A county sheriff in Alabama is pushing for legislation to amend the state’s constitutional, or “permitless,” carry law as it applies to young adults under the age of 21.

According to a report at al.com, Mobile County Sheriff Paul Burch is gathering information to try to get legislation introduced requiring a permit for 18- to 20-year-olds. The state passed constitutional carry legislation in 2022, making it the 25th state where lawful adults can practice their Second Amendment rights with no government red tape or fees.

According to the news site, Burch apparently thinks an uptick in armed violence among youth in his county is at least partially attributable to the constitutional carry law. And he even admits that criminals manage to get gun despite existing laws.

“I agree with the argument that the people committing these crimes will get a gun regardless of what the law said,” Burch said. “But right now, we don’t have the ability to take it from them.”

It’s kind of hard to understand Burch’s point, since an 18- to 20-year-old who has a gun but is not a criminal or committing a crime should not have his or her firearm taken away in the first place. That’s what the Second Amendment guarantees—the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Still, Burch is hopeful his idea will gain some traction in the Republican-majority legislature next session.

“Common sense comes along with this,” he told al.com. “But when you got a group of people riding around at 2 in the morning with multiple guns in the car, there is no good intention there.”

Never mind the fact that most hunters have at one time ridden around at 2 in the morning with multiple guns in their vehicle and had no nefarious intent. Additionally, Burch’s proposal simply doesn’t make sense because Americans, including Alabama citizens, are free to ride around at 2 in the morning with multiple guns in their vehicle if they aren’t committing a criminal act.

Obviously, if they are committing crimes with those guns, they should be arrested and prosecuted. But if they aren’t, it’s none of Burch’s or anybody else’s business where they are or what they’re doing.

Burch seems to want to be able to make some kind of preemptive strike so that if he finds an 18-, 19- or 20-year-old with a firearm he can take that gun from them. But multiple courts have ruled that those young adults have the same constitutional rights as those who are 21 and older, whether Burch likes that fact or not.

In the end, most Alabamans will be surprised if anything comes of Burch’s suggestion. Plus, the new executive director of the Alabama Sheriffs Association, Huey “Hoss” Mack, recently told al.com that sheriffs have accepted the law.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

80 COMMENTS

    • For all of the issues that will be argued this is ultimately the point. If you want less dangerous young adults with guns raise them to be safe and knowledgeable with firearms as that seems a better use of classroom time than 57 whatever genders. Want fewer gangs? Stop encouraging single parent families and outsourced low skill entry level jobs. The rest tends to be easier to sort out when people have families and a stable income/future.

        • Send drug dealers to prison for income tax evasion. Since they said to tax pot like tobacco. Because they said they wanted the government to make more money.

          And shoot drug addicts DRT. When they rob the innocent. And break into or damage private property. While trying to steal in order to pay for their drugs.

          And eliminate all welfare for anyone using drugs.

          Then you are make legal any drug you want.

          • ,Dope was all legal and otc before 1905.

            Now cartels control our borders, mafias/gangs control our streets, and corrupt politicians see closet marxism as a path to supreme power. The effect on the justice system has been quite significant, and trending worse.

            Surely even you can connect those two dots.

            We are losing, bigly. Figure a better way, or die a slave.

            • Somehow I don’t think it will work out the way you envision for most drugs beyond marijuana. Addiction will still lead to overspending and crime to feed the habit. There will always be cheaper criminally profitable drugs (see cocaine byproducts in Brazil)) and erratic dangerous behavior will still get people killed. Besides if anything it would probably just push human trafficking to new highs for profit margins. There are schedule 1 and 2 drugs that should be downgraded especially for potential therapeutic value but for many reasons even outside the political hot potato no way in hell

              • “Addiction will still lead to overspending and crime to feed the habit. There will always be cheaper criminally profitable dope”

                Factually and historically incorrect. Fact: the thirstiest morphine addict in the world can be supplied for less than a dollar a day, production and distribution.

                The classics are agricultural products, and cost little more than corn to produce in a legal environment. It can be argued that price inflation is WHY they are illegal.

              • You ever been around meth heads for protracted amounts of time? If they remember you and think you may have something valuable it can be a problem. Less so for the opioid re potential violence but same burglary/theft issues. Hard drugs come with hard consequences.

              • Why would someone who can be kept comfortable with usp quality for a dollar a day need to steal?

                Theft by addicts was not a problem during 1827-1905 time span.

