TVGuy wrote:What was the "strict enforcement" motion that Stickland just made?
Must vote from their own desk and cannot vote for another Member.
Chas.
Thank you, Charles. Any idea of a reason Stickland would do that?
Not that I can post.
Chas.
Probably because of the same reasons that are running through my head. I can't post those thoughts either or you or Keith would bust me again for being a bad guy.
The "strict enforcement" rule when in effect, allows the speaker to only acknowledge one yea and one nay verbally (hand raised fingers) and the remainder votes must be from each member's chair.
And I think Stickland also wanted a "record vote" on every amendment. Speaker Straus sort of truncated that from his response to Stickland. It's probably that most amendments to HB910 will be a "record vote" anyway, so it looks like just another way to prolong passage.
Why do you keep trying to explain this to me when I already understand what is going on?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
TVGuy wrote:What was the "strict enforcement" motion that Stickland just made?
Must vote from their own desk and cannot vote for another Member.
Chas.
Thank you, Charles. Any idea of a reason Stickland would do that?
Not that I can post.
Chas.
Probably because of the same reasons that are running through my head. I can't post those thoughts either or you or Keith would bust me again for being a bad guy.
The "strict enforcement" rule when in effect, allows the speaker to only acknowledge one yea and one nay verbally (hand raised fingers) and the remainder votes must be from each member's chair.
And I think Stickland also wanted a "record vote" on every amendment. Speaker Straus sort of truncated that from his response to Stickland. It's probably that most amendments to HB910 will be a "record vote" anyway, so it looks like just another way to prolong passage.
Why do you keep trying to explain this to me when I already understand what is going on?
Seriously?!?! To exercise my "right" to carry, I have to have liability insurance?? Driving a car is NOT a right. it is a privilege, that is not guaranteed by the Constitution. This is absolutely absurd!
Since I am in the business I guess I should be for this one but I'm not.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Jason73 wrote:Seriously?!?! To exercise my "right" to carry, I have to have liability insurance?? Driving a car is NOT a right. it is a privilege, that is not guaranteed by the Constitution. This is absolutely absurd!
Apparently requiring people to obtain an ID to vote is a horrible burden on those who are poor or live in underserved areas, but requiring a CHL class, a fee paid to the state and insurance to carry a gun is not.
He's comparing getting hit with a bullet to getting hit by a car.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
