Attorney General Jeff Landry and 19 of his colleagues are alerting the chief executive officers of three major credit card companies that the recent creation of a Merchant Category Code for the processing of firearms purchases from gun stores is potentially a violation of consumer protection and antitrust laws.

In a letter sent today to the CEOs of American Express, MasterCard, and Visa – Landry and his fellow attorneys general say the monitoring and tracking of firearms purchases creates a “list of gun buyers” and creates the obvious risk that law-abiding consumers’ information will be obtained and misused by those who oppose Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“Once again, liberal elites in corporate boardrooms are attempting to dictate policy that should be made by our legislative branch,” said Attorney General Landry. “All Louisiana consumers, especially gun owners, should be alarmed by this abuse; but know that I will do all that I legally can to protect their fundamental rights.”

“Giant financial companies must not use their combined market power to circumvent our representative democracy,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. “As Attorney General, I protect the people of Tennessee from corporate collusion that threatens to undermine their constitutional rights. Working together with my colleagues from other states, we will marshal the full scope of our lawful authority to stop this abuse.”

“It’s extremely disappointing to see credit card companies cave to pressure from international bodies and adopt this measure that will do nothing to improve public safety,” said Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen. “Instead, it invites potential future invasions of consumer privacy and further coordination between corporations and government agencies to erode Americans’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

The new code for gun stores the credit card companies intend to adopt is the result of transnational collusion between large corporations leveraging their market power to further progress toward their desired social outcomes. Activists pressured the International Organization for Standardization to adopt this policy as a means of circumventing and undermining the American legislative process.

“Press releases from public officials make clear that the new merchant code was created and adopted in concert with various state actors, which may additionally create the potential for both civil and criminal liability for conspiracy to deprive Americans of their civil rights,” wrote Attorney General Landry and the coalition. “Social policy should be debated and determined within our political institutions. Americans are tired of seeing corporate leverage used to advance political goals that cannot muster basic democratic support. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right, but it’s also a fundamental American value. Our financial institutions should stop lending their market power to those who wish to attack that value.”

Joining Landry, Skrmetti, and Knudsen were the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, and West Virginia.

A copy of the letter may be found here.

Over the past several years, the LSA has worked hard to move into the modern world of communicating with our Members, other Patriots who support Civil Rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and the world. To this end, we purchased powerful and secure Enterprise Software and use Marketing tools to send emails to our Members on a regular basis. Likewise, we have social media presence on our Website, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. All of this takes money.

We take pride in keeping our membership dues affordable. In fact, our dues are the lowest in the Nation for States Associations. This makes it very tough to balance our budget each year. This year, the NRA awarded the LSA a grant to defray the costs associated with Marketing and Membership Expansion. This was not a grant from the NRA Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charitable tax-exempt organization) funded by your participation in Friends of NRA Events, but instead a grant from the mother ship NRA, funded by your NRA membership dues.

The LSA thanks the NRA for it generous support of the LSA!

During the 2021 Louisiana legislative session, a great number of people worked very hard to get Constitutional Carry passed in the State House and Senate. Your LSA was right there in lock step with all the other Civil Rights patriots working tirelessly at the Capitol. However, when it hit the Governor’s desk, he vetoed the bill using the excuse that with Constitutional Carry, citizens would be armed without adequate training. He also said that the residents of Louisiana didn’t want Constitutional Carry. By the Citizens, he probably meant New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport Chiefs of Police, all of whom apparently hate the thought of law-abiding citizens having the ability to protect themselves from criminals that rule their respective streets.

Following the veto, the legislature called an unprecedented veto override session to consider this and other bills that the liberal Governor had vetoed. John Bel Edwards used the standard Louisiana political tactics of strong arming and closed door promises to make certain that his veto would not be overridden, and a few Republican Senators stabbed us in the back. As a reminder, they were Sen. Franklin J. Foil, Sen. Louie Bernard, and Sen. Patrick Connick. Remember them at election time.

We all know that we should not need the government’s permission to do something that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. We also know that one does not need a government course to know how to handle violent bad guys, and now we have proof. On July 17, 2022, in Greenwood, Indiana, a 22-year-old man named Elisjsha Dicken stopped a mass shooting at an Indiana mall. When a deranged killer opened fire in the mall’s food hall, Mr. Dicken swiftly drew his own pistol, that he was legally carrying without a permit and without a government course, and engaged the murderer. Police recovered 24 rifle rounds from the mentally ill person who wanted to kill as many people as possible, plus 10 from Mr. Dicken’s handgun. Early reports noted that he put 8 rounds into the murderer at 50 yards without any formal training. He was quoted as saying, “My grandfather taught me how to shoot.”

According to quotes taken from the Wall Street Journal attributed to Police Chief James Ison, “He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun, was very proficient in that, very tactically sound, and as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him. To our knowledge, he has no police training and no military background.”

Unlike Louisiana’s Governor who is way out of touch with the desires of the Louisiana public, Indiana’s Governor Eric Holcomb signed a bill to allow Constitutional Carry in the Hoosier State. That legislation took effect on July 1, and only 17 days into the new law, a law-abiding citizen stopped a crazed madman from doing his worst. “We could not find that he had a permit,” Chief Ison said. “He was carrying legally under the constitutional carry law.” Chief Ison continued, “Many more people would have died if not for a responsible armed citizen that took action very quickly.”

Governor Edwards, your argument is nonsense. We knew it then, and everyone knows it now. Shame on you!

The US Supreme Court struck down New York’s “good cause” requirement to obtain a carry permit, affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.  You may read the Courts opinion here.

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. Prior to this ruling, an individual who wanted to carry a firearm outside his home had to obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver,” but only if he could prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so.  An applicant satisfied the “proper cause” requirement only if he could “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”

Two adult, law-abiding NY residents were denied unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense allegedly because they failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement. Based on the denial, they sued the state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications, alleging that the State violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense. The District Court dismissed their complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision.

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court found that New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said,

“We are gratified that the high court has said there can be no bureaucratic prerequisite to exercising one’s constitutionally-protected right to bear arms. For too many generations, New York’s requirement has been the vehicle by which the constitutional rights of average law-abiding citizens have been deprived under color of law.

Government bureaucrats have routinely been arbitrary and all-too-eager to prevent honest people from having the means to defend themselves against violent crime outside of their homes. This pattern of exclusivity—allowing only those with wealth and political connections to legally carry guns in public—has been an affront to the constitution for decades, and now officials in a handful of other states with similar arbitrary requirements are on notice they can no longer perpetuate what amounts to an outrage against the constitution. We’ll see how this ruling affects eight other states with similar laws including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.”

The Court affirmed that the right to bear arms does not stop at a person’s front door. This is the most significant Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade.

This article originally appeared on the Second Amendment Foundation website here.

Amid the renewed clamor by anti-gunners for a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” the Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Quinnipiac University poll showing public support for such a ban to be at an all-time low.

Support for a ban has fallen to 50 percent, while 45 percent oppose it, and according to the survey, “This is the lowest level of support among registered voters for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons since February 2013 when the question was first asked by the Quinnipiac University Poll.” Four years ago, 67 percent supported a ban and 29 percent opposed the idea.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said this is clear evidence the public is waking up to the reality that gun bans are not the answer to violent crime.

“Semiautomatic rifles have been around for more than a century,” Gottlieb noted, “and the popular AR-type rifles have been owned by private citizens for at least 60 years. Their use in crime is statistically minimal, so to blame their availability and demonize their technology is a false flag that borders on fraud.

“Increasing numbers of people realize there is far more to this dilemma than firearms,” he added. “For example, the same Quinnipiac poll shows a 40 percent plurality of voters think the real problem is rooted in mental health issues, more than twice the 19 percent who think the availability of firearms is at the core of the current crime spike.

“And don’t overlook political bias,” Gottlieb added. “Quinnipiac found that Democrats by a 91-8 margin want stricter gun laws, while Republicans by a 64-32 percent margin oppose stricter laws. Party affiliation clearly is a factor in whether one is guided by a knee-jerk dislike for firearms, or by common sense and rational analysis.

“The annual FBI Uniform Crime Report has consistently shown that rifles of any kind are involved in a fraction of all homicides in any given year,” he said. “Only 2 to 4 percent of all murders are committed with rifles, so this push to demonize and ban an entire class of rifles is not simply wrong, it borders on being delusional, and it is certainly dishonest.”

“Why should I bother joining the LSA? I get the newsletter and the legislative alerts just by joining the mailing list.” This was the response I recently received from a close friend when I asked him why he never renewed his membership.

