Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: House passes SB303, constitutional carry amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    House passes SB303, constitutional carry amendment

    http://www.ktbs.com/news/New-Senate-...z/-/index.html

    BOSSIER CITY, La. - Senate Bill 303 was just passed by the House on Thursday.

    If it makes it to the ballot in November, Louisianians will vote on whether to amend the state's constitution, possibly giving it the strongest gun ownership rights in the country. The bill, which was authored by Senator Neil Riser, will define the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right.

    It also rids the constitution of language that allows the banning of concealed firearms. That will give you the right to carry a gun almost anywhere. Several local residents we spoke with are for the law.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    When LA looses OC I'm not sure if I'll laugh or cry.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    When LA looses OC I'm not sure if I'll laugh or cry.
    ????
    Why would we loose open carry?
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    When LA looses OC I'm not sure if I'll laugh or cry.
    What are you talking about?

    This amendment, if passsed by the voters, would eliminate all statutory time/place/manner restrictions on carry, and void any requirements for licenses or permits.

    UPDATE:

    http://www.ktbs.com/news/Bill-to-lim...z/-/index.html

    BATON ROUGE, La. - Louisiana voters will decide whether to toughen the state's constitutional protections for weapon owners.

    The proposal by Republican Sen. Neil Riser would strike a provision that gives the Legislature explicit authority to limit concealed handguns.

    The Senate gave final passage to the measure Tuesday with a 34-4 vote. Beside legislative approval, it requires backing by voters in the Nov. 6 statewide election before it could be enacted.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    11
    One more reason to look forward to November 6.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    NRA80 has made some good arguements in favor of this bill and I will support it when it appears on the ballot in November. That said, I think it's a fracking shame that we already have a Amendment that says our rights shall not be abridged yet it continues to be abridged on a regular basis. Even if SB303 is signed into law we will still face years of lawsuits to sweep these unconstitutional laws off the books.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    What are you talking about?

    This amendment, if passsed by the voters, would eliminate all statutory time/place/manner restrictions on carry, and void any requirements for licenses or permits.
    I hope you're right, but it sure doesn't read like that to me.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    I hope you're right, but it sure doesn't read like that to me.
    Please explain how you're reading it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    I haven't had the proper time to do anymore research on the repercussions of this bill if passed. I will say this... The real issue is being obfuscated and as such the battle may be lost.

    A Republic is government by the consent of the people. The powers of that government are derived from the governed. This is done in a simple manner... a constitution. The purpose of a constitution is NOT to lay chains upon the people but, to lay chains upon the representatives of the constitutional government. The constitution defines the bounds in which the government may operate. It defines what IT can and cannot do. Also, sometimes included in a constitution are re-affirmations of rights which are EXCPLICITLY off limits to government control. If, for some reason, power must be given or taken from the government, a proper constitution provides a way of altering or amending the powers bestowed by the people. This is the only constitutional way of governmental power being bestowed or retracted.

    Today we have a government which has unconstitutionally found "legal" ways of weaseling power from the people. It has many names (legislative history, public safety, administrative law, etc.). The end result is a system of law contrary to the plain written English voted on by the people during the ratification of the several constitutions or their respective amendments. To me, it seems this new proposed amendment is one step more towards that ends, removing the chains from the government and putting them on the people. We're going backwards. We are admitting that the government has power over and above what the people have conveyed through a constitution.

    Why do we need to amend our constitution to counter the governments unconstitutional weaseling by legitimizing the weaseling? Why do we not amend to arrest the weaseling?

    I can't support SB303.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    georg jetson,

    I'd like to hear your argument against the bill.

    I see no downside. We agree that government should never intrude on RKBA, and violators should be held accountable.

    But, this proposed constitutional amendment declares that government cannot legitimately intrude on RKBA. That's a huge improvement over the present state, where the trampling of your rights enjoys the full protection of the state constitution.

    So, which is it? Vote against 303 and continue the current violation of your rights, or vote for 303 and support expansion of your rights?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    georg jetson,

    I'd like to hear your argument against the bill.

    I see no downside. We agree that government should never intrude on RKBA, and violators should be held accountable.

    But, this proposed constitutional amendment declares that government cannot legitimately intrude on RKBA. That's a huge improvement over the present state, where the trampling of your rights enjoys the full protection of the state constitution.

