Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: LA Court Strikes Down Felon-in-Possession Ban, as Violating Newly Strengthen RKABA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    LA Court Strikes Down Felon-in-Possession Ban, as Violating Newly Strengthen RKABA

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/21/lou...rms-provision/

    Today, Louisiana Judge Darryl A. Derbigny, in State v. Draughter (La. Crim. Dist. Ct. Mar. 21, 2012), held that the Louisiana ban on felon possession of guns violates this provision. The analysis was brief:

    Under the strict scrutiny standard, government action is not presumed to be constitutional, and will not be upheld by [a] Court unelss shown to be necessarily related to a compelling state interest.... After applying the strict scrutiny standard to [the statute], this Court concludes that the statute is not narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s interest. [The statute] applies without discretion to nearly every felony crime enumerated in the Louisiana Criminal Code. As such, the statute, ‘as-is’, is unconstitutional in its entirety.
    http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/upl.../draughter.pdf

    Post in national news and political forum for its national impact.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 03-22-2013 at 07:23 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Not bad...wish it would hold up, but the ruling makes too much sense to survive.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    ......................but at least it may result in a statutory standard that destinguishes between VIOLENT and NONviolent offender convictions, and establishes a finite reasonable time period of disablement(say 10 years) - Long overdue.

    If a person still can not be trusted with a gun after 10 years following completion of sentence - why are they not incarcerated ? Why are they being let out of prison in the first place if they REALLY pose a danger to society ?
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 03-22-2013 at 10:36 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    I thought about posting this news in the La. section. There was a similar case ruling a week or so ago. In any case it's posted here so let me add this. It's a post to a similar thread at Laopencarry.org.


    This case centers around the crime of "a convicted felon in possession of a firearm". A little history on this subject is in order...

    Let's look at what the La. State Constitution has to say on the matter:

    Article 1 Section 20. Right to Humane Treatment
    http://www.legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?...286&showback=Y

    Section 20. No law shall subject any person to euthanasia, to torture, or to cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment. Full rights of citizenship shall be restored upon termination of state and federal supervision following conviction for any offense.

    This has been and still is part of the La. Constitution of 1974.

    Would anyone reading this argue that the crime of "convicted felon in possession of a firearm" is constitutional? The wording is clear and has been part of the Constitution of 1974 since its inception. So, why the hell hasn't this crime been tossed out on its a$$ like it should be. Because of the egregious 1977 case called STATE of Louisiana v. Shelly AMOS.

    Find it here at LOCAL: http://laopencarry.freeforums.org/gu...away-t619.html

    Please take the time to read Judge CALOGERO's dissent about half way down the thread. His logic is in stark contrast to the blabber passing for an opinion of the highest court in Louisiana.

    The fact that the new wording of Article 1 Section 11 is bringing this type of cruel and unusual punishment to light is ironic. Based on Article 1 Section 20, this shouldn't even be an issue.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 03-22-2013 at 08:40 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    We should start arguing that felons should have guns too ... and then "compromise" and say OK, now they shouldn't ... see, we did compromise

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    ......................but at least it may result in a statutory standard that destinguishes between VIOLENT and NONviolent offender convictions, and establishes a finite reasonable time period of disablement(say 10 years) - Long overdue.

    If a person still can not be trusted with a gun after 10 years following completion of sentence - why are they not incarcerated ? Why are they being let out of prison in the first place if they REALLY pose a danger to society ?
    There is already a statutory standard. The standard is pretty broad.

    http://www.legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?...740&showback=Y

    95.1. Possession of firearm or carrying concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies

    A. It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B) which is a felony or simple burglary, burglary of a pharmacy, burglary of an inhabited dwelling, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, felony illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities, manufacture or possession of a delayed action incendiary device, manufacture or possession of a bomb, or possession of a firearm while in the possession of or during the sale or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, or any violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is a felony, or any crime which is defined as a sex offense in R.S. 15:541, or any crime defined as an attempt to commit one of the above-enumerated offenses under the laws of this state, or who has been convicted under the laws of any other state or of the United States or of any foreign government or country of a crime which, if committed in this state, would be one of the above-enumerated crimes, to possess a firearm or carry a concealed weapon.

    Here's a link to R.S. 14:2
    http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=78337&showback=

    The problem is that this statute (RS 14.95.1) is in direct conflict with Article 1 Section 20 of the state constitution. It is unconstitutional to set a time for which an ex-felon is deprived of his right to choose how to defend himself.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 03-22-2013 at 08:51 PM.

Posting Permissions

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