• 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.

"No carry" ordinance in Amite City

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
imported post

I've moved my whole post over here as I feel it deserves it's own commentary and it has little to do with the original topic (Walmart) it was posted under...

crewdawg wrote:
This really sucks as I LIVE in Amite! And this is the first I've heard about this law. How would one go about getting this changed and more in line with state law? (Without OCing and being arrested of course)
Excellent question! I don't have an answer that doesn't involve getting arrested, but still an excellent question!

Ok, this ordinance happens to be one near and dear to my heart as well as near to where I live.

The ordinance states:
Section 11-4017. Unlawful possession of weapons. (a)Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful for any person, except within his own domicile, to carry or use on or about his person or have in his manual possession, either secretly or openly, whether concealed or otherwise, any arms or weapons of any kind, or any shotgun, rifle, pistol, revolver, air-gun, "B-B gun," gas operated gun or spring gun, or any instrument, toy or weapon commonly known as a "peashooter," "slingshot," or "beany," or any bow made for the purpose of throwing or projecting missiles of any kind by any means whatsoever, or any dirk, bowie knife, clasp knife, razor, metallic knuckles, slingshot, billy or any other weapon, whether the instrument is called by any name set forth above or by any other name, other than the ordinary or common penknife or pocket knife.

This was written in 1965 so no one doubts it's validity as applied to concealed carry.

As to open carry, it says: (a)Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful for any person, except within his own domicile, to carry or use on or about his person or have in his manual possession, either secretly or openly....any arms or weapons of any kind...pistol, revolver..

No OC either, BUT, is that valid?

Now we happen to have an opinion by the State Attorney General that says, in part:

Office of the Attorney General
State of LOUISIANA

Opinion No. 78-795
June 19, 1978

FIREARMS & FIREWORKS 47-A R.S. 14:95.1, 40:1379.1 Acts 1956, No. 345, s 1,
1958, No. 2 1958, No. 379, ss 1, 3, 1968, No. 647, s 1, 1975, No. 492
The carrying of an exposed handgun is not illegal, except as provided in LSA-
R.S. 14:94.1.
Parishes and/or Municipalities may not enact ordinances
regulating the carrying of illegal handguns because the state has pre-empted
the legistlative control and has implicitly authorized the carrying of
unconcealed weapons.

Honorable James H. Brown, Jr.
State Senator
32nd District
Baton Rouge, LOUISIANA 70804

Dear Senator Brown:

Your request for an opinion of the Attorney General has been forwarded to the
undersigned for disposition. Your questions, as I appreciate them, are:
1. Is it legal to carry an exposed handgun?
2. Do Parishes and/or Municipalities have the power to regulate the
carrying of exposed handguns?
LSA-R.S. 14:95 provides as follows:

Information about the particular law omitted by myself in the interest of brevity.
Readers can look it up themselves if they want the whole thing.

So, his answer to the Senator's first question - 1. Is it legal to carry an exposed handgun? - was:

If the weapon is carried in a manner that reveals its identity, its carrier
cannot be presumed to have intended to conceal it and, accordingly, is not in
violation of the statute ...... The appropriate test to be applied in
prosecutions for illegal carrying of weapons is whether, under the facts and
circumstances of the case as disclosed by the evidence, the manner in which
defendant carried the weapon revealed an intent to conceal its identity.'
Therefore, the carrying of an exposed handgun is not illegal, except as
provided in LSA-R.S. 14:95.1.


The answer to his second question - 2. Do Parishes and/or Municipalities have the power to regulate the carrying of exposed handguns?- was:

In answer to your second question it can be analogized that when the State
provides that it is unlawful for a person to carry a concealed weapon, LSA-R.S.
14:95 A (1), unless they hold a bonafide law enforcement commission, R.S.
14:95(F) or possess a concealed handgun permit, R.S. 40:1379.1, it is
equivalent to stating that it is lawful to carry an exposed weapon (firearm).

In City of Shreveport V. Curry and City of Shreveport V. Bukhett, 357 S.2d
1078, (LA. 1978) which held that a city ordinance proscribing frog gigging out
of season was unconstitutional as not being a reasonable exercise of Police
Power and as such a violation of the defendant's right to due process; the
Court stated in dicta that '. . . a municipal ordinance which goes further in
its prohibitions than a state statute is valid so long as it does not forbid
what the state legislature has expressly or implicitly authorized . . .'


It is the opinion of this office that the state statutes aforementioned have
the purpose of establishing a general scheme to control weapons (handguns) and
that a fair reading of those statutes show this would constitute an area in
which the state has pre-empted the legislative control and has implicitly
authorized the carrying of unconcealed weapons.

Therefore, an ordinance enacted by a Parish and/or Municipality requlating
the carrying of exposed handguns would be without effect as being in conflict
with State Law.

We hope this opinion has adequately answered your questions. If we may be of
any further assistance in this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to
call upon us.
With kind regards, I am

Sincerely

William J. Guste, Jr.
Attorney General

This Attorney Generals Opinion is 30 years old and includes nothing about the shall-issue statutes (R.S. 14:95.3) that came into effect long after this opinion was written. Also, an AG opinion has no weight of law behind it. The Tangipahoa DA may give it due consideration, but by that time you've been arrested and arraigned.

