The people of Louisiana. These are the common sense Firearms Laws that have passed in Louisiana. Thanks to all the legislators, the NRA, citizens for their work and a Thank You to Governor Jindal for signing these into law!!
The laws go into effect on August 15th, 2010
-HB16 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides for the certification of concealed handgun permit instructors. Concealed Carry instructors who are not POST certified will have to be certified by the NRA in Basic Pistol, Personal Protection Inside the Home or Personal Protection Outside the Home. It makes sense that you are certified in the very curriculum you are teaching. (Act 341)
-HB60 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Amends concealed handgun permit laws. A CCW permittee must be a legal resident of Louisiana, on other words, maintain a physical presence in the state for at least 51% or more of a calendar year. A Louisiana resident MUST have a Louisiana Concealed Carry Permit to carry concealed. This closes a loophole where a resident who lived in another state part time carried concealed with an out of state permit (Act 346)
-HB141 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Provides that applications to possess or transfer certain firearms may be filed on approved electronic forms (EG SEE FISC NOTE SD EX). Firearms transfers may now be done on electronic forms approved by the Department of Public Safety. Time to move into the 21st Century!! (Act 353)
-HB158 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides with respect to the issuance of concealed handgun permits. Residents cannot apply for a concealed carry permit if they have had one denied in the 12 months prior to an application or revoked in the 4 years prior to an application and resident shall not have an EXPUNGED conviction (Act 354)
-HB235 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B LAW ENFORCE/OFFICERS: Authorizes retired law enforcement officers to purchase their weapons (EG INCREASE LF EX See Note) (Act 239)
-HB348 LORUSSO ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Amends penalties imposed for a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (EG INCREASE GF EX See Note). Penalty increased to 20 YEARS of which 7-1/2 are at hard labor (Act 815)
-HB556 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Amends firearm-free zone provisions with respect to concealed handgun permit holders. ELIMINATES the 1000' provision of a firearm-free zone around school property while on the public right-of-way and increases the application time for a Felon convicted under 18 USC 41 to 15 years AFTER completion of sentence (Act 952)
-HB562 BALDONE ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C LAW ENFORCE/OFFICERS: Expands the crime of disarming a peace officer to include the taking of all forms of law enforcement equipment (Act 820)
-HB609 WHITE ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C CRIME: Provides with respect to the crime of home invasion (EG SEE FISC NOTE GF EX See Note) Defines the crime of home invasion as a crime of violence and clarifies it as a FELONY. (Act 524)
-HB1260 HAZEL PENDING SENATE FINAL PASSAGE WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Provides with respect to the possession of a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies. Removes the authority of a Parish Sheriff or the Superintendant of the New Orleans Police Department from issuing Concealed Carry parish permits to persons convicted of certain felonies (Act 942)
-HB1272 H.BURNS ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides with respect to concealed handgun permits. Allows the use of fixed-case ammunition for Concealed Carry Permit training and makes allowance for the State of Louisiana to increase the term for a concealed carry permit from 4 to 5 years. This law also allows concealed carry inside a place of worship but with some restrictions such as : permittee must take an annual 8 hours tactical course, church authority allows the concealed carry in the place of worship and the congregation is notified
-SB174 J.R.SMITH ASSIGNED TO HOUSE CRIMINAL JUSTICE WEAPONS: Provides for training course requirements for a concealed weapons permit for combat veterans. (8/15/10). Honorably discharged combat veterans who can display by proof competence in conflict resolution, deadly force and child access prevention on the last 60 days are exempt from concealed carry training
-SB534 HEBERT PENDING HOUSE REFERRAL PUBLIC LANDS: Allows the possession of firearms on certain public lands. (8/15/10). Concealed Carry permittees are allowed to carry on public lands in Louisiana such as : State Parks, Historic Sites, Preservation Areas, Wildlife Refuges and Wildlife Management Areas. This is in addition to being allowed to carry in certain areas of Federal Parks within Louisiana
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
by Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse (Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified. from Dailykos.com)
Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.
