HB602

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!
  • met7881

    Former Yankee
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 26, 2013
    132
    18
    mandeville,La.
    This bill is in senate judiciary B. An amendment(s) was posted by the commitee. Can anyone make sense of these amendmends. I read them and was trying to apply reasoning on what these are supposed to do?
     

    ChickenWhistle

    Thingamajig
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 23, 2009
    46
    6
    Houma, LA
    The amendment guts the bill as it was introduced. With this amendment adopted, there will be no exception for CHP holders to carry a concealed handgun on school property. Although statute already provided for an exception to CHP holders to carry a concealed handgun within 1,000 ft of a school, apparently people were still being arrested for illegal carrying of a weapon due to misinterpretation of statute by various departments. The amendment clarifies the language and reenacts the exception for CHP holders within the 1,000 ft gun-free zone.

    It goes back to the House for concurrence and passage, and then back to the Senate for passage. If it does not pass, your ability to carry within 1,000 ft of a school still exists, you just need to hope the judge you find yourself in front of can read english.
     
    Last edited:

    met7881

    Former Yankee
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 26, 2013
    132
    18
    mandeville,La.
    So, HB495 as amended really does not do anything. Hopefully house will reject amendment. That was the whole purpose of this bill. more waste of time for legislators
     

    charlie12

    Not a Fed.
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2008
    8,518
    63
    Pride
    Although statute already provided for an exception to CHP holders to carry a concealed handgun within 1,000 ft of a school, apparently people were still being arrested for illegal carrying of a weapon due to misinterpretation of statute by various departments. The amendment clarifies the language and reenacts the exception for CHP holders within the 1,000 ft gun-free zone.

    I guess it is cheaper to pass that than to teach the LEO's that don't know the law. I think that was changed in 2014 and they don't know yet.
     

    ChickenWhistle

    Thingamajig
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 23, 2009
    46
    6
    Houma, LA
    So, HB495 as amended really does not do anything. Hopefully house will reject amendment. That was the whole purpose of this bill. more waste of time for legislators

    HB495 deals with defining what "good standing" means for retired law enforcement, and forcing sheriffs to issue identification to those who qualify. Did you mean HB602? Even though the author's intent won't be met, if the bill passes there is still a net gain in regards to the clarification concerning the 1,000ft zone. It's on the docket today, and I believe it will pass.

    I guess it is cheaper to pass that than to teach the LEO's that don't know the law. I think that was changed in 2014 and they don't know yet.

    Luckily, there have been no convictions based on these arrests alone, but just the process of having the charge dismissed is a pain in the ass. Causing this pain in the ass may be the intent of a certain departments in a certain cities, rather than misconception of the law. Seems to me that a certain DA in a certain city would tell a certain department to knock that **** off and stop wasting time, but hey, I'm just a guy that reads stuff on the internet.
     

    whitsend

    -Global Mod-
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Sep 6, 2009
    4,137
    38
    Transylvania, LA
    The amendment guts the bill as it was introduced. With this amendment adopted, there will be no exception for CHP holders to carry a concealed handgun on school property. Although statute already provided for an exception to CHP holders to carry a concealed handgun within 1,000 ft of a school, apparently people were still being arrested for illegal carrying of a weapon due to misinterpretation of statute by various departments. The amendment clarifies the language and reenacts the exception for CHP holders within the 1,000 ft gun-free zone.

    It goes back to the House for concurrence and passage, and then back to the Senate for passage. If it does not pass, your ability to carry within 1,000 ft of a school still exists, you just need to hope the judge you find yourself in front of can read english.

    How are you reading that the bill in current form doesn't allow CHP holders to carry on school property?

    It repeals R.S. 40:1379.3(N)(11), so CHP law doesn't prohibit carry on school property.
    N. No concealed handgun may be carried into and no concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this Section shall authorize or entitle a permittee to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:
    (11) Any school, school campus, or school bus as defined in R.S. 14:95.6.

    It adds R.S. 14:95.2(C)(9), which makes 14:95.2 not apply to CHP holders, unless the CHP holder is an employee, acting within the course and scope of his employment, or student.
    §95.2. Carrying a firearm or dangerous weapon by a student or nonstudent on school property, at school-sponsored functions, or in a firearm-free zone
    C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:
    (9) Any person who has a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.3 and who carries a concealed handgun in accordance with R.S. 40:1379.3(X).
     

    ChickenWhistle

    Thingamajig
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 23, 2009
    46
    6
    Houma, LA
    How are you reading that the bill in current form doesn't allow CHP holders to carry on school property?

    It repeals R.S. 40:1379.3(N)(11), so CHP law doesn't prohibit carry on school property.

    You're reading the bill that was introduced and passed by the House. The Senate Judiciary B Committee amended the bill ( http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1097396 ), which was concurred in the House and passed. The final Act will be the amended bill. I watched both the committee discussion and the House floor concurrence. The reengrossed version here: http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1092698 , only reflects the House bill prior to adopting the Senate amendments, and is not the final Act.

    Edit: The website just updated with the enrolled form that will go to the Governor: http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1098929
     
    Last edited:

    charlie12

    Not a Fed.
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2008
    8,518
    63
    Pride
    HB495 deals with defining what "good standing" means for retired law enforcement, and forcing sheriffs to issue identification to those who qualify. Did you mean HB602? Even though the author's intent won't be met, if the bill passes there is still a net gain in regards to the clarification concerning the 1,000ft zone. It's on the docket today, and I believe it will pass.



    Luckily, there have been no convictions based on these arrests alone, but just the process of having the charge dismissed is a pain in the ass. Causing this pain in the ass may be the intent of a certain departments in a certain cities, rather than misconception of the law. Seems to me that a certain DA in a certain city would tell a certain department to knock that **** off and stop wasting time, but hey, I'm just a guy that reads stuff on the internet.

    Kind of like people getting arrested in 14:95.2 and the arresting officer didn't read this. (5) Any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle. when there was no other charge.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,711
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Kind of like people getting arrested in 14:95.2 and the arresting officer didn't read this. (5) Any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle. when there was no other charge.

    If you're referring to the high school kid, there may be more to the story that what was in the news. For him, having a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle may not have been a constitutionally protected activity.
     

    charlie12

    Not a Fed.
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2008
    8,518
    63
    Pride
    If you're referring to the high school kid, there may be more to the story that what was in the news. For him, having a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle may not have been a constitutionally protected activity.

    No was just talking in general. But for him was was the other charges the only one reported was 14:95.
     
    Top Bottom