Archive for the ‘Stand Your Ground Law’ Category

Lawyer suspended for Facebook advice on how to shoot an abuser and avoid conviction – ABA Journal

Ethics

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 26, 2021, 10:57 am CST

Image from Shutterstock.com.

A Nashville, Tennessee, lawyer has been suspended for advising a Facebook friend on how she could use the castle doctrine to protect herself if she shot a former boyfriend she had accused of abuse.

In a Jan. 22 opinion, the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended lawyer Winston Bradshaw Sitton for four years, with one year to be served on active suspension and the remainder on probation.

Sitton had maintained that his Facebook post was dark humor and sarcastic, and his intent was to dissuade the woman from carrying a gun in her car. A hearing panel said a reasonable person would not perceive the comments that way. The panel recommended a 60-day suspension, but the Tennessee Supreme Court determined that the penalty was too light.

Posting the remarks on social media was an aggravating factor justifying an increase in discipline, the state supreme court said.

The Legal Profession Blog, Law & Crime, ABC News and the Tennessean have coverage.

Sitton wrote the Facebook post after the woman posted in December 2017: I need to always carry my gun with me now, dont I? Is it legal to carry in TN in your car without paying the damn state?

According to the ruling, Sitton responded: I have a carry permit, Lauren. The problem is that if you pull your gun, you must use it. I am afraid that, with your volatile relationship with your babys daddy, you will kill your exyour sons father. Better to get a taser or a canister of tear gas. Effective but not deadly. If you get a shot gun, fill the first couple rounds with rock salt, the second couple with bird shot, then load for bear.

If you want to kill him, then lure him into your house and claim he broke in with intent to do you bodily harm and that you feared for your life. Even with the new stand your ground law, the castle doctrine is a far safer basis for use of deadly force.

The woman responded: I wish he would try.

Sitton then wrote: As a lawyer, I advise you to keep mum about this if you are remotely serious. Delete this thread and keep quiet. Your defense is that you are afraid for your liferevenge or premeditation of any sort will be used against you at trial.

The woman deleted the post, but the former boyfriend brought screenshots to the district attorney, who reported Sitton to Tennessees Board of Professional Responsibility.

The Tennessee Supreme Court said the lawyers advice was clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice and a violation of ethics rules.

The social media posts fostered a public perception that a lawyers role is to manufacture false defenses, the court said. They projected a public image of corruption of the judicial process.

Sitton had contended that his remarks werent serious, as evidenced by the fact that he made them on a public forum.

There is no conceivable reason that petitioner, a lawyer with nearly 30-years of experience in New York and Tennessee, would have been stupid enough to publish such words openly in public view had there been any sinister intent or were this instruction to be taken literally, he wrote.

The Tennessee Supreme Court responded to the argument.

We agree with Mr. Sitton that it is hard to conceive of any reason why a lawyer, any lawyer, would offer instructions on how to commit murder and stage a concocted defense, the court said. But we disagree with Mr. Sitton that his publication of the advice on a public platform such as Facebook cuts in favor of his position.

To the contrary, the court said, Sittons decision to publish the comments on a public forum made his situation exponentially worse.

Sitton was administratively suspended from law practice in August 2018 for failing to pay the professional privilege tax and had not sought reinstatement. On his law firms Facebook page, Sitton said he didnt pay as a protest against an unconstitutional tax.

Sitton also commented on the new suspension.

I adamantly contest the finding that my gratuitous commentary offered in 2017 to a battered woman, who was being threatened and abused and harassed by her sons father, was legal advice as to how to commit a crime or in any way violated my duties as either a citizen or as a lawyer, he wrote on his firms Facebook page.

My intent in the offensive exchange, manifest in the context of the complete correspondence never considered as evidence, was to use sarcasm in order to emphasize the peril inherent in carrying a firearm without adequate training; as well as to underscore the additional danger that her extensive discussion of self-defense might be misconstrued to have a malign intent and used against her in ongoing litigation with her abuser.

I do admit that the language I used, albeit taken out of context, was intemperate and regret the way this utterance was phrased; however, I note that the comment was intentionally caustic and cynical as it was both offered as, and understood by the recipient to be, a sardonic, sarcastic remark made in order to convince the lady not to resort to lethal force and not to discuss any such matters in an open forum.

Read more from the original source:
Lawyer suspended for Facebook advice on how to shoot an abuser and avoid conviction - ABA Journal

Savannah City Council considers taking stand on stand your ground law with resolution – Savannah Morning News

Katie Nussbaum|Savannah Morning News

The killing of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed Black man, in Brunswick last year has led several state lawmakers to opposeGeorgias citizen's arrest and stand your ground laws. Savannah City Council is set to put itsvoice behind these efforts on Thursday as members voteon a resolution to support the repeal of the stand your ground legislation.

Both issues have been in the state and national spotlight over the past year after lawyers for the two white men accused of killing Arbery indicated they will cite the laws as a defense at trial.

Rep. Carl Gilliard (D-Garden City) said it was Arberys death that led him tosponsor House Bill 45, which would repeal the citizens arrest law. The lawcurrently allows those who witness someone committing a felony to detain the person.

As a nation, we saw a videotape that revealed that people were taking the law into their own hands and went bad, he said.

Travis McMichael and his father, Gregory McMichael, have both been charged with murder in Arberys death and told prosecutors they suspected he was responsible for break-ins in their neighborhood, even though no break-ins had been reported in recent weeks. A third man, William Bryan Jr., was also charged with murder after he joined the chase and allegedly struck Arberywith his vehicle.

Savannah Mayor Van Johnson said the repeal of the laws would help to legally protect Georgia residents.

"These stand your ground laws are associated with increased homicides," Johnson said.Right now our law allows the person to shoot and kill another person, even when they can clearly and safely walk away. There is not a retreat required.

In June, Johnson joined several other mayors from around the state in sending a letter to the Georgia General Assembly asking them to repeal the stand your ground law. Like Gilliard, they were moved to take action following Arbery's death.

"In order to prevent things like that from happening we have to prevent the opportunities for those things to happen," Johnson said.

Gilliard said other Georgia cities and counties have expressed their support for the measures, including Glynn County, Screven County, City of South Fulton and the City of Atlanta. If HB 45 moves to a committee, Gilliard believes it will be heard by the House Judiciary committee.

I think we've got a lot of good support with law enforcement because it's not anti-law enforcement its pro-law enforcement. Its saying that they are the professionals, theyre the ones that know more than Carl or anyone else, so we should allow them to be able to administer any arrest or any judgment, Gilliard said of the repeal efforts.

While citizen's arrest and stand your ground are two separate issues when it comes to legislation, both Johnson and Gilliard said they go back to the same factors.

What's happening is that when you think about stand your ground, you think about Trayvon Martin, unfortunately, who was taken away insensitively. A lot of times when we want to become law enforcement, but we can't, we're just not equipped and skilled enough, Gilliard said.

Even in the Trayvon Martin situation, if that individual had just let the law be the law with the 911 call maybe Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

Katie Nussbaum is the city and county government reporter for the Savannah Morning News. Contact her at knussbaum@savannahnow.com. Twitter: KmartSMN

Read this article:
Savannah City Council considers taking stand on stand your ground law with resolution - Savannah Morning News

Column: DeWine had a chance to do the right thing and punted – The Columbus Dispatch

The Columbus Dispatch

As one who preaches pragmatismon matters of public policy, I generally avoidhighpraise or condemnation of any politician. People have quirks and foibles;Idon't expect anyones recordtobeallgood or all bad.Being a fundamentally decentpersoncounts for a lot with me.

Gov. Mike DeWine is a primary example.Im not a fan of whatOhioRepublicans have done with their governmental monopolyfor the past decade-plus, andDeWinehas made a lot of decisions Idisliked.He also has done a lot of good work in his long political career.

As aU.S. senator,he supported conservation measuresandwas the prime backer ofa proposal to create a national wildlife refuge along theBig and Little Darby Creeksandstood up to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refugefrom oil drilling.

Along with thosestands, though, environmentalists will point out thatSen. DeWine took votes against energy efficiency standardsand in favor of subsidies for oil and gas companies.

Later, back in Ohio, Attorney General DeWinepursued enlightened policies to help victims of human trafficking and continued the work of improving the use of DNA evidenceto prove both innocence and guilt, but he alsosupported abortion and gun-rights laws that manyOhioans consider extreme.

As governor, hespoke seemingly from the heart in vowing common sense gun-law reform after the August 2019 mass shooting in Dayton,but then failed to fight for the bill he backed and, on Monday, surrendered any claim to common sense on gunsby signing a reckless stand your ground law.

The fact that his handling of pandemic-related restrictions satisfies almost no one is evidence of how he has tried to balance competing needs.

Through all of this, Ive maintained the impression of DeWine asdecent man whose beliefs are more conservative than mine but who is trying to serve the public.

Thats whatmakes hisrefusal to confront the reality of President Donald Trumpsdestructiveness so disappointing and so dangerous. As long as seemingly reasonable people like DeWine stay quiet, other Republicans who should know better can tell themselves its okay to ignore the presidentslying, corruption, cruelty and, most recently,his outright attempt to overthrow the election he just lost.

On Sunday, on CNN,DeWine had an opportunity tosay something important: that the stunt planned by far-right Congress membersto objecton Wednesdaytoformal acceptance of President-elect Joe Bidens Electoral College winis a dangerous and cynical ploy that is unworthy of U.S. democracy.

Instead, DeWine went on about the importance ofrestoring the publics faith in the election, with an audit by a bipartisan, blue-ribbon panel.He didnt endorse the Congressional challenge, buthe didnt speak the truth about it, either.

DeWine surely knows that the election already has been audited, by virtue of the official canvassof votes undertaken in every county of every state. He mightsee calling for anotherauditas a harmless way to avoid the wrath of diehard Trump voters, but its not harmless.The only reason a lot of people have questions about the election is because of the nonstop lying by Trump and his allies.

Those lies arent evidence of anything other than their efforts to undermine facts and create doubt, andtreating the liesas if they represent anything close to the truthperpetuatesthe bamboozling of the public.

DeWine is hardly alone inhis inability to speak the truth to Trumps base.But the ugly shadow it casts on his long and decent careermay be his unfortunate legacy one he will share with others who can't bring themselvesto call a lie a lie.

Mary Mogan Edwards is the Dispatch editorial page editor.

Excerpt from:
Column: DeWine had a chance to do the right thing and punted - The Columbus Dispatch

DeSantis new stand your ground would provoke the danger it professes to prevent | Column – Tampa Bay Times

Lets begin by parsing the grammatically confounding title of Gov. Ron DeSantis aggressive legislative idea. He calls it the Combating Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act. Thats not what it would do. In reality, it would amplify the danger it professes to prevent.

Nor would it combat violence. Instead, it would expand the states stand your ground law. Neither would it stem disorder. Rather, it would limit the ability of citizens to demonstrate in the streets.

Among its innovations are enhanced immunities for police and civilian violence alongside tough financial penalties for localities trying to defund or reconfigure their police forces. It would outlaw forms of social protest that have long been protected as free speech, while criminalizing those who obstruct or interfere with the regular flow of vehicular traffic.

At the heart of the states original stand your ground legislation was an effort to flip the script on cause and effect, target and aggressor, by framing the victims of violence as perpetrators, and the perpetrators as self-defenders.

The new proposal which could become state law if it finds sponsorship and is approved by both chambers features multiple elements that at first glance appear disparate. But, actually, they intersect in limiting a persons right to occupy public space, the ground to which the original 2005 Florida law refers. For those gathering to protest racial injustice, the legislation would eliminate the ground on which they may safely stand.

DeSantis proposes to criminalize assemblies of seven or more people that damage property or obstruct law enforcement or other governmental functions or services. Property damage would include pulling down, destroying, or defacing public property, including but not limited to a monument or statue. Sound familiar? On June 26, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to Protect American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combat Recent Criminal Violence from rioters, arsonists, and left-wing extremists. DeSantis proposal targets those who would dismantle or deface Confederate memorials. Florida boasts more than 60 of them.

The numerical limitation on assemblies echoes post-Civil War Black Codes, curtailing Black freedom of movement, employment and assembly. Georgias 1866 penal code forbid assemblies of over seven persons amongst freed people. Characterizing the Black Lives Matter protests as riots and mobs places blame for social disorder on to the shoulders of those most subjugated by entrenched violence and marginalization. Its a role-reversal with deep historic roots, where victims become perpetrators and perpetrators shape-shift into victims.

