seminoles1999
New member
Link to Governor's Actions for Bills
http://www.flgov.com/bill-action/
Source: Gov. Rick Scott Website
http://www.flgov.com/bill-action/
Source: Gov. Rick Scott Website
Last edited:
-
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.
Governor's Actions
- Thread starter seminoles1999
- Start date
rvrctyrngr
Regular Member
Thanks for the link!
I wonder if he's going to sign it (SB234) or just let it expire into law. Might indicate his position on the language. I think its going through but I wonder how..
nigmalg
Regular Member
Well since the legislature is going home after today, the bill has 15 days before becoming law without his signature.
The trick is I don't know if that 15 days means business days, non-sundays, or if it starts the day the bill is enrolled, or after it's 3 day waiting period in both houses.
The trick is I don't know if that 15 days means business days, non-sundays, or if it starts the day the bill is enrolled, or after it's 3 day waiting period in both houses.
Can he DO a line-item veto?
Maybe we could convince him that it would be in the best interest of the citizens he represents to line-item-veto the bastardized (no longer 'open carry') provisions and keep the otherwise favorable aspects of the law.
That would at least not put us on a lost-ground footing when we try for true OC again.
(I'm still surprised no one pointed out the problem of HIKING while armed...it's not one of the 'exceptions' listed in law..only hunting, fishing, CAMPING...but if you're on a day hike (no camping intended) then you're screwed.
Maybe we could convince him that it would be in the best interest of the citizens he represents to line-item-veto the bastardized (no longer 'open carry') provisions and keep the otherwise favorable aspects of the law.
That would at least not put us on a lost-ground footing when we try for true OC again.
(I'm still surprised no one pointed out the problem of HIKING while armed...it's not one of the 'exceptions' listed in law..only hunting, fishing, CAMPING...but if you're on a day hike (no camping intended) then you're screwed.
brboyer
Regular Member
No.
nigmalg
Regular Member
He can only line-item veto appropriations bills.
nigmalg
Regular Member
You know what's really strange.
Both houses passed this bill with a veto-proof super majority. Why would the governor even need to sign it? Wouldn't it become law automatically?
Both houses passed this bill with a veto-proof super majority. Why would the governor even need to sign it? Wouldn't it become law automatically?
Well, the way I understand it, and I certainly could be wrong...
IF he decides to veto, he sends it back to the originating house with his reasons for vetoing it. Then they have the option of making changes and passing it back, or having another vote to "veto his veto".
The reason for this is that the governor "could" have a valid reason to veto that they had not earlier considered, so they may want/need to make changes before passing it as a law.
swatpamike
Regular Member
15 day rule answer
Every bill passed by the legislature shall be presented to the governor for approval and shall become a law if the governor approves and signs it, or fails to veto it within seven consecutive days after presentation. If during that period or on the seventh day the legislature adjourns sine die or takes a recess of more than thirty days, the governor shall have fifteen consecutive days from the date of presentation to act on the bill. In all cases except general appropriation bills, the veto shall extend to the entire bill. The governor may veto any specific appropriation in a general appropriation bill, but may not veto any qualification or restriction without also vetoing the appropriation to which it relates.
Hope this helps
swatpamike
Last Event: 05/04/11 S Ordered enrolled -SJ 851 on Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:19 PM
so 15 days from 5/04 would be 5/19 @ 4:19pm
Every bill passed by the legislature shall be presented to the governor for approval and shall become a law if the governor approves and signs it, or fails to veto it within seven consecutive days after presentation. If during that period or on the seventh day the legislature adjourns sine die or takes a recess of more than thirty days, the governor shall have fifteen consecutive days from the date of presentation to act on the bill. In all cases except general appropriation bills, the veto shall extend to the entire bill. The governor may veto any specific appropriation in a general appropriation bill, but may not veto any qualification or restriction without also vetoing the appropriation to which it relates.
Hope this helps
swatpamike
Last Event: 05/04/11 S Ordered enrolled -SJ 851 on Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:19 PM
so 15 days from 5/04 would be 5/19 @ 4:19pm
Last edited:
swatpamike
Regular Member
Just wondering
Just wondering what the Gov. will do? Not signing the bill but letting it become law will just prove to me that he never really support open carry in Florida and has no nuts to come out and say it.
It's also funny there has not been much noise from either side of the fence on the bill other then from open carry supporters.
Cheers
Michael
Just wondering what the Gov. will do? Not signing the bill but letting it become law will just prove to me that he never really support open carry in Florida and has no nuts to come out and say it.
It's also funny there has not been much noise from either side of the fence on the bill other then from open carry supporters.
Cheers
Michael
He's got a few days to go yet, soo maybe some letters/calls to remind him to veto?
As for those in Tally, they've already done what they set out to do (shaft us/no-lube applied) so as far as they're concerned it's a done deal-back to "voters who?" as usual.
The only backlash likely to ever be heard is from us pro-2a folks...and who are we, again?...
As for those in Tally, they've already done what they set out to do (shaft us/no-lube applied) so as far as they're concerned it's a done deal-back to "voters who?" as usual.
The only backlash likely to ever be heard is from us pro-2a folks...and who are we, again?...
77zach
Regular Member
Not really. This isn't an OC bill anymore. It's a small step backwards and while also being a setup for the NRA to come back 5 years from now and say, "see it didn't work" and try for the real thing again. If Scott really took our rights seriously he'd veto this thing with instructions to pass a real OC bill.
77zach
Regular Member
And most Pro 2A people are like "Open what??
We just need to press on. I'm really wondering what the genesis of SB 234 was. Accidental exposure is a small problem. If a couple of 2A activists had not talked to Rick Scott on the record, had not brought it to the media's attention, I don't know that OC would really have been on the NRA radar. And while Marion Hammer never lied, she strongly suggested that real OC was a good thing in and of itself. She implied that accidental exposure was just one of the reasons for OC. Before OC being mentioned by Scott, a year ago, she wouldn't have touched the topic with a 10 ft pole.
Last edited:
"she wouldn't have touched the topic with a 10 ft pole. "
Which I find rather disturbing, considering all the praise slathered on this one for pro-2a stances. Why half-ass things? If you're in favor, why would one not be so-all the way?
We sure dont see such nonsense with 1A,right?
We dont see: "Sure Free Speech is great..but only if concealed and spoken/written in discreet,private conversations.....but if "briefly" said aloud in a crowded place? oooh no, cant have that can we?"
Which I find rather disturbing, considering all the praise slathered on this one for pro-2a stances. Why half-ass things? If you're in favor, why would one not be so-all the way?
We sure dont see such nonsense with 1A,right?
We dont see: "Sure Free Speech is great..but only if concealed and spoken/written in discreet,private conversations.....but if "briefly" said aloud in a crowded place? oooh no, cant have that can we?"
Japle
Regular Member
The 1st Amendment is widely and enthusiastically accepted by the general public. Open carry of firearms is, to put it mildly, not.
Really? Do we assume this? Or do we base this on the usual lot of anti's opinions.
Dont seem to recall any huge public outcry to end Open Carry,when it was once commonplace. That was a decision made by politicians-not the people-wasnt it?
Dont seem to recall any huge public outcry to end Open Carry,when it was once commonplace. That was a decision made by politicians-not the people-wasnt it?
Japle
Regular Member
When's the last time OC was commonplace in Florida? It may have been legal, but commonplace?
I lived in Florida before the Shall-issue law was passed and never saw anyone OCing. Not ever.
Duval and St. Johns-mostly rural areas/semi-rural. But was quiet common when I was growing up. Enough so that as a kid, If I went somewhere and saw folks without a sidearm on, I found it very strange. Would ask my father "where;s their pistol?"