Let's discuss HB 142

I know this is rather wordy, But I have done tons of research, and these are my findings.

I have read a lot of negative comments about HB 142, and wanted inform those who don't exactly understand it, to understand its real purpose. And that is to counter the Federal Government's, latest attempt to undermine the state of Louisiana's constitution. In late 2014 the FBI and ATF set out on a quest to prohibit as many citizens of Louisiana from owning firearms as possible. And they did so by relying on one word, from a 16 year old court case. And this has the potential to affect 10s or perhaps 100s of thousands of Louisiana citizens.

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but here goes. If you don't believe me just grab an ATF form 4473 and check it out. Read question 11C then flip the form over and read exception to 11C. And that will bring some level of clarity.

Federal law prohibits the possession or receipt of firearms by a person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. An exception to this provides that any conviction which has been expunged, set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this ban, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. Under Louisiana law, a person convicted of a felony who had his conviction expunged, or set aside or had been pardoned or had civil rights restored was entitled to purchase and possess firearms. Yes the FBI NICS section does approve these transactions.

In 2014, ATF and FBI began notifying affected parties that because Louisiana prohibits persons convicted of a felony from obtaining concealed carry permits, the "unless" clause mentioned above is triggered. In other words, because the state restricts the ability of persons convicted of a felony to carry firearms concealed, those persons now become prohibited to purchase or possess guns under federal law -- even if they have received pardons, had convictions set aside, gotten expungement or had their civil rights restored. The agencies relied on a 16-year old court case for this new interpretation of the "unless" clause, which seems to fly in the face of restoration of rights provisions under both federal and state law. Many among the affected parties legally purchased and owned firearms for years prior to this new finding.

HB 142 amends the state's concealed carry law to account for cases where a "cleansing period" has elapsed and an expungement has been obtained, or a gubernatorial pardon has been issued (unless the pardon expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess or receive firearms.)

So this bill really just closes up the loophole in the language the of LA CCP program, that Federal government was using to make the citizens of Louisiana, Prohibited Persons again. These folks have worked hard to get their lives in order and have their rights restored, to just have them taken away again. In my opinion, I don’t think it is fair to those affected persons. I am willing to venture that most of you who are reading, will have someone that you know, or that is related to you affected by this, whether you know it or not.

So is HB 142 a good thing? I believe it is a fair thing. What are your thoughts?

Hillary Clinton wants to prohibit as many people as possible and loves the Brady(whore) Law. That is reason enough to support this bill. I can look past the fact that this does nothing for those of us who have stayed out of real trouble.

I support it.


EDIT: Deleted incorrect info to avoid potential confusion.

I agree it is a good thing.

Nathan Hale said:

I support it.
(p.s. FWIW, I think it has been re-designated 143 by the senate. Same bill, though.)

Click to expand...

It shows as HB142 on the Senate Daily Digest for today.

http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/agenda.aspx?m=17503

This is a picture perfect example of how the Legislative system is supposed to work. An obvious over-reach by the feds, a state's citizenry adversely affected, persons affected articulate the inequity, petition their elected officials, Bill to rectify the issue is created, grassroots effort to gain support, Bill moving favorably to law!

The federal system is chock full of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats that are pissing and shitting all over the Rights of the citizenry through surreptitious strong arm tactics and hidden backroom agendas. The bureaucracy is so massive now that federal employees no longer speak out against it. The party in charge controls the minions. Just look at the last 7 years of the DOJ. That acronym should be referred to as the Department of Jury-riggers! Relegating people (who clearly understand and detest the hypocrisy), to do their bidding by making them choose employment or career suicide.

I’m affect by this bill, so obviously I support it. I joined this site researching info on this topic. I had no idea why suddenly I was put on hold to purchase a gun. Bought the gun and was later contacted by the ATF. This was a charge from more than 20 years ago. I purchased guns for years before the last purchase.

One question: If the bill becomes law, how long will it take for changes to be accepted by the Feds? Could they bog this down in bureaucracy for years? I believe the appeals process is not even funded at the moment.

Safetyman said:

I’m affect by this bill, so obviously I support it. I joined this site researching info on this topic. I had no idea why suddenly I was put on hold to purchase a gun. Bought the gun and was later contacted by the ATF. This was a charge from more than 20 years ago. I purchased guns for years before the last purchase.

One question: If the bill becomes law, how long will it take for changes to be accepted by the Feds? Could they bog this down in bureaucracy for years? I believe the appeals process is not even funded at the moment.

Click to expand...

Baby steps, sir! When the "Bug" signs it, is when you can start really asking for answers like that!

In general, if this bill is signed into law, you would not be a prohibited person if you meet the criteria for obtaining a CHP. The ATF may make every attempt to delay your appeal but they would have no standing to deny it and could not prosecute you for possessing a firearm.

This was resolved in Alaska with legislation in 2010. Once it became law, the people made eligible went on to lawfully possess firearms without issue.

As much as they may want to, the government cannot arbitrarily deny [legally] rights. So once the Caron interpretation cannot be used, the government would have nothing to stand on.

The Caron interpretation is not law per se. It's an interpretation of an opinion and is ripe for judicial review. One of the Senate committee members suggested that this should be handled in the courts as it's a clear overreach by the Federal government. I agree that it's an overreach (obviously), but court cases of this nature would take years to resolve. The government will appeal at every opportunity and will file every possible motion to delay or dismiss the case. When they can't win that way, they will try to vilify the plaintiff as a career criminal for a onetime, decades old offense.

Here, the government relies on a broad interpretation of an opinion of the law. Yet they deny plain language in the law. Title 18 Section 921(a)(20):

A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Click to expand...

The exemption applies to four distinct conditions: expungements, set asides, pardons, restorations. The unless clause only applies to three of those conditions: expungements, pardons, and restorations. Section 921(a)(20) plainly and without ambiguity provides that when a conviction is "set aside," it does not count for purposes of Section 922(g)(1) -- there is no unless on that condition. What does the government argue? That Louisiana's set asides don't qualify as set asides for this law.

whitsend said:

I agree it is a good thing.




It shows as HB142 on the Senate Daily Digest for today.

http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/agenda.aspx?m=17503

Click to expand...

I checked your link. Yes, it still says HB142, which is good; otherwise it may get confusing.

Thanks for checking and posting the link.

EDIT: Deleted incorrect info to avoid potential confusion.

143 is a different bill but also pertains to carry permits. It affects a different group of people.

HB143 doesn't seem to have any relationship to firearms:

HB143 by Representative Gregory A. Miller
ETHICS/FINANCIAL DISCLOS: Provides relative to the term "parcel" in the Code of Governmental Ethics relative to personal financial disclosure

Click to expand...

GunRelated said:

143 is a different bill but also pertains to carry permits. It affects a different group of people.

Click to expand...

That's the bill that is intended is make sure that a female does not get her permit in the mailbox months after she is found dead?

Update: That is HB 1155.

I just checked the legislature's site. HB 143 has nothing to do with firearms. Please disregard my earlier post. (I am going to go edit it to avoid any potential confusion.) I don't know how I got that mis-information in my head; but I did.
My apologies.

Sorry, hb 140 was the one I was thinking of.

Discussion now.

http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/video.aspx?roomid=8


Passed Senate 30-4

Based on the OP, I would support it. I have not done independent research on the legislation. There might be some unexplained or unforeseen consequence of the bill that would make me withdraw my support.
It now appears to be a trend that the executive branch of the fed. gov't is making anti gun expansions in law and regulation wherever they might have a chance of winning.

whitsend said:

Discussion now.

http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/video.aspx?roomid=8


Passed Senate 30-4

Click to expand...

That's^ strong! This is going make it to the "Bug's" desk!

Safetyman, There is a gentleman at the LA Supreme Court who is the go between the state and nics. If and when it is passed I would be more than happy to share his contact. Regards

Gungrabishere14 said:

Safetyman, There is a gentleman at the LA Supreme Court who is the go between the state and nics. If and when it is passed I would be more than happy to share his contact. Regards

Click to expand...

Thanks

I was Googling around and found this original thread here.

My question was:
-------------------------------------------------
I have a question about if I can own a firearm or not.

12 years ago when I was in my early 20s and in college, I did something extremely dumb and was charged with 'aggravated arson' in Natchitoches, LA. I accepted a plea deal and served probation and paid off all of my fines. I have not been in any kind of trouble since then.

Can I ever own a firearm?
-------------------------------------------------

It appears after reading 10+ pages of the original thread. The overall answer is a resounding NO. I can never own a gun in the state of LA. :\ that sorta...sucks for someone who is completely different now VS when I was 21 and in college.