Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 113

Thread: Real news

  1. #1
    Regular Member estcrh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    365

    Real news

    Two Pro-Gun Bills Become Law in Louisiana
    On June 30 and July 6 respectively, Governor Bobby Jindal (R) signed Senate Bill 534 and House Bill 556 into law. These bills will go into effect on August 15.
    SB 534, introduced by State Senator Troy Hebert (I-22), will allow for possession and transportation of lawfully-possessed firearms in Louisiana ’s state parks, historic sites, preservation areas, wildlife refuges, and wildlife management areas. In addition, it will allow gun-owners to carry a firearm for self-defense in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges located in Louisiana .
    HB 556, introduced by State Representative Ernest Wooton (R-105), will exempt concealed carry permit holders from the ban on carrying within 1,000 foot “Gun Free School Zone.” State law prohibits any individual, even concealed carry permit licensees from possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of any school property. An individual did not have to know that he or she was within the 1,000 foot zone, and the penalty for violation of this statute was a felony.
    Thank you to all those members who contacted Governor Jindal and their state legislators during this process. Also, thank you to The Louisiana Shooting Association for their dedicated effort in helping to pass House Bill 556.
    Please thank Governor Jindal and your state legislators today for their hard work and support for these pro-gun measures, SB 534 and HB 556.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    37
    Help protect your gun rights. Join the Louisiana Shooting Association www.louisianashooting.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member estcrh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by DZelenka View Post
    Help protect your gun rights. Join the Louisiana Shooting Association www.louisianashooting.com
    Thanks for your help with this very important law, I know some people here do not think it has anything to do with open carry but they are being short sighted....in order to open carry on ANY street at any time you need a means to be able to deal with school zones and stay legal...this law change will do just that.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Kentwood, ,
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by estcrh View Post
    Thanks for your help with this very important law, I know some people here do not think it has anything to do with open carry but they are being short sighted....in order to open carry on ANY street at any time you need a means to be able to deal with school zones and stay legal...this law change will do just that.
    I may be wrong here, but will it help us (OCers) out in school zones, being that it exempts only CC from the law? I'm with you 100% on how good it would be, but I am thinking that this won't directly pertain to us as OCers...am I correct in that assumption?

    As georg recently informed me (and we can count on him to do the pertinent research before posting every time!!), state law does not bar open carry in "gun free zones" near schools being that there is a specific exemption in Louisiana law for "constitutionally protected" carry in those zones, with a specific example of "carry in a vehicle" actually provided in the law. And, since OC, unlike CC, is a constitutionally protected act, Louisiana law provides that open carry is actually not barred in "gun free school zones" ... this despite the fact that the OC exception isn't specifically cited as was vehicular carry. The specific vehicular carry reference in the law as an example of what type of carry is constitutionally protected can serve to some to be a bit "weasel wordy" at first (albeit it likely unintentional), myself included, being that OC is not also a specifically mentioned exemption.

    Now, that said, I wonder about a couple of things because of something else that I believe I recall georg mentioning, that being his cautionary reference to similar federal law regarding carry in "gun free school zones" still serving as a bar to OC in said zones. Regarding that:

    - would this new Louisiana exemption for licensed CCers in the GFSZ make CC fully and totally legal in those GFSZs, being that it should still be against federal law?

    and,

    - would it be a mandate that a fed have to cite and/or arrest any violator of the ban on guns in these GFSZs, or could state and/or local LEOs in Louisiana likewise do so? (On first blush one may assume that any LEO (fed, state, and/or local) could cite and/or arrest any violator of the federal GFSZs, but after considering all the hype surrounding Arizona's recent illegal immigrant legislation, which had to be enacted, I believe, to essentially empower state and /or local LEOs to arrest illegal immigrants to turn over to the feds, it would seem to me that state and/or local LEOs in Louisiana could not arrest/cite violators of the federal ban on guns in federal GFSZs.)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464

    We still have ALOT of work to do...