And this is why:
No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.
If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."
First Amendment:
...the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
Ninth Amendment:
...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Tenth Amendment:
...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.
We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.
But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.
We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.
And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.
If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?
But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?
Wrong.
The United States Militia Code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.
Everyone else. Individuals. The People.
The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.
And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.
No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.
But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.
We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.
But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.
Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.
Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?
Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.
And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.
Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.
No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.
When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.
Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?
Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.
Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.
And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.
Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.
They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.
But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.
No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.
Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.
Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.
The Second Amendment is obsolete?
What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?
It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."
And you'd be right.
What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?
Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.
And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.
And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.
No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.
In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.
It is the right of revolution.
Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.
To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.
The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.
We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.
And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.
So.
What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.
No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."
This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.
This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)
This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.
This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.
Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.
Because we are revolutionaries.
Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.
And this is why:
No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.
If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."
First Amendment:
...the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
Ninth Amendment:
...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Tenth Amendment:
...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.
We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.
But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.
We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.
And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.
If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?
But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?
Wrong.
The United States Militia Code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.
Everyone else. Individuals. The People.
The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.
And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.
No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.
But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.
We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.
But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.
Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.
Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?
Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.
And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.
Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.
No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.
When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.
Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?
Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.
Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.
And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.
Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.
They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.
But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.
No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.
Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.
Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.
The Second Amendment is obsolete?
What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?
It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."
And you'd be right.
What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?
Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.
And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.
And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.
No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.
In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.
It is the right of revolution.
Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.
To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.
The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.
We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.
And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.
So.
What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.
No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."
This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.
This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)
This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.
This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.
Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.
Because we are revolutionaries.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Again, what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not get?
Gotta love the Brady Center to put their own spin on this loss!!
"Despite the perception that the decision was a setback for gun control advocates, Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement that he was "pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence."
It is the opinion of this blogger that the Brady Center and other anti-gun advocates version of a "common-sense" gun law is an outright ban.
Please, you're grasping at straws here. Yes, the decision could still allow "reasonable" restrictions (like, no guns for felons, etc). An outright ban is not, by any means, "reasonable". You only have to look at Chicago, with it's current ban and high gun crime. And how come gun crime, which has been increasing in D.C. since their ban, is all of a sudden dropping since the ban was lifted?
"Despite the perception that the decision was a setback for gun control advocates, Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement that he was "pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence."
It is the opinion of this blogger that the Brady Center and other anti-gun advocates version of a "common-sense" gun law is an outright ban.
Please, you're grasping at straws here. Yes, the decision could still allow "reasonable" restrictions (like, no guns for felons, etc). An outright ban is not, by any means, "reasonable". You only have to look at Chicago, with it's current ban and high gun crime. And how come gun crime, which has been increasing in D.C. since their ban, is all of a sudden dropping since the ban was lifted?
What Part of "Shall not be Infinged" did Chicago think it could get away with??
In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."
The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."
The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
When Guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns
This excerpt is from an online article by John Lott, a Fox News Contributor and Research Scientist at the University of Maryland.
How often have we screamed about this!
Since banning handguns in 1974, Jamaica’s murder rate has become one of the highest in the world.
Do gun bans really stop criminals from getting guns? Americans need not look no further than the massive gun battle with armed gangs fighting police and soldiers that took place in Kingston, Jamaica today. At least 30 people were killed in the fighting. It is a huge number for a small island nation of fewer than 3 million people, but unfortunately murder is so common in Jamaica that these murders won't even be noticed in the annual crime numbers.
With Chicago's Mayor Daley again claiming that a gun ban is necessary to keep Chicagoans safe, Jamaica and other countries with gun bans might teach Americans a lesson.
Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals, but the question is: who is most likely to obey the law? In the case of a ban, every instance we have data for shows that when a ban has been imposed, murder rates rise. In America, people are all to familiar with the increased murder rates in Chicago and Washington, D.C.. But supporters blame those gun control failures on the ease of getting guns in the rest of the country. Yet, even in island nations such as Ireland, the U.K., and Jamaica -- all of which have imposed bans -- their easily defendable borders and lack of obvious neighbors haven't stopped drug gangs from getting either drugs or the guns that they use to protect their valuable product.
Jamaica wasn't always the extremely violent country that it is today (see the figure here). Jamaica experienced large increases in murder rates since enacting a handgun bans in 1974. Since the gun ban, Jamaica’s murder rate has soared to become one of the highest in the world, currently at least double that of other Caribbean countries. Jamaica’s murder rate hasn’t sunk below 10 murders per 100,000 people since the gun ban went into effect.
Even before the recent rampage, Jamaica's murder rate was about six times higher than before the ban went into effect. Indeed, Jamaica's current murder rate is so high -- at about 60 per hundred thousand people -- that 30 additional deaths in one day will barely be noticeable: 30 deaths will only increase the murder rate from about 60 to 61.
Just as Mexico's President Calderon showed last week, it is always easy for politicians to blame crime on guns. The crime data in Jamaica shows the same thing as the crime data in Chicago and Washington have shown. It is the law-abiding, good citizens, not the criminals, who are disarmed by gun bans
How often have we screamed about this!
Since banning handguns in 1974, Jamaica’s murder rate has become one of the highest in the world.
Do gun bans really stop criminals from getting guns? Americans need not look no further than the massive gun battle with armed gangs fighting police and soldiers that took place in Kingston, Jamaica today. At least 30 people were killed in the fighting. It is a huge number for a small island nation of fewer than 3 million people, but unfortunately murder is so common in Jamaica that these murders won't even be noticed in the annual crime numbers.
With Chicago's Mayor Daley again claiming that a gun ban is necessary to keep Chicagoans safe, Jamaica and other countries with gun bans might teach Americans a lesson.
Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals, but the question is: who is most likely to obey the law? In the case of a ban, every instance we have data for shows that when a ban has been imposed, murder rates rise. In America, people are all to familiar with the increased murder rates in Chicago and Washington, D.C.. But supporters blame those gun control failures on the ease of getting guns in the rest of the country. Yet, even in island nations such as Ireland, the U.K., and Jamaica -- all of which have imposed bans -- their easily defendable borders and lack of obvious neighbors haven't stopped drug gangs from getting either drugs or the guns that they use to protect their valuable product.
Jamaica wasn't always the extremely violent country that it is today (see the figure here). Jamaica experienced large increases in murder rates since enacting a handgun bans in 1974. Since the gun ban, Jamaica’s murder rate has soared to become one of the highest in the world, currently at least double that of other Caribbean countries. Jamaica’s murder rate hasn’t sunk below 10 murders per 100,000 people since the gun ban went into effect.
Even before the recent rampage, Jamaica's murder rate was about six times higher than before the ban went into effect. Indeed, Jamaica's current murder rate is so high -- at about 60 per hundred thousand people -- that 30 additional deaths in one day will barely be noticeable: 30 deaths will only increase the murder rate from about 60 to 61.
