Louisiana Could Have 'Strongest Second Amendment Law in the Nation'

[Guest CCI]

When it comes to the Second Amendment, Louisiana legislators are bringing out the biggest legal guns they can find.

For Pelican State voters, Amendment II on the Nov. 6 Ballot asks voters if they want to change the phrasing of the “Right to Bear Arms,†as it is defined in Louisiana's State Constitution.

Proponents of the measure say it will make Louisiana's defense of the Second Amendment the best in the nation. However, opponents are concerned that the new strict scrutiny measures could make it more difficult to limit gun trade, transfer or impose restrictions on concealed weapons at various venues in the future.

Riser's Revision

The original language of the State provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms (which falls under Article I, Sec. 11 or the Constitution of the State of Louisiana) reads:

“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.â€

And the phrasing has remained that way since the current Constitution was enacted back in 1974. Changes to the current law were originally proposed in Senate Bill No. 303, which was introduced by Sen. Neil Riser (R-District 32). If it had been enacted as-is, the bill would have changed that original phrasing to the following:

“The right of each citizen to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.â€

According to the adjoining documentation, the phrase, “strict scrutiny,†means that any attempts or possible attempts to violate this statute—as it reads in the proposed amendment—would be subject to judicial action and review to determine the constitutionality of the action.

That strict scrutiny would hold any new law to a higher standard, requiring, “a compelling government interest, being narrowly defined to achieve that intent,†according to Sen. Riser’s statements back in April, when the bill was being read for final passage in the Senate.

“The purpose of this would be to reinforce the Second Amendment [of the United States’ Constitution] and, in my opinion, make it that you would have the right, as an American, the right to bear and carry arms,†Riser said.

As the bill ran its course, the proposed legislation changed before various discussions, committee actions, and floor discussions once the bill made its way over to the house. By the time SB 303 got back to the Senate Floor for a final vote to be placed on this year’s ballot, it read a little different.

“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.â€

For this final version, the major changes may appear to be simple turns of phrase, but these subtle differences would open the interpretation for restricting or permitting concealed weapons in any capacity. This is the main strike for many opponents, who have voiced concerns that this new wording would cause problems with previous legislation, which prevents carrying weapons on college campuses or other sensitive areas.

College gun issues?

While still in discussion on the Senate Floor, Sen. Dan Claitor (R-District 16) questioned how this vote would affect the ability to bear and carry arms in places where weapons are currently prohibited, or any of the other laws that exist on the books?

Riser did acknowledge there is legal precedent labeling “sensitive areas,†or places where there is a compelling need to restrict firearms, or a gun free zone: including schools and churches. But these must be narrowly defined and must hold up to that strict scrutiny.

“You need to be real clear, this defines how laws are judged,†Riser said. “We roughly have close to forty gun laws right now, and those gun laws will stay in effect. If they were to be challenged, it would be like they’d be challenged now... And you could pass as many gun laws in here as you want, but they would have to meet that [new] criteria.â€

The Senator also said that this wording would not, “trump private property rights,†and that legal precedent has shown that Universities and other institutions maintain the right to limit possession of a gun on their grounds, given that it meets the strict scrutiny of the definition as a sensitive area.

Riser acknowledges that the new standard is more in favor of gun possession and all the other rights outlined in the bill, but that is the point.

“We’d have the strongest Second Amendment law in the nation if we passed this,†he said.

The fact that this favors the gun owner first, and could, albeit potentially, make it more difficult to pass a law—or even a private entities’ edict—that restricts weapons transfers, sales or any of the other defined rights, because the compelling interest must first be shown, causes pause for some. As indicated in committee and floor discussions, both the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association and the District Attorneys’ Association have expressed concerns during discussions.

However, as both the Senate and the House have passed the bill with the required two-thirds vote for amendments, the voters of Louisiana will make the final decision.

Happy voting!

http://noladefender....t/arm34s-ra78ce

[Clod Stomper]

Interesting. I'd like to see Tennessee pass a similar law.