    I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible, but because our "well meaning" representatives at the state and federal levels never seem to truly understand what it is a piece of legislation will do, simplicity may be a difficult target.

    Without going into much explanation with this point, CCing will be legal under HB556. I haven't read the bill so I'm taking the OPs word on this.

    Here's what makes CCing in a GFSZ legal at the federal level...

    18 USC 922q
    SNIP
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    SNIP
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    Basically, HB556 allows a CCer to be covered by the exception in 922r B(ii).

    There is NO exception for an OCer in 922r. In this case, we have a RIGHT, guaranteed by our state constitution, being violated by our "well intentioned" representatives in Washington. Of course, I can understand FULLY why regulating interstate commerce trumps such an insignificant FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT protected by Art 1 Sec 11 of the State Const. (TIC)

    I guess the only benefit here to an OCer is in a case such as this...

    An OCer walks down the street to a friend's house... located IN a GFSZ. Being astute as most OCers are, he recognizes that in 5 paces he will be committing a federal crime. Having prepared properly for this trip by first having obtained a CC permit, the OCer quickly moves his handgun to a fully concealed position inside his shirt, replacing it again to his OC holster once safely on his friend's property. As he knocks on his friends door he reflects with a half smile, "I understand... if I were a parent, I would ONLY want HIDDEN firearms around my children when they are at school." Geez. Well... at least now that HB 556 has passed the GFSZ is not a force field to his freedom of movement anymore... well, wait, I have to get a PERMIT so that I may exercise my RIGHT to bear arms AND my RIGHT to move freely. How can that be tolerated???

    In any case, getting this mess straightened out appears to me much more complicated than recognizing the issue in the first place. Since the McDonald decision, there will most certainly be more 2A litigation across the nation. Good or bad... who knows... We have a lot of reading to do.

    Considering the Coburn amendment's success with OCing on federal lands, I think the easiest course of action would be to get the US Congress to amend 922r to change B(ii) to read " if the individual possessing the firearm is doing so according to State law." ...but that's too simple.

    As usual I insist readers do their own research...

  6. #6
    Regular Member estcrh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible, but because our "well meaning" representatives at the state and federal levels never seem to truly understand what it is a piece of legislation will do, simplicity may be a difficult target.

    Without going into much explanation with this point, CCing will be legal under HB556. I haven't read the bill so I'm taking the OPs word on this.

    Here's what makes CCing in a GFSZ legal at the federal level...

    18 USC 922q
    SNIP
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    SNIP
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    Basically, HB556 allows a CCer to be covered by the exception in 922r B(ii).

    There is NO exception for an OCer in 922r. In this case, we have a RIGHT, guaranteed by our state constitution, being violated by our "well intentioned" representatives in Washington. Of course, I can understand FULLY why regulating interstate commerce trumps such an insignificant FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT protected by Art 1 Sec 11 of the State Const. (TIC)

    I guess the only benefit here to an OCer is in a case such as this...

    An OCer walks down the street to a friend's house... located IN a GFSZ. Being astute as most OCers are, he recognizes that in 5 paces he will be committing a federal crime. Having prepared properly for this trip by first having obtained a CC permit, the OCer quickly moves his handgun to a fully concealed position inside his shirt, replacing it again to his OC holster once safely on his friend's property. As he knocks on his friends door he reflects with a half smile, "I understand... if I were a parent, I would ONLY want HIDDEN firearms around my children when they are at school." Geez. Well... at least now that HB 556 has passed the GFSZ is not a force field to his freedom of movement anymore... well, wait, I have to get a PERMIT so that I may exercise my RIGHT to bear arms AND my RIGHT to move freely. How can that be tolerated???

    In any case, getting this mess straightened out appears to me much more complicated than recognizing the issue in the first place. Since the McDonald decision, there will most certainly be more 2A litigation across the nation. Good or bad... who knows... We have a lot of reading to do.

    Considering the Coburn amendment's success with OCing on federal lands, I think the easiest course of action would be to get the US Congress to amend 922r to change B(ii) to read " if the individual possessing the firearm is doing so according to State law." ...but that's too simple.

    As usual I insist readers do their own research...
    Yes, it is now possible for you to open carry in an area that you know has a school zone and not worry about breaking a law ( I know many here do not seem to care about that) You will need a concealed permit ( I have one and every gun owner who wants to open carry should for this reason) as long as you have a concealed permit you can now carry on ANY street...now show me any were in the concealed laws were it says your gun has to be completely concealed or concealed at all..I could be wrong but I discussed this with the D.A.s office in New Orleans a while back and was told that a concealed permit covered you even if your gun was showing....A good point to pin down....Every open carry advocate who TRULY open carries on city streets is risking a serious arrest at some point if they do not have a concealed permit (unless your just a Walmart, shoneys etc private property carrier.)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible, but because our "well meaning" representatives at the state and federal levels never seem to truly understand what it is a piece of legislation will do, simplicity may be a difficult target.

    Without going into much explanation with this point, CCing will be legal under HB556. I haven't read the bill so I'm taking the OPs word on this.

    Here's what makes CCing in a GFSZ legal at the federal level...

    18 USC 922q
    SNIP
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    SNIP
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    Basically, HB556 allows a CCer to be covered by the exception in 922r B(ii).

    There is NO exception for an OCer in 922r. In this case, we have a RIGHT, guaranteed by our state constitution, being violated by our "well intentioned" representatives in Washington. Of course, I can understand FULLY why regulating interstate commerce trumps such an insignificant FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT protected by Art 1 Sec 11 of the State Const. (TIC)

    I guess the only benefit here to an OCer is in a case such as this...

    An OCer walks down the street to a friend's house... located IN a GFSZ. Being astute as most OCers are, he recognizes that in 5 paces he will be committing a federal crime. Having prepared properly for this trip by first having obtained a CC permit, the OCer quickly moves his handgun to a fully concealed position inside his shirt, replacing it again to his OC holster once safely on his friend's property. As he knocks on his friends door he reflects with a half smile, "I understand... if I were a parent, I would ONLY want HIDDEN firearms around my children when they are at school." Geez. Well... at least now that HB 556 has passed the GFSZ is not a force field to his freedom of movement anymore... well, wait, I have to get a PERMIT so that I may exercise my RIGHT to bear arms AND my RIGHT to move freely. How can that be tolerated???

    In any case, getting this mess straightened out appears to me much more complicated than recognizing the issue in the first place. Since the McDonald decision, there will most certainly be more 2A litigation across the nation. Good or bad... who knows... We have a lot of reading to do.

    Considering the Coburn amendment's success with OCing on federal lands, I think the easiest course of action would be to get the US Congress to amend 922r to change B(ii) to read " if the individual possessing the firearm is doing so according to State law." ...but that's too simple.

    As usual I insist readers do their own research...
    Given the specific wording of the Federal Statute, that bold portion should most accurately be:

    "Being astute as most OCers are, he recognizes that in 5 paces he will NOT be committing a federal crime, since he did go through the process to be a licensed carry permit holder."

    IMHO, the statute doesn't specify that a firearm must be concealed; it just must be in possession of a person with a license issued by the state..yadayadayada.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  8. #8
    Regular Member barf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by estcrh View Post
    Yes, it is now possible for you to open carry in an area that you know has a school zone and not worry about breaking a law ( I know many here do not seem to care about that) You will need a concealed permit ( I have one and every gun owner who wants to open carry should for this reason) as long as you have a concealed permit you can now carry on ANY street
    You're wording here is misleading and disturbing. Citizens of this state are not required to have a concealed carry permit to open carry.

    Quote Originally Posted by estcrh View Post
    I could be wrong but I discussed this with the D.A.s office in New Orleans a while back and was told that a concealed permit covered you even if your gun was showing
    You're wrong. Your discussion with someone will not hold up in court.

    Quote Originally Posted by estcrh View Post
    Every open carry advocate who TRULY open carries on city streets is risking a serious arrest at some point if they do not have a concealed permit
    This is an idiotic statement.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by barf View Post
    You're wording here is misleading and disturbing. Citizens of this state are not required to have a concealed carry permit to open carry.



    You're wrong. Your discussion with someone will not hold up in court.
    Federal statute is at odds with your interpretation.
    See my post.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Given the specific wording of the Federal Statute, that bold portion should most accurately be:

    "Being astute as most OCers are, he recognizes that in 5 paces he will NOT be committing a federal crime, since he did go through the process to be a licensed carry permit holder."

    IMHO, the statute doesn't specify that a firearm must be concealed; it just must be in possession of a person with a license issued by the state..yadayadayada.

    Hmmm... you make a good point... I think what you're saying is this...

    !. Having the CC permit fulfills compliance with the exception in fed law.
    2. Under La. state law one IS constitutionally protected to OC in a state defined GFSZ.

    In this case the permitted individual would not need to conceal, the permit allows possesion and the La. Const protects OC... I see merit in this position...

    Anyone see an issue with this???

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hammond Area, LA, ,
    Posts
    238
    If that's the case, wouldn't this be a step backwards for OC? In my mind, OC was a protected right that did not require a permit. Though it technically still doesn't require permitting, unless you get a CC permit you will potentially be in violation of the Feuderal statute. It's almost a defacto restriction on OC in that in order to not be in violation and not be hassled you need to get the CC permit.

    Am I missing something?

  12. #12
    Regular Member barf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Federal statute is at odds with your interpretation.
    See my post.
    And liberty is at odds with your interpretation. See the quote in your signature - why do I need to seek government permission (cc permit) to open carry?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by barf View Post
    And liberty is at odds with your interpretation. See the quote in your signature - why do I need to seek government permission (cc permit) to open carry?
    You don't. You just must obey the Federal statute.

    Don't get a permit, and you must avoid carrying in GFSZ. You do see this, correct?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member barf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    You don't. You just must obey the Federal statute.

    Don't get a permit, and you must avoid carrying in GFSZ. You do see this, correct?
    Yes, I see this. my original post to estrch was "You're wording here is misleading and disturbing. Citizens of this state are not required to have a concealed carry permit to open carry. Then, your reply to me was "Federal statute is at odds with your interpretation". So, please explain then. Do you see this?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by barf View Post
    Yes, I see this. my original post to estrch was "You're wording here is misleading and disturbing. Citizens of this state are not required to have a concealed carry permit to open carry. Then, your reply to me was "Federal statute is at odds with your interpretation". So, please explain then. Do you see this?
    His post was not misleading or disturbing. It was accurate. Do you see this?

    Federal statute IS at odds with your stated interpretation of his post and reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by estcrh View Post
    Yes, it is now possible for you to open carry in an area that you know has a school zone and not worry about breaking a law ( I know many here do not seem to care about that) You will need a concealed permit ( I have one and every gun owner who wants to open carry should for this reason) as long as you have a concealed permit you can now carry on ANY street...now show me any were in the concealed laws were it says your gun has to be completely concealed or concealed at all..I could be wrong but I discussed this with the D.A.s office in New Orleans a while back and was told that a concealed permit covered you even if your gun was showing....A good point to pin down....Every open carry advocate who TRULY open carries on city streets is risking a serious arrest at some point if they do not have a concealed permit (unless your just a Walmart, shoneys etc private property carrier.)
    His statement is quite accurate, and is not misleading. He states that it is possible to OC in a school zone without breaking the law, ... as long as you have a concealed permit....


    He was NOT wrong, as you attempted to declare, and his last statement was NOT idiotic. It was accurate.
    Last edited by wrightme; 07-09-2010 at 04:31 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member barf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    259
    The bottom line is that a CC permit is not required to OC.

    And I do believe his last statement was indeed idiotic. OCers on city streets are risking a serious arrest if they don't have a CC permit? I don't think so.

  17. #17
    Regular Member barf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Hmmm... you make a good point... I think what you're saying is this...

    !. Having the CC permit fulfills compliance with the exception in fed law.
    2. Under La. state law one IS constitutionally protected to OC in a state defined GFSZ.

    In this case the permitted individual would not need to conceal, the permit allows possesion and the La. Const protects OC... I see merit in this position...

    Anyone see an issue with this???
    So, the holder of a CC permit doesn't need to comply with the CC laws while in a GFSZ?

  18. #18
    McX
    Guest
    GFSZ is a free ticket to hell in our state, and we don't even have cc yet. bet it will remain a free ticket to hell if we get cc?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Confederate View Post
    If that's the case, wouldn't this be a step backwards for OC? In my mind, OC was a protected right that did not require a permit. Though it technically still doesn't require permitting, unless you get a CC permit you will potentially be in violation of the Feuderal statute. It's almost a defacto restriction on OC in that in order to not be in violation and not be hassled you need to get the CC permit.

    Am I missing something?
    You're not missing anything. It's a step forward for permit holders. It might even be a baby step forward for OCers. If "it" means HB556 then "it" is no step towards preserving liberty.

    Here's where we stand... HB556 may help the OCer IF he gets the permit. But I don't think that it's this kind of "help" that we want. Most of us would agree that the real battle is making sure the Fed & State governments don NOT encroach on RIGHTS secured by either level of government.

    I

  20. #20
    Regular Member barf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Hmmm... you make a good point... I think what you're saying is this...

    !. Having the CC permit fulfills compliance with the exception in fed law.
    2. Under La. state law one IS constitutionally protected to OC in a state defined GFSZ.

    In this case the permitted individual would not need to conceal, the permit allows possesion and the La. Const protects OC... I see merit in this position...

    Anyone see an issue with this???
    Quote Originally Posted by barf View Post
    So, the holder of a CC permit doesn't need to comply with the CC laws while in a GFSZ?
    Doesn't the permit allow possession AND require concealment?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by barf View Post
    So, the holder of a CC permit doesn't need to comply with the CC laws while in a GFSZ?
    Hmmmm... lets focus... Here's the wording.

    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    Look at this specifically " if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located."

    Licensed to do what??? 922r (2)(A) answers this question...

    It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to POSSESS a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    This means the license is needed for "possession" only. HB556 fulfills the requirement for POSSESSION. There is no requirement for the MANNER of possession in the fed statute. So...

    With the permit from our servants we CAN possess a firearm in a FEDERALLY defined GFSZ.
    With the GUARANTEE from Art 1 sec 11 of La Const. our right to OC is protected.

    So... my answer to Barf is this... and in agreement with the very perceptive wrightme

    The permit holder MUST ALWAYS comply with the CC laws... when CCing... However, just because one posses a permit does not require him to relinquish a right. The permit allows the possession to fulfill the fed requirements and the La. Const fulfills the state requirement for OC. Isn't this simple.

    Of course we are discussing law here... do not rely any information without reading for yourself.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by barf View Post
    The bottom line is that a CC permit is not required to OC.

    And I do believe his last statement was indeed idiotic. OCers on city streets are risking a serious arrest if they don't have a CC permit? I don't think so.
    It is not an "idiotic statement." It is all about where the invisible GFSZs are.
    Quote Originally Posted by barf View Post
    Doesn't the permit allow possession AND require concealment?
    Only if the state statute requires it. I have yet to see ANY state statute that requires concealment after receiving a CC permit. The permit allows concealment; it does not require it.


    (This is a misconception that is typically presented and perpetuated by CC instructors. Always look to the statute.)
    Last edited by wrightme; 07-09-2010 at 06:50 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by estcrh View Post
    .now show me any were in the concealed laws were it says your gun has to be completely concealed or concealed at all..I could be wrong but I discussed this with the D.A.s office in New Orleans a while back and was told that a concealed permit covered you even if your gun was showing....
    Well, RS 40:1382 could be a problem to the idea of completely concealed or not.

    I don't mean OC, which is plainly not an attempt at concealment, I mean carrying partially concealed.

    Depending on where you are and how you are acting, you could possibly be charged under this one if not fully concealed or fully open.



    §1382. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun

    A. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:

    (1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.

    (2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.

    B. It shall be within the discretion of the law enforcement officer to issue a summons to a person accused of committing this offense in lieu of making a physical arrest. The seizure of the handgun pending resolution of the offense shall only be discretionary in the instance where the law enforcement officer issues a summons to the person accused. If the law enforcement officer makes a physical arrest of the person accused, the handgun and the person's license to carry such handgun shall be seized.

    C. Whoever commits the offense of negligent carrying of a concealed handgun shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned without hard labor for not more than six months, or both. The adjudicating judge may also order the forfeiture of the handgun and may suspend or revoke any permit or license authorizing the carrying of the handgun.

    Acts 1996, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 4, §1, eff. April 19, 1996.

    I would have to say (and this is based on personal experience) that if one was standing in a checkout line at a local stopnrob with the butt of a handgun sticking out of an IWB holster, I would be willing to bet that the sight of this can cause "reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public" standing in line behind you.
    Last edited by turbodog; 07-09-2010 at 10:58 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post

    The permit holder MUST ALWAYS comply with the CC laws... when CCing... However, just because one posses a permit does not require him to relinquish a right. The permit allows the possession to fulfill the fed requirements and the La. Const fulfills the state requirement for OC.
    I agree that the CC permit issued here in Louisiana satisfys the federal requirement to carry in a GFSZ.

    The state law now says that one may carry a firearm in a GFSZ provided one does so "in accordance with a CC permit issued pursuant to RS 40:1379.1 or 1379.3".

    So, here's another question: Just what is it they mean by, "in accordance with"?

  25. #25
    Regular Member estcrh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by barf View Post
    You're wording here is misleading and disturbing. Citizens of this state are not required to have a concealed carry permit to open carry.



    You're wrong. Your discussion with someone will not hold up in court.



    This is an idiotic statement.
    Braf..as usual you twist what I say to suit your purposes..I did not say you need a conceal permit to open carry..I said in order to open carry and not have to worry about breaking a law by entering a school gun free zone one would need a concealed carry permit....if you cover your open carry gun in a school zone without a permit you are breaking a law....if you open carry in a school zone and do not have a concealed carry permit you are breaking the law......if you open carry and realize that you are entering a school zone and have a concealed carry permit and cover your gun you are legal......the only not clear area is if you open carry and have a concealed permit and enter a school zone but do not cover....are you then breaking a law????

    I was told by the new Orleans D.A.s office that you are not required to keep your gun covered just because you have a concealed permit...it just meant that you could cover it and not be breaking a law.....like I said...I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS!!!!!! BUT ITS WORTH CHECKING OUT....if you do not need to cover your gun when you have a concealed carry permit then you would be able to open carry on any street or area were there was an unknown school zone and not have to worry about breaking any laws...for many people who want to open carry every were they go but cant due to the fear of unknown school zones being used against them ( as Lt Selby of the 8th dist police threatened to do to me if I open carried in the Quarter) this law will clear the path for being able to open carry on any street at any time....

    .If having a concealed carry permit does mean that you must have your gun covered in a school zone its still a victory as people will have the option of getting a permit and using it when in doubt of the location of school zones and they could still open carry when in places they are sure are have no school zones. Thats a lot better option then having to decide if you will go unarmed or break the law and carry into a school zone as many people have to do every day just to be safe. Of course some people do not care if they BEAK THE LAWS AND RISK BEING CONVICTED OF A FELONY!!!! but I do!! Then again I am a tax paying law abiding citizen.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •