Lawsuit filed chalenging Louisiana CHP

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

PM sent

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

:banghead: 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.

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

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

Click to expand...

Get a FL non-resident CCW.

Click to expand...

There is a purposed law in the LA legislature that will unfortunately eliminate that loop hole. It is expected to pass with no problems.

imported post

As of now the louisiana license is recognized in more states than Florida, Big thanks to the govenor .A state policeman told me its easier on a traffic stop if all the addresses are the same.I choose to have a louisiana license this guy needs to go back to New Jresey.

imported post

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

Click to expand...

Sorry man, but you are incorrect. He was an attorney in NJ for many years but has not lived there for a long time. Google is a great thing but it does not give all the facts. He lives in Many, Louisiana about 300 yards from me. And by the way if you read the info on permit application there is a $50 additional charge for residents that have not lived in the state at least 15 years.

imported post

55bowtie wrote:

As of now the louisiana license is recognized in more states than Florida, Big thanks to the govenor .A state policeman told me its easier on a traffic stop if all the addresses are the same.I choose to have a louisiana license this guy needs to go back to New Jresey.

Click to expand...

Would you be in favor of being able to CC with out a permit?

imported post

Summit_Ace wrote:

55bowtie wrote:

As of now the louisiana license is recognized in more states than Florida, Big thanks to the govenor .A state policeman told me its easier on a traffic stop if all the addresses are the same.I choose to have a louisiana license this guy needs to go back to New Jresey.

Click to expand...

Would you be in favor of being able to CC with out a permit?

Click to expand...

Well, I reckon I would'nt mind it, but how would that work in other states? They would still require permits and if La. doesn't issue one to reciprocate with, what then?

imported post

turbodog wrote:

Summit_Ace wrote:

55bowtie wrote:

As of now the louisiana license is recognized in more states than Florida, Big thanks to the govenor .A state policeman told me its easier on a traffic stop if all the addresses are the same.I choose to have a louisiana license this guy needs to go back to New Jresey.

Click to expand...

Would you be in favor of being able to CC with out a permit?

Click to expand...

Well, I reckon I would'nt mind it, but how would that work in other states? They would still require permits and if La. doesn't issue one to reciprocate with, what then?

Click to expand...

World wide travelers would only need to get a non resident florida lic to cover other states, it's not that complicated.

imported post

DannyAbear wrote:

turbodog wrote:

Summit_Ace wrote:

55bowtie wrote:

As of now the louisiana license is recognized in more states than Florida, Big thanks to the govenor .A state policeman told me its easier on a traffic stop if all the addresses are the same.I choose to have a louisiana license this guy needs to go back to New Jresey.

Click to expand...

Would you be in favor of being able to CC with out a permit?

Click to expand...

Well, I reckon I would'nt mind it, but how would that work in other states? They would still require permits and if La. doesn't issue one to reciprocate with, what then?

Click to expand...

World wide travelers would only need to get a non resident florida lic to cover other states, it's not that complicated.

Click to expand...

Matter of fact, I DO have a non res from Fl. in addition to the resident one from La. but, some states that honor Louisiana resident permits don't honor non-resident permits from any state. I got the Fl. permit back when it was recognized by more states than La.'s was and just kept it up to date.

But hell, if I have to get apermit to CC in other states anyway, it might as well be resident so why take that away? If I have to give out the money anyway, I'd just as soon La. gets it as some other state.

imported post

turbodog wrote:

DannyAbear wrote:

turbodog wrote:

Summit_Ace wrote:

55bowtie wrote:

As of now the louisiana license is recognized in more states than Florida, Big thanks to the govenor .A state policeman told me its easier on a traffic stop if all the addresses are the same.I choose to have a louisiana license this guy needs to go back to New Jresey.

Click to expand...

Would you be in favor of being able to CC with out a permit?

Click to expand...

Well, I reckon I would'nt mind it, but how would that work in other states? They would still require permits and if La. doesn't issue one to reciprocate with, what then?

Click to expand...

World wide travelers would only need to get a non resident florida lic to cover other states, it's not that complicated.

Click to expand...

Matter of fact, I DO have a non res from Fl. in addition to the resident one from La. but, some states that honor Louisiana resident permits don't honor non-resident permits from any state. I got the Fl. permit back when it was recognized by more states than La.'s was and just kept it up to date.

But hell, if I have to get apermit to CC in other states anyway, it might as well be resident so why take that away? If I have to give out the money anyway, I'd just as soon La. gets it as some other state.

Click to expand...

Guys... ya'll are missing the boat.

First... any attempt to push back legally against government encroachment should be encouraged and supported.

Secondly, if this case can be won based on the incorporation of the second amendment then CC will NOT require a permit. It would still be lawful and useful for La statutes to provide for a permit that would be acceptable in other states but not required in this state. These are 2 DIFFERENT issues.

BTW, the issue of incorporation in the case of the 2A is being settled now at the SCOTUS level. By the end of the week, we will probably have a much more secure right to keep and bear arms across the board irrespective of which state you travel to.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5155-incorporation-likely-for-second-amendment

Oooops -almost forgot...

In researching my own case, Itook another look at Heller V District of Columbia. Here's a quote...

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues[/b]. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56."

This finding in the Heller case may make any challenges to concealed prohibitionsatthe state level difficult to win.

imported post

georg jetson wrote:

BTW, the issue of incorporation in the case of the 2A is being settled now at the SCOTUS level. By the end of the week, we will probably have a much more secure right to keep and bear arms across the board irrespective of which state you travel to.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5155-incorporation-likely-for-second-amendment

Click to expand...

The week? Try the month of June. It even says that in your link.

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

georg jetson wrote:

BTW, the issue of incorporation in the case of the 2A is being settled now at the SCOTUS level. By the end of the week, we will probably have a much more secure right to keep and bear arms across the board irrespective of which state you travel to.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5155-incorporation-likely-for-second-amendment

Click to expand...

The week? Try the month of June. It even says that in your link.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion...

"When the Justices cast their first vote after starting later this week to discuss where to go from here,"

I did not mean the decision would be ready... just that the "incorporation" issue would be settled.

imported post

Secondly, if this case can be won based on the incorporation of the second amendment then CC will NOT require a permit. It would still be lawful and useful for La statutes to provide for a permit that would be acceptable in other states but not required in this state. These are 2 DIFFERENT issues.

Click to expand...

Incorporation against the states will not remove all laws regulating firearms at the state level. It will remove many, maybe even most, but not all.

SCOTUS has always allowed for reasonable limits on constitutional rights (remember the shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater example on free speech) and the 2nd won't be an exception. It may very well take multiple lawsuits to determine reasonable at the state level.

I have no doubt that even if the SCOTUS does declare all citizens have the right to bear arms it will still allow state concealed carry laws to stand.

imported post

One thing concerning the LA CC that I have discussed on other sites is the fact that for some people it is very difficult to obtain the LA permit. As a former permit holder in the state of NY I have found it is more diffecult to obtain one here than in NY. That in it of itself says a lot.

One aspect of obtaining the LA permit that excludes a lot of people is the medical restrictions. Think about this, many of our soldiers returning from Iraq would be turned down for a permit. Six months prior they could carry an M-16 and fight for our country but when they return home they are disarmed?My father, a Vietnam vet, who has suffered from PTSD can not get a LA permit. That does not seem right to me.

I understand the frustration of those who have gone through the process and are concerned with losing the reciprocal perks of other states. I do however think it is necessary to weigh all things when forming an opinion on this topic. I appreciate that there are those who wish to carry when they travel to other states, but where is it you spend most of your time. Do you not feel it would be better to have more armed citizens in our own state, including our ventrans then to have a few with freedom in other states?

There are already some states that do not require permits to CC. I Louisiana joins them I believe it possible that neighboring states would follow our lead. That would be a good thing. It is better for us as a state to have the "right" to CC rather then the ability to pay for a "privilege".

My 2 cents, Todd

imported post

Rights trump privileges every time.

One giant step forward, a small one back is easier to regain.

Yata hey

imported post

I got my first CC permit in Alabama a few moons ago and all I had to do was go to the SO and fill out a form. Don't remember getting printed but the form asked why did I want it and I put in personal protection. Got a call a few weeks later saying I was clear and I went in and paid 8.95 and had my CC permit. Louisiana is a whole other ball of wax for sure.

imported post

Masher wrote:

I got my first CC permit in Alabama a few moons ago and all I had to do was go to the SO and fill out a form. Don't remember getting printed but the form asked why did I want it and I put in personal protection. Got a call a few weeks later saying I was clear and I went in and paid 8.95 and had my CC permit. Louisiana is a whole other ball of wax for sure.

Click to expand...

That is how it should be. If Louisiana did that I would not have a problem.