Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Lawsuit filed chalenging Louisiana CHP

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    A friend of the family just filed a lawsuit against the state of Louisiana challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana concealed handgun permit. This person is a retired attorney who in his retirement has focused his attention on changing gun laws. At this time he has another case pending in the state of NY and is planning on taking it all the way to the supreme court if necessary. He has other attorneys assisting him, one of witch I believe is an attorney for the organization Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

    This is a six page document and the actual copy of the one that was filed with the court.



    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

    SHREVEPORT DIVISION



    ALFRED G. OSTERWEIL

    Plaintiff Civil Action No,:

    COMPLAINT
    VERSUS

    COLONEL MICHAEL D. EDMONSON, Judge
    SUPERINTENDENT- LOUISIANA STATE POLICE,
    BOBBY JINDAL, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA Mag. Judge
    AND JAMES D. CALDWELL, LOUISIANA
    ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Defendants



    Plaintiff, Alfred G. Osterweil, by way of complaint against the Defendants, says:


    INTRODUCTION

    1. This action concerns the State of Louisiana's unlawful enactrment and enforcement of L.R.S. 40:1379.3, 1382, and the corresponding administrative regulations contained in LAC 55:I:301 et seq. The aforementioned statutes and regulations purport to regulate, control and limit the right of individuals to carry a weaon under a garment and further seek to require payment of fees to the State of Louisiana for the right to do so.

    2. Additionally, the schedule of fees distinguishes between Louisiana citizens who have resided within the state for less than 15 years, requiring said residents to pay a fee which is greater than for a resident who has resided within the state for 15 years or longer.

    3. Fees for renewals every 2 or 4 years are required by the State, and in its own literature, the State acknowledges that the process to obtain the requisite permission to carry a handgun under one's garments is 120 business days.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    4. This is a civil action seeking relief and/or damages to defend and protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Louisiana.. This action is brought pursuant to 42 USC 1983. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 USC 1331,1343 (3) and (4) and 2201. Supplemental jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 USC 1367. Venue exists pursuant to 28 USC 1391.


    PARTIES

    5. Plaintiff, Alfred G. Osterweil, a domiciliary of the State of Louisiana, is an army veteran and a retired member of the bar, being admitted to practice law in New Jersey, the District of Columbia, the U. S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, The Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the U. S. Supreme Court. Plaintiff resides in an unincorporated area in Sabine Parish with a mailing address of 197 Lawson Lane, Many, Louisiana 71449.

    6. Defendant, Colonel Michael D. Edmonson, is the Superintendent of the Louisiana State Police and oversees the Concealed Handgun Permit Unit of the State of Louisiana. On information and belief he has agents, servants and employees within Sabine Parish.

    7. Bobby Jindal is Governor of the State of Louisiana and the Chief Executive Officer of the State of Louisiana. On information and belief he has agents, servants and employees within Sabine Parish.

    8. James D. Caldwell is the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana and its Chief Law Enforcement Officer. On information and belief he has agents, servants and employees within Sabine Parish.


    FACTS

    9. In the State of Louisiana, any citizen of the State may carry a handgun which is visible and not concealed without any license, permit, submission of a photograph, fingerprinting, fees, training or other impediments or prerequisites.

    10. The Louisiana Constitution in Artcle I, Section 11 states: “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.”

    11. Article I, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.”

    12. Article I, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution states, in part: “No person shall be denied equal protection of the laws...”

    13. Article I, Section 5, of the Louisiana Constitution states, in part: “Every person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy.”

    14. Article I, Section 24, of the Louisiana Constitution states: “ The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not deny or disparage other rights retained by the individual citizens of the state.”


    15. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    16. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    17. Plaintiff initially filed for a concealed carry permit by paying for and providing a passport type photograph, submitting to fingerprinting, completing an application form and by enclosing a $50.00 money order payable to the State Police. The fee to Plaintiff was half the fee charged to others who are less in age.

    18. Also required by the State was an indemnification and hold harmless agreement whereby each applicant holds the State harmless for any and all claims arising out the the issuance of the permit. Further, the applicant is required to submit a notarized “Authorization For Release Of Medical And Personal Information”

    19. Plaintiff did not enclose, with the materials noted above, an additional fee of $50.00 which the State says must be paid by all applicants who have resided in Louisiana for fewer than 15 years. Plaintiff has not resided within the state for 15 years.