To throw a further item in for you to chew on, there is the State's Firearms-free zone law, which states, in part:

C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:

(5) Any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle.


Hmm..now Amite's ordinance says:

(a)Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful for any person, except within his own domicile....to carry or use on or about his person or have in his manual possession, either secretly or openly, whether concealed or otherwise, any arms or weapons of any kind.

Now, if the state claims that having a firearm in ones car is a "constitutionally protected activity", how can Amite City have an ordinance that allows the possession of a firearm, only "within his own domicile"?

So, gentle readers, is Amite City's "Unlawful possesion of weapons" ordinance of 1965 in direct contravention of the Louisiana State Constitution? And to rephrase Crewdawgs question, can this be challenged short of arrest and posible trial?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 

firefighter9158

New member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
52
Location
, ,
imported post

just spent the whole day riding on my Harley, in that Parish. i was spotted by the Independence Police open carrying twice ! No problems from them, only a wave . Maybe there are some ''Smart'' L.E.O's there.
 

Amos99

New member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1
Location
, ,
imported post

OK, I did something silly, I walked into the Amite City hall a few weeks ago and asked about the ordnance. Court administrator said yea there is a problem. So instead of carrying open getting arrested and fighting in court, risking conviction, On September 1, 2009 at 7:00pm there will be a hearing on a motion to repeal this ordnance. Simple no fight no arrest record, just asked and they will vote to repeal. So if you are interested in voicing your opinion please show up and speak in favor, and remember no open carry yet but if no one shows up then they may not repeal. So there you have it, no complicated process, no standoff, just walked in and asked. Wow who would have thought, an American city where a citizen gets results without breaking a sweat. Oh and I have a new friend at city hall.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

And the very reason that hearing is being held is because what I have already done and have BEEN doing for months.
It didn't take a committee, it didn't take an organization, it wasn't accomplished by sitting at a keyboard and TALKING about it.
There is NO need for anyone to show up and possibly ruin it, it's a done deal.
And yes, you ARE welcome.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
And the very reason that hearing is being held is because what I have already done and have BEEN doing for months.
It didn't take a committee, it didn't take an organization, it wasn't accomplished by sitting at a keyboard and TALKING about it.
There is NO need for anyone to show up and possibly ruin it, it's a done deal.
And yes, you ARE welcome.
Thanks, again, Mark.
 

MEMismyHero

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
44
Location
, ,
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
And the very reason that hearing is being held is because what I have already done and have BEEN doing for months.
It didn't take a committee, it didn't take an organization, it wasn't accomplished by sitting at a keyboard and TALKING about it.
There is NO need for anyone to show up and possibly ruin it, it's a done deal.
And yes, you ARE welcome.
Way to go; +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
 

charlie12

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
545
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Look at this crazy "stuff" from St. Helena Parish.

Sec. 15-2. Carrying, possession, or discharge of weapons near swimming and picnic areas prohibited: violations and penalties.


A.The carrying, possession, or discharging of firearms is hereby prohibited within 500 feet of any swimming or picnic area within the Parish of St. Helena when three or more persons are engaged in swimming or picnicking.

B.Any person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished in accordance with section 1-21 of this Code.

(Ord. of 5-14-1964)



Sec. 15-4. Hunting or discharge of firearms near public highways and residences.


A.The carrying, possession or discharge of a loaded firearm for hunting or any other purpose within 500 feet of any inhabited dwelling or any other building or structure where a person or persons are present, without permission of the owner of said dwelling or building is prohibited.

B.The carrying, possession or discharge of a loaded firearm for hunting or any other purpose within a distance of 100 feet of the center line of any public street, road, highway or thoroughfare, whether held by servitude or as owner, is prohibited.

C.Any person violating the provisions of this section, unless he be a law officer or policeman acting within the scope of his duty and employment, shall be guilty of a violation of this Code and upon conviction, be punished in accordance with section 1-21 of this Code.

(Ord. of 11-13-1984)

http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11940&sid=18
 

rmansu2

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
325
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

"how can Amite City have an ordinance that allows the possession of a firearm, only "within his own domicile"?
Remember, in this "Great State" your vehicle is an extension of your home. In my opinion "within his own domicile" would include any extension thereof.

What so you think?
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,216
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
And the very reason that hearing is being held is because what I have already done and have BEEN doing for months.
Not trying to bash here but just curious in case I missed something. What have you been doing? Talking to elected officials? Putting out pettions?
 

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
And the very reason that hearing is being held is because what I have already done and have BEEN doing for months.
It didn't take a committee, it didn't take an organization, it wasn't accomplished by sitting at a keyboard and TALKING about it.
There is NO need for anyone to show up and possibly ruin it, it's a done deal.
And yes, you ARE welcome.
Damn, I must have missed that.

Just what, exactly, is it you've done?

I don't mean what you say you've done, you do a lot of that.
I mean what you actually did?
 

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Amos704 wrote:
OK, I did something silly, I walked into the Amite City hall a few weeks ago and asked about the ordnance. Court administrator said yea there is a problem. So instead of carrying open getting arrested and fighting in court, risking conviction, On September 1, 2009 at 7:00pm there will be a hearing on a motion to repeal this ordnance. Simple no fight no arrest record, just asked and they will vote to repeal. So if you are interested in voicing your opinion please show up and speak in favor, and remember no open carry yet but if no one shows up then they may not repeal. So there you have it, no complicated process, no standoff, just walked in and asked. Wow who would have thought, an American city where a citizen gets results without breaking a sweat. Oh and I have a new friend at city hall.
I will be there. I look forward to shaking your hand. Good work.
 

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
imported post

turbodog wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
And the very reason that hearing is being held is because what I have already done and have BEEN doing for months.
It didn't take a committee, it didn't take an organization, it wasn't accomplished by sitting at a keyboard and TALKING about it.
There is NO need for anyone to show up and possibly ruin it, it's a done deal.
And yes, you ARE welcome.
Damn, I must have missed that.

Just what, exactly, is it you've done?

I don't mean what you say you've done, you do a lot of that.
I mean what you actually did?
Well, well. It seems I owe mark an apology.

mark chose, as usual, not to answer a question, so I had to check for myself.

I spoke with Amite city councilman Nick Currier last night and it seems mark did, in fact, get in touch with him about this issue. It was apparently communicated in marks usual manner, so it took awhile for Mr. Currier to understand what mark was talking about, but eventually he got himself a copy of the ordinance and agreed it needed to be done away with.

If you had just said who you had been speaking to like you were asked by more than myself, misunderstanding might have been avoided. Is your hatred of those asking for proof of statements (citations of law for example) so bad that you can't even note things that would make yourself look good?

Your reputation as a ranting nutjob prompted me to respond just like you do: without thinking first. But, in this case, I've satisfied myself that my presumption was in error. So mark, I apologize to you for expressing my doubts that you had anything to do with getting the weapons ordinance in Amite rescinded.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,600
Location
, ,
imported post

All Local Ordinances stricter than Louisiana Code RS 14:95 are illegal, but do not forget about Firearm Free School Zones, though..., per RS 14:95:2 and RS 14:95:6.

Also, there areFirearm Free Alcohol Beverage Outlets under RS 14:95.4 and RS 14:95:5. You can be searched, without probable cause, while there; which, is unbelieveable, and Uncostitutional.

Concealed Handguns are regulated more strictly than Openly carried ones, therefor, it is a hassle to conceal carry Legally. It is easier to Open Carry.

Localties are preempted under RS 40:1796, but they may levy a sales tax on Firearms and regulate Firearms in their own Public Buildings and certain commercial establishments. Although it never says what a commercial establishment is I readily assume it is one that servesAlcohol for consumption on premisis, per RS 14:95:5.

Also in 'High Risk' [Emergency Areas],which are certain Parishes, the Parish may regulate Firearms for the purpose of preventing Looting, but these restrictions only apply to Federal Firearm Dealers.

Parks are Legal State-wide per Preemption, as are other outdoor Areas. In accordance with Preemption Cities may not ban Open Carry either. In both of these cases RS 14:95 governs, and provided no provision of RS 14:95 is broken, then no arrest should be made,case brought, or conviction had.

In short, said Local Ordinance is unlawful.
 

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
imported post

aadvark wrote:
Localties are preempted under RS 40:1796, but they may levy a sales tax on Firearms and regulate Firearms in their own Public Buildings and certain commercial establishments. Although it never says what a commercial establishment is I readily assume it is one that servesAlcohol for consumption on premisis, per RS 14:95:5.

In short, said Local Ordinance is unlawful.

Rs 40:1796 states: No governing authority of a political subdivision shall enact after July 15, 1985, 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 Amite ordinance was written in 1965, therefore the state did not have preemption. However, the law was unconstitutional as written. The city council recognized this and the ordinance has been recinded. As of last night, one may now carry a firearm in Amite without fear of arrest just for doing so. The town police chief was there so I hope the word gets spread among the police dept. quickly.
 

Oscarr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
179
Location
near Bossier City, Louisiana, USA
imported post

turbodog wrote:
aadvark wrote:
Localties are preempted under RS 40:1796, but they may levy a sales tax on Firearms and regulate Firearms in their own Public Buildings and certain commercial establishments. Although it never says what a commercial establishment is I readily assume it is one that servesAlcohol for consumption on premisis, per RS 14:95:5.

In short, said Local Ordinance is unlawful.

Rs 40:1796 states: No governing authority of a political subdivision shall enact after July 15, 1985, 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 Amite ordinance was written in 1965, therefore the state did not have preemption. However, the law was unconstitutional as written. The city council recognized this and the ordinance has been recinded. As of last night, one may now carry a firearm in Amite without fear of arrest just for doing so. The town police chief was there so I hope the word gets spread among the police dept. quickly.
Awesome to hear man.
 

XD-GEM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
722
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
imported post

turbodog,

It takes a big man to apologize in public. (If there were an "Atta-boy" smilie, I'd put it here.)

Amite residents: Congratulations on your new-found freedom!
 
Top