The Louisiana House of Representatives just passed two controversial bills that are now on their way to the state Senate. The two bills, passed with a large majority of support, shields gun owners from restrictions from the federal government. The first bill, known as the “Louisiana preservation of individual gun rights of citizens act”, would make it illegal for the president to enforce gun restrictions in the state of louisiana. The second bill makes it illegal for anyone to release personal information associated with concealed carry permits. Could Louisiana even enforce this law if it were to pass?
The passage of House Bill 5 through the house was a statement that state lawmakers are willing to do anything to protect the rights of gun owners in Louisiana, even if what they’re doing might be considered unconstitutional.
How can this be unconstitutional? It is the state trying to protect their 2nd Amendment rights? But, of course we have a professor who answers this question as follows:
UL Lafayette professor and KATC political analyst Dr. Pearson Cross says, “Southern states and other states will try to pass these laws, they will pass these laws, these laws will probably be found to be unconstitutional in court cases.”
Cross says even if it passes the senate, the law could be stricken down because it ignores the U.S Constitution’s “Supremecy Clause”.
Cross adds, “There’s the ‘Supremecy Clause’, that little uncomfortable thing in the Constitution that says that the laws of the U.S., of the Constitution, and passed by Congress supercede anything that states do either in the Constitution of the state legislatures.”
I have a bit of trouble of understanding this professor’s analysis. How can a state who is protecting the 2nd Amendment be called “unconstitutional” when Congress would be “unconstitutionally” violating their oaths to the Constitution with their gun restrictions?
The 2nd Amendment like we all know so well states, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
For me this sounds a bit insane. Every Congress member took an oath to the Constitution and that means the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment contained within it.
We already have gun laws on the books. For example felons not being allowed to own a gun, but those laws are not enforced. Now Congress wants to fiddle around once again with more gun laws that apply to law abiding and responsible gun owners. Like I’ve said over and over what is it that Congress and this professor that they don’t understand, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
The other day I looked up the Kentucky Constitution and in it contains “the right to own and bear guns”.
Am I misunderstanding this professor? I am not sure I get what he is saying, but once again he is probably a liberal professor as almost all of them are.