imported post
georg,
Carrying a firearm in your car or home, even concealed, is a constitutionally-protected activity. Although the statute doesn't expressly include an exception, it is (or should be) implied. An officer might not agree, but you'd stand a good chance at winning in court.
There isn't any jurisprudence on this issue, although there is a line from a concurrence in the Supreme Court case of State v. Snoddy, 389 So. 2d 377 (La. 1980) in which Justice Lemmon questioned whether 14:95 was "applicable at all on one's private property," and argued that, in any event, it was not designed to present a homeowner from concealing a firearm while investigating a disturbance.
In any event, it's crass behavior on the part of a police officer to arrest a person for concealing a firearm on their person in a vehicle when it is perfectly legal to carry in a motor vehicle.
-----------------------------------------------
UPDATE: I just reviewed a few more cases and I did find one that deals with this issue -- State v. Young, 472 So. 2d 297 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985). That case dealt with a person arrested under 14:95 for carrying concealed in his own driveway. The Court held that the application of the statute did not violate the Second Amendment, which does not apply to the states (although this will likely be overturned in the near future), and further that it did not violate Art. I, Sec. 11 of the Louisiana Constitution because it expressly permits the regulation of the concealment of firearms.
However -- and this is a big however -- the court held that the defendant had failed to brief his right to privacy and thus those arguments were waived. The biggest argument here is whether you can constitutionally regulate concealment of firearms on private property or in a vehicle (arguably an extension of one's home), or whether that would violate a person's right to be secure in his home. I think that this is what Lemmon was suggesting.
There's also an argument that the law as applied violates due process, since there is no rational reason not to allow people to carry concealed on their own property, but that apparently wasn't briefed either. Young looks like a case of the defendant's attorney's doing a terrible job.
georg,
Carrying a firearm in your car or home, even concealed, is a constitutionally-protected activity. Although the statute doesn't expressly include an exception, it is (or should be) implied. An officer might not agree, but you'd stand a good chance at winning in court.
There isn't any jurisprudence on this issue, although there is a line from a concurrence in the Supreme Court case of State v. Snoddy, 389 So. 2d 377 (La. 1980) in which Justice Lemmon questioned whether 14:95 was "applicable at all on one's private property," and argued that, in any event, it was not designed to present a homeowner from concealing a firearm while investigating a disturbance.
In any event, it's crass behavior on the part of a police officer to arrest a person for concealing a firearm on their person in a vehicle when it is perfectly legal to carry in a motor vehicle.
-----------------------------------------------
UPDATE: I just reviewed a few more cases and I did find one that deals with this issue -- State v. Young, 472 So. 2d 297 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985). That case dealt with a person arrested under 14:95 for carrying concealed in his own driveway. The Court held that the application of the statute did not violate the Second Amendment, which does not apply to the states (although this will likely be overturned in the near future), and further that it did not violate Art. I, Sec. 11 of the Louisiana Constitution because it expressly permits the regulation of the concealment of firearms.
However -- and this is a big however -- the court held that the defendant had failed to brief his right to privacy and thus those arguments were waived. The biggest argument here is whether you can constitutionally regulate concealment of firearms on private property or in a vehicle (arguably an extension of one's home), or whether that would violate a person's right to be secure in his home. I think that this is what Lemmon was suggesting.
There's also an argument that the law as applied violates due process, since there is no rational reason not to allow people to carry concealed on their own property, but that apparently wasn't briefed either. Young looks like a case of the defendant's attorney's doing a terrible job.
I think I'll spend some time researching this.