LA.'s "Keep & Bear Arms Amendment" To Be Heard Tuesday

[XD-GEM]

Well, I suppose that's why I'm not a lawyer - I prefer things to mean what they say.

Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate all that you and the NRA have done on behalf of gun rights in this state, and have been a NRA member for years. I just don't want to see things eroded that seemed solid to me.

 

[Emperor]

Also, should this pass; it is conceivable for it to be seen or implied by those future lawmakers as a "Statement" that Louisianans do not want their gun rights watered down. (Had to edit, it didn;t mean what it was supposed to the other way.)

At least for the foreseeable future.

Also FWIW, the debate on the proposed law here in these threads, is much than what will most likely transpire in the Legislature.

 

[NRA80]

Well, I suppose that's why I'm not a lawyer - I prefer things to mean what they say.

Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate all that you and the NRA have done on behalf of gun rights in this state, and have been a NRA member for years. I just don't want to see things eroded that seemed solid to me.

I think your challenging my positions is a strong indication of your passion for protecting your rights. I could really use that passion in the coming weeks as we face a very uphill battle in the House.

 

[stancel]

I think the first thing we need to do is quit calling them "gun rights"! If I had the "right" to keep and bear arms, I wouldn't have to fill out paperwork to buy one, get a permit to carry one, or have ANY restrictions as to where I could carry it.

We have "PERMISSION" to keep and bear arms from the government at the discretion of the BATF. And with a state issued permit, we have "PERMISSION" to carry them where and how they say we can. That is pretty much the exact opposite of it being a right.

I believe a major step forward would be to quit saying you have a right to something that you have to get permission for.

 

[USMC-Deano]

Much like driving a car, gun ownership has become a privilege, while things that are NOT rights in the COTUS, such as healthcare, are turning from privileges to rights. How whack is that?

 

[stancel]

Couldn't agree with you more!

Much like driving a car, gun ownership has become a privilege, while things that are NOT rights in the COTUS, such as healthcare, are turning from privileges to rights. How whack is that?

 

[Andres]

By the way, I'm NRA's lobbyist in Louisiana (also handle Minnesota and Iowa). I'm working on this bill and a number of others this session. Working to stop quite a few anti-gun bills too. You can follow me on twitter at @ChrisLRager. My email address: crager@nrahq.org

NRA80, are many people planning to testify on behalf of this bill when it is heard before the House Judiciary Committee? I know someone that works in the capitol and the hearing that was scheduled for tomorrow appears to have been rescheduled. Do you know the date it will appear before the House Committee

 

[NRA80]

NRA80, are many people planning to testify on behalf of this bill when it is heard before the House Judiciary Committee? I know someone that works in the capitol and the hearing that was scheduled for tomorrow appears to have been rescheduled. Do you know the date it will appear before the House Committee

The bill will be heard before the House Administration of Criminal Justice on May 2nd. I'm working on bringing an accomplished U.S. Supreme Court litigator--and Second Amendment scholar--to testify on our behalf.

Unfortunately, at this point, a large number of legislators have decided to allow the Louisiana Sheriff's and District Attorney's Associations to dictate your rights -- in the coming weeks it will be up to Louisianans to make their voices heard with House legislators.

I would welcome supporters to attend the hearing on May 2nd.

 

[XD-GEM]

Gura?

 

[Andres]

"Unfortunately, at this point, a large number of legislators have decided to allow the Louisiana Sheriff's and District Attorney's Associations to dictate your rights -- in the coming weeks it will be up to Louisianans to make their voices heard with House legislators."


Do you mean that they are going to be speaking on "behalf of the people?" I must confess, there are many conflicting ideas surrounding this bill right now. I just want my constitutional right to bear arms to be firm, without fear of revoking or litigating it into a small box in my house. In the words of William Wallace, "FREEDOM!!!!"

 

[762NATO]

What happened to the bill? Did it pass?!?
God let it be so!

 

[Andres]

Passed Louisiana Senate and now going to House judiciary committee and if it passes there, to be voted on in Louisiana House of Reps. If passes with 2/3's, then it should make it's way onto the ballot in NOvember for a vote to be accepted as an amendment. Anybody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[NRA80]

"Unfortunately, at this point, a large number of legislators have decided to allow the Louisiana Sheriff's and District Attorney's Associations to dictate your rights -- in the coming weeks it will be up to Louisianans to make their voices heard with House legislators."


