LA.'s "Keep & Bear Arms Amendment" To Be Heard Tuesday

[Robhic]

Louisiana: NRA’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment to be Heard on Tuesday
Contact Members of the Senate Judiciary “C” Committee Today

On Tuesday, April 3d, Senate Bill 303 will be considered by the Senate Judiciary “C” Committee. SB 303, introduced by state Senator Neil Riser (R-32), would improve the current provision in the state constitution and provide Louisianans the strongest and most comprehensive constitutional language of any state, guaranteeing our Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Louisiana for future generations. The language of SB303 reads:

“The right of individuals 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 on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny.”
This amendment is necessary because the Louisiana Supreme Court eviscerated the current right to keep and bears arms provision in 2001, action which has left Louisianans with little protection from overreaching state-imposed gun control or in the event the Heller or McDonald cases are overturned.

In fact, the current Louisiana provision has been so weakened by the state court that it would likely only prevent a complete across-the-board ban on firearms. Strengthening Louisiana’s state constitutional provision is necessary and will provide a critical defense against future efforts to infringe on Louisianan’s right to keep and bear arms.

Please contact members of the Senate Judiciary “C” Committee TODAY and respectfully request that they support SB303.
Senate Judiciary “C” Committee:

Senator Robert W. "Bob" Kostelka (R-35) - (Chairman)
Phone: (318) 362-3474
Email: kostelka@legis.la.gov

Senator Jonathan W. Perry (R-26) - (Vice-Chairman)
Phone: (337) 740-6425
Email: perryj@legis.la.gov

Senator Robert Adley (R-36)
Phone: (318) 965-1755
Email: adleyr@legis.la.gov

Senator Yvonne Dorsey-Colomb (D-14)
Phone: (225) 342-9700
Email: dorseyy@legis.la.gov

Senator Elbert L. Guillory (D-24)
Phone: (337) 943-2457
Email: guillorye@legis.la.gov

Senator Fred H. Mills, Jr. (R-22)
Phone: (337) 365-8484
Email: millsf@legis.la.gov

Senator Mack "Bodi" White (R-6)
Phone: (225) 272-1324
Email: whitem@legis.la.gov

 

[Emperor]

This is going to be something we want to get done! Thanks Robhic. You beat me to it.

May I suggest that everyone create an e-mail group now or over the weekend for this committee. Write a short concise letter telling them that you want them to support this, and send it on Monday or Tuesday morning.

Also, forward it to your friends; and have them send your original letter to the committee from their addresses and so on.

 

[Booseman]

Keep us up to date on this, please!!

 

[Robhic]

This is going to be something we want to get done! Thanks Robhic. You beat me to it.

No problemo! I knew you were going to do this so I saved you the time! In fact, here's the list, all ready for copying (I knew you wanted to do that, too):

whitem@legis.la.gov
millsf@legis.la.gov
guillorye@legis.la.gov
dorseyy@legis.la.gov
adleyr@legis.la.gov
perryj@legis.la.gov
kostelka@legis.la.gov

 

[XD-GEM]

Anyone know what State Supreme Court ruling from 2001 they are talking about? Just how was the very simple and straightforward language of our current state constitution "eviscerated?"

 

[USMC-Deano]

I'm guessing this will overturn the part that says, "EXCEPT for concealed carry restrictions?" Basically, this will make us a VT carry/Constitutional carry state?

 

[XD-GEM]

I'm guessing this will overturn the part that says, "EXCEPT for concealed carry restrictions?" Basically, this will make us a VT carry/Constitutional carry state?

No, it will not. It's not that long a bill, you can read it for yourself here:

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=778396


The most important part of the bill is that it explicitly states that courts MUST use "strict scrutiny" when judging the constitutionality of any law passed in the state. While this is the highest form of scrutiny, the amendment could make it easier for the Legislature to restrict gun rights by adding a "finding" clause to any proposal and tailor that finding to fit the demands of strict scrutiny.


I'd have to think long and hard about this - even though the NRA likes it.

 

[USMC-Deano]

No, it will not. It's not that long a bill, you can read it for yourself here:

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=778396


The most important part of the bill is that it explicitly states that courts MUST use "strict scrutiny" when judging the constitutionality of any law passed in the state. While this is the highest form of scrutiny, the amendment could make it easier for the Legislature to restrict gun rights by adding a "finding" clause to any proposal and tailor that finding to fit the demands of strict scrutiny.


I'd have to think long and hard about this - even though the NRA likes it.

Mmhmm...well, this would be a nice amendment, but not really the one I'm looking for. However, I will make a conscious effort to email said senators to at least try to work towards getting us at the top of the gun rights food chain.

 

[Pale Horse]

Anyone know what State Supreme Court ruling from 2001 they are talking about? Just how was the very simple and straightforward language of our current state constitution "eviscerated?"

This is what I'd like to know. The only case from 2001 I could find related to firearms is regarding guns and drugs together being an additional offense.

I'd have to think long and hard about this - even though the NRA likes it.

This. The NRA will trumpet about how much we need them (so send them money); then later when it's used against us they'll "fight" it for us (so send them money).

 

[Pale Horse]

to at least try to work towards getting us at the top of the gun rights food chain.

Honestly, we're on up there already. I've been doing a lot of comparing the last year or so after considering moving. CC without a permit is the only thing that we don't have here, and I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[USMC-Deano]

Honestly, we're on up there already. I've been doing a lot of comparing the last year or so after considering moving. CC without a permit is the only thing that we don't have here, and I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

College carry, too. That's one I really would like to see here, and soon. Hell, even California allows campus carry, for crying out loud! Colorado just won that distinction as well, along with a few other states.

 

[Pale Horse]

College carry, too. That's one I really would like to see here, and soon. Hell, even California allows campus carry, for crying out loud! Colorado just won that distinction as well, along with a few other states.

You're right, I forgot that one. Still, I think that would be something for a bill, not amending the state constitution in a way that may actually make gun control easier.

I seem to recall that was tried recently. Remember Shelia "dis mah pet pee" Jackson?

 

[Tulse Luper]

Thanks for posting this.

 

[Robhic]

Off'n the top o my haid without a lot of specifics:

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate,

It has come to my attention that Senate Bill 303 is
coming before your committee soon.

I, as a private gun-owner, would like to ask that
you do all in your powers to strengthen this bill
which impacts some very important rights of
private citizens of Louisiana.

I enjoy my Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms. I am a LA Concealed Handun Permit
holder and feel this right should not be infringed
upon. I also think the 2nd Amendment right itself
should not be diminished in any way.

I sincerely hope you will make sure that the rights
of Louisiana citizens will be retained. I enjoy
shooting and guns as a hobby. Please don't do
anything that will reduce or impair our rights!

Thank you very much for your time and I hope this
issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of all gun
owners in the state.

Sincerely,

After reading I think "law-abiding" should have been in there somewhere, also.

 

[NRA80]

Why is Louisiana’s current right to keep and bear arms amendment inadequate?

• Because the Louisiana courts have determined that the current right to arms provision
deserves the lowest level of review, the provision provides less protection than the
Second Amendment itself, rending Louisiana's constitutional provision meaningless
under Heller and McDonald.

• According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, "The State of Louisiana is entitled to restrict
that right for legitimate state purposes, such as public health and safety. "State v.
Blanchard, 776 So.2d 1165, 1168 (La. 2001).

• The requirement of only a "legitimate" state purpose, and no specified degree of "fit"
between the restriction and that purpose, basically subjects restrictions of the right to
keep and bear arms under the Louisiana Constitution to rational basis scrutiny. See
United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

• During the Heller case, Justice Scalia noted:

"Obviously, [rational basis scrutiny] could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a
legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee
against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. * * * If all that
was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second
Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws,
and would have no effect."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628 fn. 27 (2008). As Justice Scalia notes, "almost
all laws ... would pass rational-basis scrutiny." Id.


• Additionally, the current provision expressly allows the legislature to impose a ban on the
carrying of weapons concealed on the person – even in one’s home or on one’s own
property or under specific threat of harm.

• Further, the passage of an outright ban on law-abiding Louisianans carrying a concealed
firearm would not likely be deemed unconstitutional based on the current state-level
provision.

 

[XD-GEM]

Well, that's sort of what I was looking for, but why the lengthy enumeration? The current Article 1, Section 11 reads:

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Section 11. 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.

Wouldn't amending it like this do the same thing?

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, and any restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

 

[The_Shadow]

I e-mailed all of them to express my concerns to show support to strengthen the Louisiana Constitution with respect to our rights to bear arms! I will call monday also.

 

[NRA80]

“The right of individuals 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 on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny.”

The provision was crafted to overcome the shortcomings of all state-level right to arms provisions. The language is meant to be comprehensive and the strongest language in the country.

SB303 would do a number of things including recognize the full scope of the right to keep and bear arms, not just the 'right to an operable handgun in the home' that some courts have incorrectly concluded is all that Heller and McDonald protect. It would also expressly protect the right as "fundamental." And as a fundamental right, it deserves a "strict scrutiny" level of review.

Including express strict scrutiny is necessary to prevent -- despite the "fundamental" status -- future courts deeming the right a lesser standard of review. However, it is likely that the express fundamental status -- without the express "strict scrutiny" -- would trigger a strict scrutiny analysis -- at the very least a higher level of review than rational basis.

The following terms are all part of "keep" and "bear": acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms. By expressly listing out said terms you provide more protection and limit any ambiguity on what, for instance, "bear" means.

The provision protects “arms” generally, rather than firearms specifically. This allows persons to claim that other weapons that aren’t firearms are also protected and allows for advancements in technology that may someday make metallic cartridge firearms obsolete.

It also lists a number of things that may be done with arms without purporting to establish an exhaustive list. Importantly, the core of the right is “use [of] arms to defend life and liberty.” Defense of “liberty” is obviously a broader term than self-defense and at least leaves the door open for arguments against categorical prohibitions like bans on certain semi-automatic arms. At the same time, the phrasing is fairly innocuous, as reasonable people will generally agree that “liberty” is something worth defending. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, after all, states that it was ordained and established for reasons that include “provid[ing] for the common defence” and “secur[ing] the blessings of liberty.”

Other “legitimate purposes,” which would include training, competition, historical preservation, hunting, etc., are also protected.

 

[NRA80]

By the way, I'm NRA's lobbyist in Louisiana (also handle Minnesota and Iowa). I'm working on this bill and a number of others this session. Working to stop quite a few anti-gun bills too. You can follow me on twitter at @ChrisLRager. My email address: crager@nrahq.org

 

[GunRelated]

remember shelia "dis mah pet pee" jackson?

!!!congress woman!!!