Judge Aquilina wrapped up the second day of First Amendment Days with her Dare to Speak, Dare to Listen in the Courtroom: Seeking Justice for All lecture in the Iowa State Campanile room.

Honorable Judge Rosemarie Aquilina was the guest speaker for the second day of First Amendment Days on April 11.

Aquilina spoke in three different Greenlee School classes, attended lunch with faculty and students and finished the day with her lecture, Dare to Speak, Dare to Listen in the Courtroom: Seeking Justice for All.

Aquilina is a 30th circuit court judge in Ingham County, Lansing, Michigan. Aquilina has presided over cases such as Larry Nassar, Doctor Mercer, Detroit bankruptcy and Ricky Helen.

Audience members asked questions about her courtroom experience and how she views the legal system, all of which led to a discussion about Judge Aquilinas interpretation of the legal system.

The justice system is broken, and I know that, Aquilina said.

While some judges rule based on strict interpretation of the law, Aquilina said she makes room for all voices in her courtroom.

I listen because I believe that the backstory is the most important part of the case, Aquilina said. And I believe that it's the people's courtroom, not mine. I simply borrow it for a short time.

This is an uncommon approach from the bench.

It's really a disservice those people who are just getting a paycheck as a judge, and say, you know, for every drunk driving, you get 30 days and then two years probation, Aquilina said. If it's your first offense or second offense, whatever. There are certain judges that do that. I don't think that's appropriate.

When Aquilina was assigned two back-to-back shoplifting cases, she came to different sentencing for each because she focused on the backstory.

The first case was a college-age girl who stole two swimsuits for her spring break trip. Aquilina gave the girl community service.

The second case was a mother of the same age who struggled financially. The mom was tired of getting hand-me-downs and used clothes. She stole a dress for her daughter to wear on Easter Sunday. Aquilina decided to give the mom resources to help her find financial stability.

It's the backstory, and everyone has a different one, Aquilina said. And if you're not listening, then you're not doing your job.

Honorable Judge Rosemarie Aquilina shared her ethical wisdom in a lecture during the second day of First Amendment Days.

While serving, Aquilina made the decision to allow 160 survivors to share their stories in the Larry Nassar case.

Aquilina said that everyday victims tell her, You told me I matter. No one else does that.

Aquilina said refuses to succumb to the one-size-fits-all method of strict constructionist judges.

You have to keep your power, Aquilina said. Im not going to stop just because there are critics. If I made everybody happy, I would not be doing my job.

Aside from being a judge, Aquilina is also an adjunct professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School, where she encourages students to discover their values and how best to implement them in the name of justice.

And I teach my students this, you know, I'm trying to teach you best practices and here's how I would do it, Aquilina said. But I need each of you to develop your own style. Get into court, look at the variations of judges and how they operate and look at the attorneys. And then you're going to see good and bad attorneys.

Aquilina encourages everyone to discover themselves, said said its the best way to advance society.

You have to decide who you are, Aquilina said. You can only do that with the breadth of experience and understanding of how everyone else in the world operates and your choices. Then you need to understand that First Amendment so that you get choice.

While Aquilina acknowledges the brokenness of the legal system, she also recognizes that education and involvement is the best solution.

People should feel a part of all three branches of government, including the judiciary, and especially the judiciary, Aquilina said.

Experiencing the judiciary branch is inevitable, Aquilina said. Whether its a parking ticket, a case of domestic violence, birth or death, people will rely on the judicial system.

In an effort to increase public awareness, Judge Aquilina maintains an open-door policy with the media in her courtroom.

It's a little bit almost secretive in a way, even though we're a public courtroom, because there's hardly stories compared to the amount of the 1000s of cases I see, Aquilina said. There's very few stories. And so what people are hearing about are those most sensational cases.

Sensational stories scare people rather than educate them, Aquilina said.

However, with more media coverage in courtrooms through print, broadcast, social media and even Zoom, the legal system becomes more transparent.

And I believe that it's the people's courtroom, not mine, Aquilina said. I simply borrow it for a short time. And that everybody affected by a case has the right the absolute constitution protected right to speak in their courtroom.

Continued here:

Storytelling in the courtroom: A First Amendment right - Iowa State Daily

Exton, Pennsylvania What should library staff do when self-proclaimed citizen journalists enter the library claiming a right to question employees and film in any space accessible to the public? The May 11 webinar First Amendment Audits: What Your Library Board and Staff Need to Know, presented by United for Libraries and the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, will share how to prepare by adopting well-crafted policies and training staff.

This program will also cover the library as a public forum and the necessary components of user behavior policies and meeting room policies. The program will include opportunities to participate in role-play scenarios that demonstrate best practices when board members interact with library users and members of the public. The program will include a Q&A with presenters Deborah Caldwell-Stone and Lori Fisher.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone is Director of ALAs Office for Intellectual Freedom and Executive Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation. She is a recovering attorney and former appellate litigator who works closely with library professionals and library trustees on a wide range of intellectual freedom issues. She advises ALA's Intellectual Freedom Committee and its Privacy Subcommittee on law and policy issues, and has served on the faculty of the ALA-sponsored Lawyers for Libraries and Law for Librarians workshops. She is a contributor to the 10th edition of the Intellectual Freedom Manual and has contributed articles on law, policy, and intellectual freedom to American Libraries and other publications.

Lori Fisher is the Assistant State Librarian for New Hampshire since 2019, previously working as a small public library director for over 11 years in Bow, NH. She is the ALA Councilor for the NH Library Association (2019-2023) and a current member of the ALA Committee on Legislation, ALA Policy Corps (cohort 2), and the United for Libraries Public Policy & Advocacy Committee. Lori has served as President of NH Library Association (2012), and is a current co-chair of the NHLA Advocacy & Legislative Committee. Aside from managing IMLS ARPA monies on behalf of the state library, Lori creates and leads professional development opportunities for staff at all types of libraries locally, regionally, and nationally.

This webinar is free for Intellectual Freedom Round Table members, and United for Libraries Statewide All-Access Partners (those in MD, MA, MI, MT, NE, NH, ND, OR, SC, SD, TX, & VA). Visit the eLearning registration page for more information and to register. Statewide All-Access Partners can register here.

United for Libraries: The Association of Library Trustees, Advocates, Friends and Foundations, is a division of the American Library Association with approximately 4,000 personal and group members representing hundreds of thousands of library supporters. United for Libraries supports those who govern, promote, advocate, and fundraise for libraries, and brings together library trustees, advocates, friends, and foundations into a partnership that creates a powerful force for libraries in the 21st century. To join, please visit http://www.ala.org/unitedor call (800) 545-2433, ext. 2161.

Continued here:

United for Libraries and OIF to present May 11 webinar on 'First Amendment Audits: What Your Library Board and Staff Need to Know' - ala.org

Apr 07, 2022, 2:41amUpdated 6d ago

By: News 12 Staff

Alex Jones spoke exclusively with News 12 outside of a Bridgeport law office Wednesday. He was there to be questioned by attorneys for the families of school shooting victims.

A judge had ordered the Infowars host to face mounting fines until he appeared for a deposition.

Jones appeared before a judge in connection to a lawsuit over his claims that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax. Relatives of the victims are suing Jones for defamation.

"I didn't kill the children of Sandy Hook. Adam Lanza did, but everyone knows Alex Jones is connected to it now because you're using it as a way to demonize the first amendment," said Jones. "They have all demonized me, they have decided I'm going to be destroyed."

While Jones said he couldn't talk about the deposition itself, he said this whole case is about First Amendment rights.

"I'm here because there is a war against the First Amendment," he said. "We have thousands of cases of governments, organizations, corporations and individuals staging events and so Americans ask questions about all of it and we have a right to do that under the First Amendment. The power structure doesn't want people to be able to ask questions. I believe Sandy Hook happened. I'm sorry for the families. But they're being used, in my view, as pawns by Democrat law firms that want to try to shut down Infowars and Alex Jones."

Jones brought up the recent court case with actor Jussie Smollett, who was found guilty of staging a fake hate crime against himself, as a reason for people to ask questions.

Jones said for years he has backtracked on his claims the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, but the "corporate media" never let his quotes or apologies get out.

"They keep misrepresenting that I 'currently am denying it happened' or I 'am attacking the families' - none of that happened. I did question some of the some of the anomalies, when I learned those anomalies were not correct, I corrected myself," he said.

After the 2012 shooting, Jones promoted conspiracy theories about the tragedy, which he has now recanted.

"The idea that they claim some people harass them with no real evidence of that and now I'm going to be taken off the air, which is basically their goal...most of the families didn't sue me and those that did I understand there's a lot of pain, but attacking me won't bring their children back," said Jones.

The plaintiffs have said they have been subjected to harassment and death threats from Jones' followers because of the hoax conspiracy promoted on his website show. Jones has since conceded the shooting did happen.

The Infowars host was recently fined for defying a judge's order to appear for questioning in Austin, Texas on March 23 and 24, citing a health problem. Court records show he paid $75,000 in total and his attorney filed a motion Wednesday to return the fines back to him.

A judge found him liable for damages and a trial on how much he should pay the families is set for August.

A statement from the law firm representing the families says, they appreciate the measures the court took to get the deposition to happen and "likely would not have happened otherwise. Over our objection, Mr. Jones now insists on declaring his entire deposition confidential."

The Associated Press wire services contributed to this report.

Read more here:

'War against the 1st Amendment.' Alex Jones appears for questioning in Sandy Hook lawsuit - News 12 Bronx

Governor Kristi Noem just cost South Dakota taxpayers another $32,741.21 by tromping on the First Amendment. On Monday, federal Judge Roberto Lange ordered the Noem Administration to fork over that sum to the lawyers who had to fight Noem in court to get permission for anti-vaccine immigrants to protest at the State Capitol against sensible public health measures.

Yeah, Im having trouble picking a side to root for here, too. But the First Amendment applies even to knuckleheads, and I have to cheer for the First Amendment. More importantly, I have to expect elected officials to understand and protect the First Amendment. Noem fails that test, so boo on Noem. (Primary challenger Steven Haugaard, youre working up a press release on Noems costly failure to uphold the First Amendment, right?)

The Blue State Refugees and their out-of-state lawyers who still havent heeded Governor Noems call for them to move to South Dakota for the Freedom asked for almost twice what they got, but Judge Lange said $63,835.79 was a bit much, especially given that out-of-state lawyer Alan Gura wanted to charge $640 an hour, more than twice as much as the $300/hour rate claimed by Marty Jackley and Richard Williams, two of the Blue State Refugees five in-state lawyers, for arguing a pretty easy case:

Here, Plaintiffs have made no showing that local counsel was unwilling and unable to litigate this case. The case involved a straightforward application of long-standing First Amendment precedent and Plaintiffs staffed the case with five local, capable attorneys. Therefore, Gura may be awarded attorneys fees at a reduced rate of $300/hour, which is commensurate to the local market rate for an attorney of similar experience [Judge Robertos Lange, Opinion and Order Granting Motion for Attorneys Fees in Part, Blue State Refugees, Luke Robertson, and Chad Dollick v. Kristi Noem, Scott Bollinger, and Leah Svendsen, U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, 2022.04.04; in Austin Goss, Noem Administration Ordered to Pay Attorney Fees After First Amendment Violation, KSFY, 2022.04.05].

So thanks to South Dakotas endemic low wages, even for professionals, the state suffers a lower penalty in court than other states would have for violating Constitutional rights. Hmmm.

Gura still made out well, getting $16,560 for 55.2 hours of work. (Dang: I really should have gone into lawyering.) Gura put in more hours than any of the five South Dakota lawyers on this case:

Judge Lange knocked another 30% off the Gunderson Palmer lawyers fees. His Honor agreed with the state that the case was overstaffed for the issues presented leading to unnecessary duplication of legal work. The case was straightforward, the state granted the permit within 36 hours of receiving the complaintthe plaintiffs just didnt need that much lawyering.

Judge Lange also nixed 14.2 hours that the Plaintiffs wanted to bill the state for whipping up a motion to amend the November 5 order they won for their protest. The plaintiffs said their lawyers needed to prepare this motion even after they got their permit demonstrated at the Capitol November 89 because they needed a backup plan in case negotiations with the state fell through and the state failed to formally amend the policy the plaintiffs had successfully challenged, but Judge Lange ruled that backup plan was unnecessary, since the plaintiffs themselves admitted they were near a resolution with the state when they prepared and filed that motion.

Ultimately, Lange awarded $16,560 to Gura and $14,660.10 to the Rapid City attorneys. GNPA also got $952.91 in state sales tax and $568.20 for costs. The total bill to Noemi.e., the taxpayers footing the bill for her frequent First-Amendment foulsis $32,741.21.

Kristi, I know you and your radical followers like to skip ahead to the Second Amendment when you skim the Constitution. But you may want to spend a little more time on the First Amendment; your inability to read and defend free speech keeps costing taxpayers a lot of money.

* * *

While I appreciate a good First Amendment fight, and while the state deserved a judicial whacking for its absurd refusal to let the People speak at the Peoples Capitol, the Blue State Refugees could have avoided all this costly lawyering if they had just scouted the protest area first. Judge Lange provides this footnote in his order, noting that the protestors found a better venue for their protest out on the public sidewalk, where no one needs a permit to engage in First Amendment activities:

Defendants allege that although Plaintiffs received a permit to demonstrate on two designated areas of Capitol grounds, Plaintiffs demonstrated on a public sidewalk instead. Plaintiffs concede they demonstrated on the sidewalk after realizing they had favorable exposure to street traffic there. But Plaintiff Luke Robertson stated that he and about a dozen others also demonstrated on the designated areas of the Capitol grounds, and demonstrators moved between the sidewalk and the designated areas of Capitol grounds during the demonstration [Lange, 2022.04.04].

Now if the protestors wanted to make themselves heard to legislators assembled at the Capitol for their Special Sessions on redistricting and impeachment, then sure, there may be some Capitol Grounds locations away from the public right-of-way where theyd want to wave their signs and tri-corner hats. But if theyre looking for attention and support from the general public, then the sidewalks adjacent to the streets are far better places for protests.

But the question remains: why does any citizen need any permit to say anything on the sidewalk or anywhere else around the Capitol?

More here:

Lawyers Get Another $33K from SD Taxpayers Because Noem Can't Read First Amendment - Dakota Free Press

One week before an angry mob stormed the Capitol, a communications expert named Jason Sullivan, a onetime aide to Roger J. Stone Jr., joined a conference call with a group of President Donald J. Trumps supporters and made an urgent plea.

After assuring his listeners that the 2020 election had been stolen, Mr. Sullivan told them that they had to go to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021 the day that Congress was to meet to finalize the electoral count and descend on the Capitol, according to a recording of the call obtained by The New York Times.

While Mr. Sullivan claimed that he was not inciting violence or any kind of riots, he urged those on the call to make their presence felt at the Capitol in a way that would intimidate members of Congress, telling the group that they had to ensure that lawmakers inside the building understand that people are breathing down their necks.

He also pledged that Mr. Trump was going to take action on his own; the president, he said, was going to impose a form of martial law on Jan. 6 and would not be leaving office.

Biden will never be in that White House, Mr. Sullivan declared. Thats my promise to each and every one of you.

The recording of the call, which took place on Dec. 30, 2020, emerged as the Justice Department has expanded its criminal investigation of the Capitol attack. It offers a glimpse of the planning that went on in the run-up to the storming of the Capitol and the mind-set of some of those who zeroed in on Jan. 6 as a kind of last stand for keeping Mr. Trump in office.

It also reflects the complexities that federal prosecutors are likely to face as they begin the task of figuring out how much or even whether people involved in the political rallies that preceded the assault can be held accountable for the violence that erupted.

After more than a year of focusing exclusively on rioters who took part in the storming of the Capitol, prosecutors have widened their gaze in recent weeks and have started to question whether those involved in encouraging protests like the one that Mr. Sullivan was describing can be held culpable for disrupting the work of Congress.

Mr. Sullivans remarks during the call appeared to be an effort to motivate a group of people aggrieved by the election to take direct action against members of Congress on Jan. 6, presaging what Mr. Trump himself would say in a speech that day. While it remains unclear whether anyone on Mr. Sullivans call went on to join the mob that breached the Capitol, he seemed to be exhorting his listeners to apply unusual pressure on lawmakers just as they were overseeing the final count of Electoral College votes.

In a statement provided by his lawyer, Mr. Sullivan played down the nature of the call, saying he had merely shared some encouragement with what he described as people who all felt their votes had been disenfranchised in the 2020 elections. Mr. Sullivan said he had been asked to participate in the call by a group of anti-vaccine activists or what he called health freedom advocate moms who were hosting a small, permitted event at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

I only promoted peaceful solutions where Americans could raise their voices and be heard as expressed in our First Amendment, Mr. Sullivan said in the statement. I in no way condone the violence of any protesters.

Still, in the recording of the call, Mr. Sullivan can be heard telling his listeners that the lawmakers inside the Capitol need to feel pressure.

If we make the people inside that building sweat and they understand that they may not be able to walk in the streets any longer if they do the wrong thing, then maybe theyll do the right thing, he said. We have to put that pressure there.

As the Justice Department widens its inquiry, federal prosecutors are using a grand jury in Washington to gather information on political organizers, speakers and so-called V.I.P.s connected to a series of pro-Trump rallies after the 2020 election. One prominent planner of those rallies, Ali Alexander, received a subpoena from the grand jury and said last week that he intended to comply with its requests.

In the run-up to Jan. 6, Mr. Alexander publicly discussed a pressure campaign against lawmakers that was meant to stop the final electoral count, saying he was working with Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama and Representatives Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar of Arizona, all Republicans.

We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting, Mr. Alexander said in a since-deleted video on Periscope. The plan, he said, was to change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.

It is unclear if the Justice Department is aware of Mr. Sullivans conference call; the department declined to comment. The House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 was provided with a copy of the recording some months ago by the woman who made it, Staci Burk, a law student and Republican activist from Arizona.

Shortly after the election, Ms. Burk became convinced that phony ballots had been flown in bulk into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. She eventually submitted an anonymous affidavit concerning the ballots in an election fraud case filed in Federal District Court in Phoenix by the pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell.

Debating a criminal referral. The Jan. 6 House committee has grown divided over whether to make a criminal referralto the Justice Department of former President Donald J. Trump, even though it has concluded that it has enough evidence to do so. The debate centers on whether a referral would backfire by politically tainting the expanding federal investigation.

A Trump ally agrees to cooperate. Ali Alexander, a prominent organizer of pro-Trump events after the 2020 election, has agreed to cooperatewith the Justice Departments newly expanded investigation of the attack on the Capitol last year.

The effort to disqualify insurrectionists. New lawsuitswere filed against three Arizona officials, including Representatives Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, to bar them from office under the 14th Amendment. This is part of a larger legal effort to disqualify G.O.P. lawmakers from re-election if they participated in events surrounding the Jan. 6 attack.

Contempt charges. The House voted to recommend criminal contempt of Congress chargesagainst Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino Jr., two close allies of Mr. Trump, after the pair defied subpoenas from the special committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

After becoming involved with Ms. Powell, Ms. Burk said she had been approached by several members of a right-wing paramilitary group, the 1st Amendment Praetorian, which was associated with a former legal client of Ms. Powells, Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trumps first national security adviser.

Ms. Burk said that members of the group then placed her under unwanted surveillance, insisting on moving into her home in what they described as an effort to protect her from people who might want to retaliate against her for coming forward about voter fraud.

It was a member of the 1st Amendment Praetorian, Ms. Burk said, who had joined the conference call that featured Mr. Sullivan. Ms. Burk said she recorded the call, much like she recorded other activities by the 1st Amendment Praetorian, because she felt threatened and unsafe by the groups presence in her home.

At one point during the call, Mr. Sullivan was asked by an unknown questioner whether Mr. Trump intended to impose martial law on Jan. 6. That explosive notion had been raised publicly two weeks earlier by Mr. Flynn during an appearance on the right-wing television network Newsmax.

Mr. Sullivan answered the question by telling the man that he foresaw Mr. Trump putting in place a limited form of martial law on Jan. 6.

I dont see any other way around it, because hes not going to allow an election fraud to take place, Mr. Sullivan said. Its not going to happen.

A social media consultant who calls himself the Wizard of Twitter, Mr. Sullivan worked for a political action committee run by Mr. Stone, a longtime confidant of Mr. Trumps, during the 2016 presidential campaign. According to Reuters, one of the projects he did for Mr. Stone was a strategy document describing how to use Twitter swarms to amplify political messages.

More recently, Mr. Sullivan has taken an active role in promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory, which holds that prominent liberals belong to a cult of Satan-worshipping pedophiles. At a public appearance last year with Ms. Powell and Mr. Flynn, Mr. Sullivan called Hillary Clinton a godawful woman and then made a gesture suggesting she should be hanged.

On the conference call ahead of Jan. 6, Mr. Sullivan told his listeners that he was an expert at making things go viral online, but that it was not enough to simply spread the message that the election had been stolen.

There has to be a multiple-front strategy, and that multiple-front strategy, I do think, is descend on the Capitol, without question, he said. Make those people feel it inside.

Luke Broadwater contributed reporting.

Continued here:

In Call Before Jan. 6 Riot, a Plea to Descend on the Capitol - The New York Times

Boise, Idaho The State of Idaho filed a notice of dismissal Monday to end its lawsuit seeking to stop illegal public camping on the Capitol Annex in downtown Boise because all individuals have dispersed and the property has been cleared for weeks.

Now, with a new lawsuit from public encampment advocates emerging today, Governor Brad Little said Idaho will continue its fight to protect public health and safety.

Idaho does not tolerate illegal public encampments and destruction of public property. Idaho is not San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle, where public officials have engaged in failed experiments to permit and encourage unsafe and destructive public camping.

I am proud of my administrations deliberate strategy to address a highly complex situation involving state statutes, case law, and the First Amendment while ensuring the state meets its obligation to protect public health and safety.

"The approach was effective, and the encampments have been gone for weeks. Idaho will continue to fight against illegal public camping, and I appreciate Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, my administration and law enforcement for their careful response and continued work to protect Idahoans, Governor Little said.

Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and Governor Brad Littles administration filed a lawsuit in March to stop illegal public camping and the associated health and safety violations taking place on state property.

In the days following the lawsuit, individuals started to clear out of the encampment, where a growing number of violations and dangerous conduct requiring increased calls for police service and enforcement action had occurred since mid-January.

# # #

The rest is here:

With illegal public encampment gone, Idaho continues fight for public health and safety | Office of the Governor - Governor Brad Little

A House committee advanced legislation Tuesday that would remove the permits and training that goes with it required for carrying concealed weapons. Then it approved a bill that would forbid state and local authorities to enforce future federal rules that would "chill" gun ownership in Louisiana.

But the committee also defeated a measure that would have made it harder to confiscate weapons from an abuser in a domestic relationship. And the sponsor voluntarily postponed consideration of whether property owners could to shoot-to-kill for the prevention of imminent destruction of property.

Tuesday was Gun Day in the House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice. Under the watchful eye of proponents of expanding gun rights, wearing red t-shirts, who packed the hearing room, representatives debated nine bills concerning the Second Amendment rights to bear arms.

Every bill we have discussed here today has been an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, said Shreveport Republican state Rep. Alan Seabaugh said as he presented the last bill of the four-hour committee hearing. If the Second Amendment were read as broadly as the First Amendment as the Interstate Commerce Clause, then every single bill that were discussing here today would be unconstitutional.

Seabaughs House Bill 464 would strengthen evidence necessary when a protective order is issued that would take away the persons firearms. The level of proof is preponderance of the evidence, that is more yes than no. HB464 would raise the level of proof a court would need to consider to the clear and convincing standard that the weapons need to be removed.

New Orleans filmmaker Donna Dees testified that HB464 would remove protections added in 2014 and return Louisiana to second in the nation for the number violent acts against women using guns.

The committee voted 5-6 to reject the legislation.

Voting 10-3 along party lines, the committee approved legislation to allow people over the age of 21 to carry concealed weapons without a permit, meaning without training on how to use a handgun.

House Bill 37 sponsor Rep. Danny McCormick, R-Oil City, says he's not against training, but criminals dont often have a permit when they carry a gun. Why shouldnt a law abiding citizen have conceal carry when the criminals can, said Rep. Ray Garofalo, R-Chalmette.

Get the Louisiana politics insider details once a week from us. Sign up today.

Louisiana State Police Superintendent Col. Lamar Davis said in the 12 months of 2021, the state issued 20,000 of the five-year permits; 7,000 lifetime permits; renewed 12,000 permits; denied 1,438 permits; revoked 37; and suspended 255 permits.

Davis added that one reason is that the training required to obtain a permit includes what to do when dealing with law enforcement while carrying a gun. Lack of knowledge about the rules of engagement training could create an adversarial situation that could easily escalate. Civilians are trained that they need to tell officers about their concealed weapons.

Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards last year vetoed similar legislation, Senate Bill 118, that both chambers approved with veto-proof majorities. But when it came to overriding Edwards veto, the Senate couldnt corral enough votes.

Edwards noted that many police officials opposed the measure. He also noted that supporters had argued that they believe they have a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit or any training. If true, supporters could have filed a constitutional challenge in court, he said. They have chosen not to do so, and instead have brought this bill to change the law, Edwards wrote in his June 29 veto message.

On a 10-1 vote, the panel also advanced House Bill 43, which would prevent local, parish, state authorities from enforcing federal regulations that could be considered infringements of gun ownership in Louisiana. Sponsor Rep. Larry Frieman, R-Abita Springs, explained that doesnt mean the federal government wouldnt enforce its rules and that the state ban would only be for future federal rules.

The state voters passed a Constitutional amendment in 2012 guaranteeing the right to bear weapons. Frieman said the federal government, particularly under Democratic President Joe Biden, appears to possibly be open to more restrictions for gun ownership. And if that happens this bill would deny funding to local and state entities if they enforce those federal rules.

House Bill 68, by Erath Republican Rep. Blake Miguez, would require the Louisiana State Police to create a two-hour online course to train people how to safely use firearms. Both sides backed the idea of more education for gun owners, though Rep. Joe Marino, No Party-Gretna, had some indigestion over the voluntary nature of the training.

Still, Rep. C. Denise Marcelle, a Baton Rouge Democratic progressive, joined Miguez, the conservative Republican majority leader in the House, in sponsoring the legislation, which advanced without objection.

If Rep. Marcelle and Miguez can work together, we can surely fix all the problems in Louisiana, Miguez said.

More here:

Lawmakers may remove permits, training required for concealed carry in Louisiana; see all Gun Day bills - The Advocate