Urgent: (CALL NOW!) Amendment 2 discussion on WRNO 99.5 (Lines are open)

[Emperor]

I will try and make this as easy to understand as possible.

First, the courts determine the constitutionality of statutes (laws). In doing so, they typically choose from 3 different levels of judicial review -- rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. Rational basis is the lowest level of protection. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia plainly asserted that this level of review cannot protect a fundamental constitutional right (e.g. speech, right to vote). The highest level of protection is strict scrutiny and this level is reserved for the protection of fundamental rights. Post Heller and McDonald, state and federal courts have refused, in almost all cases, to give the fundamental right to keep and bear arms the highest level of protection and have usually assigned intermediate scrutiny or other rights infringing analysis.

In Louisiana, the state's Supreme Court has made the current right to keep and bear arms provision meaningless because they assigned it the lowest level of review -- rational basis. The proposed amendment requires the Louisiana courts to accept the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental and raises the necessary level of review to the highest level -- strict scrutiny. In short, the proposed amendment requires the right to keep and bear arms to be viewed by the courts under the same protections as your right to free speech and right to vote -- this has never been done on the state or federal level.

Additionally, the proposed amendment removes the legislature's constitutional authority to ban concealed carry. Very few states have the express constitutional authority to ban concealed carry -- however, 49 states regulate the carrying of firearms. The removal of this provision will protect law-abiding Louisianan's right to carry.

It is also important to note that under the current provision or the new provision -- the legislature will still be able to pass any bill they choose. The legislature, under separation of powers, passes laws. It is the judiciary's duty to interpret the law's constitutionality.

So to your question, how would a law be determined unconstitutional? If an individual decided that a state law infringed on his or her state-constitutional rights, the individual could challenge the law in the court system. Under the new provision, under strict scrutiny, unlike under the current provision, the challenged law would be initially considered unconstitutional -- the burden would be on the state to prove otherwise (under the lesser standards of review the burden is on the plaintiff (the people)). The state would than be required to prove that the state has a compelling interest, that the law is narrowly tailored as not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding, and that the statute is least restrictive means of accomplishing the policy end -- if all three of these prongs are not met, the statute will remain unconstitutional.

Now, under the current provision, a mere "reasonableness" standard -- easily met by showing a majority of legislature supported a statute -- is your only protection.

Let me know if I answered your question.

Okay! That's what we need to know.

The opposition wants EVERYONE to believe that as soon as this passes, someone is going to challenge ALL the gun laws they don't agree with; Concealed Permit Requirements, carry at college and school, churches, etc. This is their argument. It is hypothetical of course, but I've no doubt; someone is going to test some of them.

If we can make the public understand that this ISN'T a backdoor attempt (conspiracy), by the gun lobby (NRA and the like), to get this passed and go right after the existing laws, we can gain some points. I still believe we are losing the propaganda battle, but we'll see.

As noble an endeavor as I think we have here, I see where they (opposition), stand. My explanation to my legal eagles in the media was, if the Amendment passes, and the laws do get challenged, and do not pass muster (under strcit scrutiny), re-write the laws; and pass them again. There is never a shortage of new laws coming out of that place.

Unfortunately, the opposition doesn't want that either. Sooooooo.......

 

[AFFS]

I still believe that we can highlight other states and municipalities that have high levels of gun restrictions and how they still have violent crime.

Or spell out that future legislation could be imposed to prevent citizens from defending themselves even in their own homes.

A caller has on an average only about :30 seconds to get your point across and you have to hammer home quickly and simply memorable statements that will refute what the DA is trying to get across.

 

[hdavis0928]

Thanks for the info...very good read.

 

[Boudreaux]

At least I got in to make my point that you can pass as many laws as you want and you will only affect law-abiding citizens because CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!!

He replayed you a little after 5 this morning, you made an excellent call. Denny did not let the recording go pass your call to include the ADA's response, but I would have loved to hear it.

I was amazed in the little bit I heard how this guy was trying to mislead the public.

 

[Emperor]

Caught Cannizaro on WWL a bit this morning. The host said he tried to get a "Pro" voice on but Neil Riser, and the NRA were not available.

They (media), are letting these opposition guys pontificate and wear the airways out with their points, and alas; every now and then a sensible call gets in supporting the Amendment.

 

[Devilneck]

At least I got in to make my point that you can pass as many laws as you want and you will only affect law-abiding citizens because CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!!

I heard that call, great job! I'm not a fan of Denny, dude is way too liberal for me, but he at least gave folks a place to voice thier concerns on this one.

 

[NRA80]

Caught Cannizaro on WWL a bit this morning. The host said he tried to get a "Pro" voice on but Neil Riser, and the NRA were not available.

They (media), are letting these opposition guys pontificate and wear the airways out with their points, and alas; every now and then a sensible call gets in supporting the Amendment.

WWL never contacted me.

 

[Emperor]

WWL never contacted me.

