Will SB1 pass or fail?

[coinboy]

Will SB1 become law?

 

[Bertfish]

They won't let it die

 

[Occam]

What possible reason could a solid majority of legislators who absolutely hate us and everything we stand for have to back off from a law designed out of spite to specifically make our lives riskier and more troubled? Of course it will pass. It vilifies and inconveniences us, adding the prospect of trivially getting people like us prohibited for life. There isn’t a question of it passing.

 

[jef955]

What possible reason could a solid majority of legislators who absolutely hate us and everything we stand for have to back off from a law designed out of spite to specifically make our lives riskier and more troubled? Of course it will pass. It vilifies and inconveniences us, adding the prospect of trivially getting people like us prohibited for life. There isn’t a question of it passing.

Yep, could'nt agree more !

 

[Augie]

Not only SB1, wait until you see some of the other lefty crap that they are going to pass and our communist governor will gleefully sign.

 

[Tower43]

can one of the few pro2A filibuster it? can that happen at the state level?

 

[ezracer]

Does a wild Bear $hit in the woods???

 

[teratos]

can one of the few pro2A filibuster it? can that happen at the state level?

I believe Dems have the votes for cloture.

 

[ironpony]

Poke a hornets nest long enough and ...

 

[lazarus]

What possible reason could a solid majority of legislators who absolutely hate us and everything we stand for have to back off from a law designed out of spite to specifically make our lives riskier and more troubled? Of course it will pass. It vilifies and inconveniences us, adding the prospect of trivially getting people like us prohibited for life. There isn’t a question of it passing.

They can show they are doing something. At least in the house committee, those with expressed reservations or problems with the bill that were not addressed in amendments resulted in the bill having less than a plurality of support. Not a chance it'll be amended to actually make all of the democrats happy tomorrow.

But it does not have remotely the kind of support as written I think you think it has. Some of them want it passed to punish gun owners. Some want it passed because they think it'll do something. Some need to vote yes because they are being told to vote yes. The first and last group mostly don't think it'll do anything. And the last group at least probably would prefer it fails.

Mixed into that is the group that overlaps all three of those, who think it'll probably fail in the courts. Some of them legitimately don't want to pass legislation that they think the courts are likely to strike down.

I think it is more likely than not it will still pass.

It's a question of which legislators who are dems think this is a bad idea and would rather either "get this right" or think this bill is just a bad idea and a do nothing bill (some I think believe it'll actually cause more harm than good, like Delegate Young, but are being told to vote for it anyway). So tying it up in a conference committee that never agrees and it fails at Sine Die would likely make a number of Democrats happy and they can ALL go home to their constituents and say, "see. I voted to make you safer. I tried. But it wasn't me who couldn't get it across the finish line. It got tied up in politics at the last minute. We are going to try harder next year. Remember to vote for me, I am pushing measures to keep you safer!"

If they passed it, they couldn't then try again next year. They'd have to move on to something else.

 

[joppaj]

Of course it will pass. Much like the anti police bills from two years ago, this was a done deal before they ever introduced the actual text.

 

[Doctor_M]

It won't stay a law, but it will become a law.

 

[FrankZ]

Maybe they will bicker amongst themselves because it isn't restrive enough and it is too restrictive and time will expire. They can then blame everyone else for not being able to do something and they don't sued, well, at least not for this.

 

[308Scout]

It won't stay a law, but it will become a law.

Exactly this.

 

[mac1_131]

They can show they are doing something. At least in the house committee, those with expressed reservations or problems with the bill that were not addressed in amendments resulted in the bill having less than a plurality of support. Not a chance it'll be amended to actually make all of the democrats happy tomorrow.

But it does not have remotely the kind of support as written I think you think it has. Some of them want it passed to punish gun owners. Some want it passed because they think it'll do something. Some need to vote yes because they are being told to vote yes. The first and last group mostly don't think it'll do anything. And the last group at least probably would prefer it fails.

Mixed into that is the group that overlaps all three of those, who think it'll probably fail in the courts. Some of them legitimately don't want to pass legislation that they think the courts are likely to strike down.

I think it is more likely than not it will still pass.

It's a question of which legislators who are dems think this is a bad idea and would rather either "get this right" or think this bill is just a bad idea and a do nothing bill (some I think believe it'll actually cause more harm than good, like Delegate Young, but are being told to vote for it anyway). So tying it up in a conference committee that never agrees and it fails at Sine Die would likely make a number of Democrats happy and they can ALL go home to their constituents and say, "see. I voted to make you safer. I tried. But it wasn't me who couldn't get it across the finish line. It got tied up in politics at the last minute. We are going to try harder next year. Remember to vote for me, I am pushing measures to keep you safer!"

If they passed it, they couldn't then try again next year. They'd have to move on to something else.

Well thought out post, but when things get to this stage it's really leadership that decides if they want to squeeze this through or not.

If leadership decides they have to have this, they will whip up their caucus and force them to vote for this. A few will be allowed to vote no, we've seen it all before.

The fact that it lingers until sine die is good, leaves the door open for a mistake or maybe leadership has different last-minute priorities.

Like I said, we've seen it all before. Anything can happen at this point.

 

[Uncle Duke]

Poke a hornets nest long enough and ...

...in another 10 years the court will get involved.

 

[John from MD]

Who cares?

 

[Harrys]

Does a wild Bear $hit in the woods???

not a polar bear craps on ice

 

[Brychan]

Depends on if the leadership deems it a minor or major want, or if they have bigger fish to fry.

 

[lazarus]

Well thought out post, but when things get to this stage it's really leadership that decides if they want to squeeze this through or not.

If leadership decides they have to have this, they will whip up their caucus and force them to vote for this. A few will be allowed to vote no, we've seen it all before.

The fact that it lingers until sine die is good, leaves the door open for a mistake or maybe leadership has different last-minute priorities.

Like I said, we've seen it all before. Anything can happen at this point.

I don’t think they’ve shoved through the cannabis legalization framework so far as I am aware. I’d think that’d be a bigger priority for them.