[Lumber_Jack]

I love the new wording "...for the purpose of defense of life and liberty..."

[RobertNashville]

Interesting. I'd like to see Tennessee pass a similar law.

I'd say that there is really nothing "wrong" with the law we have (not that it couldn't be improved).

If our legislators actually followed the state constitution most of the restrictions we have to contend with in TN would, of necessity, never have been passed into law in the first place.

In other words, our problem, as is usually the case, is with the people this state has been electing to office.

[Jonnin]

There is plenty wrong with TN law. Right away is the strange misconception that arms == guns. Arms == any weapons. Lets put nuclear bombs and coptor gunships aside for a moment, the current TN law blocks me from carrying a decent knife or sword, which are not only mostly harmless in a gun totin' society (both LEOS and Potential Victims can easily handle a swordsman gone wrong), they are legit arms.

Then there is the carry permit. Legally, we have no 2nd ammendment in TN, legally, you cannot carry ANY arms in TN without a permit that you may not be able to afford to purchase or maintain. Even with the permit, you cannot carry a rifle, a shotgun, a crossbow, a sword, a knife, nunchucks, or apparently even some pistols (long story about AR pistols). Here again a basic rifle is "arms" by any logical defination of the term.

And technically, if I can afford it, I should be able to buy a tank or copter or bomber plane and have THAT under my keep and bear ARMS freedom. Yes, I understand why the government would fear such a thing and restrict it --- and that is EXACTLY the problem and point.

All that aside again, good for them, I am glad every time I see a state relax the foolish laws that were created so long ago.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Jonnin

[RobertNashville]

There is plenty wrong with TN law. Right away is the strange misconception that arms == guns. Arms == any weapons. Lets put nuclear bombs and coptor gunships aside for a moment, the current TN law blocks me from carrying a decent knife or sword, which are not only mostly harmless in a gun totin' society (both LEOS and Potential Victims can easily handle a swordsman gone wrong), they are legit arms.

Then there is the carry permit. Legally, we have no 2nd ammendment in TN, legally, you cannot carry ANY arms in TN without a permit that you may not be able to afford to purchase or maintain. Even with the permit, you cannot carry a rifle, a shotgun, a crossbow, a sword, a knife, nunchucks, or apparently even some pistols (long story about AR pistols). Here again a basic rifle is "arms" by any logical defination of the term.

And technically, if I can afford it, I should be able to buy a tank or copter or bomber plane and have THAT under my keep and bear ARMS freedom. Yes, I understand why the government would fear such a thing and restrict it --- and that is EXACTLY the problem and point.

None of which, I would contend, is a result of our Constitution (which is what I thought was the point of the thread).

I disagree with your reading of the Second Amendment and what types of arms are protected by it (as I think our founders would disagree as well) but that aside, while we have a lot of bad laws in TN related to firearms/arms; it's not because of the way our Constitution reads but rather, because of the idiots that have been elected (by other idiots) who passed those laws.

To put it another way, it doesn't matter what TN's constitution says (or the Federal Constitution either) as long as we have legislators and courts willing to ignore the plain language of such documents.

Edited November 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Jonnin]

Well, agreed, the elected officials and the people that keep them in office are the root of most of the problems from city government on up.

Not sure what you disagree with? As I read it (historically and literally) it seems the authors wanted the people (everyone!) to be armed sufficiently to overthrow the government should it be necessary to do that. I am not saying I would like to see the wealthy drug gangs or even well meaning idiots with bazookas, nukes, and gunships, I am just offering it up as a literal translation here of the intent. Clearly, in a world where morons routinely shoot themselves and each other by accident, some things need to be very, very carefully evaluated. I can see it now, the "we miss chattanooga" 3 rules of common sense nuke handling.... 1) be sure you do not arm it until you are ready to destoy a city, 2) be aware of the suburbs and other cities near your target, 3) ...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Jonnin, your argument is the same as mine when referring to be able to keep and bear any arms. The NFA, et seq.,

disgrace the 2nd Amendment and every law made since the first one enacted.

Louisiana is doing something that should be done by all states. I hope it passes.

Any law that infringes the 2nd Amendment is a disgrace and the state's rights argument to be able to water it down

doesn't pass muster, in my opinion. There are times in our country's history where we allowed politicians to take

advantage of a situation to pass laws that are essentially unconstitutional, and some have never been tested in the

courts. Effectively restricting the use and ownership of further machine guns and other types of weapons goes

against the grain of the 2nd and should be nullified or they will continue to pass further restrictions, like another

assault weapon ban or similar.

There are many laws on the books that are also unconstitutional and should be treated similarly. Find something

in the Constitution that allows for Obamacare or welfare or food stamps. Is the Dept. of Education or the EPA in

there? Those things are not supposed to be the feds job. The federal government has usurped those things

from the people and the states. I could go on for days. The federales have been out of control for decades.

I really hope Louisiana passes that. We'll see.

[DaveTN]

I'll say the same thing I said the last time this was posted. If you want to copy a state; copy one of the four states that have Constitutional carry. Louisiana can make all the noise they want about this, but it won't be the strongest 2nd amendment law in the nation. You don't a law, just recognize the 2nd amendment as any individual right of citizens and you are good to go.

Look at Vermont.

All of the free carry states are Yankee States. It would be nice to see Tennessee be the first Southern state to do it.

[Oh Shoot]

.....All of the free carry states are Yankee States. It would be nice to see Tennessee be the first Southern state to do it.

Arizona, Alaska, Montana = Yankees?

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Well, agreed, the elected officials and the people that keep them in office are the root of most of the problems from city government on up.

Not sure what you disagree with? As I read it (historically and literally) it seems the authors wanted the people (everyone!) to be armed sufficiently to overthrow the government should it be necessary to do that. I am not saying I would like to see the wealthy drug gangs or even well meaning idiots with bazookas, nukes, and gunships, I am just offering it up as a literal translation here of the intent. Clearly, in a world where morons routinely shoot themselves and each other by accident, some things need to be very, very carefully evaluated. I can see it now, the "we miss chattanooga" 3 rules of common sense nuke handling.... 1) be sure you do not arm it until you are ready to destoy a city, 2) be aware of the suburbs and other cities near your target, 3) ...

What I was referring to as far as disagreeing is that most of the experts on the Constitution I've read or listened to seem to concur that with the second amendment, as intended by the founders, in specifically referring to the "militia" was trying to indicate that every citizen had a God-given right to the "normal" or, if you prefer, "routine" arms of the day that would be typically carried by a soldier/infantryman. Whether that be swords, knives and muskets OR fully-automatic rifles, body armor and such in use today. However, the "average" solder of today don't carry around atomic weapons and I think tanks, armed drones, etc would also be weapons properly reserved to an organized military whether that be the standing military or a properly organized and controlled state defense force.

While I could be wrong, I sort of doubt that if the founding fathers were alive today and knew of all the incredibly destructive weapons that exist that they would intend that the average family have a nuke mounted to a remote controlled drone or an atomic mortar (we used to have them). I will say that for me, I'd probably go for a boomer submarine if they let us have them.

[Guest 270win]

Tennessee would do well to legalize people keeping a loaded pistol in the car without a permit. Right across the state line in Mississippi that is legal, even on school property without a permit.

Another for those with permits would be to make it legal for folks to be able to carry in ALL parks. Legalize carrying in schools with permits and also get rid of the 500 dollar sign fines.

If the state would do that, we would have some of the best gun laws in the country. People in Mississippi can now take a shooting course (not generally required in MS for a permit they just pay and get one) and now can carry virtually ANYWHERE in the state. Guess what? The class is the same as the class we are required to take and they can carry in more places legally than we can.

http://safefireshooting.com/MS_Concealed_Carry.html

About the only advantage a TN permit has over a MS enhanced permit is that technically we can carry in police departments. Good luck trying to do that in Memphis with signs and metal detectors.

