Louisiana SB303

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by jasrrt, Aug 13, 2012.

  1. jasrrt

    jasrrt New Member

    188
    0
    0
  2. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    That last comment was funny. "Lawmakers wonder if this proposal is about public safety or just another push for the NRA agenda?"

    The NRA's agenda is the ONLY public safety agenda!

    Armed citizens = Safer Streets

    Any legislation that curbs government power to infring on the Second Ammendment is GOOD legislation.

    Tack
     

  3. jasrrt

    jasrrt New Member

    188
    0
    0
    This is where I'm torn. Louisiana law now is RTBA Shall not be abridged. Only concealed carry can be regulated.
    But this new amendment scrubs the old language and replaces it with right to keep, transfer, use, etc....shall not be abridged unless under strict scrutiny by the legislature.

    Does this mean the legislature can abridge the law based on their definition of strict scrutiny?

    Isn't this just giving the gov't more power? Or am I just being paranoid?
     
  4. jasrrt

    jasrrt New Member

    188
    0
    0
    We have to vote on this in November so just doing my research.
     
  5. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    it looks like it will be expanding on ones rights but why make the wording so confounded? How difficult is it to read and comprehend

    :confused:
     
  6. jasrrt

    jasrrt New Member

    188
    0
    0
    I've read a few more articles and the actual bill being proposed. Also watched a few videos and I believe my vote will be for unless something changes.

    Found out just a while ago the commitee rep. From my district is the only democrat to vote for this bill. Kudos to Mr. Mickey Guillory.

    I watched a very good speech by Bobby Jindal at the 2012 NRA convention. I'll post the link for y'all.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2012
  7. jasrrt

    jasrrt New Member

    188
    0
    0
    Gov. Bobby Jindal on family values @ NRA convention

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVA-kLSRzDY&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]
     
  8. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    I love the comment by Colleen
    "where do these people go that they feel the need to carry a gun?"

    Let's see...
    Movies...
    Walmart....
    College....
    Gas station...
    Walking down the street....
    Political rallies....
    High school...
    Ball games....
    Taking dog for a walk....
    The mall....
    Church....
    Costco....
    Aldi's....
    Sonic drive in...
    McDonalds....
    In your own ****ing home...

    These are all places where crimes have been committed fairly recently. No place is safe.
     
  9. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
  10. steve4102

    steve4102 New Member

    238
    0
    0
    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!
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2012
  11. jasrrt

    jasrrt New Member

    188
    0
    0
    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.”
     
  12. steve4102

    steve4102 New Member

    238
    0
    0
    Shall not be infringed, but restrictions/infringements are OK as long as we scrutinize them first?
     
  13. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    That is a contradiction :cool:
     
  14. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    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?"
     
  15. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Kind of hard to enforce scrutiny. Reference fast and furious.
     
  16. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    Again, to me it sounds like they intend to scrutinize the CURRENT limitations and infringements...possibly doing away with many of them.
     
  17. jasrrt

    jasrrt New Member

    188
    0
    0
    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.
     
  18. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    Who are you trying to convince, yourself, or us? :confused: I fail to see how the language here,
    is an improvement of the language here,
    I just don't see how the wording of the language strengthens anyone gun rights if it allows the possibility of restrictions. :confused: Again, the wording as is is contradictory to itself. :eek:
     
  19. steve4102

    steve4102 New Member

    238
    0
    0
    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.
     
  20. USEBOTHHANDS

    USEBOTHHANDS New Member

    1,319
    2
    0

    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.")
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012