PDA

View Full Version : Riders on the (budget) storm?


CCWFacts
02-17-2009, 2:50 PM
They can't pass the budget without getting one more Republican vote and he wants some riders (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/18calif.html?ref=us):

Discussions were expected to stretch on through the afternoon in Sacramento, where Democrats seemed to essentially be trying to figure out some way to mollify the Republican Senator Abel Maldonado, who wants many non-budget-related bills tucked into the package, including one calling for open primary election.

It would be truly wonderful if one of those riders would be a CCW reform rider. The State is early-releasing about 60,000 convicts. We could really use CCWs now. I wonder if there's some way to get that kind of thing into a package like this, to garner support from the few, the proud, the true conservatives in the California leg.

tube_ee
02-17-2009, 2:54 PM
Simply brilliant.

Anybody on the CalGuns board working any angles like this?

--Shannon

PS: I love political judo... no matter who does it, I find it fascinating to watch.

CCWFacts
02-17-2009, 3:25 PM
Hey it's a very simple rider. You just make this change:

12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D)

They could just slip that in there. Strike out seven words.

The cost to the state is flat zero, and, unlike asking for open primaries, it's not some "OMG" change to California's political process or anything.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 3:28 PM
In theory it's good.

In practice our leg folks believe vote trading is bad - leading to issue crossing - and are single-subject focused. That also allows the gun folks to not be tied into politics du jour and risk losing by picking the wrong side on the side issue.

That's the problem with CAFR (Kathy Lynch) and the old CRPA lobbyist - issues got entangled, and quite a few times the RKBA gun issues got traded away for other clients' interests.

CCWFacts
02-17-2009, 3:32 PM
In practice our leg folks believe vote trading is bad - leading to issue crossing - and are single-subject focused.

But this is anything but politics du jour. It's the state laying off workers and starting to send out IOUs and needing a 2/3 vote to move forward. This kind of opportunity may be the only time ever to get a legislative fix on CCW reform. This is not "I'll trade you a lead ban for a foie gras ban" or something.

This is not only a must-must-must pass bill that requires 2/3, it's also an "Arnie-must-must-sign" bill. This state's credit rating has been cut. We're on the brink of state government insolvency, within a few weeks at most. What other opportunity will there ever be for a handful of conservatives to the leg. to demand something like this, especially something which is zero-cost?

Dr Rockso
02-17-2009, 3:58 PM
Usually I absolutely hate riders, but in this case I'd take it :thumbsup:.

Wizard99
02-17-2009, 3:58 PM
Only if we could get CCW reform, drop the AW ban, drop the 50 BMG ban, 10 day waiting period and kill the roster. Then maybe.

SwissFluCase
02-17-2009, 4:17 PM
I say stick it in there. Just seven words. They do **** like this to us all the time. Why not the other way around?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Adonlude
02-17-2009, 4:22 PM
Awesome! I'm glad to see that some good Republicans are doing their best to keep taxes from being raised to support CA's rediculous spending habits.

bernieb90
02-17-2009, 4:42 PM
Forget CCW most people won't be able to afford a gun when they charge 9.75% sales tax on it and the ammo, raise your income tax by 1%, and gas tax by 14 cents, and leave you lying naked in the street with no job. Even Obama is smart enough to know that tax hikes during a recession is economic suicide.

yellowfin
02-17-2009, 4:48 PM
They could alternatively add "repeal PC 12031" which is even shorter wording and pave the way for shall issue that way.

trashman
02-17-2009, 5:39 PM
They could alternatively add "repeal PC 12031" which is even shorter wording and pave the way for shall issue that way.

The only way something like that gets "slipped" into a bill is if it's a many-thousand-page budget omnibus or something like the Stimulus Bill -- where the electronic copies of the document were scanned images -- thus not indexed and quickly text/string searchable. It was so unwieldy that very few folks had a chance to completely grok it before vote-time.

There is so much attention on the lone budget-vote holdout that any kind of high-profile RKBA rider might end up doing us more harm than good, politically.

Much better the get some useful fiscal concessions from the Dems in exchange for the vote.

--Neill

bwiese
02-17-2009, 5:57 PM
Also, RKBA provisions would likely not pass the single-subject limitations.

Meplat
02-17-2009, 9:53 PM
Jeez how about the moon on a silver platter.


Only if we could get CCW reform, drop the AW ban, drop the 50 BMG ban, 10 day waiting period and kill the roster. Then maybe.

Swiss
02-17-2009, 10:03 PM
He's holding up the vote to add "non-budget related bills" while the state's in crisis. Think about it. If he was holding out for tax cuts or reducing spending that might be sticking to principles. I hope they drive the pr*ck from office.

yellowfin
02-17-2009, 11:21 PM
The only way something like that gets "slipped" into a bill is if it's a many-thousand-page budget omnibus or something like the Stimulus Bill -- where the electronic copies of the document were scanned images -- thus not indexed and quickly text/string searchable. It was so unwieldy that very few folks had a chance to completely grok it before vote-time.
Or...

There is so much attention on the lone budget-vote holdout that any kind of high-profile RKBA rider might end up doing us more harm than good, politically.
lWhich is it? Either A) they're paying attention to details so heavily that a 5 to 7 word rider that either enacts Shall Issue or repeals LOC ban, which is a luxury the situation does not afford or B) they're in crisis and can't afford not to pass the budget. Can't be both at the same time. Nuke the bastards, in a manner of speaking. Want your budget, Donkey party? Give us the freakin' carry rights back and/or EVERYTHING the 2A affords ordinary state folks or p*** off.

CCWFacts
02-18-2009, 12:14 AM
Nuke the bastards, in a manner of speaking. Want your budget, Donkey party? Give us the freakin' carry rights back

That's basically what I was thinking when I started this thread.

I must give credit to someone else: "Never let a crisis go to waste" is what inspired my idea.

trashman
02-18-2009, 6:37 AM
Which is it? Either A) they're paying attention to details so heavily that a 5 to 7 word rider that either enacts Shall Issue or repeals LOC ban, which is a luxury the situation does not afford or B) they're in crisis and can't afford not to pass the budget. Can't be both at the same time. Nuke the bastards, in a manner of speaking. Want your budget, Donkey party? Give us the freakin' carry rights back and/or EVERYTHING the 2A affords ordinary state folks or p*** off.

They're not mutually exclusive - both things I said are true. Do you remember who got hammered for "shutting down the governnment" back in the Clinton years when Congress couldn't produce a budget? The Republicans.

Rightly or wrongly, tn these protracted situations the public tends to not view the holdouts very kindly.

Plus, doesn't this bill go into conference soon since the Assembly bill is a little different (i.e., doesn't have CCW in it) ? What do you think happens then? Probably would get negotiated away since it's not budget related.

I'm all for using leverage where we got it - but I think you perceive more leverage than actually exists in this unfortunate situation.

--Neill

trashman
02-18-2009, 7:44 AM
Apropos of this discussion: Senate GOP ousts their leader overnight. (httphttp://sacbee.com/topstories/story/1632839.html)

vrand
02-18-2009, 7:50 AM
Only if we could get CCW reform, drop the AW ban, drop the 50 BMG ban, 10 day waiting period and kill the roster. Then maybe.

Oh, and add, take out the 1000 foot school zone down to 10 feet.

:thumbsup:

bulgron
02-18-2009, 8:16 AM
Oh, and add, take out the 1000 foot school zone down to 10 feet.

:thumbsup:

10 feet? Then I can't be on a public sidewalk just because it just happens to go by a school? BS!

Here's a compromise, don't allow guns within 1000' of a school if you are intent on dealing or purchasing illegal drugs, or in such an emotionally unbalanced state that you are of imminent murderous intent. Leave the rest of us alone.

I'm sure the anti's will rest easy once we make it illegal for drug dealers and crazed killers to come within 1000' of a school. I mean, that'll keep them away. :online2long:

vrand
02-18-2009, 8:41 AM
10 feet? Then I can't be on a public sidewalk just because it just happens to go by a school? BS!

Here's a compromise, don't allow guns within 1000' of a school if you are intent on dealing or purchasing illegal drugs, or in such an emotionally unbalanced state that you are of imminent murderous intent. Leave the rest of us alone.

I'm sure the anti's will rest easy once we make it illegal for drug dealers and crazed killers to come within 1000' of a school. I mean, that'll keep them away. :online2long:

Too open ended for some creative DA. Need to stick to some distance so there is no question.

Maybe limited to just the school property, if 10 feet is too much.