Fire Mission - Ask Jindal to VETO Hb 523

[Bearco]

 

[yamaha0343]

Sent an e-mail earlier.

 

[McMedic]

Dood it!

 

[Tulse Luper]

I have complied.

 

[tactical723]

Sent a personal line to my friend Jindal and a template to some CCWs I know as well, thanks for the heads up DAN !!!

 

[SigArmed1]

Sent mine as well.

 

[P7M8]

Unfortunately with the unanimous vote in the house the veto can be overridden. For all practical purposes, the bill is veto proof.

 

[P7M8]

After reading the bill it appears that it is an amendment to an existing law. It changes some language and stiffens the penalties.

Some of the exceptions are:

Concealed carry permits.
Possession on private property.
In the vehicle.

There are a few more if you read the text of the bill. I thought it strange that it passed in both chambers with no Nays until I read the text.

 

[CEHollier]

Done

 

[dmiculek]

Sent.

Perhaps we should make this into a rap song and perform it in the legislature.

 

[cvinson]

Yes indeed. Done

 

[CCW]

The bill is not veto proof. It is not unusual for the vote to be unanimous after the conference committee amends it. I think the bill got caught up in the rush to finish the session and someone took advantage of an opportunity to further their gun-control agenda. The exception is only for Parish issued Concealed Handgun Permits and not the state wide Permits issued by the LSP. Keep calling and emailing Gov. Jindal and ask him politely to veto the bill.

 

[tso]

Done... Passed to my email list as well.

 

[jester1787]

done

 

[paddle007]

Did it!

Bobby,please noooooo.

 

[dzelenka]

After reading the bill it appears that it is an amendment to an existing law. It changes some language and stiffens the penalties.

Some of the exceptions are:

Concealed carry permits.
Possession on private property.
In the vehicle.

There are a few more if you read the text of the bill. I thought it strange that it passed in both chambers with no Nays until I read the text.

P7M8,

You really need to read the original bill and each of the amendments in both the house and senate to understand what is going on. The bill that was finally passed and sent to the governor was virtually identical to the original bill filed by Representative Ernst. Before that bill made it out of committee, it was amended to exempt statewide permit holders from its prohibitions. Also, the language of the original carry statute was amended to delete the parade prohibition. In all, it was a very favorable bill for CCW holders. On the floor of the house, Ernst offered and amendment to reinstate the prohibition of CCW holders which failed by a pretty wide margin. In the Senate, the bill was amended to include shooting ranges in its exempt categories. So far, so good. When the bill reached the conference committee (so that both houses could vote on identical legislation) the bill that left committee was nearly identical to Ernst's original bill including no CCW exception. The legislature frequently votes hastily on bills when the session is about to end. HB 523 came up for final passage on the 2nd to last day of session while they were desperately working on the state budget (they managed to pass one with a whopping 38 minutes to spare). I am relatively certain that few noticed or cared that the bill was nothing like the one originally passed by each chamber.

The reason that we were screwed remains a mystery since both Wooten and Martiny were involved and they are usually quite pro gun. Perhaps their feelings had been hurt by someone or they woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Anyway, it is highly doubtful that a veto would be overridden because the public would have the chance to contact their legislators unlike the conference committee version which came out and was voted on before anyone in the voting public knew what was going on.

Also, you really need to look at the bill that passed. The exemption is for special deputy permits not statewide CCW permits that most people hold. It also makes it a felony to carry within 1000' of a parade whether you know it is going on or not. If Jindal signs this it will be a really bad law and we will likely have to spend major political capital trying to un do it.

Dan

 

[spanky]

When does it go to his desk?

 

[dzelenka]

The bill is not veto proof. It is not unusual for the vote to be unanimous after the conference committee amends it. I think the bill got caught up in the rush to finish the session and someone took advantage of an opportunity to further their gun-control agenda. The exception is only for Parish issued Concealed Handgun Permits and not the state wide Permits issued by the LSP. Keep calling and emailing Gov. Jindal and ask him politely to veto the bill.

I am long winded so you beat me to print.

 

[P7M8]

What I meant by veto proof was the veto, if done can be overridden by the house. As far as all the text, I obviously didn't read it all, just the main bill. Yes, I was thrown off by the Yea votes of many Pro-Gun legislators.

 

[dzelenka]

Perhaps in theory, but not once the phones begin to ring informing those legislators how we feel about it.