HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

[Boondock Saint]

Any Delegate or Senator that bitches about too many bills, no time to read them, needs an easier job. Something that doesn't require serving the public in an elected capacity, perhaps.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

And no one testified because the vote was unannounced, on a day when no gun bills were scheduled.

Apparently written testimony, phone calls, mail, emails etc don't count.

I make a point of asking this very question every year.

Every year I'm told they're weighed the same as showing up in person.

If I had a BS flag, this is where I'd throw it.

 

[Hawkeye]

Any Delegate or Senator that bitches about too many bills, no time to read them, needs an easier job. Something that doesn't require serving the public in an elected capacity, perhaps.

I'm not actually sure I buy that, and the volume of bills that are introduced every year is part of the issue. This year, there were 87 days (including weekends) in this year's assembly session. If we round down and say that there were 3,000 bills, that leaves 34 (rounded down) bills to read per day of the session. So if each legislator did literally nothing else than read bills for 8 hours a day, that means they could spend a total of about 15 minutes per bill. Now, most of these people do have an assistant (I know my rep has exactly one staffer, for instance) so if you divide that in half then they get a total of a half hour per bill, and again, that's literally reading bills for 8 straight hours a day for 87 days.

Of course that's not practicably possible - they have to do things like have meetings and hold actual votes, and eat, so I don't think they're being untruthful when they say "we just get too many bills to read them all."

I do think it's a problem, though, and personally, I would lean toward the idea that there should be limits on the number of pieces of legislation that any one legislator can introduce during a given session. If you were given one bill a year there would be a LOT less ********.

 

[Squaregrouper]

I'm not actually sure I buy that, and the volume of bills that are introduced every year is part of the issue. This year, there were 87 days (including weekends) in this year's assembly session. If we round down and say that there were 3,000 bills, that leaves 34 (rounded down) bills to read per day of the session. So if each legislator did literally nothing else than read bills for 8 hours a day, that means they could spend a total of about 15 minutes per bill. Now, most of these people do have an assistant (I know my rep has exactly one staffer, for instance) so if you divide that in half then they get a total of a half hour per bill, and again, that's literally reading bills for 8 straight hours a day for 87 days.

Of course that's not practicably possible - they have to do things like have meetings and hold actual votes, and eat, so I don't think they're being untruthful when they say "we just get too many bills to read them all."

I do think it's a problem, though, and personally, I would lean toward the idea that there should be limits on the number of pieces of legislation that any one legislator can introduce during a given session. If you were given one bill a year there would be a LOT less ********.

Why would someone vote in favor of a new law they didn't read?

 

[swinokur]

Because they were told to by M&M

 

[44man]

Because they were told to by M&M

That would insinuate that our republican reps take their orders from the mike and mike show. That makes better sense than the lies they told me

 

[Hawkeye]

Why would someone vote in favor of a new law they didn't read?

Well, realistically because here's the choices that they have when they have that many bills come across their desk in a session:

1. Only vote on the ones that they read. This would leave them with the task of picking which ones to read and vote on. That's still a crapton of work when you're looking at that volume. It will also likely piss off a lot of their constituents, which they don't like doing.

2. Vote a straight line of either yes or no on any bill that they haven't read. This has obvious problems that make it not really a realistic choice I think.

3. Vote randomly. This also has the same issues as #2.

4. Vote based on guidance from the party / the lobbyists / their constituents on bills that they haven't read. This is what most of them do, and in this case we were sold down the river by party leadership who said that HB1302 was a "yes" vote for the R's. We were also screwed by the fact that House testimony in committee was given on a day when the bill wasn't supposed to be up for consideration so we missed out on providing testimony. Without some sort of guidance, all they have to go on is the summary, which for this bill probably looked something like "to keep guns out of the hands of people who have threatened harm to others or who are mentally unstable." The devil, for this one, was in the details.

Now, I'm not saying I like the situation, and I'm not excuse making, but I don't see what other choices are available to these people when they have to vote on stuff and there is this much volume.

The problem here is that it's too easy to throw new bills out there. I think we need a limit on how much legislation each person is able to propose each year.

 

[Boondock Saint]

I'm not actually sure I buy that, and the volume of bills that are introduced every year is part of the issue. This year, there were 87 days (including weekends) in this year's assembly session. If we round down and say that there were 3,000 bills, that leaves 34 (rounded down) bills to read per day of the session. So if each legislator did literally nothing else than read bills for 8 hours a day, that means they could spend a total of about 15 minutes per bill. Now, most of these people do have an assistant (I know my rep has exactly one staffer, for instance) so if you divide that in half then they get a total of a half hour per bill, and again, that's literally reading bills for 8 straight hours a day for 87 days.

Of course that's not practicably possible - they have to do things like have meetings and hold actual votes, and eat, so I don't think they're being untruthful when they say "we just get too many bills to read them all."

I do think it's a problem, though, and personally, I would lean toward the idea that there should be limits on the number of pieces of legislation that any one legislator can introduce during a given session. If you were given one bill a year there would be a LOT less ********.

The first reader in committee covers the text of the bill, so any bill that comes across a critter's committee will be read aloud with a copy of it in front of their face. Then there's a second reader, a public hearing on the same bill with testimony for/against, and then potentially a third reader where the bill can be amended and gets a committee vote. The third reader doesn't always happen; that's the desk drawer veto that is the prerogative of committee chairmen.

Absent committee work, the only other time a critter votes on a bill is when it comes to the full floor for amendment/final passage. We're talking about a very small fraction of these record 3,000 bills that each critter needs to read. It's intellectually dishonest to say nothing of a gross violation of public duty to vote on a bill that one hasn't read, or does not understand. Relying on leadership is a recipe for failure.

I have no doubt that it is a difficult job. It should be. But they ran for office of their own volition. If it's too hard, they should kindly resign and take up something less strenuous.

 

[SCV/SAR Patriot]

If they want to bitch about not having time to read the bills then it should be a nay vote by default every time. They need to take responsibility and own their vote and take the consequences.

 

[fred55]

Well, realistically because here's the choices that they have when they have that many bills come across their desk in a session:

1. Only vote on the ones that they read. This would leave them with the task of picking which ones to read and vote on. That's still a crapton of work when you're looking at that volume. It will also likely piss off a lot of their constituents, which they don't like doing.

2. Vote a straight line of either yes or no on any bill that they haven't read. This has obvious problems that make it not really a realistic choice I think.

3. Vote randomly. This also has the same issues as #2.

4. Vote based on guidance from the party / the lobbyists / their constituents on bills that they haven't read. This is what most of them do, and in this case we were sold down the river by party leadership who said that HB1302 was a "yes" vote for the R's. We were also screwed by the fact that House testimony in committee was given on a day when the bill wasn't supposed to be up for consideration so we missed out on providing testimony. Without some sort of guidance, all they have to go on is the summary, which for this bill probably looked something like "to keep guns out of the hands of people who have threatened harm to others or who are mentally unstable." The devil, for this one, was in the details.

Now, I'm not saying I like the situation, and I'm not excuse making, but I don't see what other choices are available to these people when they have to vote on stuff and there is this much volume.

The problem here is that it's too easy to throw new bills out there. I think we need a limit on how much legislation each person is able to propose each year.

Hawkeye, you are right on here. Far too many laws are written to "show progress or solutions" that do not need to be written. Until there are measures in place to stop this crap new laws should have a limit. For example distracted driving - any activity that is not driving is illegal. Why do we need cell phone, CB radio, reading, etc. If you are observed shaving or eating while driving - you are guilty. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are being destroyed by these frivolous practices. my .02 worth fred55

 

[ironpony]

Who proposes new bills? Can a citizen or group do this? I feel confident some of our favorite groups could come up with an extra 3K for next year therefore making a "new bill limit" a necessity or maybe a bill will get through making froshs favorite hobby dangerous and therefore illegal. Just a thought since our favorite groups are considered opposition and maybe going on the offense will help? Again, just a thought.

 

[Hawkeye]

Who proposes new bills?

The legislators themselves.

Can a citizen or group do this?

Not directly, no. You can write a bill, but it will only get introduced if you can get a Senator or Rep to introduce it as their own.

 

[boothdoc]

From Kathy Afzali-

Clearly you didn’t read the final version of the bill.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/hb/hb1302e.pdf

Most of the bill was struck and the senate committee accepted 10 of the NRA’s amendments. NRA ended up NOT opposing the bill.
Fake news is the norm with my competitor whose campaign manager is Cam Harris who made national news for “Fake News”
I am hoping you will study the final version of the bill and not be swayed by Kirby’s last minute desperation.

Also, what does the 2nd amendment have to do with the county anyway? You should be asking me about overdevelopment and property taxes

Lol what does your rights have to do with the county??? Really??

 

[rseymorejr]

Jeff Ghrist is a House Delegate and he is actually correct in that NO ONE from our side testified against HB1302 in Judicial Proceedings in the House.

What we saw was Squaregrouper and his fine testimony in front of the Senate JPR.

So, he;s not smart enough to look at the bill himself and tell it was a piece of shit? Somebody has to point it out to him ?

Politicians are scum, all of them.

 

[rseymorejr]

I'm not actually sure I buy that, and the volume of bills that are introduced every year is part of the issue. This year, there were 87 days (including weekends) in this year's assembly session. If we round down and say that there were 3,000 bills, that leaves 34 (rounded down) bills to read per day of the session. So if each legislator did literally nothing else than read bills for 8 hours a day, that means they could spend a total of about 15 minutes per bill. Now, most of these people do have an assistant (I know my rep has exactly one staffer, for instance) so if you divide that in half then they get a total of a half hour per bill, and again, that's literally reading bills for 8 straight hours a day for 87 days.

Of course that's not practicably possible - they have to do things like have meetings and hold actual votes, and eat, so I don't think they're being untruthful when they say "we just get too many bills to read them all."

I do think it's a problem, though, and personally, I would lean toward the idea that there should be limits on the number of pieces of legislation that any one legislator can introduce during a given session. If you were given one bill a year there would be a LOT less ********.

3000 new bills a year in a chickenshit state like Maryland is ridiculous. There is no way that much needs changing. They should look at rescinding 3000 laws next year and maybe simplify things a bit.

 

[Mr. Ed]

Regarding the volume of bills each session, I think we all agree that no individual legislator can or will read every one he or she votes on. That's why they have staff... to actually read through the bills, give their bosses the Cliff Notes version, and provide answers to questions from their bosses. And then the bosses will still vote along party lines.

 

[44man]

From Kathy Afzali-

Clearly you didn’t read the final version of the bill.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/hb/hb1302e.pdf

Most of the bill was struck and the senate committee accepted 10 of the NRA’s amendments. NRA ended up NOT opposing the bill.
Fake news is the norm with my competitor whose campaign manager is Cam Harris who made national news for “Fake News”
I am hoping you will study the final version of the bill and not be swayed by Kirby’s last minute desperation.

Also, what does the 2nd amendment have to do with the county anyway? You should be asking me about overdevelopment and property taxes

Lol what does your rights have to do with the county??? Really??

So she thinks it is ok that she voted for it in its worst form because the senate was gonna fix it??

And I guess she doesn’t think you have 2a rights in the county

 

[boothdoc]

It gets better. She said anyone who threatens schools should have their firearms taken away.

Not sure that is anywhere in the bill. I couldn’t find that that.

 

[44man]

It gets better. She said anyone who threatens schools should have their firearms taken away.

Not sure that is anywhere in the bill. I couldn’t find that that.

So she thinks 1302 didn’t go far enough? Well that’s consistent with her original anti 2a anti constitutional vote and stance

 

[dblas]

And no one testified because the vote was unannounced, on a day when no gun bills were scheduled.

Apparently written testimony, phone calls, mail, emails etc don't count.

Not entirely true, it was the same day as;
HB1303 (Domestic Violence - Permanent Protective Orders
HB1464 (Prince George's County - Truancy Violations - Reporting of Neglect PG 515-18)
HB1494 (Safe Harbor Child Trafficking Victim Service Pilot Program)
HB1524 (Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council)
HB1550 (Juvenile Law – Juvenile Court Jurisdiction)
HB1562 (surrender of firearms for peace orders and protective orders)
HB1607 (Juvenile Services Education Programs - Management and Operation)
HB1629 (Maryland Animal Abuse Registry)

The public hearing was indeed announced, it was the Thursday before the big gun bill day in the House.

As for voting sessions, they are announced on the floor, but they do not announce what bills they vote on, it helps to have a working relationship with the secretary in the House Judiciary Committee, so you can call her and fin out what is being voted on when.

It would be interesting to see what written testimony was submitted, it is very simple to walk in and ask for the file on the bill from the committee.