Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill to Senate
- Thread starter anvil6
- Start date
UPDATE: HB4145 is scheduled for a Public Hearing 9:00 - 11:30 Monday morning, Feb 15, 2016.
Feb 15 is the SAME day West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL) had already chosen for their annual "Lobby Day" at the Legislature.
WVCDL members: If you can make it to the Capitol, please do so and be sure to wear your members tee-shirt.
Non-members of WVCDL: Just wear a black tee-shirt if you don't have a WVCDL shirt to wear.
Our Senators need to see a sea of black tee-shirts at the hearing.
West Virginians: Please email or call the Senate President, Senate Judiciary Chair, and individual members of the Senate Judiciary Committee asking them to please help move a "clean" (no amendments) HB4145 to the Senate floor. THANKS!
Opponents have rallied around "no required training" as their point of contention. That is a Red Herring, folks. About 20 other states do NOT require specific training to carry a concealed weapon and residents from those states ALREADY legally carry (without training) in WV, without incident.
More updates pending.
Feb 15 is the SAME day West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL) had already chosen for their annual "Lobby Day" at the Legislature.
WVCDL members: If you can make it to the Capitol, please do so and be sure to wear your members tee-shirt.
Non-members of WVCDL: Just wear a black tee-shirt if you don't have a WVCDL shirt to wear.
Our Senators need to see a sea of black tee-shirts at the hearing.
West Virginians: Please email or call the Senate President, Senate Judiciary Chair, and individual members of the Senate Judiciary Committee asking them to please help move a "clean" (no amendments) HB4145 to the Senate floor. THANKS!
Opponents have rallied around "no required training" as their point of contention. That is a Red Herring, folks. About 20 other states do NOT require specific training to carry a concealed weapon and residents from those states ALREADY legally carry (without training) in WV, without incident.
More updates pending.
UPDATE #2: HB4145 was Pulled from Senate Judiciary Committee Agenda (after being rescheduled for 3:00 PM) for "technical language issues".
Tomorrow, Feb 16 2016, is Day 36 of our 60-day legislative session. HB4145 still needs to be reported out of committee, read 3 times on the senate floor, voted on, passed on to the Governor. The Governor has 5 days to sign, veto or let it become law without his signature (so long as the legislature is still in session, otherwise he has 15 days). He has already "promised" a veto. That will take at least until DAY 45 of our 60-day legislative session.
There will have to be a veto over-ride vote scheduled in both the House and Senate. It requires only a majority of votes in each to successfully over-ride the veto.
If past history is any indicator, the 'loyal opposition' will vigorously opine that the legislature has much vital business remaining to be done and should not "waste" time on a veto over-ride.
More updates pending.
Tomorrow, Feb 16 2016, is Day 36 of our 60-day legislative session. HB4145 still needs to be reported out of committee, read 3 times on the senate floor, voted on, passed on to the Governor. The Governor has 5 days to sign, veto or let it become law without his signature (so long as the legislature is still in session, otherwise he has 15 days). He has already "promised" a veto. That will take at least until DAY 45 of our 60-day legislative session.
There will have to be a veto over-ride vote scheduled in both the House and Senate. It requires only a majority of votes in each to successfully over-ride the veto.
If past history is any indicator, the 'loyal opposition' will vigorously opine that the legislature has much vital business remaining to be done and should not "waste" time on a veto over-ride.
More updates pending.
DavidWhite
Banned
Here's a thought..
How about "We, thePeople" make those asshats in office obey the Constitution we already have?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
How about "We, thePeople" make those asshats in office obey the Constitution we already have?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Hatchetman
New member
I really miss the "like" button....
UPDATE #3: HB4145 has been reported out of the Judiciary Committee with ONE amendment. I believe that amendment eliminated the $100.00 tax credit one who gets a carry permit AFTER the effective date of the bill WOULD HAVE received. Many other damaging amendments offered in committee were rejected.
Opponents will have an opportunity (again) to weaken/destroy the bill by submitting additional amendments during the bills second reading on the senate floor.
Barring the unforeseen, the third reading and votes on floor amendments and HB4145 will happen Monday, Feb 22 2016.
More updates to follow.
Opponents will have an opportunity (again) to weaken/destroy the bill by submitting additional amendments during the bills second reading on the senate floor.
Barring the unforeseen, the third reading and votes on floor amendments and HB4145 will happen Monday, Feb 22 2016.
More updates to follow.
QUOTE=DavidWhite;589561]Here's a thought..
How about "We, thePeople" make those asshats in office obey the Constitution we already have?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
You DO understand: That the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments to the US Constitution - restricts ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? That powers NOT specifically granted to the Federal Government are RESERVED TO THE STATES? That there IS NO constitutional "right to keep and bear arms" in California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and that "violators" will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of STATE LAW, with NO PROSPECT of raising a RKBA defense? That laws like New York's "SAFE Act" don't violate constitutional rights because their State Constitution does not say a right to keep and bear arms EVEN EXISTS?
Once upon a time, in this country, a man who owned a gun could carry it. Anywhere. In any manner. Without a permission slip from any Government. By the mid-1800's the STATES (except Vermont) made that practice extinct. Maybe you've not noticed, but we've fought back to the point where people in all 50 states can - at least in theory - carry a gun. Priority One is eliminating 'at least in theory' while working on that 'in any manner', 'anywhere' and 'without a permission slip from any government'. We will be whole when people in this country who own guns can carry them anywhere, in any manner, without a permission slip from any Government - AGAIN!
We work in the States for the same reason Eisenhower's paratroopers parachuted into Normandy on D-Day instead of into the heart of Berlin - doing what is today POSSIBLE in order to reach our ultimate goal at a future time.
How about "We, thePeople" make those asshats in office obey the Constitution we already have?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
You DO understand: That the Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments to the US Constitution - restricts ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? That powers NOT specifically granted to the Federal Government are RESERVED TO THE STATES? That there IS NO constitutional "right to keep and bear arms" in California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and that "violators" will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of STATE LAW, with NO PROSPECT of raising a RKBA defense? That laws like New York's "SAFE Act" don't violate constitutional rights because their State Constitution does not say a right to keep and bear arms EVEN EXISTS?
Once upon a time, in this country, a man who owned a gun could carry it. Anywhere. In any manner. Without a permission slip from any Government. By the mid-1800's the STATES (except Vermont) made that practice extinct. Maybe you've not noticed, but we've fought back to the point where people in all 50 states can - at least in theory - carry a gun. Priority One is eliminating 'at least in theory' while working on that 'in any manner', 'anywhere' and 'without a permission slip from any government'. We will be whole when people in this country who own guns can carry them anywhere, in any manner, without a permission slip from any Government - AGAIN!
We work in the States for the same reason Eisenhower's paratroopers parachuted into Normandy on D-Day instead of into the heart of Berlin - doing what is today POSSIBLE in order to reach our ultimate goal at a future time.
Just to be clear, SCOTUS ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," an individual, pre-existing right affirmed in Heller, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
But yes, the battles need to be fought in the states, and fought HARD... especially so now that the SCOTUS balance is at risk. And many states (and appellate courts) continue to do their own thing anyway, despite the SCOTUS rulings.
UPDATE #3.1:
SATURDAY, Feb 20 2016: On the WV Senate Floor. HB4145.
Third reading, votes on the Senate Judiciary Committee Amendment, votes on the anti-gun Senate Floor Amendments that ALMOST CERTAINLY have been/will be added and FINALLY the vote on HB4145.
When the HB4145 passes the Senate: The Senate Judiciary Committee Amendment (and any other amendments that pass) means HB4145 is no longer THE SAME AS what the House passed, SO HB4145 will be sent BACK to the House for a "Concurrence" vote. The House MUST vote to concur with the "new" HB4145 before it can be sent to the Governor - who is nearly certain to take the full allotted time to veto the measure. The clock is ticking. We can not afford much delay in getting the concurrence vote.
WEST VIRGINIANS: Please contact your Senator and urge them to fully support HB4145 and vote against any damaging amendments. Then contact your Delegates and urge them to support a quick concurrence vote on HB4145.
SATURDAY, Feb 20 2016: On the WV Senate Floor. HB4145.
Third reading, votes on the Senate Judiciary Committee Amendment, votes on the anti-gun Senate Floor Amendments that ALMOST CERTAINLY have been/will be added and FINALLY the vote on HB4145.
When the HB4145 passes the Senate: The Senate Judiciary Committee Amendment (and any other amendments that pass) means HB4145 is no longer THE SAME AS what the House passed, SO HB4145 will be sent BACK to the House for a "Concurrence" vote. The House MUST vote to concur with the "new" HB4145 before it can be sent to the Governor - who is nearly certain to take the full allotted time to veto the measure. The clock is ticking. We can not afford much delay in getting the concurrence vote.
WEST VIRGINIANS: Please contact your Senator and urge them to fully support HB4145 and vote against any damaging amendments. Then contact your Delegates and urge them to support a quick concurrence vote on HB4145.
DavidWhite
Banned
Yeah, David. That pretty much sums up the problem in only one image.
A group of APPOINTED-for-life "justices", who are really only accountable to their own beliefs, are allowed to "interpret" the US Constitution as THEY see fit by only a simple majority vote - in effect "making law" from the bench.
There are SUPPOSED TO be T H R E E co-equal branches of Government. They are the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. Lately, with both the Executive and Judiciary branches making law, we may as well send Congress their Pink Slips and rent out the Capitol Building.
UPDATE #3.2
RESCHEDULED! Delaying tactics on the Senate Floor by the Antis: Senator Romano submitted 2 amendments, and Senator Stollings submitted 1. Then, after having taken up considerable floor time with his two amendments, Senator Romano "pulled" his FIRST amendment. ALL of Senator Romano's amendments are very damaging to the bill, as is Senator Stollings.
All of this B.S. was enough to get HB4145 "laid over on second reading" i.e. STALLED on the Senate Floor.
HB4145 is scheduled for "second reading" tomorrow, Feb 20 2016. Expect more of the same from these Bozos - with apologies to Clowns everywhere who amuse for a living instead of pretending to legislate.
Briefly, the Amendments were some of the same as offered in the House: 1. NOBODY carries without a permit - even "residential exception carry" (Stollings) - requires a sheriff-issued permit.
2. Non-residents do NOT get "permitless" carry.
3. The amendment Senator Romano "pulled" ELIMINATED the fees for permits. Seems like a great idea? It's NOT! That would require a FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT be done on the bill and that alone is a lengthy process that would run out the clock on the bill.
These provisions were broadly rejected by West Virginians who communicated their views to their Delegates.
We need to, once again communicate our views rejecting those kinds of nonsense amendments, this time to our Senators.
RESCHEDULED! Delaying tactics on the Senate Floor by the Antis: Senator Romano submitted 2 amendments, and Senator Stollings submitted 1. Then, after having taken up considerable floor time with his two amendments, Senator Romano "pulled" his FIRST amendment. ALL of Senator Romano's amendments are very damaging to the bill, as is Senator Stollings.
All of this B.S. was enough to get HB4145 "laid over on second reading" i.e. STALLED on the Senate Floor.
HB4145 is scheduled for "second reading" tomorrow, Feb 20 2016. Expect more of the same from these Bozos - with apologies to Clowns everywhere who amuse for a living instead of pretending to legislate.
Briefly, the Amendments were some of the same as offered in the House: 1. NOBODY carries without a permit - even "residential exception carry" (Stollings) - requires a sheriff-issued permit.
2. Non-residents do NOT get "permitless" carry.
3. The amendment Senator Romano "pulled" ELIMINATED the fees for permits. Seems like a great idea? It's NOT! That would require a FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT be done on the bill and that alone is a lengthy process that would run out the clock on the bill.
These provisions were broadly rejected by West Virginians who communicated their views to their Delegates.
We need to, once again communicate our views rejecting those kinds of nonsense amendments, this time to our Senators.
UPDATE #3.3:
HB4145 Monday, Feb 22 2016 third reading AND VOTE on the WV Senate floor. Damaging amendments submitted by Senators Romano and Stollings were REJECTED during the ‘final’ second reading.
BRIEFLY, (I’ve omitted about 19 pages of important verbiage) HB4145 as now written states:
(c) Any person may carry a concealed firearm without a license therefor who is: (1) At least twenty-one years of age. (2) A United States citizen or legal resident thereof. (3) Not prohibited from possessing a firearm under the provisions of this section; and (4) Not prohibited from possessing a firearm under the provisions of 18 U.S.C (section) 922(g) or
. {NOTE: THAT is the ‘constitutional carry’ provision**
ESTABLISHES a “provisional license” for those (WV residents only) 18 – 20 years of age that requires training, costs $25 and expires upon the holders 21st birthday.
DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING regarding the present (residents only) Concealed Weapon License that is honored in 36 other states.
More updates to come.
HB4145 Monday, Feb 22 2016 third reading AND VOTE on the WV Senate floor. Damaging amendments submitted by Senators Romano and Stollings were REJECTED during the ‘final’ second reading.
BRIEFLY, (I’ve omitted about 19 pages of important verbiage) HB4145 as now written states:
(c) Any person may carry a concealed firearm without a license therefor who is: (1) At least twenty-one years of age. (2) A United States citizen or legal resident thereof. (3) Not prohibited from possessing a firearm under the provisions of this section; and (4) Not prohibited from possessing a firearm under the provisions of 18 U.S.C (section) 922(g) or
. {NOTE: THAT is the ‘constitutional carry’ provision**ESTABLISHES a “provisional license” for those (WV residents only) 18 – 20 years of age that requires training, costs $25 and expires upon the holders 21st birthday.
DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING regarding the present (residents only) Concealed Weapon License that is honored in 36 other states.
More updates to come.
DavidWhite
Banned
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
UPDATE #3.4:
HB4145 PASSED the WV Senate Feb 22 2016 by a vote of 24 -9, with 1 absent.
NAYS were: Ashley, Beach, Facemire, Hall, Laird, Miller, Palumbo, Romano, Snyder. Absent was Mullins.
Senate has requested House of Delegates concurrence on the version the Senate passed. THERE WERE CHANGES from the version the House passed, so the House must concur with those changes.
Only once the House has voted on Concurrence (no word yet on that) will the bill be sent to the Governor.
WEST VIRGINIANS: Please contact your Delegate and politely urge them to Vote to Concur with the Senate changes to HB4145 so it can be sent to the Governor.
Next update will be #4.
HB4145 PASSED the WV Senate Feb 22 2016 by a vote of 24 -9, with 1 absent.
NAYS were: Ashley, Beach, Facemire, Hall, Laird, Miller, Palumbo, Romano, Snyder. Absent was Mullins.
Senate has requested House of Delegates concurrence on the version the Senate passed. THERE WERE CHANGES from the version the House passed, so the House must concur with those changes.
Only once the House has voted on Concurrence (no word yet on that) will the bill be sent to the Governor.
WEST VIRGINIANS: Please contact your Delegate and politely urge them to Vote to Concur with the Senate changes to HB4145 so it can be sent to the Governor.
Next update will be #4.
Last edited:
UPDATE #3.5:
HB4145 MUST get a vote of concurrence in the House.
If the House does NOT vote to concur, then the bill will go to a House-Senate Conference Committee. In addition to allowing opponents to, ONCE AGAIN, try to damage the bill with anti-gun amendments, that Conference Committee would BURN TOO MUCH TIME to get the bill onto the Governors desk AND override his promised veto.
WEST VIRGINIANS: it is VITAL that you email or phone not only YOUR Delegate, but also the House Leadership.
Thanks.
HB4145 MUST get a vote of concurrence in the House.
If the House does NOT vote to concur, then the bill will go to a House-Senate Conference Committee. In addition to allowing opponents to, ONCE AGAIN, try to damage the bill with anti-gun amendments, that Conference Committee would BURN TOO MUCH TIME to get the bill onto the Governors desk AND override his promised veto.
WEST VIRGINIANS: it is VITAL that you email or phone not only YOUR Delegate, but also the House Leadership.
Thanks.
SR9
New member
SB-403. Introduced 29 Jan. Received Committee Hearing 9 Mar. AMBUSHED http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/fnotes/bil_0003/sb0403.pdf 1) “DSP has no way to VERIFY permit validity” REALLY? 2) Revenue lost to Maryland (who has a “must-show-good-cause” MAY-ISSUE system) because non-residents who want to carry in MD would apply for a MD permit. NOT BLOODY LIKELY! We just avoid going to MD for anything as much as possible, including even driving twice as far to get medical care and groceries. As long as their unreasonable "may-issue-with-show-good-cause" system continues they WILL NOT have revenue from those who WANT to legally carry in MD.
RIP SB-403. Don't stop trying. And FIND OUT what steps your DSP REALLY WOULD have to take to "verify" permits from other states. Would not possession of the permit be a strong indicator that it is, indeed, a valid permit? Maybe DSP just HAS to overthink it. Indeed, what action do they take when/if they stop a MD permit holder? Sheesh!
