Gun law that excludes felons is upheld by Louisiana Supreme Court

[Gungrabishere14]

I was living in Louisiana and received my gun rights back in 2010 and received a UPIN under federal law that basically read if the state restores those rights they respect that and barring no federal crimes allow you to purchase firearms which I have the last 4 years. During that time since I could not obtain a ccw under LA law I got an out of state ccw for traveling not even to carry but as you travel from state to state the laws change on how to legally carry a firearm in you vehicle unless u have a ccw that they honor. About 2 weeks after LA passed a law stating LA residents which I was would not honor out of state permits which was fine because they don't have restrictions on traveling with firearms in your vehicle. It was only now in Jan of 2014 that these letter stating that the feds changed their opinion on how they interpret LA law. Not Louisiana saying that 14.95.1 (c) is invalid so it's not LA that says I don't have gun rights but now the feds have changed their minds and qoute the CCL requirement as the basis for their opinion and cite Caron vs us which has nothing to do with ccw and is a stretch to say the least. Many of u do not understand that LA gives you your firearm rights back and the feds accepted this and would give you a UPIN if applied for or would have to wait 3 days. What they have done is with a stroke of a pen made 10's of thousands of previously legal firearm owner to felons under their interpretation of LA law. So all the firearms and ammo that we legally purchased we now have to get rid of orb take our chances in hopes that LA changes the law that they are citing, that is the problem here and they did that because the feds were pissed about the lifetime ccw and bypassing of nics when purchasing a firearm. I never applied for a LA ccw but it is chicken sh@t that they just send us a letter and say that all of a sudden we are now felons even though the state never said that was the case. The state trumps the Fed concerning our rights to posses firearms that's why they gave us upins to start with.

 

[infringed]

I was living in Louisiana and received my gun rights back in 2010 and received a UPIN under federal law that basically read if the state restores those rights they respect that and barring no federal crimes allow you to purchase firearms which I have the last 4 years. During that time since I could not obtain a ccw under LA law I got an out of state ccw for traveling not even to carry but as you travel from state to state the laws change on how to legally carry a firearm in you vehicle unless u have a ccw that they honor. About 2 weeks after LA passed a law stating LA residents which I was would not honor out of state permits which was fine because they don't have restrictions on traveling with firearms in your vehicle. It was only now in Jan of 2014 that these letter stating that the feds changed their opinion on how they interpret LA law. Not Louisiana saying that 14.95.1 (c) is invalid so it's not LA that says I don't have gun rights but now the feds have changed their minds and qoute the CCL requirement as the basis for their opinion and cite Caron vs us which has nothing to do with ccw and is a stretch to say the least. Many of u do not understand that LA gives you your firearm rights back and the feds accepted this and would give you a UPIN if applied for or would have to wait 3 days. What they have done is with a stroke of a pen made 10's of thousands of previously legal firearm owner to felons under their interpretation of LA law. So all the firearms and ammo that we legally purchased we now have to get rid of orb take our chances in hopes that LA changes the law that they are citing, that is the problem here and they did that because the feds were pissed about the lifetime ccw and bypassing of nics when purchasing a firearm. I never applied for a LA ccw but it is chicken sh@t that they just send us a letter and say that all of a sudden we are now felons even though the state never said that was the case. The state trumps the Fed concerning our rights to posses firearms that's why they gave us upins to start with.

Technically, you cannot sell or give away the firearms either. If you did and the person that purchased them committed a crime, you would also be subject to prosecution because you were not supposed to have them either at the time you sold them... It's a pretty messed up situation. The second you received the letter, you knew you were prohibited and thus became aware that you could not own, transfer, purchase, or sell a firearm. So the defense of you didn't know would probably fail as well.

 

[323MAR]

So lets hear it. repeat offenders aka slow learners think its unconstitutional for the state to say that they've lost the right to possess a firearm? Furthermore, in their infinite wisdom they rallied behind two murderers that are declaring that the law preventing them from getting a firearm is unconstitutional.

Good Job NICS?

I mean, whats the point of the thread if not for a standing ovation behind background checks?


and trust me- I hate gun laws, I just hate felons more.

No kidding, the test case individuals are real winners! I would like to have seen what would have happened if they had been minor offenders with old convictions.
These characters are exactly the kinds of people who should not have guns. Unfortunately, they can be just as dangerous with other weapons.

 

[Jack]

Technically, you cannot sell or give away the firearms either. If you did and the person that purchased them committed a crime, you would also be subject to prosecution because you were not supposed to have them either at the time you sold them... It's a pretty messed up situation. The second you received the letter, you knew you were prohibited and thus became aware that you could not own, transfer, purchase, or sell a firearm. So the defense of you didn't know would probably fail as well.

Well, I'll take them, I have a clean record, no interest in using them in a drive by shooting, and am very discreet.

Why are we talking about federal changes in a thread about a LA Supreme Court ruling on 14:95? I know you and gun grab are here to beat the drum about how you've been wronged, but I don't see the relevance here.

 

[madwabbit]

Well, I'll take them, I have a clean record, no interest in using them in a drive by shooting, and am very discreet.

Why are we talking about federal changes in a thread about a LA Supreme Court ruling on 14:95? I know you and gun grab are here to beat the drum about how you've been wronged, but I don't see the relevance here.

If I understand it correctly, (and im not entirely certain that I do), two murderers rallied a group to challenge a federal statute because their parole officer and attorney told them that after X time they could legally carry a firearm.

...At which point, NICS promptly delivered a swift kick in the junk.


These two argue that its an overreach of legislation for repeat drug offenders to be barred by the same rule, because once they served their time they should have their rights restored.


So, there's just too many angles to this one to attack with a straight face, but I desist. Have fun Jack.

 

[Jack]

If I understand it correctly, (and im not entirely certain that I do), two murderers rallied a group to challenge a federal statute because their parole officer and attorney told them that after X time they could legally carry a firearm.

...At which point, NICS promptly delivered a swift kick in the junk.


These two argue that its an overreach of legislation for repeat drug offenders to be barred by the same rule, because once they served their time they should have their rights restored.


So, there's just too many angles to this one to attack with a straight face, but I desist. Have fun Jack.

Wait, either the guys posting in this thread murdered people, or you're confused, or now I'm really ****ing confused. Or is the relevance that they want these guys who killed a little kid in a driveby to get their gun rights back in 2024?

 

[madwabbit]

Taylor is barred from having guns because of his five felony narcotics convictions, while Stevens may not have guns because of his convictions of second-degree battery and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, prosecutors said.

Pitre had ruled favorably for the two defendants, granting them their request to quash the firearm charges on constitutional grounds. Pitre has handed down similar rulings in other cases.

Taylor and Stevens are two of three men who await trial in a Jan. 6, 2012, drive-by shooting near Westwego. A stray bullet struck 11-year-old Keian Ester of Harvey in the eye, killing him. The murder and attempted murder charges against the defendants were not affected by Pitre's ruling on the gun offenses.

see, the argument the two posting are making are that drug offenders are really just the victims of over-legislation and they should have their rights restored.


what pisses me off is that felons make this argument and actually give liberals a valid argument for gun control crap, which affects those of us that aren't felons or drug heads. what pisses me off more is that both of those clowns should have had 20+ year sentences for repeated felonies and if they had, an 11 year old migh still be alive. 3 strikes is the one thing california gets correct.

 

[SpeedRacer]

I just read the whole thread, and the supporting documents, and I still have no clue what the hell is going on or what the hell just changed. I have thus decided to simply not commit any felonies and not give a rat's booty.

 

[TomTerrific]

Consequences, my friend, consequences.

 

[tim9lives]

Wow...talk about going off on a tangent when you think that the thread is about the loss of gun rights or that the thread is about felons wanting their rights back.

First off. The thread is about the La Supreme Court clarifying the recently passed Legislation where La Voters said that the Right to Bear arms is a fundamental right which requires strict scrutiny.

The second paragraph of the article made that pretty clear. ---Both challenges to Revised Statute 14:95.1 are byproducts of a 2012 constitutional amendment that made gun ownership a fundamental right. The amendment, which Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved, strengthened the state's gun rights and required that any limit to them must meet a "strict scrutiny" test, the highest level of judicial review.

What happened is that a lawyer tried to get some really bad guys sentences reduced. Furthermore...when the La voters passed this new rule...The local New Orleans DA along with some of the LE people screamed bloody murder about all of the doom and gloom related to said law.

I mean WTF...did anyone really read the article ????


As far as felons...the Justices even touched on that also. The reiterated the 10 year rule and made it clear that La does have less restrictive laws.
The wrote in their ruling ---
Further, the law is
narrowly tailored in its application to the possession of firearms or the carrying of
concealed weapons for a period of only ten years from the date of completion of
sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, and to only those convicted
of the enumerated felonies determined by the legislature to be offenses having the
actual or potential danger of harm to other members of the general public
We note that Louisiana’s LSA-R.S. 14:95.1 felon-in-possession law is less restrictive than the
comparable federal law, which encompasses nearly all felonies and has no ten-year cleansing
period. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 922

 

[Jack]

Wow...talk about going off on a tangent when you think that the thread is about the loss of gun rights or that the thread is about felons wanting their rights back.

First off. The thread is about the La Supreme Court clarifying the recently passed Legislation where La Voters said that the Right to Bear arms is a fundamental right which requires strict scrutiny.

The second paragraph of the article made that pretty clear. ---Both challenges to Revised Statute 14:95.1 are byproducts of a 2012 constitutional amendment that made gun ownership a fundamental right. The amendment, which Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved, strengthened the state's gun rights and required that any limit to them must meet a "strict scrutiny" test, the highest level of judicial review.

