State v. Eberhardt
145 So. 3d 377
| La. | 2014Background
- In 2012 Louisiana amended Const. Art. I, § 11 to declare the right to keep and bear arms "fundamental" and require any restriction to survive strict scrutiny (effective Dec. 10, 2012).
- Defendants (Taylor, Stevens, Eberhardt) were charged with felon-in-possession under La. R.S. 14:95.1 after prior felony convictions; they moved to quash asserting the statute violates the amended state constitution.
- Jefferson Parish trial court held 14:95.1 unconstitutional and granted quashes for Taylor and Stevens; St. Tammany trial court denied Eberhardt’s motion. The cases were consolidated on appeal.
- 14:95.1 prohibits firearm possession by persons convicted of specified serious felonies for ten years after completion of sentence; the statute lists enumerated offenses and contains a 10-year ‘‘cleansing’’ period.
- The State argued 14:95.1 serves compelling public-safety interests and is narrowly tailored; the court evaluated the law under strict scrutiny and reviewed legislative intent and precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. R.S. 14:95.1 is facially unconstitutional under Art. I, § 11 (strict scrutiny) | 14:95.1 impermissibly infringes the fundamental right to bear arms post‑amendment | 14:95.1 serves compelling public-safety interests and is narrowly tailored | Statute is not facially unconstitutional; survives strict scrutiny in at least some applications |
| Whether 14:95.1 is unconstitutional as applied to these defendants | Each defendant argued their circumstances fall outside the statute’s legitimate reach (e.g., remote prior offense, first-offender pardon) | State argued defendants reoffended soon after supervision and pose real public-safety risks | As-applied challenges rejected; statute valid as applied to defendants’ facts |
| Whether the 2012 constitutional amendment eliminated longstanding felon‑disqualification laws | Plaintiffs: amendment shows stronger protection and precludes laws like 14:95.1 | State/Legislature: amendment intended to strengthen protection but not to invalidate existing laws; legislative history confirms | Amendment did not invalidate felon‑possession prohibitions; legislative history supports retention of existing laws |
| Whether the statute is overbroad or not narrowly tailored (enumeration of offenses, 10‑year period) | Plaintiffs: inclusion of some offenses (e.g., unauthorized entry) is not narrowly tailored to firearm risk | State: legislature reasonably selected offenses with substantial risk of violent reoffending; 10‑year limit is a tailoring measure | Court finds statute narrowly tailored and constitutionally permissible; 10‑year limit and enumerated list are reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Draughter, 130 So.3d 855 (La. 2013) (upheld 14:95.1 under strict scrutiny where defendant remained under state supervision)
- State v. Webb, 144 So.3d 971 (La. 2014) (applied Art. I, § 11 strict scrutiny framework to firearm possession statute)
- State v. Amos, 343 So.2d 166 (La. 1977) (earlier Louisiana precedent upholding felon‑possession restrictions)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right but recognizes longstanding prohibitions, including felon disarmament)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated Second Amendment protection against the states)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (plurality language supporting that history and consensus can sustain even strict scrutiny review)
- Prejean v. Barousse, 107 So.3d 569 (La. 2013) (explains the heavy burden of a facial constitutional challenge)