Are Louisiana's CCW Laws Unconstitutional?
- Thread starter ditto1958
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Everyone would just go back to the Florida out of state permits.
My cousins took their CHP class at a gun show which only took a few hours (I believe they did it in less time required by law) then qualified in the guys trailer! Yeah they shot guns (22s) in his trailer located in the parking lot of the gun show!
Oh and their permits showed up a few weeks after turning in the paperwork.
Alabama only issues to residents of Alabama though. Florida issues to out of state visitors so it was a popular alternative to get a permit from them until Louisiana realized how many people were circumventing the system.
I'm somewhat pessimistic about how the Louisiana Supreme Court will end up resolving this issue. What I really would like to see is for the legislature to take a serious stab at trying to modify as many of the firearms laws on the books to make them likely to withstand challenges and to make challenges less likely. I'm not holding my breath until this happens, though.
I really think the CCW laws we have on the books are clearly in violation of the state Constitution. We have a national as well as state right to carry firearms, whether openly, or concealed. Is this an absolute right? No. Just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, there are situations where the right to bear arms can be restricted.
So, how much regulation on CCW can the state claim to have a compelling state interest in? Because that's the standard. Any law that infringes on a fundamental right is presumed to be unconstitutional, unless the government can show a compelling state interest.
Does the state have a compelling interest in requiring a permit at all? If, what about the fees? $125 for first time applicants. $175 for residents who are here less than 15 years? Requiring a training course that likely costs over $100? Being fingerprinted? Submitting to a background check?
Or, here's one that really troubles me. What are your "duties" under the law as a permit holder when approached by an LEO?
1. Announce you have a concealed weapon
2. Submit to a pat down
3. Allow the officer to temporarily disarm you
Hmmm. Did I just read that right? Yes, I did. Our concealed carry law says that if I want to use my concealed carry permit to exercise 2nd Amendment right to bear arms I have to agree to effectively waive my 4th Amendment rights by automatically submitting to a pat down search if approached by an officer. Not only that, but it says I then also waive my 2nd Amendment rights being required to let the officer disarm me. Anyone else see a problem with that?
I really think the CCW laws we have on the books are clearly in violation of the state Constitution. We have a national as well as state right to carry firearms, whether openly, or concealed. Is this an absolute right? No. Just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, there are situations where the right to bear arms can be restricted.
So, how much regulation on CCW can the state claim to have a compelling state interest in? Because that's the standard. Any law that infringes on a fundamental right is presumed to be unconstitutional, unless the government can show a compelling state interest.
Does the state have a compelling interest in requiring a permit at all? If, what about the fees? $125 for first time applicants. $175 for residents who are here less than 15 years? Requiring a training course that likely costs over $100? Being fingerprinted? Submitting to a background check?
Or, here's one that really troubles me. What are your "duties" under the law as a permit holder when approached by an LEO?
1. Announce you have a concealed weapon
2. Submit to a pat down
3. Allow the officer to temporarily disarm you
Hmmm. Did I just read that right? Yes, I did. Our concealed carry law says that if I want to use my concealed carry permit to exercise 2nd Amendment right to bear arms I have to agree to effectively waive my 4th Amendment rights by automatically submitting to a pat down search if approached by an officer. Not only that, but it says I then also waive my 2nd Amendment rights being required to let the officer disarm me. Anyone else see a problem with that?
Didn't read every page, so if someone has stated this then summarize mine as "i agree".
If not, here's one thing that 99% of gun folks neglect to comprehend when they mention 2a issues vs ccw:
You have an inalienable God given right as an american citizen to bear firearms... and in the great state of Louisiana, you can do it without fingerprinting, licenses, or fees. It's called "open carry". It doesn't cost you anything. Concealing that firearm on your person IN PUBLIC is the privilege that you are applying for.
Yes, its unconstitutional in my personal opinion.
No, it won't change.
If not, here's one thing that 99% of gun folks neglect to comprehend when they mention 2a issues vs ccw:
You have an inalienable God given right as an american citizen to bear firearms... and in the great state of Louisiana, you can do it without fingerprinting, licenses, or fees. It's called "open carry". It doesn't cost you anything. Concealing that firearm on your person IN PUBLIC is the privilege that you are applying for.
Yes, its unconstitutional in my personal opinion.
No, it won't change.
Not reinforcement at all. I don't trust the courts. I also don't trust legislators, but at least they are more accountable to voters than judges tend to be. I'm saying try to make gun laws constitutional before they are challenged in court.
No rights are absolute. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is often used as an example of speech that is not protected. "Fighting words" have also been cited often in the past as speech not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Ok, so the only actual restriction on the free speech facet of the 1st Amendment is against speech intent on causing immediate lawless action.
