New Louisiana anti 2nd Amendment Law on the ballot in November.

[schwert]

Anyone have information on this new attempt?

[LawDog]

With all due respect, I believe that the title of this thread is wrong.  Act 874 is, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Louisiana Shooting Association, a very strong statement in FAVOR OF the Second Amendment.
 
Currently, the Louisiana Constitution provides:
§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.
In other words, the Legislature is empowered to regulate the concealed carry of firearms. 

Act 874, should it pass in November, would delete that authority. If the new amendment is passed, the Constitution will read:
§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Section 11. 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.
Thus, laws restricting our Second Amendment rights would be subject to a very high level of judicial scrutiny.  In simple terms, the government would have to show that a compelling state interest supported the law.  That is a tough burden. 

You can read more about Act 874 here:
http://www.louisianashooting.com/

[didactic]

It looks to me like a change that will make very little difference.

In the Heller decision, I think the decision called the RKBA a "fundamental" right, which means that any restriction must meet "strict scrutiny" (whatever that turns out to mean specifically, but it means that the hurdles are set very high).

I'd have to hear all the arguments, but I'm thinking right now that I'd vote for the change.  In the current legal environment, that's about the best we're going to get any level of government to do.

[Johnnyappleseed]

Is the bills author a "pro gun " representative ?
We can easily tell in california ,based on which party authored the legislation 

[LawDog]

In Louisiana we have a pretty bright line rule: if they are from the city of New Orleans, they are likely not pro-2A.  Otherwise, this is a very gun-friendly state. 

[azmule]

I'd say it boils down to the legal definition of abridged vs. infringed - and we all know how seriously "infringed" is taken at the fed level.  The old version exempts one specific act from protection, the new gets rid of that exemption but swaps out the key word - why?  Another big red flag is that new second sentence, which accomplishes absolutely nothing for gun owners but to instill a false warm-fuzzy.  It's essentially permission to enact restrictions at will, as long as such is subject to "strict scrutiny" - ok, so what constitutes "strict scrutiny?"  And being "subject" to it is not the same as requiring a specific process to enact new restrictions.  Remember, any word or phrase not specifically defined and left open to interpretation, will inevitably be interpreted with wild creativity; and not in a way that benefits the people.

[Johnnyappleseed]

I'd say it boils down to the legal definition of abridged vs. infringed - and we all know how seriously "infringed" is taken at the fed level.  The old version exempts one specific act from protection, the new gets rid of that exemption but swaps out the key word - why?  Another big red flag is that new second sentence, which accomplishes absolutely nothing for gun owners but to instill a false warm-fuzzy.  It's essentially permission to enact restrictions at will, as long as such is subject to "strict scrutiny" - ok, so what constitutes "strict scrutiny?"  And being "subject" to it is not the same as requiring a specific process to enact new restrictions.  Remember, any word or phrase not specifically defined and left open to interpretation, will inevitably be interpreted with wild creativity; and not in a way that benefits the people.

good anaylisis 
We see you have studied how the  anti's work ^5
Although we are in other states , let us know how to help you .
star 67 can go along way toward getting lots of calls!

[LawDog]

"Strict scrutiny" is a legal test established by the Supreme Court which requires the government to have a
compelling interest to enact any law/regulation.  It is the highest level of judicial scrutiny. 
It is not a test or phrase invented by the Louisiana legislature.  Many here see this as a step
toward "Constitutional carry."