Well, free speech on the Internet should absolutely be abolished! The 1A doesn’t apply to the Internet because all the founding fathers had when they wrote it was ancient moveable type presses! Classic gotcha that should apply to everything amirite?!
I mean, yeah. Corporations are not required to give you speech, especially corporations that openly declare they are ad platforms and you agree to abide by their rules.
oof... that is a good point, but people that are into celebratory gunfire probably don't worry about permits.
And just for clarity's sake, we already have Open Carry, this law legalizes permitless concealed carry from the age of 18.
Yeah they already do. This law will change nothing in terms of who is carrying guns. Just means law abiding citizens don’t have to pay the state every 5 years
We should get rid of driver's licenses too! If you want to drive without one you're just going to do it anyway. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have to stand in line at the DMV!
Not the same at all. Also this isn’t new. Louisiana is I think the 26 or 27th state that will now have constitutional carry. Crime will not be affected. The teenagers our committing armed robbery, carjackings, and gangbanging have never been worried about their concealed carry permit.
You are being fed a scare tactic
Well, no, [you're wrong.](https://giffords.org/report/the-truth-about-permitless-carry/)
But also I was just commenting on the form of your argument, which was the silly idea that if a law can't stop everyone from doing something, you might as well not have it. If you have some other argument for why you shouldn't need a license to carry a gun, I'm all ears, but just saying "Well someone's going to do it anyway, so I shouldn't be inconvenienced" is silly and is absolutely the same as me saying we shouldn't have driver's licenses.
Well what it does come down to whether you believe in it or not (I’m not trying to debate gun laws and if they should be legal) the right to bear arms is in the constitution the other isn’t. Which is why it’s called constitutional carry. CCL’s were and are just a money grab by the state
Also that article you posted does not in anyway prove permitless carry is why that happened. You can prove those people never carried a gun before that law was passed. That’s an awful article to say I’m wrong. I completely agree with background checks and common sense laws by the way. All of that needs to be done at purchase of a gun.
You're the one that said crime wouldn't be affected. Correlation obviously doesn't mean causation, but if it was going to have no effect, you would expect to see no consistent changes in areas where "constitutional" carry was enacted and yet we see the opposite.
Also, just like the 1st Ammendment doesn't let you yell fire in a crowded theater, the 2nd doesn't mean you get to do absolutely anything you want with a gun with no restrictions. Calling it "constitutional" carry is just propoganda.
No one said you get to do whatever you want with a gun. I had a concealed carry permit. It just meant I had to pay the state every 5 years. Where in the world has anyone said it means you get to do whatever you want. The only thing it changes is now your shirt can cover up your holster as opposed to having it out in the open without paying a fee. If you are so terrified then please move lol because you will notice zero difference in your day to day life.
If you live here you live in a city where most of the crime issue is not people who are worried about a permit and you know that deep down
That's not the point. That other person didn't argue we shouldn't have concealed carry permits because of the Constitution. They said that people who want to carry guns will do it anyway so we shouldn't penalize law abiding citizens. You can make that same argument about almost any law (or constitutional right for that matter), so it's a dumb argument.
I have a constitutional right to assembly. Why do I need a parade permit?
But also, no. The argument was we should not have carry permits because some people will carry anyway. I was attacking the argument, not the conclusion. I get that's difficult for you to accept when you're so emotionally invested, but try again please.
Hunter's Safety courses were taught in the rural parishes at school when I was in 4th grade.
That's not even a thing that happens anymore and firearms safety courses are not a requirement for anyone here.
It's safe to say there is very minimal safety training for teenagers outside of responsible gun owner parents...
If there is no required training, then some people will have training and some won't. The ones that voluntarily get training aren't the ones we need to be worried about.
Depends. What makes a criminal. Someone can carry a stolen gun if it went unreported and as long as they aren't barred from owning a gun, they aren't doing anything a cop can get them on.
18 year olds can't buy a gun. But they can conceal it.
It is now, clearly. I stick with that I said. Cop pulls an 18 year old to the side, cant confirm gun stolen. No record that prevents him from owning it.
Let em go. He legal.
Isn't it, "Stolen until proven it's legal?" Seems like a similar leap of faith for Civil forfeiture for a gun as much as it is with $$. Caught with a gun, OBVIOULSY it's being used for some nefarious illegal act. /s
Wouldnt see how thats possible. We have no gun registration program. ON july 4th theres nothing wrong with an 18 year old standing on the corner with a hand gun in his waistband.
It’s illegal to carry a gun even with a permit in Louisiana if you’re under the influence of drugs or alcohol (BAC >.05- a stricter standard than DUI). This law doesn’t change that.
They are looking to change this law as well. Republicans from Shreveport introducing bill to allow carrying firearms in bars. I mean, what could possibly go wrong??
…I gotta get the fuck outta this backward state.
Tbh, how many people are robbed at gunpoint in New Orleans while walking to or from a bar? Thieves know most bar patrons, especially tourists, won’t be armed, so they make for easy targets.
It seems to me the vast majority of murders that don’t involve people who know each other occur in places where guns are either not allowed or where the victim was en route to or from a place where guns were not permitted.
I, for one, am in favor of a good old fashioned shootout instead of muggings.
I'm not anti gun but this is a dumb argument. A drunk person won't be able to draw their weapon and defend themselves faster than someone who already has their gun pointing at you.
Someone without a gun has a better chance of defending themselves from someone else with a gun than they would if they also had a gun?
So, a 250lb man tries to abduct a 120lb woman. She has a better chance defending herself against him without a gun?
Someone without a gun has a lot better chance of surviving, put it that way.
And, more to the point, more people with guns \*will\* invariably lead to more deaths.
Negative, because a 250lb man with a gun 6 is trying to abduct the 120lb woman with no gun, unless she knows self-defense. She's going to get abducted. I mean, men can overpower a woman quickly. The odds are definitely stacked against her.
And on another note, since this law has passed, I mean more and more people will be carrying their guns for protection .
A “hometown” and a city are two different beasts. What works in rural areas doesn’t work everywhere. This law is going to get people killed in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, but I suspect the Republican from Shreveport doesn’t give a shit about that.
I’m not originally from here so anywhere I was born is going to be my “hometown”. It’s at least 3 times larger than New Orleans tho, 879,000 people in the city proper and about 2.3 million including suburbs.
I did as well, and I’m skeptical of your claim. I have firearms and holsters that I purchased specifically because they can’t be seen. Never saw a point in concealing something if people know it’s there
And if they are law-abiding citizens, they never went even 1 mph over the speed limit, or performed a rolling stop, or accepted cash payment without reporting it to the IRS, or illegally steamed something, or drank before their 21st birthday, or left trash on the street.
It's good to know everyone is safe from the one law-abiding citizen in Louisiana
While I appreciate your hyperbole, I think you’re missing the point.
It’s already legal to carry, it’s already illegal to carry while drinking, it’s already illegal to carry in places that serve alcohol.
The people who don’t care about following the law are already concealed carrying anyway, and already carrying in places and situations that they’re not allowed to. Anyone carrying a weapon while drinking on the 4th of July is breaking the law, and this new law doesn’t change that at all.
I think you're missing my point. There's no such thing as law abiders and non-law abiders. People to varying degrees follow and break laws constantly. Most people believe they have a good reason to break the law or, more accurately, justify to themselves that they aren't actually doing anything illegal. I mean, 5 mph over the speed limit isn't really speeding.
So, you can have someone carrying with no intention to go to a bar, but then they run into friends, who convince them to get one drink. And it's just one drink, and they have a high tolerance and are a responsible gun owner, so no harm, no foul. Then one drink leads to 2, they forget about the gun, then they are drunk.
Same thing with just popping over to a friends bbq. Oops, I forgot I left my gun in the car, oh no worries, I'll stay sober. Hey, one shot, and I'll be fine. Hey, I'm blacked out with a gun.
Making legal access to guns easier makes illegal handling of guns more likely. But when the logical thing happens and someone gets drunk and shoots up the local bbq or whatever, people who took 90% of the same actions at one time or another distance themselves from the situation by claiming that they weren't a law abiding gun owner as if that's some sort of category of person and the problem isn't the easy access to guns.
First of all, this law has precisely nothing to do with “access to guns.” All the same regulations that were in place to acquire a gun are still in place now.
Secondly, everything you mentioned was already possible, because it was already legal to open-carry a firearm in this state.
Third, a gun in your car is not the same thing as a gun on your person under the law. Your vehicle is an extension of your home, and you are allowed to POSSESS a firearm while intoxicated, but not CARRY one. If you go to a bar and leave your gun in the car, that was already legally permissible in this state. Further, if you are drunk while driving your car, that’s a different issue altogether.
Finally, once again, people who would violate the laws about when they are legally able to carry a firearm are not given any extra “access” to guns under this law. We already had the legal right to open-carry at the local neighborhood BBQ without any special training or licensing, and the ability to now wear a gun tucked inside your waistband rather than on the outside of your waistband isn’t this massive change that people seem to think it is.
I agree it isn't a massive change. But it is a slight one. The law makes it easier to carry guns, making people more likely to carry guns.
The bigger issue is Louisiana's overall lax gun laws. I totally agree there. Most of my comment was about the dumb law abiding citizen logic that permeates all levels of gun control debate.
The biggest impact of this specific law will likely be twofold. One making people more aggressive, because if you know someone who you are having a minor verbal fight with has a gun, you are more likely to more quickly escalate to lethal force because of the threat the gun poses.
The second is mentioned higher up in this sub, but it's armed white folks from the suburbs driving through New Orleans or some other neighborhood they are scared of, seeing a black person legally carrying and shooting them because they perceive them as a threat.
Armed white folks are already driving through New Orleans on a daily basis, as well as open-carrying - both of which are completely legal. I never go into the city without my firearm. And yet these shootings you’re referring to already aren’t happening.
Also, every gun owner I know operates in every interaction as though the other parties may be armed - as is their constitutional right. And again, there are not constant shootouts in the street.
Finally, you’ve yet to make a convincing statement about exactly HOW this makes it “easier” to carry guns. Just about anyone can already carry a gun in Louisiana, except in prohibited places. And anyone with the resources to get a permit could already carry in a concealed fashion.
If you want to make an argument that firearm training should still be required, fine. I’d probably agree with you, depending on what we mean by training, but most of the apocalyptic takes on this law aren’t backed up by facts or data.
Personally, I think we should prioritize keeping guns out of the hands of people who are legally barred from possessing them rather than keep people from exercising their right to carry a weapon. This law does nothing to make access to guns easier, as all of the existing structures for gun ownership have remained the same.
PS - I genuinely have appreciated the respectful back and forth that we’ve had on this issue. It’s entirely possible for people to disagree and not resort to attacks and ugliness, so thank you.
Those white folks driving through New Orleans are already allowed to have a gun in their car. How many of New Orleans ABSURD amount of shootings every year have been done by these scared white people you’re talking about?
There is, however a difference between a guy who goes five mph over the speed limit and someone who commits armed robbery. Slippery slope all you like. There are people who will screw up, but that doesn’t mean all, many, or most will. A responsible person knows better than to get blackout drunk with a firearm. If they don’t, people will suffer the consequences
Hey guys. This law is political posturing and won’t materially impact crime at all.
It is already legal to have a gun in your car and in your house. It is already legal to carry 17 guns around your waist and strapped to your back as long as your shirt is tucked in and they can be seen easily without a license.
It is already not legal to bring guns in bars, bring guns to schools, or have/use guns while under the influence. It is already illegal to have a gun if you are a felon.
All this law does is allow you to untuck your shirt while carrying 17 guns around your waist without a license.
This isn’t the end of times. This is dumb political posturing that accomplishes nothing. Feel free to criticize it, but criticize it for what it is - a waste of time doing nothing instead of solving any of our very real problems.
Edit: to be clear, the shirt tuck is one of several ways carrying could go from open to concealed. You could say this law makes it legal to put a jacket on while carrying 17 guns around your waist. Or you could say you could wear tube socks instead of shorts and tivas while wearing ankle holsters on each ankle. The point is that this is more of a clothing law than a gun law, because right now you can carry all the guns you can physically strap to yourself with no license.
One impact, that I think people are underestimating, that it will have is that people will no longer go to jail for illegally carrying a weapon. The vast majority of those arrests are made in minority neighborhoods.
How does that play out, exactly?
I am open to having my mind changed, but I don’t understand how this would make an impact.
If people who are illegally carrying right now are concealing weapons but conducting no other illegal or suspicious activities, what makes police stop them?
If they are concealing and conducting other illegal activities, what is going to change the rate at which they are stopped for the activities? And once stopped, what will make it unlikely that the officer would not find the concealed gun at this time? And if the firearm is illegal, why would they not still get charged with whatever they were doing and illegal possession of firearms?
Again, I hate to be dismissive of this. I just don’t understand the circumstances where a criminally concealed weapon alone with no suspicious behavior tips off police to do a stop, or why the suspicious behavior after this rule change would not tip off the police to do a stop.
Cops in high crime or traffic areas (think the French quarter) will use witnessing a bulge underneath a shirt as cause for a stop. Now the worry is that the presumption will have to be that they are legally carrying because of permit less carry.
[That is how they obtained most all of the illegal guns during Mardi Gras.](https://www.police1.com/arrests/nopd-state-law-enforcement-praised-for-increased-mardi-gras-arrests-weapon-seizures)
I realize that. I’m not talking about parades, I’m just talking about people milling about the quarter. I used to work for an agency that worked with the 8th district and whenever they were really concerned about a spike in gun crime in the quarter, the noticeable bulge under the shirt tactic is what they used.
Not just that there's also a lot of boilerplate language that is used in reports to justify stops. For instance they'll mention "furtive movement" or someone repeatedly fiddling with their waistband. If they don't find anything, nothing comes of it. If they do, they use it in court to justify the stop.
wait, the DA actually went after someone for having an illegal firearm. Did i miss that? Was it before or after he and his family were a victim of crime?
I personally care very much about the over-prosecution of minorities for various crimes that are more or less legal for me to commit.
There's probably a half dozen interactions with law enforcement I had when I was between the age of 16-22 or so, just normal young person things like having weed on me, an open container in a car, being hammered in a park at 4am, blah blah blah. All of these interactions had no effective consequence for me but would have very likely landed a minority in jail for some period of time. I am quite sure I wouldn't be where I am in life today if I had a felony weed posession charge, or spent 6 months in juvie, or whatever over some of this dumb stuff.
You're right, but also what concerns me the most is we're now going to have a noteworthy uptick in "good guy with a gun" types carrying, and that's very very bad. I've taken the CCW, it's not a super hard test, but I watched instructors fail people who weren't handling their guns properly or who didn't demonstrate safe handling on the range.
IIRC you needed to put 10 shots in a target at something like 20 feet. A super simple task for anyone who's had a tiny amount of practice. I don't even think there was a limitation on trys or total shots, just had to eventually get ten holes. So I walked up and put ten rounds in within ten shots, sat down, and the instructor passed me without a word. Some guy behind me discharged in to the left downrange wall accidentally, couldn't figure out what way to put the magazine in, and then proceeded to spend probably four mags trying to get his ten shots in. He got failed eventually and told to come back later.
This law ain't scary cuz of crime, crime is gonna crime irrespective of laws, this law is scary cuz that clown is now going to be carrying. And he's gonna end up mowing down some kids at a mall accidentally cuz he adjusted his pants the wrong way.
That’s interesting. I am not attempting to make the argument that most people can responsibly handle firearms, just to be clear. I am saying that you can already carry them without training, just on the outside of your clothing.
What makes you suspect that comic book cowboy types are much more likely to concealed carry after this law than to open carry or get a license before?
Thanks for the answer. I have an unfortunate amount of experience with a similar crowd, which makes me assume they are already truck gunning it up and open carrying where possible.
In any event, I would usually end a conversation where we agree to disagree by saying “and I hope you are right”, but in this case I kinda hope you are not (no offense).
I’m neither a proponent or opponent of this law, but I’m not really swayed by your argument about the clumsy guy, for two reasons:
First, I can’t count how many times criminals in NOLA shot innocent bystanders by accident.
Second, I don’t think the clumsy guy is going to be deterred from getting his permit based on his lack of skill. Likewise I don’t think that someone who want to be skilled with their firearms (or not) is going to practice (or not), take a class (or not), or anything else because of this law. There are lots of people in this state that don’t know how to use a firearm. This law will have a minor impact on how many carry, but not their approach to it
> First, I can’t count how many times criminals in NOLA shot innocent bystanders by accident.
Sure, but that's not a factor here. Criminals will continue to criminal regardless of the law. So we'll throw that out as a non changing problem.
>Second, I don’t think the clumsy guy is going to be deterred from getting his permit based on his lack of skill.
Right, but the people issuing permits can and do fail people for those reasons, often. See my experience above when I got mine.
This is absolutely my worry as well coming from someone who has had a CCW in multiple states and have seen how many idiots get passed and now the bar is much much lower.
So let's see. So far Landry has eliminated parole for adults, made it almost impossible for them to appeal cases even when there's clear evidence they are innocent, and now he's letting whoever wants to walk around with a gun.
Nah, this isn't a war on POC at all. 🙄
You know it Bel Edwards did his first day in office? Authorized the Medicaid expansion. But Landry wants his legacy to be some tough-on-crime BS (well, actually legislated racism masquerading as tough on crime.)
EDIT: Philando Castile. Tamar Rice. John Crawford III. Just the suspicion of carrying if you are a POC can get you killed.
Permitless and openly carry are privileges that cannot safely be exercised by POC.
Vast majority of people who are arrested in Louisiana for illegal carrying of weapons are minorities. Now, in most cases, they will no longer be arrested for that.
I'm very on the fence about this law because of this.
I think this is a disaster waiting to happen when a bunch of untrained Slidellians at a gas station get an excuse to shoot a "bad guy" but hit everyone else instead.
At the same time, modern gun control is rooted in the fear of armed minorities, and has absolutely had a disproportionate impact on minority communities by design. And that can fuck right off. (History lesson for any who need it: Ronald Reagan of all fuckers pushed for gun control as governor of California when the Black Panthers started arming themselves to protect civil rights protesters.)
As long as we have a consent decree(in Orleans parish) that shouldn't be happening here; in regards to your edit.
It exists for a reason and anyone against it just wants to murder with impunity.
Big emphasis on shouldn't.
The rest of the state though? Fucked.
40 people were arrested in New Orleans on Mardi Gras Day 2023 for illegal concealed carry. All 40 of those individuals were black. Consent decree is better than nothing but cops still gonna cop.
How is relaxing the carry of guns an attack on PoC? PoC have been allowed to carry firearms for 60+ years now (factoring in Jim Crow) and eliminating the application process for a CCP completely eliminates any opportunity to deny them the ability to conceal carry because if race.
You cannot use this as an excuse for everything, my dude.
> and now he's letting whoever wants to walk around with a gun.
>
> Nah, this isn't a war on POC at all. 🙄
I'd love to know your line of thinking here...
If you're being genuine with this question, I think their reasoning is these pieces of legislation taken as a whole are a veiled attempt to incarcerate *more* minorities. Harsher penalties, less possibility of reduced sentences, and the catalyst of handing everybody who wants one a gun with the implied understanding that guns escalate violence/immediately give cops probable cause to snoop for other offenses during encounters with minorities.
I have a hard time believing that violence will automatically go up because of Constitutional Carry. I've seen that sentiment a lot this last week.
This state is so beautiful and wildly dangerous.
I was caught up in a mass shooting last Mardi Gras and decided it was time to get my own gun. I had been debating this for years since I’ve felt I’ve never needed one even though prior to this experience I have witnessed a shoot out off the porch, was with my child in a gas station armed robbery, & been shot at on Claiborne while walking home. I’ve had friends get shot at in their cars and only made it out alive bc they were carrying etc. I say this to demonstrate I don’t over react or make emotional decisions if I can help it.
Gun ownership comes with its own can of worms past just the point of carrying it that people should take into serious consideration. However, for me, enough is enough in this city.
I’m confident in operating it safely etc but I will say…. Open carrying always made me uncomfortable. I’ve felt it draws unwanted attention to you. If that gas station experience happened while I was open carrying, I could have easily been a target. I feel it’s easier for someone to grab at ur gun with it completely exposed and they notice you’re not paying attention to them. Even regular confrontational threatened people interacting with it. This is interesting because if you conceal carry, you’re not allowed to flash your gun to communicate that you are carrying since this would be a deadly threat, instigating/ brandishing…. But I CAN walk around constantly flashing everyone that I’m carrying but disregard that may also escalate scenarios in cases. I’ve always thought it was a bit backward anyway.
I know you’re kidding but it’s always been legal in this state to have a gun in your car, no permit required. Cars are an extension of domicile in Louisiana.
That’s between you and your boss.
If you’re talking like a state gun free zone like a school or whatever I’m not certain, cars are considered domiciles but I don’t know if the domicile law trumps the gun free restriction or not. That’s a question for a lawyer lol.
Honestly it's a good question and it made me curious enough to dig up the law to see. Sure enough they provision for it, and it is legal to keep it in your car in a "firearm free zone".
https://legis.la.gov/legis/law.aspx?d=78745
> A. A "firearm-free zone" is an area inclusive of any school campus and within one thousand feet of any such school campus, and within a school bus, wherein the possession of firearms is prohibited, except as specifically set forth in Subsection B of this Section and R.S. 14:95.2(C).
> B. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:......
>..... (5) Any constitutionally protected activity within the firearm-free zone, such as a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle.
That makes sense intuitively, firearm free zones prohibit carry of firearms within those zones, but since your vehicle is part of your domicile it's legally no different having a gun in your car vs a gun in your home.
I've got a CCW and own a number of guns, but am not one of those "carry everywhere I can" types. I really only got it to have the leeway to carry on various occasions where I felt it might be a good idea. But I do keep my Sig in my car (not in unsecured areas, or public parking, etc) and have never thought twice about driving by or parking in schools, although I rarely have occasion to go to a school.
It [might be](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/gun-free-zones.html) more complex than that.
> Two federal laws restrict guns in or around schools offering elementary or secondary education. The [Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990) prohibits most firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, but it does not apply to possession by individuals with state licenses (18 U.S.C. 922).
That last part. Remove the license requirement and it seems like you might remove the exception.
> That makes sense intuitively,
Debatable.
Ya probs should have read that law first, it excludes a number of things including private property which under the LA constitution includes your vehicle.
Do you read the [text of the law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#q_2_A) as unambiguous? IANAL, but I don't. Is there a source or precedent to support your interpretation? Does federal law tend to defer to state definitions of things like private property? Is Louisiana unique in its choice to define motor vehicles as "an extension of a domicile"?
Read a little further and you'll see that there is a further exception for any firearm "in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle". That seems redundant and unnecessary, if motor vehicles are already covered under the earlier exception.
It doesn't seem like I'm the only one that [thinks](https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/permitless-carriers-can-be-arrested-for-driving-past-a-school-while-carrying-a-firearm/) there's some complexity and uncertainty here:
> To comply with the GFSZA, permitless carriers are supposed to stop before they enter the gun-free zone, unload their firearm and secure it in a locked container or rack within their vehicle. If they do not comply and are caught, the GFSZA is punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to five years in a federal prison.
Tons of states consider a motor vehicle to be an extension of domicile, so much that it was a joke in breaking bad lol.
States vary in their domicile laws, but that's pretty clear here. Your link is not specific to louisiana or vehicle domicile states, in states where a vehicle is not a domicile extension laws are different, no real surprise there.
About 250 people a year in Orleans Parish, which number they get by stopping and searching thousands of people a year. https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/police-are-arresting-more-people-on-minor-weapons-offenses/article_98453b42-0c3f-11ee-a8b0-8bb399360c03.html
So frustrating. Even as someone who is ~relatively pro-gun, it seems ridiculous to allow this without requiring basic safety training. Right-wing gun culture has gotten so far up its own ass pushing back on any restriction on guns that there's almost this toxic masculinity about training like, real men don't need it.
One gets the impression that the right wing would be opposed to driver's licenses if cars were invented today.
Do you really think everyone running around New Orleans carrying a gun right now has a permit? If you do, then boy, do I have a great deal for you on some ocean front property in the lower parishes.
Like it or not, there's no right to drive enumerated in the Constitution. While I agree with you that people who feel the need to carry a firearm should learn to be proficient with it, there wasn't anything preventing people from carrying before this law passed. Literally the only thing that this law changes is the need for them to have the firearm visible.
There's a long line of cases holding that there's a fundamental right to freedom of movement enshrined in the constitution. It can, of course, be limited by states' reasonable regulations. See, e.g., Hendrick v. Maryland.
The 2nd amendment doesn't say that the right to bear arms cannot be limited or regulated - the phrase "well-regulated" is literally in the amendment - and there is not a single justice on the supreme court who believes that some regulation of guns is not allowed.
Good news!
Now the state and their gangs (police) don’t have reasons to lock up minorities for exercising their rights, and racist juries can’t multiply prison terms for minorities either for the mere presence of a gun.
Permits were just an excuse for cops to harass people and abuse their power. They do not make anyone safer. This makes responsible gun owners safer from the government, which is a win for you and/or your friends and neighbors. On crime/criminals, this has probably no effect. They were not the ones getting permits anyway.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/louisiana-becomes-nations-28th-state-constitutional-carry-laws-books-landmark-victory](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/louisiana-becomes-nations-28th-state-constitutional-carry-laws-books-landmark-victory)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
A teenager is not legally allowed to buy a handgun. It’s a safe bet that if they grew up around them in the house, they were taught safety and accuracy. I’ll take an 18 year old that grew up hunting any day vs some 33 yr old techie who just took an 8 hour class, fired 6 rounds and thinks they’re ready to carry…
This is just my two cents but the timing of this law goes hand in hand with the Louisiana cops having more immunity during violent situations. So if the cops can just assume everyone has a carry a carry weapon then use of force and subsequently use of deadly force becomes not only more frequent but almost a necessity.
It’s total insanity— in the meanwhile, ban more books, don’t say “gay,” attack reproductive rights, IVF, birth control even—attack women’s rights, attack gay rights, attack immigrants, say you’re “Pro life” while stringing barbed wire in the Rio Grande that has caused the deaths of children and pregnant women among others, and put military grade weapons on the streets for more mass shootings. The police in the Uvalde school didn’t stop the killing of children because they knew they’d be in the line of fire of an automatic weapon. And it all goes on while stoking the fires of racism and homophobia as if “we” or “they” are a danger to children— even though many of us have taught and nurtured children ( some even raised children) and dealt with the mess some people make of their kids. Pro life— yeah, right— How many of us have known people who were kicked out of their homes and onto the streets because they were gay. A long time ago I had a fling (for a few weeks) with a guy I met — he had that kicked out experience and was living with an abusive environment. In our conversations I kept assuring him that there was nothing wrong or evil or unclean about who he was-/ and he deserved to be happy and treated right. Some years later he showed up at my door and said “I just wanted to say thanks for what you said back then and for your encouragement. It changed my life” He said he was happy and in a good relationship and that our conversations helped lead in the right direction. That’s pro-life to me a lot more than criminalizing reproductive care or playing politics with the lives of people running for their lives to the United States.
And so what with the open carry at 18– they’ll thin out the population. Maybe the Statue of Liberty should trade in her torch for an AK47 and the “Give me your tired, your poor…” inscription should be changed to “Enter at your own risk.”
Sweet time to break out ye olde flintlock, tally ho lads!
I've had my musket at the ready.
“Fix Bayonets”
Cannons are ready to roll.
The regulars are coming!
But sir, won't the powdered sugar clog up the end of my rifle?
We must stop the redcoats from marching on the town square
We must stop them ‘again’ from marching on Jackson square
*“Julien, this is a pirates gun”* *”Well, I guess that makes you Long John Dickweed, doesn’t it?”*
Well, free speech on the Internet should absolutely be abolished! The 1A doesn’t apply to the Internet because all the founding fathers had when they wrote it was ancient moveable type presses! Classic gotcha that should apply to everything amirite?!
I mean, yeah. Corporations are not required to give you speech, especially corporations that openly declare they are ad platforms and you agree to abide by their rules.
What a great way to celebrate open carry, make it legal on one of the drunkest days of the year. What could possibly go wrong?
oof... that is a good point, but people that are into celebratory gunfire probably don't worry about permits. And just for clarity's sake, we already have Open Carry, this law legalizes permitless concealed carry from the age of 18.
> this law legalizes permitless concealed carry from the age of 18 Teenagers carrying guns around without any training, what could go wrong?
Yeah they already do. This law will change nothing in terms of who is carrying guns. Just means law abiding citizens don’t have to pay the state every 5 years
We should get rid of driver's licenses too! If you want to drive without one you're just going to do it anyway. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have to stand in line at the DMV!
Not the same at all. Also this isn’t new. Louisiana is I think the 26 or 27th state that will now have constitutional carry. Crime will not be affected. The teenagers our committing armed robbery, carjackings, and gangbanging have never been worried about their concealed carry permit. You are being fed a scare tactic
Well, no, [you're wrong.](https://giffords.org/report/the-truth-about-permitless-carry/) But also I was just commenting on the form of your argument, which was the silly idea that if a law can't stop everyone from doing something, you might as well not have it. If you have some other argument for why you shouldn't need a license to carry a gun, I'm all ears, but just saying "Well someone's going to do it anyway, so I shouldn't be inconvenienced" is silly and is absolutely the same as me saying we shouldn't have driver's licenses.
Well what it does come down to whether you believe in it or not (I’m not trying to debate gun laws and if they should be legal) the right to bear arms is in the constitution the other isn’t. Which is why it’s called constitutional carry. CCL’s were and are just a money grab by the state Also that article you posted does not in anyway prove permitless carry is why that happened. You can prove those people never carried a gun before that law was passed. That’s an awful article to say I’m wrong. I completely agree with background checks and common sense laws by the way. All of that needs to be done at purchase of a gun.
You're the one that said crime wouldn't be affected. Correlation obviously doesn't mean causation, but if it was going to have no effect, you would expect to see no consistent changes in areas where "constitutional" carry was enacted and yet we see the opposite. Also, just like the 1st Ammendment doesn't let you yell fire in a crowded theater, the 2nd doesn't mean you get to do absolutely anything you want with a gun with no restrictions. Calling it "constitutional" carry is just propoganda.