This role-reversal frames DeSantis efforts to depict unarmed protesters as criminals, so that they appear as reasonable targets for civilian violence. His proposal would provide legal immunity to a driver who causes injury or death to a person who obstructs or interferes with the regular flow of vehicular traffic, opening the door to vehicular violence like that responsible for Heather Heyers death at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, and more than 100 occasions since March 2020 in which motorists have driven into groups of protesters. The proposal suggests that anyone who commits vehicular homicide against demonstrators and claims that it was accidental is not liable for such injury or death.

The legislation would amend the states existing stand your ground law by providing immunity to armed citizens who claim to be protecting property from looters and mobs, where looting is defined as criminal mischief that results in the interruption or impairment of a business operation. Florida laws already empower citizens to defend themselves and their own businesses, but DeSantis expansion would allow other people to use violence to protect businesses that dont even belong to them.

Like the popular you loot, we shoot memes that surface during hurricanes and tornadoes, Floridas stand your ground law invites armed aggression under the guise of protecting property. We witnessed the consequences of such logic in Kenosha, Wisc., where a white 17-year-old armed with an AR-15 crossed state lines in response to a social media entreaty for patriots to take up arms and defend our city tonight from evil thugs. Under the mantle of patriotism, the young gunman joined a group of armed civilians to defend the city from protesters, killing two unarmed people and injuring another. Afterward, he claimed to have acted in self-defense.

This capacity to claim self-defense after a lethal encounter is the key innovation of the stand your ground laws that originated in Florida and rapidly spread to more than half the states. If the governors recommended legislation passes, the law would allow an armed aggressor to kill in the course of upholding law and order or protecting property. By deflecting responsibility for instigating a deadly encounter, even if ones target was unarmed, it would elevate property over human life.

In the lethal logic of stand your ground, the killers perception of threat goes unquestioned if the only other witness is dead. In DeSantis proposal, even a crowd of witnesses will be powerless to establish criminal liability when armed citizens claim to be upholding the law against a violent or disorderly assembly.

The timing of DeSantis' proposal speaks to this momentous national reckoning, where we can feel the ground in which our democracy is rooted shifting under our feet. If approved, the legislation would deputize armed citizens to defend property, while criminalizing those who dare to stand up to systemic violence and racism.

In case it isnt clear on the surface, the goal is to silence these voices and to undermine the transformative justice demands that have proliferated nationwide. Against this powerful groundswell of public protest, the Florida governors proposal stands as a desperate effort to secure a reactionary legacy while obstructing the movement toward justice.

Caroline Light teaches gender and ethnic studies at Harvard University. She is the author of Stand Your Ground: A History of Americas Love Affair with Lethal Self-Defense. She wrote this exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.

Read the rest here:
DeSantis new stand your ground would provoke the danger it professes to prevent | Column - Tampa Bay Times

A voter’s guide to the constitutional amendments on Alabama’s 2020 ballot – Montgomery Advertiser

National issues get most of the attention during a presidential election. But there are state issues to consider, too.

Alabama's ballot includes six state constitutional amendments, covering voting; the operation of the state judiciary; racist language in the states 1901 Constitution, and the use of guns in churches in two counties in north Alabama.

In Montgomery, the ballot includes a referendum on raising property taxes to increase public school funding. Elmore County voters will decide whether to renew an existing property tax that funds local schools.

Below, a guide to the Alabama statewide amendments.

People arrive to vote at Goodwyn Community Center on Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2011, in Montgomery, Ala.(Photo: Advertiser file)

Amendment 1 would limit voting in Alabama to citizens of the United States. The measure, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh, R-Anniston, would change existing language saying "every citizen of the United States" can vote in Alabama to "only a citizen of the United States." It passed the Legislature in 2019.

Federal law already prohibits most non-citizens from voting. No state has allowed general voting by non-citizens in 100 years. A handful of cities, like San Francisco and Chicago, allow all city residents to vote in school board elections, regardless of citizenship status. In New York City, a bill was proposed earlier this year to allow non-citizens who are legal permanent residents or have work authorization to vote in elections there.

Alabamas 1901 Constitution limited voting to every male citizen of this state who is a citizen of the United States and foreigners who had declared their intentions to become U.S. citizens prior to the ratification of the state constitution.

Marsh did not respond to requests for comment. Voting rights experts said the effect of the change may be minimal. Michael Li, a senior counsel with the Brennan Center in New York, said he wasnt aware of any major push to allow noncitizens to vote.

I think its trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist, he said. Out of all the things Alabama has to worry about, the Alabama Legislature giving noncitizens the right to vote is not high on the list.

Embattled Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore testifies during his ethics trial at the Alabama Court of the Judiciary at the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery, Ala., on Wednesday September 28, 2016.(Photo: Mickey Welsh / Advertiser)

Amendment 2 represents the first major revision of the state constitutions judicial article since 1973. Among the changes:

The appointment of the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts who oversees the day-to-day operations of the state court system would go from the chief justice and given to the entire state Supreme Court. In addition, the court would have to follow procedures the nomination of the director spelled out by the Alabama Legislature.

Judges would no longer be automatically suspended once the Judicial Inquiry Commission, which investigates ethical complaints against judges, files a complaint against them. The suspension could only take place if the chief judge of the Court of the Judiciary, which considers cases against judges, approves a complaint saying the judge was physically or mentally unable to perform their duties or posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public or the administration of justice. Two-thirds of the Judicial Inquiry Commission would have to approve the measure for it to take effect. In addition, the suspended judge could request a review of the action.

The Judicial Inquiry Commission would expand from nine to 11 members. The District Judges Association; the Probate Judges Association, and the Municipal Judges Association will get one appointment each. In addition, the members would be term-limited, serving no more than eight years.

The Court of the Judiciary could suspend a judge found in violation of the Canons of Ethical Conduct with pay. Currently, the court can only suspend without pay.

The Legislature would lose its power to impeach members of the Alabama Supreme Court (the power has never been used).

District courts would no longer have to hold court in cities or towns of more than 1,000 people that lack a municipal court.

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals Justice Scott Donaldson, who served on an Alabama Law Institute committee that met between 2017 and 2019 to consider changes, said the committee chiefly looked at eliminating outdated language and improving court function.

A committee formed by the Alabama Law Institute, which studies state laws and recommends revisions or clarifications, worked for 19 months on the proposed changes. Scott Donaldson, an Alabama Court of Civil Appeals justice who served on the committee, said the goal was to make the law clear and remove redundant or outdated language.

We tried very hard to not make systemic, structural changes, and did not venture into areas that could be seen as partisan or should be left to another day, he said.

Sen. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, the chair of the Senate Judiciary, said in an interview the amendment was a compromise following lengthy negotiations.

Youve got to have better accountability as to whos going to be the court administrator, he said. Thats one of the most important jobs in the judicial branch. It provides more stability. When it comes to removing judges it provides for a clear plan on how thats going to be handled.

Chief justices appoint AOC directors, but no Alabama chief justice has completed a full term in office in 25 years, leading to turnover in an office that oversees2,500 employees statewide, and there needs to be continuity in the position.

From a day-to-day standpoint, trial judges, clerks and employees are much more affected by the person who is the head of the Administrative Office of Courts than who is chief justice, he said. Its an attempt to have continuity and longevity in the position.

Ward said the turnover meant some directors didn't knownhow to work with the Legislature to secure funding.

They were responsible for advocating on behalf of the court during the budget process, Ward said. Sometimes there was a total lack of knowledge of the budget process.

Ward said the changes to the JIC process were part of negotiations with individuals who wanted to do away with the commission entirely.

You had judges being removed merely because a complaint was filed against them, he said. There should be a removal process for judges that do wrong, but merely because a complaint filed shouldnt be enough to remove somebody. There should be due process.

Closeup of gavel in court room(Photo: IPGGutenbergUKLtd, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Amendment 3 deals with state circuit and district judges appointed to fill out the six-year term of a predecessor. The current law requires an appointed to judge to stand for election after serving a year in the position, unless they are facing the end of a term. The new law would push that limit out to two years, unless the appointed judge is facing the end of the term.

The amendment would not apply to probate judges. Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, the sponsor of the amendment, said in an interview the measure was aimed at encouraging attorneys to accept judicial appointments without having to worry about fundraising and campaigning immediately after taking the bench.

"What were trying to do is give good lawyers incentive to take judgeships," he said.

Section 256 of Alabama's 1901 Constitution established a segregated school system: "Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race."(Photo: Alabama Department of Archives and History)

Amendment 4 would authorize a recompilation of the Alabama Constitution that would remove racist language from the document; delete any repealed or duplicative provisions; consolidate existing economic development language and group local amendments by county of application.

