- Messages
- 1,525
- Reactions
- 1,424
Holy mother of Rants!
I'd like to read what you have to say, but SHEESE Man!
Paragraphs Force you to stop and breathe a little.
And they make ANYTHING 572% easier to read................
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
SB 941 Now in House Committee
- Thread Starter papahepcat
- Start date
Holy mother of Rants!
I'd like to read what you have to say, but SHEESE Man!
Paragraphs Force you to stop and breathe a little.
And they make ANYTHING 572% easier to read................
- Messages
- 1,525
- Reactions
- 1,424
Some have a longer attention span than others...IJS
Yes, and some.............................uh, what was I going to say????????????
I didn't mean to "jump on you in front of everyone", so sorry.
I'll send you a private conversation explaining that MANY-MANY people do not read such long paragraphs, and since you seem to do it often, what you have to say may go unread, which would be a shame. You may have something important to say. But if few read it, it will go unread. That could be detrimental to you, only in the fact that others may not discover your extreme wisdom and insight. Now, if this is not important to you, I apologize and will completely back off. Because of my background, I am probably more sensitive to these types of errors. But again, it is all part of the dumbing down of America, so I feel I should do what I can to help others improve, and if this means being a jerk, then I guess that is the price I pay. So, thanks for what I deem is a joke, yet at the same time a serious comment from you about attention spans. Maybe I should just shut up
- Messages
- 3,868
- Reactions
- 3,788
Let's bombard the House against the SB 941. My issue deals with the law abiding citizen part--if that piece was eliminated along with background checks to my family, friends etc. then I'd feel better about it. Dangerous felons or dangerous mentally ill should be contained some how. Let's bombard against in its' present form. tkdguy.
- Messages
- 109
- Reactions
- 96
I don't have a computer so I'm launching my activism from an IPhone. Sorry for the lack of paragraphs.
How about zero more compromises.
All the bill is bad. Do not give them another inch. Next they will want your skin .....To make lamp shades from [emoji53] [emoji109]
- Messages
- 1,525
- Reactions
- 1,424
How about a direct link to where these bombardments should be received
- Messages
- 2,585
- Reactions
- 7,088
I just heard Prozanski on the Mark and Dave show lying through his teeth. Throwing around statistics about how effective the State Police have been at stopping bad guys from buying guns through background checks.
And that how people on Armslist advertise "no questions asked" when selling guns...and that they will only
accept cash. Well, duh, of course it's cash only. Just like Craigs list, to which he compared it.
And that how people on Armslist advertise "no questions asked" when selling guns...and that they will only
accept cash. Well, duh, of course it's cash only. Just like Craigs list, to which he compared it.
- Messages
- 1,525
- Reactions
- 1,424
This isnt a background check, this is a registration scheme.
- Messages
- 3,868
- Reactions
- 3,788
Fact vs. fiction on background checks and the gun control debate
By Dr. John R. Lott Jr.
Published April 09, 2013
FoxNews.com
Facebook966 Twitter228 livefyre63 Email Print
NOW PLAYING
President puts pressure on Congress over gun control
Never autoplay videos
Will Senate Democrats be able to end debate on their new gun control bill Tuesday night? President Obama says that it is "not right" to continue the debate. But he might be more afraid that Senators will point out all of his false claims and reveal the gun control bill's dangers.
Mr. Obama got it all backwards in his April 3rd speech in Colorado: "tougher background checks . . . won't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people."
The president kept claiming this week and last week that: <broken link removed> and that <broken link removed> But both statistics are false.
There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime.
Start with the 40 percent figure. That number comes from a very small study covering purchases during 1991 to 1994. Not only is that two decades-old data, but it covered sales before the federal Brady Act took effect on February 28, 1994. The act required federally licensed dealers to perform background checks.
More on this...
Counting only guns that were sold gives a very different perspective, with only 14 percent not actually going through federally licensed dealers. But even that is much too high as there were biases in the survey. For example, two-thirds of federally licensed dealers at the time were so-called "kitchen table" dealers who sold gun out of their homes and most buyers surveyed were likely unaware these individuals were indeed licensed.
