seeker_two
New member
Wonderful news! Will Texas be next?....
Louisiana constitutional amendment
- Thread starter mayosligo
- Start date
Most state constitutions already guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms, some even copying the Second Amendment verbatim (so much for it being for States to arm militias.) Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution of the State of Utah states: "The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms." I think we've got Louisiana beat, and for over twenty years now...
carguychris
New member
Considering that OC has withered on the vine during the last several legislative sessions, I doubt it.
Although the Dayne Sherman article in the Hammond Star is arguably anti-RKBA, IMHO it does correctly point out one prominent fact about LA Amendment 2- to a large degree, it theoretically takes away the ability of the legislature to pass gun control laws by handing broad authority to the courts.
One fact to remember about the TX legislature is that they have historically always guarded their power very jealously; that's why we have popularly elected judges and a relatively toothless governor. As I understand it, the only way the TX Constitution can be amended is if the amendment originates in the legislature. IMHO it's highly unlikely that the legislature will voluntarily hand over this much power to the courts, regardless of how many brownie points they will earn with pro-RKBA voters by doing it.
Last edited:
mmb713 said:
Good luck with allowing your legislature to define "the lawful use of arms". Better hope that enough Diane Feinstein type Californians don't move there to take advantage of it.
Louisiana's 2nd amendment used to be:
"The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
It now is:
“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”
Utah was behind for over 20 years even under the old version, and is even further back now!
"Good luck with allowing your legislature to define "the lawful use of arms". Better hope that enough Diane Feinstein type Californians don't move there to take advantage of it."
Don't think that will be a problem. We're talking about the same people that made the 1911 pistol the official state firearm for its 100th birthday. This past summer it was so dry here there were numerous wild fires started by people target shooting on public lands. They still wouldn't put a moratorium on shooting on public lands though. About the only things they restrict here is shooting across the highway and shooting while intoxicated. Utahans love their guns so much even the Democrats here are pro-gun. I actually wouldn't mind just enough Diane Feinstein types moving here to get them to change the liquor laws though.
Don't think that will be a problem. We're talking about the same people that made the 1911 pistol the official state firearm for its 100th birthday. This past summer it was so dry here there were numerous wild fires started by people target shooting on public lands. They still wouldn't put a moratorium on shooting on public lands though. About the only things they restrict here is shooting across the highway and shooting while intoxicated. Utahans love their guns so much even the Democrats here are pro-gun. I actually wouldn't mind just enough Diane Feinstein types moving here to get them to change the liquor laws though.
carguychris
New member
Just because it's not a problem now doesn't mean it won't be a problem later.
The UT amendment basically says "Possession and use of arms is lawful except when the Legislature says it's not". IOW the UT legislature has very broad authority to determine what is and isn't lawful.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Quoted for truth.45 Auto said:
I was in a discussion with the rule-writing segment of my town's government a few weeks ago, over a municipal code provision that effectively bars mere possession of any loaded firearm on any municipal property. No definitions, so it has been argued that this applies even to public streets throughout the municipality. This is in a state that has a 2nd Amendment-like provision in the state constitution, and which issues concealed carry permits. And the municipality's attorney told the board that "state law does not allow firing a gun in self defense outside of the home."
When ordinary citizens (well, okay, extraordinary citizens) understand the laws better than the lawyers who are getting paid big bucks TO understand the laws ... it shows me that this country in in deep doo-doo.