If voters approve the amendment, the Legislative Reference Service, a nonpartisan agency of the Legislature, would draft a list of changes for the Legislature to consider in 2021 or 2022. If approved, the changes would go to Alabama voters for consideration in the 2022 general election.

What we want to do with this compilation is bring it into the 21st century and be more reflective of the Alabama we are today, said Rep. Merika Coleman, D-Pleasant Grove, who sponsored the amendment. We are a more diverse state, of course.

The amendment won unanimous approval in both chambers of the Alabama Legislature in 2019. House Speaker Mac McCutcheon, R-Monrovia, was one of Colemans co-sponsors. McCutcheon said in a statement he "proudly co-sponsored the amendment" and encouraged its passage, saying the state constitution "should be inclusive of all the citizens it represents."

"The Alabama of 2020 is much different than the Alabama of 1901, and passage of this amendment will illustrate the progress we have made within the pages of our state constitution," the statement said.

The Alabama Constitution of 1901, framed to disenfranchise Black Alabamians and poor whites, includes several racist provisions. Section 102 of the Constitution forbids interracial marriages. Section 256 of the Constitution directs the Legislature to set up segregated schools.

Federal court rulings and state amendments have nullified most of its more offensive provisions, but the language remains. Removing it has been difficult, thanks to Amendment 111, added in 1956 amid the white backlash to Brown v. Board of Education, which said Alabama did not recognize any right to education or training at public expense. Coleman said Amendment 4 does not address that language, which has wrecked previous efforts to get racist language out of the Constitution.

In 2004, Alabama voters narrowly rejected an amendment known as Amendment 2, which would have jettisoned the 1956 language along with the 1901 language.

The amendment drew strong opposition from critics including former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who said removing the 1956 language could lead to tax increases and jeopardize private schools. The amendment fell short by 2,000 votes out of nearly 1.4 million cast.

A proposed amendment in 2012 removed racist language but kept the section denying the right to an education. Black legislators and the Alabama Education Association urged the measures defeat, saying retaining the language could complicate efforts to improve public school funding in Alabama. Almost 61% of the states voters voted against it.

Amendment 4 will also reclassify local amendments,which make up most of the 948 amendments to the Alabama Constitution,by the county in which they took effect.

Coleman said she hoped approval of the amendment would send a positive message about Alabama to the world.

It would show the rest of the country of course we have a sordid past, but its not who we are today, she said.

(Photo: Getty Images)

Amendments 5 and 6 are local amendments for Florence and Lauderdale counties in northern Alabama. The amendments allow the use of deadly force to protect a church attendee or employee if the person is at risk of physical harm from someone engaged in a crime involving death, robbery or kidnapping.

The bills are local versions of legislation brought by Rep. Lynn Greer, R-Rogersville, which failed to advance in the Legislature.

I know in my church weve got several people carrying weapons, Greer said in an interview. I feel better knowing there are people in there with one.

Greer said the amendment would not prevent churches from banning guns on their property. A person could face prosecution for unlawful use of force, or for recklessly or negligently injuring another person by their actions. A pretrial hearing would determine whether the person was justified in the use of force.

Critics questioned the need for the bill, noting that many of the provisions of the legislation are already covered by the states Stand Your Ground law, passed in 2006. Moms Demand Action, a group that seeks to reduce gun violence, opposes the legislation. The organization said the measures will make people less safe.

These amendments are both redundant and likely to embolden more Alabamians to shoot first and ask questions later, the group said.

Greer sponsored the Lauderdale amendment; Rep. Jamie Kiel, R-Russellville, sponsored the Franklin County amendment. Voters in Colbert, Limestone and Talladega counties will consider local versions of the same provision.

Legislators in Jefferson County voted no on a motion that would have limited the vote on Amendments 5 and 6 to the counties where they would take effect,which led to the measures going on the state ballot.

Greer said he plans to revive a statewide version of the amendments in the next legislative session.

Contact Montgomery Advertiser reporter Brian Lyman at 334-240-0185 or blyman@gannett.com. Updated at 2:47 p.m. Thursday to correct the location of a local amendment regarding guns and churches. It will be in Limestone County, not Lauderdale County.

Read or Share this story: https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2020/10/21/alabama-constitutional-amendments-election-voters-guide-2020-ballot/5966221002/

Continued here:
A voter's guide to the constitutional amendments on Alabama's 2020 ballot - Montgomery Advertiser