Louisiana Expungements do not allow firearm ownership according to NICS/FBI/DOJ

[infringed]

So they are saying if it was a non violent felony they are restoring all rights and actually trying to somewhat agree with the federal law. Except that once you have proven yourself by staying out of trouble for a period of time you get all rights restored including concealed carry. At least that was how I saw it. This is what I think we need to show our representatives. This is how I think most of us feel it should be.

It really depends. In their case, a Governor's pardon and a Presidential Pardon were still restricted. They have similar legal things like Article 893 and RS 44:9 that do restore rights to some non-violent offenders as well.

I'm all about restrictions on violent offenders. I'm having a hard time understanding how "all rights restored" translates into "no 2nd amendment rights."

 

[coance]

I still think the long term answer will only come with the change of the Louisiana CHP laws. This is why I have continued to somewhat bombard my representatives. When I first started talking with them their legal advisers were telling them it was federal law that restricted and they couldnt change that. Recently I have gotten threw to them and they are starting to realize that it is the state restriction on CHP's that the FBI is focused on and that it is LA law and could be changed. I will continue to stay on them. I believe that after enough people have these problems and start to speak out we may see some change. I surely hope so.
I know not everyone cares if they have a CHP but it seems to be the limiting factor as far as Caron v. United States. I am still trying to see how it applies to Louisiana law. If I am reading everything right they were restricting a "type" of firearm. I dont know about you but I can not see how a CHP is a type of firearm. It holds no ammunition and can not be fired. It is a restriction on where a firearm can be placed and not what type it can be. So under their theory if you can not bring a firearm in a restricted area then you can not possess one at all. On the subject of first offender pardon and expungement they are relying on CHP restriction.

I also have been trying to find something out that some one here may be able to assist with. In Louisiana can you be in law enforcement ( LSP, Sherrif, local pd, exc.) with a expungement ? I do not know nor can I find the answer to this question. If anyone knows please chime in. If so under federal law you can not possess a firearm so I would think you could not do your job.

 

[louisianashooter]

hey infringed im having the same problem with NICS.i have had a minor felony in the past when I was 19 years old.it was for a bike over 200 dollars that I dident no was stolen and anything over 200 becomes a felony.well im almost 40 now and I own several firearms always passed a NICS check to buy them never a problem.i have a pardon and expungment I can vote and sit on a jury.also its well pass the 10 years one has to wait in Louisiana.i had to send NICS all my info like fingerprints,pardon,expungment,court documents etc.they gave me a UPIN number to use when I go to buy a firearm and its never been a problem for me to buy one.in and out in like 10 mins till the other day when they denied me again like years ago me for they had all my info finger prints,pardon,expungment etc.the NCIS is deny everyone in Louisiana with a UPIN number no matter whats on your record.they can not tell me as to why this is only that its in the computer system to deny all people in Louisiana that has a UPIN number.they told me that all of us has lost our rights.i do no that the only thing that has changed is the new laws the state has passed.google new Louisiana gun laws but it has nothing to do with people like us.the ones with a UPIN numbe, pardon,expungment and has passed the 10 year felony free.no one can give me answers as to this only that the state pass new laws and the gov just stamped it.but like I said it has nothing to do with people like us.i talk to the gov office,att office and state police and no one can give me a answer. they all don't no what im talking about and tell me that they will call back,as for the NICS we all no how they work calling them is a joke. you cant talk to anyone about anything they even have there phone system set up to hang up on you after you listen to the recorder.this is very sad our gov is always trying to control us and people let it go on in this country.to much government control is very bad for everyone just look at all the countries over seas.but as to the NICS I should not be denied my rights.even if I had nothing im well pass the 10 years.something has just happen in Louisiana because I just got a new firearm like 4 months or so ago.this is not right at all to all of us.im looking to take the state to court if they have anything to do with this and NICS as well to get some answers.if you no of any good lawyer or if any lawyers see this post. im looking to get help with this please anyone that can help leave a number or post.im looking to get a court date as soon as possible.now what im I to do with all my 1000,s of dollars worth of firearms and my hunting land that I have a loan on.plus all the money I put down on it,my hunting bikes,boats,cloths,etc.we are talking about a lot of money.now who is going to buy all of this stuff back from me?if any lawyer reads this please help or anyone that can help please do.thanks for reading my post everyone

 

[Nathan Hale]

I have done NO research on this subject (yet), but reading all of these post makes me wonder, could this have anything to do with the passage of HB 1066 this session? That is the law that makes it possible for CHP holders to be exempted from NICS checks when purchasing from an FFL? I am wondering if there is a corollary applicable to those who are not eligible to obtain a CHP?

I do not know, I am conjecturing at this point. I have read neither HB1066 nor the Caron case, but HB1066 is the only thing which has happened in Louisiana, which I can think of, that might effect someone's rights that has become law in the near recent past; although, I do not know if it has become effective yet. Again, I am speculating.

Anytime the government takes away someone/some group's rights it is a serious matter. We need to figure out exactly what is going on.

In regards to finding an attorney, it would be best to find someone who has been down this type of road before.

 

[infringed]

There are three groups of people affected:

1. Violent offenders

The Federal standing from Caron v. United States completely nullifies La R.S. 14:95.1. It is completely unnecessary unless the CHP restrictions are modified because possession is still Federally illegal. These violent offenders are not likely allowed to receive a restoration of rights outside of a Gubernatorial Pardon and could not plead under Article 893/894 either. Given a repeal of R.S. 40:1379.3(C) (10), R.S. 14:95.1 would then take effect. Until then, R.S. 14:95.1 is lame.

2. Non-violent offenders

Non-violent offenders (without 893/894) can obtain a First Offender Pardon (apparently automatic) and/or an expungement. RS 15:572 D. (First Offender Pardon) reads:

On the day that an individual completes his sentence the Division of Probation and Parole of the Department of Corrections, after satisfying itself that (1) the individual is a first offender as defined herein and (2) the individual has completed his sentence shall issue a certificate recognizing and proclaiming that the petitioner is fully pardoned for the offense, and that he has all rights of citizenship and franchise, and shall transmit a copy of the certificate to the individual and to the clerk of court in and for the parish where the conviction occurred. This copy shall be filed in the record of the proceedings in which the conviction was obtained. However, once an automatic pardon is granted under the provisions of this Section, the individual who received such pardon shall not be entitled to receive another automatic pardon.
There may or may not be other laws preventing firearm ownership beyond R.S. 40:1379.3 for these individuals. The fact that it states that the individual has been fully pardoned, leads me to believe that there wouldn't be any other restrictions.

RS 44:9 does not say anything about a restoration of rights (excluding those pled under Article 893/894). It simply applies to the Expungement of records from Public View. One would still have been "convicted" of the felony, unless that felony has been pardoned or set-aside under another statute or process. RS 44:9 is in effect until 08/01/2014 when HB 55 becomes effective. Regardless, the act of expungement does not restore rights, it removes from public view.

Rights for this group may have been restored via RS 15:572 (First Offender Pardon) or a Gubernatorial Pardon (unaffected by the restriction in R.S. 40:1379.3 -- CHP).

3. Noncapital felony offenders

CCRP 893 (Article 893) allows for various processes. One of the provisions is that "the court may defer, in whole or in part, the imposition of a sentence." This Article, I'm told, holds the guilty plea and upon successful completion of the required items (probation, fines, etc.), "the court may set the conviction aside and dismiss the prosecution. The dismissal of the prosecution shall have the same effect as acquittal, except that the conviction may be considered as a first offense"

RS 44:9 E. (1) (b) applies to recipients of "sentences" of Article 893 and reads:

After a contradictory hearing with the district attorney and the arresting law enforcement agency, the court may order expungement of the record of a felony conviction dismissed pursuant to Article 893 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon the entry of such an order of expungement, all rights which were lost or suspended by virtue of the conviction shall be restored to the person against whom the conviction has been entered, and such person shall be treated in all respects as not having been arrested or convicted unless otherwise provided in this Section or otherwise provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 893 and 894.
Article 893 was designed with the clear intent that the result would "have the same effect as acquittal" unless they re-offend. If someone was acquitted of a crime, they would not be barred from having a CHP, therefore someone that pled under Article 893 should also not be barred from a CHP.

It is pretty clear that the Legislatures writing and passing laws don't always have a grasp of existing laws or the ramifications of new laws on pre-existing laws. Our state (and country) is in desperate need of clarification for these laws. Each year we add hundreds of new laws but we rarely look at or remove the ones that no longer make sense.

i have a pardon

Are you referring to the First Offender Pardon?

they told me that all of us has lost our rights.i do no that the only thing that has changed is the new laws the state has passed.

No Louisiana law has changed in a manner that would further remove the right to bear arms. The Federal Government became aware of a restriction in R.S. 40:1379.3 that they could use to deny persons under the precedent set in Caron v. United States. In other words, the Federal Government did not notice it before and our recent changes to allow for Lifetime CHP and similar brought this to their attention.

has passed the 10 year felony free

Unless you were convicted of a violent felony, defined in R.S. 14:2(B), RS 14:95.1 likely does not apply. That statute only applies to persons convicted of "certain felonies."

no one can give me answers as to this only that the state pass new laws and the gov just stamped it.but like I said it has nothing to do with people like us.i talk to the gov office,att office and state police and no one can give me a answer. they all don't no what im talking about and tell me that they will call back,as for the NICS we all no how they work calling them is a joke. you cant talk to anyone about anything they even have there phone system set up to hang up on you after you listen to the recorder.

"Talking" to anyone at the Federal level is virtually impossible as a citizen. You will need to "talk" to them through legal action. In order to do so, you will need to find people that understand, in detail, the situation. Since this is a relatively new development, that seems to be difficult. Regardless, I think the problem needs to be solved at the state level first, then at the Federal level.

To resolve this issue at the State level, R.S. 40:1379.3(C) (10) would need to be modified so that it is congruent with the other laws and criminal procedures of our state. Additionally, that specific section may fail to hold up to the strict scrutiny of the, recently amended, Article I Section 11 of the State Constitution which reads:

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.

The State is going to continue to point at the Federal Government and the Federal Government is going to point at the State. In the end, we the people are having rights infringed. In my case, and many others, those rights were expressly restored by our state. This creates a mousetrap. If the State restores all rights to an individual, without any expressed reservation for firearms, for a non-federal conviction then it is incumbent for the Federal Government to honor that restoration. I do not believe that a state restriction on a privilege can be the basis for a denial of a right. Further, if the privilege of obtaining a CHP is based on a right to bear arms, can a person who's rights have been restored be denied that privilege? The right to bear arms is not limited to the bearing openly of arms. Bear, by definition means to have and carry.

The circumstances in Caron v. United States are very different and the ruling was very narrowly worded. The over-broad interpretation of Caron needs to be checked as well, but I think that fight should come after the constitutionality of R.S. 40:1379.3(C) (10).

 

[Nathan Hale]

No Louisiana law has changed in a manner that would further remove the right to bear arms. The Federal Government became aware of a restriction in R.S. 40:1379.3 that they could use to deny persons under the precedent set in Caron v. United States. In other words, the Federal Government did not notice it before and our recent changes to allow for Lifetime CHP and similar brought this to their attention.




I see said the blind man. Now we are on to something.

Thank you for all of the work; it is not easy.

NH

 

[infringed]

No Louisiana law has changed in a manner that would further remove the right to bear arms. The Federal Government became aware of a restriction in R.S. 40:1379.3 that they could use to deny persons under the precedent set in Caron v. United States. In other words, the Federal Government did not notice it before and our recent changes to allow for Lifetime CHP and similar brought this to their attention.

I see said the blind man. Now we are on to something.

Thank you for all of the work; it is not easy.

NH

Thanks. The title of this post should really be changed to something like:

Louisiana laws restoring rights do not restore firearm rights per NICS/FBI/DOJ pursuant to Caron v. United States

Since expungements are a mechanism of law unrelated to the restoration of rights.

 

[coance]

I agree completely with infringed. I think LA RS 40:1379.3 (c) (10) will have to be changed before this is solved. I would like to see it say something to the effect , if you can legally possess a firearm in the state of Louisiana then you can apply for a CHP. Then list the 3 ways.
I have stayed on my local representatives. With this all just starting they have been trying to understand what is going on.I hope they see the problem and work to fix it. I fear that they may not.
In the end it will probably take a lawsuit or 2 to get the wheels turning and that is sad.
I also wonder how some of these laws will hold up to strict scrutiny. When you are talking about non violent felonies from years ag I.
I hate to say it this way but the more people that come up with this problem the faster it may get fixed.

 

[infringed]

LA RS 40:1379.3 (c) (10) will have to be changed before this is solved.

This likely won't happen until next session unless it is found to be unconstitutional, in which case it is invalidated immediately.

if you can legally possess a firearm in the state of Louisiana

There are many current elected leaders and law makers in Louisiana that simply do not like firearms. They will see this as a means to prohibit just a few more people and will vote against it regardless of their constituents feelings.