Edited November 2, 2012 by 270win

[RobertNashville]

Tennessee would do well to legalize people keeping a loaded pistol in the car without a permit. Right across the state line in Mississippi that is legal, even on school property without a permit.

Another for those with permits would be to make it legal for folks to be able to carry in ALL parks. Legalize carrying in schools with permits and also get rid of the 500 dollar sign fines.

If the state would do that, we would have some of the best gun laws in the country. People in Mississippi can now take a shooting course (not generally required in MS for a permit they just pay and get one) and now can carry virtually ANYWHERE in the state. Guess what? The class is the same as the class we are required to take and they can carry in more places legally than we can.

http://safefireshoot...aled_Carry.html

About the only advantage a TN permit has over a MS enhanced permit is that technically we can carry in police departments. Good luck trying to do that in Memphis with signs and metal detectors.

All true but we don't need to change our state constitution to do all of that; we just need elected officials who are willing to do what is right rather than what their party leadership tells them.

Right now, the party leadership (i.e. Republican leadership) in Tennessee is telling the rank and file that "gun" related legislation is too controversial to handle right now and I guess it is if all you are worried about is getting re-elected (plus they are pissed off that the NRA and TFA went after AND defeated one of their lap-dogs, Debra Maggart. Don't expect any 2A friendly legislation from the State House until at least after the 2014 elections.

[Guest 270win]

No we sure don't need to amend the state constitution to make good changes. Our legislature has been weak in 2010 to 2012 when it comes to helping honest people carry guns and not fear arrest/criminal charges.

[Guest zort]

sorry to disagree with u all but i really dont think just anyone should carry. convicted felons, minors and people that dont know anything about guns shouldnt carry. id prefer to pass the parking lot bill and let permit holders have more rights to protect themselves and others. i like the stand your ground laws but just would feel uncomfortable with just anyone walking around with guns.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='zort' timestamp='1351985598' post='838524']
sorry to disagree with u all but i really dont think just anyone should carry. convicted felons, minors and people that dont know anything about guns shouldnt carry. id prefer to pass the parking lot bill and let permit holders have more rights to protect themselves and others. i like the stand your ground laws but just would feel uncomfortable with just anyone walking around with guns.
[/quote]

Don't ever move to Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, or Montana. You know, the free states.

- OS

[Guest zort]

unless u look like a minority....then u dont need a permit u need a green card

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='zort' timestamp='1351985598' post='838524']
sorry to disagree with u all but i really dont think just anyone should carry. convicted felons, minors and people that dont know anything about guns shouldnt carry. id prefer to pass the parking lot bill and let permit holders have more rights to protect themselves and others. i like the stand your ground laws but just would feel uncomfortable with just anyone walking around with guns.[/quote]
I understand your sentiments but I have to disagree.

I started hunting with a firearm when I was about 9 or 10...started shooting before that...I didn't carry a weapon on me 24/7 nor do I think I should have - I agree that a minor shouldn't be carrying arms unless they have adult supervision (just like minors can't and shouldn't do a whole lot of things like enter into a contract, or vote, etc.) until they are no longer minors.

As to people who "don't know anything about guns"....no one knows anything about guns until they decide to learn about them and that includes the most highly respected, most widely know "experts" alive today. As a practical matter, how are you going to decide who qualifies? A test? And if so, shouldn't we also require a minimum score on an IQ test for voting or proof of common sense before allowing people to breathe the air? Maybe everyone should be required to have a psychological evaluation before buying a gun or being allowed to have sex or being allowed to travel from state to state???

Frankly, I think criminals who have committed a violent crime should never be out of jail. Thus, their ability to go armed is moot. Other "felons" who's crimes were not violent and who have served their sentence should, I think, have all their rights restored, including the right to vote and to own arms. In other words, the problem with felons owning guns is not that felons own guns...the problem is a weak and ineffective system of punishment that allows career criminals back onto the street time after time after time who steel the guns of law-abiding people and/or buy them on the black market and then go out and commit more crimes (starting the revolving-door cycle all over again). Just a seat of the pants guess but I suspect that most crime would cease almost immediately if we kept the criminally minded locked up for most or all of their lives.

I see no common sense in having restriction on some God given rights while having none on others. more importantly, the rights we talk about and claim are ours don't come from some government or government bureaucrat...they are the rights of all free men; given to us by our creator (or if a person doesn't believe in a creator, simply because they are men). Therefore, these rights should NEVER be infringed except under rare circumstances and only then after due process - the government, in the form of the judicial system and with the consent of the governed can take away any right, even the right to life but it should never be done lightly or unfairly.

Bottom line is, and what has taken me a LONG time to learn, is that there is a price to be paid to have true freedom and individual freedom and we either know that and accept it or we don't. If we don't know it or know it but chose to not accept it then we inevitably move toward tyranny and oppression and the suppression of the individual for the sake of the collective. If we truly want to be free and have the greatest amount of personal liberty then we must accept the truth that stupid and/or unintelligent and uneducated people will vote, mentally deranged people will procreate, inept/uncoordinated/mentally handicapped people will drive a vehicle and cause accidents or even kill innocent people and some people who "shouldn't have a gun or who know nothing about guns" will buy one or steel one and do something terrible with it.

We have to trust that MOST people will do the RIGHT thing if we want to live in a free society. If we cannot trust people to do that then the ONLY sensible alternative is a totalitarian government that controls everything we do and think and say.

[RobertNashville]

[color=#0000ff][i]We have to trust that MOST people will do the RIGHT thing if we want to live in a free society. If we cannot trust people to do that then the ONLY sensible alternative is a totalitarian government that controls everything we do and think and say. [/i][/color]

Referring to the above, let me also say, while I understand its shortcomings; I much prefer the the former (free society) to the latter (totalitarian government). Edited November 4, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Clod Stomper]

Coincidentally, there is a good article at JPFO on Constitutional carry right now.

[url="http://jpfo.org/alerts2012/alert20121104.htm"]http://jpfo.org/alerts2012/alert20121104.htm[/url]

[Guest PapaB]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1351787239' post='837183']
I'd say that there is really nothing "wrong" with the law we have (not that it couldn't be improved).

If our legislators actually followed the state constitution most of the restrictions we have to contend with in TN would, of necessity, never have been passed into law in the first place.

In other words, our problem, as is usually the case, is with the people this state has been electing to office.
[/quote]

I absolutely agree with this. As stated in other threads, it's illegal to carry a loaded gun in TN but an HCP is a defense to that. This clearly violates our State Constitution where it says "That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; [b]but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime[/b]."
They have actually created a crime, not prevented one, by making it illegal to carry a loaded weapon in Tennessee. Most, if not all laws, regarding the wearing of arms in Tennessee, by their very nature, violate our State Constitution. Any Judge that wouldn't rule them unconstitutional isn't fit to sit on the bench imho.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='PapaB' timestamp='1352205151' post='839922']
I absolutely agree with this. As stated in other threads, it's illegal to carry a loaded gun in TN but an HCP is a defense to that. This clearly violates our State Constitution where it says "That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; [b]but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime[/b]."
They have actually created a crime, not prevented one, by making it illegal to carry a loaded weapon in Tennessee. Most, if not all laws, regarding the wearing of arms in Tennessee, by their very nature, violate our State Constitution. Any Judge that wouldn't rule them unconstitutional isn't fit to sit on the bench imho.
[/quote]

Has been my contention also. Any constitutional challenge would surely logically hinge on whether the HCP system does indeed "prevent crime". And of course there can be no data to prove that it does. To assert that it does is an emotional knee jerk argument only.

And yes, most of the weapons statutes do indeed create a crime where none would exist otherwise, that's simply irrefutable. Unlawful possession/carry, school possession/carry, posting statute, etc.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand, this is an example of controlling the citizenry by arbitrarily making them criminals.

- OS