The judicial interpretations in Louisiana essentially neuter the state constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Any
statute must have a rational basis but the courts almost always just rubber stamp the legislature's act. For example, you can make a rational argument that banning guns will cut down on crime. The argument is wrong but it is rational. So, I do think a constitutional amendment requiring strict scrutiny would be beneficial.
I live in Kentucky which had, for many years, a model constitutional protection:
All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:. . .
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons
Yet, a few years ago the Ky. Supreme Court said it would review gun laws using the rational basis test in a case that held a convicted felon had no right to own or possess a firearm. They did not have to use the rational basis test to reach that result but they did. I think this is the third time I've railed about that here on this forum but without a response so far. I guess Kentucky is not well represented on the forum. Maybe it just means people don't understand that the rational basis test destroys the constitutional right.