The proposed amendment is here in the column (linked, too).
There’s really no argument on this. The wording is clear. Whereas you once had the unalienable, un-tamperable, unrestrictable right to keep and bear arms, this amendment allows for restriction—under “strict scrutiny,” of course.
Alabama may have a pro-gun state government right now, but in the future, what do you suppose the “strict scrutiny” of any restriction by someone just like Eric Holder would look like?
You are full of nonsense on this. What does Holder have to do with what happens in Alabama? Strict scrutiny is the best friend the right to keep and bear arms has ever had. If you lose that, and it’s NOT in the Alabama 1901 Constitution now, and these gun grabbing judges will rule that the state’s interest of “safety” is compelling over our rights EVERY TIME.
Except that, in practice, you didn't. Courts were applying tests setting the bar far far lower than "unalienable", and the rulings stuck. In other jurisdictions where RKBA should be a slam-dunk, we're seeing millions of dollars spent over decades just to creep very slowly toward holding "unalienable" on the right. That some restrictions exist on any/all enumerated rights is a longstanding standard at this point, making the "strict scrutiny" the minimum norm (like it or not).
If you're subject to prosecution under some gun control law, you're not going to have application of that law held to the "inalienable" standard; more likely you're going to get hit with "intermediate" or even "public interest" or some such, and will wish the "strict scrutiny" proposition had passed.
I understand your concern. Really. My standard line is "those not persuaded by clear words will not be persuaded by more words." I'd rather the proposition use "inalienable" instead of "strict scrutiny", but you're not going to get that passed by popular vote, nor get it established in court in your lifetime.
If Alan Gura supports it, you'd be wise to follow his lead. He's done more to advance gun rights than anyone of late, understands the law way more than any of us put together, and knows what's possible & the strategy required to get there.
If we can get "strict scrutiny" into law, then we can advance it to "inalienable" when the time is right. Sometimes incrementalism is required, and the "strict scrutiny" step is the biggest you're gonna get.