154
Location
Central Alabama
The history line that appears in the current version of the statute appears as follows:

(Acts 1919, No. 204, p. 196; Code 1923, §3487; Code 1940, T. 14, §163; Code 1975, §13-6-122.)


The history of our current state constitution, the supreme law of our state, includes a Declaration of Rights that dates back to its ratification in 1901:

"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."



Our courts tell us that they make every attempt possible to uphold a statute without violating our constitutions. Our constitutions do not protect the bearing of arms for OFFENSIVE purposes. The former statute was upheld by our state's court of last resort only on those grounds.


Here's how they have explained it more recently:



"In Monroe v. Harco, Inc., 762 So.2d 828 (Ala.2000), this Court restated the long-standing rules governing the review of an act of the Legislature under constitutional attack:

"`In reviewing [a question regarding] the constitutionality of a statute, we "approach the question with every presumption and intendment in favor of its validity, and seek to sustain rather than strike down the enactment of a coordinate branch of the government."' Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So.2d 156, 159 (Ala.1991) (quoting Alabama State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1, 9, 18 So.2d 810, 815 (1944)). Moreover, `[w]here the validity of a statute is assailed and there are two possible interpretations, by one of which the statute would be unconstitutional and by the other would be valid, the courts should adopt the construction [that] would uphold it.' McAdory, 246 Ala. at 10, 18 So.2d at 815. In McAdory, this Court further stated:

"`n passing upon the constitutionality of a legislative act, the courts uniformly approach the question with every presumption and intendment in favor of its validity, and seek to sustain rather than strike down the enactment 973*973 of a coordinate branch of the government. All these principles are embraced in the simple statement that it is the recognized duty of the court to sustain the act unless it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that it is violative of the fundamental law.'
"246 Ala. at 9, 18 So.2d at 815 (citation omitted). We must afford the Legislature the highest degree of deference, and construe its acts as constitutional if their language so permits. Id."
762 So.2d at 831..."


Quoting: Kirby v. State, 899 So. 2d 968 - Ala: Supreme Court 2004

link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...+an+act+of+the+Legislature"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,64
 

ALOC1911

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
70
Location
Troy, AL
Clearly, we are not seeing the whole video. What else happened? Where is the arrest? What else led up to it?

How can a prosecutor claim, even in arguments, that it took twenty minutes if there were such clear evidence of it taking only 35 seconds, without an objection from the defense being upheld? May we see the whole recording?
I, as well as 49er, was at this hearing. You are not seeing the whole vid as Jason started it as soon as he saw there was going to be a problem but there's not much worth seeing missing. The reason for the discrepancy in the times of the vid and the time the prosecutor claimed is either because she's a liar and tried to pad her case, which was the weakest most ridiculous thing I've ever heard from a "prosecutor" in my life, or someone just really got some facts mixed up. I'm putting my money on the first one. Her whole case was based around "legislative intent". She claimed the legislature erred in a statute that states "everything outside this title that has no penalty listed in it shall be hereby classified as a violation......" or something very close to that. The problem with her case was that what he's charged with is inside that title not outside of it like the statue she claims says. Therefore she says the legislature erred and was supposed to say everything inside and outside this title to include the statute he's charged with. I thought the whole court room was bust out in laughter, including all five judges, when one judge says to her something very close to "so what you're saying is the legislature has made a mistake for all these and was supposed to include everything inside and outside this title so this charge would be included...." and she pauses for a second and says ......yeah. I thought I wasn't going to be able to control myself. He sort of shakes his head a little, looks down and starts writing something. I swear no doubt in my mind my 15 yr old daughter could've presented a better arguement than she did. It was seriously pathetic and Jason's defense literally tore her apart.
 

ALOC1911

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
70
Location
Troy, AL
As spelled out in the various attachments the arrest occurred days later after the officer checked with someone about what happened, it was determined there was probable cause to arrest for a crime, and a warrant for such was issued. I don't know if there were any details about how the arrest went down. The accused may have simply been notified and surrendered himself to authorities.
This is pretty much it right here. Jason left the bank and went to the police station to see the chief about one of his officers violating his rights. I believe he spoke with the captain or some other higher up officer and that person agreed with the officer at the bank that OC is not legal and that only officers can OC. He left his email address with them and about 3 days later he got an email saying a warrant had been issued for his arrest and they'd appreciate if he'd turn himself in within the next few days. So he did.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I, as well as 49er, was at this hearing. You are not seeing the whole vid as Jason started it as soon as he saw there was going to be a problem but there's not much worth seeing missing...
Please let me be the judge of whether what is missing is of any value to my forming an opinion. If the video continues to him getting in his car and leaving, THAT would be of value.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...You are not seeing the whole vid as Jason started it as soon as he saw there was going to be a problem but there's not much worth seeing missing...
That is the entire video.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any wonder why I am wondering what really happened?

Did he stop the video at the door? Is the raw video only 41 seconds long?
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
154
Location
Central Alabama
Jason has taken the time to share his video and the court documents associated with his case for all to see on a thread at BamaCarry. No need to repost all of it here.

If anyone is interested in reading the documents there, the forum is open for viewing and you don't have to register to view the thread. Feel free to register and join in the discussions and information sharing there if you like.


Here's the link:

http://www.bamacarry.com/forum/in-t...jason-dean-tulley-vs-the-city-of-jacksonville



The prosecutor filed a motion to correct the record of her oral arguments before the Court. Her version of what took place is explained in that document at the following link:

http://www.bamacarry.com/media/kunena/attachments/336/TulleyMotiontoCorrectRecordonOralArgument2.pdf

Jason's explanation of his questioning of the officer's authority to restrict his right to bear arms is proven by the video to have been very brief and accurate.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No. If anyone wants to communicate with me, or the others who will have nothing to do with BamaCarry (at least the current incarnation of it), they should post it here. Anyone looking for indignation from me would want to do that, unless the real goal is to promote that other site.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

49er

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
154
Location
Central Alabama
No. If anyone wants to communicate with me, or the others who will have nothing to do with BamaCarry (at least the current incarnation of it), they should post it here. Anyone looking for indignation from me would want to do that, unless the real goal is to promote that other site.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

This thread is not about YOU and your attempts to sow discord.

My invitation was made to ANYONE who wants access to the information that was made available by a man who believes in defending our right to bear arms.

The information is available, no strings attached, ... take it or leave it.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The information is only available if folks are willing to visit your site. That is an old marketing ploy, and not a genuine attempt to disseminate information.

If you discuss the event here, common courtesy dictates that you provide the relevant information. Otherwise, you are just hawking your site and fishing for members. That is a despicable misuse of someone's misfortune.
 

BluesStringer

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
30
Location
Madison, AL
The information is only available if folks are willing to visit your site. That is an old marketing ploy, and not a genuine attempt to disseminate information.
I just checked the link and the only one posting in that thread is Jason Tulley himself. He is attempting to disseminate his own information as and where he sees fit.

There is an Admin's note at the bottom of each one of his posts that says, "The administrator has disabled public write access." I've never seen that specific note before on any forum, and since I'm not a member there I can't test the theory that it is most likely akin to "Comments disabled by Admin." If you click on the link, you will only be exposed to the information that you claim to seek, with no other commentary or discussion in the thread, and your powers of self-control should be sufficient to guard against being sucked into whatever nefarious goings-on you imagine taking place throughout the rest of the site.

If you discuss the event here, common courtesy dictates that you provide the relevant information. Otherwise, you are just hawking your site and fishing for members. That is a despicable misuse of someone's misfortune.
He told you where to find the info you claim to seek which has been posted by the someone who is suffering his own misfortunes.

Some of the info is Jason's own "work product." Court documents, letters, emails etc. are his to share or not how and where he chooses. He chose to upload .pdf files of the documents, plus link to his own video in a watchable format at BamaCarry. There is zero "use" of anyone's misfortune except that which the sufferer of the misfortune has chosen to provide for informational purposes to anyone truly trying to discern what happened the day of the encounter, and what's happened in, and related to, the subsequent court hearings.

Personally, I thank Jason for posting the info anywhere that I can peruse and evaluate for myself. Since I was unaware of the BamaCarry site, I thank 49er and ALOC1911 for pointing the way to information that not only interests me, but directly effects me since I am a resident of the Great State of Alabama. Thanks guys.

Blues
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
In case someone thinks that I am not a resident of the Great State of Alabama, make not mistake about it, I am.

I still own a home in Montgomery, and my wife still lives in that house. I also have a home in Ohio and spend most of my time there.

I was a charter member of ALOC before it imploded.

I was a charter member of BamaCarry, before a certain individual absconded with the name.

If you ever OC in Montgomery, and the police don't even stop you anymore, you're welcome.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,729
Location
Granite State of Mind
No. If anyone wants to communicate with me, or the others who will have nothing to do with BamaCarry (at least the current incarnation of it), they should post it here. Anyone looking for indignation from me would want to do that, unless the real goal is to promote that other site.
Translation:

 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I would be very interested in hearing about what happened, in seeing the documents produced by the defendant, and the arguments of the prosecutor.

What I won't do is participate in any way in that site for which one man robbed the movement of the site name because he claimed ownership of it. That is precisely the mindset that destroyed ALOC.

Unfortunately, the person with the information is more interested in forcing folks to visit the site than he is in getting the word out. I simply won't care about his predicament if that is his approach.

Too many people are about site-building, organization-building, and empire-building, and not about forwarding the movement for Liberty.

BTW, your post is ignorant and rude.
 

BluesStringer

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
30
Location
Madison, AL
I would be very interested in hearing about what happened, in seeing the documents produced by the defendant, and the arguments of the prosecutor.
Simply untrue. You know where the documents are. Peruse them at your leisure if you're interested.

