Real news

[wrightme]

Actually XD, my reference was to the revised state GFSZ law. Permit holders are now allowed to carry in such zones but the law now states "in accordance with a permit issued pursuant to RS 40:1379.1 or 1379.3"

So my question still stands in regards to the state law: What does the legislature mean by "in accordance with?

What I'm looking for is others opinions on whether or not the legislature intended that line to mean concealed carry only. Certainly if one has a CC permit and are carrying concealed, it could be said you are carrying "in accordance with a permit issued pursuant to RS 40:1379.1 or 1379.3".

The legislative digests bring up some interesting history for you to ponder: Digest 556 as introduced
Digest 556 as engrossed
Not part of the law, and not precedent-setting according to them itself, but they include:

Wooton HB No. 556
Abstract: Prohibits carrying a concealed handgun on any school, school property, or school bus
and authorizes concealed handgun permit holders to carry a concealed handgun within
1,000 feet of school property.

But the "Resume Digest" does not specify "carry a concealed handgun within..."


It really looks like they intended to only allow Concealed Carry, but then the engrossed bill only states "in accordance with...", which appears to leave it open to interpretation.

 

[turbodog]

The legislative digests bring up some interesting history for you to ponder: Digest 556 as introduced
Digest 556 as engrossed
Not part of the law, and not precedent-setting according to them itself, but they include:


But the "Resume Digest" does not specify "carry a concealed handgun within..."


It really looks like they intended to only allow Concealed Carry, but then the engrossed bill only states "in accordance with...", which appears to leave it open to interpretation.

Good point. The revised law says:
C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:
13 * * *
14 (4) The possession of a firearm occurring within one thousand feet of school
15 property and entirely on private property, or entirely within a private residence, or
16 in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1
17 or R.S. 40:1379.3.

It also says:
4 N. No concealed handgun may be carried into and no concealed handgun
5 permit issued pursuant to this Section shall authorize or entitle a permittee to carry
6 a concealed handgun in any of the following:
7 * * *
8 (11) Any school, "firearm-free zone" school campus, or school bus as
9 defined in R.S. 14:95.6.

The part that allows carry makes no mention of concealment, whereas the part that prohibits carry specifically says "concealed".

But we still have that tricky bit about "in accordance with". As you point out, it seems to be open to interpretation, but whose interpretation counts hmmm....

The digests you gave links too also say this at the top of each page:

The digest printed below was prepared by House Legislative Services. It constitutes no part of
the legislative instrument. The keyword, one-liner, abstract, and digest do not constitute part of
the law or proof or indicia of legislative intent. [R.S. 1:13(B) and 24:177(E)]

Note the line about not constituting part of the law or proof of legislative intent.

So, even though the digests do say this:

Abstract: Prohibits carrying a concealed handgun on any school, school property, or school bus
and authorizes concealed handgun permit holders to carry a concealed handgun within
1,000 feet of school property.

Which specifically mentions the carry of a CONCEALED handgun within the 1000ft GFSZ, the ACTUAL LAW as signed by the Gov, does not specifically say CONCEALED handgun, it says "in accordance with a CC permit....."

The digest says it, the law does not, but the digest cannot be used as a source of legislative intent on what they meant by "in accordance with".

What a tangle the first case of this will be.

 

[georg jetson]

This is from HB 556 that the Gov signed, which amends the states GFSZ law.

AN ACT
2 To amend and reenact R.S. 14:95.2(C)(4) and R.S. 40:1379.3(N)(11), relative to firearms;
3 to provide with respect to firearm-free zones; to provide relative to the possession
4 of firearms by concealed handgun permit holders; to retain the prohibition regarding
5 the carrying of concealed handguns at a school; to prohibit the carrying of concealed
6 handguns on any school campus or school bus; and to provide for related matters.
7 Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:
8 Section 1. R.S. 14:95.2(C)(4) is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
9 §95.2. Carrying a firearm or dangerous weapon by a student or nonstudent on
10 school property, at school-sponsored functions or firearm-free zone
11 * * *
12 C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:
13 * * *
14 (4) The possession of a firearm occurring within one thousand feet of school
15 property and entirely on private property, or entirely within a private residence, or
16 in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1
17 or R.S. 40:1379.3.
18

So what is your concern?? Is it related to OCing?

 

[wrightme]

So what is your concern?? Is it related to OCing?

YES.

The concern is whether having the permit is sufficient to allow OC in a GFSZ, or if the new statute requires CC only. It seemed quite clear to me what this discussion is about.

 

[georg jetson]

It's the fed requirements that we need to correct. HB 556 is irrelevant

Ya know, if having a CC permit fulfills 18 USC 922 pertaining to GFSZ's, then HB 556 is irrelevant. Having the permit fulfilled / fulfills the federal requirements of possession and the EXISTING CC permit did this ALREADY... The federal government is only requiring "ultra vires" that the citizen have some sort of state permit for possession. This part of the law on the federal AND state level has NOT changed.

May I point out that it seems our contemporary enemy to OC is the federal government. La. seems to have it correct so far...

 

[georg jetson]

YES.

The concern is whether having the permit is sufficient to allow OC in a GFSZ, or if the new statute requires CC only. It seemed quite clear to me what this discussion is about.

My post was directed to T dog specifically, but I'll comment on this...

It APPEARS based on observations from OCDO members(yourself included) that the ONLY thing necessary to fulfill the requirements of the federal statute is a "permit" which meets the qualifications enumerated in 922r. The La. CC permit met this requirement prior to HB 556. What else is at issue here??

 

[wrightme]

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.

From the OP, HB556 appears to alter current statute. Federal law allowed carry with a permit. State law denied it, and made it a felony.

Without 556, State law prevented the act that Federal law allowed. In Nevada, we are currently constrained as Louisiana is until HB556 goes into effect.

 

[georg jetson]

From the OP, HB556 appears to alter current statute. Federal law allowed carry with a permit. State law denied it, and made it a felony.

Without 556, State law prevented the act that Federal law allowed. In Nevada, we are currently constrained as Louisiana is until HB556 goes into effect.

I understand you're in another state... that clouds the issue... what further clouds the issue is the use of the words "carry" versus "possess".

We here in La. have NOT been denied Open "Carrying" in a GFSZ because we have a constitution to protect us from such intrusion. Apparently you have no such thing in Nevada... That takes care of the "carrying" part... now we move to the "possession"...

It is FEDERAL law that has assumed power to regulate possession and the La. CC permit(as far as I can tell) takes care of that... well at least from a "permission" perspective.

La.'s OC community now must INSIST that the fed cease and desist it's ENCROACHMENT on our rightto OC.

 

[wrightme]

Nope, you are off base. NV has a strong statement FOR our 2nd Amendment right. But we also have a State GFSZ. Do you understand that LA also has a State GFSZ prior to HB556?

I understand you're in another state... that clouds the issue... what further clouds the issue is the use of the words "carry" versus "possess".

We here in La. have NOT been denied Open "Carrying" in a GFSZ because we have a constitution to protect us from such intrusion. Apparently you have no such thing in Nevada... That takes care of the "carrying" part... now we move to the "possession"...

It is FEDERAL law that has assumed power to regulate possession and the La. CC permit(as far as I can tell) takes care of that... well at least from a "permission" perspective.

La.'s OC community now must INSIST that the fed cease and desist it's ENCROACHMENT on our rightto OC.

You seem to be spending more effort on the "chip on shoulder" part than on the "rational thought based upon facts" part.

According to the Legislative Digest link I already posted:

Existing law prohibits carrying a firearm at a school, or in a firearm-free zone, and creates
an exception for carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of school property when entirely on
private property, entirely within a private residence, or in accordance with a concealed
handgun permit issued to certain law enforcement officers.
New law retains the provisions of existing law and expands the exception to include all
concealed handgun permit holders.

So, prior to HB556, pursuant to Louisiana R.S. 14:95.2, LA banned the carrying of a firearm (openly or concealed), unless on private property, IN a private residence, or ONLY if the person is a LE with a cc permit. I see NO avenue for OC at all in a GFSZ prior to HB556.

The issue is only clouded if the relevant statute is ignored.

 

[georg jetson]

Nope, you are off base. NV has a strong statement FOR our 2nd Amendment right. But we also have a State GFSZ. Do you understand that LA also has a State GFSZ prior to HB556?


You seem to be spending more effort on the "chip on shoulder" part than on the "rational thought based upon facts" part.

Interesting... I didn't see your last statement until I clicked the "reply with Quote" button.


I don't care about Nevada law. Your post appears confrontational...
What's your intention here??

Edit - You are mistaken about La. law.

 

[wrightme]

Interesting... I didn't see your last statement until I clicked the "reply with Quote" button.

I don't care about Nevada law. Your post appears confrontational... What's your intention here??

To get you to understand that you are not correct. You claim that LA has a "constitution that protects you from such intrusion," yet your own state statutes have been intruding already.

How can you claim that you are not denied carrying in a GFSZ in Louisiana, when statute clearly shows that you ARE denied such? (until HB556)

 

[georg jetson]

To get you to understand that you are not correct. You claim that LA has a "constitution that protects you from such intrusion," yet your own state statutes have been intruding already.

How can you claim that you are not denied carrying in a GFSZ in Louisiana, when statute clearly shows that you ARE denied such? (until HB556)

Ok... I'm always willing to learn...

Post the STATE statutes please...

 

[sraacke]

I feel like I'm sitting in the back of a paralegal class at community college.

 

[estcrh]

To get you to understand that you are not correct. You claim that LA has a "constitution that protects you from such intrusion," yet your own state statutes have been intruding already.

How can you claim that you are not denied carrying in a GFSZ in Louisiana, when statute clearly shows that you ARE denied such? (until HB556)

Wrightme, there are people who believe that they have some "right" to open carry a gun in La. and that no law can take that right away.....This is clearly not the case, you cant carry in a post office,many city parks, federal buildings etc and I think that anyone in the past who would try to open carry in a La. school zone and got arrested for it would have a hell of a ride through the legal system in order to test the "right " they believe they have. I can not say if the politicians can legally enact many of the laws that are enacted but until there is a challenge of those laws we have no choice but to act as though they are legal unless you have unlimited funds and the time to go through the process of testing the laws in court.

The fact is the the minute the federal school zone gun laws went into effect we lost what little "rights" we had and now we are given "permission"...that law has not been challenged and it proves that at any time the gun free zones can be enlarged to what ever size a group of politicians feels like, 1000ft now...1 mile in the future? We are at the mercy of politicians like it or not and while the Supreme Court has ruled that we can own guns they are not likely to rule that guns can be carried in public with out controls. Until the current state of affairs changes all we can do is try to support the NRA and politicians who are on our side etc and hope for the best and try to understand the state and federal laws as they exist.

The question now is..#1..can you open carry in a school zone if you have a concealed permit? #2 can visitors to our state use their states concealed permit to enter a school zone in our state? Getting concrete answers to these questions can and will help a lot of people.

Since these zones are not clearly marked and all cities have numerous school zones this is an important point to be clear about if you truly want to open carry on any La. street at any time....if you just plan on going from your house to Wal Mart or Bass Pro Shop etc and back home again then school gun zones will not affect you...but for people who want to carry 27/7 when outside their house this is an important law change and it needs to be understood and made clear so that everyone who could be affected by the school zone laws will know what they can and can not do while open carrying.

CLOUDING THE ISSUE with your personal beliefs about the Constitution and your "RIGHTS" does not help people it just causes confusion.

 

[wrightme]

Ok... I'm always willing to learn...

Post the STATE statutes please...

Sheesh! I did already.

Post 48 has the link.

 

[turbodog]

The question now is.. .... #2 can visitors to our state use their states concealed permit to enter a school zone in our state? Getting concrete answers to these questions can and will help a lot of people.

That's been answered. No. Per the federal GFSZ law they cannot. That would be post #35

but for people who want to carry 27/7 when outside their house this is an important law change and it needs to be understood and made clear so that everyone who could be affected by the school zone laws will know what they can and can not do while open carrying.

I agree. Right now, it's as clear as mud to me thus my question.

 

[turbodog]

YES.

The concern is whether having the permit is sufficient to allow OC in a GFSZ, or if the new statute requires CC only. It seemed quite clear to me what this discussion is about.

Wrightme is correct in what my question is about.

 

[turbodog]

To stay on track, let me reemphasize that there is no question about whether or nor Louisiana CC permit holders are NOW exempt under the FEDERAL GFSZ law. That law clearly provides for such an exemption to any state permit holder in their own state. I think we all understand this.

The fact that the LA. Constitution (or any states constitutions for that matter) says we have the right to bear arms has done nothing to stop laws being written and enforced against us. Is the state GFSZ law any exception to this? No, it is not. It outright banned the possession or carry of a firearm inside that zone and constitutional rights be dammed. The constitution may (or may not) protect from prosecution but it won't protect one from arrest. The cop on the street will do what he wants to do and let the DA/judge figure out if it was a good bust or not. Happens all the time.

So let's leave what the constitution says out of this.

My question was targeted at opinions on what the state legislators meant by "in accordance with...".

HB 556 says this:
C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:
(4) The possession of a firearm occurring within one thousand feet of school
15 property and entirely on private property, or entirely within a private residence, or
16 in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1
17 or R.S. 40:1379.3

The newly revised state GFSZ law will say that the provisions will not apply to POSSESSION of a firearm in the zone, if possessed in accordance with a CC permit issued....

So, yes Georg, the question has to do with OCing in a school zone. Constitution aside, does anyone think HB 556 will now free La. CC permit holders from threat of arrest while OCing in a GFSZ? OR, does the wording of HB 556 mean that one MUST carry concealed?

 

[georg jetson]

Sheesh! I did already.

Post 48 has the link.

If you had read the statute that you posted a link to then you would have noticed this...
SNIP
C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:
SNIP
(5) Any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle.

The statute ITSELF indicates that there are protected activities which CANNOT be regulated. A firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle is ONE of those... OC is ANOTHER.

Now, unless you can show otherwise, it's obvious 14:95.2 does NOT attempt to regulate OCing.

 

[georg jetson]

ACT 925 did not change 14:95.2 C (5)

To stay on track, let me reemphasize that there is no question about whether or nor Louisiana CC permit holders are NOW exempt under the FEDERAL GFSZ law. That law clearly provides for such an exemption to any state permit holder in their own state. I think we all understand this.

The fact that the LA. Constitution (or any states constitutions for that matter) says we have the right to bear arms has done nothing to stop laws being written and enforced against us. Is the state GFSZ law any exception to this? No, it is not. It outright banned the possession or carry of a firearm inside that zone and constitutional rights be dammed. The constitution may (or may not) protect from prosecution but it won't protect one from arrest. The cop on the street will do what he wants to do and let the DA/judge figure out if it was a good bust or not. Happens all the time.

So let's leave what the constitution says out of this.

My question was targeted at opinions on what the state legislators meant by "in accordance with...".

HB 556 says this:
C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:
(4) The possession of a firearm occurring within one thousand feet of school
15 property and entirely on private property, or entirely within a private residence, or
16 in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1
17 or R.S. 40:1379.3

The newly revised state GFSZ law will say that the provisions will not apply to POSSESSION of a firearm in the zone, if possessed in accordance with a CC permit issued....

So, yes Georg, the question has to do with OCing in a school zone. Constitution aside, does anyone think HB 556 will now free La. CC permit holders from threat of arrest while OCing in a GFSZ? OR, does the wording of HB 556 mean that one MUST carry concealed?

You can’t leave the constitution out of this. The state legislature that purportedly passes legislation contrary to the constitution derives its powers from that same constitution!! The state constitution is the authority for ALL state law in La. It is THE most pertinent law. Of course, if one is involved as a defendant for violation of 14:95.2, you can’t just shout “art 1 sec 11” to the judge. There are rules that must be followed for presenting your defense to the court, but it would be a simple thing to show a judge that OCing is constitutionally protected in the written form of a motion.

As I’ve indicated, it APPEARS that HB556 is irrelevant to Ocing so discussing your question about “in accordance with…” has nothing to do with Ocing.

I would suggest reading the actual bill, ACT 925, found here…
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=722945

The act changes 14:95.2 C(4) ONLY.

C(5) still applies.

I understand, Tdog, that your interest is in Ocing of course… from a legal standpoint, my non-attorney opinion is that ACT925 does nothing to Ocing. You and others may disagree, and that’s fine. It’s a productive thing we are doing when we discuss such matters. I certainly have been motivated to read the new ACT and now I know a bit more about CCing.

I agree however with you last concern… will an OCer take the ride??? Considering the amount of debate we’ve had with this subject, I’m most positive that there will be some confusion in the law enforcement community. We all know that an OCer may understand the law, but LEO education is still an issue.

As I always I encourage any reader to verify any law and opinions about law independently.