    20. R.S.40: 1379.3 et seq. sets forth all of the components for issuance of a concealed carry permit. Addditionally, it states that “Anyone who carries and conceals a handgun in violation of any provision of this Section...shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or more.”

    21. Although Plaintiff has not yet been refused a concealed carry permit, Plaintiff believes that the totality of the Louisiana concealed carry provisions violate his rights under the Constitutions of the United States and Louisiana, and he has filed the within complaint to vindicate his position.


    CAUSES OF ACTION

    FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

    22. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21 as though they were set forth fully and at length herein.
    23. The Second Amendment, made applicable to the states through selective incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right of Plaintiff to bear arms on his person which includes the concealed carrying of handguns.
    24. The totality of the statutory and administrative barriers to plaintiff's right to carry a weapon on his person represents infringements of his rights as aforesaid well as his rights under Sections 11 and 24 of Article I of the Louisiana Constitution.

    SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION.

    25. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 24 as though they were set forth fully and at length herein.
    26. Those portions of the concealed carry process in question which require Plaintiff to purchase a passport type photograph and pay a fee initially and thereafter for renewals of a concealed carry permit are unconstitutional because government is prohibited from requiring payment from citizens when they seek to enforce their guaranteed rights.
    27. These elements represent infringments on plaintiff's Second Amendment rights and his rights under Sections 11 and 24 of Article I of the Louisiana Constitution.

    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

    28. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 27 as though they were set forth fully and at length herein.
    29. That portion of the concealed carry process in question which imposes a greater fee requirement on plaintiff than others because he has not resided in Louisiana for 15 years violates his rights under the equal protection clause, the priveileges and immunities clause and the due proces clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as as well as his rights under Sections 2 and 3 of Article I of the Louisiana Constitution.

    FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

    30. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 29 as though they were set forth fully and at length herein.
    31. That portion of the concealed carry process in question which requires Plaintiff to execute a notarized Authorization for Release of Medical and Personal Information represents a violation of Plaintiff's right to privacy under he numerous consitutional references cited by the United States Supreme Court as establishing his right of privacy, an infringement on his Second Amendment rights, his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and his rights under Sections 5, 24 and 11 of the Louisiana Constitution.


    FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

    32. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 31 as though they were set forth fully and at length herein.
    33. The State's mandatory indemnification and hold harmless agreement requires the applicant to ''agree to indemnify and hold harmless the state of Louisiana....against any and all liability, claims, actions, fines or losses of any kind or nature, including costs and attorney's fees, in any way arising out of, connected with or related to the issuance or use of my Louisiana Concealed Handgun Permit.”
    34. The above mandatory agreement subjects the applicant to potential monetary damages even though he may be totally innocent of any wrongdoing or negligence, and as such, represents a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Sections 2, 3, 11, 19 and 24 of Article I of the Louisiana Constitution.



    PRAYER FOR RELIEF

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:

    1. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Defendants from enforcing any part of the State's statutory and related regulatory system for the issuance of concealed handgun permits.

    2. Issue a declaratory judgment that the entire Louisiana statutory and related regulatory system for the issuance of concealed gun permits is null and void because it violates the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    3. Using its Supplemental Jurisdiction, issue a declaratory judgment that the Louisiana statutory and related regulatory system for the issuance of concealed handgun permits is null and void because it violates Sections 2, 3, 5, 11 and 24 of Article I of the Louisiana Constitution.

    4. Award fees and costs.

    5. Such other relief as the Court may deem proper.


    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    Well done; is there an address to send donations to?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    DannyAbear wrote:
    Well done; is there an address to send donations to?
    I am sure he appreciates your support however I am not sure about the donations. This suit was just filed but I sent him an email about it and will update when I here back.

  4. #4
    Regular Member barf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    259

    Post imported post

    Maybe I'm a bit dense, but doesn't the same section of the state constitution that we cite as allowing open carry ALSO allow the "passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person".

    I guess reading through the "causes of action" section maybe this is about the costs, medical/personal information, and indemnification associated with the CHP.

    Good luck, but I don't see this going anywhere...



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    barf wrote:
    Maybe I'm a bit dense, but doesn't the same section of the state constitution that we cite as allowing open carry ALSO allow the "passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person".

    I guess reading through the "causes of action" section maybe this is about the costs, medical/personal information, and indemnification associated with the CHP.

    Good luck, but I don't see this going anywhere...

    Yes but in these matters the U.S. constitution trumps the state. He listed that as a fact of his suit but not necessarily an argument on his behalf.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    Summit_Ace wrote:
    barf wrote:
    Maybe I'm a bit dense, but doesn't the same section of the state constitution that we cite as allowing open carry ALSO allow the "passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person".

    I guess reading through the "causes of action" section maybe this is about the costs, medical/personal information, and indemnification associated with the CHP.

    Good luck, but I don't see this going anywhere...

    Yes but in these matters the U.S. constitution trumps the state. He listed that as a fact of his suit but not necessarily an argument on his behalf.
    We shall see what SCOTUS says about incorporation whether 'tis fact or not.

    Seems very premature to be volunteering funds to me. ymmv

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    Summit_Ace wrote:
    barf wrote:
    Maybe I'm a bit dense, but doesn't the same section of the state constitution that we cite as allowing open carry ALSO allow the "passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person".

    I guess reading through the "causes of action" section maybe this is about the costs, medical/personal information, and indemnification associated with the CHP.

    Good luck, but I don't see this going anywhere...

    Yes but in these matters the U.S. constitution trumps the state. He listed that as a fact of his suit but not necessarily an argument on his behalf.
    We shall see what SCOTUS says about incorporation whether 'tis fact or not.

    Seems very premature to be volunteering funds to me. ymmv

    Yata hey
    True.

    But if you look closely at his pleading, all he is asking for is the ellimination of the CHP. If he wins, the only legal method of carry in LA will be OC, unless the court decides to invalidate anti-CC laws on its own.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    Summit_Ace wrote:
    barf wrote:
    Maybe I'm a bit dense, but doesn't the same section of the state constitution that we cite as allowing open carry ALSO allow the "passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person".

    I guess reading through the "causes of action" section maybe this is about the costs, medical/personal information, and indemnification associated with the CHP.

    Good luck, but I don't see this going anywhere...

    Yes but in these matters the U.S. constitution trumps the state. He listed that as a fact of his suit but not necessarily an argument on his behalf.
    We shall see what SCOTUS says about incorporation whether 'tis fact or not.

    Seems very premature to be volunteering funds to me. ymmv

    Yata hey
    In the state of Louisiana he does not have to wait for the Macdonald case to be decided by SCOTUS. The fiths circut court wich has jurisdiction in Louisiana has ruled in U.S. v Emerson the second amendment applies. Later the court upheld that ruling in U.S. v Darrington. As for funds he wishes to be unaffiliated at this time.

  9. #9
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    411

    Post imported post

    XD-GEM wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    Summit_Ace wrote:
    barf wrote:
    Maybe I'm a bit dense, but doesn't the same section of the state constitution that we cite as allowing open carry ALSO allow the "passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person".

    I guess reading through the "causes of action" section maybe this is about the costs, medical/personal information, and indemnification associated with the CHP.

    Good luck, but I don't see this going anywhere...

    Yes but in these matters the U.S. constitution trumps the state. He listed that as a fact of his suit but not necessarily an argument on his behalf.
    We shall see what SCOTUS says about incorporation whether 'tis fact or not.

    Seems very premature to be volunteering funds to me. ymmv

    Yata hey
    True.

    But if you look closely at his pleading, all he is asking for is the ellimination of the CHP. If he wins, the only legal method of carry in LA will be OC, unless the court decides to invalidate anti-CC laws on its own.
    Seems like a step backwards if that happens. We'll go from having the right to OC and the privilege to CC, to only having the right to OC and no provision for CC if someone wants to carry that way. I don't see any courts going whole-hog, wiping out every state law regarding CC, and making it an unrestricted right...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    Am I thhe only one who thinks this will mean you can either OC or CC with no permit or restrictions?

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    Read this part carefully.

    Summit_Ace wrote:
    PRAYER FOR RELIEF

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:

    1. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Defendants from enforcing any part of the State's statutory and related regulatory system for the issuance of concealed handgun permits.

    2. Issue a declaratory judgment that the entire Louisiana statutory and related regulatory system for the issuance of concealed gun permits is null and void because it violates the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    3. Using its Supplemental Jurisdiction, issue a declaratory judgment that the Louisiana statutory and related regulatory system for the issuance of concealed handgun permits is null and void because it violates Sections 2, 3, 5, 11 and 24 of Article I of the Louisiana Constitution.

    4. Award fees and costs.

    5. Such other relief as the Court may deem proper.


    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

    Notice that nowhere in it does he specifically ask for the court to rule that concealed carry prohibition is a violation of rights protected by the constitutions cited. He only petitions in regard to the permit. If he wants to get a ruling that anti-concealed carry laws violate rights, he should state that in the "Prayer for Relief" section of the pleading (perhaps he can file an amendment to his filing).

    Courts do not usually extend their opinions beyond the scope of the arguments presented. That's why the US Supreme Court could not rule on the incorporation issue in the Heller case - it wasn't argued.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    I'm not a lawyer, nor do I sleep at Holiday Inns, but what about this>>>

    23. The Second Amendment, made applicable to the states through selective incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right of Plaintiff to bear arms on his person which includes the concealed carrying of handguns.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    XD-GEM wrote:
    Read this part carefully.

    Summit_Ace wrote:
    PRAYER FOR RELIEF

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:

    1. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Defendants from enforcing any part of the State's statutory and related regulatory system for the issuance of concealed handgun permits.

    2. Issue a declaratory judgment that the entire Louisiana statutory and related regulatory system for the issuance of concealed gun permits is null and void because it violates the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    3. Using its Supplemental Jurisdiction, issue a declaratory judgment that the Louisiana statutory and related regulatory system for the issuance of concealed handgun permits is null and void because it violates Sections 2, 3, 5, 11 and 24 of Article I of the Louisiana Constitution.

    4. Award fees and costs.

    5. Such other relief as the Court may deem proper.


    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

    Notice that nowhere in it does he specifically ask for the court to rule that concealed carry prohibition is a violation of rights protected by the constitutions cited. He only petitions in regard to the permit. If he wants to get a ruling that anti-concealed carry laws violate rights, he should state that in the "Prayer for Relief" section of the pleading (perhaps he can file an amendment to his filing).

    Courts do not usually extend their opinions beyond the scope of the arguments presented. That's why the US Supreme Court could not rule on the incorporation issue in the Heller case - it wasn't argued.
    The bold section is where your concern is addressed. He did not specifically mention it in the papers filed as not to appear to bold. Not all argument are detailed in the filing documents but will be addressed in court.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    XD-GEM wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    Summit_Ace wrote:
    barf wrote:
    Maybe I'm a bit dense, but doesn't the same section of the state constitution that we cite as allowing open carry ALSO allow the "passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person".

    I guess reading through the "causes of action" section maybe this is about the costs, medical/personal information, and indemnification associated with the CHP.

    Good luck, but I don't see this going anywhere...

    Yes but in these matters the U.S. constitution trumps the state. He listed that as a fact of his suit but not necessarily an argument on his behalf.
    We shall see what SCOTUS says about incorporation whether 'tis fact or not.

    Seems very premature to be volunteering funds to me. ymmv

    Yata hey
    True.

    But if you look closely at his pleading, all he is asking for is the ellimination of the CHP. If he wins, the only legal method of carry in LA will be OC, unless the court decides to invalidate anti-CC laws on its own.
    You have to have a lawyer type understanding of how the LA statutes are written. He has explained it to me but I have a hard time explaining it to others. I can assure you the goal of this lawsuit is to make CC the same as OC in the state of LA ie no permit required.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    Summit_Ace wrote:
    XD-GEM wrote:
    But if you look closely at his pleading, all he is asking for is the ellimination of the CHP. If he wins, the only legal method of carry in LA will be OC, unless the court decides to invalidate anti-CC laws on its own.
    You have to have a lawyer type understanding of how the LA statutes are written. He has explained it to me but I have a hard time explaining it to others. I can assure you the goal of this lawsuit is to make CC the same as OC in the state of LA ie no permit required.
    Well if those here do not see it and you cannot explain it, with what are we left?

    Invite the good man to come here and speak directly to us - share the revelations.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    Summit_Ace wrote:
    XD-GEM wrote:
    But if you look closely at his pleading, all he is asking for is the ellimination of the CHP. If he wins, the only legal method of carry in LA will be OC, unless the court decides to invalidate anti-CC laws on its own.
    You have to have a lawyer type understanding of how the LA statutes are written. He has explained it to me but I have a hard time explaining it to others. I can assure you the goal of this lawsuit is to make CC the same as OC in the state of LA ie no permit required.
    Well if those here do not see it and you cannot explain it, with what are we left?

    Invite the good man to come here and speak directly to us - share the revelations.

    Yata hey
    He is arguing that the "concealed on the person" exception in article 1 sec. 11 of the La. constitution is an infringment on rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the US constitution and is using existing jurisprudence from the 5th district to show the 2nd amendment applies through "selective incorporation".

    "23. The Second Amendment, made applicable to the states through selective incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right of Plaintiff to bear arms on his person which includes the concealed carrying of handguns. "

    See... http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...law/incorp.htm

    The summary of arguments hereare the requirements involved in exersing an incorporated right to carry concealed violates not only the second amendment, but other protected rights and they are detailed in the complaint.

    If judgement is in his favor then carrying concealed no longer requires permision from the state.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    georg jetson wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    Summit_Ace wrote:
    XD-GEM wrote:
    But if you look closely at his pleading, all he is asking for is the ellimination of the CHP. If he wins, the only legal method of carry in LA will be OC, unless the court decides to invalidate anti-CC laws on its own.
    You have to have a lawyer type understanding of how the LA statutes are written. He has explained it to me but I have a hard time explaining it to others. I can assure you the goal of this lawsuit is to make CC the same as OC in the state of LA ie no permit required.
    Well if those here do not see it and you cannot explain it, with what are we left?

    Invite the good man to come here and speak directly to us - share the revelations.

    Yata hey
    He is arguing that the "concealed on the person" exception in article 1 sec. 11 of the La. constitution is an infringment on rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the US constitution and is using existing jurisprudence from the 5th district to show the 2nd amendment applies through "selective incorporation".

    "23. The Second Amendment, made applicable to the states through selective incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right of Plaintiff to bear arms on his person which includes the concealed carrying of handguns. "

    See... http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...law/incorp.htm

    The summary of arguments hereare the requirements involved in exersing an incorporated right to carry concealed violates not only the second amendment, but other protected rights and they are detailed in the complaint.

    If judgement is in his favor then carrying concealed no longer requires permision from the state.
    Very well said, thank you for putting it in words for me. I can not explain this suit very well, my intent was to let people know that it was filed an it may be something to keep an eye out for.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464

    Post imported post

    Summit_Ace wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    Summit_Ace wrote:
    barf wrote:
    Maybe I'm a bit dense, but doesn't the same section of the state constitution that we cite as allowing open carry ALSO allow the "passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person".

    I guess reading through the "causes of action" section maybe this is about the costs, medical/personal information, and indemnification associated with the CHP.

    Good luck, but I don't see this going anywhere...

    Yes but in these matters the U.S. constitution trumps the state. He listed that as a fact of his suit but not necessarily an argument on his behalf.
    We shall see what SCOTUS says about incorporation whether 'tis fact or not.

    Seems very premature to be volunteering funds to me. ymmv

    Yata hey
    In the state of Louisiana he does not have to wait for the Macdonald case to be decided by SCOTUS. The fiths circut court wich has jurisdiction in Louisiana has ruled in U.S. v Emerson the second amendment applies. Later the court upheld that ruling in U.S. v Darrington. As for funds he wishes to be unaffiliated at this time.
    I've now read U.S. vs Timothy Joe Emersonboth the district court decision and the appeal by the plaintiff and can find no reference to the second amendment being incorporated throught the 14th. The jist of the initial argument was whether 18 YSC 922(g)(8)(c)(ii) is constitutional. Although some of the cited references delt with incorporation against the states, this was irrelevant to theconclusion of the courts in both cases. There was no reason to considerthe state issue when the statute that was challenged was federal. The affirmation that the 2nd amendment is an individual right was certainly addressed, but is now irrelevant based on US vs Heller. I'd interested to knowwhat part of theEmerson desisionyour family's friend refers.

    BTW - Check your messages

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    I hope that this Lawsuit prevails!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    georg jetson wrote:
    Summit_Ace wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    Summit_Ace wrote:
    barf wrote:
    Maybe I'm a bit dense, but doesn't the same section of the state constitution that we cite as allowing open carry ALSO allow the "passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person".

    I guess reading through the "causes of action" section maybe this is about the costs, medical/personal information, and indemnification associated with the CHP.

    Good luck, but I don't see this going anywhere...

