Louisiana Gun Ban Proposed

imported post

Juan is a rectal orifice. Not a small rectal orifice, not a medium sized rectal orifice, but a GIANT rectal orifice.
Finally managed to get His Highness on the phone, finally. What a ridiculous procedure THAT was.
Here's what the Imperial Wizardary had to say.
Instead of not introducing blatantly unconstitutional bills, if something as utterly stupid as HB 44 passes, we (meaning me and you) should reach deep down inside our pockets and spend our money to fight it in court.
Then, in true politician form, he starts his crap about me calling his office, threatening his staff. This is how politicians work. If you refuse to go to voicemail, if you refuse to leave a name and a number and wait till the Saints win the Superbowl for a return call, they invent crimes to bring charges against you. In this case, HE threatened ME with prosecution at the hands of Jim Letten, the US attorney in New Orleans.
THIS is what YOUR tax dollars are spent on. I can't wait for the next American revolution, hopefully it'll thin out his type and we can start over.

imported post

Here is an interesting post from a thread on this topic in BayouShooter.com posted by CCW of Thibodaux:

I just received a call from Rep. LaFonta in New Orleans in response to my email to him yesterday. Needless to say, we agreed that we would not agree on the issue. I thought it was something that was introduced just to keep gun rights people busy. He is committed to trying to get it passed. I pointed out to him that it exempts parish CCW Permit holders and not statewide CCW Permit holders. He did say that he would make the change to exempt statewide permit holders.

He also told me that there are additional ordinances in Orleans Parish that place additional restrictions on the statewide CCW Permit. I was not aware that local political subdivisions could override state law. Does anyone have any insight into this?

It is time to contact your state representatives and senators and lobby strongly in opposition to this gun control legislation. Their email addresses and phone numbers can be found at http://www.legis.state.la.us/.

We all need to take this very serious and do everything we can to stop this and other bills of this nature. Rep LaFonta is an attorney and presents his arguments well.

Click to expand...

Someone did respond about the pre-1985exclusion for state pre-emption, but no one knows for certain what laws he's referring to or when they were enacted.

I'll say again that I feel certain that Rep Wooton, the chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee, will find a way to quash this thing in committee. He's been a stand-up guy for gun owners in the past. This does not mean to sit back and wait for that to happen. He'll have more clout knowing that many reps have felt the heat from their constiuents over this.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Juan is an @#$%. Not a small @#$%, not a medium sized @#$%, but a GIANT @#$%.
Finally managed to get His Highness on the phone, finally. What a ridiculous procedure THAT was.
Here's what the Imperial Wizardary had to say.
Instead of not introducing blatantly unconstitutional bills, if something as utterly stupid as HB 44 passes, we (meaning me and you) should reach deep down inside our pockets and spend our money to fight it in court.
Then, in true politician form, he starts his crap about me calling his office, threatening his staff. This is how politicians work. If you refuse to go to voicemail, if you refuse to leave a name and a number and wait till the Saints win the Superbowl for a return call, they invent crimes to bring charges against you. In this case, HE threatened ME with prosecution at the hands of Jim Letten, the US attorney in New Orleans.
THIS is what YOUR tax dollars are spent on. I can't wait for the next American revolution, hopefully it'll thin out his type and we can start over.

Click to expand...

What did he say he would charge you with?

imported post

Since His Majesty alleges I threatened his staff, he's got several options. Once he mentioned Jim Letten, another political hack/whore, it would be federal, whatever he's got in mind.
The fact the entire conversation was monitored by The Barbwire and she could substantiate NO threats were made is immaterial. Truth means nothing to this kind. This is how political whores deal with persons who DON'T sing their praises. Trust me.

If any of us intentionally set out to violate the state constitution (and that is exactly what Juan is doing), we'd be wide open for charges being brought against us.
But when one of THEM sets out to violate the state constitution, the BEST you can do is exert your time, energies and monies to try and defeat them.
Is it just me, or does anyone else consider this to be hypocritical ?

imported post

Since I'm in the process of moving up to Tangi parish, I also email John Bel Edwards, the rep for the district I moving to.

This was his reply:

[align=left]Thanks for contacting me about this important matter. I do not support the bill. It is well intentioned but misguided. I share your views. Feel free to contact me anytime you have a concern. Thanks again.[/align] [align=left]Representative John Bel Edwards[/align] [align=left]District 72, Louisiana House of Representatives[/align] [align=left]225 NW Central Avenue[/align] [align=left]Post Office Box 160[/align] [align=left]Amite, Louisiana 70422[/align] [align=left]Telephone: 985-748-2245 / 866-318-2480[/align] [align=left]Facsimile: 985-748-2247[/align][align=left]
I haven't heard from Wooton yet. But will forward his response if he does write back.
[/align]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Since His Majesty alleges I threatened his staff, he's got several options. Once he mentioned Jim Letten, another political hack/whore, it would be federal, whatever he's got in mind.
The fact the entire conversation was monitored by The Barbwire and she could substantiate NO threats were made is immaterial. Truth means nothing to this kind. This is how political whores deal with persons who DON'T sing their praises. Trust me.

If any of us intentionally set out to violate the state constitution (and that is exactly what Juan is doing), we'd be wide open for charges being brought against us.
But when one of THEM sets out to violate the state constitution, the BEST you can do is exert your time, energies and monies to try and defeat them.
Is it just me, or does anyone else consider this to be hypocritical ?

Click to expand...

Did you record the conversation? Or rather, would it be legal to record such a conversation in LA? If so, what might effect might such a recording have on the mans reputation should it become available to the media...?

imported post

PavePusher wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Since His Majesty alleges I threatened his staff, he's got several options. Once he mentioned Jim Letten, another political hack/whore, it would be federal, whatever he's got in mind.
The fact the entire conversation was monitored by The Barbwire and she could substantiate NO threats were made is immaterial. Truth means nothing to this kind. This is how political whores deal with persons who DON'T sing their praises. Trust me.

If any of us intentionally set out to violate the state constitution (and that is exactly what Juan is doing), we'd be wide open for charges being brought against us.
But when one of THEM sets out to violate the state constitution, the BEST you can do is exert your time, energies and monies to try and defeat them.
Is it just me, or does anyone else consider this to be hypocritical ?

Click to expand...

Did you record the conversation? Or rather, would it be legal to record such a conversation in LA? If so, what might effect might such a recording have on the mans reputation should it become available to the media...?

Click to expand...

My understanding is that as long as one party to the conversation knows that it is being recorded it is legal.

imported post

Dustin wrote:

I contacted:

[align=right]



[/align]

[align=center]Representative Juan A. LaFonta
Democrat - District 96 [/align]

[align=left]I wrote this:[/align]

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Section 11. 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.

How does HB 44 Coincide with Article 1 Section 11 of the Louisiana Constitution?

Criminals will never care about such laws, only law abiding citizens will. Who areyou really out to protect here?

I look forward to the explanation.

Semper Fi

Click to expand...

Might not be worth anything, but it sure does feels good.

Click to expand...

He seems like a real POS!

imported post

To record a PHONE conversation, you are required to inform the other party it's being recorded. However, if you are talking in PERSON, that's not necessary. At least this is how the laws in LA used to be, not sure if things have changed in the past 10 or so years.
Oh, I'd LOVE to be able to play such conversations on talk radio, let the audience hear just how these guys really are. But, consider who elected Juan. They probably would agree with him, which explains why this country is in the mess it's already in.

imported post

Mark,

I will have to check into it more, but I don't believe it is necessary to inform the second party that the phone conversation is being recorded. However, one would be advised to check this out themselves and don't rely on advice from the internet if they decide to record phone conversations that they are a part of.

Aftera google search on "is it legal to record phone conversations in Louisiana", this is what I cameup with. http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.htmland others like it.

Of course, knowing politicians, they may have there on set of laws regarding their phone conversations!

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

But, consider who elected Juan. They probably would agree with him, which explains why this country is in the mess it's already in.

Click to expand...

Sad...but true...

imported post

Only thing I see missing in the letter is a note that it was already against the law
to have a pistol at the parrade. So what good is another law except to endanger
more unarmed citizens. They could have been stopped sooner if everyone else
wasn't already forced to folow that law.

Anyone written Bobby J. about this yet? Let him use the pulpit to shame the
criminals in the state house. Or at least call for a mandatory emergency if
50 or more people gather together. Then the no disarming law comes into play.

imported post

Mark,

The followingis from the state document:

[align=justify]N. No concealed handgun may be carried into and no concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this Section shall authorize or entitle a permittee to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:[/align]
[align=justify](1) A law enforcement office, station, or building.[/align]
[align=justify](2) A detention facility, prison, or jail.[/align]
[align=justify](3) A courthouse or courtroom, provided that a judge may carry such a weapon in his own courtroom.[/align]
[align=justify](4) A polling place.[/align]
[align=justify](5) A meeting place of the governing authority of a political subdivision.[/align]
[align=justify](6) The state capitol building.[/align]
[align=justify](7) Any portion of an airport facility where the carrying of firearms is prohibited under federal law, except that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, if the firearm is encased for shipment, for the purpose of checking such firearm as lawful baggage.[/align]
[align=justify](8) Any church, synagogue, mosque, or other similar place of worship.[/align]
[align=justify](9) A parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued by a governmental entity.[/align]
Question concerning (9): I read the law where the carrier can not "participate" in a parade or demonstration. That it has no limit on observation?

Regards,

Erik

imported post

Other than the whole "government decides" aspect, what if you or I were to find ourselves in such an area? Just one more reason to arrest someone. We don't need any MORE laws, we need FEWER laws.
Besides, it's been well proven the criminals don't obey laws, anyway.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

<SNIP> it's been well proven the criminals don't obey laws, anyway.

Click to expand...

Truer words were never spoken.

I'd say to look up the definition of "criminal" in the dictionary, but the folks there have been busy re-defining things lately.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91995

imported post

And that is exactly why I cringe every time some politician says something to the effect of "law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear."

Every time they write new "laws," more and more citizens are no longer law-abiding.