Keep in mind that SB1733 was Sykes' bill, not Russel's bill. Sykes' bill had almost identical language regarding OC on your permit to the original HB2522, so it's not like it's tit-for-tat.
Correct, it's only tit-for-tat on a committee level, not an individual level. But I still find it pretty damn funny.
HB2522 had a lot more stuff in it than SB1733 did. SB1733 made OC legal with a permit and allowed more judges with CCPs into courthouses. HB2522 added ammunition to the parking lot exemption, allows unlicensed OC on your own private property, changes notification from "first contact" to "first opportunity", reduces the failure to notify fine to $100, add state preemption for OC, allows initial SDA permits to be mailed to the address on the application instead of to the sheriff's office, and added the LEO to demand to see a permit if you are OC while also specifying they are not allowed to disarm you or cuff you unless you refuse or are doing something else you shouldn't be doing.
Last edited:
Exactly...and...take a breath!
You means besides the House and Senate playing games back and forth, altering not the specifics of each other's bills, but actually striking the entire bills and replacing them with other bills...
Do you really think the members of the 2 chambers aren't irritated when their counterparts strike an entire bill that they've worked hard on, voted on and passed? Of course... so they strike back, and we get this sanctimonious
shitestorm which ties up both houses, all the bills involved and then... *poof*... surprise, surprise... time just "ran out this session".
"Sorry, voters. We'll try again next year."
Maggots.
The practice if striking all text from a measure and replace it with X is fairly common. It helps avoid amendments that look like "Strike line 54 word 7, insert line 122 after line 150 and add the following"
Honestly, you're going to sit here and defend the practice of replacing the entire text of a bill with the entire text of a completely different bill, then in retaliation, striking the text of an entirely different bill and replacing with the entire text from the first bill?
This doesn't strike you in the least bit as game-playing?
Sorry... even my six-year-old can see through these ploys.
I can see where you are coming from, but keep in mind that the current text of HB2522 was originally SB1092 which didn't even get a committee hearing this year. The proposed committee sub for SB1733 is almost identical to the original form but strengthens it it the added clauses from the original HB2522. The only thing removed from the original SB1733 would be allowing more judges with a CCP to carry into any courthouse in the state.
"Lighten up, Francis"
Statement of fact, not defending anything. Also, deleting all text and replace with X doesn't necessarily mean they gutted a bill. If you look at SB1733, they remove all language and replace with....the old language plus changes. Think of it more as a legislative cut-and-paste. It's used all the time to cut down on clerical errors.
Edit: what hrdware said, didn't post quick enough
^This. Because once you make an amendment that either strikes an entire section or adds a new section, you must also make amendments to strike the old numbers and add new ones. The amendment can not say something like "...and renumber the remaining items in this section." They have to be deliberate and specific.
Russell did that last year with one of his own bills. It was not going to get a hearing in public safety so he ran a bill through wildlife. After it got through wildlife, he filed an amendment to strike the entire text and replace it with the text the public safety committee would not hear so it could be voted on by the full senate. Granted he was the author of the bill, but this is more game playing end run tactic than the house committee sub for SB1733.
