Molly B. Posted May 8, 2009 at 06:44 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 06:44 PM With friends like these - who needs enemies . . . NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL A little background first. For the past decade and a half license-to-carry bills introduced in the IL General Assembly have become routine and hold little to no expectation of passing due to opposition from the Chicago/Cook Co. legislators. That opposition means every year the same old bills calling for statewide preemption which would force the carry law into Chicago guarantees the bill is dead on arrival. A bill or two may make the headlines but never to the floor for a vote largely due to the opposition of Mayor Daley and Cook County legislators. The likelihood of a statewide preemption bill being passed is greatly reduced by the fact that bills preempting home rule status require 71 votes for passage rather than a simple majority of 60. Double or triple that reduction by the fact that in Chicago it is illegal to even own a handgun let alone carry one for self-defense purposes. We find it somewhat ludicrous to even consider a statewide preemptive bill passing in the state of Illinois given those circumstances. Other states like Ohio and Nebraska faced years of major opposition like this. They finally won their battle by passing a carry law which we in Illinois would call "subject to home rule". An imperfect bill that allowed major cities to opt out but did provide a means for license-to-carry to get a foothold in the state. Pro-Second Amendment groups in Ohio were then able to prove carrying firearms for self-defense works and they came back in just a few short years and successfully expanded the law to include everyone. Nebraska, just two short years after passing their license-to-carry bill now has statewide preemption according to their state's Attorney General and are now working to amend their law. With those recent successes in mind many license-to-carry supporters in Illinois were very excited when down state Representative Brandon Phelps courageously decided it was time to try the same strategy in Illinois - how about a bill that would require only a simple majority of 60 votes, would provide an opportunity for license-to-carry to get a foot in the door, something similar to what has been so successful in Ohio and Nebraska . . . how about a "subject to home rule" bill which would allow home rule municipalities to opt out if they so chose but citizens in the vast majority of the state would be free to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms? The Citizens Self-defense Act, HB 2257, was born. Keeping in mind a statewide preemptive law is the ultimate goal, IllinoisCarry members, including members residing in municipalities sure to ban the practice, have given their full support to the idea of subject to home rule carry and believe the premise behind it is the best hope of getting any kind of license-to-carry bill passed in the state of Illinois. HB2257 started off with good promise, the sponsor reported he felt sure he could garner the 60 votes needed to pass it out of the House. So it came as a huge shock and disappointment to learn from legislators that the NRA was actually lobbying against it. When contacted by lllinoisCarry the NRA-ILA lobbyist confirmed the NRA-ILA was indeed lobbying against the bill and vowed to kill it. The reason given for the opposition was that the bill did not include statewide preemption, that it would create a patchwork of ordinances all across the state which could be detrimental to license holders, and it would ultimately be vetoed by Gov. Quinn and still need 71 votes for a veto override. Therefore we should continue to wait and work toward a change in the political makeup of the IL legislature. IllinoisCarry maintains that statewide preemption didn't pass even when we did have a more favorable party in office and continuing to wait for countless more years will only result in more defenseless victims being violently assaulted and murdered. Citizens in the rest of the state where license to carry is being welcomed should not be denied the right to defend themselves just because other municipalities choose to infringe on their citizens' rights. Furthering the argument for a subject to home rule bill like HB2257, IllinoisCarry is confident it will lead to statewide preemption as it has in Ohio and Nebraska. IL firearm owners already have to work within a patchwork of city ordinances concerning firearms and a look at the listing of city ordinances on the Illinois State Police website would verify that fact. Although Gov. Quinn may very well veto the bill, we will never know that if every such bill is killed by the NRA-ILA without a good hard push for passage. We need the NRA-ILA and their hardworking lobbyists on the IL Second Amendment team. But we differ greatly on this issue of denying an opportunity for a subject to home rule bill to come to a vote. The NRA-ILA lobbyist for Illinois is one of the best in the country and has been invaluable in the battle to curtail bad gun bills in the state of Illinois. We