Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

[JJ4]

After we heard the news, we immediately reached out to Senator Ross - here's the correspondence

Q - Senator Ross, people are extremely upset with your "present" vote on 4121. Please explain...

A - Hello, and nice to hear from you. There is no "present" vote in committee. I reserved my right to vote on the bill in committee. As a licensed gun owner myself, I had a lot of questions and concerns with the bill, and until I got them addressed, I was not going to vote for it, or against it for that matter. However, when it passed, and it was made clear that they would not be allowing amendments, I voted to have it reconsidered. This vote unfortunately fell short. This was very disappointing, because we have a lot of work to do on this bill. I would certainly vote against it with it's current language.

Wat?

Stupid, deceitful, or both.
I'll take door #3 Bob.

Sounds like political double speak & BS to me. He didn't want to piss of his D constituents by voting against the bill so he abstained but then claims he got duped. He's trying to ride both sides of the fence. He also knows we can''t hurt his as bad as the other side so we got pushed under the bus.

Sounds like Ross got caught with FORKED TONGUE.

I suspect that this "reserving the right to vote" is part of parliamentary tactics. Depending on committee rules, it may be that someone on a losing side of a vote cannot make a motion for reconsideration, but someone who "wins" or "reserves their right to vote" may make a motion for reconsideration. I don't really understand what the benefit of this tactic is, but I've seen it used in various places. That being said, I have no idea if that's what Sen. Ross was doing - I'm just offering up a possible viable explanation for his actions.

 

[WBspectrum]

How can a bill leave committee and be passed to the legislature and not be open to amendments? Isn't that what the legislature does, legislate ? How can a committee make a law and not allow for amendments from the legislature?

So weary of all this shit

 

[mattyw]

How can a bill leave committee and be passed to the legislature and not be open to amendments? Isn't that what the legislature does, legislate ? How can a committee make a law and not allow for amendments from the legislature? So weary of all this shit

I'm pretty sure the not allowing amendments he spoke of was in reference to the committee. If it was reconsidered they could amend it in committee. Still doesn't explain why he didn't vote it down outright

 

[WBspectrum]

I'm pretty sure the not allowing amendments he spoke of was in reference to the committee. If it was reconsidered they could amend it in committee. Still doesn't explain why he didn't vote it down outright

That's what I thought. The other posts seemed to imply that it would be voted on as is in the full house.

 

[cmcgraw2]

Nothing new, but at least it's getting coverage:

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio..._gun_control_bill_advances_on_close_committee

House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s new proposal to reduce gun violence has barely emerged with a favorable report from a legislative committee, foreshadowing a potentially turbulent reception in the full House and Senate.

 

[piman]

I suspect that this "reserving the right to vote" is part of parliamentary tactics. Depending on committee rules, it may be that someone on a losing side of a vote cannot make a motion for reconsideration, but someone who "wins" or "reserves their right to vote" may make a motion for reconsideration. I don't really understand what the benefit of this tactic is, but I've seen it used in various places. That being said, I have no idea if that's what Sen. Ross was doing - I'm just offering up a possible viable explanation for his actions.

Makes sense somewhat. Same reason say Sen Harry Reid votes against a bill that would have been filibustered as only someone with a negative can bring it back.

When I called Sen. Timilty this morning his office did mention that the voting stopped at noon Saturday but results couldn't be announced as a member had requested reconsideration.

The optimist in me thinks this is far from done and while there will be a bill it need not be this one it's entirety. We need to keep trying. "They" clearly weren't expecting this much opposition so let's keep up the pressure.

Do office visits help? I can easily do a few from work as it is a T stop away.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[LoginName]

I suspect that this "reserving the right to vote" is part of parliamentary tactics. Depending on committee rules, it may be that someone on a losing side of a vote cannot make a motion for reconsideration, but someone who "wins" or "reserves their right to vote" may make a motion for reconsideration. I don't really understand what the benefit of this tactic is, but I've seen it used in various places. That being said, I have no idea if that's what Sen. Ross was doing - I'm just offering up a possible viable explanation for his actions.

How can a bill leave committee and be passed to the legislature and not be open to amendments? Isn't that what the legislature does, legislate ? How can a committee make a law and not allow for amendments from the legislature?

So weary of all this shit

I'm pretty sure the not allowing amendments he spoke of was in reference to the committee. If it was reconsidered they could amend it in committee. Still doesn't explain why he didn't vote it down outright

The Schoolhouse Rock version, and I'm still not 100% clear on it [sad2], but it looks like we're at step 3, or possibly 4.

https://malegislature.gov/Engage/HowIdeaBecomesLaw/Step1

 

[Chisran]

Nothing on Ross' Facebook page. I figured if you going to sell people out you'd try to explain it there.

 

[jefftk]

I'm pretty sure the not allowing amendments he spoke of was in reference to the committee. If it was reconsidered they could amend it in committee. Still doesn't explain why he didn't vote it down outright

Could be that he thought, like several people here have voiced, that this bill is going through no matter what and the best plan is to try to amend it rather than try to kill the whole thing.

 

[JJ4]

Could be that he thought, like several people here have voiced, that this bill is going through no matter what and the best plan is to try to amend it rather than try to kill the whole thing.

This. Maybe Ross is working on an Amendment that matches GOAL's analysis (i.e. certain sections support and will stay, others removed or modified), and he wants it to be taken seriously rather than someone out to block everything.

I'm just saying let's find out what the guy is doing before we start calling him a traitor. Maybe he's working very hard to get something done for us.

 

[HuntMaine]

This. Maybe Ross is working on an Amendment that matches GOAL's analysis (i.e. certain sections support and will stay, others removed or modified), and he wants it to be taken seriously rather than someone out to block everything.

I'm just saying let's find out what the guy is doing before we start calling him a traitor. Maybe he's working very hard to get something done for us.

Id wager that he does nothing but look for an excuse to protect his position.

Sent from the blind

 

[PaulD]

I don't think this has been posted yet, but here's a list of the bills cosponsors...

NAME: DISTRICT/ADDRESS:
Robert A. DeLeo 19th Suffolk
Cory Atkins 14th Middlesex
Jennifer E. Benson 37th Middlesex
Paul Brodeur 32nd Middlesex
Linda Campbell 15th Essex
Edward F. Coppinger 10th Suffolk
Marjorie C. Decker 25th Middlesex
Denise C. Garlick 13th Norfolk
Kenneth I. Gordon 21st Middlesex
Patricia A. Haddad 5th Bristol
Daniel Hunt 13th Suffolk
Kay Khan 11th Middlesex
David Paul Linsky 5th Middlesex
Paul McMurtry 11th Norfolk
Frank A. Moran 17th Essex
Michael J. Moran 18th Suffolk
Alice Hanlon Peisch 14th Norfolk
David M. Rogers 24th Middlesex
Byron Rushing 9th Suffolk
Daniel Ryan 2nd Suffolk
Jeffrey Sánchez 15th Suffolk
Alan Silvia 7th Bristol
Theodore C. Speliotis 13th Essex
Jack McDevitt
Robert Cerasoli
David Hemenway
John Herman
James Hicks
Marylou Sudders
Paul Dakin

I see McDevitt and David Hemenway in there. Non legislators can sponsor a bill?

 

[mattyw]

He sounds against it I'm not condemning him. I just don't understand why he didn't vote no. Can't be because he had to abstain in order to vote to reconsider, others Did both. Sure it would have passed anyway which makes it even fishier in my opinion. He did someone a favor because his vote didn't really matter

 

[Squire]

I see McDevitt and David Hemenway in there. Non legislators can sponsor a bill?

Who the hell are they? Can we get on a list of random people who are against it?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

It would be a mistake to read anything of significance into the supposedly 'close' committee vote. Speaker DeLeo doesn't need a landslide to get this bill through committee and the two chambers, he needs simple majorities. A good speaker doesn't effectively wield power through threats and intimidation alone. Rather, he uses a combination of carrots, sticks, face-saving ways out.

The votes are already counted long before they actually take place. Members who are truly opposed or would suffer if they voted for the bill are free to vote against it in order to protect themselves. True believers will vote for it. And the malleable middle that doesn't care much or isn't likely to suffer a voter back lash will get something in return for their vote. That way everyone is happy and the bill gets through.

 

[Horrible]

He sounds against it I'm not condemning him. I just don't understand why he didn't vote no. Can't be because he had to abstain in order to vote to reconsider, others Did both. Sure it would have passed anyway which makes it even fishier in my opinion. He did someone a favor because his vote didn't really matter

Same here. Will wait to see how this all plays out to pass judgement. We'll know all we need to know before election season fires up.

 

[GlockJock]

Same here. Will wait to see how this all plays out to pass judgement. We'll know all we need to know before election season fires up.

Yeah, so that we can vote in yet another lying backstabbing piece of sh*t Democrat (or "closet democrat" in Republican clothing) who will promise you ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to win the seat....then lie to you and stab you in the back, laughing as you bleed out, just like all the rest of the lying dirtballs under the "Golden Dome"???

Go ahead: Name ONE TIME when it didn't work out this way in the CommonPuke of LiberChusetts....

 

[jefftk]

I see McDevitt and David Hemenway in there. Non legislators can sponsor a bill?

That is technically the list of "petitioners", not "sponsors" (though, I'm not sure if that is a meaningful difference), that you can see on the official bill.

https://malegislature.gov/Document/Bill/188/House/H4121.pdf
"The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the adoption of the accompanying bill: "

 

[Cero]

I had a thought. Maybe it's a far fetched one but does anyone see this as Naughton as doing Deleo a solid in exchange for his support for his run for Governor next go around?

 

[Len-2A Training]

I assume it means the committee would not be allowing amendments, unless he has knowledge that DeLeo will try to force it to a vote before any amendments once it hits the floor.

That's what I thought. The other posts seemed to imply that it would be voted on as is in the full house.

I'm pretty sure that DeLeo will PREVENT any amendments to the bill through-out the entire process.

I saw this happen with Ch. 180 back in 1998, and I was watching "gavel to gavel" on Ch. 44 (PBS) when it was being voted on. NO amendments were allowed, it was a straight up vote.

Leadership can and does some pretty nasty stuff to get their way. I'm sure that numerous offices are being prepared in the dungeon (basement) of the state house for those that don't go along with the leadership's mandate to vote for this piece of garbage.

 

[center442]

Sometimes a legislator will vote to move a bill forward even though they oppose it and think it will fail a full vote of the legislature. They do this because they don't think they have the votes on the committee to amend the bill enough to neuter it. They vote to move it forward with all the crap left in it to make it so distasteful that it will be rejected on an up or down vote by the whole legislature.

If the bill does get amended, then those pushing for it can argue that they gave the bill careful consideration and modified it in deference to those with a differing viewpoint. By moving the bill forward, unamended, as the steaming pile that it is, it might be distasteful to enough legislators that it won't pass at all, which would be the best outcome.

It also serves as a lesson to those who strong armed the bill through committee. "Hey, we voted your bill out the way you wrote it. Too bad it failed the floor vote." The unwritten message is "Maybe next time you'll actually be open to working with all the legislators to craft a bill that will actually pass."

I don't know if that's what is going on here. I'm only presenting it as a possible scenario. A wise man once said "If you want to keep faith with your fellow man, don't watch laws or sausages being made." (Or something like that.)

 

[Jbarila]

Its not over until the fat lady sings. No way this will pass the full house without amendments, and who says the Senate wont tear it up. They just love DeLeo.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

DeLeo was on the radio (WBUR) this morning saying that the bill would require some changes.

 

[Horrible]

Yeah, so that we can vote in yet another lying backstabbing piece of sh*t Democrat (or "closet democrat" in Republican clothing) who will promise you ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to win the seat....then lie to you and stab you in the back, laughing as you bleed out, just like all the rest of the lying dirtballs under the "Golden Dome"???

Go ahead: Name ONE TIME when it didn't work out this way in the CommonPuke of LiberChusetts....

Sounds like you are tired of "bleeding out". As am I. Unfortunately, this is the reality we live in. I guess that leaves us a few choices.

1) Vote for the other guy (assuming Ross is your State Senator)
2) Run against him yourself and primary him out
3) Head north

All that said, my State Senator is a Dem and he voted NO! So, not sure WTF Ross was doing.

- - - Updated - - -

DeLeo was on the radio (WBUR) this morning saying that the bill would require some changes.

Good. Hopefully not adding stuff that is worse!

Kuhner was on the radio this am kicking the crap out this legislative, steaming pile of crap.

 

[7OGlock]

DeLeo was on the radio (WBUR) this morning saying that the bill would require some changes.

He said that in an article a week ago, but still put it through with no amendments...

 

[jefftk]

He said that in an article a week ago, but still put it through with no amendments...

The only thing we know for sure is that the committee put it through with no amendments, whether or not DeLeo had a hand in that is speculation.

 

[ggboy]

What happens if the bill , in any form, passes the house but does not make it time for the Senate to vote on it again?
Is it presented in the Senate next session or do theyu have to go through the whole
process all over again?
ggboy

 

[Mike S]

What happens if the bill , in any form, passes the house but does not make it time for the Senate to vote on it again?
Is it presented in the Senate next session or do theyu have to go through the whole
process all over again?
ggboy

That's not going to happen, not with Fat Bob cracking the whip

 

[goodzilla]

What happens if the bill , in any form, passes the house but does not make it time for the Senate to vote on it again?
Is it presented in the Senate next session or do theyu have to go through the whole
process all over again?
ggboy

Elections coming up in November, this will pass this session, in some shape or form. The MA progressives wouldn't earn their Constitution Fire Starting merit badges if they delayed until the next session. There's a long walk for any bill to become law, and the session's over 31July. I'd guess we have about 2-3 weeks, max, to get the "best" bill possible, through amendments. Then time's up, pencils down. That inevitability is probably what got DeLeo's bill out of committee so fast.

 

[P-14]

Ross may have made a deal with the devil for future consideration. It happens and I hope he didn't.