    Yes but in these matters the U.S. constitution trumps the state. He listed that as a fact of his suit but not necessarily an argument on his behalf.
    We shall see what SCOTUS says about incorporation whether 'tis fact or not.

    Seems very premature to be volunteering funds to me. ymmv

    Yata hey
    In the state of Louisiana he does not have to wait for the Macdonald case to be decided by SCOTUS. The fiths circut court wich has jurisdiction in Louisiana has ruled in U.S. v Emerson the second amendment applies. Later the court upheld that ruling in U.S. v Darrington. As for funds he wishes to be unaffiliated at this time.
    I've now read U.S. vs Timothy Joe Emersonboth the district court decision and the appeal by the plaintiff and can find no reference to the second amendment being incorporated throught the 14th. The jist of the initial argument was whether 18 YSC 922(g)(8)(c)(ii) is constitutional. Although some of the cited references delt with incorporation against the states, this was irrelevant to theconclusion of the courts in both cases. There was no reason to considerthe state issue when the statute that was challenged was federal. The affirmation that the 2nd amendment is an individual right was certainly addressed, but is now irrelevant based on US vs Heller. I'd interested to knowwhat part of theEmerson desisionyour family's friend refers.

    BTW - Check your messages
    PM sent

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    These are quotes from the Emerson case.

    "Surely a most familiar meaning [of carrying a firearm] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms") (emphasis added) and Black's Law Dictionary, at 214, indicate: "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."
    102 c. "Keep . . . Arms"
    103 Neither the government nor amici argue that "keep . . . Arms" commands a military connotation.31 The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard.


    Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. Indeed, Emerson does not contend, and the district court did not hold, otherwise. As we have previously noted, it is clear that felons, infants and those of unsound mind may be prohibited from possessing firearms.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464

    Post imported post

    Summit_Ace wrote:
    These are quotes from the Emerson case.

    "Surely a most familiar meaning [of carrying a firearm] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms") (emphasis added) and Black's Law Dictionary, at 214, indicate: "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."
    102 c. "Keep . . . Arms"
    103 Neither the government nor amici argue that "keep . . . Arms" commands a military connotation.31 The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard.


    Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. Indeed, Emerson does not contend, and the district court did not hold, otherwise. As we have previously noted, it is clear that felons, infants and those of unsound mind may be prohibited from possessing firearms.
    Yep... this covers the fact that the 2nd amendment is an individual right... says nothing about incorporating it against the states. The Heller case makes using this case moot.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    georg jetson wrote:
    Summit_Ace wrote:
    These are quotes from the Emerson case.

    "Surely a most familiar meaning [of carrying a firearm] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms") (emphasis added) and Black's Law Dictionary, at 214, indicate: "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."
    102 c. "Keep . . . Arms"
    103 Neither the government nor amici argue that "keep . . . Arms" commands a military connotation.31 The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard.


    Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. Indeed, Emerson does not contend, and the district court did not hold, otherwise. As we have previously noted, it is clear that felons, infants and those of unsound mind may be prohibited from possessing firearms.
    Yep... this covers the fact that the 2nd amendment is an individual right... says nothing about incorporating it against the states. The Heller case makes using this case moot.
    forgot to look for that. I got to read about 15 pages of brief today, he makes some interesting points. At some point I will be able to get a copy and will post it. I think that may answer a lot of your question, or not.LOL I have a lot of questions for him but don't always have time to ask or I forget.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    shreveport
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    This guys from New Jersey .He needs to stay in new jersey and leave louisiana alone.WE DIDN'T ASK FOR HIS HELP.He's just gonna make it where i cant carry concealed in any state but louisiana.The other states won't honor a concealed carry with me just showing my drivers license.Oh by the way the fee is 100.00 for 4 years.I don't see him helping me at all. MIKE

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    gutshot wrote:
    55bowtie wrote:
    This guys from New Jersey .He needs to stay in new jersey and leave louisiana alone.WE DIDN'T ASK FOR HIS HELP.He's just gonna make it where i cant carry concealed in any state but louisiana.The other states won't honor a concealed carry with me just showing my drivers license.Oh by the way the fee is 100.00 for 4 years.I don't see him helping me at all. MIKE
    Get a FL non-resident CCW.
    There is a purposed law in the LA legislature that will unfortunately eliminate that loop hole. It is expected to pass with no problems.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •