Now that the outcome of the amendment is settled, I'd like to weigh in a bit more on this. I honestly am not sure if this amendment is a good thing or not so I, kept my mouth(fingers) shut and let the chips fall where they may. So...
That's definitely not the case. The current standard of review for Louisiana's Second Amendment is some kind of extremely lenient "reasonable restriction" standard. The new version requires "strict scrutiny," the highest standard of review for constitutional rights. Although Louisiana courts have not generally used strict scrutiny, the courts have recognized that it has a well-established meaning. This is about as good an amendment as could have been drafted.
There's no doubt that "strict scrutiny" is a higher standard of review than what the LA. SC uses now. I don't think anyone debates this. Though I did ask the question and presented some cases that suggested that the La. SC has rejected the 3 tier system before. No one addressed this.
Some people seem to be griping that the amendment didn't say something like "the right to keep and bear arms is absolute and shall not be infringed under any circumstances," but that's problematic.
Maybe. But what about people like me that suggest, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The legislature may regulate arms in court rooms and when an individual is in physical custody of the state."
Simple enough. No rant against the SC. Why is this problematic?
All rights have limits at the extremes.
That's why the constitution has an amendment process.
With free speech, it's often illustrated with the old trope of yelling fire in a crowded room. With a gun, it might be brandishing in certain circumstances, or ownership of guns by violent felons. The federal courts created strict scrutiny for fundamental, established rights, to ensure that these limitations would be minimal and that the onus would be on the government to justify any restriction. Saying "strict scrutiny isn't enough" just sounds nuts.
A judiciary that has already ruled that art 1 sec 11 is subject to reasonable restrictions despite the wording of the last sentence of art. 1 sec. 1 sounds nuts as well.
§1. Origin and Purpose of Government
Section 1. All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded on their will alone, and is instituted to protect the rights of the individual and for the good of the whole. Its only legitimate ends are to secure justice for all, preserve peace, protect the rights, and promote the happiness and general welfare of the people. The rights enumerated in this Article are inalienable by the state and shall be preserved inviolate by the state.
Do we have to make up new words to keep the SC from usurping. Is a rant against the SC necessary so that they finally get it?
It has been suggested that the Louisiana Supremes may try to create their own lenient definition of "strict scrutiny" to sidestep the law, but I doubt that.
I suggested that and in light of many of their decisions over the years, it is a reasonable concern.
They've already recognized it openly as a well-established standard. If judges try to gut the amendment, they are more likely to do it by applying strict scrutiny improperly, and then the fault is with the judiciary, not the amendment.
The fault is already with the judiciary. That's the point. This does nothing to change that.
Thanks again Owen for taking you time to address these issues.