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, 06:45 PM   #21
Dispossessed Mechwarrior.
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TDS92A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern Alabama or Northern Florida, the jury is still out.
Posts: 1,938
Liked 1338 Times on 791 Posts
Likes Given: 3322

Default

Okay, so I read between the lines. Perhaps when the change to Louisiana's Constitution is approved by the people of Louisiana you can post a copy so that I and other Floridians can send to our State Reps.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DZelenka View Post
You mean other than the blatant infringements on your right to keep and bear arms? Specifically, it only protects arms borne for the purpose of self defense or defense of the state, not hunting, competition, plinking, etc. It also specifically carves out for the legislature the regulation of concealed carry. Remember that such a carve out would allow a future legislature to ban concealed carry. Finally, it provides for a 3 day waiting period to exercise a constitutional right. Florida's constitution provides less protection than Louisiana's current constitution and we are working to change ours. You should see plenty wrong with the language in the Florida constitution.

Dan
__________________
The difficult I do immediately, the impossible takes me a few minutes longer.
NRA, U.S. Army (Ret), AGA, F&AM
A Person has to stand for something, or they will fall for anything.
How different the new order would be if we could consult the Veteran instead of the Politician - Henry Miller
The Soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. - Gen. Douglas MacArthur
TDS92A is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 08:05 PM   #22
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 nra80 View Post
lets take the second amendment to the u.s. Constitution (note: The proposed amendment only deals with state-level protections). The second amendment itself is very easy to understand -- as you and i agree.

It took the courts 200 years to agree that the second amendment protected a "fundamental" and "individual" right. With that said, the courts have been unwilling to agree that this individual and fundamental right deserves the same level of protection as other (e.g. Speech and voting rights) fundamental rights.

As you may know, the landmark second amendment cases -- heller and mcdonald -- did not settle on a level of protection. However, they did say that the lowest level of protection (rational basis), could not protect a "fundamental" right. As we've discussed, this is the current level of protection for louisiana's right to keep and bear arms provision.

so, the proposed amendment, for state-level protections resolves this problem and requires the state courts view the right to arms as fundamental and with the highest level of protection.

it is important to note that under the current provision or the new provision -- the legislature can pass any law they choose. The judicial branch (courts) is the body that determines if said laws are constitutional. As you may know, currently there are a number of rights infringing laws on the books now: Age restrictions, campus carry bans, prohibitions on where you can carry, registration, etc. -- all of these passed with the current provision in the constitution. Further, the louisiana courts threw aside the state provision when nra sued the city of new orleans in the aftermath of katrina.

If someone decided to challenge the current laws with the current provision, the laws would likely be upheld because of the low level of protection.

Under the new provision, you put the burden on the government -- you return protection to the people. You see the second sentence of the provision removes the interpretation that has weakened the current provision. The second sentence provides "the teeth."

while legislators themselves are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution, ultimately, "we the people" need to be vigilant every election cycle.

then let the above underlined be the wording!
__________________

"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  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 08:18 PM   #23
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 DZelenka View Post
Strict scrutiny is a legal term that refers to the highest standard of constitutional review. It has nothing to do with legislators and can in no way create a "back door" for a legislator to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. By instructing courts to use the strict scrutiny standard, this amendment instructs them to limit the legislature's power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms to the greatest extent possible.

This is a state constitutional amendment and has noting to do with the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution other than relating to the same subject matter. However, if the language of the 2nd Amendment is so clear, why has no court applied a strict scrutiny level of review to any law that infringes on the right it protects?

The language of the amendment is clear and it provides greater protection against state action than the 2nd Amendment provides against state or federal legislation.

Dan Zelenka
President
Louisiana Shooting Association
HMMMMM, i was under the impression that the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, reigned supreme, OVER federal AND state!!! and as for your question of "strict scrutiny," that, dear sir, is the question of the centuries.........political suicide would be my number one answer.
__________________

"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  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 08:28 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USEBOTHHANDS View Post
then let the above underlined be the wording!
"requires the state courts view the right to arms as fundamental and with the highest level of protection."

vs

"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."

Although the wording is not as you desire, the amendment says the same thing. The amendment declares that the right is fundamental; and strict scrutiny is the highest level of protection. By using the legal term of art "strict scrutiny" is decreases a court's "wiggle room" in deciding on the standard to apply.

Dan
__________________
DZelenka is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 08:36 PM   #25
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 DZelenka View Post
"requires the state courts view the right to arms as fundamental and with the highest level of protection."

vs

"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."

Although the wording is not as you desire, the amendment says the same thing. The amendment declares that the right is fundamental; and strict scrutiny is the highest level of protection. By using the legal term of art "strict scrutiny" is decreases a court's "wiggle room" in deciding on the standard to apply.

Dan

so WHO makes that "strict scrutiny" when it comes time? State Supreme Court? and if the majority are anti-gun rights, then what? it's over with for that freedom.......another NJ/NY right there! what is wrong with "Any, and all restrictions on this right shall be unlawful."
__________________

"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  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 08:39 PM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USEBOTHHANDS View Post
HMMMMM, i was under the impression that the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, reigned supreme, OVER federal AND state!!! and as for your question of "strict scrutiny," that, dear sir, is the question of the centuries.........political suicide would be my number one answer.
Look at it this way, the US Constitution applies to both state and federal laws. If a state constitution doesn't provide as much protection as the US Constitution, the US Constitutional provision would apply (it is a minimum protection level). If a state constitution provides more protection than the US Constitiution, then the laws of that state will be reviewed with a higher level of scrutiny.

I will offer another explanation for courts not giving the 2nd Amendment its due. Most people who seek its protection have been charged with a crime and are not sympathetic. There is a saying - "Bad facts make bad law." THe Heller and MacDonald plaintiffs were specifically chosen because they were sympathetic figures. Good people being oppressed by bad laws rathe than criminals looking for a loophole. Once bad precedent exists however, the good must suffer with the bad.

You and I are on the same side. I spend a lot of time (without compensation) promoting gun rights. I believe this amendment is a really good thing for gun owners.

When it comes time to stop talking and pull the lever, are you voting yes or no?

Dan
__________________
DZelenka is offline  
TDS92A Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 08:47 PM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USEBOTHHANDS View Post
so WHO makes that "strict scrutiny" when it comes time? State Supreme Court? and if the majority are anti-gun rights, then what? it's over with for that freedom.......another NJ/NY right there! what is wrong with "Any, and all restrictions on this right shall be unlawful."
Basic civics - the judiciary is the check and balance for the legislative and executive branches.

And what if the President declares martial law and sends jackbooted thugs to everyone's home who has signed a 4473?

I cannot prevent every contingency or predict how far future politicians will go to infringe on the RKBA. I can only place as many roadblocks in their way as are availble through legal means existing today. As it stands today, we are better off passing the amendment than letting it fail. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Dan
__________________
DZelenka is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 08:47 PM   #28
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

if you REALLY want this to pass, then STOP bein a lawyer, for just a second, and consider who you are tryin to convince. the good people of LA are not lawyers/judges, and cannot understand Judicial speak. by takin laymen words, and applyin a thesaurus to them, you only make them harder for the populace to understand.

if you WANT this to pass, then create a document with wordin that EVERYONE can understand, from highschool to rockin chair. i am college educated, and still find fault with the "strict scrutiny" terminology. i can neither wrap my mind around, nor decipher "strict scrutiny" as bein anything but a backdoor loophole for legislators.

__________________

"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  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 08:54 PM   #29
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

you are correct, and i understand the rights of state laws to meet or supersede federal laws.

i am just wary of the language chosen to carry out those supersessions.
because "strict scrutiny" comes across to me, as just another "roadblock" (as you called it) and doesn't put an end to the matter..........ONCE AND FOR ALL.

i do believe that my previous posts wording, WOULD put an end to the matter!

__________________

"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; 09-19-2012 at 08:58 PM.
USEBOTHHANDS is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 08:55 PM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USEBOTHHANDS View Post
if you REALLY want this to pass, then STOP bein a lawyer, for just a second, and consider who you are tryin to convince. the good people of LA are not lawyers/judges, and cannot understand Judicial speak. by takin laymen words, and applyin a thesaurus to them, you only make them harder for the populace to understand.

if you WANT this to pass, then create a document with wordin that EVERYONE can understand, from highschool to rockin chair. i am college educated, and still find fault with the "strict scrutiny" terminology. i can neither wrap my mind around, nor decipher "strict scrutiny" as bein anything but a backdoor loophole for legislators.
Given the fact that the language cannot be changed without starting the legislative process over from the beginning, what can be done to give you adequate comfort to vote for the amendment?

Is the fact that the amendment will remove the legislature's right to regulate or ban concealed carry enough?

Dan

PS It is hard to take off my lawyer's hat, especially when we are dealing with technical legal concepts.
__________________
DZelenka 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