Nathan,
What have you been convicted of? I seem to remember you had trouble getting a CHP?
Gun law that excludes felons is upheld by Louisiana Supreme Court
- Thread starter tim9lives
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Nathan,
What have you been convicted of? I seem to remember you had trouble getting a CHP?
I have been blessed last several years to have a good job and can afford to take the fight to the LA supreme Court if I can find a good atty who can take the case. Based on the article that Tim posted as far as Louisiana is concerned there should be nothing in state law to impede the 10yr rule period. That what I fall under as of Jan 2010 and that's what I would petition in court. All my charges were Marijuana related. No violence or anything of that nature. Believe it or not it's hard to find a good atty who is both informed and passionate about the 2nd amendment and states rights.
Check out this op ed concerning this case and one in Colorado again they mention the 10yr rule. How come it's so obvious to everyone but the feds and rabbit dude that this is LA law http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/vo.../03/bad-week-for-felons-who-want-to-own-guns/
They can take the ccw and shove it but don't mess with my rights.
They can take the ccw and shove it but don't mess with my rights.
You have mistaken me with someone else.
Last edited:
The Supreme Court can rule all they want on the effects of 14:95. As it stands now, even if someone managed to win a case by arguing against the validity of that law, Federal law would still come into play. The Supreme Court could have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and struck down the law, the current Federal legality would not have changed. This ruling would have been trumped by Federal law either way.
The things I've been drumming about have been an attempt at education. I'm not subject to 14:95 nor are many others that are affected by these changes. Further, I'm not a felon. Regardless of what you feel about "felonies" (and in a lot of cases, misdemeanors) or people that commit them, the issues remain: State law is restoring a right, without exception. Federal law is using the restriction of a state privilege to deny those rights.
To quote Nathan Hale
I never stated a UPIN (which is simply an identification number) had anything to do with this thread, nor do I mention it in any of my posts on this thread.
In this case, the Supreme Court maintains that this law is constitutionally valid. The ruling also acknowledges that Federal law may be more restrictive. So I ask, what is the purpose of a state law that is nullified by a federal one? It only serves to confuse and entrap.
The argument of the criminal defense attorneys in the cases mentioned by the OP is a fundamental constitutional right argument (I'm NOT saying it flies in these cases, I'm saying that is the argument.)
The UPIN argument seems at least similar; that is, a right that is fundamental in our state (RKBA), and which is suppose to be restored by LCCrP article 893, is simply being denied to our Louisiana citizens because some federal employee somewhere has decided that it should be that way.
The impetus for the argument is the same. That is what the change in the stance of the feds in re UPIN#s has to do with the topic of this thread.
I will say this, however, there is another thread that deals specifically with 893 and UPINs.
Last edited:
The GCA of 68 was not really intended to stop violent felons from having guns. It was aimed at black people and the civil rights/war protest movements. Of course there was some revisionist history that would be used to convince people that it was for their "safety."
Once you get past the knee jerk reaction that felons are scum and don't deserve any rights, the LA Supreme Court's ruling in this case really got me a bit perturbed.
Our constitution in Section 11 states: "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." Seems pretty straightforward, if you ask me.
A law that prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms certainly restricts Section 11 rights. If challenged in court, strict scrutiny means the law is presumed to be unconstitutional. To defend the law, the government must show
1. It is justified by a compelling state interest
2. It is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest
3. It is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest
Banning all felons from possessing firearms me seems to fail on 2 of the 3 tests. The compelling state interest? Well, I guess it's to protect the public against convicted criminals who may be statistically likely to re-offend. But is a blanket restriction on ALL felons narrowly tailored, or the least restrictive means to to keep us safe? I would argue clearly not.
50 or 75 years ago, there were only a few felonies on the books. They were pretty much all really serious crimes. Crimes that most of us would think warranted punishment by long prison terms, followed by long periods of supervision. Crimes almost anyone would agree warranted loss of civil rights such as possessing firearms.
These days, though, things are a lot different. Every year more and more things become felonies, and most of them are not violent crimes. Should a person convicted of, say, credit card fraud, lose his firearms rights? A crime like that usually becomes a felony depending on the dollar amount involved. So, one dollar less, it's a misdemeanor and you keep your guns? How does it protect society to keep someone who writes some bad checks from having a gun?
