Delaware Lack of Wisdom

[mikeb302000]

from http://www.delawareliberal.net/2011/06/22/having-a-gun-while-intoxicated-bill-fails-by-1-vote/

Senate Bill 29, or more specifically Senate Substitute Bill 1 to Senate Bill 29, which would have made it illegal for individuals to possess loaded, un-stored and active firearms outside of their homes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, was just defeated in the Senate by a vote of 10 to 7. It takes 11 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. You will notice that there are four missing Senators, because the Senate has 21 members, and only 17 of them did their jobs tonight. Who are the four who decided not to vote on this bill?

Will someone please explain to us how such a vote was possible? Who in their right mind would think possessing a gun while drunk or loaded on drugs is acceptable?

(cross posted on http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/)

Please leave a comment.

[gejohnston]

1. redundent

I don't know of any place where public intoxication is not a crime. The drugs is self evident. It is almost like states that pass min age to purchase that are the same as federal law.

[mikeb302000]

2. I don't know if that's what we're talking about

Public intoxication may or may not be a crime everywhere, I don't know, but I don't think it sufficiently covers carrying a gun while drunk. Places where you can carry a gun must have a specific law against doing so while drinking or drunk.

[gejohnston]

4. Everywhere in the US I have been, public intoxication is.

Come to think of it, I have not been in a country where it isn't. As for an additional charge of the weapon, I doubt the DA will take it seriously. When you start seeing felons in possession and criminals using unregistred sawed off shot guns showing up in federal court instead of being pled out by local DAs, I will agree with your point.

[Glassunion]

3. Not sure what you are complaining about. The premise of your post is slightly misguided.

"Will someone please explain to us how such a vote was possible? Who in their right mind would think possessing a gun while drunk or loaded on drugs is acceptable?" I doubt that anyone can. My best guess(purely speculation) is there were issues with amendments to the bill. However, since I cannot find text of those amendments that were stricken from the final version so, I cannot say for certain.

That said, on June 22nd the 1st amendment to the bill was introduced to the Senate, and the amendment to the bill passed unanimously by 21 votes. However, the bill itself was defeated as you outlined in your post. This is where my speculation comes in, as there may have been something else wrong with the bill that not everyone could get behind.

The following week on the 28th, the bill was placed back on the table in the Senate with a 2nd amendment to the bill. It was then lifted and introduced with a 3rd amendment to the bill. That amendment was passed by the Senate, striking whatever was in the 2nd amendment to the bill by a vote of 20 to 1(not voting). The final bill passed by a vote of 18 to 3.

On the 29th it was reported out of Judiciary Committee in the House with 5 on its merits and 1 unfavorable.

On the 30th it was passed to the House where it passed unanimously with 41 to 0.

My guess is now it will become law when the Gov. Jack Markell signs it. The bill passed and will most likely become law.

[petronius]

5. It seems like the substitution bill added in definitions of 'possession' , and 'public place'

that were lacking in the original. Also, they excluded firearms that are not currently operable, or for which ammunition is not present.

Original --> http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/7712cf7cc0e9227a852568470077336f/387bb5e4280fd54985257853005e4783?OpenDocument

Substitution --> http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/2bede841c6272c888025698400433a04/cf3e0009834c518b852578b10057eb35?OpenDocument

Those seem like appropriate changes to me; there's no basis for outrage in this process, and the blog post cited in the OP is a week out of date anyway (as you indicated).

It looks like the amendment deleted reference to concealed carry permits - striking that very last entry (e) - people convicted under this bill will not lose their permits as originally specified...

[eqfan592]

6. Thanks to both of you for finding this info.

I'm curious to see what the OP thinks about this...

EDIT: Also, take note of the fact that the website linked in the OP never bothered to come back and address the fact that a modified version of the bill did end up being passed. I find that very telling.

[petronius]

9. Agree with your edit, absolutely. As to the OP, I think he's far more concerned

with driving traffic to his own blog than with any conversation occurring here... :shrug:

[jpak]

7. Only in NRA Amerika

yup

[eqfan592]

8. LOL, way to NOT READ THE REPLIES, jpak.

It DID end up passing, after some changes, a week later.

http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis146.nsf/2bede841c6272c888025698400433a04/cf3e0009834c518b852578b10057eb35?OpenDocument

[mikeb302000]

10. sorry for the delay

in getting back here to thank you for the information that a modified bill did eventually pass.

Maybe Delaware is not as backwards as I first thought.

[gejohnston]

11. Oh I don't know

In South Carolina (at least when I was there) you could not sip a beer on your front porch gun or not. As a liberal in the John Locke Thomas Paine tradition, I would call the gun laws of Chicago, DC, and NYC as feudal.

[ileus]

12. It's already law...don't they have some real work to attend to???