

Lawmakers look at gun rights

8:46 PM, Apr. 29, 2013  |  Comments
  • Filed Under

The Second Amendment is to be protected, but there's nothing that shows it deserves any more protection than the others.

Some people are wondering just how far the Legislature will go in its pursuit of defending and promoting the Second Amendment.

It's gotten to the point that lawmakers are seeing a monster around every corner ready to snatch guns from the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens.

The federal government is the bad guy in this, even though any attempt to set limits is shot down in Congress, and President Obama has been the best thing ever for boosting gun and ammunition sales.

Let's take a look at what the House passed last week.

House Bill 5 by Rep. Jim Morris, R-Oil City, is so unconstitutional that if he weren't so serious about it and the House didn't so overwhelmingly approve it, it would be laughable.

The bill says any law enforcement officer who tries to enforce federal law or presidential order regarding semi-automatic weapons, including their magazines and ammunition, would be arrested, tried and possibly convicted of a felony, fined $5,000 and sent to prison for two years.

In all likelihood, though, any Louisiana law enforcement officer who tried to arrest an ATF agent for enforcing federal law would be the one locked up, but in a federal jail for interfering with the enforcement of federal law.

Unless Louisiana secedes, we're still part of the United States of America and that means the U.S. Constitution and laws are still the law of the land.

Contained in the Constitution is a clause that says any state law that conflicts is null and void.

HB5's language saying that any federal restriction is unenforceable in Louisiana doesn't really make it so.

Even many state representatives who know it's unconstitutional voted for it.

And then there's HB48 by Rep. Henry Burns, R-Haughton, which started out as a reasonable piece of legislation allowing police officers to carry their guns into restaurants, like any Chili's, Applebee's, Copeland's and such, that have bars, as long as the officers weren't drinking.

An existing provision in state law allows armed officers to go into places that serve alcoholic drinks only if they are performing an official duty.

The bill sought to remove that restriction.

But an amendment in committee, which was sold as restricting the bill only to restaurants with bars and not stand-alone bars, was approved, apparently with few members reading it.

On the House floor, it was discovered that the amendment totally took out any reference to law enforcement officers and inserted concealed handgun permit holders.

So, if the bill becomes law, police officers still couldn't legally bring in their guns but anyone with a concealed handgun permit could.

And the amendment says nothing about prohibiting those with concealed weapons from drinking.

Arguments that this could lead to dangerous situations when people combine alcohol and guns were practically laughed off by supporters of the bill.

Burns said if restaurant owners don't want people bringing in their guns, they can put up signs saying so.

He said the same thing a few years ago when he tried to pass legislation allowing people to bring their guns into church.

But that bill drew major opposition.

The new gun bills now go to the Senate.

Things To Do


Photo Galleries

Real Deals




Sign up for home delivery today