What happened is that a lawyer tried to get some really bad guys sentences reduced. Furthermore...when the La voters passed this new rule...The local New Orleans DA along with some of the LE people screamed bloody murder about all of the doom and gloom related to said law.

I mean WTF...did anyone really read the article ????


As far as felons...the Justices even touched on that also. The reiterated the 10 year rule and made it clear that La does have less restrictive laws.
The wrote in their ruling ---
Further, the law is
narrowly tailored in its application to the possession of firearms or the carrying of
concealed weapons for a period of only ten years from the date of completion of
sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, and to only those convicted
of the enumerated felonies determined by the legislature to be offenses having the
actual or potential danger of harm to other members of the general public
We note that Louisiana’s LSA-R.S. 14:95.1 felon-in-possession law is less restrictive than the
comparable federal law, which encompasses nearly all felonies and has no ten-year cleansing
period. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 922

That's why I'm so damn confused. This has nothing to do with UPINs, NCIS checks, etc. etc. but somehow that is all that anyone is talking about.

 

[jmcrawf1]

So many felons on bayoushooter got da' butthurt.


Fight the good fight tim9lives.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I just read the whole thread, and the supporting documents, and I still have no clue what the hell is going on or what the hell just changed. I have thus decided to simply not commit any felonies and not give a rat's booty.

It may not apply just to 893 adjudicants (persons who plead guilty to certain felonies under 893.) IF the DOJ is taking the position that any restriction in regards to firearms resulting from a conviction (even if under 893/894) will make an individual a "prohibited person" under federal law, then (and correct me if I am wrong) a DWI conviction in Louisiana will make you a prohibited person. (I AM UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT A DWI CONVICTION MAKES ONE INELIGIBLE FOR A CHP; if not, I stand corrected.)

Do any of you drink and drive?

(And, yes, this thread has been hijacked by a tangential issue; my apologies for adding to it.)

NH
p.s. If true, this may be where the "tens of thousands" figure that someone claimed the State Police told him comes from.(?)
p.p.s. For what it is worth, I don't think anyone should loose their RKBA because of a first conviction DWI. Maybe others disagree.

 

[Jack]

**** drunk drivers. I don't trust those selfish cock suckers with a car, much less a gun.

 

[bhart89]

**** drunk drivers. I don't trust those selfish cock suckers with a car, much less a gun.

They shouldn't be able to vote either right?

 

[tim9lives]

The big question IMO is this. Is this a local thing only in La because of the recently passed legislation from Baton Rouge having to do with lifetime concealed handgun permit
Or...Is this a new policy by the USDJ....Targeting each and every one the sub groups to whittle down firearm possession.

Today....felons, abusers, DUI's

Tomorrow.....Anyone treated for depression....PTSD....etc....

What next....people who are late on paying their student loans....behind in their taxes....

 

[Jack]

They shouldn't be able to vote either right?

Haven't given it much thought

 

[GunRelated]

NH
p.s. If true, this may be where the "tens of thousands" figure that someone claimed the State Police told him comes from.(?)

I don't think so. I am assuming that there are 10's of thousands of first time felony offenders that have been granted their rights back without including non felony DUI offenders. I don't doubt that estimation at all. We are human, we all make mistakes. Some make larger mistakes or poorer choices. Some get caught, some don't. To say that each and every person who has a felony on their record can not be trusted to not learn from their past to make themselves a greater person and law abiding citizen that is capable of being a safe and responsible gun owner is horse ****.

 

[Gungrabishere14]

I fell under that 10 yr rule back in 2010. My rights were restored for 4 yrs till I recently received a letter out of the blue. Tim is right they will continue to whittle away at everyone's rights until nobody can own a firearm. Now that just was referring to me and I'm sure it will be corrected as I got my rights back per 14.95.1 (c) that the judges referenced in this case. This will effect 10's of thousands and I trust our judges can interpret LA law better than someone at ATF or NICS because they seem to have one agenda. Run guns across the border, bring illegal aliens into the United States and infringe on Americans rights at home.

 

[Nathan Hale]

The big question IMO is this. Is this a local thing only in La because of the recently passed legislation from Baton Rouge having to do with lifetime concealed handgun permit
Or...Is this a new policy by the USDJ....Targeting each and every one the sub groups to whittle down firearm possession.

Today....felons, abusers, DUI's

Tomorrow.....Anyone treated for depression....PTSD....etc....

What next....people who are late on paying their student loans....behind in their taxes....

EXACTLY!

This is what concerns me about this recent change. I think the gun controlist will be trying to increase the number of "prohibited persons" by increasing who is a "prohibited person". They do not care how they achieve their goal, as long as they do achieve it.

I hope people who value the RKBA realize realize what is going on, and how dangerous it is.

(It's like mission creep, except it is on purpose.)

NH