04.10.13
The four gun bills scheduled to be amended and voted on today have been pushed back until Tuesday.
Although at the hearing, Floyd Prozanski noted they would be heard on Monday, we have heard from the Committee Administrator it will be Tuesday and that is how it is currently scheduled on the legislative website.
Prozanski stated that the delay was due to numerous amendments that are being drafted as a result of the testimony last Friday. At this point we have no idea what they will be.
(SB 281, the bill that would extend medical marijuana use to persons with PTSD passed out of committee with no amendments warning users that using medical marijuana prohibits them from owning firearms.)
Keep in mind that these schedules can change minute by minute, so while it’s always best to keep an eye on the committee schedule on the legislature’s website, what’s posted there is no guarantee of what will happen when the hearing or work session actually starts. This is important for people who travel or take time off from work.
Also remember that at “work sessions” there is no public testimony taken, so all public input has to happen before a work session.
Of course at a “work session” bills can be amended into completely different animals than the original bill which received public testimony. When that happens, there is no opportunity for the public to comment on the final bill in a “public hearing.” A bill you may have strongly supported can turn into an anti-gun bill with you on the record as being in favor of it.
This is why we are concerned with the two bills scheduled for the following day, April 17th.
One is a bill to allow for firing ranges to be built on farmland. The other is a bill that increases the value of firearms not subject to a lien in a bankruptcy. The second bill is so obscure that it would be very odd for it to get a hearing at all, except for one thing. The “relating clause” in the bill.
The “relating clause” dictates what amendments can be made to the bill. So a very specific relating clause (“Relating to permission of retired police to carry firearms in public buildings” for example) would allow far fewer amendments than a relating clause like “Relating to firearms” which is exactly what this bill’s relating clause is.
We are quite certain that this bill will be used as a vehicle for issues unrelated to what it proposes now.
We’ll be watching.
Thanks for your support and activism.