Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: CT Dems will use Emergency Certification - NO MORE HEARINGS

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313

    CT Dems will use Emergency Certification - NO MORE HEARINGS

    I spoke with Senator Kissel this evening who said the Dems are going emergency certification to push through a bill. He does not know if they are just going to ram through whatever they have votes for or what. They have a meeting next week (full task force) and that is it. Keep the pressure on them..calls..emails..letters...go see your state reps/senators..please!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Having such a session is not acceptable...I have contacted my legislators concerning this ..

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Can someone explain to the rest of us what this means and what we should be asking our reps to vote against/resist?

    Thanks.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    Can someone explain to the rest of us what this means and what we should be asking our reps to vote against/resist?

    Thanks.
    Normally, hearings at committee level (and a bill could go through 1 to 3 committees) are held where people can voice their opinion. And votes are taken at committees to either a) kill the bill b) pass it onto another committee c) move it to a chamber for a vote

    An emergency cert. hopscotches this process and would likely bring all the gun control bills directly to the house/senate floor w/o it needing to pass through the committees' voting process.

    This limits your time greatly to sway your rep/senator and to gather information regarding the bills.

    I am telling my reps to vote no because: a) the process just plain wrong-the people should be given more time and b) the bills shouldn't be passed anyway (once I hear that this will actually happen --- and the actual notice can be very short, not allowing people to go to the capitol before the voting). And I expect the police to keep people out like they did yesterday.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-29-2013 at 09:31 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    to be totally honest, from the "surveys" David did yesterday on the many Hartford cops in the area, it sounds as if they've already discussed tactics for gun confiscation, as well as already discussed tactics for denying that confiscation will actually occur, though truthfully they seem to already be training to do it

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    to be totally honest, from the "surveys" David did yesterday on the many Hartford cops in the area, it sounds as if they've already discussed tactics for gun confiscation, as well as already discussed tactics for denying that confiscation will actually occur, though truthfully they seem to already be training to do it
    I think that many just did not want to answer the query ... I just walked up to them and asked ... no chit-chat or anything.

    But motoxmann may be right, at least in "testing the waters" ... would not surprise me.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Called my legislators today - they intend on trying on using emergency certification

    I called my state rep. and his aide said that emergency certification is intending on being used. My state senator says that they have not heard anything. So I would venture to conclude that they are indeed going to especially since Sen. Pres. Williams said they would.

    And that it was their viewpoint that they already had hearings with the task force so as far as being able to argue about specific bills in committee hearing, you are **** outta luck.

    from the legislative website:

    EMERGENCY CERTIFICATION

    A procedure by which the speaker and president pro tempore jointly propose a bill and send it directly to the House or Senate, floor for action without any committee referrals or public hearings.


    What can we do?

    Once can certainly still write to the task force (has 1 day left) and let them know that its (e-cert for short) not an acceptable process and that the task force was not identified as a venue to discuss individual bills but to ask for ideas from the public.

    And one can call the two people whose signatures would be required to e-cert a bill. This includes:

    President of the Senate: Sen. Williams
    Aide: Carla Smith
    860-240-8614, or
    Toll-free: 1-800-842-1420



    Speaker of the House: Rep. Sharkley
    1-800-842-1902 | (860) 240-8500
    Brendan.Sharkey@cga.ct.gov



    I called them both. Neither would state that they would NOT support an e-cert. They are keeping mum about it at this point which I take as if they are indeed considering the process.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-30-2013 at 10:56 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470
    My testimony Monday night telling them we MUST have hearings on individual bills!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV0RAo6traU
    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    This after their creative editing of the Sandy Hook father being "heckled".

    Good luck to you gun owners in CT.


    DO NOT COMPLY!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Benedetto View Post
    My testimony Monday night telling them we MUST have hearings on individual bills!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV0RAo6traU
    Well, they legally don't if they use e-cert. The ? is: would such laws passed under e-cert be valid? I would say likely. They will claim that is an "emergency". Would a judge would likely yield to their judgment? Probably.

    See a ruling regarding a previous e-cert below (from http://www.cga.ct.gov/html/rulesprecedents.pdf).



    161. EMERGENCY CERTIFIED BILL—NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE
    SENATE
    The bill made various amendments to “repair” the state income tax, including adding deductions for dependents, extending the phase-out of the standard exemption, enhancing the standard exemption for single taxpayers, smoothing out tax “cliffs,” and creating a property tax credit against state income tax. The bill was introduced through an emergency
    certification signed by the House speaker and Senate president pro tempore. A senator moved to adopt the bill in accordance with the House. Another senator raised a point of order that the bill was not properly before the Senate because it was not an emergency.
    The president asked for debate on the issue. The majority leader argued that the bill was proper. JR 9 requires only that the two legislative leaders certify in writing that they find the bill be an emergency. He asked the clerk if the bill was accompanied by such a written certification. The clerk stated that there was a written emergency certification signed by the president pro tempore and the speaker.Sn 51

    The president ruled the point not well taken. The rule requires that the two leaders certify that, “in their opinion,” the bill is an emergency. Although she allowed that the rule provided for a “flexible standard,” the bill had met the requirements of JR 9 and was properly before the Senate.
    Groark, February 3, 1993.


