Top Legal Blog Weighs in on "YES on 2"

[NRA80]

In state elections, the most important vote this November will be in Louisiana. A referendum there would significantly strengthen protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the state, and would set a very significant national precedent.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/03/louisiana-amendment-to-strengthen-right-to-arms-on-november-ballot/

 

[JLouv]

I'd feel more comfortable if the "strict scrutiny" part was changed to "shall never ever ever under any circumstances whatsoever until the end of time be infringed, reduced, or modified in any way shape or form."

That'd make me feel better about voting for it. As it stands now, it allows for modification. What's the use if it can simply be changed? And yes, I said simply. Don't spout off about burden of proof and how difficult it would be. Put enough anti-guns on the bench and regardless of facts and good intentions, it WILL be changed.

Kinda the same way obamacare wasn't.


<<Sent via an old computer in my grandmother's basement>>kiooo

 

[NRA80]

I would submit to you that the proposed amendment would place Louisiana closer to your preferred position than has every been done in the history of our country. I'm not sure what you mean about "simply being changed?"

Did you have an opportunity to read the above posted link? It does a nice overview of how the courts eviscerated the current provision and the need for improvement.

 

[JLouv]

I did read the entire article. i understand the need. however, again, the second line literally states that the first line can be changed.

So long as the state remains pro-2nd amendment, it's not a big deal. If that ever changes, then this amendment will be changed so fast and so firmly, we will never get it back. Do I think that will happen? No. Not soon. But it could.

And you're right....it's a step in the right direction. But only one baby step.
One slip and its gone just as easily. Especially in the face of a new Supreme Court (pending this election) which could suddenly be violently opposed to the entire united states constitution as a whole. Never remind the meaningless constitutions of the member states. When the time comes, the fed will force a change regardless of the citizens wishes.

Like obamacare. Remember that? The precedent has been set already.

It's "feel good" policy at its finest. That which is given can also be taken. The guarantee isn't strong enough IMO.

 

[Xenon]

My question is whether you are comfortable with the way the language reads right now?

If yes, then vote how you wish. No? Then this is the biggest step in the right direction we are allotted today.

WE get to vote on it. Not some electoral college and red/blue state ********... If passed, this is a big move for the state in the right direction which could have a huge impact on other states who (hopefully) follow suit.

The official ballot text reads as follows:
Do you support an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Louisiana to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court?

Now how will you answer?

 

[NRA80]

I did read the entire article. i understand the need. however, again, the second line literally states that the first line can be changed.

So long as the state remains pro-2nd amendment, it's not a big deal. If that ever changes, then this amendment will be changed so fast and so firmly, we will never get it back. Do I think that will happen? No. Not soon. But it could.

And you're right....it's a step in the right direction. But only one baby step.
One slip and its gone just as easily. Especially in the face of a new Supreme Court (pending this election) which could suddenly be violently opposed to the entire united states constitution as a whole. Never remind the meaningless constitutions of the member states. When the time comes, the fed will force a change regardless of the citizens wishes.

Like obamacare. Remember that? The precedent has been set already.

It's "feel good" policy at its finest. That which is given can also be taken. The guarantee isn't strong enough IMO.

The "second line" is what empowers the first line. If we left the second line out, you would be left with the current problem -- a court saying the right does not deserve the highest standard of review or protection. As Xenon mentioned, this vote is allowing Louisianans the opportunity to say "shall not being infringed" and WE mean it!

 

[JLouv]

The "second line" is what empowers the first line. If we left the second line out, you would be left with the current problem -- a court saying the right does not deserve the highest standard of review or protection. As Xenon mentioned, this vote is allowing Louisianans the opportunity to say "shall not being infringed" and WE mean it!

True......Until the gov decides we don't need it. They'll "review" it and strike it down.

I'm no scholar on constitutional law, but I don't recall any amendments that have a built in ability to legally recall it contained within it. Recalls require another amendment and a nearly unobtainable (at least with current party lines) majority of votes.

If it truly was a "right", it would be beyond review and not require a protection clause. The second amendment doesn't have a second line. It's the judges that interpret the original writing to suit their political agenda instead of applying the law to the letter that is the real problem.

And speaking of such, what actual protection does it offer? Is LA no longer going to recognize the authority of the national firearms act? Technically, that is an infringement of my so called right and I don't recall voting on it. What about the assault weapon ban of the 90s? WHEN that is re-enacted, am i exempt as a LA resident? What if the anti gunners or the UN get their way and there's a national gun ban passed? States rights are being trampled on every day and we're giving them up willingly.

Of course I'm voting "yes". But like the upcoming presidential election, I'm not happy with our choices either way.

<<There is a better than average chance this post contains sarcasm>>

 

[kcinnick]

The law raises the standard in which a law must be challenged in court. Basically it is like having a criminal trial burden of "Beyond a reasonable doubt" vs "Preponderance of Evidence" (Basically beyond 50% doubt) in a civil case. This makes it much harder for new gun laws to stand up in Louisiana Courts. I don't like the wording either, but it is lawyer speak.

I believe shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. I should be able to go to any store and buy automatic weapons, rifles with whatever length barrel I want, armor piercing ammo in ANY caliber, etc., etc. Anything less than citizens being able to arm themselves less than the government arms itself is an infringement.

Oh and BTW, still haven't gotten my signs or seen ANY in Baton Rouge. I will be at a craft show next weekend and would be willing to have pamphlets on my table.

 

[JLouv]

The law raises the standard in which a law must be challenged in court. Basically it is like having a criminal trial burden of "Beyond a reasonable doubt" vs "Preponderance of Evidence" (Basically beyond 50% doubt) in a civil case. This makes it much harder for new gun laws to stand up in Louisiana Courts. I don't like the wording either, but it is lawyer speak.

So.....if this is 100% accurate, this amendment, if it is passed by popular vote, is exactly one liberal judge's ruling away from being struck down, evidence or burden or reasonable doubt be damned.

Kinda sounds like gay marriage now.


<<There is a better than average chance this post contains sarcasm>>

 

[Hitman]

Did you share this on BayouBucks.com?

 

[XD-GEM]

I have to say that I've been on the fence about this for some time. I LIKE the plain wording of our current amendment. It is a crying shame that the State Supreme Court couldn't see the unmistakeable meaning of the words.

That being said, every anti-gunner I know HATES this amendment, making me much more inclined to support it.

 

[dzelenka]

Although I am thankful that all of you are voting YES, I am amazed that some of you guys still do not get it. The proposed amendment is vastly superior to the existing constitutional provision. The plain wording of our current amendment is somewhere between mediocre and bad. Exempting concealed carry regulations from any sort of constitutional challenge is just begging for restrictions we don't want to live with. Our court's interpretation of the existing clause has eviscerated it, essentially turning the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege. Amendment 2 has two very clear sentences. The first states that the right is fundamental and shall not be infringed. The second is designed to prevent the courts from repeating their judicial nullification of the right that the constitutional provision is designed to protect. Both are necessary, and only by having both will Louisiana's Constitution be the most pro-gun in the country.

Dan