Do you mean that they are going to be speaking on "behalf of the people?" I must confess, there are many conflicting ideas surrounding this bill right now. I just want my constitutional right to bear arms to be firm, without fear of revoking or litigating it into a small box in my house. In the words of William Wallace, "FREEDOM!!!!"

No, I mean they're trying to water it down and, ultimately, stop it.

 

[NRA80]

Passed Louisiana Senate and now going to House judiciary committee and if it passes there, to be voted on in Louisiana House of Reps. If passes with 2/3's, then it should make it's way onto the ballot in NOvember for a vote to be accepted as an amendment. Anybody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

SB303 is not going to the House Judiciary Committee. As I mentioned above, it is going to the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee on May 2nd. If it passes, it will go to the Civil Law Committee. If it passes, it will go to the House floor.

 

[Tulse Luper]

Thanks for updates, NRA80.

Gura?

Wouldn't that be fun.

In front of Louisiana's finest legislative minds, the likes of Norton and Moreno.

 

[XD-GEM]

No, I mean they're trying to water it down and, ultimately, stop it.

SB303 is not going to the House Judiciary Committee. As I mentioned above, it is going to the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee on May 2nd. If it passes, it will go to the Civil Law Committee. If it passes, it will go to the House floor.

Many of us remember the farce of how Rep. Wooten's Campus Carry bill went down in flames as legislator after legislator cynically proposed amendments to permit guns in more and more places (ironic that those places should be allowable if common sense prevailed) then voted the entire thing down.

Administration of Criminal Justice has historically been favorable to gun rights, but without Chairman Wooten, there's no telling how the group has changed.

 

[NRA80]

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s...nces-support-of-constitutional-amendment.aspx

 

[sraacke]

Many of us remember the farce of how Rep. Wooten's Campus Carry bill went down in flames as legislator after legislator cynically proposed amendments to permit guns in more and more places (ironic that those places should be allowable if common sense prevailed) then voted the entire thing down.

I remember watching that happen which is why I don't think this bill has a snowball's chance in hell of getting to Jindal's desk.
I still don't have an answer to how a Amendment with simple wording like "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged,..." can be crippled by the state supreme court but a long convoluted restatement of the same rights with an out for the courts to apply "strict scrutiny" if they feel it necessary is any better.
We need to get our rights back but this bill isn't going to do it. It's going to be opposed by the usual groups and even many of us who see it's flaws.

 

[NRA80]

I remember watching that happen which is why I don't think this bill has a snowball's chance in hell of getting to Jindal's desk.
I still don't have an answer to how a Amendment with simple wording like "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged,..." can be crippled by the state supreme court but a long convoluted restatement of the same rights with an out for the courts to apply "strict scrutiny" if they feel it necessary is any better.
We need to get our rights back but this bill isn't going to do it. It's going to be opposed by the usual groups and even many of us who see it's flaws.

The problem is that you don't have an understanding of the history of the Second Amendment and how the courts have weakened your Second Amendment rights.

You said the provision provides an "out" for the courts to apply strict scrutiny? Do you understand what "strict scrutiny" is and how it works? The courts would not be able to "decide" if they wanted to apply strict scrutiny -- strict scrutiny would be applied in every case. Strict scrutiny requires the state to prove a necessary, narrowly-tailored, compelling interest. Right now, the state would only have to prove their actions were "reasonable." Under your plan and the current level of review, as long as the state did not wholesale ban firearms, most gun control would be deemed reasonable.

You actually sit on the wrong side of history already. The Supreme Court agreed in Heller that rational basis review or a reasonableness standard was not the appropriate level of review for the Second Amendment. It seems that you would suggest Louisianans wait until the courts determine that the Second Amendment means what you and I think it does. That is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. That being said, efforts to infringe on your rights will continue

As for short and simple, that's an appealing principle, but the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Recall that for several decades in this country, courts and elite legal big brains had succeeded in creating an orthodoxy around the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" that denied any individual protection whatsoever. In opinion after opinion since Heller/McDonald, courts have refused to recognize the right beyond the facts of those cases. Some have erroneously (if not disingenuously) claimed those opinions actually prohibit them from recognizing a right to bear outside the home. The overwhelming trend of courts has been to construe the RKBA as narrowly as possible.

The idea that any right is "absolute" is naïve and willfully denies reality. Unfortunately, Heller and McDonald have already settled that issue with respect to the Second Amendment by explicitly stating it is not absolute. The best that can be hoped is that courts will treat any infringement of the right with serious scrutiny, which is what our suggested language explicitly requires (and why gun prohibitionists hate it).

 

[XD-GEM]

But why are the Sheriffs and DAs against it?