                While I agree opioids are more easily managed than meth, the same principle applies. Nobody was stealing to get speed in the 50s and 60s when it was cheap and semilegal – lots of stealing done by folks who were high, tho. Including some done to buy blackmarket opioids.

              • Guessing not so much? Ok lived down the road from a methadone clinic (and still work near one) and even after their free hit they still steal shit and occasionally rob people to get more money to buy heroin. The concentration of drugs over a century ago are laughably low compared to today even before one considers fentanyl. Look into spending on narcan to get an idea of how prevalent that one is. Finally the supply chain of opium to this country from then to now was lacking to the point laudanum was the typical available dose as the opium wars focused sales to China. The better historical comparison would be 19th century China in the worst of the opium wars and even then the scale of the problem does not find good parallels.

      • You beat me to it. You are so correct. The father was removed and replaced by a government welfare check.

        The children were not getting private family discipline. They are getting discipline from big atheistic government.

        • One part of the problem (big one yes)….. unfortunately it is a multiple variable equation and each issue has been made into political third rails.

  2. I hate to admit it, but I see his point. Eighteen-year-old soldiers have to apply, be admitted, and go through Basic Training. All these kids have to do is be born.

    • “Eighteen-year-old soldiers have to apply, be admitted, and go through Basic Training. All these kids have to do is be born.”

      Individual states set themselves up for this, and they should pay the price. If a person aged 18 and over is declared an adult, then, as adult, they can do all the things an adult aged 45 can do. An adult is an adult, or isn’t. So far, no one has created laws that make one some sort of legally semi-adult.

      We went through this crap in the 1960s. Young people wanted to legally buy booze and vote, but had no interest in being held legally responsible for other actions, like contracts and personal expenses, and dumb decisions.

      18yr old military recruits are entering specialized trades, not exercising 2A rights. Those same recruits are eligible to exercise their 2A rights when off-duty, just like non-soldiers. The military recruits can simply not be recruited, and be allowed to exercise their 2A rights. The comparison between the two groups of 18yr olds doesn’t hold.

      • I don’t know how old you are, but I am glad you are not my parent or the arbiter of my Constitutional rights.

        • RE: Steve Eisenberg “I hate to admit it, but I see his point. Eighteen-year-old soldiers have to apply, be admitted, and go through Basic Training. All these kids have to do is be born.”

          Admitting you are as ignorant as the sheriff must have been difficult. Do you actually believe pre constitutional carry snot nosed criminals ever said to themselves, “You know I best not carry around a gun cause that’s illegal.” Do you actually believe said snot nosed criminals could cite the Second Amendment? Answer the questions.

          There is no connection whatsoever to constitutional carry butthead. The sheriff is the kind of azzhat who had a problem with Constitutional Carry before the law was passed and he is looking to make himself look like he was right to fudds like you.

      • Sam,

        Totally agree (and I think the discussion of “what is an adult” is worth having), but . . . if you are an “adult” for one purpose, you should be an adult for ALL purposes.

        And I agree that noobs SHOULD get training before exercising their 2A rights . . . just like I think people should have to demonstrate that they are sentient, and somewhat aware of current events, in order to vote. I just simply don’t believe that MY preferences should necessarily be legislated into reality.

        A person who doesn’t get gun safety and gun handling (at least basic) training is a moron. But, then, so is a person who diligently goes out to vote every election, without bothering to have a basic understanding of current events (from multiple points of view). Unfortunately, I see no justification (other than practical) for depriving morons of their inherent rights. You have a RIGHT to be a moron, even if it is not a desirable outcome.

        I keep hoping Darwin is going to show up and thin the herd.

        • “…but . . . if you are an “adult” for one purpose, you should be an adult for ALL purposes. “

          My point precisely.

          I was put off by the comparison of recruits at 18, and non-recruits at 18.

          The sheriff wants there to be exceptions to being an adult at 18.

        • Lamprey sez:

          “A person who doesn’t get gun safety and gun handling (at least basic) training is a moron“

          And when that person can carry a gun that means we have authorized morons with guns.

          I just don’t see more ‘morons with guns’ as a good thing for our society, do you?

          • MajorLiar,

            I don’t see allowing complete, total, mouthbreathing IDIOTS like you to VOTE, either, MajorMistake . . . but I don’t advocate to deprive you of your right to vote, you incredible SIMPLETON. “Rights” are rights, or they are nothing. Some people (with an IQ of room temperature or above) actually understand that . . . too bad it is beyond your ken.

    • Steve Eisenberg You may see his point, but you are not seeing the Constitution.
      My sons carried as soon as they could legally in Missouri, 21 and later 19.

    • You have a point to make? Please make it. I owned firearms for 5 years, before I was old enough to join the military. I didn’t apply to the military for permission to have weapons, I joined the Navy for the purpose of serving my nation, and sometimes, that meant carrying a weapon. But, I was already carrying weapons. Can you understand that? Being a veteran doesn’t bestow the right to carry weapons. Being an American bestows that right.

      • I owned my first firearm at 9 years old. Yes owned, it was my responsibility to use safely, clean and be kept put away when not in use. I bought my first rifle at age 15 with my own $$$ at the local Western Auto store. It was a Marlin 336 30-30. I walked in told the owner what I wanted he took it off the rack behind the counter put it in the box, gave me a box of shells gratis and I purchased another. When properly raised by responsible parents who have a high expectation of proper behavior on your part. Age has title to do with being old enough. To do a lot of things.

        • I would willingly trust my son with a real firearm but I wouldn’t trust his cousin (who is several years older) with a nerf gun.

        • I love when boomers go off on these tangents about how they could do this and that when they were toddlers, totally ignoring the fact that they purposely denied that ability to those of us who came after.

          Your generation truly cannot go soon enough.

            • Some in my age group have parents that are part of antifia and did everything they could to push gun control. Depending on region boomers can make up the majority of the antigun push so for much of New England I would guess it can be a valid criticism of the age bracket. With that said it is also a stupid division that is used by multiple parties to keep the electorate in conflict and unable to cooperate.

          • We didn’t deny you anything, you’re generation is unable to take care of yourselves. We Boomers may have fucked up in one regard, we ate too many lead paint chips when we were kids and it caused us to have brain-damaged, whiney, know-it-all, entitled, pussy, brats for offspring.

        • @Darkman. I couldn’t recall when my folks gave me my first firearm, so I called my Dad. He said I was 8 or 9. Remington 870 Express, youth model 20 gauge. He gave me my Marlin 25n at 12. Same rules as you had, I had to keep it clean and oiled and stored, in his gun safe, but it was MY gun. Lo and behold! Never hurt another human being with any weapon, and my safe handling of firearms is impeccable. And it’s not like I’m special, is my point.

    • This is always a stupid position.

      As if basic training is a panacea to the drive to murder people for drug territory, perceived dis-ra-spekt, street cred, to impress some chickenhead ho or just because you’re the type or moron who thinks feeding a bad check into an ATM then withdrawing the sum is a “life hack” and not a crime.

      Waking up early, marching a lot and scoring Marksman is not in any way applicable to willful and deliberate criminal use of a firearm.

      If what people making this argument really mean is that shipping away troubled and fatherless kids to have some form of self-worth beaten into them for 16 weeks may reduce their urge to act like criminal shitbags then maybe I can get on board but simply saying “muh basic training” as a solution to criminal firearm use is too shallow to be meaningful and the number of 18-21 year olds who do not go out and commit criminal acts with firearms is evidence enough of this.

  4. I have riden around in a car at 2am while armed more times than I can count. Maybe they should pass a law that prevents his deputies who work 3rd shift from carrying firearms in their patrol vehicle or on their person in the interest of public safety because that’s exactly what he’s wanting to do to the citizenry

  6. Point missed-
    These young men were riding around with guns before the law was passed and will do so after the law he proposes is passed. Makes no difference.

      • xerxgibberish…And democRats like you are upset because Reagan left the Rat Party. When it comes to the 2A Reagan wasn’t up to speed nonetheless he was light years ahead of the democRat Party as are TRUMP/VANCE 2024.

  9. According to the news site, Burch apparently thinks an uptick in armed violence among youth in his county is at least partially attributable to the constitutional carry law. And he even admits that criminals manage to get gun despite existing laws.

    Technically speaking, he’s probably correct for some minor percentage of people. Not that the law *caused* them to do this but that the previous instantiations of many of these laws allowed cops to relieve *sketchy* people of a gun for somewhat nebulous reasons that were in the eye of the beholding LEO.

    That’s a sword that cuts both ways. A 20 year old who’s up to no good may lose a gun but so does the 20 year old who isn’t up to no good and just works late. In the former case, a violent crime may be prevented to delayed and in the latter a victim may be minted. Hard to know until after the fact.

    The real question here, IMHO, is how much leeway you want to give LE to make judgement calls about things like this. Again, it can go both ways. Good LEOs will generally make good calls while the rules can also be used by bad LEOs to abuse the innocent.

    My default answer to this question is “When it comes to citizen’s rights the answer is ZERO leeway to the LE because it WILL be abused by someone”.

    Freedom comes with certain hazards but the hazards imposed by tyranny are nearly always worse by orders of magnitude.

    • strych9,

      “Freedom comes with certain hazards but the hazards imposed by tyranny are nearly always worse by orders of magnitude.”

      And there you have classical risk management in practice.

      Freedom pretty much guarantees (call it 100% probability) that people will commit more violent crimes, perhaps twice as many violent crimes, when freedom rather than tyranny is the order of the day. That constitutes some overall level of risk. On the flip side, there is a smaller probability (perhaps 1%) that tyranny results in the government murdering millions of its “citizens”. That constitutes some different overall level of risk. Due to the potential catastrophic outcome of tyranny murdering millions of citizens, that overall level of risk is substantially higher than freedom.

      • Given that tyranny shifted, pretty much worldwide, from dictatorial to totalitarian in the 20th century and has remained so, the risk is much higher than 50%.

        Probably more like 80%.

  10. All I read was Mobile county has a Sheriff they need to vote out of office either you’re an adult at 18 or you’re not. TN had to concede that 18 to 20 year olds being excluded from permitless carry was illegal.

  11. Hes wanting a way to take the firearms of “kids driving around at 2am with a car full of them”. He says it should be applied with common sense, as in not giving good guys any trouble. He even names some examples. For what its worth.

        • Technically, he was the best.

          Considering how his death was announced, I see no reason to doubt that he truly has passed.

        • Hmm, the day before that video dropped, and not knowing anything more than anyone else did, for some reason I wanted to watch several of his older videos. I traded a couple hours for a trip down memory lane, and I thought, one of these days there will be one that I won’t want to watch, and then the very next day… I’m gonna miss his common sense approach to, well, most everything.

          • When I discovered him six, or so, years ago, it became a Saturday morning routine to watch one of his videos. I emailed him a few times, and he took the time to answer every single one.

      • Oh carrying a gat. I had a wife & son at 20. Lot’s of adult responsibility. My eldest son will be 50 next month. He joined the army at 18. Carried gunz in the middle east. A prick cop in Alabama doesn’t like that. Probably has Jim Crow as his hero🙄

  12. On any given day there are at least 3 guns in my car. That’s not counting the one on my waist. The time of day isn’t relevant. And unless the person is committing a crime, why do you need to take their weapon??? You don’t. You have a right as a peace officer to take their weapon if they committing crimes. No other reason. This guy needs to take some lessons from the guy in Florida.

  14. I know that correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but has anyone noticed that about 90% of the anti-gun weirdness occurs in areas that are close to, or right on, large bodies of water? Mobile is one of the many. Even St. Louis, Memphis (on the Mississippi river), and Chicago to name a few, and of course DC, and New York, and from Seattle to San Diego. And Houston & New Orleans. Then there’s Hawaii and Florida. Seems to me that proximity to large water bodies must have something to do with it. 🙂

    • gunnygene,

      What you noticed is that weirdness occurs in populated urban areas, with the causal factor being that Democrats have run those areas and instituted anti-family and anti-responsibility policies and laws for decades. That is the root cause of the weirdness.

      For reference those populated urban areas are almost exclusively on bodies of water because navigable waterways were the key to urban growth and sustainability over 100 to 200 years ago (and to some extent still to this day with modern marine shipping).

      Off the top of my head, I can only think of three large urban population centers that are not on significant rivers, lakes, or oceans: Dallas Texas, Denver Colorado, and Phoenix Arizona. Note that rapid growth in all three of those areas probably coincides with the extensive development of railways as well as roadways and automotive transportation.

      The point being that large urban population centers require some sort of relatively inexpensive and significant transportation capacity. Long ago that meant waterways. Not too long ago, that meant railways. And most recently, that means highways.

  15. “I agree with the argument that the people committing these crimes will get a gun regardless of what the law said,” Burch said. “But right now, we don’t have the ability to take it from them.”

    What a stupid statement!

    • Correct, the sheriff wants to take the guns simply because they have them and NOT because they have committed any crime nor have they done anything wrong.