recognize a lobbyist must follow the bidding of the organization they represent. We have been assured by him that if the NRA-ILA changes their stance on the issue to one of support then he will support the issue also. Now after weeks of conversation with the NRA-ILA, their leadership team has temporarily changed their position from opposition to neutral while they claim to study the issue. It is our opinion a subject to home rule license-to-carry bill will not advance in Illinois without the support of the NRA-ILA. We need the NRA to SUPPORT subject to home rule carry in Illinois. WHAT CAN YOU DO? LOBBY THE NRA! If you are an NRA member, resident of Illinois, visit Illinois, or even travel through Illinois please call the numbers below - REMEMBER BE POLITE BUT FIRM- and tell them you want their support for subject to home rule license-to-carry in Illinois. If you are a resident of Chicago or any other municipality that might exercise the right to "opt out" of concealed carry, assure the NRA-ILA that you know the most effective and expeditious way to get concealed carry into your area is to get it into the rest of the state first. Do not let them get caught up in HB2257 specifically - bills can be amended, it's the issue of subject to home rule we want them to support. Contact the following NRA-ILA leadership team: Chris CoxExecutive DirectorNRA-ILA1-800-392-86831-703-267-3973 faxCCox@NRAhq.org Scott ChristmanAssist. Ex. Dir.NRA-ILA703-267-1140SChristman@NRAhq.org Randy KozuchDirectorILA-State and Local Affairs703-267-1202703-267-3976 faxRKozuch@NRAhq.org p.s. It has been suggested that when emailing/faxing use the following in your subject line - PLEASE SUPPORT "SUBJECT TO HOME RULE" LICENSE-TO-CARRY IN ILLINOIS (write your own message or copy and paste the following) Please support ‘subject to home rule' license-to-carry in Illinois. While I understand this is not the optimal kind of law, it is a first, baby-step that has been effective in other states, such as Ohio and Nebraska. Thank you, (Sign with your full name and NRA Member if you are)
Molly B. Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:04 PM Author Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:04 PM This thread is for discussing the NRA-ILA lobbying against HB2257, the Illinois subject-to-home-rule license to carry bill.As upset as we are with the NRA-ILA it is very important that we keep the discussion civil, on topic, and not let it degrade into personal attacks. Our goal is not to malign the NRA-ILA. Our goal is to urge folks to lobby the NRA-ILA for subject to home rule as our best hope for bringing license-to-carry into Illinois. Please keep discussion on topic. Inappropriate posts or those resorting to personal attacks will be removed.
bob Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:15 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:15 PM What NRA lobbyist opposed the bill? It seems fair that said lobbyist be given a chance to explain his thinking more fully before we beat on them and deluge them with ill thought out comments of outrage I agree that a bill that would allow counties to opt out has a better chance of passing than one that has no opt out clause. What does our favorite ISRA lobbyist have to say about this situation?
abolt243 Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:20 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:20 PM Ladies and Gentlemen of Illinois Carry, We have a mission. That mission is to lead ALL gun owners in the effort to lobby the NRA/ILA to gain thier SUPPORT of Subject to Home Rule LTC in Illinois. I encourage you to spread this word to every gun owner that you know in the state of Illinois. Take it to your gun clubs this weekend, post it on other boards that you frequent. Print it off and take it to the range to your mid-week league. Get the word out to everyone to contact the NRA/ILA and encourage their support for our efforts here. As Molly said, this is not a personal attack on anyone affiliated with the NRA. The NRA and it's lobbyists have done an outstanding job over the last several years in helping Illinoisians hold onto their rights and have been instrumental in stopping a lot of bad gun legislation that has been introduced by the Osterman's and Kotowski's of the General Assembly. We need the support of the NRA to gain LTC in Illinois. When I first heard of the action by the NRA, my initial thought was to tear up my membership card and mail it back to them. Upon consideration, that is exactly the wrong thing to do. Any organization reacts to it's members. If you're not a member, you don't have as much clout. The NRA presently has a special deal to join for free. I would suggest to you non-members, before you call to lobby for support of LTC, hit that website, sign up for a trial membership at the link above. When you contact the NRA, tell them what you've done and that your continued support of them will depend on their support of you and your rights in the state of Illinois!! Folks, we can do this!! We must do this! If you're not a member of the NRA, join for free, then call/e-mail and fax the NRA officials above at the numbers and addresses listed. Be cordial and professional, but firm in your request that they support our efforts here in Illinois. Tim