Many folks may believe anyone who commits a felony deserves whatever they get. I can relate to that. But it's not the law.
I don't think the Supreme Court correctly applied strict scrutiny in this case. I think it's a precedent that could end up rendering our much-ballyhooed 2012 amendment pretty much meaningless.
Our constitution in Section 11 states: "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." Seems pretty straightforward, if you ask me.
A law that prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms certainly restricts Section 11 rights. If challenged in court, strict scrutiny means the law is presumed to be unconstitutional. To defend the law, the government must show
1. It is justified by a compelling state interest
2. It is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest
3. It is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest
Banning all felons from possessing firearms me seems to fail on 2 of the 3 tests. The compelling state interest? Well, I guess it's to protect the public against convicted criminals who may be statistically likely to re-offend. But is a blanket restriction on ALL felons narrowly tailored, or the least restrictive means to to keep us safe? I would argue clearly not.
50 or 75 years ago, there were only a few felonies on the books. They were pretty much all really serious crimes. Crimes that most of us would think warranted punishment by long prison terms, followed by long periods of supervision. Crimes almost anyone would agree warranted loss of civil rights such as possessing firearms.
These days, though, things are a lot different. Every year more and more things become felonies, and most of them are not violent crimes. Should a person convicted of, say, credit card fraud, lose his firearms rights? A crime like that usually becomes a felony depending on the dollar amount involved. So, one dollar less, it's a misdemeanor and you keep your guns? How does it protect society to keep someone who writes some bad checks from having a gun?
Many folks may believe anyone who commits a felony deserves whatever they get. I can relate to that. But it's not the law.
I don't think the Supreme Court correctly applied strict scrutiny in this case. I think it's a precedent that could end up rendering our much-ballyhooed 2012 amendment pretty much meaningless.
No. Maybe that was once true. Part of my point was that so many things have become felonies these days that it's anything but a narrow category.
you may want to review 14:95.1 Possession of firearm or carrying concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies.
the 10 year period prohibition is for specific offenses - roughly crimes of violence and drug PWITD and manufacturing.
the other non violent felonies was once a person completed their sentence/probation.
the 10 year period prohibition is for specific offenses - roughly crimes of violence and drug PWITD and manufacturing.
the other non violent felonies was once a person completed their sentence/probation.
Well, I think you're missing the point. The issues are first, what is the compelling state interest in infringing on the firearms rights of felons? Public safety? Punishment? Deterrence?
Assuming the government can establish a compelling interest, they need to show the law in question is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive way to achieve the intended purpose of the law. If someone has no history of violence, does not use a firearm in the commission of a crime, is not even armed and is convicted of a non-violent crime, how can you argue that the current law is at all narrowly tailored or the least restrict means?
I don't think you can. It would be very simple to categorize the felonies that are on the books and decide which ones really do make us concerned about a person possessing firearms. Some are completely obvious: any felony committed using a firearm, or committed while armed. Any violent felony- homicide, battery, some sexual assaults, strong-arm robbery.
What purpose is served by taking firearms from someone for ten years who wrote some bad checks? Or didn't pay his income taxes? Or even, say an 18 year old who had consensual sex with his underage girlfriend and gets convicted of statutory rape?
Punishment? Again, there are other, less restrictive, ways to punish a person for a crime.
The La Justices upheld guilty convictions because....after reviewing the cases....USING STRICT SCRUTINY....they found that all of the defendants violated Louisiana laws which bar VIOLENT felons from possessing firearms. ALL of these guys violated Louisiana firearms laws very shortly after they were released.
None of these violent offenders obeyed the La Firearms laws which state that if they stay clean for 10 years....then they can legally possess a firearm. That is the strict scrutiny.
And the purpose of the current 14.95 laws is to protect the safety of the public.
Below are some of the excerpts from the La Justices 17 page ruling.
http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2014/13KK2306.opn.pdf
We conclude that LSA-R.S. 14:95.1 serves a compelling governmental
interest that has long been jurisprudentially recognized and is grounded in the
legislature’s intent to protect the safety of the general public from felons convicted
of specified serious crimes, who have demonstrated a dangerous disregard for the
law and the safety of others and who present a potential threat of further or future
criminal activity.
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.
Under these circumstances, we find *a long history, a substantial consensus, and simple
common sense* to be sufficient evidence for even a strict scrutiny review.
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 (g): *It shall be unlawful for any person ... who has been
convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ...
to ... possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or
ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.*
Each of the three defendants reoffended within a relatively short period of
time following the completion of previously imposed State supervision. Stevens
was released from State supervision on his prior conviction for possession of
marijuana on May 18, 2011, and he was charged with committing a violation of
LSA-R.S. 14:95.1 on June 8, 2011, only three weeks later. Eberhardt was released
from State supervision on his prior conviction of unauthorized entry of an
inhabited dwelling on May 30, 2010, and he was charged with committing a
violation of LSA-R.S. 14:95.1 on June 27, 2012, approximately two years later
Taylor completed his prior federal sentence for possession of cocaine and was
released from federal supervision on June 1, 2007, and he was charged with
committing a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:95.1 on June 21, 2011, approximately four
years later.
These three defendants illustrate, rather than show exceptions to, the
principles underlying felon-in-possession laws such as LSA-R.S. 14:95.1, i.e., that
certain convicted felons have demonstrated a dangerous disregard for the law and
present a potential threat of further or future criminal activity and are more likely
than non felons to engage in illegal and violent gun use. These cases demonstrate
that convicted felons are not only at risk to reoffend, but are at risk to reoffend
using firearms.
Last edited:
Everything else aside- you guys gotta understand something. Gun control is hotter than ever and if commiefornia has their way, NO ONE will have them. In the infinite wisdom that is "knowing the law you learned from a 1983 textbook while locked up", the guys proposing a change to this system are convicted of crimes of violence. This group pretty much elected the poster child for gun control.
Now, you want to make the argument that despite the country largely split on "some people" having guns, that recently released felons that commited crimes of violence should have their rights restored?
To me this is so far down the list of priorities for gun regulations that I don't see it even being addressed in our lifetime- and furthermore even advocating it at all under current temperature of gun control its just hurting the entire argument.
Tim's last paragraph reiterates my entire point of view beautifully:
These three defendants illustrate, rather than show exceptions to, the
principles underlying felon-in-possession laws such as LSA-R.S. 14:95.1, i.e., that
certain convicted felons have demonstrated a dangerous disregard for the law and
present a potential threat of further or future criminal activity and are more likely
than non felons to engage in illegal and violent gun use. These cases demonstrate
that convicted felons are not only at risk to reoffend, but are at risk to reoffend
using firearms.
Now, you want to make the argument that despite the country largely split on "some people" having guns, that recently released felons that commited crimes of violence should have their rights restored?
To me this is so far down the list of priorities for gun regulations that I don't see it even being addressed in our lifetime- and furthermore even advocating it at all under current temperature of gun control its just hurting the entire argument.
Tim's last paragraph reiterates my entire point of view beautifully:
These three defendants illustrate, rather than show exceptions to, the
principles underlying felon-in-possession laws such as LSA-R.S. 14:95.1, i.e., that
certain convicted felons have demonstrated a dangerous disregard for the law and
present a potential threat of further or future criminal activity and are more likely
than non felons to engage in illegal and violent gun use. These cases demonstrate
that convicted felons are not only at risk to reoffend, but are at risk to reoffend
using firearms.
Last edited:
Members online
- john17427
- The_Lousianian
- firelane
- navops
- BillnLA
- javery5.0
- Comrade Fish
- JL1300
- theway109
- highstandard40
- usmc-nav
- JD10
- MD_Wells
- Leafbloer
- Gmac
- nlognion93
- tmout94
- Big H
- bronco2977
- jtj5002
- southerner985
- redfish1
- Radar55
- hooversdh87
- Savedbygrace
- success
- tbone
- Purplengeauld
- T-boy
- Generalludd
- Denisbl0
- RooftopVoter
- dantheman
- Peterpaul227
- whbonney26
- Huntingman7799
- Xeon64
- Daspy
- JBP55
- outtatoiletpaper
- Sparticus
- FrankEDavis
- mikelee
- phishyt
- jakejake96
- WilsonCombatant
- puritanize
- WhereIsIt?
- 323MAR
- jlw
