HB279 (LA NFA CLEO shall-sign bill)

[nola_]

Was this meeting announced yesterday when this post was started? If so seems like some people wanted to
ensure there were not many people present.

If it was planned earlier than yesterday, it would have been helpful if it was posted on here sooner to allow for people to plan accordingly to attend.

But thanks for posting to keep all in the shooting community informed of what's going on.

 

[dzelenka]

LSA did not even respond at this committee meeting. Pathetic!!!! Lets hear from LSA directors at their lack of interest.

Maybee the LSA needs to modify their position statement:

The LSA is totally committed to the promotion and protection of legitimate firearms owners’ constitutionally-guaranteed right to own, bear, and use firearms for the protection of home and family, sport hunting, target shooting, and any other lawful purpose. The LSA has a full-time, registered lobbyist at the state capital, who monitors firearms-related legislation. The officers of the LSA routinely testify at the state capital on behalf of the citizens of Louisiana, and are consuted by legislatures for support of key bills and initiatives.

Dan Zalenka whats your response?

In case you missed my reply on the other thread:

LSA arranged for Derek Howard of Big Boy Armament and Joe Meaux of Red Jacket to attend and testify. LSA also had its lobbyist there.

If you weren't there, you have zero grounds to complain. If the issue is important to you, take the time to take off from work and go to the capital. It it isn't that important to you, why should your opinion be given any weight?

Dan

 

[oppsImissed]

Was any reason given for shooting it down?

 

[MOJO@AKLYS]

The Caucus yammering, The previous bills took up ALL of the time and the majority of the reps were bored. The Sheriff association campaigned hard and the time limit allowed no time to respond to the Sheriff association (this would have been key as the Association painted themselves into a corner with their reading of the form 4).

The Association took the stance that 41P hadn't passed yet so there was no need to require sheriffs to sign off while trusts were still viable.

The language taken by the Caucus was that the bill was FORCING the sheriff to sign off. Not that it was only requiring an action. It was all over at that point...

We could have used more support.....

 

[oppsImissed]

Thanks mojo. I couldnt be there. Just looking for info. Washington parish Cleo point blank refuses

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[flemgunner]

We are actively working on getting this brought up again and will each and every session until it passes. Next time we should have more time to give notice.

 

[Mr_Willson]

why require a signature in the first place if the bill can just be simplified to bypass CLEO signature instead?

because that's what the bill is essentially doing, only by making it mandatory. (which I admit sounds weird but it's the best way I have of describing it) If the guaranteed outcome is approval then we dont need CLEO signature and therefore the bill need not include the neccessity for a signature....because applications are just going to be approved no matter what.

the language of the bill should have been worded so that it would exclude the requirement for CLEO signature altogether. same thing as this bill, just simplified, and it might stand a better chance even.

 

[Vermiform]

why require a signature in the first place if the bill can just be simplified to bypass CLEO signature instead?

because that's what the bill is essentially doing, only by making it mandatory. (which I admit sounds weird but it's the best way I have of describing it) If the guaranteed outcome is approval then we dont need CLEO signature and therefore the bill need not include the neccessity for a signature....because applications are just going to be approved no matter what.

the language of the bill should have been worded so that it would exclude the requirement for CLEO signature altogether. same thing as this bill, just simplified, and it might stand a better chance even.

Not possible. The CLEO signature is a Federal requirement.

 

[JadeRaven]

why require a signature in the first place if the bill can just be simplified to bypass CLEO signature instead?

because that's what the bill is essentially doing, only by making it mandatory. (which I admit sounds weird but it's the best way I have of describing it) If the guaranteed outcome is approval then we dont need CLEO signature and therefore the bill need not include the neccessity for a signature....because applications are just going to be approved no matter what.

the language of the bill should have been worded so that it would exclude the requirement for CLEO signature altogether. same thing as this bill, just simplified, and it might stand a better chance even.

It's not essentially bypassing it if you still have to go down to the sheriff's office and get him to sign your application.