abolt243 Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:27 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:27 PM What NRA lobbyist opposed the bill? It seems fair that said lobbyist be given a chance to explain his thinking more fully before we beat on them and deluge them with ill thought out comments of outrage I agree that a bill that would allow counties to opt out has a better chance of passing than one that has no opt out clause. What does our favorite ISRA lobbyist have to say about this situation? Bob, This is exactly what Molly was talking about. The NRA lobbyists take their direction from the headquarters in Virginia. Their personal beliefs can not/do not enter into their representation of the NRA in Springfield. TVandermyde, the senior NRA lobbyist that posts here from time to time has assured myself and others in public and private meetings that he will act as directed by the NRA management. That's the reason for the push to contact the officials in Virginia. The ISRA has a whole separate team of lobbyists, although they do work very closely together with TVandermyde and the other NRA lobbyists. This position (opposition to 2257) was wholly a position of the NRA/ILA, NOT the ISRA. Don't get the two organizations confused. Thanks for asking. We need to keep our mission clear. Contact the NRA officials in Virginia and lobby them for support of STHR LTC in Illinois!! Tim
asfried1 Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:30 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:30 PM This is actually pretty shocking. I met with my ultra-liberal state senator, Susan Garrett, just after IGOLD. Her stated reason for opposing a law that did not contain preemption was that it would "create a patchwork of laws." Now I find out that her position and that of the NRA-ILA are almost word-for-word identical. I am torn between thinking she got her line from the NRA of all places, or simply that she and the NRA just think exactly the same on this subject. Neither situation is acceptable. More to the point, there has been no secret about IllinoisCarry's strategy. But this is the first time we find out that the NRA has been at working at cross purposes? I would be much less aggravated if the NRA had simply been forthright. One question: How would the executives at NRA-ILA react if we started lobbying in their home state (Virginia?) against laws that they very much wanted passed?
SirMatthew Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:31 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:31 PM When we met with the NRA lobbyist in person last week he indicated he would prefer preemption bills (wouldn't we all!), but on a personal level he said he was not adamantly opposed to 2257. I would like to echo what has already been said, he is deserving of our support as he has worked really hard killing bad bills and promoting good ones. I was thoroughly impressed with his level of knowledge, experience, ideas, and have a great deal of respect for him. Unfortunately, his employer (the NRA) holds a position which is contrary to the "subject to home rule" approach we would like to take with 2257. Let's focus on getting the NRA organization behind it and everything else falls into place.
Molly B. Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:33 PM Author Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:33 PM One question: Did the executives who came up with the NRA position live in Illiniois?No, they are based in the Fairfax, Virginia office.
GarandFan Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:41 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:41 PM When we met with the NRA lobbyist in person last week he indicated he would prefer preemption bills (wouldn't we all!), but on a personal level he said he was not adamantly opposed to 2257. I would like to echo what has already been said, he is deserving of our support as he has worked really hard killing bad bills and promoting good ones. I was thoroughly impressed with his level of knowledge, experience, ideas, and have a great deal of respect for him. Unfortunately, his employer (the NRA) holds a position which is contrary to the "subject to home rule" approach we would like to take with 2257. Let's focus on getting the NRA organization behind it and everything else falls into place. Absolutely agreed. If we here allow this to foment anger against Todd, we will set ourselves back. Todd is incredibly smart, talented, and knows the ropes in Springfield. Simply put, we need him and need to appreciate him. But we also know that there will be no preemption carry bill passing in Illinois. Subject to home rule is the necessary first step. We have a right to bear arms for lawful purposes, and by God, let's make it happen however we can. Todd is an employee of headquarters in Virginia. And it is THEY who must be lobbied for support. They are sure to put this brightly on the radar if we flood their office about this. I know I've written them already.
Lou Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:45 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:45 PM This is actually pretty shocking. I met with my ultra-liberal state senator, Susan Garrett, just after IGOLD. Her stated reason for opposing a law that did not contain preemption was that it would "create a patchwork of laws." Now I find out that her position and that of the NRA-ILA are almost word-for-word identical. I am torn between thinking she got her line from the NRA of all places, or simply that she and the NRA just think exactly the same on this subject. Neither situation is acceptable. I have no personal lnowledge but my gut feeling is that the similarity in phrasing is more than a coincidence. Instead of posting here, how about we all get on our e-mail programs right now and send RESPECTFUL letters to the NRA-ILA asking for their help. We need all the help we can get right now.
GarandFan Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:48 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:48 PM Indeed ... a patchwork of laws is what Illinois has had for years and years. Of course it sucks. But it's the law in this state. Thus, we have to pass a carry bill subject to home rule.
asfried1 Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:51 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:51 PM When we met with the NRA lobbyist in person last week he indicated he would prefer preemption bills (wouldn't we all!), but on a personal level he said he was not adamantly opposed to 2257. I would like to echo what has already been said, he is deserving of our support as he has worked really hard killing bad bills and promoting good ones. I was thoroughly impressed with his level of knowledge, experience, ideas, and have a great deal of respect for him. Unfortunately, his employer (the NRA) holds a position which is contrary to the "subject to home rule" approach we would like to take with 2257. Let's focus on getting the NRA organization behind it and everything else falls into place. Absolutely agreed. If we here allow this to foment anger against Todd, we will set ourselves back. Todd is incredibly smart, talented, and knows the ropes in Springfield. Simply put, we need him and need to appreciate him. But we also know that there will be no preemption carry bill passing in Illinois. Subject to home rule is the necessary first step. We have a right to bear arms for lawful purposes, and by God, let's make it happen however we can. Todd is an employee of headquarters in Virginia. And it is THEY who must be lobbied for support. They are sure to put this brightly on the radar if we flood their office about this. I know I've written them already. Interestingly, Susan Garrett echoed your opinion on Todd. I don't have a beef with Todd - don't know him, never met him. I'll take your word for it that he is a great lobbyist for 2A causes. However, I have committed a lot of money (for me) and time (for me) over the past year or so on LTC. I'm not by nature an outspoken leader, but I have made no fewer than 100 calls, donated thousands of dollars, and spent and many hours of my time in recent months. I read this forum, the NRA website, and the ISRA website on a daily basis. And this is the first we hear of this???? I won't direct my anger towards Todd (like I said, I've never even met the man), but I will direct it somewhere. There is not a chance in the world that I would have donated to the NRA if I knew this had been going on. Maybe my response to this will spur the NRA-ILA people to take a different position. Maybe it will just prevent me from being a sucker in the future. But exactly how do people go about trusting the NRA after this? Do I get my donations back if the NRA sticks to undermining the 2A agenda of Illinoisans?
GarandFan Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:56 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 07:56 PM Do I get my donations back if the NRA sticks to undermining the 2A agenda of Illinoisans? I think that's a question you need to ask Chris, Scott, and Randy. CCox@nrahq.org, SChristman@nrahq.org, RKozuch@nrahq.org
Kenny Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:07 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:07 PM Randy's office said the Executives are in a meeting discussing that very issue their phones have been ringing off the hook!!! He is supposed to call me back.
Lou Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:12 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:12 PM Suggestions for la etter: Besides STHR, there are other things that set HB2257 apart from past bills that we need to mention.The emergency LTC issuance provision for battered women.The DNR as the issuing agency.Most importantly, this is the only bill to EVER get the endorsement of the Illinois Sheriff's Association. It wouldn't hurt to add your NRA membership number either. Get this calls, letters and faxes going!!!!!!!!!!!!
mauserme Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:18 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:18 PM Unfortunately, his employer (the NRA) holds a position which is contrary to the "subject to home rule" approach we would like to take with 2257.If that is the case, if they are imposing their will over the will of the people who grant them power, then they are no better than the politicians who work so feverishly to control us. But I will reserve judgment until Todd or another NRA representative has a chance to respond. And respond they must ..
Don Gwinn Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:24 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:24 PM Welllll . . . . let's not go too far out on that limb. There IS a huge difference between the NRA and Mike Madigan, for instance. And if I were Todd, I wouldn't be going out of my way to jump out and respond to this. The guys in Virginia made their choice, let them either defend it or change it.
Molly B. Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:30 PM Author Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:30 PM Todd Vandermyde has a lot on his plate right now with the end of session. Let's not distract him from the battles at hand. In the meantime, as Don says, let the guys in Virginia do the answering for the position they have taken.
GarandFan Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:30 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:30 PM Randy's office said the Executives are in a meeting discussing that very issue their phones have been ringing off the hook!!! He is supposed to call me back. Looking forward to hearing what he has to say. Given the way this group is good at calling legislators ... I bet their phones are a bit busy, and their inboxes getting full. And that's good. They need to know we are frigging serious.
bob Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:31 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:31 PM Does anyone know what the consequences of the home rule opt out is? Does it only allow the home rule unit to not issue, while still allowing people issued from the rest of the state to carry in their jurisdiction? that would not be so bad. If it allows basically any home rule unit to opt out of allowing people to carry in their jurisdiction thats a much worse situation and worthy of some consideration of the potential ramifications. Its a fair thing to ask just how someone is supposed to know the city or county they are passing through has passed an ordinance prohibiting carry in their jurisdiction.I am not saying I would not accept the bill solely on that basis, but it is something that should be fully considered up front. Its entirely possible the NRA-ILA will reconsider its opposition if enough NRA members from Illinois ask them to do so. I would still like to have the NRA/ILA thinking on this put out on the table first. They may well have a very good point. It is a little distressing that they would wait until the bill has some chance before announcing their opposition. Is the ISRA also opposed to the bill? Just how would a bill that has no support from the NRA or the ISRA ever even get this far? Didn't the bill's sponsor ever talk to them first? I think there is more going on here than meets the eye and I want more information before doing anything. I am going to email Chris Cox and tell him so.
1957Human Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:31 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:31 PM Since Todd V is "on the ground" with legislators regarding this issue, I'd sure like to know if, in his opinion, the NRA national office's position actually changed any legislator's opinion on HB 2257. And, in if that is the case (which I frankly doubt), who? Edited in p.m. to correct misleading typo.
GarandFan Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:32 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:32 PM If that is the case, if they are imposing their will over the will of the people who grant them power, then they are no better than the politicians who work so feverishly to control us. But I will reserve judgment until Todd or another NRA representative has a chance to respond. And respond they must .. Good point ... but consider the possibility that the will of the people has not, en masse, been communicated to the NRA higher-ups.
bob Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:33 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:33 PM Unfortunately, his employer (the NRA) holds a position which is contrary to the "subject to home rule" approach we would like to take with 2257.If that is the case, if they are imposing their will over the will of the people who grant them power, then they are no better than the politicians who work so feverishly to control us. But I will reserve judgment until Todd or another NRA representative has a chance to respond. And respond they must ..One would think Todd could at least tell us what their actual position is and why.
Arch1GLK Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:39 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:39 PM But I will reserve judgment until Todd or another NRA representative has a chance to respond. And respond they must ..One would think Todd could at least tell us what their actual position is and why. Timing is good though to see him tomorrow morning at Countryside.
SirMatthew Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:41 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:41 PM Does anyone know what the consequences of the home rule opt out is? From what I understand, anyone in the state could get the LTC permit, even Chicago residents. However, if a municipality passed an "opt out" ordinance saying "we don't honor the LTC permit", then no citizen could carry there. As we travel from various towns and cities across the state, yes, it would be confusing. That confusion itself would probably lead to future revisions which aim to eliminate all that confusion, meaning statewide preemption.
abolt243 Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:42 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:42 PM We asked Todd that very question at the "Ask Todd" meeting the other night. The official NRA position right now on STHR LTC for Illinois is "Neutral" as stated in the opening post. The reason given for the former "opposed" position was the supposed "patchwork of laws" that might result. Our response to that was, "And how is that different than what we have now?? And why should the opposition by the Chicago machine to LTC, render me defenseless in my hometown??" Tim
abolt243 Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:48 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:48 PM Since Todd V is "one the ground" with legislators regarding this issue, I'd sure like to know if, in his opinion, the NRA national office's position actually changed any legislator's opinion on HB 2257. And, in if that is the case (which I frankly doubt), who? Never underestimate the power of the NRA and Todd in Springfield. In my opinion, their movement from "oppose" to "neutral" was enough to encourage the sponsor of 2257 to revitalize his efforts to push the bill. I'm sure there were other legislators that I contacted to sponsor 2257 that didn't because it was not "supported" by the NRA. AB
bob Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:51 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:51 PM Here is the text of my email to them. I have been told by a source I consider to be reliable that the NRA/ILA has decided to actually oppose this bill, and has directed its Illinois lobbyist to do so. I would like an answer to a few questions. 1. Is this substantially true? 2. If so, I would like a detailed explanation of the thinking that would oppose whats appears to me to be basically a good bill. What I am told is that the opposition, if true, is based on the lack of a state wide preemption over local home rule units. I don't know how familiar you guys are with Illinois law and Illinois politics, but Illinois home rule units jealously guard that power. If you try to force state wide preemption into a LTC bill, it just will never pass. Even if the home rule units would not want to opt out, they want to retain their prerogatives. Chances are very good that outside of Cook County, no home rule unit would opt out of the thing in any case. I understand the desire to have a clean LTC law, but a messy one is far more desirable than nothing. Just out of curiosity, what is the NRA/ILA's belief that a LTC law that was not preempted would be? I am not talking about some generalized patchwork of laws kind of explanation, more along the lines of what it really means. For instance, if a county or city opted out, would someone from outside that jurisdiction still be able to carry inside the opted out unit's boundaries? I don't usually bother to tell you guys what to do, because mostly I think you are on the right course. But this case bothers me. If any of you feel the urge to chat about this, I can be reached on my cell phone at XXX-XXX-XXXX or at home XXX-XXX-XXXX (after about 5:30 pm CDT). Bob XXXXNRA Life Member #XXXXXXXX
GarandFan Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:52 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:52 PM Does anyone know what the consequences of the home rule opt out is? Does it only allow the home rule unit to not issue, while still allowing people issued from the rest of the state to carry in their jurisdiction? that would not be so bad. If it allows basically any home rule unit to opt out of allowing people to carry in their jurisdiction thats a much worse situation and worthy of some consideration of the potential ramifications. Its a fair thing to ask just how someone is supposed to know the city or county they are passing through has passed an ordinance prohibiting carry in their jurisdiction.I am not saying I would not accept the bill solely on that basis, but it is something that should be fully considered up front. I strongly recommend anyone interested in this to read HB2257. DNR was the issuing agency. Being a state agency, they process anyone's application. It's "shall-issue." Opt-out municipalities would simply criminalize carry despite whether the carrier was licensed, or not. Patchwork of laws? Yes. But that's precisely what we have. Try driving across the country carrying a handgun. You have to know all the laws of all the states you drive through. That's just the way it is. Likewise, the various home-rule gun laws we have in Illinois are the same. Drive around with a handgun or AR or something and you get that "now legal, not legal, now legal again" sort of situation. So what? This is because we don't have firearms law preemption. And we are no where near getting it, because it requires super-majority. A bill subject to home rule needs, per our constitution, a simple majority. HB2257 was subject to home rule ... the only such bill introduced during this session, and the only one that stood a snowflake's chance of passing. At some level, it's really that simple.
Thirdpower Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:53 PM Posted May 8, 2009 at 08:53 PM I'll be at the convention next week. I'll be sure to bring it up to the powers that be.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.