Judiciary Committee hears mixed comments on concealed carry bill
State sheriffs on Wednesday opposed legislation backed by gun rights groups that would allow people to carry concealed handguns in public without obtaining a state permit. The bill by Republican Sen. Gerald Allen of Tuscaloosa would do away with the current state requirement to obtain a concealed carry permit. During a Wednesday public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, proponents called the permits an infringement on a person’s right to carry a firearm while opponents called the proposal a threat to public safety. “We have a constitutional right to protect ourselves, our families, our properties without paying a small fee, a tax, for a permit,” Allen said. The National Rifle Association backs the bill and says 16 states have approved some version of permitless carry, sometimes dubbed “constitutional carry” by supporters. Sheriffs say the permits are a tool for law enforcement officers to apprehend criminals, stop crimes and protect communities. Montgomery County Sheriff Derrick Cunningham said currently when criminals see a law enforcement officer they will toss a weapon and run. If the permit requirement is abolished, they will carry that weapon without concern. “That permit is a tool. If we apprehend somebody that doesn’t have a permit, we are able to remove that person off the street,” Cunningham said. “We see a lot of blood on the streets but at the same time this bill right here will increase that. Right now, we are taking that tool away from our law enforcement officers.” Members of the group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America also opposed the bill known as Senate Bill 4. “SB4 is a dangerous proposal and I ask that you vote against it,” said Judy Taylor of Moms Demand Action. Todd Adkins, state director for the National Rifle Association of Alabama, defended the measure. “The premise of SB4 is that law-abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves,” Adkins said. Allen predicted many people would still continue to get the permits, for ease of traveling across state lines and other reasons. Judiciary Committee Chairman Cam Ward said the committee will vote on the bill next week. Allen has proposed the bill for several years, but the legislation has stalled in the House of Representatives amid concerns from law enforcement. “This bill will start in the House of Representatives in 2020 if we don’t get a resolution this time,” Ward said.
Senate committee set to vote on lottery bill
Lawmakers are headed to a vote on lottery legislation next week, as supporters aim to change Alabama’s status as one of the few states without the games. The Senate Tourism and Marketing Committee is scheduled to vote Tuesday on one of two rival lottery proposals introduced this session. Senate President Pro Tempore Del Marsh said his hope is to get a bill before the full Senate on Thursday. If a bill is approved by both chambers, the proposal would go before Alabama voters. “I honestly think we are going to pass a bill,” Marsh told The Associated Press when asked to gauge the outlook for the legislation. “I really believe the people of the state want a chance to vote on it.” The Senate committee, which Marsh chairs, is scheduled to consider a bill by Republican Sen. Greg Albritton of Atmore that would limit a lottery to paper tickets. A rival bill by Republican Sen. Jim McClendon, which would also allow electronic games at state dog tracks, was not listed on the committee agenda. Albritton said he wants to limit games to a “paper lottery” because he said that is what most people envision when they think of a lottery instead of the video terminal. He said he was cautiously optimistic, but said the bill was not a “slam dunk.” “Now that Mississippi and everyone else around us has a lottery, it’s difficult for us to face our constituents and say, “No we are not going to let you have a lottery,” Albritton said. McClendon said he was disappointed that his bill was not scheduled for a vote. “My bill, number one, makes more money — a lot more money — and it creates a lot more jobs for the state of Alabama,” he said. The lottery debate will reignite longstanding disputes over who can operate electronic gambling machines in the state and concerns about the consequences for existing gambling operations if state gambling law is changed. Some lawmakers have sought to ensure that state dog tracks can have video lottery terminals. In recent years, the state has seized electronic bingo machines at the tracks, arguing the slot machine lookalikes are not what was intended by state laws authorizing bingo. The Poarch Band of Creek Indians offer nearly identical games at three casinos in the state but the tribe does not fall under state jurisdiction. If approved by the Senate, the bill will then move to the Alabama House of Representatives. House Speaker Mac McCutcheon said Friday that representatives are in a “wait and see mode” to see what comes out of the Senate. Alabama is one of five states — along with Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, and Nevada — without a state lottery. State voters in 1999 rejected a lottery proposed by then-Gov. Don Siegelman. Former Gov. Robert Bentley in 2016 unsuccessfully proposed a state lottery in response to a state budget crisis. The Alabama Senate approved a lottery bill that year, but the support fell apart after the House of Representatives added language limiting the games to paper tickets so that video lottery terminals would not be allowed. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Nations strictest abortion law sent to House floor for a vote
Alabama lawmakers on Wednesday advanced one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the nation, a measure that would make performing an abortion a felony with almost no exceptions. The House Health Committee voted to send the bill to the House of Representatives floor. The vote came after a sometimes emotional public hearing as women on both sides described their past decisions with abortion and opponents protested outside the Statehouse. The legislation is in direct conflict with the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, and almost certain to be enjoined by the lower courts if enacted. But proponents say their goal is to spark a court case that could lead the Supreme Court to revisit abortion rights. “In 1973, the Supreme Court made a decision that legalized abortion. In my mind, what that does is kills an unborn child,” Republican Rep. Terri Collins said. “I think fighting to overturn what I believe was a bad decision that allowed people to kill unborn children is worth a fight,” Collins said. The bill would make performing an abortion a felony, punishable between 10 and 99 years in prison, although a woman would not be charged for having the procedure. The legislation contains an exemption when there is a serious risk to the mother’s health, but not for rape and incest. The committee approved the bill on a voice vote over the objections of Democrats. Opponents said the proposal is clearly unconstitutional and the legal fight would cost the state money that could be spent on other needs. “In my opinion, this is a waste of taxpayer dollars that could ultimately go to addressing those real issues,” said Rep. Neil Rafferty, a Birmingham Democrat. The hearing drew deeply personal testimony from women who spoke either of their decision to have an abortion or their relief that they chose not to. Rachel Bryars described the panic of an unplanned pregnancy at 22 that resulted in her now 14-year-old daughter. Bryars said she could “barely fathom how she might have been erased from existence had I followed our culture’s advice.” Jenna King-Shepherd, who volunteers as an escort at an abortion clinic, described accompanying a 12-year-old rape victim who would have been forced to continue her pregnancy if abortion had been illegal. Emboldened by new conservatives on the Supreme Court, abortion opponents in several states are seeking to incite new legal fights in the hopes of challenging Roe v. Wade. The Alabama bill comes on the heels of several states considering or approving bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which occurs in about the sixth week of pregnancy. Staci Fox, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast, said the proposed abortion bans are “blatantly” unconstitutional. “It’s hard to understand that their goal is anything but a political win for themselves as conservatives. If they really cared about women, they would be doing something other than focusing on this time and time again,” Fox said. As the hearing concluded, supporters of abortion rights held a rally outside the Statehouse. Some demonstrators dressed as characters from the “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which depicts a dystopian future where women are forced to breed. The legislation, if approved, would also act as a so-called trigger law taking effect to outlaw abortion if the Supreme Court ever gives states control of abortion. The debate comes as Alabama asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal over another attempted abortion restriction. The Alabama attorney general appealed a decision that struck down Alabama’s attempt to ban a commonly used second trimester abortion procedure. Justices have not announced whether they will hear the case. Republished with permission of Associated Press.
