NRA: Vote "YES" on 2 on Tuesday, November 6th!!

[NRA80]

To Duck Butter, the current amendment is broken -- the propose amendment not only fixes it, but it gives Louisiana the strongest protections of any state:


Why is Louisiana’s current right to keep and bear arms amendment inadequate?

• Because the Louisiana courts have determined that the current right to arms provision deserves the lowest level of review, the provision provides less protection than the Second Amendment itself, rending Louisiana's constitutional provision meaningless under Heller and McDonald.

• According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, "The State of Louisiana is entitled to restrict that right for legitimate state purposes, such as public health and safety. "State v. Blanchard, 776 So.2d 1165, 1168 (La. 2001).

• The requirement of only a "legitimate" state purpose, and no specified degree of "fit" between the restriction and that purpose, basically subjects restrictions of the right to keep and bear arms under the Louisiana Constitution to rational basis scrutiny. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938).


• During the Heller case, Justice Scalia noted:


Obviously, [rational basis scrutiny] could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. * * * If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628 fn. 27 (2008). As Justice Scalia notes, "almost all laws ... would pass rational-basis scrutiny." Id.


• Additionally, the current provision expressly allows the legislature to impose a ban on the carrying of weapons concealed on the person – even in one’s home or on one’s own property or under specific threat of harm.

• Further, the passage of an outright ban on law-abiding Louisianans carrying a concealed firearm would not likely be deemed unconstitutional based on the current state-level provision.

Why is strict scrutiny used as the level of review?

• Louisiana’s current right to keep and bear arms provision is deemed to only deserve a rational basis level of review – virtually any rights-infringing law can pass this level of review.

• Because the right to keep and bear arms is deemed “fundamental,” it should require – as state and federal case law has shown – a strict scrutiny level of review. It is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly rejected a rational basis level of review, as well as an “interest-balancing” test.

Also note, strict scrutiny is the highest standard courts use to evaluate restrictions on constitutional rights such as free speech. It requires that, such laws must be narrowly tailored, not broad and sweeping, and that they serve a compelling – not just a convenient – state interest. A complete ban on carrying concealed weapons, even in one’s home and business, would be upheld under the low *rational basis* test, but the *strict scrutiny* test would require a system like current law in which law-abiding citizens may obtain permits to carry concealed firearms.