    So, which is it? Vote against 303 and continue the current violation of your rights, or vote for 303 and support expansion of your rights?
    What current violation of rights? In reality, speaking strictly of state law and OC, the only real intrusion on gun rights so far is as follows:

    1) That convicted felons may not get their weapon's possesion rights returned after serving their time.
    2) Ocing is prohibited at businesses licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premesis.
    3)I'll also include that the requirment to register machine guns, suppressors SBS and SBRs is an intrusion.

    SB303 fixes none of these. From an OC perspective, this bill does nothing, or maybe hurts us because it will now allow restrictions based on "strict scrutiny". I'm pretty sure the 3 things above will probably pass "strict scrutiny" (whatever that ends up being defined as).

    What I see happening is more legislation coming from an emboldened legislature further restricting our rights and then letting this "strict scrutiny" thing play out in court costing people like me and you many thousands of dollars fighting an uphill battle.

    Most importantly, SB303 does nothing to solve our real OC issue... the federal GFSZ law. Why are we messing with a perfectly good Article at the state level when our biggest problem is at the federal level?

    If we're going to change Art 1 Sec 11, then the only way to do it is adding the phrase:

    "This right CANNOT be restricted beyond the restrictions explicit in this Article".
    Last edited by georg jetson; 05-31-2012 at 09:42 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    What current violation of rights? In reality, speaking strictly of state law and OC, the only real intrusion on gun rights so far is as follows:

    1) That convicted felons may not get their weapon's possesion rights returned after serving their time.
    2) Ocing is prohibited at businesses licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premesis.
    3)I'll also include that the requirment to register machine guns, suppressors SBS and SBRs is an intrusion.

    SB303 fixes none of these. From an OC perspective, this bill does nothing, or maybe hurts us because it will now allow restrictions based on "strict scrutiny". I'm pretty sure the 3 things above will probably pass "strict scrutiny" (whatever that ends up being defined as).

    What I see happening is more legislation coming from an emboldened legislature further restricting our rights and then letting this "strict scrutiny" thing play out in court costing people like me and you many thousands of dollars fighting an uphill battle.

    Most importantly, SB303 does nothing to solve our real OC issue... the federal GFSZ law. Why are we messing with a perfectly good Article at the state level when our biggest problem is at the federal level?

    If we're going to change Art 1 Sec 11, then the only way to do it is adding the phrase:

    "This right CANNOT be restricted beyond the restrictions explicit in this Article".
    While I like your proposed language, why are you "speaking strictly of state law and OC"? The state places multiple restrictions on concealed carry, which this amendment would reverse.

    You also didn't mention that the state bans carry in churches, no matter what the church thinks (unless the church and its members jump through some ridiculous hoops), and on all school grounds, even private schools, no matter what the school thinks. The state also requires carriers to announce to homeowners that they're carrying, and ask permission before entering a private home, no matter what the homeowner thinks.

    The home, restaurant, school, and church private property issues are certainly reason enough to support 303, because the state has no legitimate authority to regulate carry on private property.

    Saying that it doesn't go far enough, is like saying Oklahoma should have rejected open carry, because it's licensed carry only.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    While I like your proposed language, why are you "speaking strictly of state law and OC"? The state places multiple restrictions on concealed carry, which this amendment would reverse.
    I'm speaking of OC because this is an OC forum and I don't think it's advantageous to possibly put OC in jeopardy for CC.

    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    You also didn't mention that the state bans carry in churches, no matter what the church thinks (unless the church and its members jump through some ridiculous hoops),
    This is a CC issue only.

    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    and on all school grounds, even private schools, no matter what the school thinks.
    I mistakingly left this out. Thanks for catching it. Are you sure the application of "strict scrutiny" would alleviate this? After all, it's for the children...

    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    The state also requires carriers to announce to homeowners that they're carrying, and ask permission before entering a private home, no matter what the homeowner thinks.
    Again, this is a CC issue. It's not prudent to possibly sacrifice OC over CC issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    The home, restaurant, school, and church private property issues are certainly reason enough to support 303, because the state has no legitimate authority to regulate carry on private property.
    Please explain how SB303 helps this? The proposed amendment will give the state the authority to regulate ANY type of carry as long as it passes "strict scutiny". Can you tell me what will and will not pass this test?

