A Step in the Right Direction

[Guest Victor9er]

So this is actually a Louisiana issue, but I thought I'd share the news as it seems to be a step in the right direction for preserving the 2nd Amendment... with any luck other states may follow suit...

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/05/louisiana-constitutional-amendment-passes-house-committee.aspx?s&st=10482&ps

[Grunt67]

It's a good start. Just wonder what "strict scruinty" means, exactly.

[gjohnsoniv]

Glad to see that.

[QuietDan]

So this is actually a Louisiana issue, but I thought I'd share the news as it seems to be a step in the right direction for preserving the 2nd Amendment... with any luck other states may follow suit...

http://www.nraila.or...x?s&st=10482

Instead of all the squabbling over parking lot carry/safe commute carry, perhaps Tennesseans ought to push for this first.

[Tnscooter63]

I wonder if they removed the provision or what ever they called it, that allowed them to confiscate the firearms after katrina. Thank God TN has. This is a big step for the 2nd amendment there tho.

[hornett22]

Instead of all the squabbling over parking lot carry/safe commute carry, perhaps Tennesseans ought to push for this first.

AMEN!

[daddyo]

If TN were to pass an amendment like this, I would recommend that "shall be subject to strict scrutiny" be reworded to read "shall be subject to a serious ass whoopin'".

[Guest don_m]

It's a good start. Just wonder what "strict scruinty" means, exactly.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a

compelling governmental interest

. While the Courts have never

brightly defined

how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be

narrowly tailored

to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (

overbroad

) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the

least restrictive means

for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive.

The version we have here in Pennsylvania's constitution is pretty much on target (not that the state doesn't do their best to violate it from time to time): "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." [Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790)]

Edited June 2, 2012 by don_m

[Oh Shoot]

[/indent]

The version we have here in Pennsylvania's constitution is pretty much on target (not that the state doesn't do their best to violate it from time to time): "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." [Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790)]

top of my head:

- you need permit to conceal carry

- open carry not preempted by state, local jurisdictions may ban

- can't open carry in vehicle without permit

- must show permit if asked by LEO

- various places off limits for carry

Yep, not questioned at all. Just like TN.

- OS