re: "Constitutional carry” passes in the committee and will now move on to the House.

quote:

---

The problem IMO is that the language of the 2A does seem to preclude such a requirement.***


***(Setting aside the question of whether the 2A ... or the Bill of Rights as a whole ... was ever intended to limit anyone other than the FEDERAL government, as compared to state/local).

---

You do have a couple of points, but there are counterpoints to consider:

We both know how the federal government pushed its influence into state and local affairs. That mixed bag is in place now, so I agree that we should move on...

And there are no guarantees that careless people will not err. However, a process of mitigating the likelihood of injuries due to ignorance is a reasonable goal. Some training seems more than a reasonable expectation for carrying something is serious as a handgun.

As to what is and is not an infringement, I want to point out that no right is absolute although this one is most strongly endorsed. Infringement is the strongest statement of support that I have found in the US Constitution. However, there are many examples of regulations of firearms which have at least been ignored, if not plainly upheld so far - even in Heller.

The prefatory clause language of "well regulated militia" seems helpful here (which is a rare position for me as I would normally prefer to eliminate it.) But it does state a purpose and that purpose gives us some guidance - not in outlining possible restriction of arms from private citizens, but I would argue that it is only helpful in understanding purpose and that purpose helps us with process. The purpose is a responsibly armed citizenry which is obtained through citizens being armed.
The "well regulated" language refers to something which functions as intended rather than an excuse for citizens being restricted from owning and carrying arms.
Contrast the New York and New Jersey policies which were ruled unconstitutional with those of Louisiana. One group was clearly a scheme of intentionally depriving people of having the use of arms under any circumstances while the other has a process fashioned to facilitate this right in a reasonable and safe manner. Consider Ezell in the 7th Circuit which required qualification at local ranges which were regulated out of existence for another example of a thinly veiled process of stifling gun ownership and carriage.
Where has a state been barred from setting a process for regulating concealed carry? Not banning, but setting reasonable regulation which does not have the effect of being a thinly veiled ban?
Where did Scalia or any other justice ever state that training was an infringement?
Where do they state that having a records check for a concealed carry permit is an infringement? Actually, Scalia seems to state the opposite in Heller. Even the onerous licensing and registration processes of New York were left in place by Heller. (Yes, I saw that this was not actually addressed because the plaintiff in Heller chose not to press that issue. But it is what it is, so there is no barrier to some regulation - especially for concealed carry. But I am not in favor of draconian measures here - just some basic training and qualification much as exists currently.)
Where is there a limit regarding standards and/or qualifications for concealed carry?
What I see is a pattern of allowing genuine processes which facilitate responsible gun carriage without being a de-facto barrier to this activity.
So the real question is whether a reasonable regulation constitutes an infringement.
What would be the method for sifting between these possibly conflicting interests of creating permissible regulation and avoiding unconstitutional infringement?
I argue that there is not a ban on requiring some form of training before permitting people to carry a concealed weapon.
What cites can you show to the contrary?

(BTW, I enjoy having a reasoned discussion. You made me think this more deeply by challenging my position.
Thanks)

quote:

---

No, they are in prison. After their sentence, they certainly deserve all rights restored. Don’t like that? Increase sentence lengths to reflect the crime. When they are released, all rights restored.

---

So in your eyes, released felons - even those convicted of crimes of violence regain all firearms rights upon release from prison?
The laws and current practice are against you. You also fail to understand how periods of supervised release or the state equivalents function.
Thanks for playing.

quote:

---

States it right here

Shall not be infringed

No if’s, no and’s, no buts.

---

But, convicted felons are legally barred from firearms ownership by state and federal laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that both are constitutional laws. In fact, the Heller decisions specifically mentions this situation and endorses it. Other rights are also routinely set aside for convicted felons.
You also seem to not understand that there is a distinction between regulation and infringement. These have not yet been sorted out by the courts. What we have seen is that schemes to ban guns under false pretenses have been ruled unconstitutional while some regulations have not been. For example, show a case where background checks for concealed carry permits have been ruled unconstitutional. Show where laws requiring training and/or permits where the training is actually available have been so ruled by the Supreme Court.
I'll wait...

quote:

---

“convicted murderers should be able to legally purchase firearms”

“convicted violent felons should be able to legally purchase firearms”

If you can say this with a straight face then I’m not sure how to respond. There is a reason these people are not allowed to serve in the military. You can’t infringe on the right they forfeited.

---

Exactly.

I’m a huge 2nd Amendment proponent, but dangerous violent felons forfeited that right when they committed violent crimes.

quote:

---

super majority can override the veto

---

A cat can swim too. It's a can vs will. We learned last year we have put folks in Congress with zero will and zero leadership. Senate president Page even said he would not and does not foster support for bills in Congress, even the most obvious republican fundamental bills. The republican majority leader y'all. If the Louisiana GOP were represented by one person, it would be Page. An absolute guppy with no political fortitude, structure or home. You could call him every political party title and be correct.

quote:

---

But, convicted felons are legally barred from firearms ownership by state and federal laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that both are constitutional laws.

---

Bruen provides the opening to removing the bar regarding the historical interpretation. Beautiful and needed.

I see the arguments herein are the result of the softening of society. Historically, someone convicted of murder was eliminated completely and someone convicted of violence was removed from society for a few decades.

Hence, the arguments regarding violent felons possessing arms are now held because violent felons are released from incarceration daily with minimal time served.

Their violence now creates the fear our gooooooooooooooooooooberment will use to remove our liberty. But as a man once said, "So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: 'From my cold, dead hands!" (referencing his weapon)

You know Gore. He is the guy who invented the internet and cheerleaded successfully a human induced "global warming" hoax now known as "climate change."

quote:

---

But what I am supprting is an emphasis on serious training for people so that they have the ability to exercise this important right.

---

That's fine, as long as it isn't government mandated. Training should never be a bar to legally concealed carrying, it simply isn't needed beyond knowing the applicable laws and the proper function and handling of whatever firearm is carried. The training required for a LA CCP is nothing, few rounds into a target with a reload and then several hours of a lecture on the legal stuff. It's not worth clinging to.

quote:

---

thus breaking the law and giving LEOs an excuse to arrest them

---

Do you not know what concealed means?

How restrictive is the proposed Constitutional Carry law going to be? LA allows licensed concealed carry but it's one of the more restrictive in the country AFAIK. I was really surprised by the limits when I got mine. Can't carry at any event that required a public permit to hold, so that means every event that a crowd might be expected: no parades, no festivals, no fairs, concerts, sporting events, etc. Can't carry into any establishment that serves alcohol - not just bars but any restaurant that serves alcohol (i.e. every restaurant in the state). Can't carry in any building where an elected official *might* have an office, so that's every public building, library, etc. What else is left, the grocery store and the gas pump? Really the only benefit I've taken advantage of is the no wait when filling out 4473's. Of course the lifetime CC license disqualifies you from even that perk since an expiration date is required to bypass the check.