• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Real news

estcrh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
365
Location
Louisiana, USA
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.
 

estcrh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
365
Location
Louisiana, USA
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.
 

AmosMoses

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
60
Location
Kentwood, ,
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.)
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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...
 

estcrh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
365
Location
Louisiana, USA
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.)
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
 

barf

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
259
Location
Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
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.

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.

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.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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???
 

LA Confederate

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
238
Location
Hammond Area, LA, ,
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?
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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?
 

barf

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
259
Location
Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
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?
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.

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:

barf

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
259
Location
Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
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.
 

barf

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
259
Location
Nawlins, Louisiana, USA
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?
 
M

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?
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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
 
Top