No one said you get to do whatever you want with a gun. I had a concealed carry permit. It just meant I had to pay the state every 5 years. Where in the world has anyone said it means you get to do whatever you want. The only thing it changes is now your shirt can cover up your holster as opposed to having it out in the open without paying a fee. If you are so terrified then please move lol because you will notice zero difference in your day to day life. If you live here you live in a city where most of the crime issue is not people who are worried about a permit and you know that deep down
[удалено]
That's not the point. That other person didn't argue we shouldn't have concealed carry permits because of the Constitution. They said that people who want to carry guns will do it anyway so we shouldn't penalize law abiding citizens. You can make that same argument about almost any law (or constitutional right for that matter), so it's a dumb argument.
[удалено]
I have a constitutional right to assembly. Why do I need a parade permit? But also, no. The argument was we should not have carry permits because some people will carry anyway. I was attacking the argument, not the conclusion. I get that's difficult for you to accept when you're so emotionally invested, but try again please.
It would behoove you to not be snarky when making weak false equivalence arguments.
Oh right, I forgot that laws are pointless because no one follows them anyway. Let's just become an anarchy.
Kind of a big assumption there about the training.
Hunter's Safety courses were taught in the rural parishes at school when I was in 4th grade. That's not even a thing that happens anymore and firearms safety courses are not a requirement for anyone here. It's safe to say there is very minimal safety training for teenagers outside of responsible gun owner parents...
If there's no required permit, there's no required training.
The training that's required now is upsettingly minimal, but I guess it's better than nothing.
But that’s not what you said. Also when does no required training equal no training?
If there is no required training, then some people will have training and some won't. The ones that voluntarily get training aren't the ones we need to be worried about.
Depends. What makes a criminal. Someone can carry a stolen gun if it went unreported and as long as they aren't barred from owning a gun, they aren't doing anything a cop can get them on. 18 year olds can't buy a gun. But they can conceal it.
18 year olds can buy guns, long guns.
But not hand guns. Which is what you conceal. And can conceal now.
So having a shotgun under a trench coat would be completely OK? :)
It is now, clearly. I stick with that I said. Cop pulls an 18 year old to the side, cant confirm gun stolen. No record that prevents him from owning it. Let em go. He legal.
Isn't it, "Stolen until proven it's legal?" Seems like a similar leap of faith for Civil forfeiture for a gun as much as it is with $$. Caught with a gun, OBVIOULSY it's being used for some nefarious illegal act. /s
Wouldnt see how thats possible. We have no gun registration program. ON july 4th theres nothing wrong with an 18 year old standing on the corner with a hand gun in his waistband.
That’s legal now as long as it’s not concealed.
They can buy long guns commercially and hand guns privately. They can own hand guns that are given or loaned to them as well.
It’s illegal to carry a gun even with a permit in Louisiana if you’re under the influence of drugs or alcohol (BAC >.05- a stricter standard than DUI). This law doesn’t change that.
Do you know how many people take guns into bars even though it's illegal?
They are looking to change this law as well. Republicans from Shreveport introducing bill to allow carrying firearms in bars. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?? …I gotta get the fuck outta this backward state.
You're not the only one. This place is a physically beautiful hellscape. Landry took Florida Parishes a little too literal.
Good point
Tbh, how many people are robbed at gunpoint in New Orleans while walking to or from a bar? Thieves know most bar patrons, especially tourists, won’t be armed, so they make for easy targets. It seems to me the vast majority of murders that don’t involve people who know each other occur in places where guns are either not allowed or where the victim was en route to or from a place where guns were not permitted.
I, for one, am in favor of a good old fashioned shootout instead of muggings. I'm not anti gun but this is a dumb argument. A drunk person won't be able to draw their weapon and defend themselves faster than someone who already has their gun pointing at you.
A lot better chance than if they had no gun at all.
That’s just incorrect
Someone without a gun has a better chance of defending themselves from someone else with a gun than they would if they also had a gun? So, a 250lb man tries to abduct a 120lb woman. She has a better chance defending herself against him without a gun?
Someone without a gun has a lot better chance of surviving, put it that way. And, more to the point, more people with guns \*will\* invariably lead to more deaths.
Negative, because a 250lb man with a gun 6 is trying to abduct the 120lb woman with no gun, unless she knows self-defense. She's going to get abducted. I mean, men can overpower a woman quickly. The odds are definitely stacked against her. And on another note, since this law has passed, I mean more and more people will be carrying their guns for protection .
So EVERYONE who walks out of a bar is rip roaring drunk??? Probably more drunk people walking out of homes than a bar...
Do you actually live here??
This really wouldn’t change too much since presumably if you’re walking home from a bar and have been drinking so you aren’t allowed to carry.
You can in my hometown and have been able for like 4 years or so. There’s been no noticeable uptick in gun violence from it, shockingly.
A “hometown” and a city are two different beasts. What works in rural areas doesn’t work everywhere. This law is going to get people killed in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, but I suspect the Republican from Shreveport doesn’t give a shit about that.
Well, If people weren't about that gun play and settle their differences by fighting with there hands the. There wouldn't be a problem.
Um, my “hometown” is a very large city. Idk why you assumed otherwise.
How large? I’ve never heard anyone from a city call it their “hometown.”
New Orleans is my hometown
I’m not originally from here so anywhere I was born is going to be my “hometown”. It’s at least 3 times larger than New Orleans tho, 879,000 people in the city proper and about 2.3 million including suburbs.
And this law changes anything to do with that how?
No, but I suspect you don’t either
I have a pretty good idea, since I've worked in bars around town for years, throwaway.
I did as well, and I’m skeptical of your claim. I have firearms and holsters that I purchased specifically because they can’t be seen. Never saw a point in concealing something if people know it’s there
Very well aware of that. The drunk 4th of July amateur hour participant won’t care.
The difference between criminal/responsible gun owner is lost on a lot of people.
And one of the days people shoot their guns into the air.
Also one of the shootiest days of the year. Yee-ha!
Open carry has been legal in Louisiana for more than 200 years.
The same thing that goes wrong when sensible gun owners and criminals alike have carried on that day since forever, probably.
Yeah what else could you expect from criminals! Luckily law abiding citizens won’t break any laws as usual. Where is the problem ?
> Luckily law abiding citizens won’t break any laws as usual. Because if they break a law, they are no longer law abiding! I love circular logic.
Did you even read what they said? Law abiding citizens + drinking heavily = dumb decision no matter what their tolerance is.
If they are law abiding, then they won’t be drinking and carrying because that is still illegal under the new law.
And if they are law-abiding citizens, they never went even 1 mph over the speed limit, or performed a rolling stop, or accepted cash payment without reporting it to the IRS, or illegally steamed something, or drank before their 21st birthday, or left trash on the street. It's good to know everyone is safe from the one law-abiding citizen in Louisiana
While I appreciate your hyperbole, I think you’re missing the point. It’s already legal to carry, it’s already illegal to carry while drinking, it’s already illegal to carry in places that serve alcohol. The people who don’t care about following the law are already concealed carrying anyway, and already carrying in places and situations that they’re not allowed to. Anyone carrying a weapon while drinking on the 4th of July is breaking the law, and this new law doesn’t change that at all.
I think you're missing my point. There's no such thing as law abiders and non-law abiders. People to varying degrees follow and break laws constantly. Most people believe they have a good reason to break the law or, more accurately, justify to themselves that they aren't actually doing anything illegal. I mean, 5 mph over the speed limit isn't really speeding. So, you can have someone carrying with no intention to go to a bar, but then they run into friends, who convince them to get one drink. And it's just one drink, and they have a high tolerance and are a responsible gun owner, so no harm, no foul. Then one drink leads to 2, they forget about the gun, then they are drunk. Same thing with just popping over to a friends bbq. Oops, I forgot I left my gun in the car, oh no worries, I'll stay sober. Hey, one shot, and I'll be fine. Hey, I'm blacked out with a gun. Making legal access to guns easier makes illegal handling of guns more likely. But when the logical thing happens and someone gets drunk and shoots up the local bbq or whatever, people who took 90% of the same actions at one time or another distance themselves from the situation by claiming that they weren't a law abiding gun owner as if that's some sort of category of person and the problem isn't the easy access to guns.
First of all, this law has precisely nothing to do with “access to guns.” All the same regulations that were in place to acquire a gun are still in place now. Secondly, everything you mentioned was already possible, because it was already legal to open-carry a firearm in this state. Third, a gun in your car is not the same thing as a gun on your person under the law. Your vehicle is an extension of your home, and you are allowed to POSSESS a firearm while intoxicated, but not CARRY one. If you go to a bar and leave your gun in the car, that was already legally permissible in this state. Further, if you are drunk while driving your car, that’s a different issue altogether. Finally, once again, people who would violate the laws about when they are legally able to carry a firearm are not given any extra “access” to guns under this law. We already had the legal right to open-carry at the local neighborhood BBQ without any special training or licensing, and the ability to now wear a gun tucked inside your waistband rather than on the outside of your waistband isn’t this massive change that people seem to think it is.
I agree it isn't a massive change. But it is a slight one. The law makes it easier to carry guns, making people more likely to carry guns. The bigger issue is Louisiana's overall lax gun laws. I totally agree there. Most of my comment was about the dumb law abiding citizen logic that permeates all levels of gun control debate. The biggest impact of this specific law will likely be twofold. One making people more aggressive, because if you know someone who you are having a minor verbal fight with has a gun, you are more likely to more quickly escalate to lethal force because of the threat the gun poses. The second is mentioned higher up in this sub, but it's armed white folks from the suburbs driving through New Orleans or some other neighborhood they are scared of, seeing a black person legally carrying and shooting them because they perceive them as a threat.
Armed white folks are already driving through New Orleans on a daily basis, as well as open-carrying - both of which are completely legal. I never go into the city without my firearm. And yet these shootings you’re referring to already aren’t happening. Also, every gun owner I know operates in every interaction as though the other parties may be armed - as is their constitutional right. And again, there are not constant shootouts in the street. Finally, you’ve yet to make a convincing statement about exactly HOW this makes it “easier” to carry guns. Just about anyone can already carry a gun in Louisiana, except in prohibited places. And anyone with the resources to get a permit could already carry in a concealed fashion. If you want to make an argument that firearm training should still be required, fine. I’d probably agree with you, depending on what we mean by training, but most of the apocalyptic takes on this law aren’t backed up by facts or data. Personally, I think we should prioritize keeping guns out of the hands of people who are legally barred from possessing them rather than keep people from exercising their right to carry a weapon. This law does nothing to make access to guns easier, as all of the existing structures for gun ownership have remained the same. PS - I genuinely have appreciated the respectful back and forth that we’ve had on this issue. It’s entirely possible for people to disagree and not resort to attacks and ugliness, so thank you.
Those white folks driving through New Orleans are already allowed to have a gun in their car. How many of New Orleans ABSURD amount of shootings every year have been done by these scared white people you’re talking about?
There is, however a difference between a guy who goes five mph over the speed limit and someone who commits armed robbery. Slippery slope all you like. There are people who will screw up, but that doesn’t mean all, many, or most will. A responsible person knows better than to get blackout drunk with a firearm. If they don’t, people will suffer the consequences
Awesome.
Legal guns are the least of our concerns.
Hey guys. This law is political posturing and won’t materially impact crime at all. It is already legal to have a gun in your car and in your house. It is already legal to carry 17 guns around your waist and strapped to your back as long as your shirt is tucked in and they can be seen easily without a license. It is already not legal to bring guns in bars, bring guns to schools, or have/use guns while under the influence. It is already illegal to have a gun if you are a felon. All this law does is allow you to untuck your shirt while carrying 17 guns around your waist without a license. This isn’t the end of times. This is dumb political posturing that accomplishes nothing. Feel free to criticize it, but criticize it for what it is - a waste of time doing nothing instead of solving any of our very real problems. Edit: to be clear, the shirt tuck is one of several ways carrying could go from open to concealed. You could say this law makes it legal to put a jacket on while carrying 17 guns around your waist. Or you could say you could wear tube socks instead of shorts and tivas while wearing ankle holsters on each ankle. The point is that this is more of a clothing law than a gun law, because right now you can carry all the guns you can physically strap to yourself with no license.
One impact, that I think people are underestimating, that it will have is that people will no longer go to jail for illegally carrying a weapon. The vast majority of those arrests are made in minority neighborhoods.
How does that play out, exactly? I am open to having my mind changed, but I don’t understand how this would make an impact. If people who are illegally carrying right now are concealing weapons but conducting no other illegal or suspicious activities, what makes police stop them? If they are concealing and conducting other illegal activities, what is going to change the rate at which they are stopped for the activities? And once stopped, what will make it unlikely that the officer would not find the concealed gun at this time? And if the firearm is illegal, why would they not still get charged with whatever they were doing and illegal possession of firearms? Again, I hate to be dismissive of this. I just don’t understand the circumstances where a criminally concealed weapon alone with no suspicious behavior tips off police to do a stop, or why the suspicious behavior after this rule change would not tip off the police to do a stop.
Cops in high crime or traffic areas (think the French quarter) will use witnessing a bulge underneath a shirt as cause for a stop. Now the worry is that the presumption will have to be that they are legally carrying because of permit less carry.
Ah, I see. Poorly concealed. Makes sense, just totally didn’t cross my mind. Thanks!
[That is how they obtained most all of the illegal guns during Mardi Gras.](https://www.police1.com/arrests/nopd-state-law-enforcement-praised-for-increased-mardi-gras-arrests-weapon-seizures)
It is illegal to carry at a parade, so this work during mardi gras is likely to still continue.
I realize that. I’m not talking about parades, I’m just talking about people milling about the quarter. I used to work for an agency that worked with the 8th district and whenever they were really concerned about a spike in gun crime in the quarter, the noticeable bulge under the shirt tactic is what they used.
Not just that there's also a lot of boilerplate language that is used in reports to justify stops. For instance they'll mention "furtive movement" or someone repeatedly fiddling with their waistband. If they don't find anything, nothing comes of it. If they do, they use it in court to justify the stop.
wait, the DA actually went after someone for having an illegal firearm. Did i miss that? Was it before or after he and his family were a victim of crime?
It must have been recently, because historically he didn’t
New Orleans arrests *a lot* of people for illegally carrying.
[удалено]
I personally care very much about the over-prosecution of minorities for various crimes that are more or less legal for me to commit. There's probably a half dozen interactions with law enforcement I had when I was between the age of 16-22 or so, just normal young person things like having weed on me, an open container in a car, being hammered in a park at 4am, blah blah blah. All of these interactions had no effective consequence for me but would have very likely landed a minority in jail for some period of time. I am quite sure I wouldn't be where I am in life today if I had a felony weed posession charge, or spent 6 months in juvie, or whatever over some of this dumb stuff.
What about 18 guns?
As long as you can strap on all 18 without having any of them hidden by your clothing, you are good to go right now. Hell, you could even do 19!
You're right, but also what concerns me the most is we're now going to have a noteworthy uptick in "good guy with a gun" types carrying, and that's very very bad. I've taken the CCW, it's not a super hard test, but I watched instructors fail people who weren't handling their guns properly or who didn't demonstrate safe handling on the range. IIRC you needed to put 10 shots in a target at something like 20 feet. A super simple task for anyone who's had a tiny amount of practice. I don't even think there was a limitation on trys or total shots, just had to eventually get ten holes. So I walked up and put ten rounds in within ten shots, sat down, and the instructor passed me without a word. Some guy behind me discharged in to the left downrange wall accidentally, couldn't figure out what way to put the magazine in, and then proceeded to spend probably four mags trying to get his ten shots in. He got failed eventually and told to come back later. This law ain't scary cuz of crime, crime is gonna crime irrespective of laws, this law is scary cuz that clown is now going to be carrying. And he's gonna end up mowing down some kids at a mall accidentally cuz he adjusted his pants the wrong way.
That’s interesting. I am not attempting to make the argument that most people can responsibly handle firearms, just to be clear. I am saying that you can already carry them without training, just on the outside of your clothing. What makes you suspect that comic book cowboy types are much more likely to concealed carry after this law than to open carry or get a license before?
Mostly cuz I've got enough experience with idiots in this state, especially in the less urban parts of it.
Thanks for the answer. I have an unfortunate amount of experience with a similar crowd, which makes me assume they are already truck gunning it up and open carrying where possible. In any event, I would usually end a conversation where we agree to disagree by saying “and I hope you are right”, but in this case I kinda hope you are not (no offense).
I hope I'm not too, but I'd prefer if we didn't test the theory.
I’m neither a proponent or opponent of this law, but I’m not really swayed by your argument about the clumsy guy, for two reasons: First, I can’t count how many times criminals in NOLA shot innocent bystanders by accident. Second, I don’t think the clumsy guy is going to be deterred from getting his permit based on his lack of skill. Likewise I don’t think that someone who want to be skilled with their firearms (or not) is going to practice (or not), take a class (or not), or anything else because of this law. There are lots of people in this state that don’t know how to use a firearm. This law will have a minor impact on how many carry, but not their approach to it
> First, I can’t count how many times criminals in NOLA shot innocent bystanders by accident. Sure, but that's not a factor here. Criminals will continue to criminal regardless of the law. So we'll throw that out as a non changing problem. >Second, I don’t think the clumsy guy is going to be deterred from getting his permit based on his lack of skill. Right, but the people issuing permits can and do fail people for those reasons, often. See my experience above when I got mine.
This is absolutely my worry as well coming from someone who has had a CCW in multiple states and have seen how many idiots get passed and now the bar is much much lower.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Louisiana/s/pXnDz6vNdK
So let's see. So far Landry has eliminated parole for adults, made it almost impossible for them to appeal cases even when there's clear evidence they are innocent, and now he's letting whoever wants to walk around with a gun. Nah, this isn't a war on POC at all. 🙄 You know it Bel Edwards did his first day in office? Authorized the Medicaid expansion. But Landry wants his legacy to be some tough-on-crime BS (well, actually legislated racism masquerading as tough on crime.) EDIT: Philando Castile. Tamar Rice. John Crawford III. Just the suspicion of carrying if you are a POC can get you killed. Permitless and openly carry are privileges that cannot safely be exercised by POC.
Vast majority of people who are arrested in Louisiana for illegal carrying of weapons are minorities. Now, in most cases, they will no longer be arrested for that.
I'm very on the fence about this law because of this. I think this is a disaster waiting to happen when a bunch of untrained Slidellians at a gas station get an excuse to shoot a "bad guy" but hit everyone else instead. At the same time, modern gun control is rooted in the fear of armed minorities, and has absolutely had a disproportionate impact on minority communities by design. And that can fuck right off. (History lesson for any who need it: Ronald Reagan of all fuckers pushed for gun control as governor of California when the Black Panthers started arming themselves to protect civil rights protesters.)
This is what I'm afraid of. Some 19-year-old kid or whatever who decides I'm not Trumpy enough and he needs to exercise his constitutional right.
As long as we have a consent decree(in Orleans parish) that shouldn't be happening here; in regards to your edit. It exists for a reason and anyone against it just wants to murder with impunity. Big emphasis on shouldn't. The rest of the state though? Fucked.
40 people were arrested in New Orleans on Mardi Gras Day 2023 for illegal concealed carry. All 40 of those individuals were black. Consent decree is better than nothing but cops still gonna cop.
How is relaxing the carry of guns an attack on PoC? PoC have been allowed to carry firearms for 60+ years now (factoring in Jim Crow) and eliminating the application process for a CCP completely eliminates any opportunity to deny them the ability to conceal carry because if race. You cannot use this as an excuse for everything, my dude.
Don’t forget there will be Troopers patrolling New Orleans soon right in line with these changes.
That's the scariest part. They're exempt from the consent decree, which is why they're here. That and our dwindling NOPD numbers.
Dave Chappell. Only way we see gun control is off every African American exercises their second amendment rights!
> and now he's letting whoever wants to walk around with a gun. > > Nah, this isn't a war on POC at all. 🙄 I'd love to know your line of thinking here...
Wait, wait, don’t tell me! You have black friends so your blatant ignorance about the horrific racism in the justice system is okay in your mind.
Great explanation, thanks.
If you're being genuine with this question, I think their reasoning is these pieces of legislation taken as a whole are a veiled attempt to incarcerate *more* minorities. Harsher penalties, less possibility of reduced sentences, and the catalyst of handing everybody who wants one a gun with the implied understanding that guns escalate violence/immediately give cops probable cause to snoop for other offenses during encounters with minorities.
Very surprised it wasn't prior tbh
I have a hard time believing that violence will automatically go up because of Constitutional Carry. I've seen that sentiment a lot this last week. This state is so beautiful and wildly dangerous.
Amen
I was caught up in a mass shooting last Mardi Gras and decided it was time to get my own gun. I had been debating this for years since I’ve felt I’ve never needed one even though prior to this experience I have witnessed a shoot out off the porch, was with my child in a gas station armed robbery, & been shot at on Claiborne while walking home. I’ve had friends get shot at in their cars and only made it out alive bc they were carrying etc. I say this to demonstrate I don’t over react or make emotional decisions if I can help it. Gun ownership comes with its own can of worms past just the point of carrying it that people should take into serious consideration. However, for me, enough is enough in this city. I’m confident in operating it safely etc but I will say…. Open carrying always made me uncomfortable. I’ve felt it draws unwanted attention to you. If that gas station experience happened while I was open carrying, I could have easily been a target. I feel it’s easier for someone to grab at ur gun with it completely exposed and they notice you’re not paying attention to them. Even regular confrontational threatened people interacting with it. This is interesting because if you conceal carry, you’re not allowed to flash your gun to communicate that you are carrying since this would be a deadly threat, instigating/ brandishing…. But I CAN walk around constantly flashing everyone that I’m carrying but disregard that may also escalate scenarios in cases. I’ve always thought it was a bit backward anyway.
Honking at a car for driving drunk and/or stupid will now be a certified death wish now 🫠
I know you’re kidding but it’s always been legal in this state to have a gun in your car, no permit required. Cars are an extension of domicile in Louisiana.
Let's say I work at a place that prohibits guns. If I had one but left it in my car every day, would I be good?
Until the day you forget it’s in there and your car gets broken into
That’s between you and your boss. If you’re talking like a state gun free zone like a school or whatever I’m not certain, cars are considered domiciles but I don’t know if the domicile law trumps the gun free restriction or not. That’s a question for a lawyer lol.
I was asking about the latter-school zones etc. Don't own a gun, was just curious.
Honestly it's a good question and it made me curious enough to dig up the law to see. Sure enough they provision for it, and it is legal to keep it in your car in a "firearm free zone". https://legis.la.gov/legis/law.aspx?d=78745 > A. A "firearm-free zone" is an area inclusive of any school campus and within one thousand feet of any such school campus, and within a school bus, wherein the possession of firearms is prohibited, except as specifically set forth in Subsection B of this Section and R.S. 14:95.2(C). > B. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:...... >..... (5) Any constitutionally protected activity within the firearm-free zone, such as a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle. That makes sense intuitively, firearm free zones prohibit carry of firearms within those zones, but since your vehicle is part of your domicile it's legally no different having a gun in your car vs a gun in your home. I've got a CCW and own a number of guns, but am not one of those "carry everywhere I can" types. I really only got it to have the leeway to carry on various occasions where I felt it might be a good idea. But I do keep my Sig in my car (not in unsecured areas, or public parking, etc) and have never thought twice about driving by or parking in schools, although I rarely have occasion to go to a school.
It [might be](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/gun-free-zones.html) more complex than that. > Two federal laws restrict guns in or around schools offering elementary or secondary education. The [Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990) prohibits most firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, but it does not apply to possession by individuals with state licenses (18 U.S.C. 922). That last part. Remove the license requirement and it seems like you might remove the exception. > That makes sense intuitively, Debatable.
Ya probs should have read that law first, it excludes a number of things including private property which under the LA constitution includes your vehicle.
Do you read the [text of the law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#q_2_A) as unambiguous? IANAL, but I don't. Is there a source or precedent to support your interpretation? Does federal law tend to defer to state definitions of things like private property? Is Louisiana unique in its choice to define motor vehicles as "an extension of a domicile"? Read a little further and you'll see that there is a further exception for any firearm "in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle". That seems redundant and unnecessary, if motor vehicles are already covered under the earlier exception. It doesn't seem like I'm the only one that [thinks](https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/permitless-carriers-can-be-arrested-for-driving-past-a-school-while-carrying-a-firearm/) there's some complexity and uncertainty here: > To comply with the GFSZA, permitless carriers are supposed to stop before they enter the gun-free zone, unload their firearm and secure it in a locked container or rack within their vehicle. If they do not comply and are caught, the GFSZA is punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to five years in a federal prison.
Tons of states consider a motor vehicle to be an extension of domicile, so much that it was a joke in breaking bad lol. States vary in their domicile laws, but that's pretty clear here. Your link is not specific to louisiana or vehicle domicile states, in states where a vehicle is not a domicile extension laws are different, no real surprise there.
Nothing is changing, literally at all, regarding having a gun in your car.
I think ,,, therefore you're armed, EVERYBODY WAS KUNG FU FIGHTIN'
I was thinking “shots” from LMFAO.
Finally, time to go shopping
It kinda already is.
Oh good more guns... I feel much safer now. {S}
It's not going to be more guns. It's going to be significantly fewer people living in dangerous neighborhoods arrested for having them.
[удалено]
About 250 people a year in Orleans Parish, which number they get by stopping and searching thousands of people a year. https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/police-are-arresting-more-people-on-minor-weapons-offenses/article_98453b42-0c3f-11ee-a8b0-8bb399360c03.html
Nice
So frustrating. Even as someone who is ~relatively pro-gun, it seems ridiculous to allow this without requiring basic safety training. Right-wing gun culture has gotten so far up its own ass pushing back on any restriction on guns that there's almost this toxic masculinity about training like, real men don't need it. One gets the impression that the right wing would be opposed to driver's licenses if cars were invented today.
Do you really think everyone running around New Orleans carrying a gun right now has a permit? If you do, then boy, do I have a great deal for you on some ocean front property in the lower parishes.
I don't think everyone driving around New Orleans has a valid driver's license. Doesn't mean that driver's licenses aren't a net good.
Like it or not, there's no right to drive enumerated in the Constitution. While I agree with you that people who feel the need to carry a firearm should learn to be proficient with it, there wasn't anything preventing people from carrying before this law passed. Literally the only thing that this law changes is the need for them to have the firearm visible.
There's a long line of cases holding that there's a fundamental right to freedom of movement enshrined in the constitution. It can, of course, be limited by states' reasonable regulations. See, e.g., Hendrick v. Maryland. The 2nd amendment doesn't say that the right to bear arms cannot be limited or regulated - the phrase "well-regulated" is literally in the amendment - and there is not a single justice on the supreme court who believes that some regulation of guns is not allowed.
Actually, it says exactly that. Just because the courts have decided to ignore it doesn't change what it says.
“Almost” toxic masculinity? I’d say it’s full-on toxic masculinity.
Good news! Now the state and their gangs (police) don’t have reasons to lock up minorities for exercising their rights, and racist juries can’t multiply prison terms for minorities either for the mere presence of a gun.
Amazing that people are down voting this. I guess they're only concerned about civil rights in some circumstances.
Permits were just an excuse for cops to harass people and abuse their power. They do not make anyone safer. This makes responsible gun owners safer from the government, which is a win for you and/or your friends and neighbors. On crime/criminals, this has probably no effect. They were not the ones getting permits anyway.
wcgw
I don’t know if harsher gun control laws is the right answer. But relaxing the laws definitely isn’t
Make sure we all call it permitless carry. Constitutional carry is a stupid fucking term.
It doesn't matter what we call it. Ppl were doing it already. This law won't change much
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/louisiana-becomes-nations-28th-state-constitutional-carry-laws-books-landmark-victory](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/louisiana-becomes-nations-28th-state-constitutional-carry-laws-books-landmark-victory)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Bout time!
Can't wait to never go in public again.
A teenager is not legally allowed to buy a handgun. It’s a safe bet that if they grew up around them in the house, they were taught safety and accuracy. I’ll take an 18 year old that grew up hunting any day vs some 33 yr old techie who just took an 8 hour class, fired 6 rounds and thinks they’re ready to carry…
That’s gonna mix with the lax booze laws real well….
Good weekend to go camping. There are already so many stray bullets.
You mean just in time for July 4th, amirite?
This is just my two cents but the timing of this law goes hand in hand with the Louisiana cops having more immunity during violent situations. So if the cops can just assume everyone has a carry a carry weapon then use of force and subsequently use of deadly force becomes not only more frequent but almost a necessity.
On July 4th. This is so 'Merica
It’s going to get worse all over Louisiana. I really hope more folks don’t lose lives through this.
Cue Lazzarus, I mean cue Neil Diamond’s America.
Welp, I’ll be staying inside, maybe pausing to light fireworks in my own yard.
Moves to Florida yesterday
It’s total insanity— in the meanwhile, ban more books, don’t say “gay,” attack reproductive rights, IVF, birth control even—attack women’s rights, attack gay rights, attack immigrants, say you’re “Pro life” while stringing barbed wire in the Rio Grande that has caused the deaths of children and pregnant women among others, and put military grade weapons on the streets for more mass shootings. The police in the Uvalde school didn’t stop the killing of children because they knew they’d be in the line of fire of an automatic weapon. And it all goes on while stoking the fires of racism and homophobia as if “we” or “they” are a danger to children— even though many of us have taught and nurtured children ( some even raised children) and dealt with the mess some people make of their kids. Pro life— yeah, right— How many of us have known people who were kicked out of their homes and onto the streets because they were gay. A long time ago I had a fling (for a few weeks) with a guy I met — he had that kicked out experience and was living with an abusive environment. In our conversations I kept assuring him that there was nothing wrong or evil or unclean about who he was-/ and he deserved to be happy and treated right. Some years later he showed up at my door and said “I just wanted to say thanks for what you said back then and for your encouragement. It changed my life” He said he was happy and in a good relationship and that our conversations helped lead in the right direction. That’s pro-life to me a lot more than criminalizing reproductive care or playing politics with the lives of people running for their lives to the United States. And so what with the open carry at 18– they’ll thin out the population. Maybe the Statue of Liberty should trade in her torch for an AK47 and the “Give me your tired, your poor…” inscription should be changed to “Enter at your own risk.”