    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Saying that it doesn't go far enough, is like saying Oklahoma should have rejected open carry, because it's licensed carry only.
    I don't know the circumstances in OK so I can't speak to this.

    The bottom line is that we have no idea how "strict scrutiny" will be applied. Therefore we have no idea what impact this new amendment will have.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 05-31-2012 at 08:47 PM. Reason: Spelling

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Please explain how you're reading it.
    Plain English. It admits that restrictions upon the right to bear arms are allowed; true only under strict scrutiny, but that sill allows for restrictions and regulations. It erases the legal line in the sand. If it was worded to apply strict scrutiny but say no law is allowed to infringe upon the RTBA then it would be nice; as it is there is plenty of wiggle room from a plain English point of view. If the average person reads it and can conclude that regulation and restriction is allowed then you've lost, just ask Mexico about allowing restrictions.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Plain English. It admits that restrictions upon the right to bear arms are allowed; true only under strict scrutiny, but that sill allows for restrictions and regulations. It erases the legal line in the sand. If it was worded to apply strict scrutiny but say no law is allowed to infringe upon the RTBA then it would be nice; as it is there is plenty of wiggle room from a plain English point of view. If the average person reads it and can conclude that regulation and restriction is allowed then you've lost, just ask Mexico about allowing restrictions.


    First impressions are usually correct and this was exactly my first impression after reading this amendment.

    It gives gov't (which, I DO NOT TRUST AT ANY LEVEL) a means to restrict (infringe) , beyond its current

    limitation of concealment.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    Plain english....
    "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."

    The definition of Abridge...

    abridged abridg·ing

    Definition of ABRIDGE

    transitive verb

    1 aarchaic: deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>


    2: to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>


    3: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense

    Synonyms: abbreviate, shorten, curtail, cut back, dock, elide, syncopate, truncate

    Antonyms: elongate, extend, lengthen, prolong, protract
    Source- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge

    That's plain to me. They can mess with Pincus Carry, aka conceal carry, but other provisions of our right ot keep and bear arms can't be messed with.
    BUT THEY HAVE!!!!
    How does SB303 with it's "fundamental" and Strict Scrutiny keep them from doing any less than what they are already doing?

    Crossposting this from the Bayou Shooter thread where we are discussing this issue....
    "So to be clear, we currently have wording which says that our rights shall not be Abridged. Yet time and again these rights are indeed ABRIDGED. Now we have SB303 which rewrites the amendment putting in legalize such as "Strict Scrutiny", a phrase and concept that, as Georg posted above, the State of Louisiana has basically said is meaningless. Yet somehow we expect that the same courts which have turned thier noses up at "Strict Scrutiny" will somehow see the light, fall to their knees and shout Praise Be as they realize how wrong they were and reverse their previous decisions?

    It reminds me of a comedian who, when pointing out the absurdity of an Unarmed Security Guard said... "He doesn't have a gun? What is he supposed to do when something happens? Yell - HEY YOU!!! STOP...or I'll say stop again."
    Article 1, Section 11 is like that unarmed security guard. It stands there and says STOP. But the courts have kept going, abridging our Rights over and over. So, now we have SB303 which is basically the Security Guard yelling, "Hey! Didn't you hear me say stop? Don't make me say stop again."
    You know the reaction you would have to something like that? Humor? Complete disrespect? Maybe even pity for the poor bastard thinking that he's going to actually make anyone stop? That's how the law makers and courts look at Artcle 1, Section 11 with its' current language as well as this new version. They voted for it knowing that it will make no difference whatsoever."
    Last edited by sraacke; 06-02-2012 at 10:43 AM.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by sraacke View Post
    Plain english....
    "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."

