http://www.krdo.com/news/new-local-s...z/-/index.html
I was under the impression that bills had to originate in the House. Is that not the case?
Printable View
http://www.krdo.com/news/new-local-s...z/-/index.html
I was under the impression that bills had to originate in the House. Is that not the case?
Can start on either side. Sadly these will die in committee, only introduced to gather votes.
You may be right but we will at least know who voted on it in committee. I think we finally got our word out to them loud and clear so this is a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by merl
I'm OK with the effort anyway. Any time spent on this is time NOT spent on more MJ stuff, more taxes, other ways to restrict freedom…..Quote:
Originally Posted by merl
Glad to see it is out there, find out who the dems are that are still stupid enough to fight this, and hopefully get an opinion from Hicky
Only revenue/tax bills have to originate in the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin
Hick has said he'll veto any attempt to roll back "gun safety measures".Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Then I hope they make him put his veto where his mouth is.
A veto on repealing the laws is just going to further galvanize people against him.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Senator Brophy was on 630 last week talking about this- a repeal right now, with the Dems still in control, will pass something like this on to die in a committee... I wouldn't call it a wasted effort, but it won't get much traction as we all learned regardless of how the people these [redacted] represent feel, they're still going with the Anit-gun Demonrat agenda... even if 99.9% of the voters from their district support the measure. This is the way politics now work for the left- "we don't care what our constituents think, we know what's best for them."
Yhea, it'll never make it to Hick's desk, so he'll be able to continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
But it's not a wasted effort.
O2
Even if it did make it to his desk, his tongue is so far up Bloombergs tail-end that he'd never sign it.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
The legislature could overide old hickenfluffer's veto if they wanted it bad enough, which probably wont happen either.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
Dim majority? Miracle if it makes it through at all - no way to override a veto.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavieD55
you really need a vote to know who was against the mag and BGC bills?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabid
I would think that after all the recalls there has to be a dem or two that would flip. All it would take is one. With elections coming up one orb two will be more receptive.
I want some more nails in their coffins, so yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
You're right the bill will probably be killed in committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Circuits
Great, 2 more politician idiots, just trying to secure votes and doing nothing useful.
Naturally they'll propose this now, knowing it has no chance. And should Gov, and some seats go red next election, oddly, with this then having a chance in passing, it won't be proposed then! No no, propose junk, waste time, get a few more votes behind them for "trying". But when they have the chance to do something, stand up for the people, oh no, no chance in hell they'll do it then.
So yeah more of the same, yay. [mlp]
Any idea how many times "shall issue" CCW was proposed before it was passed in 2003? Sometimes they have to propose bills many times to gain awareness and support before they have enough backing to get them through. You may see this as political grandstanding, I prefer to see it as laying the groundwork for a more serious effort in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by brianakell
My dad always told me there's more than one way to skin a cat.Quote:
Originally Posted by brianakell
Politics can be like chess. Let's give these guys some time before badmouthing them.
I'm going to take the optimistic path and say that the mag ban will be repealed in an attempt to placate some and the Governor will sign it if it gets to his desk. The BGC law will not get to his desk. This is politics - compromise.
Loan me $20 and here, I'll give you back $10, that makes us even, we both lost $10. That is how it works.
TEA
III
Thanks for the heads up Justin. At least now I can e mail and fax some of the appropriate parties and let them know to support these repeals.
So two senators are recalled for mag ban/background check bills, and replaced by two new senators, and you are bitching because the new senators are trying to fix the very reason they were put into office. How much sense does this make?Quote:
Originally Posted by brianakell
I'd also like to propose the idea that this topic needs to be "refreshed" from time to time, do you realize the memory span of many folks that were "up in arms" over the bills when they first went into affect?
I'd squeal with joy if it got out of committee...
I would wonder if some of the Dems might be reluctant to vote Aye/Nay, and just abstain to try and keep a low profile ?
Now that they (the Dems in office) have seen proof that even strongly and traditionally Democratic districts are willing to take action against anti-gun legislators,
and even go to great lengths to mount campaigns to get them successfully recalled, they MAY be afraid to "speak up" against such non-partisan legislation.
When voting to repeal,
one might NOT be surprised at the number of AYEs, but MIGHT BE surprised and the sparse number of Nays and numerous abstentions.
Are Herpin and Rivera sincere about the "repeal mag ban" position, or is it all just an act ?
Either way, the issue is getting attention.
"Any press is GOOD press", they say.
I don't recall a time in the last 10 years that Democrats have given anything up in the name of "compromise." I have, however, seen US (those that know what "shall not be infringed" in the 2A means) lose ground due to (R)'s "compromising"- which oddly looks like surrender. [2cents]Quote:
Originally Posted by wctriumph
Compromise:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
http://hsgca.net/wp-content/uploads/...romise_v21.png
My point exactly! [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Exactly as I see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
I love that explanation.
That's awesome. The best explanation I've seen yet.
==== FYI ====Quote:
Originally Posted by james_bond_007
In the Colorado legislature, the only opportunity to abstain from a vote is if/when there would be personal financial gain by voting on the measure. Yes, the rules of other legislative bodies apparently allow members to abstain or vote "present." However, that is not the case in the Colorado General Assembly. The options are: Yes, No, Excused, or Absent. In order to be excused, a member must request that in advance from the Majority and Minority Leaders and announce it to the body prior to the excused absence.
Keep in mind that all 65 seats in the House and 18 seats in the Senate are up for election this year. How that might affect voting in committee or on the floor is yet to be seen.
I will also be running a repeal of 13-1224, the "mag ban" bill. Rep. Lori Saine is a prime co-sponsor. That bill will be introduced during late January or early February.
Keep in mind that all 65 seats in the House and 18 of the 35 Senate seats are up for election this year. That may affect voting in committee and on the floor.
Also, for those who might suggest that such bills are run only when they won't pass, please consider that I passed "Constitutional Carry" through the House in 2011 on a vote of 40-25. All 33 Republican Representatives at that time, plus seven Democrats, voted in favor of allowing a law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun concealed without a permit for any purpose other than the commission of a crime. In 2012, I passed "Make My Day Better" (Castle doctrine in the workplace) through the House, also with bi-partisan support. Both of those bills were then killed by the three Democrat members of the Senate "kill committee."
You're entitled to doubt. In this case, however, you are wrong. Such bills will be introduced if/when they could pass both chambers and be signed into law.
RepHolbert
Please continue to introduce the parts of the bill already planned but also include the repeal of HB1043. The others are bad but HB1043 is the worst of them all, passed before any of us knew it was coming as a simple definition change. They changed the definition of a deadly weapon to no longer require intent. This makes it so that assault can easily become assault with a deadly weapon even if no threat was commited or any other infraction of law. I never intended to use my gun when I [input infraction of the law] but since I was in possession, sombody saw it, it was in my truck and I could have gotten it, etc my .... "trespassing" just became "trespassing with a deadly weapon" only because I "could" have used it. This is an add-on to any infraction that could easily make any gun owner suffer under the 'lose your guns for two years' type of penalties. I would hate to have to deal with a domestic distrubance where this card is falsely played. Intent has always been a foundation of gun laws and while it is a high bar to meet in court that was the purpose to not infringe on gun owners 2nd ammendment rights. HB1043 made that bar WAY to low and nobody seems to realize how dangerous it is. If/when they 'come for our guns' this is the law they will use. PLEASE include it in your bill to repeal this and the other laws!!!!!
Thank you
http://legiscan.com/CO/text/HB1043/id/773087
Keep up the good fight RepHolbert. We appreciate you guys fighting off the disease that is anti-gun democrats. Hopefully we can help you guys out by getting in much better people this year.
[QUOTE=Hound;1475577]RepHolbert
Please continue to introduce the parts of the bill already planned but also include the repeal of HB1043. The others are bad but HB1043 is the worst of them all, passed before any of us knew it was coming as a simple definition change.
….PLEASE include it in your bill to repeal this and the other laws!!!!!
/QUOTE]
A repeal of HB 13-1043 could not be included in the repeal of HB 13-1224. The reason for this is that the subject of each bill was/is not the same. In DC, they have "pork barrel" spending, meaning that odd, unrelated issues and spending are combined in one bill. That doesn't happen in the Colorado legislature because the state Constitution, statute, and rules of the legislature don't allow it. Everything in a bill must fit under a single subject.
That is a very good reason to NOT reduce the five bills per session that each member is allowed to introduce. Those of us who are trying to remove bad laws ought not be limited to a lower number of "good" efforts to offset a larger number of "bad" efforts. While that may not be obvious absent media coverage for such "good" efforts, it is true.
Thank you Mr Holbert.
Thank you for your efforts, and thank you for your updates as well.