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

[PaulMyers]

To me, their doom and gloom stems from the fact that the NRA is always on the defensive side of the equation. The fact is, the NRA has to fight for every inch that they can maintain! None of the special interest groups give the NRA and gun owners anything, all they want to do is take and then take some more until we have nothing. We are always in a fight, just to keep what we already have.

[Purple Back]

Ok, now I am officially confused..... I received this in an email today.

[NRA80]

Originally Posted by Purple Back

Ok, now I am officially confused..... I received this in an email today.

I've seen the information you shared pop up a few places. Unfortunately, a few individuals are spreading misinformation and, ultimately, working against providing the strongest Right to Keep and Bear Arms protections for Louisianans. Please see the overview on the first page of this thread. Here is a briefer version of it:


SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT – VOTE “YES” on 2!!

The proposed Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment would amend the Louisiana Constitution to state: “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” If accepted by the voters on November 6, Louisiana will have the strongest guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms nationwide.

The proposed amendment reinforces Second Amendment rights, which the U.S. Supreme Court said (in McDonald v. Chicago) are “fundamental.” Restrictions on fundamental rights (e.g. right to free speech) are normally subject to what courts call “strict scrutiny” – which provides the strongest possible protection for the right. In short, gun laws should focus on punishing criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

But the U.S. Supreme Court rulings were won only by 5 to 4 margins. The four dissenting Justices claimed that individuals have no Second Amendment rights and that the government may ban guns – just as D.C. and Chicago had done. If just one of the five Justices resigns or dies, the vote could go the other way. Further, courts nationwide have been trying to nullify the rulings, saying that Second Amendment rights are not fundamental, and that even if they are, restrictions are not subject to strict scrutiny, but instead are subject only to “intermediate scrutiny” or other tests where the right is “balanced” away.

The proposed amendment is needed now not just to stand up to these judicial trends, but also because Louisiana needs to revise its current defective guarantee. The Louisiana Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be “abridged,” except that “this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit” carrying a concealed weapon – which could be even in one’s own home. Further, the Louisiana Supreme Court has said that the right may be restricted if a majority in the legislature thinks it “reasonable” to do so. The standard for restrictions must be higher than that.

Gun bans and harassment of gun owners routinely occur in places like New York City, New Jersey, and California. Don’t think it cannot happen here. Remember in the wake of Hurricane Katrina when the New Orleans police declared that “no one but the police may have a gun,” and launched a campaign to confiscate guns from citizens in their own homes and businesses, leaving them at the mercy of criminals and looters? Despite a lawsuit, most victims never got their guns back. Nothing like that should ever happen again in Louisiana.

The proposed amendment will protect future generations from any legislative power grabs and rubber stamping by future courts that would disrespect our rights. Its language is historic, and it will send a message nationwide that Louisiana stands in the forefront of states that will not tolerate infringements on our fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

[NRA80]

Originally Posted by Purple Back

Ok, now I am officially confused..... I received this in an email today.

Purple,

I reviewed the attachment -- the misinformed author suggests that the current provision is better. Below are reasons why the author is misinformed:


a.) The Louisiana Supreme Court rendered the entire current provision meaningless by ruling it only deserved a rational basis or "reasonable" level of review. With that low-level of protection, virtually any gun-control law would be constitutional short of a state-wide categorical gun-ban. The U.S. Supreme Court has also said that rational basis review cannot protect a fundamental right. That said, to fix this deficiency you need to amend the constitution.

b.) The current provision states the following: this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.” Said provision would allow a future legislature to completely ban concealed carry -- even in your home. NRA's proposed provision removes this rights-infringing provision.

c.) If Heller and McDonald are ever over turned, Louisiana state constitution does not adequately protect the rights of Louisianans.

d.) The author claims under the current provision, NO restrictions are allowed other than on concealed weapons. He seems oblivious to the fact that Louisiana law bans the possession of firearms at schools, churches, police stations, and other places, subject to certain exceptions. He simply ignores these restrictions in claiming that “in Louisiana, a citizen can openly carry firearms.” It does not matter if they are carried openly or concealed, guns are banned in such places. Further, certain guns are required to be registered, and the courts have upheld the requirement. State v. Hamlin, 497 So.2d 1369, 1371 (La. 1986) (“it is reasonable for the legislature in the interest of public welfare and safety to require the registration of” short-barreled shotguns). Given that the current guarantee has been on the books since 1974, why are these and many other laws still on the books if, the author claims, “it prohibits all types of gun control,” except carrying concealed weapons on the person?

e.) To justify its massive confiscations of firearms from citizens in the Katrina era, New Orleans argued that “the right to keep and bear arms has never been recognized as a fundamental individual right,” and thus “the states, and by extension their political subdivisions, are free to proscribe the possession of firearms . . . .” Motion to Dismiss, NRA v. Nagin, p. 4-5 (2006). -- the current provision was no help.

f.) Anti-gun Professor Adam Winkler, who filed a brief in Heller supporting D.C.’s handgun ban, cited Blanchard (the case in which the Louisiana court rendered the current constitutional provision meaningless) to show that under “reasonable regulation” review, “courts affirm the constitutionality of nearly ANY TYPE OF GUN CONTROL.” Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 683, 719-20 & n.214 (2007).

[NRA80]

On our "YES on 2" facebook page (www.facebook.com/voteyeson2) we just announced our distribution of the "YES on 2" bumper sticker!!

If you would like to show your support, contact us at: ila-contact@nrahq.org or 1-800-392-8683

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by PaulMyers

To me, their doom and gloom stems from the fact that the NRA is always on the defensive side of the equation. The fact is, the NRA has to fight for every inch that they can maintain! None of the special interest groups give the NRA and gun owners anything, all they want to do is take and then take some more until we have nothing. We are always in a fight, just to keep what we already have.

Even if that was true, the childhood story of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind. People can only listen to do much of "the sky is falling" before they lose interest or the speaker loses credibility. I do think there are people out there, some of them in power, that want to take our 2nd amendment rights away. But the (silent) majority of Americans support gun ownership and hunting. And with shows like sons of guns, duck dynasty, swamp people, red jacket, and top shot, I think 2nd amendment support is higher than ever. I mean a show that broadcasts shooting gators in the head would never have been on the air 10 years ago. I believe in what the NRA is doing and support this amendment, but just because the NRA says the moon is falling and its made outta cheese, doesn't mean I'm gonna buy any crackers