Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: I have a Question for The Louisiana Open Carry Organization...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    I have a Question for The Louisiana Open Carry Organization...

    To Whomever it may Concern:

    I was Reading The Louisiana Constitution Yesterday in Light of The Vote on The Firearm Amendment to The Louisiana Constitution having Passed on The Ballot Earlier This Month.

    I Noticied that The Amendment takes Effect on December. 10, 2012, as is Viewable here:
    http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=206276

    Based on This Update having been Entered into The Louisiana Legislatures' Web Portal On-Line Database, I was Curious as to whether or not The Louisiana Open Carry Organization had any Intention to File Constitutional Challenges to any of Louisisanas' Firearm Laws in Light of The Effective Date of Senate Bill 303, ACT 874 of 2012.

    In Kindest Regards,

    aadvark

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    LOCAL is Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League. Here's our mission statement...

    "The mission of the Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League (LOCAL) is to support, defend and promote the fact that the open carry of firearms is a legal choice in Louisiana. We seek to accomplish this goal by educating the public about the legality of open carry in Louisiana, through the existence of the website itself, by producing and distributing literature, organizing open carry awareness campaigns & events, and by actively petitioning our representatives and legislators.

    Additionally, we seek to be a conduit for personal involvement by interested citizens and strongly promote and encourage citizens to become active in their communities, as well as in state-level politics. Another tool to help accomplish this mission is our web forum, within which citizens can discuss all aspects of their right to open carry."

    Presently we are not setup for legal advocacy. However, there are certain members who have the resources and the intent to do just what you're asking. Will they? I can't answer that. As LOCAL moves to 2013, the newly elected officers may be looking into possibly expanding the mission statement. We shall see...

    By all means, please join us at LOCAL. Laopencarry.org.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Re: I have a Question for The Louisiana Open Carry Organization...

    Oi, the amendment sucks.

    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    No one knows yet if the amendment sucks, or rocks. That's because nothing has changed as a result of its passage, and nothing will until there is new statutory or case law.

    The amendment's intent was clear, but whether that intent will survive lawyers' arguments remains to be seen.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Re: I have a Question for The Louisiana Open Carry Organization...

    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    No one knows yet if the amendment sucks, or rocks. That's because nothing has changed as a result of its passage, and nothing will until there is new statutory or case law.

    The amendment's intent was clear, but whether that intent will survive lawyers' arguments remains to be seen.
    The last amendment, if I recall correctly, was the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except concealed carry. The new says the right shall not be infringed except at the whims of the court.


    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    The last amendment, if I recall correctly, was the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except concealed carry. The new says the right shall not be infringed except at the whims of the court.


    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
    I would tend to agree with you. This has been debated...

    here...
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...em-of-scrutiny

    and here...
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...arry-amendment

    Keep in mind that Seigi has recently passed the bar here in La. and Owen Courreges is an attorney who's experience is mostly in civil law. I state this so that you're aware that there were a couple attorneys weighing in and both were "for" the amendment. I'm not sure of NRA80's background other than that he's a NRA lobbyist.

    I believe this amendment was the creation of the NRA in cooperation with a local attorney named Dan Zelenka. Dan is the president of the Louisiana Shooters Association. Here's an NRA article about the LSA's position of then new amendment.

    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...%E2%80%9D.aspx

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    The last amendment, if I recall correctly, was the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except concealed carry. The new says the right shall not be infringed except at the whims of the court.
    That's definitely not the case. The current standard of review for Louisiana's Second Amendment is some kind of extremely lenient "reasonable restriction" standard. The new version requires "strict scrutiny," the highest standard of review for constitutional rights. Although Louisiana courts have not generally used strict scrutiny, the courts have recognized that it has a well-established meaning. This is about as good an amendment as could have been drafted.

    Some people seem to be griping that the amendment didn't say something like "the right to keep and bear arms is absolute and shall not be infringed under any circumstances," but that's problematic. All rights have limits at the extremes. With free speech, it's often illustrated with the old trope of yelling fire in a crowded room. With a gun, it might be brandishing in certain circumstances, or ownership of guns by violent felons. The federal courts created strict scrutiny for fundamental, established rights, to ensure that these limitations would be minimal and that the onus would be on the government to justify any restriction. Saying "strict scrutiny isn't enough" just sounds nuts.

    It has been suggested that the Louisiana Supremes may try to create their own lenient definition of "strict scrutiny" to sidestep the law, but I doubt that. They've already recognized it openly as a well-established standard. If judges try to gut the amendment, they are more likely to do it by applying strict scrutiny improperly, and then the fault is with the judiciary, not the amendment.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Re: I have a Question for The Louisiana Open Carry Organization...

    A trope I have thoroughly debunked and I'll happily do again. When I go to break in two hours. Clicking in now

    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Now that the outcome of the amendment is settled, I'd like to weigh in a bit more on this. I honestly am not sure if this amendment is a good thing or not so I, kept my mouth(fingers) shut and let the chips fall where they may. So...

    Quote Originally Posted by Owen Courreges View Post
    That's definitely not the case. The current standard of review for Louisiana's Second Amendment is some kind of extremely lenient "reasonable restriction" standard. The new version requires "strict scrutiny," the highest standard of review for constitutional rights. Although Louisiana courts have not generally used strict scrutiny, the courts have recognized that it has a well-established meaning. This is about as good an amendment as could have been drafted.
    There's no doubt that "strict scrutiny" is a higher standard of review than what the LA. SC uses now. I don't think anyone debates this. Though I did ask the question and presented some cases that suggested that the La. SC has rejected the 3 tier system before. No one addressed this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Owen Courreges View Post
    Some people seem to be griping that the amendment didn't say something like "the right to keep and bear arms is absolute and shall not be infringed under any circumstances," but that's problematic.
    Maybe. But what about people like me that suggest, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The legislature may regulate arms in court rooms and when an individual is in physical custody of the state."

    Simple enough. No rant against the SC. Why is this problematic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Owen Courreges View Post
    All rights have limits at the extremes.
    That's why the constitution has an amendment process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Owen Courreges View Post
    With free speech, it's often illustrated with the old trope of yelling fire in a crowded room. With a gun, it might be brandishing in certain circumstances, or ownership of guns by violent felons. The federal courts created strict scrutiny for fundamental, established rights, to ensure that these limitations would be minimal and that the onus would be on the government to justify any restriction. Saying "strict scrutiny isn't enough" just sounds nuts.
    A judiciary that has already ruled that art 1 sec 11 is subject to reasonable restrictions despite the wording of the last sentence of art. 1 sec. 1 sounds nuts as well.

    1. Origin and Purpose of Government

    Section 1. All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded on their will alone, and is instituted to protect the rights of the individual and for the good of the whole. Its only legitimate ends are to secure justice for all, preserve peace, protect the rights, and promote the happiness and general welfare of the people. The rights enumerated in this Article are inalienable by the state and shall be preserved inviolate by the state.

    Do we have to make up new words to keep the SC from usurping. Is a rant against the SC necessary so that they finally get it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Owen Courreges View Post
    It has been suggested that the Louisiana Supremes may try to create their own lenient definition of "strict scrutiny" to sidestep the law, but I doubt that.
    I suggested that and in light of many of their decisions over the years, it is a reasonable concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by Owen Courreges View Post
    They've already recognized it openly as a well-established standard. If judges try to gut the amendment, they are more likely to do it by applying strict scrutiny improperly, and then the fault is with the judiciary, not the amendment.
    The fault is already with the judiciary. That's the point. This does nothing to change that.

    Thanks again Owen for taking you time to address these issues.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Re: I have a Question for The Louisiana Open Carry Organization...

    Georg gave some great arguments, arguments I mostly agree with.

    But back to the reasonable restrictions nonsense.

    Owen used yelling fire, brandishing and prohibited persons as examples of reasonable restrictions.

    1. There should be no such thing as a prohibited person, except MAYBE parolees/those on probation. Anyone that can't be trusted with all of their rights should remain in custody.

    2. Yelling fire is a terrible example. Afterall, the example was originally used by SCOTUS to justify blatant rights violation. I argue that this cliche proves how even those violations which seem completely reasonable should still be fought tooth and nail.

    Shouting fire in a theater doesn't really have the same affect today as it did a hundred years ago. Back then a burning theater was like a burning gas station or ammo dump, very very dangerous.

    So if you shouted fire in one, you were almost guaranteed to start a panic.

    FALSELY shouting fire in that situation should never be illegal. That is not a restriction I am comfortable with. How ever, causing a panic absolutely should be illegal.

    It's like owning a gun. We have a right to own and carry a gun but we don't have a right to shoot someone.



    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Either way..., The Amendment takes Effect Today!

    If only Someone would File an Action to Challenge The Legitimancy of any Revised Statute Regarding Firearms...[...]

    Since The Amendmnet REPEALED The Former Amendment..., I Surmise that a Challenge against Revised Statute 14:95(A)(1) is a Good Place to Start.

    Why wait for The Legislature This April...?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    RS 14:95(A)(1) defines concealed weapons. I don't carry concealed so I'm not really motivated to challenge that particular statute... but by all means, knock yourself out.

    I personally would like to see 14:95.5 challenged.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Re: I have a Question for The Louisiana Open Carry Organization...

    I just got here and haven't had a chance to.familiarize myself with the statutes. But the one I'd like to see challenged is the one that prohibits carry in places that serve alcohol for consumption in premises.

    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464

    For the new guy...

    I agree about the alcohol statute... I posted the statute number in the previous post.

    RS 14:95.5 found here... http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78744

    For your edification, here's the link to the Louisiana Legislature Search page. Enjoy!!

    http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/tsrssearch.htm

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    9
    Georg,

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    There's no doubt that "strict scrutiny" is a higher standard of review than what the LA. SC uses now. I don't think anyone debates this. Though I did ask the question and presented some cases that suggested that the La. SC has rejected the 3 tier system before. No one addressed this.
    The Supreme Court has rejected the three tier system in other contexts, but now it's being forced in and I think they're pretty well stuck with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    But what about people like me that suggest, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The legislature may regulate arms in court rooms and when an individual is in physical custody of the state."

    Simple enough. No rant against the SC. Why is this problematic?
    Because the courts could just use the same old standard of review that currently exists. You provided more specific language but nothing that overrides the standard of review. I understand about perhaps creating some absolute language and then listing specific restrictions, but that would have: 1) been politically problematic; and, 2) would be difficult to draft because of the need to predict each and every case where we would want to allow an infringement (and if you leave one out, the political opposition throws it in your face). Plus, the courts can still just ignore it or say that a law represents a "similar situation" or something like that.

    On the other hand, strict scrutiny is a very high standard and will do virtually all of what you want for you, if not all of it. It's also a known quantity that the public rallied behind in spite of every newspaper saying that the sky is falling.

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    The fault is already with the judiciary. That's the point. This does nothing to change that.
    Nope, but this is dealing with a single right, not overall separation-of-powers. And in any event, more deference or power to elected branches wouldn't help with this issue. If you can't even get the Courts to recognize a right, it's just not going to happen. The words can't recognize themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Thanks again Owen for taking you time to address these issues.
    No problem!

Posting Permissions

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