PDA

View Full Version : Can a Pro2A lawmaker sneak a SICCW into a budget bill?


Window_Seat
06-02-2009, 5:10 PM
Gov. Schwarzenegger and other media are saying that a budget "must be passed" by June 15. Anyone? The National Park Carry measure was included into the credit card company punishment bill (or I could be wrong on that) so why not something like this? At least one can try to sneak one into the next bill that "must" be passed, no?:eek:

Erik.

bwiese
06-02-2009, 5:12 PM
Nope.

Unlike for Fed lawmaking, California has a "single-subject" limitation for bills.

There probably have been incidences where quite-different-but-same-theme items were glued together, but they were close enough to pass the 'smell test'. But gluing gun stuff into a, say, water bill just won't fly.

Kid Stanislaus
06-02-2009, 5:25 PM
On top of that, this is Commiefornia. You might as well try to sneak a pot roast past a hungry Doberman!

DDT
06-02-2009, 7:27 PM
Unlike for Fed lawmaking, California has a "single-subject" limitation for bills.


I knew there was a single issue rule for propositions but I wasn't aware of one for legislation. No "Omnibus" bills for us? I actually think that's a good rule and probably serves us better in more situations than where it might hurt us. Even without that rule I doubt you'd find a majority to vote for increasing gun rights even for an amendment to a bill.

nhanson
06-03-2009, 6:34 AM
Nope.

Unlike for Fed lawmaking, California has a "single-subject" limitation for bills.

There probably have been incidences where quite-different-but-same-theme items were glued together, but they were close enough to pass the 'smell test'. But gluing gun stuff into a, say, water bill just won't fly.

Last budget vote added in a "primary election" clause for California with the budget bill. That was the concession the Dems made to get the budget passed.

I don't see why a "CCW" change could not be added this time, or something else.

HunterJim
06-03-2009, 8:24 AM
The problem is the Democrat leadership has absolute control of bill text. You aren't going to see evil gun stuff added to any of the bills.

Congress has different rules.

jim

jasilva
06-03-2009, 9:49 AM
The problem is the Democrat leadership has absolute control of bill text. You aren't going to see evil gun stuff added to any of the bills.

Congress has different rules.

jim

They don't control enough votes however to pass a budget without someone from across the aisle. So it could be the item that some pro 2a Repube asks for in exchange for an aye vote. Might as well get something out of the budget voting since this state is going under financially no matter what.

HunterJim
06-03-2009, 2:06 PM
Wow, I don't know who that mystery member would be, got any ideas?...jim ;)

bwiese
06-03-2009, 2:15 PM
Ballot measures are restricted by single-subject provision of constitution.

But legislative reach may be restricted by assembly/senate 'Rules'.

Every law I've seen in CA is single-subject and I don't hear of "glue-ons" like we do in US Senate/Congress ("guns in parks" attached to unrelated "credit card reform" as a "rider").

M198
06-03-2009, 4:00 PM
How about a state prop? I have to vote every time a school district whines they might have to layoff their 150k+ elementary school psychologist or their 80k+ Kindergarten teachers with a masters degree (I know one personally). Why not add a prop that lawmakers shall pass no laws infringing the rights of Californians to bear arms? Worked with gay marriage and it withstood the CSC challenge.

CaptainGlock
06-03-2009, 5:38 PM
How about a state prop? I have to vote every time a school district whines they might have to layoff their 150k+ elementary school psychologist or their 80k+ Kindergarten teachers with a masters degree (I know one personally). Why not add a prop that lawmakers shall pass no laws infringing the rights of Californians to bear arms? Worked with gay marriage and it withstood the CSC challenge.

Would such a proposition pass in California? I doubt it. In Montana or Arizona, yes, but unlikely here. Think about who gets elected in this state and by whom. In the Central Valley and "rural" counties, such a proposition would most likely win, but there are more voters in urban areas.

If we can't count on the state lawmakers or a majority of the voters to support our civil rights, we need to do what those who fought for civil rights for minorities under similar circumstances did--go to the courts.