Who Shot Campus
Carry? - Part II
A Muth’s Truths
Investigation
By Chuck Muth
May 23, 2015
OK, I’m back. CJ’s basketball
team won 25-9. He had two points, four
rebounds and an assist.
He also appears to have tackled every player on the other
team at least once…and still didn’t foul out.
Thank goodness for lenient refs!
In other news…
Here’s a nutshell, bullet-point highlight list from Part I
of “Who Shot Campus Carry?”…
OK, now you’re caught up.
With Fiore’s campus carry bill (AB148) dead in the Senate,
supporters of campus carry were left with no choice but to add the campus carry
legislation to a bill that had already been passed by the Senate as an
amendment.
That this became necessary was entirely the fault of Brower,
who refused to give AB148 a hearing and a vote, claiming the votes weren’t
there to pass it.
Again, Brower claimed the votes weren’t there in the Senate
to pass campus carry.
PLAN B
Hansen decided to add the campus carry language to SB175 for
a number of reasons, including the fact that it was already a hodge-podge bill
of a variety of gun-related issues and because it was a pet bill of Majority
Leader Roberson.
Now…
If campus carry was included in SB175 and sent back to the
Senate, the Senate would have had three choices:
Option (a), we were told, was not an option. Remember, Brower had killed campus carry two
weeks ago as a stand-alone bill because, he claimed, the votes weren’t there to
pass it.
Again, Brower’s claim all along has been that the votes
aren’t there in the Senate to pass campus carry regardless of how it is
presented – either as a stand-alone bill or an amendment to a bill.
Option (b), wasn’t likely to be an option considering how
badly the Majority Leader wanted his SB175 to pass.
So option (c) was the most likely option the Senate would
have gone with.
At that point, the Assembly would have had a tough decision
to make on whether or not to approve SB175 with campus carry stripped out
(likely) or refuse to take it out and send the bill to a “conference committee”
of the two houses to try to hammer out a compromise.
In either case, SB175 would NOT have been dead.
Now here’s where things get really interesting…
PROTECTING
PRE-EMPTION
Knowing that “pre-emption” was an important issue and high
priority for gun rights activists this session, Hansen, wisely, went ahead and
added the pre-emption language to another gun bill, SB240, which had already
been approved in the Senate by a unanimous 20-0 vote.
That way, even if the Senate DID kill SB175, the
pre-emption item wouldn’t die with it.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, so let me repeat it.
If SB175 was somehow killed, it wouldn’t have killed
pre-emption.
Got it?
In fact, SB240 was approved - with the pre-emption language
added to it - on Thursday, 23-18, with every Republican except, for some
unknown reason, Assemblyman Brent Jones
voting for it (Assemblyman Randy Kirner
was excused).
Nevertheless, the Chicken Little Caucus – led by the
National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Nevada Firearms Coalition (NVFAC), for
whom pre-emption was a bigger priority than protecting women on campus from
rapists and murderers – began squawking hysterically behind the scenes in Carson
City that if campus carry was added to SB175, Brower was going to kill it.
For reasons already stated, not likely.
But even if he did, pre-emption was in NO JEOPARDY
whatsoever, since Hansen had already added it to SB240.
So if anyone tries to tell you that SB175 had to be saved at
all costs to assure passage of pre-emption, they either (a) don’t know what
they’re talking about, or (b) are lying through their teeth.
Still with me?
All week long, enormous pressure was applied to Hansen in an
effort to keep him from adding campus carry to SB175 on the false claim that it
would kill SB175 and, thus, pre-emption.
As such, a last-minute effort by Assemblymen Jim Wheeler and James Oscarson was reportedly being pursued to add campus carry to
SB240 instead of SB175.
This was a flawed strategy that failed to take into account
the fact that Roberson, the Majority Leader, would be FAR more likely to
intervene to save his own SB175 bill than the SB240 bill that he couldn’t care
less about.
Another fatal flaw in the SB240 gambit was that those
mulling it apparently didn’t bother to discuss the option with either Hansen,
the Judiciary Committee chair, or Fiore, the original sponsor of the campus
carry bill.
Inquiring minds wanna know…
Why not?
THE NOT-SO-GREAT EIGHT
In any event, Hansen attempted to add campus carry as an
amendment to SB175 on Thursday – the exact same language that every Republican
in the Assembly - except Assemblyman Steven
Silberkraus and Assemblywoman Melissa
Woodbury, who were absent that day – had already voted for back in April.
Woodbury, however, is an original co-sponsor of the bill.
One Democrat voted for the new SB175/AB148 combo bill –
Assemblyman James Ohrenschall.
However, EIGHT Republicans – including six who voted
for AB148 previously – stood with the rest of the Democrats and voted AGAINST
the amendment to add the exact same campus carry language to the bill.
Thus, the Not-So-Great Eight – Assemblymen Wheeler,
Oscarson, Woodbury, Silberkraus, Paul
Anderson, Derek Armstrong, Lynn Stewart and Chris Edwards - killed campus carry a second time.
Their claim was, and continues to be, that they were trying
to protect pre-emption which, as I’ve already demonstrated, was in no danger
whatsoever even if, after calling Brower’s bluff, he still tried to kill Roberson’s
pet gun bill.
Anyway, immediately after the public learned about how the
Not-So-Great Eight killed campus carry for the second time, all hell broke
loose!
But…
My kids want to go see the new “Poltergeist” movie, and I’m
too cheap not to take them to a matinee.
So let me wrap up Part II here, and we’ll pick up on Part III later.
But let me give you a little heads up before I go…
If this issue is of interest to you, don’t schedule anything
for Monday morning at 8:00 a.m.
Whatever unanswered questions remain after Part III will
be answered, live, at that time.
You will NOT want to miss this.
Stand by for details…
You can read this column online, as well as access archives
of past Muth's Truths columns by clicking here... www.MuthsTruths.com |
Saturday, May 23, 2015
MUTH'S TRUTHS INVESTIGATIONS 05/23/2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment