~*'Phoenix'*~
Regular Member
So, can anyone whip up a list of all the sheriffs who've been lobbying against it, and which county's sheriffs have been tellingly absent?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
SB234: The Final Countdown
- Thread starter ixtow
- Start date
mavidal
Regular Member
I wrote an email to Mr. DelaPortilla a long time ago and he is getting a repeat since he is my senator for my district.
Mike
77zach
Regular Member
The easiest way to find out what the situation is, is to call Evers office and ask. If they don't know then we can't know. No sense obsessing over it because that will just piss you off when it fails. What's going to suck really bad, is that if it does fail, it will be really close.
This speaks to a wider issue. It's the people who put these creatures in office. I don't generally vote for this very reason. My choice was Dean or some other guy just as bad, so I chose not to take "the lesser of two evils." If you have someone worth voting for, then you should do it. I voted for my rep, Baxley, because I asked him if he supported constitutional carry and he said yes (he lost to Dean in the Republican primary for senate!) I'm not going to sit there and cross examine the guy on every issue, but what a candidate's position is on RKABA is a good litmus test for what he'll do in other areas as well. Even people who don't own guns or carry them should ask a candidate if they support unrestricted carry. If they say yes, chances are pretty good that they're going to be pro freedom in general.
This speaks to a wider issue. It's the people who put these creatures in office. I don't generally vote for this very reason. My choice was Dean or some other guy just as bad, so I chose not to take "the lesser of two evils." If you have someone worth voting for, then you should do it. I voted for my rep, Baxley, because I asked him if he supported constitutional carry and he said yes (he lost to Dean in the Republican primary for senate!) I'm not going to sit there and cross examine the guy on every issue, but what a candidate's position is on RKABA is a good litmus test for what he'll do in other areas as well. Even people who don't own guns or carry them should ask a candidate if they support unrestricted carry. If they say yes, chances are pretty good that they're going to be pro freedom in general.
From what I know, without a doubt. He's a pragmatic guy from an established Miami political family, and he seems to have made sense more often than not through the years.
rvrctyrngr
Regular Member
Yeah...but he was ******* me off on Friday dragging out conversation on his pet legislation that isn't even going to be voted on until next year! :lol:
rvrctyrngr
Regular Member
SGB may very well live in that district, Sean. Give him a shout.
77zach
Regular Member
I left a nice, well reasoned and articulate email for montford, hill, and ring, and signed my name as living in their districts. Can't hurt anything. They were three democrats who have not yet voted on OC but voted for either 432 or 402.
I realized, thinking about this, if 234 is amended to crap, getting OC passed in Fl is going to be so very difficult in the future. The main reason given in the Senate for the bill, perhaps out of the need to make it more palatable to our tyranny loving leaders, was to give permit holders who conceal weapons some leeway if it became exposed. This, of course, is pretty much a non-problem.
Even though the Bogdanoff amendment is subjective and unworkable, my biggest fear is that some type of creative language will be concocted so that full intentional OC remains illegal. If this happens, it will be much much better if the bill is withdrawn and not passed into law.
Right now, we have a very minor inconvenience with accidental exposure. If SB 234 passes with only an attempt to solve this, future attempts to get OC will be met with " this non-problem was fixed last time." We won't have any trifling problem with which to sway average conservatives. In a state with no OC, the proposition sounds completely outlandish. The words spoken in the House won't work in the Senate. Coming out and saying we want full OC for all the proper reasons given on OCDO is just too shocking for too many law makers. You could get quite a few to agree; but just not enough.
My point is that no SB 234 is far better than a neutered SB 234. We can always try again next year. Pouring over the bios in the senate and their histories, I get 17-23 yea votes. We need 20.
I realized, thinking about this, if 234 is amended to crap, getting OC passed in Fl is going to be so very difficult in the future. The main reason given in the Senate for the bill, perhaps out of the need to make it more palatable to our tyranny loving leaders, was to give permit holders who conceal weapons some leeway if it became exposed. This, of course, is pretty much a non-problem.
Even though the Bogdanoff amendment is subjective and unworkable, my biggest fear is that some type of creative language will be concocted so that full intentional OC remains illegal. If this happens, it will be much much better if the bill is withdrawn and not passed into law.
