john bel edwards
Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (AP Photo/Melinda Deslatte)
Previous Post
Next Post

Governor John Bel Edwards effectively dared the Louisiana legislature to override his veto of a constitutional carry bill last month. He probably thought it would hold up, since the legislature had never before come back into session to override a governor’s veto of a bill in the Crawfish and Gumbo State. But the legislature has called his bluff this time.

As the Associated Press is reporting . . .

The session — to open Tuesday and last up to five days — will make history as the first veto session ever held under the Louisiana Constitution enacted in 1974.

The constitution calls for a veto session to be scheduled automatically when a governor jettisons legislation. However, a majority vote of either the House or Senate can scrap the gathering, and lawmakers had canceled every veto session over nearly five decades.

But the Republican-led House and Senate are spurning that tradition this year. Neither chamber’s membership turned in enough ballots by the Thursday midnight deadline to stop this year’s session.

That’s a shame.

What are the odds that Louisiana will become the nation’s 22nd constitutional carry state? Pretty good, judging by the margins by which the bill passed in each house. The constitutional carry bill passed both the House (73-26) and the Senate (27-9) by veto-proof majorities.

However anything can still happen as lots of political pressure will be brought to bear on supporters of permitless carry to change their votes and allow the veto to stand. Watch this space.

Previous Post
Next Post

42 COMMENTS

  1. Hot Damn! If there’s anything I like more than a tyrannical cop or Republican smacked down, it’s seeing a Demonrat smacked. Nicely done Louisiana.

    • I have a feeling the Governor already knew his veto would be overridden, giving him the ability to straddle the political fence and tell anti-gun voters he was against CC (if a mass shooting occurs and he takes heat), while also not actively pushing for gun control. All he’s doing is standing in place.

      We don’t need Governors like this.

    • What ever it takes to force some 2A respect.

      *Applause*… 🙂

  2. after last november’s massive vote fraud, legitimate voting and legislation to stop the subversion of our nation seemed out of reach. maybe it’s within reach after all.

    • Why don’t you tell us all again how permits keep criminals from carrying firearms? GTFO you are not fooling anyone.

      • Hey T, to whom are you referring when you wrote “you”?

        Pronouns require antecedent nouns.

        Make America’s English Grammar Great Again.

  3. A veto override of Senate Bill 118 is far from being a done deal. 12 Senators and 35 Representatives returned their ballots against an override session and it is reasonable to assume that those will be Nay votes since they are against even having the session. It will take 26 votes in the Senate and 70 in the House to override the veto. One republican Senator will be absent which would have been a Yea vote. And, either the House Speaker or the Senate President can refuse to hear any of the 28 vetoed bills. Going to be an interesting week in Louisiana.

    • Not necessarily. Voting to not have vote is one thing but saying “nay” to the override in front of God and your constituents and your peers is entirely another.

  4. Well according to the Libertarians there is no need to vote. No need to call your elected representatives. Just smoke dope while you sh!t and piss in public.

    “Why It’s OK Not To Vote – Katherine Mangu-Ward” video 1 hr long

    • Lol you already got smacked down by Jolly Manse on this one, so you bring it up again. You really don’t learn to do Christy?

      • You are in denial. Libertarians have said there is no reason to be involved in the system. Unless you are working to get a “Libertarian” elected.

        Now you can go back to sleep while you are smoking dope.

  5. Well the fact that the special session is happening at all should tell you something.
    To that end do they need to vote again by a veto proof majority?
    Or since they passed by a 2/3 prior do they just need a simple majority to basically say we are over turning the governor?
    They should stand up for their convictions and make it happen. I think when we pass half the country being constitutional carry, it will be a tipping point.
    I think other red states will follow. I mean let’s face it all the deep blue states will fight tooth and nail to prevent unmitigated liberty for the people.

    • Daniel Silverman, “Or since they passed by a 2/3 prior do they just need a simple majority to basically say we are over turning the governor?”
      It took a simple majority of both houses to get the override session and it now takes a 2/3 vote in both houses to override a veto. Therefore, as I stated above this means 26 yeas in the senate and 70 yeas in the house to override a veto. Pray for Louisiana.

  6. “Louisiana Legislature to Hold First-Ever Veto Override Session to Vote on Constitutional Carry”

    More good news 🙂

  7. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
    Why can not the country of America get an elected official that abides by the oath they took to protect the Constitution?

    • well technically it’s the right to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia – but most internet rightists don’t want to be regulated.

        • in 1790’s speak “well-regulate” meant well-drilled and well-led.

          and that is why internet rightists reject it, because it’s not about individuals acting alone. the people that wrote the 2nd would have found the modern attitude bizarre.

        • From Daniel Webster’s 1828 dictionary, available online:

          “REG’ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.“

          So the militia, as mandated in the Second Amendment, is subject to rules or restrictions, as set forth by the Congress as specified in the militia clause of the constitution to prescribe the discipline for the militia.

