- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Proposal #2
Posted on 11/5/12 at 8:29 am
Posted on 11/5/12 at 8:29 am
(no message)
This post was edited on 11/29/12 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 11/5/12 at 9:24 am to KG6
Here's the breakdown on this from parlouisiana.org (scroll down to the 2nd amendment)
So in essence, it will make it MUCH harder for anyone to try to introduce a law that will restrict our right to bear arms.
BE SURE TO VOTE "YES" OR "FOR" FOR THIS AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!! As outdoorsmen and gun enthusiasts, the last thing we want is some liberal tryingto take away our rights to certain firearms. This just adds another layer of security to our freedom.
Here is what "strict scrutiny" means:
quote:
PROPOSED CHANGE The proposed amendment would add language to the Constitution that says the right to possess a weapon is a fundamental right in Louisiana and any restriction must pass a “strict scrutiny” judicial review. The amendment also would remove language from the Constitution that explicitly gives the Legislature the authority to pass laws restricting the right to carry a concealed weapon.
So in essence, it will make it MUCH harder for anyone to try to introduce a law that will restrict our right to bear arms.
BE SURE TO VOTE "YES" OR "FOR" FOR THIS AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!! As outdoorsmen and gun enthusiasts, the last thing we want is some liberal tryingto take away our rights to certain firearms. This just adds another layer of security to our freedom.
Here is what "strict scrutiny" means:
quote:
Under strict scrutiny, a law must pass three tests to be considered valid. The government first must prove it has a compelling interest that justifies the passage of the law. In the case of gun laws, public safety is the state’s compelling interest. Courts generally agree that public safety is a compelling interest or a valid reason for states to pass laws that might infringe on an individual’s Second Amendment rights.
The law also must be narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest. That is, the law may not be overly broad in its reach. For example, a law that bans any individual with a misdemeanor conviction from purchasing a gun for the rest of his life would be considered excessively broad as compared to a similar ban for an individual convicted of a violent crime.
Finally, the law must also be the least restrictive means of achieving the state’s compelling interest. If there is any alternative that is less restrictive but would still achieve the compelling interest then the law must be judged invalid and overturned.
This post was edited on 11/5/12 at 9:28 am
Posted on 11/5/12 at 9:29 am to cdaniel76
A yes vote for a win. It's just a matter of time before the Feds want our guns.
Posted on 11/5/12 at 9:36 am to fishfighter
If the feds want our guns, the State Constitution will not stop them. It's a dumb amendment.
Posted on 11/5/12 at 9:43 am to cdaniel76
quote:
The amendment also would remove language from the Constitution that explicitly gives the Legislature the authority to pass laws restricting the right to carry a concealed weapon.
Does this mean that we will no longer need a concealed carry permit to carry in state? I will probably renew mine anyway just so I can carry in MS, but it would be nice not to have to jump through hoops just to exercise a "fundamental right".
Posted on 11/5/12 at 9:49 am to KG6
quote:
The gun rights proposal is No. 2 on the constitutional amendment ballot. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the right to bear arms.
This makes it sound like a federal amendment were voting on.
Posted on 11/5/12 at 9:53 am to dat yat
quote:
Does this mean that we will no longer need a concealed carry permit to carry in state?
No, you will always need a permit, no matter what.
Here's the complete "argument" as to why you should vote YES
quote:
This change in the Constitution would give Louisiana the strongest protection of arms rights in the nation and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and there should be no doubt about that in the state’s Constitution. Any law that would restrict or infringe on such a fundamental right ought to meet the highest standard of judicial review to ensure that the law truly addresses a compelling public safety threat and is not too broad in its impact or any more restrictive than necessary to meet its goal.
The state could continue to prohibit guns at schools, in government buildings
and some other sensitive areas where the state has a compelling government
interest in ensuring public safety. Private property owners also would not
have to worry about being prevented from prohibiting or restricting weapons
on their property because private property rights would take precedence.
Furthermore, if the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court were to change,
then the interpretation of Second Amendment rights could change, allowing states or local jurisdictions to pass greater restrictions on guns, even in
the home. The proposed amendment would help prevent such laws that
infringe on fundamental gun rights from taking root at the local or state
level in Louisiana. Strengthening the Louisiana Constitution would protect
the Second Amendment rights of residents in the future.
The current wording in the Louisiana Constitution that allows the Legislature
to pass laws to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons could result in
a wholesale ban on concealed weapons anywhere in the state—including
inside one’s own home. Deleting that language would help ensure that in
the future the Legislature could not enact such a ban. However, the deletion
of that language does not mean the Legislature would lose its right to pass
concealed carry laws. For example, many other states do not have explicit
constitutional provisions about concealed gun laws and their legislators are
able to regulate concealed carry weapons. The proposed amendment does
not take away the authority of the Legislature to pass gun laws but subjects
those laws to greater scrutiny by the courts to ensure the protection of fundamental rights
Posted on 11/5/12 at 10:00 am to dat yat
You do not need a permit to "open carry" now. Only need a permit to CC
Posted on 11/5/12 at 10:02 am to AlxTgr
quote:
If the feds want our guns, the State Constitution will not stop them. It's a dumb amendment.
I tend to agree. As seen with state immigration laws, federal law trumps state law. I don't think there is a reason to further amend the nation's most amended state constitution.
Posted on 11/5/12 at 10:02 am to AlxTgr
Dumb as in it really doesn't change anything?
I thought we already had something like this in the LA constitution.
I thought we already had something like this in the LA constitution.
Posted on 11/5/12 at 10:15 am to lsushelly
quote:
You do not need a permit to "open carry" now. Only need a permit to CC
I realize what the law says on that, but I think NOPD might give me hell for "disturbing the peace" or something like that. I only see LEO/military open carrying around here.
Not only that, I don't want to open carry for social reasons. I just like to have a gun handy if I need it.
Posted on 11/5/12 at 10:18 am to cdaniel76
quote:
Strengthening the Louisiana Constitution would protect
the Second Amendment rights of residents in the future.
Ha ha
Posted on 11/5/12 at 10:36 am to KG6
As a NRA member and an Assistant District Attorney I'm voting no. I'm not trying to change anyones mind, but this amendment will make it much harder to prosecute convicted felons in possession of firearms and other crimes involving guns.
Not every amendment involving our 2nd amendment right is bad, unfortunately most people wont see it that way
Not every amendment involving our 2nd amendment right is bad, unfortunately most people wont see it that way
Posted on 11/5/12 at 11:02 am to Bigpoppat
quote:
much harder to prosecute convicted felons in possession of firearms and other crimes involving guns
If they didnt get off so damn easy in the first place, they would still be wearing orange and couldnt have a gun.
Posted on 11/5/12 at 11:08 am to Bigpoppat
What the hell are convicted felons doing with firearms to begin with? If the laws on the books were enforced, there would not be a problem
Posted on 11/5/12 at 11:16 am to KG6
(no message)
This post was edited on 11/5/12 at 11:17 am
Posted on 11/5/12 at 11:19 am to Langston
What do you mean by "getting off easy"?
Defendants I prosecute hardly get off easy
Defendants I prosecute hardly get off easy
Posted on 11/5/12 at 11:21 am to lsushelly
quote:
What the hell are convicted felons doing with firearms to begin with? If the laws on the books were enforced, there would not be a problem
Felon with a firearm , La. R.S. 14:95.1 carries mandatory jailtime and is enforced as such.
Exactly what law do you feel isnt being enforced correctly?
Posted on 11/5/12 at 11:27 am to Bigpoppat
quote:
this amendment will make it much harder to prosecute convicted felons in possession of firearms and other crimes involving guns.
quote:
Felon with a firearm , La. R.S. 14:95.1 carries mandatory jailtime and is enforced as such.
Will this amendment negate RS 14:95.1? If not, what is the first post referring to?
Posted on 11/5/12 at 11:30 am to KG6
Didn't read the whole thread, but this also allows for the possibilty(at least, maybe a guarantee) of concealed permits being allowed on college campus.
Popular
Back to top

8






