It's a small price to pay. If they are doing what we are paying them to.
Printable View
It's a small price to pay. If they are doing what we are paying them to.
I got my email earlier this week and have to think back that last year I paid my dues and then the 2 contests, plus the plea for funds going into the November elections, and we still got our asses handed to us in the state house and governors race. That turd in the governors office couldn't lead a band of drunks out of a wet paper bag, but where were the T.V. and newspaper ads talking about it?
Do the math: $30 (dues) + $100 (various donations) = $130 x 5k people = $650k that is non-taxable profit. I think I am being conservative with the 5k people too, it was more like 10k donations over the year.
Mine came in the mail. $50 Not gonna get it, I've had enough of that org. constantly badgering for money with nothing to show for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newracer
How, exactly, would you have proposed to repeal the 2013 citizen control laws (aka "gun control") during the 2014 general session? In 2013, Democrats held 37 House seats and 20 Senate seats. Republicans held 28 House seats and 15 Senate seats. In 2014, Democrats held 37 House seats and 18 Senate seats. Republicans held 28 House seats and 17 Senate seats, thanks to the two recalls. In any year, 33 or more "Yes" votes are required to pass a bill through the House and 18 or more "Yes" votes are required to pass a bill through the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOC
In 2014, I sponsored and introduced House Bill 14-1151 to repeal the "mag ban." That bill had 27 House sponsors (5 short of the necessary 33 "Yes" votes) and 18 Senate sponsors (thank you, Senator Lois Tochtrop D, Adams County). The bill died in the first House committee on a party line vote, with all Democrats voting "No."
It is all too common to hear calls for "repeal" from people who either don't understand - or worse - refuse to accept, the reality that the ONLY way for the legislature to repeal anything is to pass a new bill into law. There is no way to pass a bill into law without the required 33 or more "Yes" votes in the House, 18 or more "Yes" votes in the Senate, and for the Governor to not veto that bill. 33, 18 & 1 is a hard and fast reality. It is fact.
I've posted before about this reality. For the Colorado General Assembly, there is ONE tool in the toolbox: a Bill. A bill can do three things: 1) Add words to state statute. 2) Remove words from state statute. 3) Change words in state statute.
Here's a link to HB 14-1151:
HB14-1151
Look at Page 2, Lines 2 - 3. "SECTION 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, repeal part 3 of article 12 of title 18."
What that means is that HB 14-1151 sought to remove (Option 2) all of the words in Title 18 that resulted from the "mag ban" bill from 2013 (HB 13-1224). We didn't need to list all of those words, we just needed to point to where those words are now in statute. In order for those words to be removed (repealed) from statute, the General Assembly MUST PASS A NEW BILL INTO LAW. In order for that new bill to pass into law, it MUST receive 33 or more "Yes" votes in the House, 18 or more "Yes" votes in the Senate, and for the Governor to not veto it.
It's important to understand how a Governor's veto works in Colorado. It's opposite from how it works at the federal level. Here in Colorado, the Governor must take action to veto a bill; he MUST sign a veto. At the federal level, a President can use a "pocket veto" and hold a bill indefinitely without taking any action. That bill from Congress would never become federal law. Here in Colorado, the Governor cannot use the "pocket veto" tactic to prevent a bill from becoming law. If he doesn't sign a bill within a prescribed period of time (depends on whether it's before or after the session ends in May), then that bill(s) become law without his signature.
OK, back to the Colorado Legislative Branch… there is a common and false assumption that the state legislature can somehow repeal law by some process other than by passing a new bill into law. That is fiction, it is false, there is one and only one way for the legislature to repeal a law: PASS A NEW BILL INTO LAW, which requires 33, 18 & 1. People have told me "We don't want a new bill, we just want that law repealed!" Nope, that's a contradiction. The state legislature CANNOT repeal an existing law by any process other than passing a new bill into law to remove (repeal) words out of existing statute. That's the ONLY way for the legislature to do it. And, the ONLY way for a bill to pass into law is to have 33 or more "Yes" votes in the House, 18 or more "Yes" votes in the Senate, and for the one Governor to not veto that bill (33, 18 & 1).
There is no other repeal process for the legislature. Do any of you think that one legislator could somehow order a law to be repealed? The Governor doesn't even have authority to enact or repeal law on his own, let alone one of one hundred legislators. A committee in the House or Senate doesn't have authority to repeal an existing law. One or both chambers (House or Senate) can't repeal an existing law unless they (we) pass a new bill, which requires 33 & 18 "Yes" votes. Even then, a repeal bill could receive a veto from the Governor and it would be dead. A 2/3 majority of both chambers (43 House, 24 Senate) is required to overturn a Governor's veto.
Sen., no debating the above and yes there are still folks who need to be educated on the legislative process.
But, back to RMGO & Dudley Brown. There wasn't much anyone including RMGO could do about the new laws. The recall elections on the other hand are a totally different matter. As I remember it, RMGO initially were against the recall efforts......until it became clear that they may succeed. After the recall elections, Brown took advantage of every opportunity to claim victory as if he & his organization played a major role.
I personally have no time or money for RMGO.
Thanks for the explanation SenHolbert, so pretty much, there will be no new bill passed as as long as "stuttering John" is the Governor.
Would the Governor sign a repeal bill or allow such a bill to become law without his signature? While that might seem unlikely, it's way more likely than finding 43 or more "Yes" votes in the House and 24 or more "Yes" votes in the Senate in order to overturn a veto. My (our) focus should be on getting one or more such bills to his desk. In order for that to happen, such a bill would need to clear at least one House committee and then for at least three House Democrats to support it on the floor… assuming that all 30 House Republicans would support it, which I consider to be a safe assumption to make.
I've been getting emails from DB hawking some other org called NAGR, National Assn. of Gun Rights. Did RMGO morph into NAGR, or is he pimping for two orgs now?
OK, then don't devote time and money to RMGO.
It's odd how many gunnies reject the reality that politics requires money. Dudley and RMGO devote a great deal of time to gathering and storing up that precious resource so that they'll have it when they need it. That's way more effective than trying to find a large sum of money (or any other resource) when demand is high, time short, and supply limited. Yes, RMGO is constantly asking for money and for people to sign up for one thing or another. I'm thankful for those efforts and to everyone who gives and/or signs up for whatever it is at the moment. That's WAY more effective than trying to influence a political outcome with no or very little money. Like it or not, RMGO has done more in the campaign/political realm AND in the Colorado legislative process than any other Second Amendment organization. It isn't even close.
But, that doesn't mean that you - or anyone - has to agree or like their marketing, tactics, people. Nope, you have the freedom and liberty to choose who and what you will or will not support.
I don't go out of my way to bang on the NRA or any other 2A organization. The fact is, NRA spends more of their time and money at the federal level. Short of ratings, I haven't received support from the NRA. However, my campaigns have received financial support, endorsements, and mail from RMGO and/or RMGOPAC.
It's reality at the Capitol that people and organizations start to look for what can get done given the distribution of power during any given two-year Assembly. Principle is often quickly shed in exchange for what is possible given those political realities. RMGO doesn't play that game. Like the scene at the end of the movie "Clear and Present Danger" where the character Jack Ryan tells the President, "I don't dance," Dudley and RMGO aren't at the Capitol to strike deals and find compromise. Given that we have the Second Amendment, I see no reason to deal it away one bite at a time.
If you do not want to devote time or money to the no comprise organization, then that's OK. You aren't required to do so.
Thanks for your perspective, Sen. Holbert. I am sure that Dudley's heart is in the right place, but the whole"discourage the recalls until it becomes apparent that they have a chance to succeed, then try to take credit for that susccess" approach soured many here. If Dudley were to come forth with a sincere apology, that would go a long way towards redeeming his and RMGO's reputation here. The NRA provided significant support for the recalls, which succeeded despite being outspent 8 to 1 by Bloomberg and his lackeys.