• 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.

Constitutional Carry - no permit for either OC or CC

NRAMARINE

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Anywhere but here.
I've been writing legislators, the Governor, etc. for some time trying to get the ball rolling on that. If you recall it was that issue that caused me to part company with LOCAL. Certain members felt that if an initiative didn't come from them it must be attacked. Anyway, I have recieved some positive feedback from some in the legislature, and even a few allies in LSP. However, for now mostly I get the standard non commital form response.
 

oldgoat

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Sulphur, Louisiana, USA
I have written to my State Rep. And Sen. a number of times.

My state rep. Mike Danahy wont do anything. He say's , (paraphrase) "it's been that way since 1879, so it must be alright"

Sen. Mount, did not reply. :-/
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I have written to my State Rep. And Sen. a number of times.

My state rep. Mike Danahy wont do anything. He say's , (paraphrase) "it's been that way since 1879, so it must be alright"

Sen. Mount, did not reply. :-/

What are you asking you're Reps to do?? Are you asking them to introduce an amendment to the La. state COnstitution?
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I've been writing legislators, the Governor, etc. for some time trying to get the ball rolling on that. If you recall it was that issue that caused me to part company with LOCAL. Certain members felt that if an initiative didn't come from them it must be attacked. Anyway, I have recieved some positive feedback from some in the legislature, and even a few allies in LSP. However, for now mostly I get the standard non commital form response.

No... that's not what caused you to part company with LOCAL. It was YOUR lack of willingness to learn. We at LOCAL ENCOURAGE anyone to get involved in fighting for our cause. It's important that we fight smart. Getting one's facts straight BEFORE contacting our government servants is essential to gaining respect as a knowledgeable organization.

Now, it would do well for those discussing "Constitutional carry" to discuss it as it pertains to Louisiana law. From what I can tell, this term comes from Arizona... and of course we ALL know that Arizona law is IRRELEVANT in Louisiana.
 

oldgoat

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Sulphur, Louisiana, USA
What are you asking you're Reps to do?? Are you asking them to introduce an amendment to the La. state COnstitution?

I'm asking him to repeal or strike out the words -->"but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person"

Because............

No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

...If the state converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
- Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

The court is to protect against any encroachment... of constitutionally secured rights.
- Boyd vs US 116 US 616

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
- Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.
- Norton vs Shelby County 118 US 425

The Civil War gave us the 14th Amendment and its declaration that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, not shall any State deprive any person of the life, liberty, or property, without due process.”

“In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood — just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did — that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty,” “The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery.” :Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I'm asking him to repeal or strike out the words -->"but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person"

So then your answer to my question is "yes". In order to make the change you suggest, the La. Const. must be amended. There are a number of us weary of encouraging an amendment to our Const because this may backfire. Maybe this is over cautious...

In any case keep this in mind... right now the only way to posses a loaded firearm by a citizen in La. in a "gun free school zone" according to federal law is by way of a concealed carry permit. If this permit is made moot by a const amendment, then we should at least have affected a change to federal law first.

We all have the best intentions here, but we need to really hash out the details and facts between ourselves before we ask for something we might regret.
 
Last edited:

oldgoat

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Sulphur, Louisiana, USA
So then your answer to my question is "yes". In order to make the change you suggest, the La. Const. must be amended. There are a number of us weary of encouraging an amendment to our Const because this may backfire. Maybe this is over cautious...

In any case keep this in mind... right now the only way to posses a loaded firearm by a citizen in La. in a "gun free school zone" according to federal law is by way of a concealed carry permit. If this permit is made moot by a const amendment, then we should at least have affected a change to federal law first.

We all have the best intentions here, but we need to really hash out the details and facts between ourselves before we ask for something we might regret.


TY George, I'm aware of that. And thats another item we need to address.


I have written to My Rep. Boustany about some other 2a matters, he is very supportive. Consistently votes against bad bills, but will not submit new legislation. :-/

Senator Vitter, pretty much the same. :-/

Landrieu, forget it. Sometimes votes against bad bills.

So who we gonna get to submit a bill to repeal the "Gun Free School Zone"
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
- Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

Incidentally, since you quoted this... compare a quote from the recent Heller decision and contemplate the stark contrast...

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.
- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

I wonder what definition was given to the word "abrogate" in the Miranda case.
 

NRAMARINE

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Anywhere but here.
Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska all have constitutional carry. I've read a few snips here and there anout possibly Texas, and Arkansas moving in this direction. Constitutional carry is the direct application of the second ammendment in these states with no permits required to carry concealed or openly. This is also referred to as " Freedom to carry". State laws which place further restrictions on the 2A IMO are unconstitutional. Having to jump through hoops pay fees etc to exercise a constitutional right is an infringement. I don't see requirements or fees attatched to other rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

PS. I love the ignore button.
 
Last edited:

oldgoat

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Sulphur, Louisiana, USA
Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska all have constitutional carry. I've read a few snips here and there anout possibly Texas, and Arkansas moving in this direction. Constitutional carry is the direct application of the second ammendment in these states with no permits required to carry concealed or openly. This is also referred to as " Freedom to carry". State laws which place further restrictions on the 2A IMO are unconstitutional. Having to jump through hoops pay fees etc to exercise a constitutional right is an infringement. I don't see requirements or fees attatched to other rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

PS. I love the ignore button.


Utah is considering too.
 

oldgoat

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Sulphur, Louisiana, USA
Incidentally, since you quoted this... compare a quote from the recent Heller decision and contemplate the stark contrast...

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.
- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

I wonder what definition was given to the word "abrogate" in the Miranda case.


I'm really clueless, I found those Supreme court case quotes on another forum with no commentary, and I have not read them, I do know they were not 2a cases.
 

NRAMARINE

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Anywhere but here.
Sorry my crap memory,, Florida is considering too. There may be 1 or 2 more, C.R.S.

Edit, :that's incorrect, It's open carry they are considering.

ARRRGHHHHHHHHHH CRS

The problem with CRS, is it's usually a side effect of the A-G-E virus. As long as you don't let it get to full blown O-L-D you'll be OK. ;)
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
TY George, I'm aware of that. And thats another item we need to address.


I have written to My Rep. Boustany about some other 2a matters, he is very supportive. Consistently votes against bad bills, but will not submit new legislation. :-/

Senator Vitter, pretty much the same. :-/

Landrieu, forget it. Sometimes votes against bad bills.

So who we gonna get to submit a bill to repeal the "Gun Free School Zone"

The bill doesn't need to be repealed... just changed.

An acception to the fed law can be added...
- Where the firearm is possesed according to stae law. Simple. This is exactly what Ok. Sen. Coburn did for federal lands just last year. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP828:

Also, a suit can be filed in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the GFSZ law. I've read quite a few papers authored by law professors from Cornell etc. written years ago outlining how the GFSZ law will fail constitutional muster. Why it hasn't happened yet is beyond me, but it should be a HIGH priority for us OCer's nation wide.

Obviously the 2A does not give Congress the authority to "infringe" on the 2A so a complete repeal is in order, but these days "longstanding prohibitions" have somehow become a higher authority than the black letter law written so plainly in the US Const.
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska all have constitutional carry. I've read a few snips here and there anout possibly Texas, and Arkansas moving in this direction. Constitutional carry is the direct application of the second ammendment in these states with no permits required to carry concealed or openly. This is also referred to as " Freedom to carry". State laws which place further restrictions on the 2A IMO are unconstitutional. Having to jump through hoops pay fees etc to exercise a constitutional right is an infringement. I don't see requirements or fees attatched to other rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

PS. I love the ignore button.

They have something called "constitutional carry". It's anything but. It's simply legislation altering state law... and of course all state laws are the same so of course it would apply here in La... (tic)

Anyways... they can alter state law all they want, but the fed GFSZ law will stil apply as well as all the other "longstanding prohibitions" until the states start filing and winning cases based on the 9th and 10th amendments.
 

oldgoat

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
100
Location
Sulphur, Louisiana, USA
Rep. Mike Danhay pretty much told me to go file a lawsuit.
I don't have the wealth or the energy. I certainly am not prepared to walk through a school zone. and get arrested so I would have standing.
 
Top