Thanks. I'll try to search for it myself just to give it the ol' college try.@JEBland
I can't find a link on Fox59's site. On the 1800 hours news it was after the "Army vet found decapitated" segment I believe. There was discussion of HB 1187, video of pairs of shoes painted red, and a hand written sign on red background with lies about how passage of 1187 would put more guns on the streets...
The usual Fear Uncertainty Doubt campaign of lies and distortions told by the anti who "only wants to save the children".
Thank you, thank you. I talked with the author Smaltz beforehand and he warned me to keep on track and don't get distracted by them. I had some notes in preparations for the "wHaT aBoUt vOtInG?" question they kept throwing out just in case along with some tweaks to my statement notes based on how they were treating people during previous testimony (part of why I needed to check my notes at first). In that moment, I got the impression that Brown didn't want me up there any longer than I was.P.S. I want to thank you again for going to the committee meeting the 23rd, and sitting through the slinging and the rising tide of excrement. You did stellar work, and remained far better composed that I likely would have.
May the Force be with us...Happening in real time in conference committee stripping SB209 and inserting HB1077 as it left the house right now
I agree. It leaves me a little conflicted on the matter of principle. The majority of the committee (and likely even Bray himself) tanked it on purpose, which is bad (vote them out!), but I think strip-and-replace is also bad. I'm not sure how to feel about two wrongs making a right in this case.How pathetic that they have to pull a stunt like this to get the thing to possibly be voted on.
At least they are following the rules as they are in doing this.I agree. It leaves me a little conflicted on the matter of principle. The majority of the committee (and likely even Bray himself) tanked it on purpose, which is bad (vote them out!), but I think strip-and-replace is also bad. I'm not sure how to feel about two wrongs making a right in this case.
How pathetic that they have to pull a stunt like this to get the thing to possibly be voted on.
I'm not defending the practice...but if memory serves, it's how we got one of the other "big" 2A bills passed a few years ago. Which one? I'm not sure. It might have been the church carry bill.I agree. It leaves me a little conflicted on the matter of principle. The majority of the committee (and likely even Bray himself) tanked it on purpose, which is bad (vote them out!), but I think strip-and-replace is also bad. I'm not sure how to feel about two wrongs making a right in this case.
Good question. I'm not sure. If 209 was already senate passed bill, does it have to go back and be "revoted" on again? If so, is will that open it back up for more amendments, possibly poisoning it? Or...does it simply go back over to the house to be accepted?At least they are following the rules as they are in doing this.
Can it still be blocked from getting a vote at this point?
Fair enough. No idea for the question, I think they could, but it at least keeps the fight going for another round.At least they are following the rules as they are in doing this.
Can it still be blocked from getting a vote at this point?
I'm not sure of the history on that. But would be interested if anyone knows the answer to that.I'm not defending the practice...but if memory serves, it's how we got one of the other "big" 2A bills passed a few years ago. Which one? I'm not sure. It might have been the church carry bill.
I think that, for me, the changing of the bill is better than the blocking simply because it gives the bill a chance to be voted on by the Senate. As it was, a handful of Senators were taking it upon themselves to block it.Fair enough. No idea for the question, I think they could, but it at least keeps the fight going for another round.
I'm not sure of the history on that. But would be interested if anyone knows the answer to that.
I agree that it's perhaps worse to kill it in committee out of fear of it passing on the floor. Still leaves it a little bittersweet for me, but I get it.I think that, for me, the changing of the bill is better than the blocking simply because it gives the bill a chance to be voted on by the Senate. As it was, a handful of Senators were taking it upon themselves to block it.
From my experience when it gets to conference committee anything goes. They have to get all four conferees to sign off on the bill. If a conferee doesn't sign off then the Speaker or President replaces the conferee with someone who will sign it. Then it goes to both houses for a floor vote.At least they are following the rules as they are in doing this.
Can it still be blocked from getting a vote at this point?
No when it goes back for a floor vote it is a yes or no vote. No amendments allowed.Good question. I'm not sure. If 209 was already senate passed bill, does it have to go back and be "revoted" on again? If so, is will that open it back up for more amendments, possibly poisoning it? Or...does it simply go back over to the house to be accepted?
This will be interesting.