Pissed!!!

The Governor signed SB75 into law today. I am pissed beyond words. Rep. Curtman's HB420 was made an amendment on HB436 (Nullification), the highest risk 2A bill sent to the Governor which of course he vetoed. NO SURPRISE THERE. Even if there is a veto over ride chances are the federal Government will seek an action to nullify HB436 and most likely include the amendment HB420 as well.
My effort on HB420 was 3+ years in the making and trying to get it passed. I feel betrayed and set up for a loss after much work and dedication in seeking support for this bill.

mspgunner said:

The Governor signed SB75 into law today. I am pissed beyond words. Rep. Curtman's HB420 was made an amendment on HB436 (Nullification), the highest risk 2A bill sent to the Governor which of course he vetoed. NO SURPRISE THERE. Even if there is a veto over ride chances are the federal Government will seek an action to nullify HB436 and most likely include the amendment HB420 as well.
My effort on HB420 was 3+ years in the making and trying to get it passed. I feel betrayed and set up for a loss after much work and dedication in seeking support for this bill.

Click to expand...

And who was it that offered HB420 as an amendment to HB436?

This the bill that requires a candidate for sheriff to be a peace officer first?

HCS/SB 75 - This act modifies provisions relating to public safety.

SHERIFFS: This act provides that no person will be eligible for the office of sheriff unless he or she holds a valid peace officer license under Chapter 590. Any person filing for the office must have the license at the time of filing. These provisions do not apply to St. Louis County or St. Louis City. (Section 57.010)


I think that this is rubbish .... anyone should be able to run for the office ... just one thing I saw that I did not like .... its a very long bill ...

Gunner, I wish the OC amendment had been placed on multiple bills.

David, agreed; limiting sheriff to peace officer is not necessary.

I haven't read the 75 text yet. From the summary we have some of the protections about CC permits data and lower requirements, but I'm not sure if they go as far as the corresponding in 436. Need to compare.

436 is a great package with the nullification. We should still hope for an over ride because federal injunction or not, it's a powerful message that needs to be delivered. And the OC.

HP995 said:

436 is a great package with the nullification. We should still hope for an over ride because federal injunction or not, it's a powerful message that needs to be delivered. And the OC.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

9026543 said:

And who was it that offered HB420 as an amendment to HB436?

Click to expand...

I guess no one knows.

9026543 said:

And who was it that offered HB420 as an amendment to HB436?

Click to expand...

I guess no one knows. Strange how things like this get done and no one knows who did the deed.

9026543 said:

I guess no one knows. Strange how things like this get done and no one knows who did the deed.

Click to expand...

I don't know if this answers your question, but as stated in the OP, Rep. Curtman's original bill HB420 was included as an amendment to HB436. Rep. Curtman himself introduced it as House Amendment 2. See here: http://www.house.mo.gov/amendments.aspx?bill=HB436&year=2013&code=R

Now, I have no idea who all else (if anyone) was in on the decision to add the amendment to HB436 as opposed to other bills.

mspgunner said:

The Governor signed SB75 into law today. I am pissed beyond words. Rep. Curtman's HB420 was made an amendment on HB436 (Nullification), the highest risk 2A bill sent to the Governor which of course he vetoed. NO SURPRISE THERE. Even if there is a veto over ride chances are the federal Government will seek an action to nullify HB436 and most likely include the amendment HB420 as well.
My effort on HB420 was 3+ years in the making and trying to get it passed. I feel betrayed and set up for a loss after much work and dedication in seeking support for this bill.

Click to expand...

Have you asked Rep. Curtman why he added his HB420 to HB436 as a amendment? I agree it should have been attached to the less volatile SB75.

9026543 said:

Have you asked Rep. Curtman why he added his HB420 to HB436 as a amendment? I agree it should have been attached to the less volatile SB75.

Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure, but logically a Rep probably can't add an amendment to a Senate bill. At least not without sending it back over to the Senate to get voted on again. Adding it to 436 was probably more time-efficient.