New Orleans judge rules statute forbidding felons from having firearms unconstitutional after

http://www.nola.com ^ | March 21, 2013 | Claire Galofaro

[BBell]

An Orleans Parish judge on Thursday ruled that the state statute forbidding certain felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, in the wake of a constitutional amendment passed last year that made the right to bear arms a fundamental one in Louisiana. The issue will now go straight to the state Supreme Court, which must decide whether the statute infringes on Louisiana citizens' now-enhanced right to gun possession.

Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge Darryl Derbigny on Thursday dismissed the charge against one felon, but took his decision a step further than another judge faced with a similar decision earlier this month.

Derbigny deemed that the entire statute -- RS 14:95.1 -- was unconstitutional after voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association. That bill made gun ownership a fundamental right, on the same level as freedom of speech or religion.

A court interpreting any law restricting a fundamental right -- as gun ownership is now considered -- must approach it with "strict scrutiny," the highest level of judicial scrutiny.

Before Jan. 1, questions of gun rights were considered with "rational scrutiny," which allowed regulations to "protect the public health, safety, morals or general welfare." But strict scrutiny requires that the law is, first, necessary for a "compelling government interest." Then, it must be so narrowly defined as to serve only that interest and, third, be the least restrictive way of doing so.

The Orleans Parish public defenders office challenged the constitutionality of the statute on behalf of a half-dozen clients, all charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The attorneys concede that public safety is a compelling interest to bar violent offenders, like murderers or armed robbers, from possessing weapons. But the law also bars people convicted of a number

[cripplecreek]

In my case I was so close to the legal limit that it couldn’t be determined by field sobriety tests. Even after a blood test they never really proved guilt.

After 9 months of showing up for court every 3 weeks so they could inform me that the test results hadn’t come in I said screw it. Basically they got me on a 2nd charge stemming from an unproven 1st charge.

I was a kid then and should have paid an attorney to come into the courtroom to tell the judge to toss the charge.

[elkfersupper]

Woulda', shoulda' coulda'

Don't say anything or do any stupid human tricks on the side of the road. Also, do not consent to any breath or blood tests without a warrant.

The same principles apply if the enemy shows up at your house or your vehicle for any other reason(s).

Apparently, you learned all of that the hard way.

Hope it all works out.

[Graybeard58]

I'm a felon who committed the horrifying crime of failing to appear for court on a drunk driving arrest better than 20 years ago. There's no telling what I might do if I had a weapon.

I'm a felon whose felony was carrying a gun in Illinois.