jt59
Regular Member
More info and update from some legislators on this bill
Here is some more responses that I recieved on this last night and this A.M., note the subtle message (my italics/bold) sent from Joe.
From Joe Schmick
Thank you for your message in opposition to HB 2067. It was originally scheduled for a public hearing on April 13th in the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill has been pulled from the agenda.
We will have to wait and see if it indeed stays off the agenda for the remainder of the week.
I have received numerous calls and emails on this topic over the last few days. Not one person has contacted me in support of the bill. I am hearing loud and clear to oppose the bill. I appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely, Joe Schmick
State Representative
From Ed Orcutt (note, my question preceeds his response)...
From: JT59
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:47 PM
To: Orcutt, Rep. Ed
Subject: RE: please vote against this in committee
Ed,
Thank you for responding so quickly. This appeared to me to be less about budget issues being addressed as much as an thinly veiled attack on 2A rights by weakening 9.41.
Is there actually a verifiable number floating around that can be related to the
re-imbursement costs of those that needed to defend themselves that rationalized this bill for the sponsor in the first place?
Please tell me I am incorrect in my suspicious nature but, while the bill got pulled from the hearing tomorrow, unfortunately it now has a shelf life.
I'm curious now, as to how a bill can be introduced on the floor and then debated and/or voted on without any public discourse under the guise of "budget enhancement"
....can they attach this as a ideological policy rider like as is often done at the national level (most recent extension of spending)?
jt
He responded
John,
Bills are introduced on the floor but only to be referred to a committee. The committee chair then determines whether or not to hold a public hearing on a bill.
If no hearing, the bill seldom advances.
But, anyone can offer the language as an amendment to any bill having a title under which it fits.
I did this with a bill I introduced that went nowhere this year. I got it partially approved by amending it onto a bill with a title open to it. It is a win for the taxpayers.
And, yes, any bill introduced in the odd year is eligible to be heard and passed in the even year as well. We’ll do our best to keep this bill from passing.
Ed
Response from Rep. Bruce Dammier
Thanks for the email, John. I received a message indicating that HB 2067 has been removed from the agenda today. This is likely a reaction to the strong opposition to this bill from folks back home.
As for me, you can rest assured that unless this bill is dramatically amended, I will oppose it.
Sincerely,
Bruce
We need to continue to be vigilant on this, and as for Bruce, I am not sure how this bill could ever be amended to make it pallatable!
Here is some more responses that I recieved on this last night and this A.M., note the subtle message (my italics/bold) sent from Joe.
From Joe Schmick
Thank you for your message in opposition to HB 2067. It was originally scheduled for a public hearing on April 13th in the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill has been pulled from the agenda.
We will have to wait and see if it indeed stays off the agenda for the remainder of the week.
I have received numerous calls and emails on this topic over the last few days. Not one person has contacted me in support of the bill. I am hearing loud and clear to oppose the bill. I appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely, Joe Schmick
State Representative
From Ed Orcutt (note, my question preceeds his response)...
From: JT59
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:47 PM
To: Orcutt, Rep. Ed
Subject: RE: please vote against this in committee
Ed,
Thank you for responding so quickly. This appeared to me to be less about budget issues being addressed as much as an thinly veiled attack on 2A rights by weakening 9.41.
Is there actually a verifiable number floating around that can be related to the
re-imbursement costs of those that needed to defend themselves that rationalized this bill for the sponsor in the first place?
Please tell me I am incorrect in my suspicious nature but, while the bill got pulled from the hearing tomorrow, unfortunately it now has a shelf life.
I'm curious now, as to how a bill can be introduced on the floor and then debated and/or voted on without any public discourse under the guise of "budget enhancement"
....can they attach this as a ideological policy rider like as is often done at the national level (most recent extension of spending)?
jt
He responded
John,
Bills are introduced on the floor but only to be referred to a committee. The committee chair then determines whether or not to hold a public hearing on a bill.
If no hearing, the bill seldom advances.
But, anyone can offer the language as an amendment to any bill having a title under which it fits.
I did this with a bill I introduced that went nowhere this year. I got it partially approved by amending it onto a bill with a title open to it. It is a win for the taxpayers.
And, yes, any bill introduced in the odd year is eligible to be heard and passed in the even year as well. We’ll do our best to keep this bill from passing.
Ed
Response from Rep. Bruce Dammier
Thanks for the email, John. I received a message indicating that HB 2067 has been removed from the agenda today. This is likely a reaction to the strong opposition to this bill from folks back home.
As for me, you can rest assured that unless this bill is dramatically amended, I will oppose it.
Sincerely,
Bruce
We need to continue to be vigilant on this, and as for Bruce, I am not sure how this bill could ever be amended to make it pallatable!
Last edited: