New Legislation for 2011 in LA

[dzelenka]

Even though CHP holders are exempt, we need to repeal the 1000 ft exclusion zone around schools. It's just plain wrong. No "gun free zone" should extend beyond the area actually circumscribed by signage. To hold a person liable for knowing what may be 1000 feet away from him-especially when getting it wrong is a felony-is as unreasonable and immoral as ex-post-facto law. We must repeal that and pardon and expunge the records of every person who's been convicted of a "1000 ft." violation.

The STATE 1000' exclusion zone should not apply to anyone except those illegally carrying a concealed handgun. The law already contains an exception for people engaged in constitutionally protected activities. Open carry is a constitutionally protected activity. So if everyone who is carrying legally under state law is OK, what is there to change?

The problem is that there is a federal 1000' gun free zone. CHP holders are exempt. Open carry is not.

It is a federal issue. You need to call your congressman and the NRA on this one.

 

[JadeRaven]

The STATE 1000' exclusion zone should not apply to anyone except those illegally carrying a concealed handgun. The law already contains an exception for people engaged in constitutionally protected activities. Open carry is a constitutionally protected activity. So if everyone who is carrying legally under state law is OK, what is there to change?

Are you referring to RS 14:95.2?

If open carry is a constitutionally protected activity, and thus the law wouldn't apply to it, then how does the state law bar anyone from open carrying a firearm on school property, much less the 1000' radius?

 

[dzelenka]

Are you referring to RS 14:95.2?

If open carry is a constitutionally protected activity, and thus the law wouldn't apply to it, then how does the state law bar anyone from open carrying a firearm on school property, much less the 1000' radius?

It should not. There is no case law out there supporting this position, but it is logically correct. Frankly, there is very little case law on RS 14:95.2 at all. Perhaps one of the OC advocates would volunteer to be the test case. much like the train rider in Plessy v. Ferguson. I am going to vote for MEM to volunteer.

It really doesn't matter though. You are absolutely banned under federal law. So, even if they could not charge you under state law, you have committed a crime.

 

[sraacke]

It is a federal issue. You need to call your congressman and the NRA on this one.

Well there goes that fight. The NRfrackingA will never back open carry.

 

[JadeRaven]

It should not. There is no case law out there supporting this position, but it is logically correct. Frankly, there is very little case law on RS 14:95.2 at all. Perhaps one of the OC advocates would volunteer to be the test case. much like the train rider in Plessy v. Ferguson. I am going to vote for MEM to volunteer.

It really doesn't matter though. You are absolutely banned under federal law. So, even if they could not charge you under state law, you have committed a crime.

Are you sure about that federal law?

I know a federal no guns on campus law was passed years ago, but I thought it was held unconstitutional. . . which stirred the 50 states to pass their own campus carry laws.

And would a campus officer, state trooper, etc., be aware of or actually try to enforce a federal law?

 

[dzelenka]

Are you sure about that federal law?

I know a federal no guns on campus law was passed years ago, but I thought it was held unconstitutional. . . which stirred the 50 states to pass their own campus carry laws.

And would a campus officer, state trooper, etc., be aware of or actually try to enforce a federal law?

Positive about the Federal law. After it was ruled unconstitutional for having no relation to commerce and therefore beyond Congress's power to regulate, the congress came back and passed a new version which explicitly stated how the firearms affected interstate commerce.

Give it a try and let us know how it goes.

 

[JadeRaven]

Yeah I now see the 1995 law was revised to cover firearms that affect interstate commerce. So I need to get a Louisiana-made firearm and be the guinea pig Anyone care to give free legal representation?

 

[Tim67]

The STATE 1000' exclusion zone should not apply to anyone except those illegally carrying a concealed handgun. The law already contains an exception for people engaged in constitutionally protected activities. Open carry is a constitutionally protected activity. So if everyone who is carrying legally under state law is OK, what is there to change?

The problem is that there is a federal 1000' gun free zone. CHP holders are exempt. Open carry is not.

It is a federal issue. You need to call your congressman and the NRA on this one.

My beef with this applies to more than just OC. It it unreasonable to hold a person responsible for knowing what may be 1000 feet away from him. ANY exclusion zone regarding ANYTHING-whether guns, fat food, sex toys, or whatever, is totally unreasonable if it is enforceable outside the area circumscribed by the signage.

 

[dzelenka]

My beef with this applies to more than just OC. It it unreasonable to hold a person responsible for knowing what may be 1000 feet away from him. ANY exclusion zone regarding ANYTHING-whether guns, fat food, sex toys, or whatever, is totally unreasonable if it is enforceable outside the area circumscribed by the signage.

I agree, but laws are made by idiots elected by other idiots. What do you expect?

 

[Tim67]

I agree, but laws are made by idiots elected by other idiots. What do you expect?

Democracy ain't what it's cracked up to be.

 

[Tulse Luper]

It really doesn't matter though. You are absolutely banned under federal law. So, even if they could not charge you under state law, you have committed a crime.

I assume this is the part of that federal law.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
firearm -
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do
so by the State in which the school zone is located or a
political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or
political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains
such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or
political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
under law to receive the license;

Well, I guess that's a major hindrance to eventually doing away with a permit. We'd be back to square one. Although, is it up to the state to define a school zone, because it doesn't look like the zone is defined federally; that is, no mention of 1000 feet (at least where I'm looking)?

 

[kcinnick]

WRONG

We've been through this before. It depends on the type of liquor license the business has. My favorite example - Margaritaville on Decatur Street in NOLA has a Class A General that covers the bar AND RESTAURANT. Therefore, NO CCW allowed. Also, no kids under 21 with out an adult in the restaurant. THere are lots of these situations.

If the establishment has a class a general retail permit then it is a bar.

.

While I think we should be able to carry anywhere, don't **** with the law that allows us to carry a gun in any part of any restaurant, support a law that allows us to carry in bars.

 

[Gus McCrae]

Well there goes that fight. The NRfrackingA will never back open carry.

They will if you get enough members to care.

 

[dzelenka]

Democracy ain't what it's cracked up to be.

Wait till you see what they get in the middle east.

 

[sraacke]

I agree, but laws are made by idiots elected by other idiots. What do you expect?

Want more Proof? See recent action during the Baker City Council meeting this week.
I read it in the Advocate and you can find it here- http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/Baker-council-approves-purchase-of-police-cars.html .
The idiotic part is this-

Councilman A.J. Walls initiated a discussion on banning hats, hoods and sunglasses because he said robbers use these as a disguise.

Can you say "WHAT THE FRACK?!?!?" Click on the link and read the short, 3 paragraph portion of the story.
Idiots like this should be run out of office.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Want more Proof? See recent action during the Baker City Council meeting this week.
I read it in the Advocate and you can find it here- http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/Baker-council-approves-purchase-of-police-cars.html .
The idiotic part is this-


Can you say "WHAT THE FRACK?!?!?" Click on the link and read the short, 3 paragraph portion of the story.
Idiots like this should be run out of office.

What about shirts and shoes? They use those also, but that would conflict with the time honored "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule.

 

[XD-GEM]

What about shirts and shoes? They use those also, but that would conflict with the time honored "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule.

They know that if they ban ALL clothing, they'll catch hell from the NRA for making concealed carry nearly impossible.

 

[03protege]

They know that if they ban ALL clothing, they'll catch hell from the NRA for making concealed carry nearly impossible.

and it just came full circle.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

They know that if they ban ALL clothing, they'll catch hell from the NRA for making concealed carry nearly impossible.

I have arrested some dudes that could still do it with a HiPernt .40....just saying. LOL. How committed are you?