Archives for March 2023

Although the 2023 Legislative session is a “fiscal session,” legislators may file bills that could affect your Civil Rights protected by the Second Amendment. Here is a list of bills that we will be monitoring throughout this session.

Following each bill is the LSA’s position: SUPPORT, NEUTRAL, or OPPOSE.

• HB38 NEUTRAL (Joe Stagni, R, Kenner) Provides relative to the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers
• Failed to pass: HB96 OPPOSE (Polly Thomas, R, Metairie) UPDATE: Firearm provisions were removed, but HB96 failed passage in the House on a vote of yeas 34, nays 54.  Provides relative to penalties and responsive verdicts for negligent homicide (LSA contends that to be acceptable the author would need to remove the enhanced penalties for negligence with a firearm.)
  
• HB131 SUPPORT (Danny McCormick, R, Oil City) Provides relative to the concealed carrying of firearms (Constitutional Carry bill)
  
• HB175 OPPOSE (Delisha Boyd, D, New Orleans) Prohibits carrying firearms into hospitals and mental health facilities (This bill would make unacceptable changes to existing law that LSA recently supported)
  
• HB234 SUPPORT (Bryan Fontenot, R, Thibodaux) Provides relative to to the concealed carrying of firearms (LSA initially opposed this bill; however, the author amended the bill at LSA’s request and is now acceptable to support)
  
• HB247 SUPPORT (Mandie Landry, D, New Orleans) Establishes a tax credit for purchases of firearm safety devices
• HB284 SUPPORT (Joseph Marino, I, Gretna) Provides relative to the crime of possession of a firearm by a person convicted of certain felonies
• HB299 NEUTRAL (Danny McCormick, R, Oil City) Provides relative to enforcement of federal firearm laws
• HB318 OPPOSE (Larry Selders, D, Baton Rouge) Provides relative to automatic weapons (Bill fails to provide safeguards for legally registered machine guns)
• HB331 SUPPORT (Dewith Carrier, R, Oakdale) UPDATE: Reported favorably  in Committee on Administration on Criminal Justice yeas 9, nay 0, abstain 1 and sent to the House for consideration. Provides relative to automatic weapons (Bill updates Louisiana law to comply with federal law and provides safeguards for legally registered machine guns)
• HB446 SUPPORT (Blake Miguez, R, New Iberia) Provides relative to online handgun education course curriculum
• HB464 NEUTRAL (Bryan Fontenot, R, Thibodaux) Provides relative to possession of a firearm by a felon
• HB536 OPPOSE (Jonathan Goudeau, R, Lafayette) Provides relative to the illegal possession of stolen firearms
• SB56 SUPPORT (Stewart Cathey, R, Monroe) UPDATE: Passed by the Senate on a vote of 22 yeas and 11 nays. Sent to the House for consideration. Reinstates the Second Amendment sales tax holiday
• SB130 NEUTRAL (Jay Morris, R, West Monroe) UPDATE: Passed by a vote of 28 yeas and 0 nays in the Senate; ordered re-engrossed and sent to the House. Authorizes retired law enforcement officers and retired elected law enforcement department heads to carry concealed firearms if POST certified at the time of retirement
• SB158 NEUTRAL (Eddie Lambert, R, Gonzales) Provides for the protection of schools (Bill has to many requirements for LSA support)
• SB165 OPPOSE (Jimmy Harris, D, New Orleans) Prohibits the possession of an unidentifiable firearm (This is already illegal)
• SB212 OPPOSE (Royce Duplessis, D, New Orleans) Provides for the seizure of firearms from persons who pose a risk of imminent injury to self or others (“Red Flag” bill; LSA wholesale opposes the removal of Civil Rights without due process) UPDATE: The bill was also opposed by the DA’s Association; the author voluntarily deferred the bill, but note the bill may by presented again at the Committee on Judiciary C
• SB216 OPPOSE (Gary Carter, D, New Orleans) Provides for liability for damages caused by a firearm stolen from a vehicle and used in the commission of a felony

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Louisiana Shooting Association, Inc (LSA) along with our partners in a federal lawsuit challenging the prohibition of handgun sales to young adults have filed an appellant’s brief with the U.S.  Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The case is known as Reese v. ATF.

Joining SAF and the LSA are the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Emily Naquin and Caleb Reese, for whom the case is known. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk; George J. Armbruster, III at Armbruster & Associates; Joseph Greenlee, FPC Action Foundation; John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group; Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, DiGuiseppe Law Firm and Adam Kraut at SAF.

Defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its director, Steven Dettelbach and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

At issue is the ban on licensed handgun sales to law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults, because this prohibition is at odds with the Second Amendment, SAF, LSA, and our partners contend.

“At the time the Second Amendment was adopted,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “there were no restrictions on the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms because of their age. Indeed, people in that age group, because as Americans they were in the civilian militia, were actually required to acquire firearms.

“Young adults over age 18,” he added, “can exercise other constitutional rights. They can vote, get married, enter into contracts, start businesses, run for office, join the military where they may fight and die for their country, but they can’t legally buy a handgun because of existing laws.”

“There is no historical regulation from any relevant time period that supports this handgun ban for young adults,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, a practicing attorney representing the group in this case. “Under last year’s Bruen ruling, the appeals court must review this case by determining whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct prohibited by the handgun ban. We think the lower court erred in its initial ruling because there is no historical evidence of any such ban for people in the 18-to-20-year age group.”