By the way, that survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If President Obama really trusts the study, he should stop raging about the "gun show loophole."
The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors.
This is the same problem experienced with the "No Fly" list. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy was "initially denied" flights because his name was on the anti-terror "no fly" list? His name was just too similar to someone that we really did want to keep from flying. By Obama's method of counting, that means the "no fly" list stopped five flights by terrorists.
For gun purchases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosivesdropped over 94 percent of "initial denials" after just the first preliminary review. The annual National Instant Criminal Background Check System report explains that these cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent were still false positives.
All these denials mean delays for many law-abiding gun buyers. Although this is merely an inconvenience for most, initial denials cause dangerous delays for people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend or spouse.
Beyond the crashes in the computers doing the checks and the initial denials, another 6 percent of checks fail to be completed within two hours, with most delays winding up taking three days.
President Obama ignores what happens to those who suddenly feel threatened. A gun really can make a huge difference in being able to defend against assailants.
Indeed, my own research suggests these delays from the background check system likely increase violent crime, even if ever so slightly. Perhaps not too surprisingly, rape appears to be the crime most sensitive to these delays.
Furthermore, there is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime. In fact, a 2004 National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that the Brady background checks didn't reduce any type of violent crime. Nor have other later studies found a beneficial effect.
The number of criminals stopped by the checks is also quite small. In 2010, there were over 76,000 initial denials, but only 44 of those were deemed worthy for prosecution and only 13 individuals were convicted. Even those 13 cases don't tend to be the "dangerous" criminals Obama claims are being stopped.
The delays have other consequences. States that have applied background checks to sales by private individuals have seen around a 20 percent drop in the number of gun shows, eliminating for many poorer people a relatively inexpensive source of buying guns. For gun shows, which usually only last two days, even a three-day delay means that no sale will be made.
The fees in the Senate bill on those getting background checks on gun transfers are not trivial, ranging from $35 to $50 in most states and rising as high as $125 in the District of Columbia.
This effective tax will price poor blacks -- the people most likely to be victims of violent crime -- out of being able to buy a gun for self-defense. Americans might also not be ready for a national registry.
Expanded background checks might intuitively seem to make sense. But how laws work in theory is often different from how they work in the real world. Unless the databases somehow are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for <broken link removed> . He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of eight books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench" Bascom Hill Publishing Group (September 17, 2013). Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.
By Dr. John R. Lott Jr.
Published April 09, 2013
FoxNews.com
Facebook966 Twitter228 livefyre63 Email Print
NOW PLAYING
President puts pressure on Congress over gun control
Never autoplay videos
Will Senate Democrats be able to end debate on their new gun control bill Tuesday night? President Obama says that it is "not right" to continue the debate. But he might be more afraid that Senators will point out all of his false claims and reveal the gun control bill's dangers.
Mr. Obama got it all backwards in his April 3rd speech in Colorado: "tougher background checks . . . won't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people."
The president kept claiming this week and last week that: <broken link removed> and that <broken link removed> But both statistics are false.
There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime.
Start with the 40 percent figure. That number comes from a very small study covering purchases during 1991 to 1994. Not only is that two decades-old data, but it covered sales before the federal Brady Act took effect on February 28, 1994. The act required federally licensed dealers to perform background checks.
- Obama takes gun control message to CT
- Newtown parent: More gun control is not the answer
- Giffords and NRA weigh in on gun control
- What's the holdup on gun control?
- Senators work on possible breakthrough on gun background checks
- Immigration, gun control top congressional agenda
Counting only guns that were sold gives a very different perspective, with only 14 percent not actually going through federally licensed dealers. But even that is much too high as there were biases in the survey. For example, two-thirds of federally licensed dealers at the time were so-called "kitchen table" dealers who sold gun out of their homes and most buyers surveyed were likely unaware these individuals were indeed licensed.
By the way, that survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If President Obama really trusts the study, he should stop raging about the "gun show loophole."
The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors.
This is the same problem experienced with the "No Fly" list. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy was "initially denied" flights because his name was on the anti-terror "no fly" list? His name was just too similar to someone that we really did want to keep from flying. By Obama's method of counting, that means the "no fly" list stopped five flights by terrorists.
For gun purchases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosivesdropped over 94 percent of "initial denials" after just the first preliminary review. The annual National Instant Criminal Background Check System report explains that these cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent were still false positives.
All these denials mean delays for many law-abiding gun buyers. Although this is merely an inconvenience for most, initial denials cause dangerous delays for people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend or spouse.
Beyond the crashes in the computers doing the checks and the initial denials, another 6 percent of checks fail to be completed within two hours, with most delays winding up taking three days.
President Obama ignores what happens to those who suddenly feel threatened. A gun really can make a huge difference in being able to defend against assailants.
Indeed, my own research suggests these delays from the background check system likely increase violent crime, even if ever so slightly. Perhaps not too surprisingly, rape appears to be the crime most sensitive to these delays.
Furthermore, there is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime. In fact, a 2004 National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that the Brady background checks didn't reduce any type of violent crime. Nor have other later studies found a beneficial effect.
The number of criminals stopped by the checks is also quite small. In 2010, there were over 76,000 initial denials, but only 44 of those were deemed worthy for prosecution and only 13 individuals were convicted. Even those 13 cases don't tend to be the "dangerous" criminals Obama claims are being stopped.
The delays have other consequences. States that have applied background checks to sales by private individuals have seen around a 20 percent drop in the number of gun shows, eliminating for many poorer people a relatively inexpensive source of buying guns. For gun shows, which usually only last two days, even a three-day delay means that no sale will be made.
The fees in the Senate bill on those getting background checks on gun transfers are not trivial, ranging from $35 to $50 in most states and rising as high as $125 in the District of Columbia.
This effective tax will price poor blacks -- the people most likely to be victims of violent crime -- out of being able to buy a gun for self-defense. Americans might also not be ready for a national registry.
Expanded background checks might intuitively seem to make sense. But how laws work in theory is often different from how they work in the real world. Unless the databases somehow are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for <broken link removed> . He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of eight books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench" Bascom Hill Publishing Group (September 17, 2013). Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.
- Messages
- 3,868
- Reactions
- 3,788
Can some one send this to the House Republicans; I think I just sent it to the House Democrats.
That is: John Lott's article above. thanks tkdguy
That is: John Lott's article above. thanks tkdguy
- Messages
- 3,868
- Reactions
- 3,788
SB 941 will accomplish nothing.
Follow on Twitter
on April 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, updated April 17, 2015 at 9:17 AM
0
Reddit
Email
<broken link removed>
Sponsored Link
View attachment 234379
By Sen. Betsy Johnson
It's hard to tell what Americans love more -- guns or gun laws. We have plenty of both. That should say something about how ineffective gun laws are. Nevertheless, we will soon have yet another gun law here in Oregon. The latest one, Senate Bill 941, will supposedly close a loophole in private gun sales. If you're a private seller, you and the buyer will have to go to a licensed gun dealer and have the dealer run a background check to make sure the buyer isn't a felon or mentally ill.
Ex-felons already know they cannot legally possess a gun unless they successfully petition the court. Not surprisingly, most ex-felons who acquire a gun do so on the black market or through other illegal means. SB941 won't change that. As for halting gun sales to the mentally ill, that is a noble cause. Unfortunately, many of the mentally ill shooters who make the news are deemed mentally ill only after they kill someone.
The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board endorses SB941, arguing that it would bring "three years of off-and-on bickering to a close." But three years is nothing in the debate on gun control. We've been arguing about guns in America for more than a century, so long that conservatives and liberals have switched sides. (The first state to ban all pistol purchases was South Carolina in 1902.)
Today, my constituents are all over the political spectrum when it comes to guns. What everybody wants, though, is to keep guns out of the wrong hands. There is no law that can do that. None. Even outright confiscation and a ban won't keep guns out of the wrong hands. Any politician who tells you otherwise is either lying or desperate to look like he or she is doing something. The brutal truth is that too many of my colleagues don't want to acknowledge that mistakes have been made.
Our problem isn't guns -- it's politics. Here are a few loopholes that Senate Bill 941 won't touch:
• First major loophole: Our failure to restrict the freedoms of the violent, mentally ill. If you've got a Jared Loughner or an Adam Lanza in your family, you're on your own. If you have a son who scares you, good luck trying to get somebody to do something before he makes the news. The mentally ill have rights, including the right to roam and the right not to take their medicine. SB941 will do nothing to correct decades' worth of bipartisan mistakes that began when we thought mental illness could be cured by drugs and expanded civil rights.
• Second major loophole: Our failure to restrict the freedom of dangerous felons. Every week it seems The Oregonian/OregonLive reports on a violent crime committed by a suspect who has already been convicted of previous felonies and has done little or no time. SB941 does nothing to strengthen and enforce prison sentences against felons.
On the contrary, the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, tried unsuccessfully in the 2013 legislative session to include weaker sentencing guidelines for assault, robbery and sexual abuse in House Bill 3194. He wanted the bill to also expand expungement, making it easier for convicted felons to wipe clean their criminal records. Prozanski has promised to revisit this issue. What good does it do to pass a law requiring more background checks for gun sales if you're trying to make it easier for felons to lie about their criminal histories?
• Third major loophole: Our failure as a society to acknowledge metastasizing moral decay. Behavior that we would've once scorned we are now told to accept -- whether it's drug addiction, a college student getting so drunk she passes out, a drug peddler selling drugs that can ruin a person's life (drug dealing, we are told, is a nonviolent, victimless crime) or committing any number of felonies that are now dismissed as minor (auto theft, burglary, assault). If the criminal is a substance abuser, his behavior is dismissed as an innocuous-sounding "drug crime."
What is most disturbing about Sen. Prozanski's SB941 is that it's fighting last century's gun war. In this century, gun manufacturing is going DIY. It's getting easier and cheaper to obtain parts and blueprints to make your own gun. At least one politician -- Gov. Jerry Brown of California -- understands this. Last year he vetoed a bill that would have made it a crime to make one of these guns without obtaining a serial number and registering it.
"I can't see how adding a serial number to a homemade gun would significantly advance public safety," Brown stated.
A serial number doesn't make a gun less lethal.
Oregon's SB941 is headed for passage. There will be lip-smacking, self-congratulations all around. Then what? Undoubtedly, somebody who shouldn't legally have a gun will ignore the law, get a gun and do what he or she wants. Just as predictably, excuses will be made for the gunman, and blame will be assigned to the gun. Eventually we will run out of gun laws. Eventually we will be forced to go after the criminals whose fingers are on the triggers. There's the biggest loophole.
•
Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, represents District 16, covering Clatsop and Columbia counties and parts of Multnomah, Tillamook and Washington.
Follow on Twitter
on April 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, updated April 17, 2015 at 9:17 AM
0
<broken link removed>
Sponsored Link
View attachment 234379
By Sen. Betsy Johnson
It's hard to tell what Americans love more -- guns or gun laws. We have plenty of both. That should say something about how ineffective gun laws are. Nevertheless, we will soon have yet another gun law here in Oregon. The latest one, Senate Bill 941, will supposedly close a loophole in private gun sales. If you're a private seller, you and the buyer will have to go to a licensed gun dealer and have the dealer run a background check to make sure the buyer isn't a felon or mentally ill.
Ex-felons already know they cannot legally possess a gun unless they successfully petition the court. Not surprisingly, most ex-felons who acquire a gun do so on the black market or through other illegal means. SB941 won't change that. As for halting gun sales to the mentally ill, that is a noble cause. Unfortunately, many of the mentally ill shooters who make the news are deemed mentally ill only after they kill someone.
The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board endorses SB941, arguing that it would bring "three years of off-and-on bickering to a close." But three years is nothing in the debate on gun control. We've been arguing about guns in America for more than a century, so long that conservatives and liberals have switched sides. (The first state to ban all pistol purchases was South Carolina in 1902.)
Today, my constituents are all over the political spectrum when it comes to guns. What everybody wants, though, is to keep guns out of the wrong hands. There is no law that can do that. None. Even outright confiscation and a ban won't keep guns out of the wrong hands. Any politician who tells you otherwise is either lying or desperate to look like he or she is doing something. The brutal truth is that too many of my colleagues don't want to acknowledge that mistakes have been made.
Our problem isn't guns -- it's politics. Here are a few loopholes that Senate Bill 941 won't touch:
• First major loophole: Our failure to restrict the freedoms of the violent, mentally ill. If you've got a Jared Loughner or an Adam Lanza in your family, you're on your own. If you have a son who scares you, good luck trying to get somebody to do something before he makes the news. The mentally ill have rights, including the right to roam and the right not to take their medicine. SB941 will do nothing to correct decades' worth of bipartisan mistakes that began when we thought mental illness could be cured by drugs and expanded civil rights.
• Second major loophole: Our failure to restrict the freedom of dangerous felons. Every week it seems The Oregonian/OregonLive reports on a violent crime committed by a suspect who has already been convicted of previous felonies and has done little or no time. SB941 does nothing to strengthen and enforce prison sentences against felons.
On the contrary, the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, tried unsuccessfully in the 2013 legislative session to include weaker sentencing guidelines for assault, robbery and sexual abuse in House Bill 3194. He wanted the bill to also expand expungement, making it easier for convicted felons to wipe clean their criminal records. Prozanski has promised to revisit this issue. What good does it do to pass a law requiring more background checks for gun sales if you're trying to make it easier for felons to lie about their criminal histories?
• Third major loophole: Our failure as a society to acknowledge metastasizing moral decay. Behavior that we would've once scorned we are now told to accept -- whether it's drug addiction, a college student getting so drunk she passes out, a drug peddler selling drugs that can ruin a person's life (drug dealing, we are told, is a nonviolent, victimless crime) or committing any number of felonies that are now dismissed as minor (auto theft, burglary, assault). If the criminal is a substance abuser, his behavior is dismissed as an innocuous-sounding "drug crime."
What is most disturbing about Sen. Prozanski's SB941 is that it's fighting last century's gun war. In this century, gun manufacturing is going DIY. It's getting easier and cheaper to obtain parts and blueprints to make your own gun. At least one politician -- Gov. Jerry Brown of California -- understands this. Last year he vetoed a bill that would have made it a crime to make one of these guns without obtaining a serial number and registering it.
"I can't see how adding a serial number to a homemade gun would significantly advance public safety," Brown stated.
A serial number doesn't make a gun less lethal.
Oregon's SB941 is headed for passage. There will be lip-smacking, self-congratulations all around. Then what? Undoubtedly, somebody who shouldn't legally have a gun will ignore the law, get a gun and do what he or she wants. Just as predictably, excuses will be made for the gunman, and blame will be assigned to the gun. Eventually we will run out of gun laws. Eventually we will be forced to go after the criminals whose fingers are on the triggers. There's the biggest loophole.
•
Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, represents District 16, covering Clatsop and Columbia counties and parts of Multnomah, Tillamook and Washington.
GUN GRAB BILL UPDATE
View attachment 234381
Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization
.
04.20.15
SB 941, the mandatory gun owner registration bill, is scheduled for its House hearing this Wednesday, at 3pm in HR 50 in the House Rules Committee.
While the public hearing starts at 3pm, invited testimony begins at 1pm. You may sign up to testify starting 11.30 am.
Please come, especially if you have been the victim of the failed background check system.
This hearing is very important. The counties oppose this bill, the sheriffs oppose this bill. We need you to come and oppose it! If you want to send written testimony please send it to this address:
[email protected]
- Oregon Firearms Federation
- Today at 1:18 PM
View attachment 234381
Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization
.
04.20.15
SB 941, the mandatory gun owner registration bill, is scheduled for its House hearing this Wednesday, at 3pm in HR 50 in the House Rules Committee.
