Gov Bobby Jindal Vetoed HB 523!!!

[spanky]

Veto of HB 523 made the Times Picayune. Interesting read. I know this will come as a shock, but neither LSA nor BS.com were mentioned. It is clear that we won an uphill fight.

Dan

no surprise of course but a win is a win

 

[ram03reg]

So by Jindal vetoing this bill, we can FOR SURE carry while we are watching a parade? I just want to make sure.

 

[Gus McCrae]

Veto of HB 523 made the Times Picayune. Interesting read. I know this will come as a shock, but neither LSA nor BS.com were mentioned. It is clear that we won an uphill fight.

Dan

It's a shame, but at least it was vetoed.

 

[spanky]

So by Jindal vetoing this bill, we can FOR SURE carry while we are watching a parade? I just want to make sure.

it has yet to be tested

 

[jlg]

.

 

[spanky]

I thought the rules for CHP still prohibited carry AT a parade, the vetoed bill would have extended that to 1000' (and made it a felony!). Am I misinterpreting?

it is worded as "in."

take that for what it's worth.

 

[jlg]

.

 

[spanky]

yes

 

[jlg]

.

 

[dawg23]

Any LEO's to offer an interpretation of whether it is IN or AT a parade that is enforced?

Oh, Lord. Please don't ask this sort of question. (Long history here of one or two strongly opinionated people -- who might be right and might be wrong -- stringing out "authoritative answers.")

Please understand that proposed laws (bills) are not simply drafted by the authors. They are reviewed by staff attorneys on various committees (like the Criminal Justice committees). These attorneys check all the language (whether it's parade-related or the bills/laws that refer to "constitutionally protected activities such as driving a motor vehicle".

These attorneys do more than just check the existing statutes (which some members here seem to do quite well). They also look at judicial decisions that serve as case law, as well as legal precedents of a lower level.

My point is this: All the cut & paste of existing statutes, and all the online analyses of the meaning of various statutes, is fine. But when you find statutes that refer to a constitutionally protected activity, you can bet that the wording was reviewed by folks with far more legal training and legal experience in firearms regulations than most (if not all) the members of this board. And the same is true of the parade issue -- the bills that try ban carrying at parades are presumptive evidence that we currently have legal right to do so.

Does the foregoing mean that legislative staff attorneys are all-wise" and never make mistakes ?? No. Nor would I suggest that the staff attorneys at LSP are all-wise and all-knowing.

But it does suggest, at least to me, that if you are going to post opinions that contradict their positions, you should possess (and be willing to post) your credentials and qualifications.

We all seem to agree on two points:
1. Cops may choose to make their own interpretation, so any of us could find ourselves in legal trouble.
2. Ultimately it will be up to a judge to decide who was right.

But until then, I place far more confidence in the staff attorneys of the Criminal Justice Committees than I do the opinions posted here from time to time. This isn't a slam at those members, but rather is a simple expression of where I place the greatest confidence (until such time as there is an appeals court ruling).

 

[FishingBack]

Being a civil law state, the written law is much more important here than elsewhere...that's probably why the actual law gets quoted so much.

 

[dzelenka]

I place far more confidence in the staff attorneys of the Criminal Justice Committees than I do the opinions posted here from time to time. This isn't a slam at those members, but rather is a simple expression of where I place the greatest confidence (until such time as there is an appeals court ruling).

I don't know that I would place much confidence in the staff attorneys actually knowing how the bill they are working on interrelates to existing law. Most of these bills are drafted by the legislator's staff and that can be very hit or miss.

I will agree that this is all a moot point until someone gets arrested and we get an appeal court opinion interpreting the "legislative intent" of these laws. Do not depend on any advice that you receive on this or other websites concerning these matters unless you are prepared to be the test case.

Dan