Alabama Amendment 3 Passes with 72 Percent of the Vote

Gun Watch ^ | 6 November, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

One of the constitutional amendments up for a vote in 2014 was Amendment 3 in Alabama.  The amendment was intended to strengthen the already strong protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the Alabama Constitution.   The wording to be replaced seems clear:

Text of Section 26:
Right to Bear Arms

“	That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.[1][2]

But courts in some states have claimed that the right to bear arms in defense of self was, in fact quite limited, either to location, such as only in the home, or to circumstances, such as only when under immediate identifiable threat.   Other courts have said that such language is subject to low standards of judicial review, such as rational basis, or intermediate scrutiny, which allow legislatures to infringe on and limit rights that courts have deemed to be less than fundamental.

To prevent such judicial downgrading of what most Alabamans' considered to be  a clear and fundamental right, Amendment 3 was designed to change the State Constitution to direct courts to treat the right as fundamental and to apply strict scrutiny as the correct judicial standard.

Opponents of the issue stated that the language was already clear, and that applying current judicial verbiage only opened the door to weakening of constitutional protections in the future.   Here is the wording of Amendment 3:

"(a) That every Every citizen has a fundamental right to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

(b) No citizen shall be compelled by any international treaty or international law to take an action that prohibits, limits, or otherwise interferes with his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state, if such treaty or law, or its adoption, violates the United States Constitution."^[4]

Alabama voters overwhelmingly accepted the intent to box in the judiciary with the language of Amendment 3.   It passed with over 72% of the vote.  With 98% of the precincts reporting, it had 72.5% of the vote.   The exact number will be available in a day or two.

Alabama follows on the heels of a Missouri amendment that passed with 61 percent of the vote, which continued the trend of Kansas and  Louisiana.   The Louisiana measure passed with 74% of the vote; the Kansas amendment passed with 88% .  Wisconsin was the last state to add an amendment, instead of strengthening an existing one.  The Wisconsin amendment passed in 1998 with 74% of the vote.    It is clear that legislators are listening to grassroots support of these efforts. 

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

I understand the concerns with changing constitutional wording. The problem is that the courts have not been upholding the plain existing wording, by following decades of "progressive" precedent.

The new wording voids those decades of precedent.

[plain talk]

I know there is the school of thought that the alabama constitution his bloated with way too many amendments etc etc. Lots of local amendments and crap in there. However I voted yes for this one.

[blam]

Another amendment that passed yesterday:

Alabama Joins Wave of States Banning Foreign Laws

[Sasparilla]

Fundamental right = God given right.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

I did, too. Got a flier from the NRA.

[supercat]

The problem is that the courts have not been upholding the plain existing wording, by following decades of "progressive" precedent.

Indeed so. I wish that state constitutions would make explicit some things which shouldn't need saying, including the principle that activities which are unlawful or unconstitutional can by definition form no part of a government agent's legitimate duties, and that any protections which would extend to government agents in the furtherance of legitimate duties cannot apply when the agents in question are acting unlawfully.

Government agents who enforce statutes which are later shown to be illegitimate should have no more protection than ordinary citizens who do something which they reasonably believe to to be lawful, but which turns out not to be (citizens generally have less protection in such cases than they should; requiring those in government to extend such protections to the citizenry if they want them for themselves would likely cause citizens to be better protected).

[backwoods-engineer]

This article is so good, and I’m so happy about our ballot measure passing, that I’ll forgive ya for calling us Alabamians “Alabamans”!

[backwoods-engineer]

I know there is the school of thought that the alabama constitution his bloated with way too many amendments etc etc. Lots of local amendments and crap in there.

I was just discussing this today with two native Alabamians. I'm not native, but I got her as quick as I could ;-)

[backwoods-engineer]

I know there is the school of thought that the alabama constitution his bloated with way too many amendments etc etc. Lots of local amendments and crap in there.

I was just discussing this today with two native Alabamians. I'm not native, but I got here as quick as I could ;-)

[marktwain]

Thanks for the kind words. I will correct “Alabamans” where I can.

Can’t do it on freerepublic. Against policy.