Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/15/2006 6:13:15 AM EDT
Everyone needs to take a look at these bills:

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=367296

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=367276

It would seem the storm got em to rethinking things.I posted this in the hometown forum but this could have the potential to become widespread.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:15:06 AM EDT
Executive summary, please
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:21:48 AM EDT
New gun restrictions
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:22:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bwyatt:
Everyone needs to take a look at these bills:

www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=367296

www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=367276

It would seem the storm got em to rethinking things.I posted this in the hometown forum but this could have the potential to become widespread.



Your board-fu is weak.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:24:51 AM EDT
The two bills seem to contradict each other.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:25:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Executive summary, please



1 - Bad

2 - Good
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:25:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Executive summary, please



Dude, they're not that long.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:28:55 AM EDT
The first one gives mayors and such the power to restrict gun sales and ammo sales during a disaster.

The second one prevents gun confiscation during a disaster.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:30:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
The two bills seem to contradict each other.



I wouldn't like the wording of number 1. Number 2 would seem to make it clear that the line is drawn at "lawful possesion" and they are forbidden to confiscate such arms, but number 1 would allow a locality to determine what is lawful durring an emergency declaration. Seems to take all the teeth out of number 2.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:32:24 AM EDT
Even number 2 seems a bit squishy to me. Rep Schneider has a better bill to address the issue (HB36). His is a straight forward addition that says no firearms may be confiscated unless unlawfully possessed.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:33:05 AM EDT
Short take on #1- the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be overriden when and as long as an "emergency" has been declared.

i.e., when you need them the most, they think they can take them away.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:33:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 6:36:42 AM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
The first one gives mayors and such the power to restrict gun sales and ammo sales during a disaster.

The second one prevents gun confiscation during a disaster.



First one is broader than that:


A. Except to address a disaster or emergency situation in a parish where
12 the governor has declared a state of emergency or disaster by executive order or
13 proclamation pursuant to the provisions of the Louisiana Homeland Security and
14 Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act
, no governing authority of a political
15 subdivision shall enact after July 15, 1985, any ordinance or regulation more
16 restrictive than state law concerning in any way the sale, purchase, possession,
17 ownership, transfer, transportation, license, or registration of firearms, ammunition,
18 or components of firearms or ammunition;



ETA: I would ABSOLUTELY oppose that. That language leaves everything to the locality when you would need them the most.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:41:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
The first one gives mayors and such the power to restrict gun sales and ammo sales during a disaster.





Another good reason not to wait until you need one to have it. Stack the ammo high and deep.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:45:12 AM EDT
Politically Louisiana is a CESSPOOL, run by corrupt, power-mad shitbirds. They are Socialists of the highest order and damn well KNOW what is best for the population. Savannah is the same, NY, DC, LA, SF, all of NJ, Chicago, Miami, oh hell... every major metro area.

People have been conditioned over the last 50 years to be that way, and it is only now that freedom of thought is penetrating those who are tired of been held down.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:47:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 6:47:51 AM EDT by Szurgot]

Originally Posted By phatmax:
Politically Louisiana is a CESSPOOL, run by corrupt, power-mad shitbirds.



Hey that is my state you are talking about. And if it were not true I would be really mad.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:50:03 AM EDT
Damn Phatmax, tell us how ya really feel.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:50:48 AM EDT


Originally Posted By motown_steve:

The first one gives mayors and such the power to restrict gun sales and ammo sales during a disaster.
.




Why bother? They did it anyway.........
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:55:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Szurgot:

Originally Posted By phatmax:
Politically Louisiana is a CESSPOOL, run by corrupt, power-mad shitbirds.



Hey that is my state you are talking about. And if it were not true I would be really mad.



it's only bad if you're not one of the currupt, power-mad shitbirds.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:57:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 6:59:06 AM EDT by pulpsmack]
Working on reps this week. Thanks for the heads up.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 7:20:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bwyatt:
Damn Phatmax, tell us how ya really feel.





I am really REALLY tired of politicians using the TV generation's short attention span to bulldoze new, crappier, more restrictive, anti-freedom laws into effect.

"give them Circuses and bread" The Roman government knew this well and by creating an Entertainment/Welfare state, complete control of the masses can be accomplished.

While Joe Sixpack and the Wife are watching American Idol, mesmerized by the flickering lights, Pols pass whatever they want to in the halls of government.

New Orleans was a good example of this.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 7:29:23 AM EDT
If you wait till a disaster happens to get some guns and ammo, you waited to long.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 7:42:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 7:43:13 AM EDT by warlord]
I think the liberal politicos from NOLA is pushing for a law that local gun laws can supersede state gun laws.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 7:45:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By phatmax:
Politically Louisiana is a CESSPOOL, run by corrupt, power-mad shitbirds. They are Socialists of the highest order and damn well KNOW what is best for the population. Savannah is the same, NY, DC, LA, SF, all of NJ, Chicago, Miami, oh hell... every major metro area except Phoenix.

People have been conditioned over the last 50 years to be that way, and it is only now that freedom of thought is penetrating those who are tired of been held down.




fixed it for ya, we just passed our own anti-confiscation bills at the state level.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:04:12 AM EDT
They're just staying busy. The Feds have taken away their oversight of all the Katrina relief funds so no giveaways for the relatives and friends.

I like the cartoon I saw this morning...


NEW HURRICANE SEASON. SAME LEADERSHIP

Nagin Blanco Chertoff Bush

Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:08:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If you wait till a disaster happens to get some guns and ammo, you waited to long.



It's the word "POSSESSION" that has the CHPs salivating.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:10:15 AM EDT
I feel for you guys down in LA, I really do. However, I'm glad someone in the Commonwealth of Virginia took notice of what happened down there and submitted a bill that would prevent them from taking our guns in an emergency/natural disaster. Hopefully, at least, someone can benefit from what happened in NO.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:11:26 AM EDT
I'll be making phone calls this week. Number 2 seems to almost be negated by the first one.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:12:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By callgood:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If you wait till a disaster happens to get some guns and ammo, you waited to long.



It's the word "POSSESSION" that has the CHPs salivating.



Agreed. If they want to restrict sales, that is one thing. But to restrict posession...FUCK THAT!
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:14:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brians_45:

Originally Posted By callgood:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If you wait till a disaster happens to get some guns and ammo, you waited to long.



It's the word "POSSESSION" that has the CHPs salivating.



Agreed. If they want to restrict sales, that is one thing. But to restrict posession...FUCK THAT!

Honestly I think it is a load a shit that the government can dictate what can and can not be sold or exchanged during an emergency or a disaster. Not only does this include ammo, but those people who drive 500 miles loaded up with water, gas, and generators.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:15:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brians_45:

Originally Posted By callgood:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If you wait till a disaster happens to get some guns and ammo, you waited to long.



It's the word "POSSESSION" that has the CHPs salivating.



Agreed. If they want to restrict sales, that is one thing FUCK THAT . But to restrict posession...FUCK THAT!



How's that?
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:16:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Szurgot:

Originally Posted By phatmax:
Politically Louisiana is a CESSPOOL, run by corrupt, power-mad shitbirds.



Hey that is my state you are talking about. And if it were not true I would be really mad.




Remember the Edwards/Duke election? What a choice.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:42:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By callgood:

Originally Posted By Brians_45:

Originally Posted By callgood:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If you wait till a disaster happens to get some guns and ammo, you waited to long.



It's the word "POSSESSION" that has the CHPs salivating.



Agreed. If they want to restrict sales, that is one thing FUCK THAT . But to restrict posession...FUCK THAT!



How's that?


I don't disagree. My wife (senior in law school) is looking into this law now. She seems to think that they can already regulate the sales.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:53:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brians_45:

Originally Posted By callgood:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If you wait till a disaster happens to get some guns and ammo, you waited to long.



It's the word "POSSESSION" that has the CHPs salivating.



Agreed. If they want to restrict sales, that is one thing. But to restrict posession...FUCK THAT!



Well, that may or may not be accurate. If both of these bills pass then they will be unable to restrict possession because the second bill forbids them from confiscating guns from a whole list of places. The question is are these bills siblings or competitors?

The second bill is fine...great actually. The first bill sucks, but it doesn't necessarily grant the power to have the mayor confiscate your guns.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:54:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brians_45:
I'll be making phone calls this week. Number 2 seems to almost be negated by the first one.



Or vice versa.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:09:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 11:10:35 AM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Brians_45:

Originally Posted By callgood:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If you wait till a disaster happens to get some guns and ammo, you waited to long.



It's the word "POSSESSION" that has the CHPs salivating.



Agreed. If they want to restrict sales, that is one thing. But to restrict posession...FUCK THAT!



Well, that may or may not be accurate. If both of these bills pass then they will be unable to restrict possession because the second bill forbids them from confiscating guns from a whole list of places. The question is are these bills siblings or competitors?

The second bill is fine...great actually. The first bill sucks, but it doesn't necessarily grant the power to have the mayor confiscate your guns.



Look at it again. The second bill uses the language "lawfully possessed". If the first bill allows them in a state of emergency to make regulations on possessing them then if you are later found with one in violation of that regulation it would not be "lawful" right? That seems to a loophole wide enough to drive a tank through to me.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 12:14:16 PM EDT
After further reading and having my wife translate it for me, I find the following:

The second bill says that they can't confiscate your firearms from your home or any extension thereof unless you are involved in criminal activity. This is a good thing IMO.

The first bill says that they can regulate the sale, posession, transfer, transportation etc of firearms in the instance of a declared state of emergency. This is bad IMO.

Between the two bills, I am under the understanding that they could tell you that you couldn't sell, posess, transfer, transport etc a firearm and that you could get in trouble for it. This would negate the second bill having any meaning in this circumstance because you would be commiting a criminal act by not obeying the first bill. What it basically sums up to me is that I can't CCW or open carry if both bills are passed and then at some time enacted by the local .gov. I don't like that idea much at all. Even more so in a disaster situation.

Do I have this all backwards?
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 12:22:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 12:23:20 PM EDT by PlaymoreMinds]
Typical. Addressing a symptom rather than the disease.
How about they wake up and realize that the Govt of LA caused the shitstorm to begin with? No, not Katrina. I mean the shitstorm of stupidity...

Hey! Let's make it illegal for a local Govt to ignore spending money on levees that the ACE said were in grave danger of failing 30 years prior? Why don't we smack around the dumbasses there who spent money on boosting tourism and building the damn Dome that wound up a cesspool instead of fixing the levees???
Goddamn dumbasses spent 30 years gambling and when the cards folded, they shit their pants and could not contain the lawlessness...

Dumbasses...where's Bama-shooter??? He tells them they're dumbasses better than anyone...

Link Posted: 3/15/2006 12:32:05 PM EDT
When Calif had the L.A. riots in '94, the govt clamped down a ban on sales of any firearms, and you couldn't even pickup your gun after completing the background check either. No where at the time, does the law say that you can't take possession of the gun.

BTW: In certain muncipalities(Los Angeles is the biggie), there are bans on selling of ammo 5 days before News Years and 5 days prior to July 4th.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 12:32:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
Typical. Addressing a symptom rather than the disease.
How about they wake up and realize that the Govt of LA caused the shitstorm to begin with? No, not Katrina. I mean the shitstorm of stupidity...

Hey! Let's make it illegal for a local Govt to ignore spending money on levees that the ACE said were in grave danger of failing 30 years prior? Why don't we smack around the dumbasses there who spent money on boosting tourism and building the damn Dome that wound up a cesspool instead of fixing the levees???
Goddamn dumbasses spent 30 years gambling and when the cards folded, they shit their pants and could not contain the lawlessness...

Dumbasses...where's Bama-shooter??? He tells them they're dumbasses better than anyone...




No shit. I am still waiting for them to make logic a crime.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 12:40:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Brians_45:
After further reading and having my wife translate it for me, I find the following:

The second bill says that they can't confiscate your firearms from your home or any extension thereof unless you are involved in criminal activity. This is a good thing IMO.

The first bill says that they can regulate the sale, posession, transfer, transportation etc of firearms in the instance of a declared state of emergency. This is bad IMO.

Between the two bills, I am under the understanding that they could tell you that you couldn't sell, posess, transfer, transport etc a firearm and that you could get in trouble for it. This would negate the second bill having any meaning in this circumstance because you would be commiting a criminal act by not obeying the first bill. What it basically sums up to me is that I can't CCW or open carry if both bills are passed and then at some time enacted by the local .gov. I don't like that idea much at all. Even more so in a disaster situation.

Do I have this all backwards?



I still think that the second bill would prevent any confiscation and negate portions of the first bill. That is why I am wondering if these are competing bills. If you look at the second bill, it prevents the police from confiscating your weapon if you are in your home, a privately owned boat, a privately owned car, or if you are transporting the firearm unloaded and in a case. The police can take your gun for the duration of the encounter, but they must give it back. The first bill gives local authorities some power to regulate sales, storage, possession (which is what is confusing) of guns and ammo.

I think that the second bill is fine, but the first bill sucks (although I don't think that they'll be able to confiscate your firearms under the second bill).

It's too bad that we've allowed the government to get any leverage with regulating guns. They have no business passing any laws concerning firearms, period.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 12:48:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 12:49:58 PM EDT by Brians_45]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Brians_45:
After further reading and having my wife translate it for me, I find the following:

The second bill says that they can't confiscate your firearms from your home or any extension thereof unless you are involved in criminal activity. This is a good thing IMO.

The first bill says that they can regulate the sale, posession, transfer, transportation etc of firearms in the instance of a declared state of emergency. This is bad IMO.

Between the two bills, I am under the understanding that they could tell you that you couldn't sell, posess, transfer, transport etc a firearm and that you could get in trouble for it. This would negate the second bill having any meaning in this circumstance because you would be commiting a criminal act by not obeying the first bill. What it basically sums up to me is that I can't CCW or open carry if both bills are passed and then at some time enacted by the local .gov. I don't like that idea much at all. Even more so in a disaster situation.

Do I have this all backwards?



I still think that the second bill would prevent any confiscation and negate portions of the first bill. That is why I am wondering if these are competing bills. If you look at the second bill, it prevents the police from confiscating your weapon if you are in your home, a privately owned boat, a privately owned car, or if you are transporting the firearm unloaded and in a case. The police can take your gun for the duration of the encounter, but they must give it back. The first bill gives local authorities some power to regulate sales, storage, possession (which is what is confusing) of guns and ammo.

I think that the second bill is fine, but the first bill sucks (although I don't think that they'll be able to confiscate your firearms under the second bill).

It's too bad that we've allowed the government to get any leverage with regulating guns. They have no business passing any laws concerning firearms, period.



They were both presented by the same person. Why would one person present competing bills? That is what confuses me.

If the law that they are referencing as far as carrying goes is confusing you, that is because it is a "Special" carry permit law, not the one that everyone has. This permit is damn near impossible to obtain and last I checked, only one person has one in LA. This permit basically allows you to carry anywhere, any time, no matter what.

I agree that the second one is fine and the first one sucks, but I am not so sure about the rest of that. I am going to look more into it after work. I'll be sure to report my findings.

I completely agree!

ETA: Both bills were proposed by Danny Martiny from Metairie (district 79).

DISTRICT OFFICE ADDRESS
131 Airline Highway, Ste. 201
Metairie, LA 70001
(504)834-7676
(504)834-5409 (Fax)

email: larep079@legis.state.la.us
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 12:56:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
Typical. Addressing a symptom rather than the disease.
How about they wake up and realize that the Govt of LA caused the shitstorm to begin with? No, not Katrina. I mean the shitstorm of stupidity...

Hey! Let's make it illegal for a local Govt to ignore spending money on levees that the ACE said were in grave danger of failing 30 years prior? Why don't we smack around the dumbasses there who spent money on boosting tourism and building the damn Dome that wound up a cesspool instead of fixing the levees???
Goddamn dumbasses spent 30 years gambling and when the cards folded, they shit their pants and could not contain the lawlessness...

Dumbasses...where's Bama-shooter??? He tells them they're dumbasses better than anyone...




After meeting seveal local politico's during my time in NO.

They are Dumbasses. I'll never forget the one who threatened me with the FBI after I kicked him out of a DRC.

Dumbass.
Top Top