My rights were restored in 2010 after waiting 10yrs 8 months, b/c Marijuana felony . at the same time I was issued a upin from the feds. I called then head of LSP ccw Mr Revis I believe and inquired about a CCW and he told me it was a privilege and that even though I could buy any weapon or open carry I could not obtain a LA ccw. So I went on vacation to FL and got one no problem. Fast forward to June 2014 I received a letter from NICS revoking my upin under Caron... Which is a stretch considering caron rrestrictions. So yes you are right according to the head of LSP at that time who said it was a privilege just like a driver's license. Also an investigator at the atty generals office also agreed it was a privilege not a right so he agreed as well. My exwife who had depression has never been arrested could only get a CCW if her doctor would sign off according to Louisiana law. Doctors will not stick their necks out so theoretically it could also included anyone who had been treated for depression or I assume ptsd. So before all you mightier than thous dismiss all of us who had our rights restored just to be taken away years and decades later say we don't deserve ours. It is the feds reinterpretation of Louisiana law that is the problem I even in light of the July 2014 case in the Louisiana supreme Court which stated 14 95.1 was constitutional. So don't worry before long nobody will have their rights especially with holyier than thou people on this forum not understanding this is only the start of a larger slow process to eliminate everyones rights.
Louisiana Expungements do not allow firearm ownership according to NICS/FBI/DOJ
- Thread starter infringed
- 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:
- Status
here's one example of your ignorance.
Truth: you do not need any permits or licenses to own a firearm in the state of louisiana - zip, nada. Hell you don't even need a permit or license to carry it, only to conceal it.
Here's another. You dont know if you have a felony conviction (lol?), you've never been through the application process, and yet you know how it works because the internet/some guy told you so?
You're fully ignorant of what you speak at best, and intentionally posting bogus legal information at worst.
Not everyone is "Holier than thou", but interpretations DO matter. Don't blame these forum members, blame lawyers! They have kept control of common people by "professionally" interpreting every law on the books ad nauseam. And I agree, the larger goal is the erosion of everyone's gun Rights.
so you are a restored felon that can once again legally own and carry a firearm. I fail to see the issue, other than this: You think that your poor decision to commit a felony is now being re-gifted as some government conspiracy gun grab because you can't get additional permission for the privilege to conceal said firearm?
Your rights were restored and it was a total pita, whats the problem?
Your wife is a separate issue that I dont have the time to elaborate on, but ill revisit it.
Last edited:
so you are a restored felon that can once again legally own and carry a firearm. I fail to see the issue, other than this: You think that your poor decision to commit a felony is now being re-gifted as some government conspiracy gun grab because you can't get additional permission for the privilege to conceal said firearm?
Not what he is saying. What he is saying is that his rights were restored and then without him doing anything else wrongful they were stripped away from him again because they Fed decided to interpret things in a different way.
Your rights were restored and it was a total pita, whats the problem?
They were taken from him again with no further action on his part.
It must not bother many people in this forum that the Fed can change how they "interpret" things and strip away rights that have been restored. If it doesnt then so be it. If you dont think it is a slow motion gun grab then thats fine also. I would ask you to research what has happened in Alaska and Montana on this same issue.
Not what he is saying. What he is saying is that his rights were restored and then without him doing anything else wrongful they were stripped away from him again because they Fed decided to interpret things in a different way.
Your rights were restored and it was a total pita, whats the problem?
They were taken from him again with no further action on his part.
It must not bother many people in this forum that the Fed can change how they "interpret" things and strip away rights that have been restored. If it doesnt then so be it. If you dont think it is a slow motion gun grab then thats fine also. I would ask you to research what has happened in Alaska and Montana on this same issue.
The Fed now says that if you are ineligible for CCW then you are ineligible to buy a firearm through NICS.
Though I would never openly advocate this, it seems that the punishment for a felon casually possessing a gun outside of the commission of a crime is largely ignored in this country!
At least that's what I take from watching and reading the news every day.
At least that's what I take from watching and reading the news every day.
Funny thing is the only people that are effected by this are the people that have changed themselves around and do not wish to break the law. The other thing is that as far as Louisiana law is concerned most of the felons on this thread can possess a firearm. It is only a crime when it comes to federal law.
give me a email and I can send a pic of the paper from the DOJ stating that LARS40:1379.3(c)(10) is the reasoning.
(10) Not have been convicted of, have entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, or not be charged under indictment or a bill of information for any crime of violence or any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or greater. A conviction, plea of guilty, or plea of nolo contendere under this Paragraph shall include a dismissal and conviction set-aside under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893.
Alaska and Montana have both also had this happen to them in recent years. With a little research you can see how Alaska solved it.
(10) Not have been convicted of, have entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, or not be charged under indictment or a bill of information for any crime of violence or any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or greater. A conviction, plea of guilty, or plea of nolo contendere under this Paragraph shall include a dismissal and conviction set-aside under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893.
Alaska and Montana have both also had this happen to them in recent years. With a little research you can see how Alaska solved it.
Which is why I advocate a pathway for a non-violent ex-con to regain their Constitutional Rights! All of them!
http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Busi...toration-Bill-Signed-Into-Law-Ramrass-HB-408/
http://housemajority.org/spon.php?id=26hb408
These show how Alaska fixed it.
http://housemajority.org/spon.php?id=26hb408
These show how Alaska fixed it.
Which is why I advocate a pathway for a non-violent ex-con to regain their Constitutional Rights! All of them!
A conviction of a non-violent felony! Like skinning the bear in Kentucky or wherever?!?
Last edited:
Here is the kicker please read below
LARS40:1379.3(c)(10) Not have been convicted of, have entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, or not be charged under indictment or a bill of information for any crime of violence or any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or greater. A conviction, plea of guilty, or plea of nolo contendere under this Paragraph shall include an expungement of such conviction or a dismissal and conviction set-aside under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893. However, a person who has been convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 491(a) shall be permitted to qualify for a concealed handgun permit if fifteen or more years has elapsed between the date of application and the successful completion or service of any sentence, deferred adjudication, or period of probation or parole.
No where in there does it reference a "PARDON", first offender or gubernational. So pass this on to the lawyers. If you have an 893 it is specifically listed but those that only had a first offender pardon should be good with state getting a CCH and buying federally.
LARS40:1379.3(c)(10) Not have been convicted of, have entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, or not be charged under indictment or a bill of information for any crime of violence or any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or greater. A conviction, plea of guilty, or plea of nolo contendere under this Paragraph shall include an expungement of such conviction or a dismissal and conviction set-aside under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893. However, a person who has been convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 491(a) shall be permitted to qualify for a concealed handgun permit if fifteen or more years has elapsed between the date of application and the successful completion or service of any sentence, deferred adjudication, or period of probation or parole.
No where in there does it reference a "PARDON", first offender or gubernational. So pass this on to the lawyers. If you have an 893 it is specifically listed but those that only had a first offender pardon should be good with state getting a CCH and buying federally.
- Status
