Judge Denies Louisiana’s Attempt to Draw DOJ Into Second Amendment Lawsuit

Last month the Firearms Policy Coalition and two individual plaintiffs filed suit against Louisiana State Police Superintendent Colonel Frank J. Bessum over a weird conflict in state law. Under Louisiana’s permitless carry statute, adults 18 and older can lawfully carry without a permit, so long as they can legally own their gun. While an 18-year-old doesn’t need a permit to carry, they also can’t receive one because Louisiana law limits concealed carry licenses to adults 21 and older. 

In their complaint and an accompanying press release, the plaintiffs pointed out that under the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act, firearm possession on or within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school is generally prohibited unless the person has a carry license issued by the state where the school is located. 

As a result, these adults are trapped within a sprawling network of invisible “gun-free zones” where they cannot lawfully carry a firearm. Neither so-called “constitutional carry” laws nor a license recognized only through reciprocity exempt people from criminal liability for carrying in these “gun-free zones.” By denying carry licenses to adults under 21, Louisiana prevents them from lawfully carrying through vast portions of the State as they go about their daily lives.

The state of Louisiana’s response should have been the legal equivalent of “my bad,” and the state legislature should swiftly act to align the state’s permitless carry and concealed carry licensing laws. 

Instead, Bessum and his attorneys sought to get the DOJ involved in the litigation by filing something called a Notice of Constitutional Question and Request for Certification under Federal Rule of Procedure 5.1. The rule states that if the federal statute is questioned and the United States is not a party, the filing party must serve notice on the Attorney General of the United States.

Bessum contends that the challenge to Louisiana’s concealed-handgun permitting age requirement implicates the constitutionality of the Gun-Free School Zones Act because the plaintiffs pointed to its school zone restrictions and the exception for state-issued concealed-carry licenses to establish that the Louisiana laws impose a burden on the Second Amendment rights of young adults. . 

The plaintiffs, though, say the Gun-Free School Zones Act is not directly or indirectly challenged by their complaint. They argue Plaintiffs argue that the federal statute is only relevant to the burden imposed by Louisiana’s prohibition on issuing concealed carry licenses to adults younger than 21, and that the judge can still rule on the merits of their argument without delving into the constitutionality of the federal law. 

In an order handed down last Friday, U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph agreed with FPC and the individual plaintiffs. 

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs describe the federal statutory scheme to explain the practical consequences of Louisiana’s age requirement to obtain a concealed handgun permit. They do not challenge the constitutionality of the GFSZA or seek any relief against its enforcement. Rather, Plaintiffs specifically challenge only the constitutionality of La. R.S. § 40:1379.3(C)(4), arguing that Louisiana’s requirement that applicants for concealed carry permits be 21 violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and United States v. Reese. The GFSZA is relevant to that claim because Plaintiffs contend that the federal school-zone restrictions increase the practical burden resulting from Louisiana’s age restriction, but Plaintiffs explicitly disclaim that their lawsuit seeks to invalidate § 922(q)(2) or enjoin its enforcement. 

Considering the case that has been brought, this Court is not called upon to determine whether the GFSZA’s school-zone restriction is constitutional in order to resolve Plaintiffs’ challenge to Louisiana’s permitting requirement. Instead, the Court may assume,without deciding, that § 922(q) is constitutional and limit its inquiry to the lawfulnessof Louisiana’s age restriction in La. R.S. § 40:1379.3(C)(4).

The language of the Gun-Free School Zones Act may very well be challenged in the future, and I think it’s actually susceptible to litigation. More than half the country now allows for concealed carry without a permit, but the GFSZA also fails to recognize reciprocity. It doesn’t matter if Louisiana recognizes permits from neighboring states like Texas and Arkansas. Technically, a Texan with a valid carry license who visits Louisiana is still breaking the law by carrying within 1,000 feet of a school in the state without a Louisiana-issued license. 

But that’s a different lawsuit for another day, and I’m glad that Judge Joseph agrees with Firearms Policy Coalition and the young adults challenging Louisiana’s statutes that the GFSZA is not actually being challenged in this litigation. The judge’s decision keeps this lawsuit focused on the real issue at hand instead of allowing Louisiana’s attempt at obfuscation to carry the day. 

I still think the easiest way to resolve this is for the state legislature to modify Louisiana’s concealed carry licensing law and allow adults 18 and older to obtain a license so there is one standard for both permitless and permitted concealed carry. This may not be pressing enough to bring lawmakers to Baton Rouge for a special session (though I think it should be), but at the very least it needs to be one of the first bills to go to Gov. Jeff Landry for his signature when the 2027 session kicks off next April. 

Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.