Been looking into this since I finally have time now. Been doin alot of googlefoo on the subject of act 874 and cc rights and firearm rights in general.
I would like people who are from LA to post their comments, but others from different states can also. Please keep it civil and on subject. I am also looking for a lawyer or two to weigh in on this too who might have some knowledge on this. I realise its still a fairly new statute/addition, but if it comes out that I could possibly come out on top filing suit against cc permit laws as unconstitutional I might give it a shot.
Anyhow on to the subject.
Was intransit back to America when this passed. Finally getting around to looking at the wording and such. And pretty much says this according to different sources. Act 874 ,would require strict scrutiny of any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. The legal standard would require courts, when asked, to determine whether the state’s gun laws demonstrate “a compelling governmental interest” and are “narrowly defined.” If not, they are to be thrown out as unconstitutional. I did some research on what "strict scrutiny" means for gov law, legal etc. And wiki seems to have summed it up the best without all the legal mumbo jumbo included.
U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the "liberty" or "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
A. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
B. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
C. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subjected to this standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts found that laws survive strict scrutiny more than 30% of the time. In one area of law, religious liberty, laws that burden religious liberty survived strict scrutiny review in nearly 60% of cases.
The compelling state interest test is distinguishable from the rational basis test, which involves claims that do not involve a suspect class and involve a liberty interest rather than a fundamental right.
Now going by that without all the mumbo jumbo legal BS, couldnt one challenge the cc laws in louisiana by the following;
A.It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.Current laws really are not justifiable due to , A. OC need have no training on firearms to carry, Do not have to pay for licensing, and by current laws, would still have to inform LEOs of carrying a weapon.
B.The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest What is the compelling interest of this law? Safety... It is no safer making something licensed when a individual can OC(According to what I have read the firearm doesn't even have to be in full view, as long as its visible enough to distinguish what it is it is legal) so there is really no safety/security issue on that part. That and not requiring OCers to submit to training also flaws the training aspect of CC laws currently
C.The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interestI can think of multiple less restricted ways, everyone legal age to carry, required to have certified pistol training. Yea sounds annoying, but to be honest there is no reason the law is how it is when a person can simply go to a store, buy a glock and walk around with it locked cocked and ready to rock while to keep it concealed,for cc you are required to register for a license, which is public record, and take a training course.
To me it seems fairly easy, why is there a law on the books strictly forbidding one to conceal their weapon and having to get a license and certified training when a individual can simply walk into a store, pass the background check and walk out and about with it. Seems a tad silly.
To sum it up,
I think now with 874 passing there really is nothing that the CC permit advocates or the state can use to stand ground on the usefullness of the permits being required because:
1. The direct changes to the LA constitution on art 1 sec 11 no longer allows for reg of concealed weapons.
2. It makes no sense that someone can simply walk into a firearms store, select a pistol, do the backgroud check, purchase and walk out with said firearm and OC anywhere within constraints of the current laws(IE school zones=no go) when for a CC you must grab a permit app, fill out the permit, mail permit in with $, take training etc.
3. With 874 passing, the state gov would have to prove strict scrutiny which falls flat using the above scenario as the current CC laws do not add safety etc to the people by the permit process.
4. Regardless I believe(might be wrong) you must tell a officer you have a firearm once approached if carrying whether OC or CC.
5. Following the 874, it would be considered a restrictive/over regulation due to people being able to OC with no permit or training.
6.Whether you believe it or not, the cc permit is pretty much a way of telling who has a pistol or not. Most people in these economic times are not going to pay the application fee + training fees and not own a firearm. Which with Freedom Of Information Act requests can potentially give out addresses, sex, and age of permittee. That to me is wrong and a clear safety issue.
Again any comments or devil advocate would be welcomed.
If you think about it the current CC reg is unconsitutional and really provides no added safety to others or the CC holder due to OC being completely legal. The only issue I would see if the statute on the School free zone and CC carrying.(which fed law still trumpts as illegal I also believe)
and ps from my googlefoo over the last week or so, most cases where laws are challenged due to strict scrutiny statutes rarely fail(wiki states more then 30% its actually around 35% fed statutes/acts, 20% state statutes/acts for fail rate. so not bad odds)