  16. If, as a society, we believe that young adults are inadequately prepared to handle firearms responsibly, then let us institute mandatory firearms safety and proficiency training throughout the education system. Including live fire! Every young adult should have sufficient firearms training to defend this nation should that be necessary.

  17. What this particular Sheriff is forgetting is most of the youngsters committing violent crimes are either coming from broken homes/families or involved in other criminal activities. Either committing crimes to support a drug habit, committing crimes to protect their drug business, or committing crimes because of the thug/criminal culture spawned by gangs and drug trade.
    Way too many young people have never had a positive male role model in their lives because of the progressive/leftist/dementiacrat agenda/programs. Toss in a decline in religious belief, big daddy government taking the place of fathers in the household and a variety of other government sponsored foolishness and this is the result.

    • Legalize what they fight over, they fight less, and the fighting will less intense. Turf will still be important, but the cash flow will be *sharply* reduced.

  18. What I don’t get is, there’s a town called “Mobile” BUT IT JUST SITS THERE IN ONE PLACE!

    Never goes >>anywhere<<.

    Bizarre!

  19. “But when you got a group of people riding around at 2 in the morning with multiple guns in the car, there is no good intention there.”

    We know what “that group” of people looks like. The problem with this and all other unconstitutional rules is that the good get caught in laws designed to catch the bad.

    What happens when the country dance hall lets out at 2:00 AM and a bunch of young people get into their trucks….with guns…and simply want to go home?

    This Sheriff wants to be able to arrest them all.

  20. The sheriffs in Alabama Don’t give a crap about nothing but money!!.. Some of them, to pay for condos in Orange Beach!.. Otherwise, they would offer a free permit.. Because the background checks are done on taxpayers time.. Be not fooled!!

  21. Cries forTraining? The state issues a driver’s license to a teen and the teen and a carload of pals hit a tree and all are dead. Should we use the tragedy to knee jerk deny motor vehicles to those under 21 or do we consider the same sht can and does happen to all age groups?

    Schools are not teaching the hard facts about responsiblity, liability, Emergency Rooms, courtrooms, jail, etc. That’s because democRat political correctness, gender affirmation, woke and taylor swift are much more important. It boils down to sneaky Control Freaks like the sheriff needing an endless supply of fukups to pass legislation.

  22. I find it odd in the extreme that AMERICA allows 18 year old’s to carry KILLING MACHINES and not allow them to have sex or drink alcohol before they are 21 in some States I have never seen the connection either between POLITICS and FIREARMS control in the USA. In most of the Civilised World Firearms Controls are not even a matter of POLITICAL DEBATE but are for the JUDICIAL PROCESS to deal with . The same applies to ABORTIONS which are a matter for the individual, not the Government but there are stringent REGULATIONS in place at least in the UK concerning Abortions as well, Not in the sense of BANNING them but in the sense of TIME LIMITATIONS and Health ISSUES . No doubt these are obtainable on-line.
    I also have personal experience of the long lasting MENTAL and PHYSICAL repercussions Abortions can have on the individuals concerned so let me say that though I do not deny the rights of the individual I would consider Abortion to be a kind of last resort not to be repeated and not just a method of BIRTH CONTROL when there are less onerous methods available .

    • Prince Albert, the Fake-Brit, Fake-military Lying, wanking Poofter,

      No, we’re quite CERTAIN that you don’t understand the entire concept of ‘inherent rights’ – Gawd knows YOU pathetic sods have never had them!! For the simple-minded (that would be YOU, and MajorMoron), if a person is an “adult” for one purpose (say, for example, driving a car (16 in most states, younger in some, and MUCH younger for driving farm vehicles), or voting (18), or drinking alcohol (21), or getting an abortion (just about ANY age, in many states). Or to “transition” at 13, WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT (in fact, there are numerous cases of parents being DEPRIVED OF CUSTODY for not ‘consenting’ to mutilation and permanent sterilization.
      ‘Splain to me, Loosey, the rationale for accepting the “adulthood” of a 16 year old to drive a car (a DEADLY WEAPON, by the way), but not to vote? Or the right to VOTE (exercise the ‘sovereign franchise’), but NOT to buy alcohol? Wait, lemme think this through . . . I’m too immature to control my drinking, but you’re going to ALLOW ME TO VOTE, or drive a car?????

      Like all Leftist/fascist idiots, you are bomfozzlingly stupid. Please go expire in an excavation, and improve the overall intelligence of the human race.

Comments are closed.