Let’s talk assault weapons. Both public supporters and even John Carney have called for the assault weapons ban to be reconsidered. Meaning, a vote on the floor of the Senate. We’ve already identified the would-be Twin Assassins of the bill, Dave McBride and Greg Lavelle. When I wrote that article, Lavelle had yet to officially oppose the bill. Now he has. And he realizes that he has stepped into something that smells real bad–electoral doo-doo. Greg is now casting himself as a constitutional expert. Well, not really, he cites an attorney–one Francis X. Pileggi, who just happens to represent, wait for it, the NRA and the Delaware Sportsman’s Association:
Lavelle said his constitutional concerns were derived from conversations with Wilmington attorney Francis Pileggi, “a lawyer who has won two cases around gun rights in the Delaware State Supreme Court.”
“Delaware’s constitution is much broader than the Second Amendment,” he said. “It talks about hunting, enjoyment, and safety.”
For Democrats, Lavelle said, the assault weapons bill is a “political issue, not a public safety issue.”
No, Monsignor, it’s a public safety issue that you seek to frame as a political issue while you spout NRA talking points.
As to Dave McBride…it is a public safety/public health issue. You can either reassign the fucking bill to another committee, you can support a discharge motion, or you can face a well-deserved challenge first for your position and second for your seat. It’s up to you. You’ve screwed this up royally. Now fix it.
We now return to the day-to day machinations of your Delaware General Assembly. John Kowalko was correct. This constitutional amendment was introduced on Tuesday, considered in committee on Wednesday, and is on the House Agenda today. I defy you to even read the synopsis of this bill and understand what this amendment (not merely a bill, but an amendment to the constitution) does. It is being pushed by the usual suspects, all of whom are part of the corporatocracy that runs this state. That alone is a reason to tap the brakes on it. The argument on behalf of it has nothing to do with its merits: Hey, it has to pass twice, so consider this a freebie. It is literally impossible to conceive of any sort of progressive amendment to pass with that kind of a rationale. It is, now what’s that phrase that Carney uses, ‘intellectually dishonest’. Let me ask this (largely rhetorical) question: Why do Democrats embrace crap like this? Better Democrats please. Hey, just look at the title of the bill: Relating to …’Limitations on Appropriations’. Not a lot of ways you can parse that phrase.
The Senate did run an agenda yesterday. Notable bills that passed include HB 326 (K. Williams), which:
…creates the Delaware Advance Scholarship Program (“Program”). The goal of this Act is to encourage Delaware students with intellectual disabilities to pursue studies for a comprehensive certificate or degree at a Delaware institution of higher education in order to promote economic self-sufficiency.
The Senate also passed SB 227 (Townsend), which promotes the use of primary care services. We covered this bill yesterday.
Personal memo to PAL Longhurst from your friend El Somnambulo: I see that you’ve finally placed the bump stocks bill back on today’s Agenda. Just…let it pass as is. The bill has passed in both chambers twice. The amendments aren’t killers, and can always be addressed in subsequent sessions of the General Assembly. Can you just get this to the Governor’s office already? Oh, and promise to never manage gun legislation ever again? There are plenty of competent gun control supporters in Dover. It would be a mitzvah if you would let someone competent take the lead in the future. You’re welcome.
Today’s Senate Agenda features the latest incarnation of a constitutional amendment that has never gotten a freebie. An amendment that seeks to enact bail reform with the intent to significantly limit the imposition of cash bail. It’s the first leg. Let’s just see if legislators rush to pass this w/o even considering its merits. OK, the answer to that is self-evident. They won’t.
Similar legislation seeks to limit circumstances where detainees can be held indefinitely. SB 222 (Townsend), which is not a constitutional amendment, is nevertheless a companion piece to the amendment. I’m not sure if the bill will be worked should the constitutional amendment fail.
Lots of other bills on both agendas, most of which don’t interest me all that much. Check out the agendas and let me know if something interests you. Hey, I’ve been doing this for ten years now. Call me jaded.