Louisiana SB303 - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Louisiana SB303

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-14-2012, 01:49 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jasrrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Iota, Louisiana
Posts: 188
Liked 45 Times on 33 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102

If this language is in the Bill I would not support it. This gives the Legislature the power to restrict and regulate as they see fit. More Govt. control, not less!
The exact language of SB 303 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.”
__________________
jasrrt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2012, 03:16 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 238
Liked 51 Times on 32 Posts
Likes Given: 14

Default

Shall not be infringed, but restrictions/infringements are OK as long as we scrutinize them first?

__________________
steve4102 is offline  
USEBOTHHANDS Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2012, 03:56 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dog2000tj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,309
Liked 3737 Times on 1825 Posts
Likes Given: 13270

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasrrt View Post
The exact language of SB 303 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.
That is a contradiction
__________________

Member: NRA GOA

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Est sularas oth mithas

"either way, you were guilty by association, so you were smited...." JD

dog2000tj is offline  
USEBOTHHANDS Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2012, 03:58 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9206 Times on 5058 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Sounds to me like scrutinizing the restrictions AFTER the fact. Like saying, "hey billy Joe, why the hell aren't the people in your district allowed to carry?"

__________________
trip286 is offline  
USEBOTHHANDS Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2012, 04:19 PM   #15
10-32
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mountainman13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,525
Liked 2919 Times on 1718 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasrrt

The exact language of SB 303 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.”
Kind of hard to enforce scrutiny. Reference fast and furious.
__________________

I don't need No stinking signature.

mountainman13 is offline  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2012, 07:56 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9206 Times on 5058 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Again, to me it sounds like they intend to scrutinize the CURRENT limitations and infringements...possibly doing away with many of them.

__________________
trip286 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 02:23 AM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jasrrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Iota, Louisiana
Posts: 188
Liked 45 Times on 33 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

The rep that wrote the bill says tthat under the current law the Louisiana courts have said that any laws restricting the Right to keep and bear arms are subject to only a "rational basis" test to determine if those laws are constitutional. That is the lowest judicial standard and almost every law taking away firearms rights, except perhaps an outright ban on all guns, would be held constitutional.

Thus the new amendment uses constitutional law language of "fundamental" and "strict scrutiny", the highest level of protection of a right. Just like the protection given to our fundamental right of free speech.

This is all according to state senator Neil Riser.

__________________
jasrrt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 02:33 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dog2000tj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,309
Liked 3737 Times on 1825 Posts
Likes Given: 13270

Default

Who are you trying to convince, yourself, or us? I fail to see how the language here,

Quote:
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.
is an improvement of the language here,
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I just don't see how the wording of the language strengthens anyone gun rights if it allows the possibility of restrictions. Again, the wording as is is contradictory to itself.
__________________

Member: NRA GOA

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Est sularas oth mithas

"either way, you were guilty by association, so you were smited...." JD

dog2000tj is offline  
USEBOTHHANDS Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 12:29 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 238
Liked 51 Times on 32 Posts
Likes Given: 14

Default

Not only is it contradictory, it leaves the door open for "interpretation". This is bad language and poorly written. An amendment that can be interpreted many different ways is a bad thing. Just look at what the Left is trying to do with the 2nd Amendment. They would have a field day with this one. I would NOT support this bill with this provision/language.

__________________
steve4102 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:04 AM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
USEBOTHHANDS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ferriday,LA
Posts: 1,332
Liked 650 Times on 368 Posts
Likes Given: 5125

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasrrt View Post
The exact language of SB 303 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.”

who will be the "scrutinizing" jury??? will they perceive ALL restrictions to be "a just scrutinization" or will they perceive any and all restrictions as UNJUST.........."any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny" NEEDS TO BE LEFT OFF, AND I WILL VOTE FOR IT!!! NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS!!!

it's a backdoor law, playing on it's own contradictory wording............VOTE IT DOWN UNLESS THE "STRICT SCRUTINY" IS OMITTED. it's kinda like a double negative............"i won't not shoot you" (meaning....."go ahead and stick yo' head out the door and see.")
__________________

"they may get me in a rush, but not before i turn your head into a canoe....." -Kurt Russell (Wyatt Earp) in Tombstone

"if it was up to me, i'd like to see, this country run,
the way it used to be, the way it oughta be, just like it's done, OUT HERE.........WAY OUT HERE." -Josh Thompson, country music singer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0sYnro_3Rc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3R00rlA0S0&NR=1

PEOPLE TEND TO ACT LIKE SHEEP, BOY I LOVE MUTTON! -Me


Last edited by USEBOTHHANDS; 08-17-2012 at 06:08 AM.
USEBOTHHANDS is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes