Louisiana ACT 874 is more GUN CONTROL..!!



Here is information on the Gun Control Legislation we will be voting on November 6th, 2012 needing your “Strict Scrutiny!”

The new Amendment has been touted as adding “teeth” to the current 1974 Louisiana Constitution. I, along with a few others, have examined the current Amendment and the proposed Amendment. We have drawn a comparison for your review. I highly recommend that you, as a Louisiana voter, weigh this comparison carefully before casting your ballot “For” or “Against” the proposed new Amendment! It will be almost impossible to change this Amendment if you are one of the Louisiana Citizens on whom “Strict Scrutiny” might be applied, and you don’t like the “bite” this Amendment adds!

The link I have provided below is to the latest version of SB 303 (ACT 874) whereby the new gun control amendment will be voted on this November 6th during the national election for President.

Here are the basics-

The 1974 Constitution currently reads:

§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.

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.

The Ballot on Nov 6th will read:

“Do you support an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Louisiana to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court?”
“(Amends Article I, Section 11)”


The MAIN problem with the NEW amendment is that the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence states that the “right …… shall not be infringed.” The second sentence states “any restriction” is allowed.

For a “Right” to “not be infringed” there can be NO “restriction” placed on it whatsoever. NONE. Privileges can have restrictions placed on them. “Rights”, as defined in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 cannot be “restricted” in any manner, as they are “unalienable,” which means not ‘alienable’….not able to be taken away, transferred or RESTRICTED…!!

The second problem with the amendment as written is that the undetermined “restrictions” which should NOT be in the amendment at all, “shall be subject to strict scrutiny” by persons or groups who are not named in the amendment. That could be anyone. It could be any public official, military commander or court.

That leads to another huge problem – “Strict SCRUTINY” by whom?

We cannot assume it means ‘court’ at all, since the word “COURT” does NOT appear in the Amendment… BUT it will appear on the ballot. Please notice that the ballot and Bill wording does NOT appear in the Amendment!

The “strict scrutiny” could be made by the City, Parish, District, State officials, or their courts, or the Supreme Court. The word ‘COURT’ might even be the World Court at the Hague, Netherlands. How many small town Louisianans will travel to The Hague, Netherlands to defend their Rights to own a firearm?
SB 303 makes four (4) references to the “Courts” but you need to ask your representative which “Court” hears the case, how that “Court” gets involved, what are the guidelines used by those “Courts” for strict “Scrutiny” and how does wording of “The Bill” apply to the Amendment when the Amendment does not call for any use of a Court system.

The wording of the Amendment simply does NOT address the Court system as the Bill does. The amendment certainly should be specific before it is implemented by our vote to approve this vaguely worded change to the Louisiana Constitution.

Actually, the second sentence in the amendment should be COMPLETELY REMOVED to be considered at all..!!

Here is some information on the “International Court of Justice” (Aka- World Court) in The Hague, Netherlands.

The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly. Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

District 33 Rep Mike Danahay has stated to me; the NRA wrote this bill.

Here is what the NRA Vice President said it stands for:
“The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.” —NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
(Source: NRA’s American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22.)

That quote and more information on the deeds of the NRA can be found in this article:

The NRA is one of the largest proponents of Gun Control in the United States as stated in the complete article from KeepAndBearArms.com. Please attempt to make it your duty to read the complete article before the November elections to learn what the Authors of Louisiana’s Senate Bill 303 “REALLY” stand for! You may not want to support this Bill once you study the proposed Amendment once you have better understand the author(s) of this Bill.

As it states in the Digest written by Thomas L. Tyler on page 2 of SB 303, the only regulation we currently have on firearms is on those who carry them concealed.

We should keep it that way. You and I can currently carry firearms within the state of Louisiana as long as it can be seen and is not concealed. No permit required. That’s more Liberty than what is being offered from the new Amendment if you ask me!




‘Strict scrutiny’ is NOT necessary for protection of any rights, in ANY amendment to the Louisiana Constitution. There are no guarantees of protection of rights due to the insertion of any wording into an amendment at any time.

Tiered scrutiny, including strict scrutiny, is hardly a canon of constitutional law. It was invented in the middle of the 20th Century by the Warren Court.

The idea of ‘Strict Scrutiny’ did not exist before 1938, as a legal term. Those words have NO constitutional basis at all..!!

The notion of “levels of judicial scrutiny”, including ‘strict scrutiny,’ was introduced in footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government actions valid was Korematsu v. United States (1944).

In all of its forms, tiered scrutiny is a balancing methodology which omits any reference to either text or history. Instead, it gives judges the “power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” If that is the case….there are NO rights at all, only privileges, to be meted out or totally removed, as judges see fit to do.





Here’s what Chief Justice John Roberts had to say during oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller:

“Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, “strict scrutiny,” “compelling interest,” “significant interest,” “narrowly tailored,” none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard.

“Isn’t it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can’t take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these — how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?

“I’m not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don’t know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?”

SO…. in light of what Chief Justice Roberts said…

There Is NO reason for the last sentence of the new proposed amendment, and its inevitable ‘restriction,’ which should NOT be in the amendment at all.





Personal attacks are unnecessary and will not be tolerated.