Look at Louisiana...

[Que]

Hopefully, the voters turn out.

http://www.nraila.org/media/9914064/yeson2flyer.pdf

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Extremely important issue in LA, and for all of us.

 

[EOD Guy]

I'm glad to see state officials stand up to the courts when their "interpretation" is out of line.

...nothing like a "Constitutional" smack up side the head to tell the untouchables they are wrong!

 

[BravoMike]

Thanks for sharing Que! That is great news, hopefully it passes!

 

[2A_Tom]

The rightof each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamentaland shall not be infringed.

Nough said. This sentence seems to spell it out just fine. Then they contradict it outright.

Any restrictionof this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Oxymoron? Mutually exclusive? Political Intelligence?

This changes the old law, how?

IANACL but it seems to me that liars (lawlers, especially those that are also politicians) always write in the lop holes and expect us not to notice.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This changes the old law, how?

How a right is review is governed by three standards:

1. rationale basis: the most permissive
2. intermediate:
3. strict scrutiny: the most restrictive

The proposed constitutional amendment mandates a built in strict scrutiny test for the right to arms.

For further background:

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Que]

Reviewing with strict scrutiny standard will practically ensure the most favorable outcome.

 

[2A_Tom]

Kirk,
Your link doesnKt work, here is another.

Strict scrutiny | LII / Legal Information Institute

"Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws.* To pass strict scrutiny,*the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and*must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.* A*famous quip asserts that strict scrutiny is "strict in name, but fatal in practice."**

 

[rambone]

The rightof each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamentaland shall not be infringed.

Nough said. This sentence seems to spell it out just fine. Then they contradict it outright.

Any restrictionof this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

This was my reaction as well.

Better: "Any restriction of this right shall be strictly prohibited."

 

[2A_Tom]

Everything I can find on strict scruitny has to do with judicial review and pertains to thbe equal protection clause.

The link that I posted in #8 seems to say that a "compelling government intrest" would trump the law.

Hmmm.. compelling GOVERNMENT intrest?