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.

[jchief]

NRA80, please don't take this the wrong way, but no one here has no idea who you are. You could be wanting this amendment to pass to make the current law weaker. Unfortunately, this is the internet and it is hard to verify that someone is who they say they are.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by 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.

The first paragraph I hilighted I have read three times and still can't make sense of it, typical legal jargon, not your fault but mine for not really taking much interest in legal terminology

The 2nd does help clear up why 'strict scrutiny' would be added if that is all completely true. If strict scrutiny makes it harder for a complete ban then I am all for it, but to me 'the right to bear arms' is clear enough, but if you all think this is going to help out I am for it.

I do remember that the right to bear arms was taken away from La citizens during Katrina, had this new terminology been effective during Katrina, would things have panned out differently? Thanks

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by jchief

NRA80, please don't take this the wrong way, but no one here has no idea who you are. You could be wanting this amendment to pass to make the current law weaker. Unfortunately, this is the internet and it is hard to verify that someone is who they say they are.

Yeah, he could really be PETA80



we definitely know he is not 'w' though, a few clues give that away

[jchief]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Yeah, he could really be PETA80



we definitely know he is not 'w' though, a few clues give that away

:*****::*****::*****:

:rotfl :

[PaulMyers]

Originally Posted by jchief

NRA80, please don't take this the wrong way, but no one here has no idea who you are. You could be wanting this amendment to pass to make the current law weaker. Unfortunately, this is the internet and it is hard to verify that someone is who they say they are.

Chris (NRA80) is NRA's lobbyist here in Louisiana.

[NRA80]

Originally Posted by jchief

NRA80, please don't take this the wrong way, but no one here has no idea who you are. You could be wanting this amendment to pass to make the current law weaker. Unfortunately, this is the internet and it is hard to verify that someone is who they say they are.

Completely understand. I'm NRA's lobbyist in Louisiana. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to contact me: crager@nrahq.org or 703-282-5296.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by NRA80

Completely understand. I'm NRA's lobbyist in Louisiana. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to contact me: crager@nrahq.org or 703-282-5296.

x2 with what jchief said, have to be on the watchout these days

I will definitely vote yes then if the NRA is lobbying for it

[swamp snorkler]

Originally Posted by NRA80

Completely understand. I'm NRA's lobbyist in Louisiana. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to contact me: crager@nrahq.org or 703-282-5296.

Can you please stop calling me while I'm eating supper? I'll send a donation when I'm ready.

[Spunt Drag]

The language in the 2nd sentence is probably for Martial law purposes. If a city is declared under martial law, you have no more rights as you know it. Not to say I agree with it.

[NRA80]

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag

The language in the 2nd sentence is probably for Martial law purposes. If a city is declared under martial law, you have no more rights as you know it. Not to say I agree with it.

The language in the second sentence essentially protects the first sentence. If you simply left the first sentence by itself, courts could easily say that "fundamental" does not necessarily require a "strict scrutiny" level of review -- meaning they could revert to either the current level -- rational basis (which is zero protection for a fundamental right) -- or intermediate scrutiny (a rights-eroding step below "strict scrutiny). We want to make sure that the fundamental right is giving the strongest protections.

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by NRA80

The language in the second sentence essentially protects the first sentence. If you simply left the first sentence by itself, courts could easily say that "fundamental" does not necessarily require a "strict scrutiny" level of review -- meaning they could revert to either the current level -- rational basis (which is zero protection for a fundamental right) -- or intermediate scrutiny (a rights-eroding step below "strict scrutiny). We want to make sure that the fundamental right is giving the strongest protections.

I don't care for the NRA's constant "gloom and doom" tactics but I do appreciate what they're fighting for. With that being said, their legal team is probably much more in tune with the legal language (bull**** to a construction hand like me) than my 11th grade edjumacation

[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.

[cajun_poboy]

There is a group of (radical) tea party persons out there. I say radical because they take the ultra conservative views of the tea party and distort them and then add a bit of paranoia to it. Anyway, they are convinced that the NRA has a secret agenda to get laws passed that take away our rights as gun owners. That email may have originated from one of them.

[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

[PaulMyers]

Originally Posted by 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

Done! And Liked also.

[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