State ex rel. J.M.
144 So. 3d 853
Fla.2014Background
- On December 16, 2012, six days after Louisiana amended its constitution (art. I, § 11) to make the right to keep and bear arms "fundamental" and subject to strict scrutiny, juvenile J.M. was alleged to have knowingly possessed a handgun (La. R.S. 14:95.8) and intentionally concealed a weapon on his person (La. R.S. 14:95(A)(1)).
- J.M. moved to declare both statutes unconstitutional under the amended provision, arguing they do not survive strict scrutiny and that the constitutional amendment removed any authority to regulate concealed weapons.
- The juvenile court applied strict scrutiny, upheld La. R.S. 14:95.8 as serving a compelling interest but severed subsections C(4)–(7); it held La. R.S. 14:95(A)(1) unconstitutional as applied to juveniles because it overlapped La. R.S. 14:95.8.
- The State (Attorney General and local DA) sought direct review; this Court consolidated appeals/writs and received amicus briefs from the Louisiana District Attorneys Association and the Brady Center.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether (1) La. R.S. 14:95.8 (juvenile handgun prohibition) and (2) La. R.S. 14:95(A)(1) (intentional concealment of a firearm) survive strict scrutiny under the amended state constitution.
- Holding: the Court reversed the juvenile court, ruled both statutes constitutional under strict scrutiny, and reversed the severance of La. R.S. 14:95.8(C)(4)–(7); the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does La. R.S. 14:95.8 (ban on handgun possession by persons <17) survive strict scrutiny under La. Const. art. I, § 11? | J.M.: statute infringes fundamental right and is not narrowly tailored. | State: public safety and juvenile vulnerability are compelling interests; statute is narrowly tailored with limited exceptions. | Court: statute serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored; it survives strict scrutiny. |
| 2) Were La. R.S. 14:95.8(C)(4)–(7) properly severed by juvenile court? | J.M.: (did not assert severance basis; juvenile court severed those exceptions) | State: legislature narrowly tailored exceptions to lawful juvenile uses and parental permission; severance improper. | Court: reversal — exceptions C(4)–(7) are valid; severance reversed. |
| 3) Does La. R.S. 14:95(A)(1) (intentional concealment of a firearm) survive strict scrutiny as applied to juveniles, given the 2012 constitutional amendment? | J.M.: the amendment removed prior constitutional authorization to prohibit concealed weapons, so §14:95(A)(1) is invalid as applied to juveniles and fails strict scrutiny. | State: amendment subjects any restriction to strict scrutiny but does not abolish legislative authority to regulate concealed carry; public safety is compelling and statute is narrowly tailored. | Court: amendment did not invalidate existing concealed-weapons law; §14:95(A)(1) survives strict scrutiny as applied to juveniles. |
| 4) Does overlap between §14:95.8 and §14:95(A)(1) render concealment statute unconstitutional or improper prosecution? | J.M.: concealment statute is duplicative given juvenile-possession statute. | State: overlap does not create a constitutional defect; Louisiana law allows overlapping offenses and double-jeopardy protections apply if and when prosecuted. | Court: overlap is not a constitutional defect warranting invalidation; court declined to decide double jeopardy issues at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Draughter, 130 So.3d 855 (La. 2013) (interpreting amended La. Const. art. I, § 11 and strict-scrutiny framework)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (historical limitations on the right to bear arms and recognition that the right is not unlimited)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (scientific and social-science differences between juveniles and adults relevant to state interests)
- National Rifle Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) (upholding federal restrictions on handgun sales to certain young persons and discussing juvenile access and crime)
- State v. Flicker, 311 So.2d 863 (La. 1975) (historical exegesis and upholding of Louisiana concealed-weapon statutes)
- State v. Smith, 766 So.2d 501 (La. 2000) (overlapping statutory offenses and prosecution under either provision is permissible)