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

[NRA80]

All,

NRA would like to ask for your support on Tuesday, November 6th by voting "YES" on 2. The proposed amendment is the strongest constitutional protections for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ever brought to the voters. The following is a brief overview:


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 D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) are “fundamental.” Restrictions on fundamental rights are subject to what courts call “strict scrutiny” – meaning that laws may not infringe on the core right, and that regulations must be narrow. 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 the right. 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.


Also, please "LIKE" NRA's "YES on 2" Facebook page: www.facebook.com/voteyeson2

[Top Dawg]

Sounds to me like theres a loophole. Says if restrictions were placed they would go under strict scrutiny. That mean they can place restrictions and we all know they don't care about scrutiny. Why not leave it like it is? That second sentence shouldn't even be in there.

[Feesherman]

Vote NO!

[NRA80]

In response to the above two posters, I respectfully disagree and here's why:

The proposed amendment reads: “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.”

Critics have claimed that it is “wildly false” to say that the Louisiana Supreme Court “eviscerated” the right to bear arms in the case of State v. Blanchard, 776 So.2d 1165 (La. 2001). Yet the court in that case held that the right to bear arms may be restricted “for legitimate state purposes,” and applied a standard of “reasonableness” and “rational basis” for restrictions. Id. at 1168, 1173. Like Justice Scalia wrote, that low standard applies to activities that are not even constitutional rights. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 629 n.27 (2008). Almost any restriction is upheld by the courts under the “rational basis” standard.

The court in Blanchard upheld a law prohibiting gun possession by a person convicted of possession of a small amount of marijuana. (Cocaine was also seized, but he was not convicted of that offense.) The court could have held simply that such a person forfeits his right to have arms. Instead, the court held that the “rational basis” test applies to the right generally, meaning that it would also apply to restrictions against law-abiding citizens. This misguided approach would mean that virtually any gun ban or restriction would be upheld.

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). Similarly, Prof. Adam Winkler, who filed a brief in Heller supporting D.C.’s handgun ban, cited Blanchard 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).

The proposed amendment would rectify this by declaring that the right is “fundamental” and that “any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” 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.

Indeed, critics object to removing from the current arms guarantee the clause that “this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.” That would allow the legislature not only to repeal the permit system, but also to ban carrying concealed weapons even in one’s home or place of business, where the right to self defense is most acute. “If the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for security is to mean anything, it must . . . permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within these premises.” State v. Hamdan, 2003 Wis. 113, 665 N.W.2d 785, 808 (2003).

Critics claim that under the current provision, NO restrictions are allowed other than on concealed weapons. They seem oblivious to the fact that Louisiana law bans the possession of firearms at schools, churches, police stations, and other places, subject to certain exceptions. They simply ignore 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, as critics claim, “it prohibits all types of gun control,” except carrying concealed weapons on the person?

Outright bans on ordinary firearms and onerous registration requirements for other firearms have been upheld by courts on the basis that the right is not “fundamental” and that the “strict scrutiny” test does not apply. Declaring the right to be fundamental and that restrictions must pass strict scrutiny greatly narrows judicial power to uphold restrictions, rather than expands such power, as critics assert. Why else would anti-gun courts reject application of strict scrutiny?

[GIBob]

Before you vote please read the amendment. It should strenghten our right to own and bear arms. I'm going yes on this one.

1 A JOINT RESOLUTION
2 Proposing to amend Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Louisiana, relative to the
3 right to keep and bear arms; to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a
4 fundamental right; to provide for a strict scrutiny standard of review by the court;
5 and to specify an election for submission of the proposition to electors and provide
6 a ballot proposition.
7 Section 1. Be it resolved by the Legislature of Louisiana, two-thirds of the members
8 elected to each house concurring, that there shall be submitted to the electors of the state, for
9 their approval or rejection in the manner provided by law, a proposal to amend Article I,
10 Section 11 of the Constitution of Louisiana, to read as follows:
11 §11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12 Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental

13

and shall not be abridged infringed. but this provision shall not prevent the passage

14 of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Any
15

restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

16 Section 2. Be it further resolved that this proposed amendment shall be submitted
17 to the electors of the state of Louisiana at the statewide election to be held on November 6,
18 2012.

19Section 3. Be it further resolved that on the official ballot to be used at said election

20 there shall be printed a proposition, upon which the electors of the state shall be permitted

[SIZE=6][SIZE=6]

[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]

1 to vote YES or NO, to amend the Constitution of Louisiana, which proposition shall read as

2 follows:
3 Do you support an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Louisiana
4 to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any

5 restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court?

[SIZE=6] [/SIZE]

ACT No. 874
SB NO. 303 ENROLLED
Page 2 of 2
Coding: Words which are itilacized are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions

[swamp snorkler]

TL,DR;

all them long a$$ words, speak in laymens terms......

[NRA80]

Simply, put: The proposed amendment will protect future generations from any legislative power grabs and rubber stamping by future courts that would disrespect the right. 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.

It is 100% supported by the NRA.

[GIBob]

This is the way I see it.

The law now.

Article I Section 11 of the Constitution of Louisiana:
§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

The amended law.

Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Louisiana, to read as follows:
§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamentaland shall not be infringed. Anyrestriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

[Top Dawg]

Take that second sentence out and I'll vote yes

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by GIBob

The amended law.

Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Louisiana, to read as follows:
§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamentaland shall not be infringed. Anyrestriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Why not stop with the first sentence? That is the be all, end all. The second sentence invites restrictions and with liberals taking over the bench that scares me.

[GIBob]

I'm not a lawyer, but this is why it is there.

Declaring the right to be fundamental and that restrictions must pass strict scrutiny greatly narrows judicial power to uphold restrictions, rather than expands such power, as critics assert. Why else would anti-gun courts reject application of strict scrutiny?

[cajun_poboy]

So... some of you are ok with the current legislation whereas the State of Louisiana can prohibit the carrying or even possession of firearms as they see fit without having to justify their reasoning???

[SULPHITE]

Declaring the right to be fundamental and that restrictions must pass strict scrutiny greatly narrows judicial power to uphold restrictions, rather than expands such power, as critics assert. Why else would anti-gun courts reject application of strict scrutiny

Possibly this is the only thing that will pass??

[SULPHITE]

Originally Posted by cajun_poboy

So... some of you are ok with the current legislation whereas the State of Louisiana can prohibit the carrying or even possession of firearms as they see fit without having to justify their reasoning???

I agree anything is better than that....

[Spunt Drag]

If they take my guns away, I'll just join a Mexican cartel. Eric Holder give you all the guns you want.

[jchief]

'Strict Scrutiny' Could Strike Down Gun Laws
Legislature wrangles with NRA-backed amendment

  Louisiana last week moved one step closer to tweaking gun owners' rights in its constitution. Earlier this month, members of the state House Committee on Criminal Justice engaged in a heated debate over a controversial bill that would amend the state constitution to make "denial, infringement, or restriction" of the Second Amendment right to "acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and property" subject to "strict scrutiny" in the courts. If approved by voters, the highest standard of judicial review and the strongest legal protection typically reserved for fundamental human rights would apply to gun ownership.

  The bill passed through that committee by a 9-5 vote. Last Thursday, May 24, Sen. Neil Riser's Senate Bill 303 passed in the full House by a 77-22 vote. It now goes back to the Senate for final concurrence in House amendments before appearing on the statewide ballot in November.

  Riser argued that the bill, which is backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gov. Bobby Jindal, would make Louisiana's Second Amendment rights "the strongest in the nation." Its opponents, however, fear the bill will open the door to litigation that could declare the state's 80-plus gun laws unconstitutional. Under a "strict scrutiny" standard, the government must prove a "compelling state interest" to restrict the right to bear arms. That means already designated "gun-free" zones, like schools and churches, would potentially be targets of litigation.

  Currently the state allows for the passage of laws to prohibit concealed weapons in certain places. Riser's bill removes that language. The Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL), a good-government watchdog, rallied against the bill, as did statewide district attorneys, including Orleans Parish D.A. Leon Cannizzaro.

  At last week's vote, State Rep. Terry Landry, a former head of the Louisiana State Police, said, "This is about an NRA agenda" that "uses Louisiana and its citizens, its legislature and legislators as a pawn in a bigger scheme." He added that there has "been no conversation" about the threat to the right to bear arms in the state until the bill's introduction.

  "Where now is there a prohibition and restriction that you don't want?" Landry asked. A similar round of questions were aimed at Riser in committee hearings and met with similarly vague answers about preserving gun rights under future legislative bodies.

  The House also struck down a provision that gives the Legislature explicit authority to limit concealed handguns. — Alex Woodward

Link to article

http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gamb...nt?oid=2013101

[jchief]

Louisiana: Constitutional amendment up for committee debate would require courts use “strict scrutiny” when it comes to firearms cases
April 2nd, 2012 by Bill Raftery Leave a reply »
Those familiar with U.S. Supreme Court decisions will find the phrase “strict scrutiny” familiar. In short, strict scrutiny requires the court to examine any law or governmental act and determine

it meets a compelling governmental interest
it is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, and
it is the least restrictive means for achieving that interest
The concept and language is one derived and devised by the courts: a review of existing state statutes and constitutions finds the phrase seems to appear in only 3 places*:

Florida Stat. § 163.3215 (Regarding land use, “The standard of review applied by the special master in determining whether a proposed development order is consistent with the comprehensive plan shall be strict scrutiny in accordance with Florida law.”)
Louisiana R.S. 12:130.1 (Regarding shareholder’s rights, “Any transaction that is executed during the safeguard period which involves the assets of a safeguarded entity shall be subject to judicial review under the standard of strict scrutiny.”)
New Hampshire RSA 676:4 (“Jurisdiction of the courts to review procedural aspects of planning board decisions and actions shall be limited to consideration of compliance with applicable provisions of the constitution, statutes and regulations. The procedural requirements specified in this section are intended to provide fair and reasonable treatment for all parties and persons. The planning board’s procedures shall not be subjected to strict scrutiny for technical compliance.”)
*Update 4/2/12 5:56 – While “strict scrutiny” appears only in 3 statutes, a reader notes that the concept exists in various state laws. My point with the above was to note the lack of usage of the phrase. I’ve bolded to make my point clearer.

Louisiana may, however, add a fourth reference to strict scrutiny if its voters approve SB 303, a constitutional amendment which would modify the state’s version of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The provision currently reads:

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.
SB 303 would change it to:

§11. Right to Acquire, Keep, Possess, Transport, Carry, Transfer, and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.
The amendment is set for a hearing tomorrow (April 3) before Louisiana Senate’s Judiciary C Committee.

Link
http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2012/04/...irearms-cases/

[jchief]

Do the research your self. A simple Google search of:

Louisiana "strict scrutiny"

[Duck Butter]

I don't see anything 'broke' with the original, and feel like I have plenty of rights in Louisiana as far as guns go.

I hate all this legal jargon, it is all in how you interpret the wording. Most of us on here would be FOR anything that dealt with keeping the right to bear arms, but we can all read that new bill and come up with 100 different interpretations. I am just not going to vote on it. Who knows the Senate may not pass it anyways, or may table it until next go around. I am pulling one lever for sure in November though and that is to 'change' someone in Washington

[SULPHITE]

Lawyers have ****ed this country up...be we have to have'm...