Right now, we have a very minor inconvenience with accidental exposure. If SB 234 passes with only an attempt to solve this, future attempts to get OC will be met with " this non-problem was fixed last time." We won't have any trifling problem with which to sway average conservatives. In a state with no OC, the proposition sounds completely outlandish. The words spoken in the House won't work in the Senate. Coming out and saying we want full OC for all the proper reasons given on OCDO is just too shocking for too many law makers. You could get quite a few to agree; but just not enough.
My point is that no SB 234 is far better than a neutered SB 234. We can always try again next year. Pouring over the bios in the senate and their histories, I get 17-23 yea votes. We need 20.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I'll move Portilla.
But until we have something more, Montford is staying where he is because he's a Democrat. Someone aligned with a political faction who's root concepts are Statism and dehumanization is going to need a lot of convincing to make me believe it...
The Republican Neocons of that mind are out of line for the party the are in. Democrats are in sync because that's what their party is all about...
I'm trying not to be optimistic with the placement, I don't want us to kid ourselves too much... This is very close.
But until we have something more, Montford is staying where he is because he's a Democrat. Someone aligned with a political faction who's root concepts are Statism and dehumanization is going to need a lot of convincing to make me believe it...
The Republican Neocons of that mind are out of line for the party the are in. Democrats are in sync because that's what their party is all about...
I'm trying not to be optimistic with the placement, I don't want us to kid ourselves too much... This is very close.
Last edited:
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I agree. I never liked this smoke-screen approach. It seems just as deceptive as Concealed Carry, to me. You'll note I make no mention of it in the points I believe we should make in writing to out Senate Critters. Those who wish to add it, fine. But I find it an encroachment on credibility and integrity. I somewhat doubt the NRA would have been involved in a more direct approach, but I also understand how futile honesty is in politics....
~*'Phoenix'*~
Regular Member
So you're confident Portilla will be won to our side?
And... there are more things going on here than pure votes. Three important things to think about:
1. Senators can be absent on a given day - this could work in wonderful or horrible ways...
2. They can abstain from voting - this is more likely than not to work in our favor - if the neocons can't be won, there's a chance of the Whips/Evers and Co. to convince them to stay out of it, perhaps in exchange for support for their other bills.
3. There's still a chance of these so called Whips actually doing their jobs and straightening out a neocon or two, and putting us in the clear.
Last edited:
~*'Phoenix'*~
Regular Member
So it looks like we only need 1 more, along with definite confirmation from our "very likelies" and we'll be clear?
Still sickeningly close, but I still feel like it's a bit more likely to pass than not
Still sickeningly close, but I still feel like it's a bit more likely to pass than not
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I have zero confidence in the current situation. I'm betting 17-23 we lose, at this point.
Much agitation is needed. Perhaps a reminder that Gun Owners act on their betrayals, where as the hippies don't often vote exclusively on this issue. Anti-gun interests tend to be a pet project of Politicians, their constituency tends to be less enthralled by it.
Last edited:
77zach
Regular Member
Yeah, looking at past votes it's not uncommon for there to be no-votes. I will not be surprised if Dean and Alexander don't vote. Montford may abstain as well. They have good ol boy, pro gun constituencies and a vote against the NRA gives them pause for selfish reasons. Unless new info comes to light I'm going to be optimistic but with fear and trepidation. I'll say it goes through as a clean, licensed OC bill, by 1-2 votes.
77zach
Regular Member
In 2008, NRA gave Fasano an "A+". Of course, they also gave Bogdanoff an "A+". Some serious grade inflation on the latter.
They gave Detert an "A".
They gave Detert an "A".
~*'Phoenix'*~
Regular Member
Since we're making calls, I'll say 20-18 we win, with 1 or 2 missing or whipped into abstaining.
oogotbagsoo
Regular Member
Will it be streamed online ? anyone have a link to where I can watch when the day comes?
77zach
Regular Member
The session is aired on the home page of the senate website.
Rick H
Regular Member
The anti's have nothing to make their case factual or relevant or to substantiated a negative vote. They know this but will try to make another amendment to dissolve the open carry part of this bill but will fail. I do believe this bill with open carry will pass with the one amendment that was incorporated into it on the 15th and will become law SOON. but not without the HAMMER Smacking some of their fingers, And always when playing with hammers you eventually will get your fingers smashed. This is a fact, and they know it so it will pass.