You are well versed on this issue, you should be contacting them and letting the stations managers or the producers of these talk shows know that you would be glad to tow the line "For" "Yes on 2".

And if you speak as eloquently as you write, you would be a perfect voice for the "Pros".

That's the way it works my friend.

And to that end, we know you only as NRA80?!? On a gun forum. Where you can have ANY username you want (unless it's taken). If you want to be the voice of the NRA Louisiana style, you must reveal to them at least, your qualifications.

Hell, I'll stick up for you!

 

[AFFS]

Cannizaro is going to be on WRNO 99.5 Thursday morning. I say we all take turns calling in and each takes one specific point to drive home to the listeners. Remember, you only have :30 seconds to get a simple, easy-to-understand common sense sound-byte in.

It is good to listen to the podcasts from both Denny's show Monday and WWL with Cannizaro today.

 

[dragginaknee]

Bummer... Ran out of time. At least a couple of callers made some excellent points.

Anybody know a supposed "NRA member and instructor on the Northshore" named Rush who spoke out strongly AGAINST Amendment 2? I suspect that caller was a phony.

Maybe this guy? I searched the la chp instructor list and this is what I came up with. Someone might want to call and ask before he tells other people to vote no.
Rush Biossat
NRA Certified Instructor
225-C Antibes West, Mandeville, LA 70448
504-220-6769
rushguntrainer@yahoo.com

 

[XD-GEM]

WWL never contacted me.

Did you call the guy I sent you a phone number for in a PM?

 

[dzelenka]

Cannizaro is going to be on WRNO 99.5 Thursday morning. I say we all take turns calling in and each takes one specific point to drive home to the listeners. Remember, you only have :30 seconds to get a simple, easy-to-understand common sense sound-byte in.

It is good to listen to the podcasts from both Denny's show Monday and WWL with Cannizaro today.

He is worried that it will do away with R.S. 14:95A (carrying a concealed weapon). Claims that doing away with 95A will hinder law enforcement efforts. Think about it, why is this a problem for law enforcement? If the person is in the commission of a crime, you can charge them with that crime, who needs an add on misdemeanor? If they are a felon in possession, there is plenty to charge them with - again no need for misdemeanor possession.

I am not going to be able to call in. If anyone wants to use that feel freee.

 

[JR1572]

He is worried that it will do away with R.S. 14:95A (carrying a concealed weapon). Claims that doing away with 95A will hinder law enforcement efforts. Think about it, why is this a problem for law enforcement? If the person is in the commission of a crime, you can charge them with that crime, who needs an add on misdemeanor? If they are a felon in possession, there is plenty to charge them with - again no need for misdemeanor possession.

I am not going to be able to call in. If anyone wants to use that feel freee.

Will voting yes for this do away with 14:95A and no longer require a CHP for concealed carry? No one will answer that question.

JR1572

 

[Vermiform]

Deleted in lieu of a far better and informed explanation below.

 

[ldn0125]

I don't see where doing away wtih 14:95A is called for. Here is a link to the Senate's version of the bill that called for the election. http://legis.la.gov/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=812575

Will voting yes for this do away with 14:95A and no longer require a CHP for concealed carry? No one will answer that question.

JR1572

 

[LACamper]

BTW, I may be wrong but I thought I heard that the interview tomorrow was 7am, not 8.

I really wish he'd get someone from the state AG's office on the show since this is a STATE law.

 

[NRA80]

Will voting yes for this do away with 14:95A and no longer require a CHP for concealed carry? No one will answer that question.

JR1572

With respect to the carry system, you will still need a permit -- if the amendment passes, nothing will immediately happen. This is no different than any other state or federal constitutional provision -- as far as process.

In the near term or in the future, it is possible that an individual challenges provisions within the current statute as unconstitutional. It is likely that any broad, ambiguous, or subjective provisions would be struck down as unconstitutional. At the very least, it is appropriate to assume that, in the future, it will be easier for -- LAW-ABIDING-- Louisianans to acquire a permit and exercise your rights.

14:95 could be deemed overly broad and an infringement on law-abiding Louisianans rights -- this could also be possible under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One thought that comes to mind is that it does not provide any exception for a law-abiding individual to carry a concealed weapon in their home or on or in private property.

 

[SGT_Kramer]

It seems like if this passes that a need for a permit would be unconstitutional wouldn't it?
Any restriction of the right will be subject to strict scrutiny. Seems like charging for would be the same as charging for speach. Am I way off on this because it seems very clear to me??

 

[NRA80]

Did you call the guy I sent you a phone number for in a PM?

He is on the list to call. A lot of exciting things going on with the messaging on the amendment. I can also tell you the grassroots response around the state has been very strong.

 

[JR1572]

I don't see where doing away wtih 14:95A is called for. Here is a link to the Senate's version of the bill that called for the election. http://legis.la.gov/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=812575

I don't want to see 14:95 go away.

JR1572