[jasrrt]

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.”

[steve4102]

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

[dog2000tj]

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.

That is a contradiction

[trip286]

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?"

[mountainman13]

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.

[trip286]

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

[jasrrt]

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.

[dog2000tj]

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

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,

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.

[steve4102]

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.

[USEBOTHHANDS]

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.”

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.")