Understanding Calhoun County local amendments: bingo halls and police jurisdiction
When Alabamians get to the polls on Tuesday, Nov. 6, voters in some counties will see local amendments on the ballot. Here’s a look at what residents of Calhoun County need to know about two local amendments they’ll see on the ballot: On the ballot: PROPOSED LOCAL AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (1) Relating to Calhoun County, proposing a local amendment to Amendment 508 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, authorizing the operation of bingo games for prizes or money in the county; and to prohibit any bingo permittee or licensee from operating bingo near a residential area. (Proposed by Act 2017-81) Vote: Yes/No What it means: If passed, the amendment would ban bingo halls from operating within 3,000 feet of any residence. On the ballot: PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO (2) Relating to Calhoun County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that any territory in Calhoun County outside of the corporate limits of a municipality would not be subject to the police jurisdiction or planning jurisdiction of the municipality if the municipality is not located entirely in the county and to provide an exception for the City of Oxford. (Proposed by Act 2018-17) Vote: Yes/No What it means: If passed, the amendment would restrict cities that straddle the county (Southside, Glencoe, maybe Piedmont) from being able to exercise police jurisdiction within the county. Only cities that lie entirely within Calhoun County would have police jurisdiction in the county. Sample ballot Click out the Calhoun County sample ballot: Front side | Back side Don’t live inCalhoun County? Find your county’s sample ballot here.
Richard Shelby slams Barack Obama over “misguided and dangerous” executive order
U.S. Senator Richard Shelby Tuesday called on President Barack Obama to reverse an executive order he claims is “misguided and dangerous” and has resulted in two unarmed, tracked armored vehicles being taken from the Calhoun County Sheriff’s Office last week. For over 20 years, under the federal government’s 10-33 program, the Department of Defense has distributed surplus military equipment and vehicles to local law enforcement across the county, including the Calhoun County sheriff’s department. Last Wednesday, the federal government forced Calhoun County sheriff Larry Amerson to return two 10-33 vehicles. According to a statement from the sheriff’s office, the vehicles were first obtained from the federal government after a mentally ill person shot three Anniston police officers in 2001 and other officers had no protection to remove the injured from the area. “Time and time again, President Obama abuses the authority of his office by making unilateral decisions through executive fiat,” explained Shelby. “From his attempts to grant executive amnesty to illegal immigrants and his plans to allow Syrian refugees to resettle in the United States, to his decision to take away vehicles from local law enforcement in Calhoun County, it is clear that this president is more interested in scoring political points than ensuring the safety of our citizens.” “We live in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world, and we cannot allow President Obama to prioritize protecting those trying to do us harm over those trying to protect us. I will continue to fight against this flawed, irresponsible executive action that expands Washington’s influence in our communities and weakens local law enforcement’s ability to protect us.” Obama made the change to the long-standing policy and issued the executive order following civil unrest in Ferguson, MO after the shooting of teenager Michael Brown when local police deployed a number of military-style vehicles to defend against civilian protesters on the city streets. “We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people the feeling like there’s an occupying force,” President Obama explained. “As opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them.” Obama believe that type of equipment “can alienate and intimidate residents and make them feel scared.”
State Supreme Court won’t revisit open-carry rule
The state’s highest court will not hear a challenge to an Alabama law allowing residents to openly carry firearms, according to an announcement last week. The Alabama Supreme Court issued the denial in response to a challenge brought by the City of Jacksonville, after a man convicted of violating a state law which prohibits “carrying a pistol on premises not one’s own or under his control” was exonerated by the high court, which also struck down the law as constitutional. A Calhoun County man named James Dean Tulley was confronted by a security guard outside a bank in Jacksonville while carrying a gun, which led to Tulley’s original charges. The Supreme Court reversed that conviction in September and denied Jacksonville’s appeal last week, making the ruling final, for now. The City of Jacksonville asked the court to re-hearing the case. In a written brief to the court, the cit agreed with the justices that the law is unconstitutional. They argued, however, the court should not make their ruling retroactive and affirm Tulley’s conviction. The nine-member panel denied the city’s request for a new hearing and upheld their reversal of the conviction under the law. J.D. Lloyd, an attorney for Tulley, said he believes the ruling represents the end of the review for both the case and the law. “Everything should be over. I’m not sure what the City’s going to try to do, but Jason should be done for good with this case. There’s really nothing else that they can do,” he said.
