Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola
I wouldn't count on that being the entire reasoning that 249 was defeated. Actually it wasn't totally defeated because it only got shut down in a committee. With this being an election year, and with a ballot replete with gratuitous tax measures for the wanting legislature, many of his senate colleagues may have been encouraging him to wait until next year, after they don't have as much at stake, and after they might pick up a bigger majority in the senate, and after they no longer have to worry that people angry over gun control might just be more apt to vote no on tax increases too.
Sure they're afraid of the gun lobby, but only as an irritating component of their constituency. Not necessarily a pivotal one all the time, and not even where it concerns gun legislation only, 'cause they been a 'passin' that all the time.
Actually, the bill *was* "totally defeated" by definition - the bill did not pass on to the floor and the Governor. That should be the goal - getting the win as early as possible. We did that with SB 249.
Your assumptions aside, I can tell you that the Senate was fully invested in passing SB 249. Didn't you notice Steinberg being *added* to the bill and interviewing on it? I'm not sure to what degree you worked the bill but I suspect [based on your statements] that your experience was limited to arms-length advocacy.
It was the Assembly that wasn't happy about SB 249 (for a number of reasons), not the least of which that we'd proven far more capable of staying with the bill (with increasing force) than Yee and the Senate had thought possible.
When the Assembly had all sorts of other bills to deal with and pass (many bills THEY wanted to pass), we turned SB 249 enough of a thorn that Yee's forced amendments became terminally poisonous.