• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Draughter Opinion is out.

Seigi

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
The Louisiana Supreme Court published their opinion in the Draughter case a few days ago. Full text is here:
http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2013/13KA0914.opn.pdf

In summary, they applied strict scrutiny - which they clarified was quite different from the old standard - and found both a compelling interest in restricting people on probation and a narrow tailoring thereto, and declined to comment on anything further.

So, the good news is that the Court isn't screwing around on strict scrutiny and will be applying it to even the laws already on the books, the bad news is that we didn't get what would've been an enormous protective pronouncement, and the old news is that people on probation don't really have "rights" as we're used to thinking of them. They can't associate with criminals (right of assembly, 1st Amendment), can't leave the state (Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment), can't refuse searches (4th Amendment)...RKBA is hardly the first right accepting probation waives.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
.....as applied to a convicted felon still under state supervision....

The guy on probation does not have to accept the terms of his probation and may elect to stay in prison.

Once out of prison and probation; they guy's rights should be full IMO ... able to do or possess whatever anyone else can.

And the strict v intermediate scrutiny? Its a made up legal theory ... congress never passed any such laws...the courts need to stop making crap up ... I think they do this just to have an argument that should not exist.

But, to the case before them, the guy's on probation and I think that they limited the ruling to this class of people.
 

Seigi

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
That's what I was reading.

Strict scrutiny is valid as applied to our state constitution's RKBA. It's in the constitution's text; our legislature passed it and our people approved it. No grounds to complain when the Court applies the analysis that the constitution told it to. That it's wholly a judicial creation with regard to the Second Amendment would be relevant in a case where someone had actually argued the Second Amendment - which Draughter's attorney did not. But strict scrutiny the Court was told to do, and strict scrutiny they did.
 

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
The guy on probation does not have to accept the terms of his probation and may elect to stay in prison.

I don't remember who it was but I remember reading of a person who did exactly that. They wanted to ROR him (release on own recognizance) because his charge was petty and they needed the space. Before release they wanted him to sign a bunch of things saying he wouldn't possess firearms, do this, that, or the other thing, and would appear for his court date. He refused. He said once he left he was going to do as he pleased and never come back and if they didn't like that they just needed to keep him locked up until they were through with him. I can't remember how it ended, but the story was amusing.
 
Last edited:
Top