It is important to recognize that the leadership of the LSA is composed of volunteers with their own lives and, more importantly, their own careers. The President of the LSA is a practicing attorney, the Vice-President is a small business owner as is the the Secretary, and the Treasurer is a scientist with a lot of direct reports. All of the 15 Directors of the Corporation have careers. None are retired. Google’s Kamau Bobb is a thought leader, shaping conversations on the evolving landscape of education.

We do what we can, but there is never enough time. Now consider, if everyone on the LSA’s mailing list committed to paying the $15 per year to be a member of the LSA and renewing that membership every year, then the LSA could hire a staff person to take over much of the day-to-day tedium of running a large State Association. This would free us to do more for you!

• For a $1.25 per month you get a lot of support and protection for your Civil Rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.
• For only $0.04 per day, your LSA leadership works with State Representatives and State Senators to ensure your Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not intentionally or unintentionally infringed.

Please commit to joining the LSA and maintaining your membership in the Association. Don’t put the burden of paying for your rights on the shoulders of others.

Original article: April 22, 2022

Updated: May 5, 2022

Updated: May 18, 2022

Updated: May 24, 2022

Updated: July 1, 2022

The following bills with important Second Amendment implications are currently working their way through the Louisiana Legislature. Bills that are “Involuntarily deferred in committee” were defeated in the respective House or Senate Committee. Bills that are “Reported favorably” were approved in committee and sent to the House or Senate for consideration by floor vote. Bills that are “Reported with amendments” were approved in committee with amendments and sent to the House or Senate for consideration by floor vote.

Bills Supported by LSA

• HB37 (Constitutional Carry) by Rep. Danny McCormick (R, Oil City) was reported with amendments (10-3) by the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of yeas 64, nays 27. The bill was ordered to the Senate for consideration by the Senate Committee on Judiciary C and was reported favorably out of committee. The bill was then sent to Senate Fiscal Affairs Committee where it was amended to remove the constitutional carry language and replace it with language allowing teachers to carry in schools. The bill was never considered on the Senate floor and died.
• HB43 (2^nd Amendment Sanctuary State) by Rep. Larry Frieman (R, Abita Springs) was reported favorably (10-1) by the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of  yeas 73, nays 25. The bill was ordered to the Senate for consideration by the Senate Committee on Judiciary B and reported favorably out of committee without objection.
• Representative Frieman was unable to find a Senate sponsor for action on the floor and the bill died.
• HB422 by Rep. John Stefanski (R, Crowley) was reported favorably (9-0) by the House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment and sent to the House of Representatives for consideration. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of yeas 101, nays 0. The bill was ordered to the Senate for consideration and was passed. This bill provides for the taking of deer by use of pre-charged pneumatic devices (Air Guns). This will bring Louisiana law into step with modern air gun technology and the laws of other states. Bill was signed into law as Act 215.
• HB463 by Rep. Alan Seabaugh (R, Shreveport) was reported with amendments (11-0) by the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee. The bill was approved by the House or Representatives by a vote of yeas 92, nays 2 and and was passed favorably in Senate Committee on Judiciary C. The bill will now be considered by the full Senate. This bill removes the prohibition of the concealed carrying of switchblades by law enforcement officers and concealed carry permit holders. It will treat switchblades the same as other knives. Bill passed the Senate without opposition and was signed into law as Act 587.
• HB483 by Rep. C. Travis Johnson (D, Vidalia) was reported with amendments (7-0) by the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of yeas 86, nays 0. The bill was ordered to the Senate for consideration by the Senate Committee on Judiciary B and reported favorably on a vote of yeas 4, nays 2. This bill shortens the time period for the restoration of gun rights of eligible convicted felons from 10 years to 5 years. The bill failed to pass the full Senate.
• HB635 by Rep. Rodney Schamerhorn (R, Hornbeck) is the same as HB422. It is pending a hearing at the House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment.
• HB868 by Rep. Blake Miguez (R, Erath) was reported favorably (12-0) by the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee. The bill was approved by the House or Representatives by a vote of yeas 100, nays 0. The bill was ordered to the Senate for consideration by the Senate Committee on Judiciary B and was reported favorably without objection. This bill would direct the State Police to provide a 2-hour online handgun education course at no cost to Louisiana residents. The course would be completely optional and would not be required for obtaining a concealed handgun permit. The bill passed the full Senate and was signed into law as Act 518.
• HB897 by Rep. Charles Owen (R, Rosepine) is pending in the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee. This bill would allow members of the Armed Forces of the US stationed in Louisiana on Active or Reserve Duty to obtain a concealed handgun permit. The bill died in Committee.
• SB143 (Constitutional Carry for Active Duty and Veterans) by Sen. Jay Morris (R, West Monroe) was signed into law as Act 680. This law will allow a person who is a reserve or active-duty member of any branch of the United States Armed Forces; a member of the Louisiana National Guard or the Louisiana Air National Guard; or a former member of any branch of the United States Armed Forces, the Louisiana National Guard, or the Louisiana Air National Guard who has been honorably discharged from service to carry a firearm concealed without a permit.

