SB1 (2023) - Criminal Law - Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting Firearms - Restrictions (Gun Safety Act of 2023)

[Mark75H]

Which/what first sentence, since my reply wasn't to you. (For clarification, not being a dick)

The point is more that we've never had a bill to talk about. SB1 was printed effectively anew with tons of non-voted amendments added between being ordered to the JPR and public review - without any warning or publishing of SB1 as presented during its first JPR session.

The idea that we've had the ability to comment on any of these bills is ridiculous when they play with tactics like these - and then Senator Smith is now gaslighting us to believe that we've had a chance to respond to the proposed laws.

I was suggesting that the blue remains true.

 

[dblas]

I was suggesting that the blue remains true.

Ah, now I understand...

elwojo: SB1 was printed effectively anew with tons of non-voted amendments added between being ordered to the JPR and public review - without any warning or publishing of SB1 as presented during its first JPR session

No, it was NOT printed anew, since it was not voted on in committee yet (symantics, but true). All amendments are non-voted at any mandated public hearing for said bill, nothing new, it happens every year. There is no requirement to "warn" or advise the public of any amendments, even if those amendments compltely rewrite the bill.

elwojo: The idea that we've had the ability to comment on any of these bills is ridiculous when they play with tactics like these - and then Senator Smith is now gaslighting us to believe that we've had a chance to respond to the proposed laws.

Senator Smith didn't gaslight anyone, and again, is not required to make public, any pending amendments that may change the fundamental primary bill.
I don't like it, even when I worked there, and both sides do it with their bills, not just the Dems and not just with 2A related bills.

Welcome to the sausage making, if we don't like how it's done, then work to get the process changed (State Constitutional Amendment).

 

[GuitarmanNick]

From now on, I think I will identify as a Demonrat. This will allow me to ignore any law with which I disagree and suffer no consequences for my actions should I violate the law.
I can also then blame others for what I have done and the media will defend me.

 

[Derek]

From now on, I think I will identify as a Demonrat. This will allow me to ignore any law with which I disagree and suffer no consequences for my actions should I violate the law.
I can also then blame others for what I have done and the media will defend me.

Well... you're not wrong.

 

[Mark75H]

From now on, I think I will identify as a Demonrat. This will allow me to ignore any law with which I disagree and suffer no consequences for my actions should I violate the law.
I can also then blame others for what I have done and the media will defend me.

You are starting to get it

 

[Amontgo9419]

For the private property section, I’m reading it as that as long as the private property owner is allowing you to carry on their property, you’re allowed to do so. Also, certain places that aren’t already outlined in the bill that DO NOT have a sign posted stating otherwise, you can legally carry on their property. Is that correct?

 

[Derek]

House Judiciary is voting on the bill in interim session after floor action this morning.
You can watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/@mga-jud9614/streams

 

[Some Guy]

House Judiciary is voting on the bill in interim session after floor action this morning.
You can watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/@mga-jud9614/streams

Thanks, Derek.

 

[elwojo]

There is no requirement to "warn" or advise the public of any amendments, even if those amendments compltely rewrite the bill.

And I think we can agree that this type of conduct negates the validity of the public's response to a proposed bill. It's not like SB1 didn't exist for 4+months before it was put into JPR. They had time to update it before being moved to JPR, and they didn't use it. The onus should be on the legislators to do their job appropriately before a law is moved into its respective review committee - not to allow for lazy and inept legislators to diminish the public's ability to comment on a bill.

Senator Smith didn't gaslight anyone,

He definitely did. There is no fair way to have public commentary on a bill that is never presented to the public, and he is acting as if it was fairly given an opportunity to redress it: that's gaslighting. If I were waiting in that crowd to talk against the bill, I'd be downright rightfully pissed off that this happened, regardless of how regularly it can happen or how allowed it is.

Welcome to the sausage making, if we don't like how it's done, then work to get the process changed (State Constitutional Amendment).

I'm not disagreeing that this is how things are done. But they should be done better, and describing them as fair and open processes as Smith did is an outright lie to anyone who observed the process.

I would love to see a State Constitutional Amendment (or even legislation, which probably could meet the same ends). But I see no reason for Democrats to hurt themselves in their legislative actions, so we won't get either because they won't voluntarily hamstring themselves.

 

[Derek]

Judiciary Voting at 13:00

 

[Tower43]

Since the enactment of this bill will have immediate, irreparable harm, I presume there will be immediate lawsuits filed for TRO/PI?

 

[Bertfish]

Since the enactment of this bill will have immediate, irreparable harm, I presume there will be immediate lawsuits filed for TRO/PI?

Won't go in to effect til 10/1/23. So no immediate irreparable harm.

It can be stopped before effective date by lawsuit but my understanding is that's a heavier lift than letting it go in to effect then attacking it.

 

[tjv4163]

Since the enactment of this bill will have immediate, irreparable harm, I presume there will be immediate lawsuits filed for TRO/PI?

I don’t believe there can be a lawsuit until it becomes law.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Still no video yet. I guess they stopped for a major pit stop aka LUNCH on us

 

[Derek]

On Monday nights, there's always stragglers after the scheduled times... maybe waiting for Delagate Moon as always.

 

[Derek]

At 2:12:06 Clippinger says 1 o'clock...

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Unless they decided not to do a live video...

 

[eruby]

The MGA: We're not happy until you're not happy

Jimmy Crack Corn.

I'd drown my disdain for these weasels with a few slugs of bourbon, but the best I can do this week is some Manischewitz, and a piece of the bread of affliction

EBMD

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Ok I made a phone call to the Chair office and he was called into a Meeting. They would not say who called him in or how long it would last but I did ask them to put something out online to let others know. When I asked the lady when the meeting would be starting , she replied that was a very good question as the Chair was called into a meeting and he could not say no..

 

[Derek]

Secret voting sessions are the most fun voting sessions.