While the public hearing starts at 3pm, invited testimony begins at 1pm. You may sign up to testify starting 11.30 am.
Please come, especially if you have been the victim of the failed background check system.
This hearing is very important. The counties oppose this bill, the sheriffs oppose this bill. We need you to come and oppose it! If you want to send written testimony please send it to this address:
[email protected]
- Messages
- 2,585
- Reactions
- 7,088
I sent them an email! Don't know if they read it or not....Call Mark & Dave and refute this!!!!!!!!!
They've (Dem's for the passing of this bill) have now purchased air-time and have a commercial by a "gun-owner" who encourages the passing of this for public safety....riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
As a former cop, CA gun laws (restrictions) made if difficult for the law-abiding, not the scoff-laws.
Even L/E had to adhere to the 10-day waiting period...and this is how it all started.
Yea, it really fixed all the gang related homicides in Kalirofrnia...knott!
As a former cop, CA gun laws (restrictions) made if difficult for the law-abiding, not the scoff-laws.
Even L/E had to adhere to the 10-day waiting period...and this is how it all started.
Yea, it really fixed all the gang related homicides in Kalirofrnia...knott!
- Messages
- 89
- Reactions
- 86
- Thread Starter
- #80
Representative Post... um... posted this on FB yesterday:
Gun Rights Activists Call to Action!! #orleg #orpol #2A
Here is your chance to have the dialogue that was missed in the Senate on SB 941.
Unlike what happen in the Senate Judiciary committee a week or so ago, where testimony on this bill was limited to 2 hours, and hundreds of people drove for hundreds of miles and were not allowed to participate, Representative Val Hoyle, Chair of House Rules has graciously promised that EVERYONE will get their say when it comes to SB 941 (Universal Background Check bill). She is allowing testimony to go until all have spoken, even late into the night. The hearing will begin at 3pm and go until 10pm. See details of time, location and more:
In addition, Chair Hoyle has asked that Rep. Williamson, a proponent of SB 941, and myself, Rep. Post, an opponent of SB 941, to sit in on the committee at the dais and participate in the hearing.
I am asking you, the Second Amendment Rights supporters to come and participate. If you do come, please respect the rules and the decorum of our democratic process. That includes, not cheering and applauding but rather respectfully listening to each person testify. All testimony will be limited to 2 minutes so that the maximum amount of people on both sides can speak. This is an after hours event therefore you'll find free street parking after 5pm.
Please share this invitation (on Facebook, Twitter etc) as it is vital for our 2nd amendment rights supporters to fill this committee room and make our voices heard.
Visit me at http://www.billpost.us
Here is your chance to have the dialogue that was missed in the Senate on SB 941.
Unlike what happen in the Senate Judiciary committee a week or so ago, where testimony on this bill was limited to 2 hours, and hundreds of people drove for hundreds of miles and were not allowed to participate, Representative Val Hoyle, Chair of House Rules has graciously promised that EVERYONE will get their say when it comes to SB 941 (Universal Background Check bill). She is allowing testimony to go until all have spoken, even late into the night. The hearing will begin at 3pm and go until 10pm. See details of time, location and more:
In addition, Chair Hoyle has asked that Rep. Williamson, a proponent of SB 941, and myself, Rep. Post, an opponent of SB 941, to sit in on the committee at the dais and participate in the hearing.
I am asking you, the Second Amendment Rights supporters to come and participate. If you do come, please respect the rules and the decorum of our democratic process. That includes, not cheering and applauding but rather respectfully listening to each person testify. All testimony will be limited to 2 minutes so that the maximum amount of people on both sides can speak. This is an after hours event therefore you'll find free street parking after 5pm.
Please share this invitation (on Facebook, Twitter etc) as it is vital for our 2nd amendment rights supporters to fill this committee room and make our voices heard.
Visit me at http://www.billpost.us
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
Handcrafted Leather Wallets. Made to Last from Full Grain Cowhide. Great Price. $20 to $50- Started by ddjchemist
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
120 rounds 30-06 Springfield Remington & Hornady whitetail
- Started by annikhtyr
- Replies: 0
-