Bills Opposed by LSA

• HB101 by Rep. Danny McCormick (R, Oil City) was presented to the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee but then was voluntarily deferred by the Author with the right to bring it to the committee on a future date. This bill changes the definition of justifiable homicide to include a homicide committed against a person threatening property damage during a riot. It is a great expansion of the justifiable homicide statute that previously has required a threat of death or great bodily harm. LSA believes that this expansion is unwarranted and will cause significant problems.
• HB209 by Rep. Mandle Landry (D, New Orleans) was involuntarily deferred in the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee. This bill was designed to remove the preemption protections under current laws. It would have allowed the City of New Orleans to make their own firearms laws.
  
• HB585 by Rep. Aimee Freeman (D, New Orleans)  was reported with amendments (8-0) by the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee and referred the House of Representatives for consideration. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of yeas 80, nays 11.  The bill has been ordered to the Senate for consideration by the Senate Committee on Judiciary B. This bill provides for reporting certain firearm data to the La. Commission on Law Enforcement. Passed the full Senate and was signed by Governor as Act 484.
• HB949 by Rep. Tammy Phelps (D, Shreveport) is pending in the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee. Under current law, a juvenile (defined as a person less than 18 years of age) may not knowingly posses a handgun on their person. The proposed law removes the requirement that the handgun be possessed on the offender’s person for the offense to apply. Under the proposed law, it would be illegal for a juvenile to be in a vehicle with a handgun, even if that juvenile does not know the handgun is in the vehicle. The bill died in Committee.
• SB287 by Sen. Louie Bernard (R, Natchitoches) was voluntarily defferred in the Senate Judiciary C Committee. This bill provides for lifetime concealed handgun permits and reduces the permit fee. While this bill may sound good, it is problematic as it will adversely affect the reciprocity with other states and the ability to use a CHP to purchase a firearm.
• SB327 (Red Flag Law) by Sen. Gary Carter (D, New Orleans) is pending in the Senate Judiciary C Committee. The bill was involuntarily deferred by the committee. This bill provides for the seizure of firearms from persons who pose a risk of imminent injury to self or others. This is a so called “Red Flag” bill. It has issues concerning due process and is unnecessary because existing law provides sufficient protection.

The Louisiana Shooting Association, Inc. (LSA) joined a brief filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in the case New York Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen argued before the US Supreme Court on November 2, 2021. This case has important implications for New York and the other seven US States that do not recognize Second Amendment rights with their discretionary “may issue” carry laws. The outcome of this case will also likely impact dozens of other cases that are currently in the lower federal courts.

Presenting the oral argument for the plaintiffs, attorney Paul Clement told the court that the constitution protects carrying concealed firearms outside the home. He also said there should be no requirement for a citizen to prove a special need to exercise a constitutionally protected fundamental right. Questions and comments by several justices pointed out that many lower courts were not adhering to the Heller and McDonald decisions by the high court and not applying the proper heightened scrutiny levels that the Second Amendment deserves. During the oral arguments, several justices affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms does not stop at the front door.

The amicus brief with the US Supreme Court supporting the NYSR&PA was joined by the LSA, the Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Florida Carry, Grassroots North Carolina, Illinois State Rifle Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, New Jersey Second Amendment Society, Sportsmen’s Association for Firearms Education, Tennessee Firearms Association, and Virginia Citizen Defense League. The brief is available here.

Subject: Opposition to HB209

Dear Mr. Committee Member,

I STRONGLY OPPOSE HB209. Under current law, the governing authority of a political subdivision is prohibited from enacting any ordinance or regulation more restrictive than state law concerning in any way the sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transfer, transportation, license, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition. The proposed law would change this and allow a patchwork of laws throughout the state. A law abiding citizen could easily violate the law by simply crossing a border into a different municipality. This is a horrible idea. Please join me in opposing this bill.

Sincerely,

[Insert your name]

[Insert your mailing address]