Proposed Constitutional amendment in Louisiana

[Seminole]

According to this post by David Kopel on The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog, there is a referendum on a proposed amendment to the Louisiana Constitution on the ballot in November. From what Kopel says, it would significantly strengthen the state's recognition of RKBA, but he does link to a website opposing the amendment on the grounds that it would actually undercut RKBA. I'm interested in reactions pro or con to the amendment, especially from folks in Louisiana who may have been thinking about this issue for a while.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

David Kopel is one of a handful of premier RTKBA lawyers, and a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. If he is in favor, that's all I need to know.

 

[Doc3402]

I am always reluctant to vote yes for a constitutional amendment. They are much harder to abolish or change down the road. With that said I think you should do your own research on both sides of the argument and vote your beliefs.

As far as Kopel posting a link to the opposing view, I think he also has this in mind. He was under no moral or legal obligation to do this, so maybe he has a concern or two about both sides of the argument. After reading the proposed amendment I have problems with the vagueness of the wording, but it isn't out of line. It's just wide open to the court's interpretation.

 

[El Tejon]

Voting in a standard of review is a warm up for the potential federal effort.

The website against the constitutional amendment is delusional gun shop claptrap.

 

[Hammer-52]

Vote YES!

Seminole, Kopel's peice appears to be a VERY strong arguement to support the new amendment. Based on what I read and Tom Gresham's opinion on "Guntalk Radio" I'd love this to amendment to be the law of the land. If I were a Louisiana voter it would get my vote!

Just my two pennies.

 

[Seminole]

Just to clarify, I'm not actually a resident of Louisiana--just an interested observer. I agree with Doc3402 about the problematic nature of tampering with Constitutions, but such amendments represent one of the few ways (the only way?) to deal with egregious decisions of Supreme Courts. This conflict is part of what makes this particular amendment interesting to those of us observing from outside the state.