          The 1828 definition contains no mention of leadership, training, function, or clocks.

          To simplify the concept, the “well regulated militia” is “subject to rules or restrictions”.

          Thanks, Dan’l Webster!

          http://webstersdictionary1828.com/

      • Like I said ant7, I’m already in a well regulated militia. Or does it have to be a militia sanctioned by some government in power at the time?
        And my comment really wasn’t about the second ammendment at all. It was about the jokers we get who swear to uphold the constitution, then dont.

        • “Or does it have to be a militia sanctioned by some government in power at the time?”

          the writers of the 2nd saw the citizenry, the local government, and the militia as the same thing. they would have found any distinction to be unnatural. the model was the greek polis, where every summer all functioning males were mustered and leaders assigned for the upcoming summer wars – it was not any “government” that forced them to do it, it was what all the people did together as a matter of course.

          which is what internet rightists reject – participating in a community.

        • Wasting your time with antbrain7. The Founders of this country had they know it would be over run by morons would of made it extremely clear its an individual right. Go read the Federalist Papers it’s very clear on 2A, but of course you won’t because it won’t fit your narrative.

        • there are two causes that apply directly to the militia in this issue, and they give Congress the authority to set up the organization and the discipline prescribed for the militia. And the constitution also gives the authority to call out the militia directly to Congress.

          “Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

          Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.“

          Good summary here:

          https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C15_1/

      • The left has totally destroyed truth on the internet troll. Well regulated means well trained and soundly organized. The people to keep and bear arms means and individual right that each American Citizen has, not as a member of a government sanctioned unit either. The truth is never ever in you folks please take your propaganda somewhere else.

      • ” it’s the right to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia ”

        A stupid and pointless argument. Even if we stipulate that this has some merit, the militias of the day were comprised of citizens who were required to supply their own arms. And since the militia was “necessary to the security of a free state” it only stands to reason that they should be “regulated” to supply military-grade weapons, not just bird guns. So, inside or outside of the militia, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The whole militia-only argument doesn’t work no matter what angle you come at it from.

      • You are technically and factually wrong. Again. Enough of this bullshit.
        The militia refers to the fed or a state gov controlled military, either a standing army or a call to arms, since we all agree that is “necessary for the security of a free state”. Therefore, to prevent such being used in the name of tyranny against the citizens, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Nothing here about granting rights or putting any conditions on those rights, as they are pre-existing, only preventing the gov – any gov – from infinging on those rights. Those very, very individual rights.
        Why would the right of a militia to be armed need to be protected? Armed is what makes a mob a militia. Otherwise it’s just a party without a keg.

      • Being in a militia is not a prerequisite for the right to keep and bear arms. Well regulated at the time it was written means ‘operates properly’ such as a well regulated clock.
        It has nothing to do with training or being in a militia. The militia clause is the introductory phrase, and not the right.

        • “Well regulated at the time it was written means ‘operates properly’ such as a well regulated clock.“

          You might want to actually consult a dictionary from that era for a period appropriate definition.

          Webster’s dictionary 1828:

          “REG’ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.“

          No mention of clocks, but this does tie in with militia clause 16 of United States Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to “prescribe discipline for the militia”.

      • So your position is that the RTKBA is connected to being in a government militia?

        What if your commanding officer says otherwise?
        Do you think you’d win in a lawsuit against your CO for the right to carry a gun if he says no?

        That’s how stupid your position is in thinking the RTKBA is connected to being in a militia.

      • 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes U.S. Code

        (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b)The classes of the militia are—
        (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        • Excellent quote, I really like the part where those who have come to America seeking asylum are eligible to be members of the militia and carry firearms.

  8. Keep in mind that LA is already a permit-less open carry state, so this should be a slam dunk.

    • Except the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff, Tony Manucuso, once told me that if his deputies ever saw someone open carrying they would “take him down” as a threat. When I pointed out that open carry is legal, he said that that would have to be worked out in the trial.

      So in theory LA is an open carry state. In practice though, perhaps not.

      • Move to St Tammany. See the self defense shooting at the Hwy 22 Shell station in Mandeville several years ago. “Straight up legal.”

  9. Poor, poor John Bel Edwards. He must be frightened about losing his pension from Bloomberg, Soros and the Joyce Foundation.

  10. As the fraudulent 2020 Election proves, NEVER underestimate the Democrat power to steal, corrupt, collude, and sabotage elections and voting.

  11. Enough pseudo intellectual stuff. Read what the Founders themselves said. Look at the definition of militia in the dictionary actually used in framing the Constitution. Deal with the statement “The right of the people” within the context of the other Amendments. The statement is absolute. Not subject to redefinition, not subject to interpretation. The entire intent of the 2nd Amendment was to put ultimate power in the hands of the citizenry. Period. Leave your foolish spinning at the door and don’t you dare attempt to take away the right to Keep AND Bear Arms! Just a gentlemanly warning!

Comments are closed.