NRA Email Alert -- Vote "YES" on 2!!
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > NRA Email Alert -- Vote "YES" on 2!!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-19-2012, 03:09 AM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 14
Default NRA Email Alert -- Vote "YES" on 2!!

Please share this NRA Email Alert with your family and friends -- spread the word to VOTE "YES" on 2 on Tuesday, November 6th!!

http://nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/9/defend-your-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-in-louisiana%E2%80%93vote-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-on-2!.aspx?s=&st=10482&ps=

Support Your Second Amendment and Vote "YES" on 2!!

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.

The proposed amendment is needed now to restore our gun rights because Louisiana’s current state guarantee is defective. The present Louisiana Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be *abridged,* except that *this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit* carrying a concealed weapon. This wording is so faulty that it leaves open the possibility of regulation by the state of carrying concealed even in one’s own home. Further, the Louisiana Supreme Court has said that the right may be restricted if a majority in the legislature thinks it *reasonable* to do so. When it comes to rights, the standard for restrictions must be higher.

This proposed amendment reinforces Second Amendment rights, which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed (in McDonald v. Chicago) are *fundamental.* Restrictions on fundamental rights (e.g. right to free speech) are normally subject to what the courts call *strict scrutiny* – a standard that ensures the strongest possible protection for the right. In short, gun laws should focus on safeguarding a right and punishing criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of our Second Amendment Rights by a narrow 5 to 4 margin. The four dissenting Justices claimed that individuals have no Second Amendment rights and that the government has the authority to ban guns – just as D.C. and Chicago had. The narrow margin by which our fundamental right was affirmed highlights the precarious situation that could be faced in the future if strong action is not taken now. If just one of the five Supreme Court Justices resigns or dies, the vote could go the other way. Further, courts nationwide have been trying to nullify the rulings, saying that Second Amendment rights are not fundamental, and that even if they are, restrictions are not subject to strict scrutiny, but instead are subject only to *intermediate scrutiny* or other tests where the right is *balanced* away. As a fully recognized fundamental right, the Second Amendment should receive protection as such.

Gun bans and harassment of gun owners routinely occur in places like New York City, New Jersey, and California. Do not think it can’t happen here. Remember in the wake of Hurricane Katrina when the New Orleans police declared that *no one will able to be armed, we will take all weapons* and launched an effort to confiscate guns from citizens in their own homes and businesses, leaving them at the mercy of criminals and looters? Despite a lawsuit, most victims never got their guns back. Nothing like that should ever happen again in Louisiana.

This proposed amendment will protect future generations from any legislative power grabs and rubber stamping by future courts that would erode and undermine our rights. Its language is historic, and it will send a message nationwide that Louisiana stands in the forefront of states that will not tolerate infringements on our fundamental right to keep and bear arms.



Frequently Asked Questions

What is strict scrutiny?

1.) Strict scrutiny is the highest level of protection for a constitutional right.

2.) This level of protection is reserved for rights that are deemed *fundamental* (e.g. free speech and right to vote).

3.) For decades, anti-gun judges and lawyers have fought tirelessly against application of *strict scrutiny* to our fundamental Second Amendment rights.

Why is strict scrutiny used as the level of review?

1.) Louisiana’s current right to keep and bear arms provision is deemed to only deserve a *rational basis* or lowest standard of review – virtually any rights-infringing law can pass this level of review.

2.) Because the proposed amendment will protect a fundamental right and will expressly acknowledge the right as *fundamental,* it naturally follows that the protected right requires the highest level of protection.


Why is Louisiana’s current right to keep and bear arms amendment inadequate?

1.) Because the Louisiana courts have determined that the current right to arms provision deserves the lowest level of review, the provision provides less protection than the Second Amendment itself, rendering Louisiana's constitutional provision meaningless under Heller and McDonald.

2.) According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, "The State of Louisiana is entitled to restrict that right for legitimate state purposes, such as public health and safety. "State v. Blanchard, 776 So.2d 1165, 1168 (La. 2001).

3.) Almost any restriction is upheld by the courts under the *rational basis* standard.

4.) The Louisiana Constitution also expressly allows a future legislature to impose a ban on the carrying of weapons concealed on the person – even in one’s home or on one’s own property.


Will this protect Louisianans Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

1.) Yes. Louisiana is on the verge of passing a historic level of protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

2.) Ironically, the effort is now being opposed by a misinformed few who mistakenly believe the proposed amendment allows for more, not less, gun control.

3.) Make no mistake, the amendment would not only strengthen Louisiana’s current constitutional right to arms, it would provide the strongest protection of the right to keep and bear arms of any jurisdiction in the United States.

4.) Simply put, it is the highest standard of constitutional review available in the United States. Those who believe in the strongest possible protection for the right to arms should enthusiastically vote *Yes* in November.


How to Get Involved

1. Visit our "YES on 2" website at www.nraila.org/YESon2 for more information.

2. Become a "Fan" or *Like" "Vote YES on 2" (www.facebook.com/voteyeson2) on Facebook and encourage all your friends to do the same.

3.) Show your support by displaying a bumper sticker or yard sign. Please contact us at: ila-contact@nrahq.org or 1-800-392-VOTE (8683) to get your bumper stickers and yard signs TODAY!!

4.) Write a letter to the editor for your local daily or weekly newspaper.

5.) Contact us for bumper stickers, yard signs, or brochures for your local community, gun shop, shooting range, hunting club, hunting store, or gun show.

6.) Please encourage your friends, family, fellow gun owners, and hunters to join you in voting "YES on 2" on Tuesday, November 6, 2012.

7.) Contact NRA-ILA Grassroots to find out more ways to become involved! You can also call us at 1-800-392-VOTE (8683)

__________________

Last edited by NRA80; 09-19-2012 at 04:01 AM.
NRA80 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 09-19-2012, 03:12 AM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
PrimePorkchop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Urbana,Illinois
Posts: 1,748
Liked 991 Times on 499 Posts
Likes Given: 2547

Default

Can you post the link to the nraila? It got cut off

__________________
VICTORY IS OURS
Because of members of THIS FORUM - Bass Pro Shops have reversed their anti-2nd Amendment policies on ammunition sales in the State of Illinois
PrimePorkchop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 03:56 AM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 238
Liked 51 Times on 32 Posts
Likes Given: 14

Default

I still want to know why the language regarding "restrictions". Your explanation is unclear and vague.

"Any Restrictions shall be scrutinized" is bad language and open for interpretation.

If the Bill is as good as you say it is with your long winded post, why not just eliminate the "restriction" language, or simply right any and all restrictions will be unenforceable and in Violation of this Amendment.

"Scrutinized" has no business in a Constitutional Amendment.

I would still like to know, WHO is to do this "scrutinizing"? The courts, the same courts that are over run with left wing activists. The same ones that have filed injunctions on every attempt to show voter ID, etc.etc.etc.

Your Bill needs work and as it is written will do just the opposite as it was intended.

__________________
steve4102 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 04:11 AM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
I still want to know why the language regarding "restrictions". Your explanation is unclear and vague.

"Any Restrictions shall be scrutinized" is bad language and open for interpretation.

If the Bill is as good as you say it is with your long winded post, why not just eliminate the "restriction" language, or simply right any and all restrictions will be unenforceable and in Violation of this Amendment.

"Scrutinized" has no business in a Constitutional Amendment.

I would still like to know, WHO is to do this "scrutinizing"? The courts, the same courts that are over run with left wing activists. The same ones that have filed injunctions on every attempt to show voter ID, etc.etc.etc.

Your Bill needs work and as it is written will do just the opposite as it was intended.
Let me try and be briefer. Your current amendment is "scrutinized" under the lowest level of review -- rational basis. So, if I understand correctly, you are disagreeing with raising the protections for Louisianans fundamental right to arms from the lowest possible protection to the HIGHEST possible protection?

Yes, the courts determine whether or not laws are constitutional. By requiring "strict scrutiny," you are providing the same levels of protection to the right to arms as are provided for free speech and the right to vote.

If you left the level of review out of the amendment language, you face the same problem you have now at the State and Federal level -- courts saying the right to arms does not deserve the highest level of protection (strict scrutiny).

Is this helpful?
__________________
NRA80 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 04:21 AM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 14
Default

A reader brought this to my attention too:

The following anti-gun website did a write up on NRA's proposed amendment:

http://smartgunlaws.org/tag/louisiana/

Extremism in Action: Legislation Enacted in Louisiana Proposing Radical Amendment to State Constitution

Despite having more per capita gun deaths than any other state in 2009, Louisiana lawmakers have proposed amending the state constitution to provide the most extreme state right to bear arms provision in the country. If voters approve the proposed amendment in November, the state constitution will require any regulation of firearms to meet the highest possible judicial standard—strict scrutiny. The United States Supreme Court does not require this standard, nor do any of the 44 states that provide a right to bear arms.

__________________
NRA80 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 04:49 AM   #6
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

the point is, "strict scrutiny" IS STILL backdoor, legal terminology allowing for the ability of a legislator to make a case AGAINST my state citizens' to keep and bear arms!

WHATEVER THIS LAW DOES NOT MEAN, IS IRRELEVANT!!!

Amendment II
"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."

the wording WAS contemplated by the founding FATHERS, and IS worded as such, so as NOT EVER TO BE MISCONSTRUED TO MEAN SOMETHING "OTHER" THAN THAT!

"the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

IT CANNOT GET ANY MORE PLAIN, CLEAR, OR DEFINED!

lawyer speak is with a forked tongue, only to make political or monetary gain.

__________________

"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

USEBOTHHANDS is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 05:03 AM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USEBOTHHANDS View Post
the point is, "strict scrutiny" IS STILL backdoor, legal terminology allowing for the ability of a legislator to make a case AGAINST my state citizens' to keep and bear arms!

WHATEVER THIS LAW DOES NOT MEAN, IS IRRELEVANT!!!

Amendment II
"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."

the wording WAS contemplated by the founding FATHERS, and IS worded as such, so as NOT EVER TO BE MISCONSTRUED TO MEAN SOMETHING "OTHER" THAN THAT!

"the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

IT CANNOT GET ANY MORE PLAIN, CLEAR, OR DEFINED!

lawyer speak is with a forked tongue, only to make political or monetary gain.
We don't disagree on how the language should be interpreted. Unfortunately, because the courts do not interpret the fundamental right worthy of "strict scrutiny" -- the proposed provision *requires* this level of review.

I would encourage you do to some research on "fundamental rights" and "strict scrutiny."
__________________
NRA80 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 05:03 AM   #8
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21582 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alesha00 View Post
While this subject can be very touchy for most people, my opinion is that there has to be a middle or common ground that we all can find.
landlord attorneys in nyc
I do appreciate that youve added relevant and intelligent commentary here though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by USEBOTHHANDS View Post
the point is, "strict scrutiny" IS STILL backdoor, legal terminology allowing for the ability of a legislator to make a case AGAINST my state citizens' to keep and bear arms!

WHATEVER THIS LAW DOES NOT MEAN, IS IRRELEVANT!!!

Amendment II
"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."

the wording WAS contemplated by the founding FATHERS, and IS worded as such, so as NOT EVER TO BE MISCONSTRUED TO MEAN SOMETHING "OTHER" THAN THAT!

"the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

IT CANNOT GET ANY MORE PLAIN, CLEAR, OR DEFINED!

lawyer speak is with a forked tongue, only to make political or monetary gain.
Alesha, i think the 2nd amendment is very clear. there isn't any middle or common ground that we can all find. USEBOTHHANDS wrote out the 2nd amendment for you. please read it. what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is so hard for people like you to understand?

you either support the 2nd amendment in it's entirety or you don't. there is no common or middle ground in regards to our gun rights. IMO, if you don't support the 2nd amendment in the way it's written and want to find some middle ground that appeases the anti gunners, then i see people like you as much a danger to our gun rights as the anti gun liberals.

NRA80, your proposed amendment is way too complicated and leaves the door wide open to interpretation, that could possibly derail it and have the exact opposite effect. the 2nd amendment is very simple and clear and also to the point that anyone with the least bit of common sense can understand. IMO, you're trying to reinvent the wheel, don't it already works just fine the way it is.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 05:09 AM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 14
Default

The wheel is broken in Louisiana:

Why is Louisiana’s current right to keep and bear arms amendment inadequate?

1.) Because the Louisiana courts have determined that the current right to arms provision deserves the lowest level of review, the provision provides less protection than the Second Amendment itself, rendering Louisiana's constitutional provision meaningless under Heller and McDonald.

2.) According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, "The State of Louisiana is entitled to restrict that right for legitimate state purposes, such as public health and safety. "State v. Blanchard, 776 So.2d 1165, 1168 (La. 2001).

3.) Almost any restriction is upheld by the courts under the *rational basis* standard.

4.) The Louisiana Constitution also expressly allows a future legislature to impose a ban on the carrying of weapons concealed on the person – even in one’s home or on one’s own property.

__________________
NRA80 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 05:14 AM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55 View Post
Alesha, i think the 2nd amendment is very clear. there isn't any middle or common ground that we can all find. USEBOTHHANDS wrote out the 2nd amendment for you. please read it. what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is so hard for people like you to understand?

you either support the 2nd amendment in it's entirety or you don't. there is no common or middle ground in regards to our gun rights. IMO, if you don't support the 2nd amendment in the way it's written and want to find some middle ground that appeases the anti gunners, then i see people like you as much a danger to our gun rights as the anti gun liberals.

NRA80, your proposed amendment is way too complicated and leaves the door wide open to interpretation, that could possibly derail it and have the exact opposite effect. the 2nd amendment is very simple and clear and also to the point that anyone with the least bit of common sense can understand. IMO, you're trying to reinvent the wheel, don't it already works just fine the way it is.
To the above poster, the wheel is broken. There is no reinvention with the proposed amendment. NRA and pro-gun attorneys across the nation have worked tirelessly to have courts recognize both state and federal right to arms under "strict scrutiny."

Why is Louisiana’s current right to keep and bear arms amendment inadequate?

1.) Because the Louisiana courts have determined that the current right to arms provision deserves the lowest level of review, the provision provides less protection than the Second Amendment itself, rendering Louisiana's constitutional provision meaningless under Heller and McDonald.

2.) According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, "The State of Louisiana is entitled to restrict that right for legitimate state purposes, such as public health and safety. "State v. Blanchard, 776 So.2d 1165, 1168 (La. 2001).

3.) Almost any restriction is upheld by the courts under the *rational basis* standard.

4.) The Louisiana Constitution also expressly allows a future legislature to impose a ban on the carrying of weapons concealed on the person – even in one’s home or on one’s own property.


Will this protect Louisianans Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

1.) Yes. Louisiana is on the verge of passing a historic level of protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

2.) Ironically, the effort is now being opposed by a misinformed few who mistakenly believe the proposed amendment allows for more, not less, gun control.

3.) Make no mistake, the amendment would not only strengthen Louisiana’s current constitutional right to arms, it would provide the strongest protection of the right to keep and bear arms of any jurisdiction in the United States.

4.) Simply put, it is the highest standard of constitutional review available in the United States. Those who believe in the strongest possible protection for the right to arms should enthusiastically vote *Yes* in November.
__________________
NRA80 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Should "Assault Weapons" Be Banned (Vote) 10P8TRIOT Legal and Activism 24 08-07-2012 03:27 AM
VOTE! Is books on CD just as good as "reading" DodgerBlue The Club House 18 03-15-2012 10:47 AM
Old Revolver - "Revolvers Dreadnought" - "Azul" - Anyone familiar? stelliott80 Revolver Handguns 3 07-13-2011 10:52 PM
A "what if" vote idea skullcrusher The Club House 9 01-27-2009 10:54 AM
Witloe Remington 1858 New Model Army "Lee" & "Grant" bprevolver Blackpowder & Musket 0 09-25-2008 11:11 PM