• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

WBRZ Covers CC on Campus Bill

rmansu2

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
325
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
http://www.wbrz.com/news/bill-to-allow-concealed-weapons-on-campus-stalls/

I know it is not OC, and has been covered before, but bear with me. I just finished my "education," and always felt those with the means should protect themselves(and others if necessary). I OC and CC but while on campus 12 hours a day I was forced to be a free target. They believe the students and law enforcement officials would be at more risk of law-abiding students carrying. Isn't this the same line of crap we hear all the time? I would say look at Utah, where students are allowed to carry concealed on campus and the statistics of friendly fire incidents. Rep. Wooton is trying to push this through and I think he needs our support.

Rich M.
P95
 

estcrh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
365
Location
Louisiana, USA
http://www.wbrz.com/news/bill-to-allow-concealed-weapons-on-campus-stalls/

I know it is not OC, and has been covered before, but bear with me. I just finished my "education," and always felt those with the means should protect themselves(and others if necessary). I OC and CC but while on campus 12 hours a day I was forced to be a free target. They believe the students and law enforcement officials would be at more risk of law-abiding students carrying. Isn't this the same line of crap we hear all the time? I would say look at Utah, where students are allowed to carry concealed on campus and the statistics of friendly fire incidents. Rep. Wooton is trying to push this through and I think he needs our support.

Rich M.
P95
I think that all school gun free zones laws and on campus gun laws need to be repealed. There are already enough laws in place covering any illegal use of a firearm. When in New Orleans I do not like to go any were unarmed and would not feel comfortable going to a school and being unable to defend myself while any criminal can just bring a gun to a school without worrying about being stopped until its to late.
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
I watched it live this morning and sat through the HB 11 discussion as well while waiting for this to come up. It was painful to watch and I swear my blood pressure was going through the roof the more they spoke on it. It's amazing to see our elected officials at work. Amazing that we haven't had a bloody revolution ala the French and dragged them from the chambers at the capital out to a gallows set up with guillotines. And that witch Barbara Norton?!? I swear, listeing to her speak should be a form of torture banned by the Geneva Conventions. If I ever meet her in the street I don't know how I will be able to resist the urge to walk up to her and kick her right in the junk.
 

estcrh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
365
Location
Louisiana, USA
To bad more politicians do not think like this.

Wooton said the bill is designed to enhance protection on college campuses and to preserve the constitutional rights of students, faculty and staff to carry firearms if they are properly qualified.
"It is a constitutional right taken away by a boundary" of a campus, he said.
Wooton said members of the news media do not check their First Amendment rights when they go on a college campus but legal holders of firearms can lose their Second Amendment rights to bear arms when they go on a campus.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
If you cant get some state politicians to go along with this measure how can you get them to consider the repeal of the whole hideous gun free school zone law.

Well... as far as the gfsz issue... that is a federal problem. We need to begin to put steady presure on our Senators and Reps in Washington, This has to happen nation wide. Perhaps we should be posting this on a general forum instead of the La. forum.

There is also the posibility of having the fed gfsz law challenged by a federal lawsuit. There are complications to this so a strategy would have to be carefully planned.

When it comes to campus carry... a lawsuit can be filed in ANY district court in La. This would be far less costly and complicated than attacking the fed gfsz law.

The main point is to KEEP pushing.... and continuing to help educate others.
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
This is why local elections are so important. While there are movements to eliminate the electorial collage and people groan and gripe about the presidential elections but forget just how much damage is being done right here in Baton Rouge. Representitives like Barbara Norton are an embarassment to this State. With idiots like her on the Capitol floor we will never be able to get procarry bills passed. we need to support progun politicians like Wooten and send those against us to the unemployement lines.
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,884
Location
Granite State of Mind
SCOTUS has already said they will not strike down the GFSZ law.
They struck down the first one. They've never ruled on its replacement (which just had some minor changes citing the interstate commerce clause as authority).

I don't know that they've rejected a case on GFSZA.2, which your post implies. If they have... yeah, please cite.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
They struck down the first one. They've never ruled on its replacement (which just had some minor changes citing the interstate commerce clause as authority).

I don't know that they've rejected a case on GFSZA.2, which your post implies. If they have... yeah, please cite.

It was a comment that was part of the Heller decision I think. I don't have time right now to look it up but I will do so later. Its not strong common law, least I don't think, but it is insight into how one judge will rule on the subject and if a single judge flops to the wacko side its majority against. If only the second, current, GFSZA, was challenged right away before the court changed... Gota go OC meetup to attend. I'll find the relevant stuff later today. Sorry again about not citing previously, I thought I was just reminding people of common knowledge.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
It was a comment that was part of the Heller decision I think. I don't have time right now to look it up but I will do so later. Its not strong common law, least I don't think, but it is insight into how one judge will rule on the subject and if a single judge flops to the wacko side its majority against. If only the second, current, GFSZA, was challenged right away before the court changed... Gota go OC meetup to attend. I'll find the relevant stuff later today. Sorry again about not citing previously, I thought I was just reminding people of common knowledge.

Well... that's NOT what you're doing. BY not taking the time to post a link, you're posting crap.

If you refer to DC v Heller, I'm sure this is the quote you refer to...
"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,..."

Link to Heller v DC http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Heller says NOTHING about AROUND sensitive areas, which would apply to the gfsz.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
If you refer to DC v Heller, I'm sure this is the quote you refer to...
"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,..."

Link to Heller v DC http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Heller says NOTHING about AROUND sensitive areas, which would apply to the gfsz.

That is the one I was referring to. You are probably right in a legal sense. I was more talking about the insight such a statement gives as to how the judge would rule if it came before him. Have no doubt, such a case would eventually if it was pushed hard. With the CURRENT court such a case would be terrible. Perhaps with a future court it could be overturned and certainly with a past court it would have been overturned, for they did overturn it in essence. Another point about declaring that law unconstitutional is it would go against precedent on the commerce clause; since its only difference from the version declared unconstitutional is they added the "or affects interstate commerce" bs. This makes it potentially less probable and yet if it happened very good for liberty.
 
Top