What I won't do is participate in any way in that site for which one man robbed the movement of the site name because he claimed ownership of it. That is precisely the mindset that destroyed ALOC.
Your attempts to draw people into such petty and irrelevant disputes, when all they want to do is evaluate for themselves what the evidence and other facts of the case reveal, is appallingly rude in this thread that is about a case, not about a fight between individuals that have nothing to do with the case.

Unfortunately, the person with the information is more interested in forcing folks to visit the site than he is in getting the word out. I simply won't care about his predicament if that is his approach.
And what evidence, pray tell, might you be in possession of that shows what Jason Tulley "is more interested in," or tends to demonstrate in any way that he even knows a single thing about the dispute that you're so obsessively focused on?

Too many people are about site-building, organization-building, and empire-building, and not about forwarding the movement for Liberty.
Even if everything you say about BamaCarry were true, you are unfairly broad-brushing Mr. Tulley as being complicit with the site's umm....what? Sins against you? The audacity to conduct their business their way(s) instead of yours? I can't even imagine what nefarious motivations you might fantasize Jason Tulley having for choosing to make BamaCarry the repository of documents relating to his case. I found the first public rumblings about it at ALOC shortly after the original event, and followed his case there over the next year or so. I have no idea why he stopped posting there, and literally could not care any less. All I care about is following the case and supporting him any way I can to get his unlawful conviction overturned. Petty disputes between website owners is the last thing I want to have to deal with when looking for information about the case, and fomenting argument about such things on a completely unrelated website among people who, just like me, are only looking for good, reliable and accurate information, is anything but "forwarding the movement for Liberty." It is about distracting from Jason Tulley's case to wield whatever axe you have to grind where people are just looking for information on it.

I really don't care if you are interested in Mr. Tulley's case and documentation or not, but I'll thank you to grind your axe where it isn't distracting for people who are.

BTW, your post is ignorant and rude.
I guess this is directed either to me or KBCraig, but either way, in light of your conduct in this person-specific, case-specific thread that you have waged a completely off-topic war of words within, you talking about manners and/or ignorance is beyond impertinence. Kindly stop it.

Blues
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Simply untrue. You know where the documents are. Peruse them at your leisure if you're interested.
And I have explained why I won't go there. It is a matter of principle. Again, if the person were truly interested in getting the word out, he'd post the information here instead of just using this site to advertise the other.

Your attempts to draw people into such petty and irrelevant disputes, when all they want to do is evaluate for themselves what the evidence and other facts of the case reveal, is appallingly rude in this thread that is about a case, not about a fight between individuals that have nothing to do with the case.
I don't care whether others get involved. I will still point out the horrific anti-Liberty behavior exemplified by the theft of the name from the movement.

And what evidence, pray tell, might you be in possession of that shows what Jason Tulley "is more interested in," or tends to demonstrate in any way that he even knows a single thing about the dispute that you're so obsessively focused on?
The fact that he won't post the information here, but will simply allow this site to be abused for his personal purposes.

Even if everything you say about BamaCarry were true, you are unfairly broad-brushing Mr. Tulley as being complicit with the site's umm....what? Sins against you? The audacity to conduct their business their way(s) instead of yours? I can't even imagine what nefarious motivations you might fantasize Jason Tulley having for choosing to make BamaCarry the repository of documents relating to his case. I found the first public rumblings about it at ALOC shortly after the original event, and followed his case there over the next year or so. I have no idea why he stopped posting there, and literally could not care any less. All I care about is following the case and supporting him any way I can to get his unlawful conviction overturned. Petty disputes between website owners is the last thing I want to have to deal with when looking for information about the case, and fomenting argument about such things on a completely unrelated website among people who, just like me, are only looking for good, reliable and accurate information, is anything but "forwarding the movement for Liberty." It is about distracting from Jason Tulley's case to wield whatever axe you have to grind where people are just looking for information on it.

I really don't care if you are interested in Mr. Tulley's case and documentation or not, but I'll thank you to grind your axe where it isn't distracting for people who are.
I was a part of the original BamaCarry and watched the theft of the name. So what I say is true, whether you choose to believe it or not. If you don't like the reaction of a member of OCDO, then I suggest that y'all don't come over here and abuse this site. If you are truly interested in Tulley's case and want to discuss it here, then post the relevant information here.

I guess this is directed either to me or KBCraig, but either way, in light of your conduct in this person-specific, case-specific thread that you have waged a completely off-topic war of words within, you talking about manners and/or ignorance is beyond impertinence. Kindly stop it.

Blues
It was directed at him. While I disagree strongly with your POV expressed in this post, you did not do so rudely. Just strongly. And you can tell that I have no problem with strongly expressed views. I will just strongly rebut them. The other poster was, however, behaving like an ass.

Not moving on until and unless those wanting to discuss this case here, post the relevant information here, when I will discuss the case, or move on completely, at my discretion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 
Top