According to the Secretary of State, 73.45% of voters felt that "the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court." With almost 75% of the state's voters voting to amend the constitution to strongly protect this right, it would be virtually impossible for any representative to justly vote against a measure to protect persons with restored rights from this infringement. Unfortunately, our elected officials don't cast their votes based on the wishes of the citizens they represent.

When you are talking about non violent felonies from years ag[o]

The simple truth is that each year more and more laws are introduced and more new and existing offenses are escalated to "felony status." Soon taking a candy bar from a store at 13 will become a felony. That's not to say it isn't wrong; it is. However, it is not justification for taking away a right that is supposed to be un-infringable. Regardless, if your rights were restored, without reservation, by the state, for a state crime, there is no basis for prohibition.

I hate to say it this way but the more people that come up with this problem the faster it may get fixed.

Many of the affected individuals here will likely never even know the are prohibited persons. If they call any State agency, they will get a "you're allowed by state laws" response. Calling a Federal agency such as NICS to ask this question is virtually impossible. Unless a person goes to purchase a firearm from an FFL or are one of the few people that obtained a UPIN, they will never know that they are prohibited from owning a firearm. That is until they commit a federal crime, have a weapon in their possession, and subsequently find themselves in front of the United States Supreme Court.

 

[coance]

I agree with you for the most part. I dont know about you but I do not see any path that doesnt have its problems. I do see this becoming bigger and bigger as people try to purchase firearms and find out they cant. Maybe not very quickly but still it will happen.
One thing about the challenges that have come up on the unconstitutionality so far as I have seen is they were by people that under LA law shouldnt have had a firearm and in some cases they were committing another crime or still on probation/parole.
How would someone go about proving that it is unconstitutional without going to court and using it for a defense ? Dont know about anyone else but I will be just fine if I never have to see the inside of a court room again.

I still have not found a answer on the question of someone being in law enforcement with a 893 . If they can then that would open a whole new set of problems.

 

[infringed]

I dont know about you but I do not see any path that doesnt have its problems.

If a law restores rights, without exception, then those rights are restored. If the prosecution does not want someone to have the right to bear arms restored, they have the ability to specify that in the restoration order.

How would someone go about proving that it is unconstitutional without going to court and using it for a defense ? Dont know about anyone else but I will be just fine if I never have to see the inside of a court room again.

You don't have to be arrested to challenge the law. It is probably in our best interest that the law is challenged by someone that hasn't been arrested. Generally, people being arrested where this would present itself have also committed a seriously grievous crime to be arrested. They would challenge this to avoid a three-strikes ruling: Original + two new. That would likely put a bad taste in the judge's/justices' mouths.

I still have not found a answer on the question of someone being in law enforcement with a 893 . If they can then that would open a whole new set of problems.

That's going to be hard to find due to the nature of the Article. It is designed to be as confidential as possible.

 

[FUBAR]

Hello folks,

I found you all after doing a search for law changes in Louisiana. I was convicted 30 years ago in Caddo Parish of a felony which is not on the "restricted" list of R.S. 14:2(B) or RS 14:95.1. I received a first offenders pardon and have lived the straight life ever since. I was denied yesterday for a weapons purchase. I had, until a couple of days ago, a UPIN which has functioned for many years and multiple purchases. I currently live in Washington State and hold a concealed carry permit here. I petitioned for and obtained a court order explicitly restoring my gun rights in the state of Washington, a precaution I took years ago in the event something like this happened. I still believe I have a dilemma as far as am I legal to carry, but I won't go into that here.

I have appealed to the NICS for the reason for denial, but after reading through this thread, I believe that I understand what has happened.

One of these two things or maybe both are happening. I believe that infringed's statement: " The Federal Government became aware of a restriction in R.S. 40:1379.3 that they could use to deny persons under the precedent set in Caron v. United States. In other words, the Federal Government did not notice it before and our recent changes to allow for Lifetime CHP and similar brought this to their attention." is accurate. It was what NICS reported back to him I believe some hotshot junior lawyer came across this and they will use it until it is overturned. I will be very interested in how this works out for you Infringed, as I am in the same boat. The other thing is this, although I find it hard to believe that the government would actually work this fast, House Bill 72 and House Bill 1066 have been signed as stated above which allows Louisiana CHP holders to bypass the NICS check. This must have surely upset some folks. Sadly, I have been caught in the net along with some of you.

I'll let you all know what the NICS tells me, it will be five days... I'm hoping that they consider me special as I'm not a Louisiana resident any more.. And that the 10 year rule will allow me to continue to use my UPIN. I doubt it though from the information I've read from you all..

Thank you all for your help...

 

[infringed]

Hello folks,

I found you all after doing a search for law changes in Louisiana. I was convicted 30 years ago in Caddo Parish of a felony which is not on the "restricted" list of R.S. 14:2(B) or RS 14:95.1. I received a first offenders pardon and have lived the straight life ever since. I was denied yesterday for a weapons purchase. I had, until a couple of days ago, a UPIN which has functioned for many years and multiple purchases. I currently live in Washington State and hold a concealed carry permit here. I petitioned for and obtained a court order explicitly restoring my gun rights in the state of Washington, a precaution I took years ago in the event something like this happened. I still believe I have a dilemma as far as am I legal to carry, but I won't go into that here.

I have appealed to the NICS for the reason for denial, but after reading through this thread, I believe that I understand what has happened.

One of these two things or maybe both are happening. I believe that infringed's statement: " The Federal Government became aware of a restriction in R.S. 40:1379.3 that they could use to deny persons under the precedent set in Caron v. United States. In other words, the Federal Government did not notice it before and our recent changes to allow for Lifetime CHP and similar brought this to their attention." is accurate. It was what NICS reported back to him I believe some hotshot junior lawyer came across this and they will use it until it is overturned. I will be very interested in how this works out for you Infringed, as I am in the same boat. The other thing is this, although I find it hard to believe that the government would actually work this fast, House Bill 72 and House Bill 1066 have been signed as stated above which allows Louisiana CHP holders to bypass the NICS check. This must have surely upset some folks. Sadly, I have been caught in the net along with some of you.

I'll let you all know what the NICS tells me, it will be five days... I'm hoping that they consider me special as I'm not a Louisiana resident any more.. And that the 10 year rule will allow me to continue to use my UPIN. I doubt it though from the information I've read from you all..

Thank you all for your help...

It is in your best interest to seek a summary judgement at the Federal level as to the validity of the interpretation of Caron v. United States. Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1379.3(C) (10) does not restrict any right granted by the second amendment. As a result, the unless clause may not apply.

 

[PAPACHUCK]

It all boils down to one question;

Does Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1379.3(C) (10) pass constitutional muster if LRS 14.95.1 (C) states:

The provisions of this Section prohibiting the possession of firearms and carrying concealed weapons by persons who have been convicted of certain felonies shall not apply to any person who has not been convicted of any felony for a period of ten years from the date of completion of sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

That is the key. Get 40:1379.3(C)10 off the books and everything is fixed.

 

[infringed]

LRS 14.95.1 (C) states:

The provisions of this Section prohibiting the possession of firearms and carrying concealed weapons by persons who have been convicted of certain felonies shall not apply to any person who has not been convicted of any felony for a period of ten years from the date of completion of sentence, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

That particular law doesn't even apply to everyone in this situation. It only applies to persons convicted of the felonies defined in R.S. 14:2(B) or the few other listed in the statue. For everyone else, Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1379.3(C) (10) stands alone in prohibiting or causing the prohibition of the right to bear arms.

 

[Gungrabishere14]

I got my rights restored after 10 yrs and obtained a UPIN in 2010 and i received the letter Saturday that basically said i have no gun rights , and i also hold a Florida CCW. I went ahead and got the guns and ammo out of my house currently. I am so mad about this contradiction, why leave 14.95.1 (c) but then the Feds ban our rights, this affects thousands of people and the LA Supreme Court needs to step in or if the ATF start collecting and knocking down doors then what? The LEO don't want us to have guns and will side with the government as i learned by the hostile conversation with a LSP atty on Monday. He basically said that 40:1379.3(C) (10) needs to be changed or a Gold star Pardon obtained before our rights are restored. I am moving to Colorado next month but im starting to think i should have not given my guns to a friend and took a stand if they came knocking. They have violated our rights after they were restored per Louisiana law and most people i have spoken too just play dumb, i did find out the letters started going out Jan 2014 from Frank DeFuko at the LA supreme Court. Enough is enough, these MF's cant just make me a felon overnight while they run guns ,drugs, and now illegal aliens across our southern border. The are making it to where you stub your toe and you lose your firearms rights.Better wake up folks tyranny is here and it aint gonna go away quietly and it appears our lawmakers are standing by quietly and playing dumb. That LSP atty told me the governor was aware of these letters but im gonna call the governors office tomorrow just to see if they play dumb.

 

[coance]

I got some info from the state police today. From what they told me the reason this has all come about was because HB1066. What I was told is that while they were figuring out what all it would take to make this law work the ATF and nics were examining Louisiana law. Once they saw 40:1379.3(c)(10) they decided that it was the most restrictive law that LA had so that would be what they used for NICS background checks. From what the state police told me until then they used 14:95.1 ,but from now on the ATF (NICS) would use 40:1379.3 as a guideline for who is prohibited. The Sargent at the state police said they were not given a heads up as to when this would take effect, but knew it was coming. They figured it would possibly effect 10's of thousands of people. All they would say on what or when it may change was that probably nothing would happen until next session if then. They said barring any thing that might happen with constitutionality issues, doesnt seem likely with the new supreme court ruling, that Louisiana law changing would be the only relief that possibly might come.

 

[Gungrabishere14]

Its here,NICS has been sending out letters to all that received a 10 yr cleanse since January according to Frank at the Supreme Court, and basically says you are unable to posses or purchase a firearm and basically would make you a felon if you posses firearms which most of us do since my rights were restored in 2010. I took all my guns to the ghetto and auctioned them off til the laws change. Here is what your will say: I currently have a FL CCL
"This letter is in response to your VAF UPIN issued in
September 2010. That UPIN is listed above.
The fingerprints you previously submitted with the
original VAF request are identical with those in a record which
contains prohibiting information. You have been matched with
the following federal prohibitive information under Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 921(a)(20) and 922(g)(1): A person
who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense
classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a
term of imprisonment of more than two years.
The Appeal Services Team (AST) of the FBI Criminal
Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division's NICS Section has
obtained additional direction from Louisiana counsel of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Based on the information provided by ATF counsel, you are
currently ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm, and your
UPIN has been deactivated.
An individual convicted of a felony in Louisiana is
prohibited under state law from obtaining a Concealed Carry
Permit per Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1379.3(C)(10). The
United States Supreme Court has held that if a state imposes a
partial restriction on an individual's ability to carry or possess one or more types of firearms by a convicted felon, even
after basic civil rights have been restored, the individual
remains convicted for the purposes of the Gun Control Act.
Caron v. United States, 524 US 308 (1998). In accordance with
this ruling, any person who has been convicted of any crime of
violence or any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of
one year or greater is prohibited from possessing firearms in
the state of Louisiana. This prohibition remains valid for
cases sentenced under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 893, and which have received a set aside, dismissal,
and/or expungement.
The prohibiting information is located on your
Louisiana State record. The prohibition is based on the
following arrest and/or custody entries on the Louisiana State
record: January 23, 1994, October 12, 1994, May 14, 1996,
January 6, 1997, and January 24, 1997. These convictions are
based on cases out of Lafayette Parish. To obtain a copy of
your Louisiana State record, you may contact the following
agency:
Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information
Louisiana State Police
Post Office Box 66614
Number A-6
Baton Rouge, LA 70896-6614
You may wish to seek any available remedy(ies) for the
prohibition previously listed. Further information may be
available through the following agency:
Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole
Post Office Box 94304
Building Six
504 Mayflower Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
The NICS Section is not permitted to give legal advice
regarding ways to get your firearm rights back, but you may
confer with an attorney of your own choosing to determine what
remedies may potentially be available to you.
NICS Section
CJIS Division
2

 

[BlackBalled]

I too am in this ridiculous situation. It's as if "infringed" has taken a page from my personal book. I am glad to have found such an in depth discussion on this recent development in my life. I felt ostracized and overwhelmed when I first got the response from NICS. Do we need to get a petition started to have the La. laws reviewed and/or discarded as pertains to Louisiana Revised Statute 40:1379.3(C) (10)? As more and more instances of this come to light, it looks like there's a pretty long potential list of signatures...

 

[Emperor]

To all affected; you have few choices. What you should start doing is planning for the next non-fiscal session of the Louisiana Legislature (2 years).

It appears you need a Statute Amendment!

If, as you say, there are 10's of thousands affected the same way, then those are strong numbers. But you have a lot of work to do.