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

[my-rifle]

“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.”

2 problems I see:

1) "legitimate purposes" You can drive a truck through that loophole. Its ambiguity means that by redefining "legitimate purposes" they can do anything they want.

2) "Strict Scrutiny" What does that mean? Just think about how much "Advise and Consent" has been twisted, and you see what I mean.

 

[NRA80]

The core of the protection is the defense of "life" and "liberty." The "legitimate purposes is not a "loophole." Rather, it's a means of broadening the core and scope of the right to protect things like arms training, competition, historical preservation, hunting, etc.

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review and is reserved for the most fundamental of rights. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. In plain terms, there is not a higher level of review and the burden of proof is on the state.

 

[The_Shadow]

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

Thanks for working with this issue personally for Louisiana's people's rights.

 

[nickjames]

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

Thank you for your efforts sir.

 

[my-rifle]

The core of the protection is the defense of "life" and "liberty." The "legitimate purposes is not a "loophole." Rather, it's a means of broadening the core and scope of the right to protect things like arms training, competition, historical preservation, hunting, etc.

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review and is reserved for the most fundamental of rights. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. In plain terms, there is not a higher level of review and the burden of proof is on the state.

So what happens 20 years from now in an anti-gun environment when they decide to redefine "legitimate purposes" to mean competition and nothing else?

 

[sraacke]

So would this new wording allow us to
Carry in a Gun Free School Zone
Carry in a bar or resturant which serves alcohol for on site consumption
Carry in polling places
Carry in government buildings
Carry in/at parades or fairs where a government permit was issued
Carry on university or vocational school campuses
Carry at public sporting events
Carry on Corps of Engineer maintained levees or other properties
?????
Our current state amendment Article 1 Section 11, seems pretty cut and dry

"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."

Even so there plenty of places where we can't legally carry at the moment and we need to clear them up.
Instead of trying to reword the thing why don't we work on thelling them "What part of SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED don't you understand?"
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate your efforts but I question whether this is even a fight which needs to be fought or if it will do any more than our current language.

 

[NRA80]

Defense of "life" and "liberty" are the core of the right. Adding the term "legitimate purposes," provides an even broader protection (scope) -- outside of "life" and "liberty." We would both agree that "competitions" should be protected already, however, given how Heller and McDonald have been misconstrued, I would want as much protection as possible, and at the very least, be able to argue that "competitions" are a legitimate purpose to protect.

 

[Emperor]

Defense of "life" and "liberty" are the core of the right. Adding the term "legitimate purposes," provides an even broader protection (scope) -- outside of "life" and "liberty." We would both agree that "competitions" should be protected already, however, given how Heller and McDonald have been misconstrued, I would want as much protection as possible, and at the very least, be able to argue that "competitions" are a legitimate purpose to protect.

Why is Chicago still thwarting those people's efforts to arm themselves, and how are they getting away with it?

 

[NRA80]

Steve,

Appreciate your efforts in defending Louisianans rights. I would argue that some of the places you listed could be overturned under current Second Amendment analysis. Generally speaking, if Heller and McDonald are overturned, Louisiana does not have much in the way of state-level protection. The language will absolutely give more protection than the current provision. For instance, simply removing the legislature's ability to ban the concealed carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens is an improvement. Deeming the right as "fundamental" is also a necessary improvement -- triggers a heightened level of judicial review. Clarifying that "bear" means "carry" -- open or concealed. That's just a few.

 

[NRA80]

Why is Chicago still thwarting those people's efforts to arm themselves, and how are they getting away with it?

If Illinois had SB303's proposed language in their state constitution, law-abiding citizens would not be prohibited from exercising their rights. This also may help: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/n...-denying-right-to-carry-outside-the-home.aspx

 

[NRA80]

I would encourage everyone to contact members of the committee:

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s...t-to-be-heard-on-tuesday.aspx?s=&st=10482&ps=

Opposition is mounting and all of your voices need to be heard.

 

[nickjames]

So what happens 20 years from now in an anti-gun environment when they decide to redefine "legitimate purposes" to mean competition and nothing else?

Good point.

Serious question: can anyone think of an "illegitimate legal" purpose?

Wouldn't being legal be enough?

 

[NRA80]

Good point.

Serious question: can anyone think of an "illegitimate legal" purpose?

Wouldn't being legal be enough?

The same would be true for "legal" as well. The point is that including "legitimate purposes" avails Louisianans to MORE protected actions -- rather than a narrowed list that has the potential for being interpreted as exhaustive or limited.

 

[XD-GEM]

I sincerely hope you've already gathered the votes to pass this, because if not, then you've pointed the way for the anti-gunners in this state if this fails to pass.

I appreciate your efforts for us, by the way; but I am concerned that this will simply lead to legislators adding a "finding" statement, as is the case often enough in national legislation, to make whatever they want be a legitimate and compelling state interest in whatever ban they choose.

Also, Steve and the rest of us in LOCAL have worked very hard for the past few years spreading the word to local officials about our rights. We've gotten some local laws changed, and we've persuaded more than a few legislators to drop proposed bills, all by pointing out Article 1, Section 11, in its current, simple state. No one has, as yet, brought up the Supreme Court case you have cited above.

 

[vsound]

I didn't get to see what happened in the committee meeting this morning. How did it go?

 

[Emperor]

I didn't get to see what happened in the committee meeting this morning. How did it go?

Well I think this guy voted; yeah!

Senator Fred Mills supports SB 303.


Yvette T. Greig
Legislative Assistant to
State Senator Fred Mills, Jr.
District 22
1010 Martin Street
Parks, LA 70582
Office: (337) 845-4240
Fax: (337) 845-4095
Email: millsf@legis.la.gov

 

[NRA80]

Well I think this guy voted; yeah!

Senator Fred Mills supports SB 303.


Yvette T. Greig
Legislative Assistant to
State Senator Fred Mills, Jr.
District 22
1010 Martin Street
Parks, LA 70582
Office: (337) 845-4240
Fax: (337) 845-4095
Email: millsf@legis.la.gov

I appreciate everyone's help. The bill passed the committee by a vote of 6-1. The Senate will likely take up the bill on the floor next week. Please contact your state Senator!!

 

[Emperor]

I appreciate everyone's help. The bill passed the committee by a vote of 6-1. The Senate will likely take up the bill on the floor next week. Please contact your state Senator!!

Which short sighted moron voted against it?

 

[Tulse Luper]

I appreciate everyone's help. The bill passed the committee by a vote of 6-1. The Senate will likely take up the bill on the floor next week. Please contact your state Senator!!

Fantastic.


Video archive should be posted eventually here:

http://senate.la.gov/Video/

 

[NRA80]

For: Perry, Adley Mills, White, Kostelka, Guillory
Against: Colomb