Volume 28 | July 01, 2022
LSA Monthly Update
A Monthly Electronic Newsletter from the Louisiana Shooting Association, Inc.
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.
-Justice Clarence Thomas
US Supreme Court Ruling in NY Gun Case Affirms Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The US Supreme Court struck down New York's "good cause" requirement to obtain a carry permit, affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home. 

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. Prior to this ruling, an individual who wanted to carry a firearm outside his home had to obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver,” but only if he could prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so. An applicant satisfied the “proper cause” requirement only if he could “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”

Two adult, law-abiding NY residents were denied unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense allegedly because they failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement. Based on the denial, they sued the state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications, alleging that the State violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense. The District Court dismissed their complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision.
US Supreme Court Sends Gun Cases back to Lower Courts
The US Supreme Court vacated lower court rulings in several gun rights cases and remanded them back to lower courts for review “in light of” last week’s landmark 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.

One case is Bianchi, Dominic, et.al. v. Frosh challenging Maryland’s 2013 ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Other cases include challenges to restrictive gun laws in Hawaii, New Jersey and California. In addition, McDougall v. Ventura County, which challenges a closure of gun shops two years ago during the COVID-19 panic, has been vacated by a Ninth Circuit en banc panel and remanded to the trial court for action consistent with the Supreme Court’s New York ruling.

The Court has made a big step toward placing the Second Amendment back on the same level of other Civil Rights. Left-leaning politicians have tried for years to relegate the Civil Rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to "second class" status. We will keep you informed as these cases progress.
“This is incredibly good news. The importance of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in the New York right-to-carry case may not be fully understood until all of these other cases have gone through lower court review. What we’re seeing today could be the beginning of court actions that eventually fully restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
-Alan Gottlieb
2022 Louisiana Bills:
Final Update
There are 15 bills with important implications for Second Amendment Rights working though the Louisiana Legislature. This article gives an update on all of those bills. This article is updated on a regular basis throughout the legislative session.
Gun banners routinely lie. That’s a fact.
The 90% Lie
Gun banners routinely lie about their data because they know they have little chance of prevailing in the policy arena otherwise. Those in the mainstream media aid them by happily regurgitating everything the gun banners feed them. Meanwhile, gun rights advocates live under the media microscope, and therefore must abide by facts. 

There is no better example of this than what I call the “90 percent lie.” It’s so easy to explain. Gun controllers, media, and politicians robotically utter this one every time the issue of “universal background checks” (UBCs) surfaces in public debate. This is the idea that all firearm sales or transfers must include a criminal background check even when conducted between two private parties.

Any attempt to restrict [lead ammunition] use on public lands is simply another effort to whittle down the size of the hunting community—the backbone of wildlife conservation.
Join the LSA and SCI in Opposing a Lead Ammunition Ban
The LSA joins the Safari Club International (SCI) in its opposition to a proposal by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to phase out lead ammunition in National Wildlife Refuges throughout the country. The rule would also prohibit the use of lead fishing tackle.

Despite claims by the USWFS, there is not enough scientific evidence to prove that hunting with lead ammunition can cause significant harm to habitat, animals, or the consumption of extracted meat. It certainly does not warrant a ban or phaseout from the federal government.

Anti-lead advocates will argue that lead alternatives are readily available and just as cost-effective as lead. This is false. Amid a continuing nation-wide ammo shortage, banning lead on certain federal lands will undoubtedly create cost barriers to access of public lands, and will keep many sportsmen and women, especially new hunters and those without knowledge or financial means to acquire alternatives, from hunting across our country.

Traditional lead-based ammunition is easier and cheaper to manufacture, and is therefore less costly than alternatives, helping hunting remain accessible and lowering the barrier to entry. Any attempt to restrict its use on public lands is simply another effort to whittle down the size of the hunting community—the backbone of wildlife conservation. Men and women across the country already face enough unnecessary barriers to hunting on top of rising prices for everything else in their lives– scarce and expensive ammunition should not be added to the list.

Making it more difficult to hunt, through prohibiting lead ammunition or otherwise, would also undermine the success of the Pittman-Robertson Act. This widely popular law allocates millions of federal dollars from an excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and other sporting goods to all 50 states and territories for conservation efforts. With fewer hunters afield due to increased cost, federally supported maintenance and support projects for our public lands will be in unprecedented financial jeopardy.

Join SCI in the fight and OPPOSE lead ammo bans with the link below!
Get Your 2022 M1 Garand Raffle Tickets!
Tickets for the 2022 M1 Garand Raffle in Support of Junior Shooting are now on sale. The drawing will be held October 16, 2022. Winner need not be present to win!

Only 2 to 4 percent of all murders are committed with rifles, so this push to demonize and ban an entire class of rifles is not simply wrong, it borders on being delusional, and it is certainly dishonest.
New Poll: Lowest Ever Support for Semi-Auto Ban
Amid the renewed clamor by anti-gunners for a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” the Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Quinnipiac University poll showing public support for such a ban to be at an all-time low.

Support for a ban has fallen to 50 percent, while 45 percent oppose it, and according to the survey, “This is the lowest level of support among registered voters for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons since February 2013 when the question was first asked by the Quinnipiac University Poll.” Four years ago, 67 percent supported a ban and 29 percent opposed the idea.