A forum for the First State Firearms Freedom Association, a grassroots lobby for Delaware.
 #84372  by Boots
 
Amy Blackthorn wrote:Well, the news journal just put up their article on today.
Apparently the writer WASN'T EVEN IN THE SAME ROOM because, what?!
Out of the individuals present. (a few represented groups) 2 out if 70 were for this bill. The rest were against. They were so awed that :censored: Mark Kelly was there they all left after his five minute speech. Two hours of testimony later the rest of us left. Wtf.
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... um=twitter
Utter BS.
I liked this part of the article...
Advocates of the bill were far outnumbered by opponents, who say the bill will not stop criminals from accessing firearms and will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to buy a gun.

"There are already tens of thousands of laws on the books regarding firearms. Another law is not going to make any difference whatsoever," said Tim Bond, of Felton. "This bill or others will not stop a single criminal intent on getting a firearm."
 #84374  by Boots
 
Amy Blackthorn wrote:Even though they skipped me, my speech was written and I had it submitted into the written record to be read at the reading of the bill by the full Senate.
I wonder how many others didn't get to speak. Perhaps they had already accomodated all the pro-bill speakers and wanted to cut off the rest? The lack of any explanation naturally leads to a questioning of motives.

I just spent my time refuting some of the erroneous information presented in the remarks of the few Pro-bill speakers that were there, so I spoke extemporaneously.

Next time I go there I plan to have something written out so it can be turned in as you did. Also, having a pre-written presentation will make my delivery much smoother. I was surprised by the un-natural nervousness I felt while speaking there, but I hope I was able to get my points across..
 #84425  by SR9
 
I have found this to be true. As a former "Registered Agent" (Lobbyist) at the Delaware Legislature I have found that when there are hearings, such as it was the other day on HB35, the Democratic controlled committees always seem to get time to hear people that are supporting their mindset, and seem to lose the names or run out of time for those against their pre-decided conclusion. I understand everyone was suppose to get 2 minutes to speak, except Mark Kelly, who got at least 5 minutes and he is not a citizen of Delaware. Sc%$w him, what does an astronaut from Arizona, that is not a registered lobbyist, have to do with a proposed gun bill in Delaware. I feel these committee meetings are a sham, as the majority already has their minds made up and testifying against their position seldom does anything to change their minds.
 #84429  by Strelok
 
I have a bad feeling that all Markell's bills will pass regardless all our writing, calling to the state officials and giving testimonies in committees.
Honestly, since I move to Delaware 10 years ago, I was wondering how it is with overwhelming democratic majority through out the years in the state government we still have what we have in terms of gun laws. I don't want to sound pessimistic but I think we all (law abiding citizens) will get screwed this time around. I hope I'm wrong about this...
 #84435  by stephpd
 
Strelok wrote: I was wondering how it is with overwhelming democratic majority through out the years in the state government we still have what we have in terms of gun laws.
That hasn't always been the case. Not too long ago the Republicans had control of one of the Houses of Congress. We also have had some Republican Governors too. Until recently many of the Democrats were of the 'blue dog' type. or DINO's. Even Carper, while he was governor, didn't touch the third rail. Same for Ruth Ann Miner.


Markell was the first governor to run on an anti 2A platform.
 #84483  by MrCoolDale
 
Amy Blackthorn wrote:Well, the news journal just put up their article on today.
Apparently the writer WASN'T EVEN IN THE SAME ROOM because, what?!
Out of the individuals present. (a few represented groups) 2 out if 70 were for this bill. The rest were against. They were so awed that :censored: Mark Kelly was there they all left after his five minute speech. Two hours of testimony later the rest of us left. Wtf.
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... um=twitter
Utter BS.
I do not claim to be an expert of the English language, but I detest reporters lacking basic language knowledge. The punctuation and grammar of this article is atrocious and the editor should be ashamed. I digress, this has become the norm of newspapers these days.

R.I.P. English; you were always my favorite language.

Back to the topic at hand:
I did not find the article to have a terrible anti-gun slant, as they typically do. I still read it, to a certain extent, as though the reporter had to force themselves to include the remark about this law not actually working. I do, however, have to wonder why a non-Delaware citizen was given time before a Delaware committee, or why he was given 250% more time than those affected by the law.
 #84489  by Boots
 
MrCoolDale wrote:... I do, however, have to wonder why a non-Delaware citizen was given time before a Delaware committee, or why he was given 250% more time than those affected by the law.
Democrats like "celebrities." And, it doesn't matter if they know anything about the subject or not. :kuku:
 #84498  by fieldman
 
MrCoolDale wrote: I do, however, have to wonder why a non-Delaware citizen was given time before a Delaware committee, or why he was given 250% more time than those affected by the law.
I absolutely agree that he should not be testifying at a state level, except for maybe in his home state. It happened there, not here. He can & did testify at the national level, I have no problem with that. It's his right. I don't agree with him getting more time than someone who lives in Delaware, however I think he gets a pass. His wife was shot in the head and it made headlines all over the nation. Even if he was told to keep it to 2min and just proceeded to say whatever he wanted, there's no way for an elected official to cut him off without seeming like a :censored:. If someone did, that would probably be reported on and these guys are in the business of being elected. I don't think any of them want to be known as the guy that cut off the man testifying for gun control whose wife was shot in the head. There's just no benefit in it for them, consequently he gets to take as much time as he wants. There's the way things should be, and the way things are. Unfortunately, the way things are seems to rarely benefit the pro-gun community. :banghead:
 #84506  by stephpd
 
fieldman wrote:
MrCoolDale wrote: I do, however, have to wonder why a non-Delaware citizen was given time before a Delaware committee, or why he was given 250% more time than those affected by the law.
I absolutely agree that he should not be testifying at a state level, except for maybe in his home state. It happened there, not here. He can & did testify at the national level, I have no problem with that. It's his right. I don't agree with him getting more time than someone who lives in Delaware, however I think he gets a pass. His wife was shot in the head and it made headlines all over the nation. Even if he was told to keep it to 2min and just proceeded to say whatever he wanted, there's no way for an elected official to cut him off without seeming like a :censored:. If someone did, that would probably be reported on and these guys are in the business of being elected. I don't think any of them want to be known as the guy that cut off the man testifying for gun control whose wife was shot in the head. There's just no benefit in it for them, consequently he gets to take as much time as he wants. There's the way things should be, and the way things are. Unfortunately, the way things are seems to rarely benefit the pro-gun community. :banghead:

My problem was what was he doing here for this bill? Banning private sales had nothing to do with his situation since the guy that shot his wife had passed a background check to get his gun.

Maybe for limiting the capacity of magazines but not this issue.