|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 31, 2012, 09:26 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
Louisiana constitutional amendment
Thought this was worth some discussion as it seems Louisiana will be the first to add this language. Beyond making the language tougher I am not sure what else it safeguards against.
Proposed improvements to Article 1, Section 11 of the Louisiana Constitution, known as the 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 Amendment 2 is accepted by the voters on November 6, Louisiana will have the strongest guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the nation. http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...”-on-2!.aspx |
October 31, 2012, 09:38 AM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Strict Scrutiny is a BIG deal. It severely limits the governments ability to restrict a fundamental right. It is the standard for fundamental rights. Explicitly including that phrase firmly place the RKBA in the category of Fundamental Right.
Words like "infringed" have ambiguous meaning. Strict Scrutiny places a very high standard of compelling reason and minimal interference on any "infringement". |
October 31, 2012, 11:16 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
State laws won't trump federal laws however. In Louisiana's case, thats the real risk.
|
October 31, 2012, 12:14 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 8,638
|
Hello zincwarrior,,,
Quote:
Nor do I believe that was their intent. From what I have read it is Louisiana's way to ensure that their local municipalities can't enact laws stronger than what the State has in effect. Aarond .
__________________
Never ever give an enemy the advantage of a verbal threat. Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once. Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it? Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time) |
|
October 31, 2012, 12:29 PM | #5 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I think it goes even beyond that, Aarond.
The requirements of Strict Scrutiny would apply to the state levels laws. I'm no lawyer, but to my understanding the very act of expressly applying Strict Scrutiny to firearms laws very nearly makes a Protected Class out of guns owners. Strict Scrutiny gives the government the burden of proof. The necessity of the law. Any law is essentially PRESUMED to be invalid until proven otherwise. The government has to prove a compelling public interest. Even if the government proves the necessity of the law, it is still essentially considered a burden on a fundamental right and the law must be tailored so as to be as absolutely narrow as possible, to limit the burden to the least possible level necessary to accomplish the compelling interest. Scrict Scrutiny is not applied to any "normal" laws. It is reserved to issues of fundamental rights and protected classes. It puts the RKBA on the same level as the right to vote, free press and religion.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
October 31, 2012, 03:43 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 206
|
I have to wonder how this will work out. The legislature is crossing boundaries with this. It's unusual to see legislators place the standard for review in the law using terms of the Supreme Court's own creation. A determination of what constitutes a fundamental right is usually the court's jurisprudence. I have to ponder whether or not a court might simply ignore that portion of the law that tells them how to review it. Then again, things in Louisiana are different (French civil law and all that) so it might work. Who knows.
__________________
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh |
October 31, 2012, 03:55 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Absent being a violation of the state's own constitutional or federal law, their court system can't ignore it legally. In reality courts are known for doing what they want though.
|
October 31, 2012, 05:23 PM | #8 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Being that it's a constitutional amendment, it would difficult for it to be unconstitutional. It is possible but I believe it would have to be found to have either been created/passed inappropriately or be itself a violation of some other protected class type law.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
October 31, 2012, 05:32 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 206
|
I guess the bigger concern is whether or not the legislature defined strict scrutiny in the amendment or the constitution. If not, what happens when the SCOTUS changes their definition of strict scrutiny?
__________________
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh |
November 1, 2012, 04:39 PM | #10 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
It doesn't use the word "preempt," and it doesn't say anything about localities not enacting firearms laws/ordinances. So it can't stop a municipality or parish (what Louisiana uses for counties) from enacting a law that goes beyond what the state has in place. |
|
November 1, 2012, 06:45 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 917
|
Im glad to see what happened before will not happen again, at least not there. Hopefully never anywhere else in our country, but i doubt it.
|
November 1, 2012, 06:46 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
But it would make it extremely hard to hold-up in court from a lawsuit.
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
November 1, 2012, 08:15 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/...nists/8121.txt
Another prof prefers to fight for his life by IPAD frisbee-fu. Bah.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
November 1, 2012, 09:28 PM | #14 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
If so, the barn door's open.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
November 1, 2012, 10:44 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 23, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 423
|
Illinois next please...
|
November 6, 2012, 02:33 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
I will let you all know the results of this as it comes in.
|
November 6, 2012, 11:02 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
Looks like it will pass with over 70% in favor.
|
November 7, 2012, 10:17 AM | #18 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The LA ballot measure to strengthen the States 2A right, has passed: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.s...incart_m-rpt-2
There is at least some good news in the results of this election cycle! |
November 7, 2012, 02:53 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,118
|
That is truly great news. Hopefully other states will follow suit.
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. |
November 7, 2012, 03:46 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I have deleted extreme profanity. I caution anyone else from such.
GEM
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
November 7, 2012, 09:44 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,169
|
Wonderful news! Will Texas be next?....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0...... |
November 8, 2012, 10:54 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 421
|
Most state constitutions already guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms, some even copying the Second Amendment verbatim (so much for it being for States to arm militias.) Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution of the State of Utah states: "The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms." I think we've got Louisiana beat, and for over twenty years now...
|
November 9, 2012, 11:05 AM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Although the Dayne Sherman article in the Hammond Star is arguably anti-RKBA, IMHO it does correctly point out one prominent fact about LA Amendment 2- to a large degree, it theoretically takes away the ability of the legislature to pass gun control laws by handing broad authority to the courts. One fact to remember about the TX legislature is that they have historically always guarded their power very jealously; that's why we have popularly elected judges and a relatively toothless governor. As I understand it, the only way the TX Constitution can be amended is if the amendment originates in the legislature. IMHO it's highly unlikely that the legislature will voluntarily hand over this much power to the courts, regardless of how many brownie points they will earn with pro-RKBA voters by doing it.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; November 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM. Reason: Minor reword... |
|
November 10, 2012, 04:15 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 1,399
|
Quote:
Louisiana's 2nd amendment used to be: "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person." It now is: “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.” Utah was behind for over 20 years even under the old version, and is even further back now! |
|
November 10, 2012, 06:52 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 421
|
"Good luck with allowing your legislature to define "the lawful use of arms". Better hope that enough Diane Feinstein type Californians don't move there to take advantage of it."
Don't think that will be a problem. We're talking about the same people that made the 1911 pistol the official state firearm for its 100th birthday. This past summer it was so dry here there were numerous wild fires started by people target shooting on public lands. They still wouldn't put a moratorium on shooting on public lands though. About the only things they restrict here is shooting across the highway and shooting while intoxicated. Utahans love their guns so much even the Democrats here are pro-gun. I actually wouldn't mind just enough Diane Feinstein types moving here to get them to change the liquor laws though. |
|
|