    The definition of Abridge...

    abridged abridg·ing

    Definition of ABRIDGE

    transitive verb

    1 aarchaic: deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>


    2: to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>


    3: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense

    Synonyms: abbreviate, shorten, curtail, cut back, dock, elide, syncopate, truncate

    Antonyms: elongate, extend, lengthen, prolong, protract
    Source- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge

    That's plain to me. They can mess with conceal carry but other provisions of our right ot keep and bear arms can't be messed with.
    BUT THEY HAVE!!!!
    How does SB303 with it's "fundamental" and Strict Scrutiny keep them from doing any less than what they are already doing?
    ...
    So you think it will get better by changing the wording to admit restrictions can be legal?
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    So you think it will get better by changing the wording to admit restrictions can be legal?
    No. Why whould it? IF anything it makes it worse.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by sraacke View Post
    No. Why whould it? IF anything it makes it worse.
    I seem to be confused about your thesis. Where you agreeing with my hypothesis: the proposed change to LA constitution will lead to a loss of more rights since it admits restrictions can be made? Or were you disagreeing?
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  20. #20
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    http://www.ktbs.com/news/New-Senate-...z/-/index.html

    BOSSIER CITY, La. - Senate Bill 303 was just passed by the House on Thursday.

    If it makes it to the ballot in November, Louisianians will vote on whether to amend the state's constitution, possibly giving it the strongest gun ownership rights in the country. The bill, which was authored by Senator Neil Riser, will define the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right.

    It also rids the constitution of language that allows the banning of concealed firearms. That will give you the right to carry a gun almost anywhere. Several local residents we spoke with are for the law.
    i like the strict scrutiny method.... especially how they added "possess, acquire, carry, transfer, use" arms.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    I seem to be confused about your thesis. Where you agreeing with my hypothesis: the proposed change to LA constitution will lead to a loss of more rights since it admits restrictions can be made? Or were you disagreeing?
    I agree that it has the potential to lead to a loss of more rights since it admits restrictions can be made. Of course, our current wording does not admit to restrictions (except with regards to Pincus Carry) but that hasn't stopped them from imposing restrictions anyway.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  22. #22
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    georg jetson,

    I'd like to hear your argument against the bill.

    I see no downside. We agree that government should never intrude on RKBA, and violators should be held accountable.

    But, this proposed constitutional amendment declares that government cannot legitimately intrude on RKBA. That's a huge improvement over the present state, where the trampling of your rights enjoys the full protection of the state constitution.

    So, which is it? Vote against 303 and continue the current violation of your rights, or vote for 303 and support expansion of your rights?
    While i hope for the best for LA, the fact remains that we should be pushing in a different direction.

    How about, instead of a "State" 2A, how about a repeal of the gun laws that restrict RKBA. Take Michigan for example. Open carry is legal there because there is no law preventing it.

    I think we are all fighting in the wrong direction. If you think about it, we are still asking permission. Even with an amendment. Because its the people we put in office that have the final say.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    While i hope for the best for LA, the fact remains that we should be pushing in a different direction.

    How about, instead of a "State" 2A, how about a repeal of the gun laws that restrict RKBA. Take Michigan for example. Open carry is legal there because there is no law preventing it.

    I think we are all fighting in the wrong direction. If you think about it, we are still asking permission. Even with an amendment. Because its the people we put in office that have the final say.
    I agree. Its hard to be more strict than "shall not infringe" or most stateside equivalents, yet it does little good. A codified repeal of all infringements and restrictions would be better. The only thing I'd like to see added to a constitutional protection is perhaps a penalty for voting for or writing a law that could restrict the right and a provision for enforcement to be done by anyone.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    I agree. Its hard to be more strict than "shall not infringe" or most stateside equivalents, yet it does little good. A codified repeal of all infringements and restrictions would be better. The only thing I'd like to see added to a constitutional protection is perhaps a penalty for voting for or writing a law that could restrict the right and a provision for enforcement to be done by anyone.
    That would be a good start.

    What we need is people in elected seats to trash laws that are not within the boundaries of the constitution.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    I'm still not sure I understand the objection.

    Yes, I understand what those objecting are saying, I just don't see why they believe it's potentially worse.

    My paraphrase of the current constitution:
    "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except for concealed carry."

    And the proposed amendment:
    "The right to keep, bear, posses, own, acquire, and transport arms shall not be infringed."

    I simply don't see where the loss, or potential loss, lies. "In plain English", as others noted above, it's pure win. The objections are speculative.

    Does it give room for court shenanigans? Of course. But, no more than the courts already engage in. If you think you've got Constitutional-except-for-concealed Carry right now in Louisiana, you haven't been paying attention.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •