Wow! I referred to the statute as "illegal carry." That was incorrectly referred. Sorry. Haste makes foolish errors.
It falls under RS 40:1382, Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun:
§1382. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun
A. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:
(1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.
(2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.
B. It shall be within the discretion of the law enforcement officer to issue a summons to a person accused of committing this offense in lieu of making a physical arrest. The seizure of the handgun pending resolution of the offense shall only be discretionary in the instance where the law enforcement officer issues a summons to the person accused. If the law enforcement officer makes a physical arrest of the person accused, the handgun and the person's license to carry such handgun shall be seized.
C. Whoever commits the offense of negligent carrying of a concealed handgun shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned without hard labor for not more than six months, or both. The adjudicating judge may also order the forfeiture of the handgun and may suspend or revoke any permit or license authorizing the carrying of the handgun.
That is the statute on negligent carrying.
The original statute on Issuance of a Concealed Permit falls under 55:1309.
(G) No concealed handgun permit issued pursuant hereto shall authorize or entitle a person to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:
#13. Any other property or premises where access by those possessing a concealed handgun is restricted by the property owner, lessee, or lawful custodian.
Thus a law enforcement officer (if so inclined, instead of giving a warning) would charge under this statute of negligent carry for violating a sign, since the statute stated a person carrying concealed could not enter where restricted.
Now, it would appear that final location has been reworded and combined with the original stipulation against carrying into a private residence to read:
"The provisions of R.S. 40:1379.3 (N) shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access of those persons possessing a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued under this Section. No individual to whom a concealed handgun permit is issued may carry such concealed handgun into the private residence of another without first receiving the consent of that person."
I am not sure when this was reworded, or exactly what the penalties would be under this new wording. And if we are cloudy on this, imagine what will happen if a law enforcement officer answers a complaint.
I have asked (through email) for a determination on this from the concealed permit section. As soon as I have an answer, I will post here. Normally they get back to me within a day. If I am incorrect and the intent or application of the law has been changed, my explanations to my classes will be immediately changed. My advice remains the same, however. Why push the issue? Go shop or visit somewhere else--and let them know why you are doing so.
And the name is Gordon Hutchinson. Classes are taught in the EBR region.
It falls under RS 40:1382, Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun:
§1382. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun
A. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:
(1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.
(2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.
B. It shall be within the discretion of the law enforcement officer to issue a summons to a person accused of committing this offense in lieu of making a physical arrest. The seizure of the handgun pending resolution of the offense shall only be discretionary in the instance where the law enforcement officer issues a summons to the person accused. If the law enforcement officer makes a physical arrest of the person accused, the handgun and the person's license to carry such handgun shall be seized.
C. Whoever commits the offense of negligent carrying of a concealed handgun shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned without hard labor for not more than six months, or both. The adjudicating judge may also order the forfeiture of the handgun and may suspend or revoke any permit or license authorizing the carrying of the handgun.
That is the statute on negligent carrying.
The original statute on Issuance of a Concealed Permit falls under 55:1309.
(G) No concealed handgun permit issued pursuant hereto shall authorize or entitle a person to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:
#13. Any other property or premises where access by those possessing a concealed handgun is restricted by the property owner, lessee, or lawful custodian.
Thus a law enforcement officer (if so inclined, instead of giving a warning) would charge under this statute of negligent carry for violating a sign, since the statute stated a person carrying concealed could not enter where restricted.
Now, it would appear that final location has been reworded and combined with the original stipulation against carrying into a private residence to read:
"The provisions of R.S. 40:1379.3 (N) shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access of those persons possessing a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued under this Section. No individual to whom a concealed handgun permit is issued may carry such concealed handgun into the private residence of another without first receiving the consent of that person."
I am not sure when this was reworded, or exactly what the penalties would be under this new wording. And if we are cloudy on this, imagine what will happen if a law enforcement officer answers a complaint.
I have asked (through email) for a determination on this from the concealed permit section. As soon as I have an answer, I will post here. Normally they get back to me within a day. If I am incorrect and the intent or application of the law has been changed, my explanations to my classes will be immediately changed. My advice remains the same, however. Why push the issue? Go shop or visit somewhere else--and let them know why you are doing so.
And the name is Gordon Hutchinson. Classes are taught in the EBR region.
Last edited: