You gotta love it when press-release journalism tries to figure out why real people didn't stick to their script:
Secondly, you are still trying to ignore the fact that this "common-sense" bill so lowered the infraction bar and the proof levels for removing a basic constitutional right that it would have applied to anyone who ever smoked a joint or took somebody else's prescription meds, not the near-criminally insane.
But, hey, that's OK. Keep trying.
As for the WNJ, you can feel their confusion in these sentences:
Two thoughts:
1. That makes the Markell administration 1 for 5 this year on gun control legislation. After all the initial big push, only the "universal" background checks made it through into law, and I am hearing that several representatives are thinking about bills to weaken that one next session.
2. It would really have been interesting if the News Journal reports had asked Senator McBride which provisions in the bill worried him with regard to inappropriate behaviors by police, but I guess that would be too much to ask.
The firearm legislation, which earlier had passed the House overwhelmingly on a 40 to 1 vote, would have required mental health providers to call police if they suspected a patient presented a danger to themselves or others. The measure would have allowed police to investigate and submit a report to the Department of Justice. Justice Department attorneys would then have had the ability to petition a judge to compel the patient to turn over any firearms in his or her possession.
After the 13-6 vote, Biden said the legislation was “directly responsive” to mass shootings around the country involving shooters with mental illnesses.
“I cannot explain what happened,” Biden said. “This was just a common sense bill.”First off, Beau, you sent an idiot to testify who apparently hadn't even read the bill and got the particulars wrong.
Secondly, you are still trying to ignore the fact that this "common-sense" bill so lowered the infraction bar and the proof levels for removing a basic constitutional right that it would have applied to anyone who ever smoked a joint or took somebody else's prescription meds, not the near-criminally insane.
But, hey, that's OK. Keep trying.
As for the WNJ, you can feel their confusion in these sentences:
Senate Majority Leader David McBride, D-Hawk’s Nest, was among those voting against the bill. Sen. Bryan Townsend, a Newark Democrat who did not cast a vote, said he heard concerns from constituents who worried the law would be applied inappropriately. Other senators said they received calls and emails Thursday morning in opposition to the bill. A National Rifle Association lobbyist said the gun advocacy group was neutral on the bill.Apparently the News Journal reporters have never heard of the Delaware Campaign for Liberty and can't imagine that any opposition to a piece of gun legislation could arise without orders from the NRA.
Two thoughts:
1. That makes the Markell administration 1 for 5 this year on gun control legislation. After all the initial big push, only the "universal" background checks made it through into law, and I am hearing that several representatives are thinking about bills to weaken that one next session.
2. It would really have been interesting if the News Journal reports had asked Senator McBride which provisions in the bill worried him with regard to inappropriate behaviors by police, but I guess that would be too much to ask.
Comments
That it went to a final vote with such obvious poison pills indicates they have no genuine interest in gun control.