    So if you don't want bills bypassing the committees you need to call the two guys who need to sign the e-cert. and let them know.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-30-2013 at 03:54 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    between windsor and north grandby, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    37
    If these bills go through, what recourse do we as citizens have? on face value, most appear to be in direct violation of our constitution. Would that warrant treason and if so, how can we as citizens play this card immediately?

    The second amendment was put in the constitution for times such as now i firmly believe. It's our last balance of power pretty much as i read it.
    What immediate constitutional legal recourse can be exercised against these politicians? They will be in clear violation of the oath they all took but i doubt any LEO is going to act on our behalf.

    I would like to hear real world answers that can work. I will not accept failure on something our forefathers died upholding.

    To be honest, feel pretty lost rite now on how we as citizens can actually make a difference when the rules are suddenly changed or just ignored entirely.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sidelinellc View Post
    If these bills go through, what recourse do we as citizens have? on face value, most appear to be in direct violation of our constitution. Would that warrant treason and if so, how can we as citizens play this card immediately?
    A law that is passed is presumed to be constitutional.

    So a citizen has several choices including (but not exclusive to):

    1) filing a case in federal court for a review of federal law (don't need to be arrested)
    2) getting arrested and then arguing in state court
    3) petition legislators to change the law
    4) one could remove the guns/mags out of state & wait for a court to rule

    You don't have a case for treason...

    You could file a federal case the next day and ask for an emergency injunction maybe.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sidelinellc View Post

    To be honest, feel pretty lost rite now on how we as citizens can actually make a difference when the rules are suddenly changed or just ignored entirely.
    You can still go to Newtown (hearing today...likely can go at 10pm and still talk is looks like) and demand that e-cert not be utilized too and also still submit testimony to the task force.

    Its seems as if house members are more eager to have e-cert than senators are (on the whole & just from the information I gathered or felt..nothing scientific)


    But I hear ya .. its BS .. what did you expect? Its Connecticut.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-30-2013 at 04:18 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    138
    just spoke with Jason Perillo. He made a point that sadly makes some sense. While he is apposed to most of the bills that are being pushed. His feeling is that something is going to be done and that he would rather see things get done from this task force than from any of the other bills that are already out there. His feeling is that they may E-Cert a comprehensive bill targeting all of the topics that the task force is dealing with since they have already had all these hearings. He said that it is unlikely that any of the other democrat bills will or can be E-certed because most of them have already been assigned to a committee. He favors the task force because it is a Bi-partisan body as apposed to the committees that are largely Dem controlled.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Mitola View Post
    He favors the task force because it is a Bi-partisan body as apposed to the committees that are largely Dem controlled.
    Here is an email to my rep discussing "e-cert"..

    30 JAN 13

    I would agree that the leaders have great flexibility (I have read minutes regarding e-certs on the leg. website)...likely too much power.

    I would agree with this gentleman's opinion who testified before the task force:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV0RAo6traU

    And you cannot disagree that the task force testimony being emailed as a process that was not totally messed up. They lost both my testimonies and I know many others who were in the same boat. I was able to expend a significant
    amount of effort and time to insure that my testimony got properly posted. Others likely just assumed the that their testimony got properly posted and considered and never looked back and still others just gave up. So I would disagree with your statement that everyone had an opportunity to present testimony as its likely that many statements were lost; I know of many that were.

    Additionally, the task force changed hearing times and the LOB building was restricted (many people left that I saw) during Monday's hearing. I was improperly denied entry into the building. So NO I was not afforded the opportunity to give oral testimony or be included in the lottery to do so.

    And now they want to e-cert? Its just not right. Its not an emergency. The task force was not a committee - it was a work group. They did not follow committee rules. The process is important to me.

    THERE ARE ABOUT 50 BILL PROPOSALS. How can one address each one at the task force hearings and in a 3 minute time frame? And proposals were still being submitted even during the hearing on Monday.

    People have not had the opportunity to address the 50 bill proposals; to say that they have is just not reality. I submitted written testimony to the gun violence and school safety hearings and these were generalized statements regarding the subject matter and these were about 15 page documents. To address all the proposals would have required 1000 pages.

    So I would ask you to reconsider your thoughts that people actually had an opportunity .. the task force was not meant to address bill proposals, it meant to elicit ideas for bill proposals and not to specifically address the pros and cons of bills (although some did do so). Most people gave generalized opinions of gun control itself and made suggestions (and very few suggestions actually were the same as proposed bills).

    If I were to suggest a bill to improve traffic safety in general and then you write a bill to put speed governors on cars to allow a maximum speed of 20 MPH then this would certainly meet an improvement but is not something that I intended. And you likely would not say "Dave wanted this." That's similar to the task force situation.

    The bills should go through a committee process to allow people to provide their opinions, provide you with information to make a rational decision. This really has not happened.

    Please let me know the "read" from your committee tomorrow.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    I got the following response from my Representative:

    I haven't heard anything about this. I doubt this would happen because the task force is truly bipartisan. It was convened by the Legislature to make recommendations and proposals. It will not be drafting bills.

    I'll be on the lookout just in case the Governor's task force tries to do something but once again, it is only the Legislature that can call for emergency certification and I can't see them doing this since they (we) haven't heard from our own task force yet.

    Bill Simanski

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    I got the following response from my Representative:

    I haven't heard anything about this. I doubt this would happen because the task force is truly bipartisan. It was convened by the Legislature to make recommendations and proposals. It will not be drafting bills.

    I'll be on the lookout just in case the Governor's task force tries to do something but once again, it is only the Legislature that can call for emergency certification and I can't see them doing this since they (we) haven't heard from our own task force yet.

    Bill Simansk
    i
    From: http://www.cga.ct.gov/hco/jointrules.htm

    COMMITTEE BILLS, RAISED BILLS, BILLS, RESOLUTIONS
    ....
    (h) Raised Bill Deadline -- Exceptions. Notwithstanding the time limits established in this rule, the following may be raised at any time: (1) Bills or resolutions to provide for the current expenses of government, (2) bills or resolutions the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate certify in writing to be, in their opinion, of an emergency nature, (3) bills or resolutions which the Governor requests in a special message addressed to the General Assembly, which message sets forth the emergency or necessity requiring the legislation, and (4) the legislative commissioners' revisor's bill.


    The "legislature" does not do e-cert .. only two people do. The leaders of both chambers.

    Its them that are intending on doing it .. to ram through bills right to floor of the house. Your rep can object but I have not seen an e-cert deemed improper...so I would expect the Speaker/Pres. of Senate to deny such objection to an e-cert.

    Of course, your state senator can petition to have the rules changed before an e-cert is issued ..

    Its good that you contacted him .. sounds like he would have a frown if an e-cert is performed
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-31-2013 at 05:43 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freiheit417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    167
    My State Rep. sent this out today - note the sentence in bold (emphasis mine):

    Last night, I joined Democratic and Republican legislative leaders along with local officials, local first responders and families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School system, and members of the public, as the full, 52-member Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety held a public hearing last night at Newtown High School.



    Approximately 150 people gave testimony; the majority being local first responders, victims' families, parents of Newtown students, and Newtown residents. People spoke on both sides of the gun control issue, in addition to the need for an improved mental health system that offers more comprehensive services, including early childhood intervention, and the overall safety and well-being of their children.



    I thank everyone who stepped forward both last night, and over the course of the last week, as we've held several public hearings. I applaud their spirit to be part of the public hearing process and to share their personal stories and concerns. The testimony that's been shared has been insightful, and at times, moving. It further highlights the complexity of this multi-systemic issue as we work together in search of answers and common sense solutions.



    The Bipartisan Task Force consists of three sub committees who will review key issues identified as a result of the tragedy in Newtown. The Working Groups on School Safety, Gun Violence Prevention, and Mental Health, have each held public hearings over the last week at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.



    The goal of the Bipartisan Task Force is to review possible law and policy changes, and draft an emergency certified bill by late February, which would serve to address these key issues.



    For further information on the Bipartisan Task Force and Working Groups, please visit: www.cga.ct.gov/ASaferConnecticut/.
    America, where freedom* reigns.

    *Freedom subject to change depending on jurisdiction and availability. Some freedoms may not be available due to local political expedience or prevailing political correctness. Please check Federal, State, County, City, or any other special district for applicable laws governing the extents of freedoms prior to purchase.

    -----------

    “What you see is the fringe of the fringe showing up in Hartford today." - Danny Malloy a.k.a. "The Governor" 3/11/2013

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freiheit417 View Post
    My State Rep. sent this out today - note the sentence in bold (emphasis mine):
    http://ctsenaterepublicans.com/2013/.../#.UQsuRpYuEW8

    From here? This is not binding.

    http://www.housedems.ct.gov/aresimow...013-01-15.html

    Not binding here either.

    The rules for an e-cert is set down by the joint rules. It must be an emergency. I see no emergency to void the need for committee hearings. An emergency cannot be "agreed upon" to be present 2-3 months in the future, can it?

    Odd, I have looked at several press releases from the media back when the task force was formed and they do not note an e-cert and I read the pages before and don't recall the e-cert which is something I would have pickup up on. I wonder if the webpages have been changed? More FOIA requests I guess...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-31-2013 at 10:43 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •