possession of firearm by convicted felon RS 14:95:1 ruled unconstitutional

From Nola.com

An Orleans Parish judge on Thursday ruled that the state statute forbidding certain felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, in the wake of a constitutional amendment passed last year that made the right to bear arms a fundamental right in the state.

Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Darryl Derbigny on Thursday dismissed that charge against one felon, but took his decision a step further than another judge faced with a similar decision earlier this month.

Derbigny deemed that the entire statute - RS 14:95.1 - was unconstitutional after voters last year approved a constitutional amendment by overwhelming majority. That bill made gun ownership a fundamental right, on the same level as freedom of speech or religion, and subjected any law restricting that right to the highest level of judicial scrutiny.

Its about time. I know its probably not a popular opinion around here but this judge is right even though he may have had ulterior motives for his ruling. Shall not be infringed, right?

Probably wishful thinking on my part..........but hopefully the ramifications of the bill we passed will be the elimination/reduction of all the darn gray areas in the current laws. This will keep the legal eagles busy for a long time.

Que the appeals process

Wow. Interesting

Man, this isn't the first test of the new Amendment I would have liked to have seen. This isn't going to be popular, but I'm still in favor of it.

Mayonnaise said:

Its about time. I know its probably not a popular opinion around here but this judge is right even though he may have had ulterior motives for his ruling. Shall not be infringed, right?

Click to expand...

I agree that gun ownership is a fundamental right.
A molester, rapist, crack "drug", dealer, etc, that unlawfully engaged in a violent act should not be allowed to possess firearms. Just my opinion.
I believe that honest citizens should have firearms to protect ourselves from criminals who use firearms for unlawful acts of violence.

Felony disenfranchisement is the practice of prohibiting people from voting (known as disenfranchisement) based on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony or any other kind of criminal offence.
Maybe some form of felony disenfranchisement relating firearm ownership relating to violent offenders may be implemented.

I do think the judge has an ulterior motive.


Here are the 15:95 Statues;
RS 14:95 Illegal carrying of weapons
RS 14:95.1 Possession of firearm or carrying concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies
RS 14:95.1.1 Illegally supplying a felon with a firearm
RS 14:95.1.2 illegally supplying a felon with ammunition
RS 14:95.1.3 Fraudulent firearm and ammunition purchase
RS 14:95.2 Carrying a firearm, or dangerous weapon, by a student or nonstudent on school property, at school-sponsored functions or firearm-free zone
RS 14:95.2.1 Illegal carrying of a firearm at a parade with any firearm used in the commission of a crime of violence
RS 14:95.2.2 Reckless discharge of a firearm at a parade or demonstration
RS 14:95.3 Unlawful use of body armor
RS 14:95.4 Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet
RS 14:95.5 Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet
RS 14:95.6 Firearm-free zone; notice; signs; crime; penalties
RS 14:95.7 Possession of or dealing in firearms with obliterated numbers or marks
RS 14:95.8 Illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile
RS 14:95.9 Wearing or possessing body armor, by a student or nonstudent on school property, at school-sponsored functions, or in firearm-free zones

RS 14:95.6 Firearm-free zone; notice; signs; crime; penalties


When does this take effect?

So who wants to have a BATFE barbecue at the range?

We can bring the guns, some tannerite, and make it BYOB and BYOCigars.

JNieman said:

Man, this isn't the first test of the new Amendment I would have liked to have seen. This isn't going to be popular, but I'm still in favor of it.

Click to expand...

Yep! This is far from the last you'll hear on this. This may make national headlines if the AP is on the ball.

Mayonnaise said:

Its about time. I know its probably not a popular opinion around here but this judge is right even though he may have had ulterior motives for his ruling. Shall not be infringed, right?

Click to expand...

It's not something I often talk about, but unless the crime DIRECTLY involves the use of a firearm (Armed robbery and such), I do not think it is right to deny a felon (or anyone) the right to protect themselves. What does a felony possesion have to do with a firearm? Just because someone embezzles a small fortune from their employer does not mean they will pick up a gun and threaten someone's life. In my eyes, time served, debt payed. Move on.

While I'm at it, why can't they vote either? Do people think they will all get togehter and vote robbery legal? Once their debt is payed, do they not again have an interest in the conmmunity?

For the public record, I am not a felon. My .02 cents. FLAME ON!!!!

General Mills - you and me are on pretty much the same page.

ETA: But it's the premise that all most people will bother to see is "FELONS WITH GUNS" and not be rational about it.

general mills said:

It's not something I often talk about, but unless the crime DIRECTLY involves the use of a firearm (Armed robbery and such), I do not think it is right to deny a felon (or anyone) the right to protect themselves. What does a felony possesion have to do with a firearm? Just because someone embezzles a small fortune from their employer does not mean they will pick up a gun and threaten someone's life. In my eyes, time served, debt payed. Move on.

While I'm at it, why can't they vote either? Do people think they will all get togehter and vote robbery legal? Once their debt is payed, do they not again have an interest in the conmmunity?

For the public record, I am not a felon. My .02 cents. FLAME ON!!!!

Click to expand...

JNieman said:

General Mills - you and me are on pretty much the same page.

ETA: But it's the premise that all most people will bother to see is "FELONS WITH GUNS" and not be rational about it.

Click to expand...

I'm there too!

And, though I am not sure of its origins; I would bet the "Felony" penalty regading guns is archaic in nature.

I imagine if that "guns in bars" clause is publicized it won't be very popular.

I'd really like to see our concealed carry statute cleared up or revised, though. It's too hard to know who has what license, and the water is muddy on the "bars in restaurant" thing. I say just let people carry but maintain the "Don't be drunk and armed" thing if you have to.

general mills said:

It's not something I often talk about, but unless the crime DIRECTLY involves the use of a firearm (Armed robbery and such), I do not think it is right to deny a felon (or anyone) the right to protect themselves. What does a felony possesion have to do with a firearm? Just because someone embezzles a small fortune from their employer does not mean they will pick up a gun and threaten someone's life. In my eyes, time served, debt payed. Move on.

While I'm at it, why can't they vote either? Do people think they will all get togehter and vote robbery legal? Once their debt is payed, do they not again have an interest in the conmmunity?

For the public record, I am not a felon. My .02 cents. FLAME ON!!!!

Click to expand...

+1000

§95.1. Possession of firearm or carrying concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies

A. It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B) which is a felony or simple burglary, burglary of a pharmacy, burglary of an inhabited dwelling, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, felony illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities, manufacture or possession of a delayed action incendiary device, manufacture or possession of a bomb, or possession of a firearm while in the possession of or during the sale or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, or any violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is a felony, or any crime which is defined as a sex offense in R.S. 15:541, or any crime defined as an attempt to commit one of the above-enumerated offenses under the laws of this state, or who has been convicted under the laws of any other state or of the United States or of any foreign government or country of a crime which, if committed in this state, would be one of the above-enumerated crimes, to possess a firearm or carry a concealed weapon.

B. Whoever is found guilty of violating the provisions of this Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than twenty years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 14:27, whoever is found guilty of attempting to violate the provisions of this Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than seven and one-half years and fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars.

C. 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.

D. For the purposes of this Section, "firearm" means any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, submachine gun, black powder weapon, or assault rifle which is designed to fire or is capable of firing fixed cartridge ammunition or from which a shot or projectile is discharged by an explosive.

Added by Acts 1975, No. 492, §2. Amended by Acts 1980, No. 279, §1; Acts 1985, No. 947, §1; Acts 1990, No. 328, §1; Acts 1992, No. 403, §1; Acts 1994, 3rd Ex. Sess., No. 28, §1; Acts 1995, No. 987, §1; Acts 2003, No. 674, §1; Acts 2009, No. 154, §1; Acts 2009, No. 160, §1; Acts 2010, No. 815, §1; Acts 2010, No. 942, §1.

JR1572

I know a guy who got tangled up in some sort of banking embezzlement. He was my child hood best friends father. An avid duck hunter and shooting sportsman. A typical Bank Accountant that liked to hunt and shoot and had done so all his life and taught his kids the same.

When I think that he has been completely stripped of his RTKBA and thus the ability to offer his family the kind of protection that a firearm does all b/c he made some bad choices involving bank money etc. It does seem really harsh.



But Robbing a 7/11 at Gun Point, while just as unlawful, obviously brings a whole other realm of irresponsibility to the table.

I don't think it's a double standard either, surely no more than the courts do by assigning more or less years depending on the crime and involvement.

To think farther into it.

What did that law do to begin with? Keep Felons from owning guns? Nope/

These laws rarely prevent, simply punish once committed.

Does someone have a direct link to the ruling? Did the judge find all of 14.95 unconstitutional, or just 14.95.1?

Derbigny deemed that the entire statute -- RS 14:95.1 -- was unconstitutional after voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association.

Click to expand...

NOLA Link

I can't find a link to the ruling itself which is probably not yet posted online. The article does make mention of going straight to the LA Supreme Court.