|
|
 |
04-09-2012, 08:36 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On da Bayou Teche
Posts: 18,463
Likes: 18,569
Liked 58,919 Times in 9,675 Posts
|
|
Louisiana tinkers with the right to bear arms-I don't like it
The senate just voted to amend our State Constitution regarding the right to keep and bear arms in an attempt to make it even stronger. I enclose a copy of what just passed and will be on the ballot this fall.
Please don't worry-a late amendment on the floor put back in the words "to bear" just to keep that grand old phrase "keep and bear" 
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdat...asp?did=788087
I really didn't think they needed this, and I always have a problem with putting too much verbage into a constitution. I thought our "2nd amendment" was good enough and saw no reason to insert the verbage "for any legitimate purpose" as I think it unessary. The NRA was in favor of this but I have a real problem with the words legitimate purpose. Who defines what exactly is a legitimate purpose??? I think in trying to strengthen an already goos amendment, they may have opened a can of worms-or am I just being paranoid???
Eric-what say you as our resident scholar at the appellate level??
__________________
Forum consigliere
Last edited by CAJUNLAWYER; 04-09-2012 at 08:42 PM.
|
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-09-2012, 09:18 PM
|
 |
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MI
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 13,995
Liked 5,919 Times in 1,761 Posts
|
|
I'm no legal scholar but I think you're right and I agree. Common sense tells us the more that's added only adds more that's potentially open to "interpretation". The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed says all that needs said, as far as I'm concerned.
|
04-10-2012, 07:02 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NW PA
Posts: 897
Likes: 343
Liked 446 Times in 240 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by -db-
I'm no legal scholar but I think you're right and I agree. Common sense tells us the more that's added only adds more that's potentially open to "interpretation". The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed says all that needs said, as far as I'm concerned.
|
Couldn't have said it better... except to maybe make it BOLD. 
__________________
Marty 4513TSW 13-1 642 60-10
|
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-10-2012, 07:15 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
Posts: 3,356
Likes: 4,437
Liked 4,433 Times in 1,463 Posts
|
|
PURPOSE ?
I agree as well. Would seem someone has a purpose alright, somewhere down the road. LOOK OUT!!! 
|
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-11-2012, 11:29 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On da Bayou Teche
Posts: 18,463
Likes: 18,569
Liked 58,919 Times in 9,675 Posts
|
|
Well, the NRA backed it 
__________________
Forum consigliere
|
04-11-2012, 11:09 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
Posts: 3,356
Likes: 4,437
Liked 4,433 Times in 1,463 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER
Well, the NRA backed it |
Well? Sorry, but the NRA isn't always the last answer. We had a Pres. for some time, C. H., he was one, along with Jimmy Stewart who encouraged LBJ to sign the 1968 gun control act. 
|
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-11-2012, 11:29 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: La Conner, WA
Posts: 2,137
Likes: 9,091
Liked 2,173 Times in 973 Posts
|
|
I agree that simpler is better.
Maybe even the second amendment is a bit too wordy. I think it would have been better if the Founders had left out the part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and just wrote "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The Militia part has given modern day liberals something to hang their hat on, not having a suitable head for the purpose. I have lost count of the number of times that I have heard the concept that "the second amendment has no present meaning, as the Militia has been replaced by the police and the military". I guess they think that the Bill of Rights has a sunset clause!
rat
|
04-11-2012, 11:53 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 372
Likes: 105
Liked 106 Times in 49 Posts
|
|
I think the subordinate clause, "all other legitimate purposes" opens the door to a potentially more restrictive interpretation by anti gun legislators and judges than the simple "keep and bear" clause, as happened with the "militia" portion of the Second Amendment.
How'd I do with that assumption?
|
04-15-2012, 06:12 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: An Open Carry State
Posts: 4
Likes: 10
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
I see no reason to amend the Louisiana Constitution nor the U. S. 2nd Amendment.
Honestly, I'm a bit sick of people attempting to tell us what the Founders had in mind way, way back using today's standards. As for militias, how do we know we'll never need them again? There's no law saying we'll never be overrun again by a foreign group trying to take us over. Without our right to bear arms, we'd be totally defenseless. THAT's what the 2nd amendment means when referring to militias. Plus there was the fact that our ancestors weren't allowed to have weapons in their former countries and were vulnerable whether their own government/dictator or an enemy entity came calling.
Our founders didn't want that to happen to us. Taking our arms only makes us vulnerable.
Gun ownership is a responsibility. Only the irresponsible should be punished.
|
04-15-2012, 07:15 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 649
Likes: 351
Liked 174 Times in 107 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregG
I think the subordinate clause, "all other legitimate purposes" opens the door to a potentially more restrictive interpretation by anti gun legislators and judges than the simple "keep and bear" clause, as happened with the "militia" portion of the Second Amendment.
How'd I do with that assumption? |
Better than the NRA.
|
04-15-2012, 11:14 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Roanoke, Va
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 1,697
Liked 1,284 Times in 640 Posts
|
|
I don't have ANY problem understanding what Mr. James Madison wrote, with input from Mr. Jefferson....but then I am not a current day politician...or lawyer/judge...
|
04-16-2012, 01:49 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: hamilton ohio
Posts: 129
Likes: 14
Liked 15 Times in 6 Posts
|
|
2nd amendment
The passage of a state law insuring our right to bear arms is a plus. It was New Orleans Police that confiscated weapons from citizens. This was a violation of their right to protect themselves. I welcome any law that prevents gun confiscation.
|
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-16-2012, 02:12 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 7,896
Likes: 31,497
Liked 22,512 Times in 4,626 Posts
|
|
[QUOTE=SixGunZoe;136463361]I see no reason to amend the Louisiana Constitution nor the U. S. 2nd Amendment.
There's no law saying we'll never be overrun again by a foreign group trying to take us over. Without our right to bear arms, we'd be totally defenseless.
Or a "domestic" entity----
chuck
__________________
They hold no Quarter
|
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
04-19-2012, 04:09 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 2,026
Likes: 5
Liked 388 Times in 273 Posts
|
|
Just look at what happened during Katrina, then make your own conclusions...
Nothing in the US or State constitutions stopped what amounts to the biggest civil rights violation since the civil war.
|
04-19-2012, 04:22 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Michigans Thumb
Posts: 217
Likes: 378
Liked 140 Times in 73 Posts
|
|
After what happened In New orleans several states including Michigan where I live passed a law saying that in a state emergency the government is not allowed to take your guns.
|
04-19-2012, 06:28 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: California (sigh)
Posts: 112
Likes: 1
Liked 131 Times in 21 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverrat38
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
|
Absolutely agree that's all the language necessary!
|
04-19-2012, 06:42 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10
Likes: 27
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
This amendment is necessary because the Louisiana Supreme Court eviscerated the current right to keep and bears arms provision in 2001, action which has left Louisianans with little protection from overreaching state-imposed gun control or in the event the Heller or McDonald cases are overturned.
|
04-23-2012, 08:50 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
Liked 20 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -db-
I'm no legal scholar but I think you're right and I agree. Common sense tells us the more that's added only adds more that's potentially open to "interpretation". The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed says all that needs said, as far as I'm concerned.
|
Correct!. Very Well Said!!!.
|
05-11-2012, 05:33 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central OK
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 610
Liked 420 Times in 263 Posts
|
|
IMHO, any time the legislation opens an act to amend it, there's no telling what else can happen. I say leave well enough alone!
__________________
Isaiah 55:8-9
Phil. 4:13
|
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
05-21-2012, 09:05 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On da Bayou Teche
Posts: 18,463
Likes: 18,569
Liked 58,919 Times in 9,675 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaSalt
This amendment is necessary because the Louisiana Supreme Court eviscerated the current right to keep and bears arms provision in 2001, action which has left Louisianans with little protection from overreaching state-imposed gun control or in the event the Heller or McDonald cases are overturned.
|
Would you point me to that decision as I am not aware of it.
__________________
Forum consigliere
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
