Skip to main content

Dems "weren't even close" to bringing back HB 88

Attorney General Beau Biden didn't show up to argue his point about HB 88.

And behind closed doors Senate Democrats couldn't muster any more support for the flawed bill on guns and mental illness than they had at the end of the last session:
Senate President Pro Tem Patricia Blevins, D-Elsmere, who supported the bill, said Democrats “weren’t even close” to finding enough votes to bring the bill back for debate. 
It is important to understand what happened here:  the Democratic leadership will come up with all sorts of reasons why the bill failed:  the NRA and First State Liberty's Eric Boye will doubtless be among them.  So should thousands of people in Delaware who signed petitions and wrote letters/emails to their Senators to oppose the bill.

The reality is that this was a flawed bill from the start, and the amendments offered did not improve it.

Supporters of the bill were unable to address the issue that passing HB 88 into law might cause fewer people with problems like depression, alcoholism, or PTSD from seeking treatment.

Many mental health professionals, while reluctant to speak publicly, were privately concerned with the "duty to report" provisions that would leave them practicing "defensively" rather than always in their clients' best interest.

The standard for confiscation--"clear and convincing evidence"--was, as written, far too amenable for later watering down to the insidiously weak "preponderance of the evidence" standard that the Federal government now insists be used in all civil rights and sexual harassment complaints--and insisted upon based on Executive fiat rather than Legislative process.

Oddly enough this all plays out against the background of another senseless shooting, this time in a Florida movie theater, where the victim had refused to stop texting and then apparently threw popcorn at an armed man.  The 71-year-old man who alleged fired the shots was retired Tampa police officer.

It is worth considering (when you're thinking about the politics of gun control in Delaware) that many of the same supporters of this bill also supported an exemption for current and retired police officers in last year's not-quite-universal background checks law.

How did that happen?

How did police officers, who suffer as a group from higher rates of depression, alcoholism, domestic abuse, and PTSD than the general population, get exempted from a gun control measure in a state where everyone from the Attorney General on down to the former Delaware State Police officer who is the Speaker of the House tells us they have nothing in mind but public safety?

Could it be that there's simply politics as usual on all sides of this debate?

Comments

delacrat said…
Every nut can get a gun, but not everyone can get a job.

God Bless Amerika !

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...