Louisiana Expungements do not allow firearm ownership according to NICS/FBI/DOJ

[reath1]

I'll just leave this right here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf

 

[hjlebert]

Actually according to the federal interpretation everyone in Louisiana is restricted from owning a firearm, because everyone is restricted for a CCH because it is a privilege and not a right.

 

[alpinehyperlite]

Actually its a right until someone does something to lose that right. Louisiana is a must issue state. Meaning that if the person is eligible to get the permit, then they will get it.

 

[hjlebert]

Actually your rights are not just fine. Because the CCH also is denied if you are a violent person and several other restrictions, so on that bases since some people are restricted of a CCH then all people in Louisiana are restricted from owning a firearm.

 

[alpinehyperlite]

So what crime have you committed that you got denied your permit?

 

[hjlebert]

None that I know of actually I have no need of one so I never applied, but I have researched and even if I haven't commited a crime I can be refused. And no Louisiana is not a "must issue" state. Read the law, it is at the discretion of the deputy secretary of public safety. It states "shall" not "must" or "will".

 

[alpinehyperlite]

None that I know of actually I have no need of one so I never applied, but I have researched and even if I haven't commited a crime I can be refused. And no Louisiana is not a "must issue" state. Read the law, it is at the discretion of the deputy secretary of public safety. It states "shall" not "must" or "will".

Shall = MUST


§1379.3. Statewide permits for concealed handguns; application procedures; definitions

A.(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the deputy secretary of public safety services of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall issue a concealed handgun permit to any Louisiana resident who qualifies for a permit under the provisions of this Section and may promulgate rules and adopt regulations regarding concealed handgun permits in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. The permit shall contain a permit number, expiration date, photograph, and the name, address, and date of birth of the permittee.

 

[charlie12]

Shall = MUST


§1379.3. Statewide permits for concealed handguns; application procedures; definitions

A.(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the deputy secretary of public safety services of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall issue a concealed handgun permit to any Louisiana resident who qualifies for a permit under the provisions of this Section and may promulgate rules and adopt regulations regarding concealed handgun permits in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. The permit shall contain a permit number, expiration date, photograph, and the name, address, and date of birth of the permittee.

Roger that

 

[madwabbit]

None that I know of actually I have no need of one so I never applied, but I have researched and even if I haven't commited a crime I can be refused. And no Louisiana is not a "must issue" state. Read the law, it is at the discretion of the deputy secretary of public safety. It states "shall" not "must" or "will".

3rd post. revives dead thread. posts information that is 99% incorrect.

I'll give ya the 1% that you never applied, the rest of your post is as wrong as a soup sandwich

 

[hjlebert]

I achieved my goal. You responded the same as everyone else on here when an interpretation of the law did not fit with what you believe it say which you are right. I was trying to show that interpetations are flawed. As was previously stated the feds allowed felons to legally buy firearms for 16 years after Caron v. US, but now their interpretation has changed. Why? And if they can do it for that can they do it for other laws. 18:921(a)(20) specifically states that no conviction exists if a "pardon" was issued. It does not state a specific type of pardon. So under that I do believe that non-violent felons should be allowed until they prove otherwise. I have a family member who is now a christian man was a hell raiser when he was younger but cleaned his life up and raised several great kids. This change will affect him and this only felony was possession of maijuana.

 

[DAVE_M]

I achieved my goal. You responded the same as everyone else on here when an interpretation of the law did not fit with what you believe it say which you are right. I was trying to show that interpetations are flawed. As was previously stated the feds allowed felons to legally buy firearms for 16 years after Caron v. US, but now their interpretation has changed. Why? And if they can do it for that can they do it for other laws. 18:921(a)(20) specifically states that no conviction exists if a "pardon" was issued. It does not state a specific type of pardon. So under that I do believe that non-violent felons should be allowed until they prove otherwise. I have a family member who is now a christian man was a hell raiser when he was younger but cleaned his life up and raised several great kids. This change will affect him and this only felony was possession of maijuana.

Felony charge is a felony charge. End of story. Felons cannot legally own firearms.

You didn't achieve any goal, you just allowed nearly everyone here to prove you wrong.

 

[Emperor]

Felony charge is a felony charge. End of story. Felons cannot legally own firearms.

You didn't achieve any goal, you just allowed nearly everyone here to prove you wrong.

Just for my own interest, does anyone definitively know what the, least egregious, least offense, and least violent "felony" conviction that the US has?

 

[DAVE_M]

Just for my own interest, does anyone definitively know what the, least egregious, least offense, and least violent "felony" conviction that the US has?

Alabama residents commit unlawful bear exploitation if they purchase, possess, or train a bear for the purpose of bear wrestling. It's a Class B felony, punishable by a fine, confiscation of the bear, and restitution to a humane society for animals.

 

[Emperor]

Yes, that is funny! But the point is, this is a "felony" that should not result in the denial of an American citizen to purchase, own, or possess; a firearm.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I would bet there are others.

 

[DAVE_M]

Yes, that is funny! But the point is, this is a "felony" that should not result in the denial of an American citizen to purchase, own, or possess; a firearm.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I would bet there are others.

That's the point of misdemeanor charges & felony charges. If we're going to debate which laws, if broken, should be a misdemeanor or felony charge, then that's probably best for another thread.

 

[Emperor]

That's the point of misdemeanor charges & felony charges. If we're going to debate which laws, if broken, should be a misdemeanor or felony charge, then that's probably best for another thread.

Not necessarily! If these posters were hypothetically convicted of this "bear" felony, and they got that "expunged" but were still denied a firearm; that would be a glaring example of what is wrong with that one brush paints all felony penalization.

 

[DAVE_M]

Not necessarily! If these posters were hypothetically convicted of this "bear" felony, and they got that "expunged" but were still denied a firearm; that would be a glaring example of what is wrong with that one brush paints all felony penalization.

I agree with what you are saying, but I was originally replying to hjlebert saying that shall issue means they don't have to.

 

[alpinehyperlite]

I achieved my goal. You responded the same as everyone else on here when an interpretation of the law did not fit with what you believe it say which you are right. I was trying to show that interpetations are flawed. As was previously stated the feds allowed felons to legally buy firearms for 16 years after Caron v. US, but now their interpretation has changed. Why? And if they can do it for that can they do it for other laws. 18:921(a)(20) specifically states that no conviction exists if a "pardon" was issued. It does not state a specific type of pardon. So under that I do believe that non-violent felons should be allowed until they prove otherwise. I have a family member who is now a christian man was a hell raiser when he was younger but cleaned his life up and raised several great kids. This change will affect him and this only felony was possession of maijuana.

If your goal was to create a screen name that came on to the site and spewed lies and false information on the site in its first three posts, then you succeeded. There is no "interpretation" of shall issue. The law is black and white. If they qualify for the permit, then the state shall (must, will, is required to, has to...... However you ant to say it) issue said permit.

 

[hjlebert]

But you see the federal law states 18:921(a)(20) The term *crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year* does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Now what you interpret Shall to mean might not be what the feds will interpret it to mean. Just read the law above. Either they are breaking the law or enforcing an interpetation of that law. Which means they can interpret the law how they see fit. And no one proved me wrong they proved me right. Everyone will defend their rights and use the law to do so and then bash the other guy for doing the same. How many inncoent people are being released each day? Some of those people were released a long time ago and just never decided to fight anything because they read they law and were advised that ALL their rights were restored under 14:95.1 so it was a waste of time and money, now that has changed. Also remember if you get into 3 fights even if you are proven innocent you cannot get a CCH does that make it illegal for you to own a firearm? Because they have restricted your rights to firearms. I have been in a couple of fights over the years defending myself or others (not that many) but that could be used against me if the feds decided or am I wronh. Before you answer remember gay marriage was illegal until recently and first offender pardons allowed felons to legally buy guys until recently so the fed change the way they view the law depending on the weather.

 

[hjlebert]

Alpinehyperlite you are missing the point. You are still defending your rights and quoting the law. Here you go You Are Right as to what the law says. Unfortunately for us the people what the laws state and what the feds interpet them to say can be very different. Read the above post and you may understand. Everyone keeps wanting to be right, but people just don't understand what the federal government has turned us into.