• 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.

Shreveport: man arrested for guns in school zone

R

rmansu2

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
325
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
georg jetson said:
You ask 2 questions in this paragraph... my answers are...

1. Not according to state law
2. Not that it has anything to do with a school zone, but if someone calls the police on themselves then there could be a reasonable expectation for arrest. Perhaps what he said on the phone call gave enough probable cause for the arrest.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering, but would you or would you not expect to be arrested. Knowing what you know about the law, do you really think if an officer wouldn't arrest you if you had a variety of weapons spread out on the trunk of your car, especially if you were within a 1000ft of a school zone? Even if you didn't call the cops and he was just a "beat cop" who happened upon you, I would have to think anyone in this situation would be arrested.
 
KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
georg jetson said:
READ the statute... 14:95.2(C)(5) does not REQUIRE that the firearm be entirely enclosed in the vehicle... it specifically states:
(5) Any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle.
Do you see that??? ANY constitutionally protected activity... possessing a firearm openly is in fact constituionally protected.
Click to expand...
I saw that as well. For me, that settles the legality of unlicensed OC in a school zone.

As for whether it settles the matter for the police and prosecutors and judges and politicians....

Let's hope the guy, if convicted, either doesn't appeal, or fights it all the way. If convicted and he loses an appeal it sets a precedent that we don't want.
 
Last edited:
G

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
rmansu2 said:
Thank you for answering, but would you or would you not expect to be arrested. Knowing what you know about the law, do you really think if an officer wouldn't arrest you if you had a variety of weapons spread out on the trunk of your car, especially if you were within a 1000ft of a school zone? Even if you didn't call the cops and he was just a "beat cop" who happened upon you, I would have to think anyone in this situation would be arrested.
Click to expand...

Knowing about the law doesn't mean that I can tell you what an LEO will do... I've never walked that road.
 
Gunslinger

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
I know you guys are getting ready for Mardi Gras....but the real question is: why the hell did he call the cops in the first place and choose that location to meet them?
 
HeroHog

HeroHog

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
628
Location
Shreveport, LA
I live in Shreveport and tried to find contact info for Mr. John Wiese but could not locate him. From reading the comments to the initially posted story, it appears that Mr. Wiese may have a few "issues" and not be the best horse to bet on in this particular race though. I will be glad to push this further on my end should more info become available and am surprised at the knowledgeable responses posted in the comments matching some here!
 
G

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
HeroHog said:
I live in Shreveport and tried to find contact info for Mr. John Wiese but could not locate him. From reading the comments to the initially posted story, it appears that Mr. Wiese may have a few "issues" and not be the best horse to bet on in this particular race though. I will be glad to push this further on my end should more info become available and am surprised at the knowledgeable responses posted in the comments matching some here!
Click to expand...

Well put HeroHog... It will be interesting to us to find out what the guy is actually charged with...
 
turbodog

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
-David said:
This is sometimes argued:

RS 40:1379.3
I(3) The permit to carry a concealed weapon shall be revoked by the deputy secretary when the permittee is carrying and concealing a handgun under any of the following circumstances:
(d) An individual is found guilty of negligent carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382.

RS 40:1382
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:
(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.

So I suppose someone open carrying a firearm (and possessing a CHP) going into a quickie stop at night could create the reasonable apprehension on the part of the police or public that a crime is about to be committed. The CHP holder could be charged with negligent carrying, and if found guilty it would mean that the CHP would be revoked. All because the firearm was not concealed and the sheeple got scared.
Click to expand...

If you are out walking the dog, while wearing a sidearm secured in a holster, past a person who is simply afraid of guns, and they call the police, you are not guilty of causing "reasonable apprehension". It's no fault of yours that some people are overly sensitive types. Merely walking along carrying a holstered firearm is not a crime in and of itself. Now, if you were to be stalking around the wally world with a pissed-off-at-the-world look on your face, daring people to look you in the eye, all while wearing a sidearm secured in a holster, then yes, I would say that's grounds for apprehension. Never mind the overt stuff like carrying it in your hand, walking with your fingers wrapped around the butt. etc. which would definitely be cause.
 
Last edited:
4

4sooth

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
126
Location
, Louisiana, USA
School Zone

U.S. v Lopez overturned the federal school zone law/statute. The law was tied to the commerce clause saying that carrying a firearm in a school zone had a negative effect on commerce. SCOTUS overturned the law. For the first time in 60 years, the Supreme Court found that this was reaching too far in saying that the mere presence of a firearm (in a school zone)had a negative effect on commerce.

Congress passed a new school zone law but this one is still tied to the commerce clause and most likely will not pass muster either.
 
G

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
4sooth said:
U.S. v Lopez overturned the federal school zone law/statute. The law was tied to the commerce clause saying that carrying a firearm in a school zone had a negative effect on commerce. SCOTUS overturned the law. For the first time in 60 years, the Supreme Court found that this was reaching too far in saying that the mere presence of a firearm (in a school zone)had a negative effect on commerce.

Congress passed a new school zone law but this one is still tied to the commerce clause and most likely will not pass muster either.
Click to expand...

You would have thought it would have been challenged LONG ago... perhaps no one's been charged federally for a violation of the GFSZ since the enactment of the revised law.
 
Last edited:
sraacke

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
estcrh said:
Ok, can you show us were you are required to actually conceal your weapon under the concealed carry permit regulations???? This has been discussed here several times and yet I do not believe anyone has shown any proof that you actually have to conceal your weapon.
Click to expand...

If the law says "in accordance with" the CHP then it's simply a matter saying the permit is to CONCEAL a weapon and to carry it accordance with that permit the weapon must be concealed; not openly. If you are carrying openly then you are not carrying in accordance with the permit.
 
E

estcrh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
365
Location
Louisiana, USA
yale said:
If the law says "in accordance with" the CHP then it's simply a matter saying the permit is to CONCEAL a weapon and to carry it accordance with that permit the weapon must be concealed; not openly. If you are carrying openly then you are not carrying in accordance with the permit.
Click to expand...
Is there ANY regulation connected to a concealed permit that actually states that the weapon MUST be concealed in order to be covered by the permit?
 
G

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
estcrh said:
Is there ANY regulation connected to a concealed permit that actually states that the weapon MUST be concealed in order to be covered by the permit?
Click to expand...

Ok... it works like this...

La. Const Art1 sec11 gives the state legislature the authority to regulate ARMS CONCEALED on the person.

RS 14:95 is the legislature doing just that...
A. Illegal carrying of weapons is:

(1) The intentional concealment of any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, on one's person; or blah blah...

Notice the word "intentional".

So the intentional concealment of any firearm is STILL illegal unless you get special permission.

The way you get permission to BREAK the law from the state is explained in the following...
See RS 40:1379.3 Statewide permits for concealed handguns; application procedures; definitions

So... by DEFINITION, the permit only applies to handguns intentionally concealed on the person. If the handgun is NOT intentionally concealed on the person, then RS 14:95 becomes irrelevant(no law is broken) which makes RS 40:1379.3 irrelevant(no special permission needed)...

Therefore, the regulation you seek has been hiding under your nose... it is RS 14:95(A) and it states there MUST be "intentional concealment".
 
4

4sooth

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
126
Location
, Louisiana, USA
And to our benefit State v Fluker, which says that if an object can be readily identified for what it is, then it is not concealed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top