I don't think you can validly stand on that restriction as the basis to say we can/should restrict other rights. Certainly you can not point to that restriction and say that it's ok to restrict other rights in new and incomparable ways, because of the existence of that restriction. There is really no parallel I can think of between "intent on causing immediate lawless action" that translates to firearm possession and carry. I do not see how the mere possession and bearing of firearms has ever, in and of itself, been incitement of riots or other lawless action.
You are right that when Legislation is made to restrict rights, they often weigh the good of the public or the States best interests. That's not, however, anywhere in the Constitution (correct me if I'm wrong) that they can use that premise as a basis for any restrictions they want to make, and for good reason. If the litmus test on restriction of rights were simply to show that it can be for the good of the public or the interest of the State, then it would be a much more horrible code of conduct we have for the government than any conspiracy theorist could imagine.
So no, with those two points in mind, I don't think your comparison to the 1st amendment or your foundation for 2A restrictions is that logical.
I don't think you can validly stand on that restriction as the basis to say we can/should restrict other rights. Certainly you can not point to that restriction and say that it's ok to restrict other rights in new and incomparable ways, because of the existence of that restriction. There is really no parallel I can think of between "intent on causing immediate lawless action" that translates to firearm possession and carry. I do not see how the mere possession and bearing of firearms has ever, in and of itself, been incitement of riots or other lawless action.
You are right that when Legislation is made to restrict rights, they often weigh the good of the public or the States best interests. That's not, however, anywhere in the Constitution (correct me if I'm wrong) that they can use that premise as a basis for any restrictions they want to make, and for good reason. If the litmus test on restriction of rights were simply to show that it can be for the good of the public or the interest of the State, then it would be a much more horrible code of conduct we have for the government than any conspiracy theorist could imagine.
So no, with those two points in mind, I don't think your comparison to the 1st amendment or your foundation for 2A restrictions is that logical.
It wasn't my intention at all to lay a foundation for restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights. Those here who seem to have no problem with being fingerprinted to get a concealed carry permit actually scare me a bit. My belief is that very few of the laws we have regulating firearms are constitutional. It upsets me that so many guns owners are comfortable with accepting the restrictions that are now in place.
As for the law here in Louisiana under our newly strengthened right to bear arms, it's not a question of weighing state interest against rights. The state must do much more than tip the scales. Any law that infringes on our rights is presumed to be invalid, and the burden is on the state to show it has a compelling state interest in enacting and enforcing the law in question.
So... what does that mean when a felon challenges the law prohibiting him from possessing a firearm? Especially if the conviction was for, oh, let's say credit card fraud.
It's gonna be interesting, that's for sure.
As for the law here in Louisiana under our newly strengthened right to bear arms, it's not a question of weighing state interest against rights. The state must do much more than tip the scales. Any law that infringes on our rights is presumed to be invalid, and the burden is on the state to show it has a compelling state interest in enacting and enforcing the law in question.
So... what does that mean when a felon challenges the law prohibiting him from possessing a firearm? Especially if the conviction was for, oh, let's say credit card fraud.
It's gonna be interesting, that's for sure.
Last edited:
Danny Abear
Well-Known Member
Y'all are missing the point.....All of these 'pay for the priveledge" things are all about the $$$$$$ the state can take in..
Hopefully one day soon it will be that way here.
True, very true. So many of the things government claims are so important to the safety and general welfare of the citizens are really nothing more than revenue generators. Take those "inspection stickers" in the windshield of every vehicle. Anyone ever actually have an inspection done in order to get one?
I have often wondered why having to show an ID to buy a gun is not considered 'suppressing the minorities' from buying a gun. And again, with the CCL costs. The 8 hour class, pay to get fingerprints, pay to get a photo, pay for the license...
Latest posts
-
-
WTS: (Final price drop) New Tanfoglio Limited Pro Large Frame 9mm
- Latest: terrencetec
-
-
-
-
Members online
- J. W. Harris
- hotbiggun
- jwalker814
- Kilroy301
- terrencetec
- runner
- nlognion93
- drill sgt
- Timdog
- huggybro
- Fordfella
- Bam Bam
- graintrader
- N4sir
- CavalryJim
- chrishalexander
- navops
- Tacobellgrande
- WhereIsIt?
- Rovpilot337
- jonesnola
- BIGBORE44
- The_Lousianian
- edman87k5
- jmckenzie
- proplaya
- Toonie12
- Jiggy205
- Daspy
- speedfreek
- jimmyjc11
- Bravo-13
- Latrag7
- LSU921
- paddle007
- Lower_LA
- Riley6874
- Cajun Camper
- Mojo873
- Ngbdad85
- Xeon64
- crochon
- Brballistics
- Bigchillin83
- cmonfra
- BlakeLavespere
- tmout94
- freedive10
- Markrobichaux
- Wedge
