Arms Race(LA)(Constitutional Amendment)

When it comes to the Second Amendment, Louisiana legislators are bringing out the biggest legal guns they can find.

For Pelican State voters, Amendment II on the Nov. 6 Ballot asks voters if they want to change the phrasing of the “Right to Bear Arms,” as it is defined in Louisiana's State Constitution.

Proponents of the measure say it will make Louisiana's defense of the Second Amendment the best in the nation. However, opponents are concerned that the new strict scrutiny measures could make it more difficult to limit gun trade, transfer or impose restrictions on concealed weapons at various venues in the future.

The original language of the State provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms (which falls under Article I, Sec. 11 or the Constitution of the State of Louisiana) reads:

“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.”

And the phrasing has remained that way since the current Constitution was enacted back in 1974. Changes to the current law were originally proposed in Senate Bill No. 303, which was introduced by Sen. Neil Riser (R-District 32). If it had been enacted as-is, the bill would have changed that original phrasing to the following:

“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 Louisiana courts have applied the "rational basis" test to determine if gun laws violate the states current amendment. It is a very low standard. All the legislature has to show to keep a law constitutional, is that they have some rational basis for passing the law. I suppose a law has been ruled unconstitutional under this standard, somewhere, at sometime. I do not recall hearing of it.

The original statement is excellent and free of “legalease.” There is absolutely no doubt what the passage tells one.

The changed version is designed to be muddy and vague:

“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.”

What’s the difference? Well, one hell of a lot!

The first statement is clear as a bell and fully understandable by all who read it. It clearly identifies what you can do with your firearms, where you can carry them and the fact that you are not restricted in carrying them on your person. Once again, no interpreting is required.

The second statement only tells you that you can keep and bear arms and nothing more. Where do you keep it? In the closet at home only? What is “bear arms” mean? That you can pick it up and walk around inside your home only? The phrase “bear arms” means to pick up a weapon only...nothing more and if you apply the “keep” phrase, it means only in the house.

All that I can say is the people in crawdad country have been screwed by the people they voted into office.

The first statement is clear as a bell and fully understandable by all who read it.

True, but it'd be nice if it went a little further: "Any agent of government who seeks to disarm law-abiding citizens, but does not offer up a reasonable basis for believing that they have been or are in the process of committing a crime, should be regarded as a robber and treated as such; government agents may require that people not carry weapons in certain public buildings or other such places, but only if

full-time security personnel are always present in such places while they are occupied;
people who arrive with weapons at such places are allowed to tender them for safekeeping and get them back when they leave;
in the event that such a place is on what would clearly be the most reasonable path between places where a person would be allowed to be armed, a person who needs to go through the building could check his weapon at the entrance and direct that it be delivered to the exit and returned to him there.

The latter bit is perhaps overly verbose, but there's a difference between saying that people who enter certain secure facilities must accede security to the people in charge, versus impairing people's ability to arm themselves when they are not in secure facilities.

he original statement is excellent and free of “legalease.” There is absolutely no doubt what the passage tells one.

Agreed:
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.”

If I were the one proposing an amendment it would be the addition of this sentence:
No government agent, official, office, or judge shall be acting in legitimate authority who deprives a citizen of this right: therefore, no legal immunity whatsoever shall be available to any agent, official, office, or judge who does so.

Or something similar.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.