Louisiana tinkers with the right to bear arms-I don't like it

[CAJUNLAWYER]

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/billdata/streamdocument.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??

 

[-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.

 

[Martya]

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.

 

[J. R. WEEMS]

PURPOSE ?

I agree as well. Would seem someone has a purpose alright, somewhere down the road. LOOK OUT!!!

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Well, the NRA backed it

 

[J. R. WEEMS]

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.

 

[riverrat38]

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

 

[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?

 

[SixGunZoe]

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.

 

[KJM]

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.

 

[silentflyer]

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...

 

[J D Allen]

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.

 

[chud333]

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

 

[nipster]

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.

 

[MH8675309]

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.

 

[kent11202]

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Absolutely agree that's all the language necessary!

 

[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.

 

[halco46]

Agree.

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!!!.

 

[OK Hog Shooter]

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!

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

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.