In an attempt to subvert Alabama's permitless carry law, city council members in Montgomery adopted an ordinance earlier this year requiring everyone who carries a gun to also have a photo ID on them. If a gun owner can't present a valid ID, police are supposed to confiscate the firearm and hold it for 30 days. In order for the gun owner to get their g un back, they have to not only provide a photo ID but proof of legal ownership of the firearm, as well as forking over a $150 fine. If they don't take those steps, Montgomery PD is supposed to destroy the firearm after the 30-day hold has expired. 

The ordinance, which took effect in September, drew immediate opposition from Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who penned a letter to city officials warning them that the measure violates the state's firearm preemption statute. 

Though the city council has kept the ordinance in place, Montgomery Mayor Steven Reed says local police aren't enforcing the local law. Now council member Glen Pruitt, who authored a proposed repeal of the misdemeanor ordinance back in October, says it's long past time to strike the law from the books. 

Pruitt said he had been waiting for City Attorney Stacey Bellinger to craft new legislation, but she has yet to write anything suitable.

"Stacey, this is about the ordinance," Pruitt said. "Regarding, I hoped we'd have had two months ago about the gun law." 

Pruitt put the issue into the public safety committee on the day of the next city council meeting Dec. 17. The city law remains on the books, but officers are not enforcing it at this time.

"If we do decide to enforce it, we'll just see our way through the court system on it," Council President CC Calhoun said.

If the council does decide to enforce it, they're going to lose the legal fight that will ensue. Alabama's preemption law is pretty clear. The state legislature has "complete control over regulation and policy pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories", and localities and political subdivisions are only allowed to regulate the discharge of firearms and to levy taxes (which, frankly, is something the legislature ought to go back and strike).

Still, I'm curious to know who made the decision not to enforce the ordinance once it was adopted by the city council. Did the mayor instruct the police department to ignore the new ordinance, did the city's police chief come to that decision on their own, or did the city attorney inform officials that enforcing the ordinance would open the city up to costly and unwinnable litigation? 

Regardless of who made the decision not to enforce the statute, Pruitt's right that it needs to be repealed. Attempting to enforce it will only lead to an embarrassing defeat for the city, at considerable expense to the taxpayers, while keeping it in place and unenforced is a pointless exercise in political posturing. City council members never should have approved this ridiculous mandate to begin with, but the least they could do is admit their mistake and concentrate on practical and enforceable ways to go after violent criminals.