State v. Draughter, 130 So. 3d 855

Draughter, a convicted felon, was on active probation when arrested for felon-in-possession of a firearm under La. R.S. 14:95.1.
Draughter’s 2011 burglary-related conviction carried two years’ imprisonment with two years’ active probation; sentence later executory upon probation revocation.
La. R.S. 14:95.1 criminalizes firearm possession by certain felons, with strict penalties and a ten-year tail after completion of sentence.
Probation officer moved to revoke probation based on the instant arrest; probation was revoked and the prior sentence became executory.
Draughter moved to quash the information, arguing La. R.S. 14:95.1 violated amended article I, section 11 of the Louisiana Constitution, which now requires strict scrutiny for firearm restrictions.
The district court ruled the statute facially unconstitutional and quashed the charge; this court reviews the statute’s constitutionality de novo and addresses retroactivity and standing issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of amended article I, section 11	Draughter argues the amendment governs the case.	State argues the old provision controls.	Amendment applies retroactively to pending cases, subject to strict scrutiny.
Retroactivity of the amendment	Amendment should apply to pending cases from its effective date.	Amendment was prospective unless clearly retroactive.	Amendment has prospective effect from December 10, 2012, but retroactive to cases pending on direct review or not yet final.
Standing to challenge the statute	Draughter, still under supervision, has standing to challenge the statute.	Standing limited because larger question concerns all felons, not this defendant.	Draughter has standing to challenge La. R.S. 14:95.1 as applied to him; broader standing limited for the general issue.
Constitutional level of scrutiny and narrow tailoring	Under former Amos standard, regulation was reasonable.	Under amended article I, section 11, strict scrutiny applies.	For a felon under state supervision, La. R.S. 14:95.1 satisfies strict scrutiny and is narrowly tailored.

Amos v. State, 343 So.2d 166 (La. 1977) (right to bear arms may be regulated for public welfare)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (new rules apply to direct review or not yet final cases)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (prison rights limited by institutional security needs)
Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (individual right to bear arms confirmed)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (Second Amendment applies to the states)
State v. Mercadel, 874 So.2d 829 (La. 2004) (standing and threshold issues in constitutional challenges)
State v. Wiggins, 432 So.2d 234 (La. 1983) (application of 14:95.1 to supervised felons)
State v. Williams, 392 So.2d 448 (La. 1980) (14:95.1 as a reasonable exercise of police power)
In re Warner, 21 So.3d 218 (La. 2009) (strict scrutiny standard for rights-based regulations)