logo
Alabama legislative committees give mixed reception to gun violence bills

Alabama legislative committees give mixed reception to gun violence bills

Yahoo13-02-2025

Left to right: Alabama Senate President Pro Tem Garlan Gudger, R-Cullman; Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter, R-Rainsville and Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey applaud during a press conference at the Alabama State Capitol on Feb. 12, 2025 promoting a law enforcement package in the Legislature. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
A handful of bills targeting gun violence made it through Alabama House and Senate committees Wednesday as Gov. Kay Ivey held a press conference with mayors, legislators and law enforcement officials urging the passage of a public safety package.
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees approved a bill that would make it a state crime to possess devices that can enable semi-automatic firearms to fire like automatic ones; a bill to expand the number of people who can be denied a gun license, and a bill allowing people to voluntarily surrender firearms.
Ivey and legislators said they plan to make the package — which also includes legislation expanding immunity for police officers and attempts to improve police officer recruitment — a priority in the current session.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'Clearly, Alabama is committed to combating public safety threats,' Ivey said at a press conference on Wednesday to urge passage of the bills. She also said that the package of bills that were proposed before the start of the session is 'a prudent step to accomplish the goals.'
However, some firearm bills before the committees were delayed, in part due to protests from gun rights groups.
The Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning approved SB 116, sponsored by Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, that would make it a state crime to possess or distribute firearm conversion devices, commonly referred to as 'Glock switches,' which enable semi-automatic pistols to fire as fully automatic weapons.
The Judiciary Committee approved the bill in a bipartisan vote, following testimony from Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin, who urged lawmakers to take action against the devices. Birmingham police say Glock switches were used in a mass shooting in Birmingham's Five Points neighborhood last September that left at least four people dead and 17 injured.
'There are too many grieving mothers who have lost their child because of the use of these machine gun devices. Too many children have lost parents because of these machine gun conversion devices,' Woodfin said to the committee.
Glock switches are already illegal under federal law. The bill would allow state and local law enforcement to bring charges under Alabama statutes rather than relying on federal prosecution.
Committee members said the change would give local authorities greater enforcement power against violent crime.
Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, spoke in support of the bill, saying that it's time to 'move our laws into the 2025 year' and adapt to changing technology.
'That's the number one thing we've got to do, get control of our communities, get control of our streets, and get control of these situations,' he said.
Sen. Sam Givhan, R-Huntsville, said he is concerned the bill's wording is confusing, particularly language stating that a firearm 'can be readily restored' to fire automatically.
'What I don't want is everybody that owns a Glock that is… you know, this thing can be twisted to make that criminal,' Givhan said. 'And so I think what we need to do is, I don't know how the exact language [should be], but we need to clarify that being readily restored does not mean just simply adding the Glock switch.'
Sen. Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, said that the bill was needed after the state eliminated the requirement for concealed carry permits in 2022. Singleton said that weakened law enforcement's ability to combat gun violence.
'We just can't stop and ask them about their guns. If the police had that tool in that toolbox, maybe along with that, we will have a better tool to be able to stop them before they get to that point,' Singleton said.
The committee also approved SB 119, also sponsored by Barfoot, that expands the categories of those prohibited from having firearms.
State law prohibits firearm possession by those convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or a violent offense, or are the target of a valid protection order because of domestic abuse or suffer from a mental illness. The bill would expand that prohibition to people charged with a crime of violence; a misdemeanor domestic violence offense; or a violent offense and was released pending trial.
It also enhances the penalty for people convicted of firing into a building with people. Currently, those convicted of that offense face a Class B felony, punishable by up to 20 years in jail and a fine of up to $30,000. The bill would make it a Class A felony, punishable by a life sentence in prison.
Both measures head to the full Senate for consideration.
The House Judiciary Committee approved HB 216, sponsored by Rep. Russell Bedsole, R-Alabaster, that allows individuals to enter into an agreement with people who have a federal firearm license to take possession of their firearms for a specified time if they believe they are a threat to themselves.
It also provides civil immunity for local law enforcement and people with a federal firearm license when they take ownership of people's firearms. Bedsole said his legislation will eventually be part of a program called the Safer Together Program that will be formalized in the future.
'This program is designed to target any of those individuals who are experiencing suicidal ideations and who feel it is in their best interest, if they surrender their weapon, that it can be secured in a secure facility set up under the guise of this program,' Bedsole said. 'They can surrender it and get it back whenever they want.'
The bill allows license holders, particularly those who have stores that sell guns, to go into the community and discuss the program that allows people to surrender their firearms.
'What this bill does is pave the way,' he said. 'It offers some liability protection, specifically related to the returning of the firearm to that individual who has voluntarily surrendered it when they come to get it back.'
Two firearms bills were scheduled for discussion in the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee but not debated. HB 150, sponsored by Rep. Phillip Ensler, D-Montgomery, prohibits people from giving a 'deadly weapon' and ammunition to those they believe are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Those who do could be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,000 fine.
HB 103, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile, would effectively require firearm owners with children living in their home to safely store their weapons. A child who brought an unsecured weapon to a school could lead to Class A misdemeanor charges for the parent, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,000 fine.
The House Judiciary Committee also delayed a vote on HB 58, sponsored by Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, that would make it a Class A misdemeanor to not tell a police officer a person was in possession of a firearm during a stop.
The bill that ended concealed carry permit requirements in 2022 included a provision that requires people to inform law enforcement when they are carrying a firearm. But the Alabama Attorney General's Office said in a May 2023 opinion that that part of the law is unenforceable because the requirement did not have an accompanying penalty.
Gun rights groups protested the proposal.
'We believe that people should not be compelled to provide potentially self-incriminating information to law enforcement, and in situations where a person is carrying a concealed firearm and is pulled over and asked the question, they may be reluctant to share information out of fear that it could lead to unnecessary scrutiny or lead to criminal charges, even if they are legally carrying a firearm,' said Kelby Seanor, state director for the National Rifle Association.
He also said the NRA also had concerns that the bill infringes on the Second Amendment because it creates a criminal penalty for people who are legally carrying a firearm.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's $1,000-per-baby investment accounts: What to know
Trump's $1,000-per-baby investment accounts: What to know

The Hill

time8 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump's $1,000-per-baby investment accounts: What to know

President Trump has lauded the House-approved spending bill for the 'pro-family initiative' tucked inside the legislation, which creates investment accounts for newborn babies. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy,' Trump said at a Monday event at the White House that touted the accounts. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' lays out rules for the Trump accounts. To qualify, a child must be a U.S. citizen, born within the next four years to at least one parent with a Social Security number. The money could be withdrawn starting at age 18. Here's what you need to know about the proposed federal program: Under the current bill text, the program would be available to families of all income levels, with babies born after Dec. 31, 2024, and before Jan. 1, 2029. A one-time $1,000 contribution would be provided by the Treasury Department and deposited into a diversified U.S. stock index fund or its equivalent. Families, guardians and private entities will be able to contribute no more than $5,000 per year to the account. An estimated 7 percent return on the $1,000 would compound to roughly $3,570 over 18 years, according to the Associated Press. The legislation does not provide a limit on the amount of money a nonprofit or company can donate to a child's investment account within the $5,000 annual contribution limit. Several businesses, including Uber, Dell, Goldman Sachs and Altimeter have committed to setting aside billions to invest in the accounts of company employees who become new parents. 'It's not just an account; it's a launchpad. It puts the unstoppable engine of compounding to work for our kids, building a future for them from day one,' Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said about the initiative during a White House roundtable. Children enrolled in the investment program are eligible to withdraw half of the cash value amount between their 18th and 25th birthdays, according to CNN. Families and beneficiaries would pay a penalty for early withdrawal as there is no allowance for emergency use of the funds, the outlet reported. Funds withdrawn for anything other than 'qualified expenses,' including paying for higher education, buying a residence or starting a business, will be taxed. Researchers have said the investment accounts could widen America's wealth gap. 'Under the current proposal, every child starts with the same amount, and families can contribute up to $5,000 annually,' the Urban Institute, a think-tank focused on social policy, wrote in a late May report. 'But relatively few households hold substantial liquid wealth in the United States, meaning higher-income households are far more likely than their lower-income counterparts to have the means to contribute additional funds,' it continued. The study noted that Trump accounts are likely to only benefit those who have already maxed out existing tax-preferred savings opportunities, like 529 accounts. Instead, they suggested low income families with job insecurity are more likely to gravitate towards investing in traditional accounts that offer flexible guidelines. Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' still needs approval from the upper chamber. Senators considering potential changes or cuts to the legislation, hoping to pass the bill before July 4.

Hegseth filibusters on cost of Trump's Los Angeles deployments
Hegseth filibusters on cost of Trump's Los Angeles deployments

The Hill

time18 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Hegseth filibusters on cost of Trump's Los Angeles deployments

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday declined to discuss the expected cost of deploying National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles to suppress immigration raid protests, instead attacking Democratic leaders for their handling of current and previous incidents of civil unrest. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), House Appropriations defense subcommittee ranking member, asked Hegseth about funding the deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles. He instead defended Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as having 'the right to safely conduct operations in any state and any jurisdiction in the country.' He also referenced the George Floyd murder protests in 2020 in Minneapolis, attacking Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) for his actions at that time and arguing that the National Guard was 'eventually far too late mobilized.' 'President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Governor Walz, if it gets out of control, it's a bad situation for the citizens,' Hegseth said. The answer prompted McCollum to interrupt him to press him to address her original question. 'Chairman, I have limited time, I asked a budget question,' McCollum interjected. McCollum also asked Hegseth whether any trainings were being pushed off due to the troop deployment, but grew frustrated at his lack of answer. 'I will yield back my time if the secretary refuses to answer the budgetary questions I put before him. They're important,' she said. 'What training missions aren't happening? Where are you pulling the money from? And how are you planning this moving forward? These are budget questions that affect this committee and the decisions we're going to be making in a couple of hours.' Hegseth only replied that the Pentagon has the funding 'to cover down on contingencies, especially ones as important as maintaining law and order in major American city.' In her opening remarks, McCollum criticized President Trump's decision to call in some 4,000 California National Guard troops as 'premature,' and the decision to deploy 700 active duty Marines as 'downright escalatory.' 'I ask you Mr. Secretary, and I ask the president, follow the law,' she said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store