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

[Kirbinator]

A memo has been released regarding the circuit court's decision of Tulley v Jacksonville

 

[OC for ME]

In Tulley's case, however, it is undisputed that the pistol he was carrying was unconcealed on his person and not in a vehicle. The language of § 13A-11-73 simply does not address an individual carrying a pistol unconcealed on his or her person. Thus, there is no conflict in the instant case between § 13A-11-52 and § 13A-11-73, and C.D.J. and K.J. are not controlling here.

So, does this case mean that there is no law that controls OC because OC is not explicitly mentioned?

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that these judges contorted themselves to the nth degree to affirm the trial judges decision. OC ain't mentioned so the case law about where you can and cannot carry is moot.

 

[Kirbinator]

The Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts itself inasmuch as it does not recognize Section 89 of the state Constitution of 1901:

SECTION 89: Municipalities not to pass laws in conflict with general laws of state.
The legislature shall not have power to authorize any municipal corporation to pass any laws inconsistent with the general laws of this state.

In the opinion, they note that the law was modified through action of the state legislature, and completely ignored State V Reid. So the point of view of the CCA is that the state repealed the punishment, but the city's ordinance is some how legal despite the existence of then 11-80-11 and 11-45-1.1 barring the city from having any laws regarding guns.

This case is nothing short of a travesty and a miscarriage of justice. Two judges erred on the above point alone.

 

[Tony_B]

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that these judges contorted themselves to the nth degree to affirm the trial judges decision. OC ain't mentioned so the case law about where you can and cannot carry is moot.

This is what I wrote some nine months ago after seven months had already passed waiting on this so-called 'opinion.' I bold and underline the relative portion that relates to your post above where the bold and underlining wasn't in my original post. It's for emphasis only.

I've never heard of it taking 16 months, give or take, for an opinion to be released from any court other than the U.S. Supreme Court. Either this appeals court is incompetent (likely) or wholly corrupt (more likely), or both (the most likely scenario). The accused followed the officer's instructions and returned the firearm to his private conveyance during the incident giving rise to this case.

In the new legislation passed August 2013, as I understand it (have read the text of that Bill four times through so far), it appears that the most one could get is a trespassing charge if, as pertains to this case Mr. Tulley hadn't returned and secured his firearm in his conveyance and had stayed inside with it holstered, but a prosecutor can always bring additional charges, change them, and in almost all cases will stack charges. And they just love to do that, after the fact, if the man or woman being prosecuted is known to be politically incorrect, or has engaged in some issue or movement that the state wants to crush such as an armed citizenry.

They sure are taking their time to issue the opinion. I don't think I've ever seen it take so long for any opinion to issue. Roughly seven months so far. Taking this long leads me to believe that there might be some act of sophistry taking place to excuse a clear and direct attack of an Inalienable Right. I'm of the opinion that anyone not lawfully barred from possessing firearms may carry concealed or open without having to first seek the permission of a city, county, state, or any other individual or body to exercise said Right.

America is little more than an open air, free range prison and police state and the courts at all levels and in all states including the District of Columbia will maintain the status quo for the foreign owners of the United States (federal government) at all costs. Here's how you can tell an enemy of America "who hates us for our freedom:" they are dual citizens who are politicians, pundits, etc. reshaping America into what they believe is a utopia, but is nothing short of a communist police state for this particular group created communism itself. I'll leave it to you to determine which other nation they give their true loyalty to and which group that I'm speaking about. They have been behind every destructive movement in America since at least 1865 when they were known as Carpet Baggers for which General Grant himself issued General Order No. 11. They created all of the movements that end in "isms" and that pit one group against another for their benefit (communism, feminism, etc.).

You figure it out as I don't wish this post to be deleted. I predicted the outcome of this case some nine months ago as I've been through that meat grinder on more than one occasion for asserting and defending my Inalienable Rights and will go down, if I go down, doing just that.

EDIT: I wish to add that Mr. Tulley's mortal, physical body is in fact "on premises of his own or under his control" upon which he was carrying a lawfully owned firearm. Who other than Mr. Tulley owns Mr. Tulley's body and controls it? Is the term "premises" defined by the legislature in the original statutes upon which §13A-11-52 of the Alabama Code 1975 is based? There is a societal presumption that everyone knows what words mean, but when it comes to legislation and the law, the legislature can define green to mean pink for the purposes of a given statute or section thereof.

I can engage in the art of sophistry better than any court, judge, or lawyer ever imagined possible. And when you get right down to it, without the appearance of sarcasm or facetiousness, it was in fact Mr. Tulley's body (his own premises under his own control) upon which he lawfully openly carried his holstered firearm. Again, my reading of the newly passed SB-286 would make it at most a trespassing charge under the same circumstances assuming Mr. Tulley refused to return to his conveyance of choice and properly secure his firearm before returning to the credit union.

 

[BamaCarry]

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Upholds Conviction

In an unpublished memorandum, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on Friday, February 28, 2014 upheld the conviction of BamaCarry member Jason Dean Tulley. Tulley held a valid pistol permit and carried his holstered pistol openly on his side in his own defense as he conducted business in Jacksonville, Alabama. He was confronted as he entered the building by an off-duty police officer who also carried a holstered pistol openly on his side as he performed his moonlighting job as a security guard. Tulley offered to leave and the off-duty officer/security guard ordered Tulley to put the weapon in his vehicle or go to jail. Tulley briefly stated that his order was unconstitutional, but then complied with the order.
Tulley was emailed a warrant for his arrest 4 days later and was charged with violating 13A-11-52. The charges were later changed to a City of Jacksonville Ordinance No. O-514-0, which adopts § 13A-11-52, Ala. Code 1975. The local ordinance forbids a person from carrying a pistol “about his person on premises not his own or under his control”, and defines a violation of the local ordinance as an offense against the City of Jacksonville. The statute contains an exception for a “police officer of an incorporated town or city in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office”. The off duty officer/moonlighting security guard was not charged.

Tulley was convicted in the Jacksonville Municipal Court, where he was ordered to pay a $50 fine and $200 in costs. Tulley appealed to the Calhoun County Circuit Court and filed two motions to dismiss the charge against him; the circuit court denied both. Following a trial without a jury, Tulley was convicted and sentenced to 30 days imprisonment and ordered to pay court costs and a $200 fine. The circuit court suspended Tulley's 30-day sentence and placed him on six months’ probation. Tulley then appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
After nearly a year of deliberation, the Court released its “unpublished memorandum”. The Court determined that the penalty defined by the local ordinance of the City of Jacksonville was enough to sustain the validity of the statute, although Section 104 of the Constitution of Alabama 1901 prohibits local ordinances “fixing the punishment of crime”. 11-45-1.1 Subject Matter of handguns reserved to State Legislature also prevents
the city from adding a penalty. Even Governor Patterson’s interpretation of the law as Attorney General was found by the Court to be wrong, yet the Court determined through its bizarre line of reasoning that the statute on which the ordinance was based was not unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

The exceptionally long memorandum amounts to “no opinion” under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, and has “no precedential value” even though it has the effect of affirming Tulley’s conviction. However, it sets precedence for cities to enact their own laws. This is very dangerous for gun owners! You could potentially become a criminal by simply crossing into a different city.
Mr. Tulley and his family relied on all the government officials involved in his case to support the clear language of our Declaration of Rights, Article I, Constitution of Alabama 1901 as each of them swore before God to do in taking their constitutional oaths of office. Tulley believes they failed to do that when they violated his right to bear arms for defense of himself.
Mr. Tulley and his family along with his fellow members of BamaCarry support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of Alabama 1901 and continue to rely on our on it as the supreme law of our nation and our state. We urge you to support their endeavors to submit the case to the Alabama Supreme Court.
A fund has been set up to support Mr. Talley’s very expensive Alabama Supreme Court challenge. For more information please visit Bamacarry.org or Facebook: BamaCarry

Donations can be sent to via PayPal to the following address: Jason.tulley@gmail.com

BamaCarry (a non-profit corporation) exists to educate and inform Alabama Citizens concerning their rights protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama. BamaCarry centers on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We strive to restore, protect and maintain these Rights, given us by our Creator and protected by our Constitution, by educational programs and legal means if necessary, We proudly defend the Constitutional Rights of Alabama Citizens to carry a weapon in defense of Self and State.

 

[Tony_B]

Mr. Tulley was "emailed a warrant?" Emailed? Really? Are you kidding me?

If I were sent such an emailed "presentment" (so-called 'arrest warrant,' ticket, threat of arrest, etc.) by email I would return it by registered postal mail with signature required to the clerk or office from which it came for REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR demanding they produce their authority for issuing such an emailed presentment in the first place. Specifically demanding that they produce and send me a SWORN AFFIDAVIT BY THE MAN OR WOMAN WHO SWORE OUT THE WARRANT AND PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT ARREST WARRANT BASED UPON THAT SWORN AFFIDAVIT WITH A JUDGE'S SIGNATURE ON IT. That affidavit puts the one who made those statements under oath on the hook for CIVIL DAMAGES as well as all of those involved in such a scam when said scam is exposed for what it truly constitutes.

The last thing you'd want to do is give them any authority that they don't actually possess by voluntarily complying and giving one's consent to their emailed presentment. I've never heard of such a thing. I'm glad it wasn't me, but God help the people who e-mail me such nonsense. They'll be flooded with more legal paperwork than they have ever seen and curse the day they tried to pull such a scam. This whole damn legal system is corrupt and illegitimate.

If they had any case at all a competent court with a competent judge would have signed an arrest warrant based upon a sworn affidavit by someone who was injured or harmed by Mr. Tulley's behavior and a sheriff's deputy would have gone to Mr. Tulley's home and arrested him.That's the way it's suppose to work. That's the law. Mr. Tulley walked right into their trap. He provided his consent to his own prosecution and likely doesn't even realize it.

If they had any authority at all to act against Mr. Tulley they would have sent him notice by registered mail or had a deputy arrest him at his home as described above. They had nothing and those who prosecuted him are nothing but criminals and thieves. And I'm being nice with those descriptors.

You see that when he acknowledged and gave consent to the 'email warrant of arrest' that gave the court and prosecutor the jurisdiction they didn't otherwise have and could only obtain through trickery and deceit. He was then charged with a bogus violation of some state code. This proves my above statements that they had no jurisdiction until Mr. Tulley provided it by responding to and legitimizing that bogus emailed 'arrest warrant' and consented to be a defendant in their STAR CHAMBER.

Best wishes to Mr. Tulley. Appears the state gave him a free colonoscopy with his consent and at this point it's a done deal. It should have been handled by addressing the bogus emailed warrant of arrest. What utter ********. I have never heard of such garbage in my life.

In an unpublished memorandum, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on Friday, February 28, 2014 upheld the conviction of BamaCarry member Jason Dean Tulley. Tulley held a valid pistol permit and carried his holstered pistol openly on his side in his own defense as he conducted business in Jacksonville, Alabama. He was confronted as he entered the building by an off-duty police officer who also carried a holstered pistol openly on his side as he performed his moonlighting job as a security guard. Tulley offered to leave and the off-duty officer/security guard ordered Tulley to put the weapon in his vehicle or go to jail. Tulley briefly stated that his order was unconstitutional, but then complied with the order.
Tulley was emailed a warrant for his arrest 4 days later and was charged with violating 13A-11-52. The charges were later changed to a City of Jacksonville Ordinance No. O-514-0, which adopts § 13A-11-52, Ala. Code 1975. The local ordinance forbids a person from carrying a pistol “about his person on premises not his own or under his control”, and defines a violation of the local ordinance as an offense against the City of Jacksonville. The statute contains an exception for a “police officer of an incorporated town or city in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office”. The off duty officer/moonlighting security guard was not charged.

Tulley was convicted in the Jacksonville Municipal Court, where he was ordered to pay a $50 fine and $200 in costs. Tulley appealed to the Calhoun County Circuit Court and filed two motions to dismiss the charge against him; the circuit court denied both. Following a trial without a jury, Tulley was convicted and sentenced to 30 days imprisonment and ordered to pay court costs and a $200 fine. The circuit court suspended Tulley's 30-day sentence and placed him on six months’ probation. Tulley then appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
After nearly a year of deliberation, the Court released its “unpublished memorandum”. The Court determined that the penalty defined by the local ordinance of the City of Jacksonville was enough to sustain the validity of the statute, although Section 104 of the Constitution of Alabama 1901 prohibits local ordinances “fixing the punishment of crime”. 11-45-1.1 Subject Matter of handguns reserved to State Legislature also prevents
the city from adding a penalty. Even Governor Patterson’s interpretation of the law as Attorney General was found by the Court to be wrong, yet the Court determined through its bizarre line of reasoning that the statute on which the ordinance was based was not unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

The exceptionally long memorandum amounts to “no opinion” under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, and has “no precedential value” even though it has the effect of affirming Tulley’s conviction. However, it sets precedence for cities to enact their own laws. This is very dangerous for gun owners! You could potentially become a criminal by simply crossing into a different city.
Mr. Tulley and his family relied on all the government officials involved in his case to support the clear language of our Declaration of Rights, Article I, Constitution of Alabama 1901 as each of them swore before God to do in taking their constitutional oaths of office. Tulley believes they failed to do that when they violated his right to bear arms for defense of himself.
Mr. Tulley and his family along with his fellow members of BamaCarry support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of Alabama 1901 and continue to rely on our on it as the supreme law of our nation and our state. We urge you to support their endeavors to submit the case to the Alabama Supreme Court.
A fund has been set up to support Mr. Talley’s very expensive Alabama Supreme Court challenge. For more information please visit Bamacarry.org or Facebook: BamaCarry

Donations can be sent to via PayPal to the following address: Jason.tulley@gmail.com

BamaCarry (a non-profit corporation) exists to educate and inform Alabama Citizens concerning their rights protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama. BamaCarry centers on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We strive to restore, protect and maintain these Rights, given us by our Creator and protected by our Constitution, by educational programs and legal means if necessary, We proudly defend the Constitutional Rights of Alabama Citizens to carry a weapon in defense of Self and State.

 

[Kirbinator]

Let's just say Jacksonville is a small town and once contact was made with "management" it became easy to notify Mr. Tulley.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather get an email before a man shows up on my doorstep. Because at that point, if he sees me or knows I am inside, he can kick the door in. (Of course, that's one of the arguments about the entire process as it is -- it's entirely too adversarial. People need to get affairs in order.)

 

[49er]

Done deal? Volunteered to be prosecuted?

I don't think so.

The Alabama Supreme Court is the court of last resort in our state. Tully intends to give the court of last resort a chance to honor our constitutions.

 

[Tony_B]

Let's just say Jacksonville is a small town and once contact was made with "management" it became easy to notify Mr. Tulley.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather get an email before a man shows up on my doorstep. Because at that point, if he sees me or knows I am inside, he can kick the door in. (Of course, that's one of the arguments about the entire process as it is -- it's entirely too adversarial. People need to get affairs in order.)

Excuse me but an e-mail is not a valid warrant with attached signed affidavit. If you respond to an e-mail without having in your possession a copy of the signed affidavit and subsequent warrant then shame on you for being so stupid. You walked right into a trap.

If they actually had a proper case they would have not sent that e-mail and gone to the man's home and effected a proper arrest. That's Alabama law.

Show me any Alabama Statute where an e-mail notification is sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings for any alleged criminal act in Alabama. The fact that he was e-mailed leads me to believe there was no case until the accused responded to the e-mail.

I'd rather have a proper arrest with a proper affidavit and warrant based upon that affidavit. Was the man in this case sent a copy of the affidavit and warrant in the e-mail? If not, it is a done deal. Nothing will change and he will have that ridiculous conviction from now own although it's not his records, but theirs. I generally don't care what they put in their records as long as they leave me alone to Pursue Happiness.

 

[Tony_B]

Done deal? Volunteered to be prosecuted?

I don't think so.

The Alabama Supreme Court is the court of last resort in our state. Tully intends to give the court of last resort a chance to honor our constitutions.

If you consent to a prosecution and agree to be a defendant by responding to an e-mail notification instead of a proper arrest warrant with attached, signed affidavit IT IS a done deal. Forget the Supreme Court as they are going to uphold this conviction if they even decide to entertain it at all. I hope I'm wrong, but think not.

By responding to the e-mail he consented to be a defendant. As above I'll ask you, was he also sent a copy of a valid warrant and required signed affidavit along with that e-mail? Anyone know?

 

[Kirbinator]

By responding to the e-mail he consented to be a defendant. As above I'll ask you, was he also sent a copy of a valid warrant and required signed affidavit along with that e-mail? Anyone know?

Cite, please.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

Cite, please.

+1. I'd love to know how to withhold said consent.

 

[Primus]

+1. I'd love to know how to withhold said consent.

What that's not how it works? I thought you had to consent to getting charged and prosecuted. You can just say "haven't checked my email sorry" lol



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Grapeshot]

What that's not how it works? I thought you had to consent to getting charged and prosecuted. You can just say "haven't checked my email sorry" lol



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Many things are considered "delivered" even if only "sent" via regular mail. Don't know if the same would apply to emails, but I suspect it well might.

Civil process: Can't make personal service face-to-face? Nail to door if address is known or mail to last known address otherwise. Good faith attempt has been made.

Criminal process: I've always understood required direct contact with the pricipal actor, the person being charged. Witnesses not so much.

Different states, diffierent statutes and rules though.

 

[BamaCarry]

Jason was emailed that a warrant for his arrest had been issued. He was asked to turn himself in. He called an attorney and was advised to just go to the station. Jason had to think about his family. How would you feel if your Dad was arrested on the side of the street while walking you to school?

 

[BamaCarry]

2nd Opinion from the Court of Criminal Appeals... Guilty .. 3-2 vote

Guilty

 

[FTG-05]

Well that sucks!
:banghead:

 

[Kirbinator]

Same errors as before. Next stop, ALSC! :banana:

 

[BamaCarry]

The supreme court has agreed to hear the Tulley case.

 

[Kirbinator]

Let freedom ring!:banghead::banana: