NRA Email Alert -- Vote "YES" on 2!!

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by NRA80, Sep 18, 2012.

  1. NRA80

    NRA80 New Member

    14
    0
    0
    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...uisiana–vote-“yes”-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: Sep 19, 2012
  2. PrimePorkchop

    PrimePorkchop New Member

    1,743
    0
    0
    Can you post the link to the nraila? It got cut off
     

  3. steve4102

    steve4102 New Member

    238
    0
    0
    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.
     
  4. NRA80

    NRA80 New Member

    14
    0
    0
    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?
     
  5. NRA80

    NRA80 New Member

    14
    0
    0
    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.
     
  6. USEBOTHHANDS

    USEBOTHHANDS New Member

    1,319
    2
    0
    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.
     
  7. NRA80

    NRA80 New Member

    14
    0
    0
    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."
     
  8. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    1
    0
    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.
     
  9. NRA80

    NRA80 New Member

    14
    0
    0
    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.
     
  10. NRA80

    NRA80 New Member

    14
    0
    0
    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.
     
  11. USEBOTHHANDS

    USEBOTHHANDS New Member

    1,319
    2
    0

    you know, you keep sayin the same thing over and over again.....regurgitating it, just like an automated system.

    MAKE ME UNDERSTAND lawyer/court speak, AND THEN, take that court speak, "dumb it down" for us po, dumb, loosiana rednecks," and PUT THAT LANGUAGE, AND ONLY THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE AMENDMENT. that way, EVEN A LAWYER/COURT JUDGE couldn't help but understand HOW TO INTERPRET it, in say 200 years!
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012
  12. NRA80

    NRA80 New Member

    14
    0
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012
  13. DZelenka

    DZelenka New Member

    12
    0
    0
    Removing the restrictions language would be a mistake. This amendment recognizes that future legislatures will pass legislation affecting the right to keep and bear arms. This is inevitable because legislators do not believe they are limited in what they can legislate. Courts will inevitably be requested to review legislation to determine its constitutionality. The second sentence of the amendment instructs courts to use the highest standard of review to determine whether the restriction is constitutional. Since Louisiana courts have traditionally used the lowest standard of constitutional review when determining the constitutionality of firearms restrictions, any amendment directing them to use a higher standad is better for gun owners.

    This is no longer a bill, it is a proposed constitutional amendment. It cannot be changed only voted for or against as is.

    The proposed amendment will do exactly as it is intended. It will strengthen the right to keep and bear arms in Louisiana.

    Dan Zelenka
    President
    Louisiana Shooting Association
     
  14. DZelenka

    DZelenka New Member

    12
    0
    0
    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
     
  15. DZelenka

    DZelenka New Member

    12
    0
    0
    This is not correct. The amendment closes the door to interpretation by taking away a court's ability to choose the level of review it wishes to apply to a law affecting gun rights. The amendment cannot have the opposite affect as you suggest. I do agree that the 2nd Amendment is clear to people like you and me. However, it did take 200 years for a court to hold that the language protected an individual right. As to Louisiana laws, the proposed amendment requires the same level of judicial review as freedom of speach or religion. The existing Louisiana Constitutional language does not provide nearly that level of protection for gun owners.

    Dan Zelenka
    President
    Louisiana Shooting Association
     
  16. DZelenka

    DZelenka New Member

    12
    0
    0
    Although I do not understand people's confusion over the proposed language (it is absolutely clear to me), dumbing it down for "po, dumb, loosiana rednecks" would be a mistake. The language as written means something to lawyers and more importantly judges. They will be the ones arguing about it and interpreting it, not the ordinary citizen. restricting a judge's choice of what standard of review he should apply increases the chance that a restrictive law will be declared unconstitutional. This is good for gun owners.

    Dan Zelenka
    President
    Louisiana Shooting Association
     
  17. DZelenka

    DZelenka New Member

    12
    0
    0
    Now that I have managed to spam this forum with posts, let me introduce myself. I am a practicing attorney and President of the Louisiana Shooting Association www.louisianashooting.com Beginning with the legislation that killed the New Orleans suit against gun manufacturers, I have been involved in writing pro-gun legislation and lobbying for gun rights in Louisiana. I am a competitive shooter and hunter and I run the junior highpower rifle program and team in Louisiana. I also work with local junior shooting programs such as 4H in applying for grants for equipment and ammunition.

    I unequivocally support this amendment. As a lawyer, the language is absolutely clear to me. It should also be clear to a judge although that cannot be guaranteed. The language of the amendment is vastly superior to the existing language of the Louisiana Constitution in protecting gun owners from future anti-gun legislative action. This is the most important piece of RKBA legislation in Louisiana history. Please join me in voting YES for Amendment 2 on November 6th.

    Also, please visit our website and consider joining the LSA.

    Dan Zelenka
    President
    Louisiana Shooting Association
    www.louisianashooting.com
     
  18. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
    First of all WELCOME to the Forum!!

    Second, HOT DAMN!!! Someone that speaks Lawyer!! Nothing but respect!

    Third, I cannot vote in Louisiana.......I live in Florida, but I still support this action. :D Now to find out what Florida's Constitution says. :rolleyes:


     
  19. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
    I know that we are commenting on the Bill in Louisiana, but this is what Florida's says:

    SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.—(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
    (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, “purchase” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and “handgun” means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
    (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
    (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.
    History.—Am. C.S. for S.J.R. 43, 1989; adopted 1990.

    I do not see anything wrong with this. Comments?
     
  20. DZelenka

    DZelenka New Member

    12
    0
    0
    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