Delaware General Assembly Pre-Game Show: Tuesday, June 7, 2022
Let’s not bury the lede: After (that word again) burying and/or weakening meaningful gun control legislation for almost two years, the House will finally be SHAMED into taking action, beginning this week. We have a well-timed spate of gun violence to thank for their reversal. (Maybe if we had had a recent George Floyd incident in Delaware, the House would be shamed into actually taking action on police reform. You know, instead of forming a task force led by an ex-cop and full of cops, many appointed by Carney, which led to the inevitable result: Nothing. But I digress.)The irony, of course, being that Pistol Pete and Our PAL Val, who are more responsible for the failure of gun control legislation than anybody else, have generously designated themselves to be the prime sponsors of the two House bills. They are beyond shame. Especially coming about a week after Longhurst dissed AG Jennings because Val’s cop pals don’t like her.
Here is the proposed package:
- Banning the sale of assault weapons (HB 450)
- Limiting high-capacity magazines (SB 6)
- Raising the age from 18 to 21 to purchase most firearms (HB 451)
- Strengthening background checks by reinstituting the Firearm Transaction Approval Program (FTAP) (HB 423)
- Holding gun manufacturers and dealers liable for reckless or negligent actions that lead to gun violence (not yet introduced)
- Banning the use of devices that convert handguns into fully automatic weapons (not yet introduced)
Someone even woke up John Carney to sign off on a press release. He has, per usual, been AWOL on this issue, as he has been on so many others. I’ve decided: He’s even worse than Minner. And far less of a Democrat. Carney has two moves: If he doesn’t want to sign a bill that might reach his desk, he says he’s ‘looking forward to the debate on the floor’. Presumably b/c he can’t think for himself. His version of active leadership is to say he’s ‘looking forward to signing the bill’ should it reach his desk. That’s it.
Allow me to point out that SB 6 (above) had the legs cut out from under it in the House, largely thanks to Rep. Kim Williams crying crocodile tears about how her assault weapon would be made illegal under the bill. Suffice it to say that there had better either be a substitute bill, or the teeth will have to be added back via amendment. I’ve heard that a stronger bill will likely be considered.
Pour yourself another caffeinated beverage. We’re just getting started.
SB 6 leads off today’s Senate Agenda. I hope and expect that the weak slop that the House added will be eliminated from this bill. I also like SB 35 (Walsh), which ‘defines specific violations of wage payment and collection laws under Chapter 11 of Title 19, as wage theft and provides specific penalties for these violations, including a new a new criminal offense of wage theft, with a mechanism for the Department of Labor to refer completed investigations to the Department of Justice for prosecution’. I admit it: I’ve underrated Sen. Walsh’s contributions for awhile now. I’ve had people tell me that Walsh just wouldn’t let Speaker Pete (at the behest of ‘Chamber of Commerce’ Carney) bury the minimum wage bill, as Pete had done for about the last five years. The unholy alliance between Carney (and Markell before him) and the Kop Kabal has, if anything, been understated, even here. Just one more reason why 2022 should be the year when we depose the Kop Kabal. But, once again, I digress.
Some good bills on the House Agenda as well. HS1/HB 25 (Dorsey Walker) ‘provides for election day registration for presidential primary, primary, special, and general elections whereas currently the deadline is the fourth Saturday prior to the date of the election.’ It appears to be a ‘simple majority’ bill, so let’s see if any D’s defect. I hope not. HB 394 (Lambert) ‘provides that the Department of Correction must provide a copy of all policies relating to the accrual and forfeiture of good time to inmates, as well as a quarterly written accounting of good time credit earned and/or forfeited. The requirement that all accrued time must be forfeited upon conviction of any crime within custody, the complete forfeiture will apply only to commission of felonies.’
I’m at best ambivalent about HB 375 (Bolden), which ‘establishes the Racial Equity Consortium (“Consortium”) for the purposes of studying and making recommendations to address the disparities and inequities faced by persons of color in this State.’ Presumably b/c otherwise legislators would have no idea about the disparities and inequities faced by persons of color in this state. Form a task force, kick the can far enough down the road so that nobody looks for the can any more.
Possible big news: There will likely be a motion, presumably from Rep. Osienski, to rescind the roll call on HB 372, and to reconsider it. Which reminds me: We’ll likely see an attempt to override Carney’s brain-dead veto of HB 371 in the near future as well. Shout-out to D Party Chair Betsy Maron for calling for a veto override and for pointing out that legalization is in the Party platform.
Today’s House Committee highlights:
HB 181 (Lynn) ‘caps interest rates at 20% for short-term consumer loans of $1,000 or less that must be repaid in less than 60 days and motor vehicle title loans’. Great bill. However–it’s in the House Business Lapdog Committee, which includes among its members Reps. Bush, Bennett, and, yes, Stephanie Bolden, who has previously voted against legislation to cap usurious interest rates. She publicly stated that she voted against a bill capping those payday loans because usurious loans were the only loans her ‘people’ could get.
HB 435 (Lambert) ‘requires that all large public works construction projects, utilizing state funds, are to be governed by a Community Workforce Agreement with labor organizations engaged in the construction industry to provide structure and stability and promote efficient completion.’ Labor.
Today’s Senate Committee highlights:
Starting with a lowlight:
SB 235 (Richardson). If I told you that the bill is called the ‘Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act’, you’d have a pretty good idea what the bill is about. You’d be right. It’s not going anywhere. At least not in Delaware. And not in this committee. Legislative Oversight & Sunset.
Now that that’s out of the way…:
(1) Authorizes the bundling of unimproved or vacant real property for sale at sheriff’s sale by this State or any political subdivision when the real property is subject to a writ of venditioni exponas filed by this State or a political subdivision due to an outstanding lien or judgement. (2) Authorizes a land bank to acquire unimproved or vacant real property at sheriff’s sale by submitting a final apex bid in the amount of the outstanding liens or judgements that are of record 5 days before the date of the sheriff sale, which has the effect of ending a sheriff’s sale and selling the real property at issue to the land bank.
requires all new and renewing rental agreements for a lot in a manufactured home community to contain the following: (1) For a manufactured home community that is supplied by potable water from a private water system, a provision requiring the landlord to have the water tested and report the findings to tenants and the Department of Health and Social Services. (2) For a manufactured home community with a septic system, a provision requiring the landlord to have the system emptied, serviced, and inspected at least every 2 years and to report the findings to tenants, the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and the applicable county or municipal government.
Both in Housing.
Back tomorrow. Some serious bills are to be considered in committee.
SO Bolden supports a Racial Equity Consortium but doesn’t support a tangible, actionable bill like the tenant representation bill, which would likely positively impact thousands of people of color around the state who’ve been disproportionately impacted by the outright systemic racism of the housing market for decades?
So, in other words, she wants to say she supports equity, but when it gets down to action, she’s full of it. I hope James Taylor takes her out in the primary.
So do I. Contributed the day he announced.
But it’s even more than just the fact that Bolden sells out her own constituents. It’s also that she supports the Kop Kabal for leadership in exchange for plum committee assignments–that she uses to bury legislation her constituents need.
We’re really close to taking down the Kop Kabal. And there are enough progressive candidates out there to make it happen. James Taylor is one of them.
The post-Minner years have been ironic for Delaware. First we elected Markell, who had ideas but no money, now Carney, who has money but no ideas.
If the good old “theres no such thing as an assult weapon” ban doenst make it through why don’t they pass:
in order to own an assult weapon it must be kept locked at the range where it will be fired in an individual gun locker and can only be accessed during business hours and can’t be take off premises
As expected, Sen. Sokola has introduced a substitute for SB 6. The substitute does the following:
“(1) Includes a clear definition for the term “large-capacity magazine” as an ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 17 rounds of ammunition. (2) Prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, purchase, receipt, transfer, or possession of a large-capacity magazine. Violation of this prohibition is a class E felony. (3) Prohibits the possession of a large-capacity magazine during the commission of a felony. Violation of this prohibition is a class B felony. This Substitute Act also establishes a buyback program for large-capacity magazines, to be overseen by the Department of Safety and Homeland Security.”
Meaning, Kim Williams can get cash back on her assault weapon, should she desire. Why she needed one is a question for another day.
How can government “buy back” something it never owned?
There have been goverment-sponsored ‘buy-back’ programs before.
Other groups, like most recently the 76ers, have done the same thing.
It’s an expression, not a literal description. Thanks for playing, though, and be sure to pick up your copy of the home version of our game.
I haven’t heard gun stuff from Kim Williams; seems off-brand for her. Maybe somewhere on Facebook?
No. She publicly complained that, under the original SB 6, her weapon of mass destruction would be deemed illegal. Yes, she had one. Probably still does.
Rep. Chukwuocha (!) sponsored the amendment that increased the allowable number of rounds to twenty, actually thirty for ‘long guns’:
“The definition of large-capacity magazine for selling, purchasing, receiving, or transferring a large capacity magazine is any magazine that exceeds 20 rounds of ammunition for a handgun and 30 rounds for a long gun.”
The other sponsors of the amendment?: Reps. Matthews, K. Williams, (ex-cop) Cooke, Bennett, Bush, (ex-cop) Mitchell, and, of course, (ex-cop) Schwartzkopf. Here is the amendment:
https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=78982
BTW, SS1/SB 6 passed the Senate today, 13-7, with one absent.
“an ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 17 rounds”
Good thing classes now can have 40 students so there will be some survivors.
https://www.wboc.com/news/del-senate-passes-bill-to-limit-firearm-magazine-capacity/article_e32e192a-e6b2-11ec-8fdf-4333e4141375.html
DOVER, Del. (AP) – A bill outlawing firearm magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds passed Delaware’s Democrat-led Senate on Tuesday with no Republican support.
The legislation was approved on a 13-7 vote, with Sen. Bruce Ennis of Smyrna, a retired state trooper, the lone Democrat to join GOP lawmakers in opposition.
That Ennis seat is going to be flipped. Mark Pugh appears tp be the only candidate in the race so far.
https://www.makedelawarebetter.com
There’s a four-way D primary. My wife likes Kevin Musto, who runs a community pharmacy. Pharmacists are popular, especially those who really care about their customers. My wife says Kevin is very much like that.
I am running in Senate district 14 as a Blue Dog Democrat. To be clear, I would of also of voted the same as Ennis!! I am supporter of the 2nd Amendment and have some creative ideas to handle gun violence. I am not a fan of reactionary spaghetti thrown on the wall policy. In addition, I would gladly debate any of my opponents anywhere, anytime!
You don’t know what reactionary means. And none of the proposals violate the 2nd amendment, which I suspect you don’t understand either. Sad.
Friday’s episode is on this topic. All the legislation is backed by significant data and analysis and is well thought out common sense.
I bet $50 your “creative ideas” are very stupid ideas.
I am a supporter of the Second Amendment as well, which is why I believe guns belong in the hands of a “well-regulated militia.” Every Supreme Court until the current conservative-engineered one understood that the amendment did NOT authorize unregistered guns for any “personal protection.”
And the evidence that it was a political, not legal, decision lies in the fact that the new interpretation was handed down by a bunch of self-proclaimed “originalists,” despite the fact that when the Constitution was written pistols were used for dueling and long guns were used for “protection” only against Native American attacks.
Also, most proposals for reducing gun violence have been tried, and they work, so I don’t know why you’re trotting out the spaghetti cliche.
Also, too, let’s hear the creative ideas before anyone agrees to debate them.
Second Al here. Tell us your creative ideas! 🙏
Did you spell your own name wrong
Yes he did.
Hi, Rob,
I hate to be the grammar police representative here, but you would come across as a more credible candidate if you had a better command of the English language.
“…I would of also of voted the same as Ennis!!”
“of” is a preposition, and makes no sense in this sentence. Instead of “of,” you should use “have,” which is an auxiliary verb, and makes “have voted” past perfect tense, which is probably what you meant.
Your corrected sentence should read “…I would have voted the same way as Ennis!!”
Your meaning was obvious, but if you are going to have any campaign literature printed, you should have someone check it for grammar and spelling.
Best wishes, and stay safe.
If you hate to be the grammar police – you have agency.
No comment on the veto override fail? Did we all get stoned this morning and forget today’s post?
I didn’t see it in the daily activity log. I’ll check.
I did get stoned this am yes. Lol
The prohibition doesn’t impact me. I’m white.
Golly, I thought that was a foregone conclusion.
Thanks for the dialogue. Where to begin???
First, I will not play the gotcha with you or anyone. We have civil conversation or none. I will start by saying I never said that bill violates the 2nd Amendment. I have an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which is that I believe the founding fathers believe guns are the rights of responsible owners. Now, with that said the Preamble is very clear that the Constitution is not perfect and it is our duty to form the perfect union based on their framework.
Second, let’s be honest this is a much bigger problem than just guns. In the 1920s pretty much anyone could buy a Thompson Sub Machine guns with way more ammo than 17 capacity magazine. In the 1920s no one went around shooting children in schools, so our culture has changed and we need to know why. With this said, I am not against certain gun control measures as to form the perfect union in today’s society does require some limits.
My policy is the following. Assault rifles and large capacity magazine should be restricted to persons of 25 years or older with a background check that requires character witnesses. I think an 18 year old is way too immature to go buy serious weaponry on their 18th birthday. Yes, the military has 18 year olds with these weapons but they are trained, so not the same scenario.
In addition, I am a Democrat that understands the reality of where we are, especially in a rural area like Senate District 14. I do not want to see this seat flipped and this year is going to be very tough. If we do not want a Ralph Landon blowout I need everyone’s support. It hurts when I see the Republicans winning on economic policy in the polls. The Democrats a party of the New Deal and Great Society has got to return to our working class roots if we want to tap into the silent majority that McGovern lost. I will debate any opponent and at least I am here discussing where I stand on important issues.
Rob Sebastiano for State Senate 14
http://www.commonsensede.com
*Alf Landon, damn auto type
“In the 1920s pretty much anyone could buy a Thompson Sub Machine guns with way more ammo than 17 capacity magazine. In the 1920s no one went around shooting children in schools, so our culture has changed and we need to know why. ”
That is a good question with equally good answers. The cultural changes are glaringly obvious:
– The increase in the number and availability of guns by several orders of magnitude,
– Regulatory capture of government by a vastly more well-funded gun lobby,
– Shrewd pandering to rural gun-fetish voters, whose big empty states were for some reason given two senators each
I hope you didn’t have some Republican talking points as your answers.
And by the way, machine guns were banned in 1934, about two Senate terms after the weapons started showing up in civilian hands.
Thank you for the respectful answer.
If you would, please explain why anyone needs to own assault-style semiauthomatic rifles or store them in their home (if they like target shooting, they can store them at the gun club, as they do in many other nations that allow individual gun ownership).
I also find your example of the example of the Thompson submachine gun lacking. When introduced in 1921, the gun sold for $210, the equivalent of just over $3,000 today, so no, there weren’t many disaffected youths who could afford one. Nor were there nearly so many guns in civilian hands.
I suggest you learn a bit more about the history of guns in this country before you form your opinions. You’ll find that gun manufacture and ownership expanded greatly in conjunction with the end of Jim Crow laws and growing Black political power, and that many of the myths your countrified would-be constituents believe are simply untrue.
Also, too, I was there in 1972. If you were against McGovern, you were pro-war. We shed those so-called Democrats a long while back, and good riddance. They are interested in their own bank accounts and nothing more, and they don’t like Blacks anymore than Republicans do — look up the history of most of those unions.
The white “working class” has always resented competition from minorities (who will work for lower pay) than they have resented their corporate overseers, and that has been particularly true in Delaware — I remember well how the unions at the Delaware City refinery sided with the owners against installing scrubbers on their stacks.
In case you hadn’t noticed, those people have been voting Republican for a long time now — more than 40 years — and if they’re stupid enough to do that, I don’t see you persuading them otherwise unless you feed them the same horseshit the GOP does.
So my basic attitude is, if your district is full of Republicans, they should elect a Republican, not a Democrat who stands for a bunch of Republican ideas.
I do not disagree with you. I grew up in a union working class household and we were Democrats. My grandfather was a male version of Maude Finley, 😂 yes many of these people turned Republican but it doesn’t mean they all did.
I do like the gun club idea. Serious weaponry that did not exist when the Bill of Rights was ratified definitely needs restrictions. I never said I was against gun control measures.
My district is not full of Republicans it has more Democrats; however, the Independent vote is probably 15-20% of the electorate. The Independents will determine the winner.
I think the 1972 election was an interesting one, it was the first to include 18 year olds and McGovern got destroyed. I like that it was the first election to include Shirley Chisholm who had some sway with her delegates at the convention. She was even included in primary debates. I really liked her.
I have always liked Humphrey and still think his break of the Civil Rights filibuster was the highlight of the 20th century. He took on the Dixiecrats going back to 48 convention. I visited his grave and monument in Minneapolis several years back. I wish I could live up to someone like him.
I am a Democrat because I have always and will always support the New Deal and Great Society programs that gave us: Social Security, Labor Reform, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, Subsidized Student Loans, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voter Rights Act of 1965, Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Peace Corps, the Clean Water Act, Head Start Program. The list of progressive reforms from Democrats is nothing to scoff at.
This is why I am a Democrat.
Thanks again for the clarification. Good luck in your primary.