## Facts

- The Louisiana Constitution guarantees a right to keep and bear arms, while allowing the legislature to pass laws that prohibit concealed carry.
- The constitutional provision was later amended to state that any law regulating firearms is subject to strict scrutiny (the most demanding standard of constitutional review).
- J.M. (JM), a minor, was prosecuted in juvenile court under two Louisiana statutes: (1) a statute prohibiting concealed carry of handguns, and (2) a statute prohibiting handgun possession by anyone under age 16.
- The under-16 handgun-possession statute contained multiple exceptions allowing a juvenile to possess a handgun in specified situations, including firearms-safety courses and supervised practice at a gun range.
- JM argued that neither statute could survive strict scrutiny and that both were unconstitutional under the amended Louisiana Constitution.
- The juvenile court ruled that the under-16 handgun-possession statute largely survived strict scrutiny, but concluded that some of its exceptions were unnecessary.
- The juvenile court also ruled that the concealed-carry statute was unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants because, in the court’s view, the under-16 handgun-possession statute already supplied the relevant restrictions for juveniles.
- The State appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Under the Louisiana Constitution’s strict-scrutiny requirement for firearm regulations, are Louisiana’s restrictions on (a) handgun possession by persons under 16 and (b) concealed carry unconstitutional as applied in a juvenile delinquency prosecution?

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to the challenged firearm regulations.
- The court held that the legislature may restrict juvenile access to handguns to further compelling public-safety interests and that the under-16 handgun-possession statute, viewed as a whole, is narrowly tailored through its focused age-based limitation and its specified exceptions for supervised and lawful activities.
- The court rejected the juvenile court’s approach of treating the concealed-carry prohibition as unconstitutional for juveniles merely because another statute also regulates juvenile handgun possession; overlapping firearm restrictions can coexist and still be constitutional if each independently satisfies strict scrutiny.
- The court reversed the juvenile court’s constitutional rulings and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Under the amended Louisiana Constitution, a firearm regulation must satisfy strict scrutiny: the State must show a compelling governmental interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
- Public safety—including preventing unlawful or dangerous firearm possession by minors—can qualify as a compelling governmental interest supporting firearm restrictions.
- Narrow tailoring may be shown when a statute targets a defined risk (such as handgun possession by very young minors) and contains limited, specific exceptions that allow lawful activities such as supervised training or range practice.
- A court should not invalidate a firearm restriction solely because another statute addresses related conduct; the constitutional question is whether the challenged law itself meets strict scrutiny.
- When analyzing constitutionality, courts must evaluate the statutory scheme as enacted and avoid rewriting it based on a court’s view that some legislative exceptions are “unnecessary.”

## Conclusion

In *State in the Interest of J.M.*, the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed juvenile handgun-possession and concealed-carry restrictions under the state constitution’s strict-scrutiny requirement for firearm regulations, concluded that the legislature may constitutionally impose targeted limits on minors’ access to handguns to protect public safety, rejected the juvenile court’s reasoning that overlapping statutes made the concealed-carry ban unconstitutional for juveniles, and reversed and remanded for continued delinquency proceedings.


State in the Interest of J.M., 144 So. 3d 853 (2014)