Will do. The issue seems to me that the feds are considering a CCP as a right, but states consider a CCP a privelege. One will have to accept the other's definition. It would be poetic justice if this attempt to broaden the definition of "prohibited persons" ends up making a CCP a federally recognized right. That would scrap the training and proficiency requirements also. Hmmm...I can hear Bloomberg and his Moms squealing already.
The holding in Caron v. United States doesn't necessarily define that the CHP is a Federal right. It states that the State cannot withhold anything firearm related (right or privilege) from the person(s) they are restoring rights to. Doing so would suggest a distrust in that person. The Federal stance is understandable, even if it's not as clearly spelled out in the law. In many of the cases where this is an issue, the State has declared that all rights have been restored; without reservation. The fact that a Federal prohibition (based on state law) exists proves that rights have not been restored.
I believe the State would be responsive to a change in LA RS 40:1379.3 (c)(10). What I haven't figured out is the timeline for such a change. It seems that it cannot be introduced in the 2015 (odd-numbered) legislative session. Meaning it would have to wait until 2016. Which is a pretty long time to wait. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems that this change in interpretation was purposefully held until the end of the 2014 legislative session. The new interpretation came with changes to the CHP law. Why was this issue not presented to the legislature during that time to be addressed at the same time?
As an aside, when state laws conflict, the Supreme Court is tasked with sorting out the prevailing law. In this case, there are multiple laws in conflict (depending on the person's particular circumstance). For example: The amended Section 11 of the State Constitution, LA CCrP Article 893, and RS 44:9 E(1)(b) all conflict with RS 40:1379.3 (c)(10).