The NRA wrote HB 357
I admit, while I am no fan of either downstate Representative John Atkins (R-Drunk) or Senator Joe Booth (R-Georgetown), I thought the bill they were cosponsoring, HB 357, which allegedly would forbid Delaware’s housing authorities from prohibiting their tenants to own firearms, was initially innocuous, because on first impression it seems to be a law that would allow law abiding sane citizens without criminal records the possession of firearms in their own homes, no matter if their own homes are public housing. And it is obvious why HB 357 is being sold to us in that fashion, because even I as a liberal who recognizes that the Second Amendment does exist and people have a right to keep a gun in their own home.
My mistake was not reading the legislation yet, only reports about the legislation. Luckily for us, Governor Markell and his aides did read HB 357. In a letter to both Atkins and Booth earlier this week, Governor Markell indicates that the bill goes way beyond that.
The legislation, Markell wrote, “will put the public at significant risk if enacted. This legislation prohibits state and local governments, our universities and colleges, our schools and others from imposing or enforcing common sense measures designed to protect our citizens from illegal gun violence.”
If the bill were to become law, Markell wrote, it would undo regulations that prohibit guns:
• In day care centers and preschools.
• On school buses.
• In the classroom buildings, dormitories and sporting facilities of the University of Del- aware, Delaware State University and Delaware Technical & Community College.
• In neighborhood group homes for people with mental illnesses.
• On DART buses and in taxis and limousines.
• In state parks and forests outside of hunting seasons and areas designated for hunting, including on beaches and in playground areas.
The bill also would undo regulations prohibiting most state employees from possessing firearms while on state property or conducting state business, and in various facilities operated by public housing authorities.
“Reversing these protections would not be a rational extension of the right to bear arms, but rather a dangerous introduction of guns into settings where there is reasonable and appropriate basis to exclude them,” Markell wrote.Booth said he intended to address only the housing authority bans and protect the tenants’ Second Amendment rights, not to undo a laundry list of other firearms regulations.
Does Booth even read his own legislation? Did he even write it? Because listen to what an affliate of the NRA has to say about the bill:
House Bill 357 would address a patchwork quilt of regulations, such as those cited by Markell, according to John Thompson, president of the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, a National Rifle Association affiliate. “This bill was written to reach any regulation by a state agency that would prohibit firearm possession or ownership,” said Thompson, a lawyer and the sportsmen’s association’s lobbyist in Legislative Hall.
Thompson and his underlings at the DSSA and his affliates at the NRA wrote this bill. And they intended this bill to do away with every common sense gun control regulation we have in this state. And they found Joe Booth and John Atkins to do their bidding for them. Joe Booth and John Atkins are either a fool in not knowing what their own legislation intends to do, or they are liars attempting to sell a bill of goods to Delawareans.
If Joe Booth or John Atkins wants to allow citizens who live in public housing to own guns, fine, let’s have that debate, and let’s write that narrowly tailored legislation. But for the love of God, do it yourself and do not be a stooge for the NRA.
Time for a desk drawer veto!
Who knew Delaware’s biggest problem was not enough guns?
Atkins is a Democrat.
No, he is not. I will never consider him one.
a desk drawer veto is much too good for this bill
get it to the floor, where it can get overwhelmingly defeated (like last year’s DOMA amendment)
second choice–get it to a committee hearing, and get it overwhelmingly defeated there
let’s have a rally with little kids wearing t-shirts “I’m scared–my busdriver is packing heat”
please tell me that it isn’t a coincidence that the bill’s number is the model of a magnum gun
Oh sweet Jesus, Paul, you are right. HB 357 just has to be named after the .357 Magnum. Wow. Unfreakingbelievable.
Meet CRI’s “investigative reporter.” No wonder he’s got a bug up his butt about gun laws. Compensating any, Lee?
Thanks to Jack Markell for coming out so strongly against this craziness.
Comment by anon1 on 5 March 2010 at 8:45 am:
Atkins is a Democrat.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 5 March 2010 at 8:46 am:
No, he is not. I will never consider him one.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
DD, being a typical moonbat, has his own set of facts and his own reality.
Actually, Lizard, er ah Romeo, Atkins, as a lifelong Republican, was elected to the Assembly in 2002. Then he proceeded to beat his wife, bribe a babysitter, and drive while drunk in two states, the disclosure forced him to resign like Nixon before him. Unlike Nixon, he didn’t stay gone.
His running as a Democrat was only so that he could get on the ballot. He remains a Democrat only to stay in the majority caucus.
Wow. Libel suit, anyone?
Atkins won. You liberals can’t beat him. Get over it!
Absolute defense to libel is truth.
Fine, Atkins won. But he is no liberal and no Democrat. He is a Republican you jackboot thugs can have him.
thrown out of office by the Republicans
Welcomed with open arms by the Democratic party. Elected as a Democrat. Caucuses with the Democrats. Voted for the Democratic leaders
Would you keep him if he kept you in the majority after Nov.?
I wouldn’t. But then again I would have refused him entry into the caucus last year, for we don’t need him for the majority.
Romeo, why do you lie so much? Atkins was not thrown out of office by the Republicans. He resigned.
Yeah, except there’s absolutely no truth to your charge that he bribed a babysitter. Try checking out the facts first, Mr. Attorney.
From Delaware Grapevine:
What finally pushed him out was a fresh allegation that he had tampered with a witness by coercing a teen-age babysitter, who was staying at the Atkins’ home the night of the arrest, to keep quiet about what she knew.
The Ethics Committee shipped that new charge to the attorney general for further investigation, and nothing more was heard about it. The matter seemed to be buried by disinterest.
It was not. Instead, the Justice Department quietly concluded its inquiry in July by clearing Atkins.
* * *
Atkins is as much a Democrat as Thurman Adams or Bob Venables – a conservative one, who’d be much more at home in the Republican party. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is a Democrat.
“Romeo, why do you lie so much? Atkins was not thrown out of office by the Republicans. He resigned”
The GOP forced Atkins to resign, they were going to oust him if he didn’t. It wasn’t that long ago, DD. The record is clear.
If the GOP didn’t force him out, why did he resign, and why, when he decided to run again, didn’t he run as a Republican?
The answer is because the GOP DID force him out, and the Democrats embraced him.
My apologies. His crimes that one fateful night were so many I forgot which one he was exonerated of.
While Gilligan and Schwarzkopf have embraced Atkins, many Democrats have not, nor will ever. And I dare think if the GOP ever regains the majority, Atkins will surely switch, and then you will have to defend embracing him, will you not, Misundastood. I will save your statements here and remind you.
The R’s are begging him back, they need the seat. Atkins has told them to kiss his ass!
Of course DHQ, because right now as a Democrat, Atkins is in the majority. He doesn’t want to lose the perks and power. Once the GOP wins back the House, Atkins will immediately run to the GOP and the GOP will embrace him and I will expect you to be as unforgiving towards Atkins then as you are now
I was unforgiving and unsupportive of Atkins as a Republican and I’m unforgiving and unsupportive of Atkins as a Democrat. Pulling out his legislative ID, telling the OC police that he could get a Delaware State Trooper to drive him home and the “offensive touching” were more than enough for me.
He can put any letter he wants after his name and I still won’t support him.
Now someone explain Schwartzkopf. He worked harder than anyone to get Atkins out of the Legislature as a Republican, then worked harder than anyone to get Atkins BACK in the Legislature as a Democrat.
Only here in slower lower is the amount of red-neckeness more important than party, for only a true redneck who drives under the influence could be a “good” democrat.
Mis,
On this we agree. You and I hate Atkins. But my point is will you be so unforgiving in 2011 or 2013 or whenever the GOP takes back the House, because you just know Atkins is rejoining the GOP in a heartbeat, and he will be welcomed by your Reps, too.
I hope you will.
Now, back to the topic of this thread, do you approve of Atkin’s deceptive attempt to overturn any and all gun control laws in the State of Delaware? Please tell me you do not support Atkins in this horrid endeavour.
Like I said, Atkins can put any letter he wants after his name and I still will not support him. “Hate” however, isn’t really my thing.
According to reports out of Sussex County, Atkins is going to re work the bill to make it specific to public housing complexes.
Will I support it? I’d like to see it first.
Now can you explain Schwartzkopf?
I can’t. Here is a story from Primary Election Night on September 11, 2008 at the Markell Election Headquarters down at the Shipyard Shops on the Waterfront. Delaware Liberal’s band of inteprid bloggers (including Pandora, Geek, myself, and our illustrious founder Jason330) had a circular table to ourselves ringed with laptops, with all of us online updating the blog and getting updated results.
Pete Schwarzkopf was walking around talking on his cell phone. He came over to our table, looked over my shoulder and asked me to scroll down to see more results. I did, offering my own commentary on the horror of the results downstate. I said, upon reaching Atkin’s race: “Yeah, that scumbag drunk bastard is going to win in the 41st”
Pete then says into his phone: “Yeah John, you’re winning.”
DD – That’s hilarious.
True story. Here is the video I shot about an hour later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxb-0m2pAvU
Ok, I just finished reading HB 357, and this bill should be passed. All of those situations that Markell is bitching about are legitimate. The only problem, is that since they are public buildings and spaces, they should be regulated by legislation, not by government administrations.
Besides, you all keep forgetting the fatal flaw with any law or regulation: It’s only followed by law-abiding citizens. I bet if you searched all of the buses at Rodney Square right now, you’d find firearms.
“DD-That’s hilarious”
Sounds like Atkins had the last laugh. And that’s the only one that matters.
True enough, anon.
Phil, I want the bill narrowly tailored to specific Delaware public housing.
If the legislature wishes to overturn state gun control regulations promulgated by state agencies it can do so through specific legislation. Right now, the NRA, through their stooges in Atkins and Booth, are trying to do it through the backdoor.
This is the legislative language, which is at odds with what the bill synopsis says the bill entails, and it is at odds with what Atkins and Booth says the bill does.
My suggested change:
The notwithstanding clause covers laws that prevent felons or people with mental defects from purchasing or possessing firearms.
DD, I think the bill will be narrowed down to only deal with public housing which was probably the original intent. I do agree with Phil, it should be up to the elected officials to make these regulations and not Dover administrators.
I would agree to your last point anon. If certain lawmakers wish to sponsor legislation allowing the possession of firearms in schools, then please, let them sponsor that legislation. It will make my day.
It would be political gold.
DD, symnopsis- you hate Atkins, Booth, Republicans and the NRA.
Nailed it. 😉
You’re a freak, but I got ya.
1 person reads it and you flip flop? how bout reading it yourselves.
Huh? I have not flip flopped. I said at the start of this post I think it is fine to allow law abiding citizens living in public housing the right to bear arms, but the legislation does much more than that, which I discovered upon both reading the legislation and the News Journal article. Or Just Kiddin, are you saying that you favor abolishing all gun control regulations in the state?
Fox Philadelphia did a good job of this:
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/030510-delaware-gun-bill-gets-heated-response
foxphilly the News Journal and liberal gun haters are portraying this as violent felons only wanting to own hand guns in drug infested project housing. Wake up call, they already do!
What about a law abiding citizen that wants to own a shotgun for hunting or shooting sporting clays? How about a handgun for self defense, or your fathers or grandfathers shotgun that he left to you in the will? Just because you live in public housing doesnt mean you lose your constitutional rights at the parking lot. Public housing also includes elderly, or disabled residents that might be less fortunate. Thanks
We liberal haters have nothing against law abiding citizens wanting to own a shotgun to go hunting or shooting. And you can own a handgun so long as you abide by your state’s concealed weapons law and gun registration laws. And as I have said repeatedly in this thread, I do not have a problem with law abiding non felon non insane citizens living in public housing owning a gun and keeping it in their public housing.
My problem is that this law does not address public housing. Atkins and Booth say it does, but they are lying. The NRA says it will overturn all gun regulations in the State of Delaware. And I for one believe them, and if you read the bill, they are right. I have a problem with that.
So Anon. is saying Fox is part of the liberal media?
Delaware Dem. Hey, I was a pacifist all my life. NO MORE! My question is where is all this “public housing units” in Sussex! If you are right and this bill overturns all gun regulations I have more than a problem with that! I question two right wingers, Atkins and Booth putting out a bill that would take away gun rights anywhere.
With the TEAbag Nation growing (and they do have guns) the libs better wise up. We are living in a very violent country. Do we want the righties to have all the ammo when the shit hits the fan? Go on a white supremacist website and see what these crazies are planning and its not way out in the future.
I want to be clear here. I stand on the Consitution right or wrong. WE have the right to bear arms and we have the right to form militias. The National Guard is not the “peoples militia”. My concern is that the hard right have been preparing themselves for decades. I went on a site today where they are selling “hydoponic equipment” to grow their food. They have stores of stuff. Remember last year the story about the country was running low on bullets….well its not us that got em.
“those who hammer thier guns into plows will plow for those you do not”-Thomas Jefferson
More bullshit from gun nuts. Jefferson never said that. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Those_who_hammer_their_guns_into_plows
Debunked in all of two seconds.
“Republicans are idiots who love bumper sticker slogans more than they love Democracy.”
-Thomas Jefferson.
See? I can do it too.
How about this one DD- Delaware Constitution Article 1 sec 20 ” a person has the right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS for the defense of self, family, HOME and state and for hunting and recreational use”
Is that clear enough for you? Markells administration is clearly violating the constitution!
It doesn’t say unless you live in public housing.
Indeed, anon. I actually agree with that and would support a bill that does that. HB 357 ends all gun control measures in the state. Guns in schools. Guns on buses. Guns in the courthouses. Guns in daycare centers. That is what HB 357 would allow. Draft me a bill that strips the four public housing authorities of any ban on possession of guns and I will support it.
Delaware is a 2nd ammendment state get over it all u antis need to just relax! Do yous even know Delaware is an open carry state anyways! I walk around Delaware loaded in plain view and have not had a problem in the last 12 years doing so ! I have been question by the police due to the ignorance of you antis not knowing your state laws and they let me free every time! So why should the people be denied of there rights too???
Please show some statistics that shows gun violence rising after a gun ban has been lifted.
If you can’t show stats that prove your point, then you are simply stating that your opinion [against guns] is based on emotion, and not reason and logic.
Hey – I’m cool with that. If you want to have emotionally-based opinions, you’re certainly entitled to that. Some people believe in Bigfoot, Ghosts, Creationism, and The Boogie Man, yet they can’t prove the existence of any of these subjects with cold, honest science.
John Stossel did a program on this…and its fact. Will try to get a link. A youtube of it can be found at Brasscheck.
And yes, Markells administration is violating the consitution. He may no something bout business but should take an hour to read the Consitution. And this guy is Chair of the Governors Association spreading this “anti consitutional” crap. Spare us.
Oh yes, John Stossel and Fox News is so objective.