Just as Mexico's President Calderon showed last week, it is always easy for politicians to blame crime on guns. The crime data in Jamaica shows the same thing as the crime data in Chicago and Washington have shown. It is the law-abiding, good citizens, not the criminals, who are disarmed by gun bans
Friday, May 21, 2010
Synopsis of Second Amendmend Bills in Louisiana Legislature
-HB9 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO HOUSE CRIMINAL JUSTICE WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Provides with respect to reciprocity agreements regarding concealed handgun permits
-HB16 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides for the certification of concealed handgun permit instructors
-HB42 HARDY ASSIGNED TO HOUSE CRIMINAL JUSTICE WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Increases penalties for carrying a firearm or discharging a firearm during a parade (OR INCREASE GF EX See Note)
-HB60 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Amends concealed handgun permit laws
-HB68 H.BURNS ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides with respect to concealed handgun permits
-HB141 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Provides that applications to possess or transfer certain firearms may be filed on approved electronic forms (EG SEE FISC NOTE SD EX)
-HB158 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides with respect to the issuance of concealed handgun permits
-HB235 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B LAW ENFORCE/OFFICERS: Authorizes retired law enforcement officers to purchase their weapons (EG INCREASE LF EX See Note)
-HB255 WOOTON PENDING SENATE FINAL PASSAGE PAROLE: Provides for technical revision of parole statutes
-HB348 LORUSSO ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Amends penalties imposed for a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (EG INCREASE GF EX See Note)
-HB556 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Amends firearm-free zone provisions with respect to concealed handgun permit holders
-HB562 BALDONE ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C LAW ENFORCE/OFFICERS: Expands the crime of disarming a peace officer to include the taking of all forms of law enforcement equipment
-HB609 WHITE ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C CRIME: Provides with respect to the crime of home invasion (EG SEE FISC NOTE GF EX See Note)
-HB1260 HAZEL PENDING SENATE FINAL PASSAGE WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Provides with respect to the possession of a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies
-HB1272 H.BURNS ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides with respect to concealed handgun permits
-HCR18 LEBAS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE COMMENDATIONS: Commends the National Rifle Association for developing the Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Education Program in schools
-HCR19 HARDY ASSIGNED TO HOUSE & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE OFFICERS: Authorizes an assistant sergeant at arms of the House of Representatives and Senate to carry an approved firearm following training
-HR9 HARDY ASSIGNED TO HOUSE & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE OFFICERS: Authorizes an assistant sergeant at arms of the House of Representatives to carry an approved firearm following training
-SB81 MARTINY PENDING HOUSE FINAL PASSAGE WEAPONS: Changes restrictions on statewide concealed handgun permits and adds an exception from criminal acts. (8/15/10)
-SB152 ADLEY ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B
WEAPONS: Enacts the Louisiana Firearms Freedom Act.
-SB174 J.R.SMITH ASSIGNED TO HOUSE CRIMINAL JUSTICE WEAPONS: Provides for training course requirements for a concealed weapons permit for combat veterans. (8/15/10)
-SB175 CROWE ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B
WEAPONS: Enacts the Louisiana Firearms Freedom Act. (8/15/10)
-SB526 MURRAY PENDING SENATE FINAL PASSAGE PUBLIC BUILDINGS/GROUNDS: Prohibits firearms or other explosive devices on property belonging to the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board. (gov sig)
-SB534 HEBERT PENDING HOUSE REFERRAL PUBLIC LANDS: Allows the possession of firearms on certain public lands. (8/15/10)
-HB16 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides for the certification of concealed handgun permit instructors
-HB42 HARDY ASSIGNED TO HOUSE CRIMINAL JUSTICE WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Increases penalties for carrying a firearm or discharging a firearm during a parade (OR INCREASE GF EX See Note)
-HB60 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Amends concealed handgun permit laws
-HB68 H.BURNS ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides with respect to concealed handgun permits
-HB141 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Provides that applications to possess or transfer certain firearms may be filed on approved electronic forms (EG SEE FISC NOTE SD EX)
-HB158 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides with respect to the issuance of concealed handgun permits
-HB235 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B LAW ENFORCE/OFFICERS: Authorizes retired law enforcement officers to purchase their weapons (EG INCREASE LF EX See Note)
-HB255 WOOTON PENDING SENATE FINAL PASSAGE PAROLE: Provides for technical revision of parole statutes
-HB348 LORUSSO ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Amends penalties imposed for a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (EG INCREASE GF EX See Note)
-HB556 WOOTON ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Amends firearm-free zone provisions with respect to concealed handgun permit holders
-HB562 BALDONE ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C LAW ENFORCE/OFFICERS: Expands the crime of disarming a peace officer to include the taking of all forms of law enforcement equipment
-HB609 WHITE ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C CRIME: Provides with respect to the crime of home invasion (EG SEE FISC NOTE GF EX See Note)
-HB1260 HAZEL PENDING SENATE FINAL PASSAGE WEAPONS/FIREARMS: Provides with respect to the possession of a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies
-HB1272 H.BURNS ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY C WEAPONS/HANDGUNS: Provides with respect to concealed handgun permits
-HCR18 LEBAS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE COMMENDATIONS: Commends the National Rifle Association for developing the Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Education Program in schools
-HCR19 HARDY ASSIGNED TO HOUSE & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE OFFICERS: Authorizes an assistant sergeant at arms of the House of Representatives and Senate to carry an approved firearm following training
-HR9 HARDY ASSIGNED TO HOUSE & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE OFFICERS: Authorizes an assistant sergeant at arms of the House of Representatives to carry an approved firearm following training
-SB81 MARTINY PENDING HOUSE FINAL PASSAGE WEAPONS: Changes restrictions on statewide concealed handgun permits and adds an exception from criminal acts. (8/15/10)
-SB152 ADLEY ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B
WEAPONS: Enacts the Louisiana Firearms Freedom Act.
-SB174 J.R.SMITH ASSIGNED TO HOUSE CRIMINAL JUSTICE WEAPONS: Provides for training course requirements for a concealed weapons permit for combat veterans. (8/15/10)
-SB175 CROWE ASSIGNED TO SENATE JUDICIARY B
WEAPONS: Enacts the Louisiana Firearms Freedom Act. (8/15/10)
-SB526 MURRAY PENDING SENATE FINAL PASSAGE PUBLIC BUILDINGS/GROUNDS: Prohibits firearms or other explosive devices on property belonging to the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board. (gov sig)
-SB534 HEBERT PENDING HOUSE REFERRAL PUBLIC LANDS: Allows the possession of firearms on certain public lands. (8/15/10)
Saturday, February 20, 2010
All Quiet on the Southern Front
It has been a quiet few months down here, as far as Second Amendment issues are going. We are anxiously waiting for the next Louisiana Legislative Season to begin in March (and the onslaught of pro and anti Second Amendment bills that come with it) and two Second Amendment items have already been pre-filed. More about that in a minute but I want to take time to reflect on some past events here in New Orleans that have kind of lifted the spirit of this city.
We've had a pretty exciting couple of months. I've started a new job in the IT field, Christmas and New Years blurred into the whole New Orleans Saints NFC Championship / Super Bowl / Mardi Gras blow out and I was glad to actually be a part of the celebration. I'm originally from the Boston area and I know how we felt when the Red Sox finally punched the big ticket. But I lived in the Big Easy then and was at least happy to have my own Red Sox celebration with a few friends here. To actually be a part of the whole Super Bowl celebration was magical. Not so much for me (ok, I admit, as a Patriot's fan, I had to leave my loyalties aside this year) but for the city and the residents. To go downtown and see people just having a great time with each other and NOT burning cars or rioting shows again that we now how to party with a purpose. Crime actually goes DOWN when the Saints are playing. To say nothing of the Saints parade! They figured over 1/2 a million people crammed downtown in cold, windy weather to say Thank You. Thank you to the Saints and the players for giving the Big Easy a big, collective boost. It's been a tough decade and somehow, all that, at least for a few weeks, made all that go away.
So thank you. Thanks Drew, thanks Tom B, thanks Sean Payton, and thanks Reggie and definitely thank you to Tracy Porter for the big 4th quarter interception. Thanks to all the Saints player for letting us know what it means to live in New Orleans
OK, tissue moment is over. On to the Legislature!!
Rep Wooton (R-Belle Chasse) has pre-filed legislation to make sure that CCW Instructors in Louisiana meet certain minimum criteria and to clarify reciprocity. For CCW instructors, the instructors certified by the National RifleAssociation shall be certified as an instructor in Basic Pistol Shooting, Personal Protection in theHome, or Personal Protection Outside the Home. I've got to agree that this is a great idea. The current law doesn't specify that they need to have training specific to this discipline and it is only right that they should be. After all, the type of training included in CCW instructions directly correlates to this type of discipline. Training specific in this area can only benefit the student.
The second pre-file contains to reciprocity in that a CCW Permittee from another state that has reciprocity with Louisiana be 21 years of age. Current law does not define that as some states allow CCW as young as 18. No problem here, I think 21 is a good age to start. I do not believe in that whole I'm 18 can vote and go to war but I can't drink or carry concealed. I know the Second Amendment is a right and not a privilege (like drinking) but the drinking age was raised because that experiment didn't work out too well. I can be 18 and got war, yes, after 3-5 months of dehumanizing, in your face training to leave the civilian life behind and become a soldier. CCW doesn't provide that much training.
So, all is Quiet on the Southern Front. Let's hope it stays that way for a while
Good Night, from the Who Dat? Nation
We've had a pretty exciting couple of months. I've started a new job in the IT field, Christmas and New Years blurred into the whole New Orleans Saints NFC Championship / Super Bowl / Mardi Gras blow out and I was glad to actually be a part of the celebration. I'm originally from the Boston area and I know how we felt when the Red Sox finally punched the big ticket. But I lived in the Big Easy then and was at least happy to have my own Red Sox celebration with a few friends here. To actually be a part of the whole Super Bowl celebration was magical. Not so much for me (ok, I admit, as a Patriot's fan, I had to leave my loyalties aside this year) but for the city and the residents. To go downtown and see people just having a great time with each other and NOT burning cars or rioting shows again that we now how to party with a purpose. Crime actually goes DOWN when the Saints are playing. To say nothing of the Saints parade! They figured over 1/2 a million people crammed downtown in cold, windy weather to say Thank You. Thank you to the Saints and the players for giving the Big Easy a big, collective boost. It's been a tough decade and somehow, all that, at least for a few weeks, made all that go away.
So thank you. Thanks Drew, thanks Tom B, thanks Sean Payton, and thanks Reggie and definitely thank you to Tracy Porter for the big 4th quarter interception. Thanks to all the Saints player for letting us know what it means to live in New Orleans
OK, tissue moment is over. On to the Legislature!!
Rep Wooton (R-Belle Chasse) has pre-filed legislation to make sure that CCW Instructors in Louisiana meet certain minimum criteria and to clarify reciprocity. For CCW instructors, the instructors certified by the National RifleAssociation shall be certified as an instructor in Basic Pistol Shooting, Personal Protection in theHome, or Personal Protection Outside the Home. I've got to agree that this is a great idea. The current law doesn't specify that they need to have training specific to this discipline and it is only right that they should be. After all, the type of training included in CCW instructions directly correlates to this type of discipline. Training specific in this area can only benefit the student.
The second pre-file contains to reciprocity in that a CCW Permittee from another state that has reciprocity with Louisiana be 21 years of age. Current law does not define that as some states allow CCW as young as 18. No problem here, I think 21 is a good age to start. I do not believe in that whole I'm 18 can vote and go to war but I can't drink or carry concealed. I know the Second Amendment is a right and not a privilege (like drinking) but the drinking age was raised because that experiment didn't work out too well. I can be 18 and got war, yes, after 3-5 months of dehumanizing, in your face training to leave the civilian life behind and become a soldier. CCW doesn't provide that much training.
So, all is Quiet on the Southern Front. Let's hope it stays that way for a while
Good Night, from the Who Dat? Nation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)