SB 724 Passes

[The Hawg Marshal]

Is yours the same as mine?

Probably. Two of them from around here voted against the amendment.

[Mike Irwin]

Observers predicted something more like 50/50 early in the day.  Some were surprised at the overwhelming nature of the vote.

Those observers had no common sense. There's no way those people were going to let a bill stand that would wreck college sports in this state. I'm told that most of the 20 against votes came from legislators who wanted more exemptions added.

[BigoBoys]

Government blew it, now getting it right.  Media overplayed it, made it sound like 72000 fans going to shoot their pistols after each score (like a scene from Blazing Saddles).  CCL holders some of the most law abiding citizens in the state.  Property owners should have a right to keep people with guns off their property.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Those observers had no common sense. There's no way those people were going to let a bill stand that would wreck college sports in this state. I'm told that most of the 20 against votes came from legislators who wanted more exemptions added.

So those who wanted more exemptions voted for no exemptions instead of a getting some? Hmmmm....

[GoHogs1091]

If this is the logic you intend to employ moving forward every time you vote, instead of researching the laws being proposed and speaking with candidates about why they either support something or are against it, it may be in your best interest to just stop voting. You have the right not to vote. To arbitrarily assign your allegiance to someone you know nothing of who may very well willing or driven to strip you of every right you have is societal suicide; and it affects all of us, present and future. You're life a temporary point in time, and our Constitution and Bill of Rights are permanent cornerstones of our nation. If you're not willing to look any further into the future than the end of your nose to see how you're vote, and who you vote for, will affect all those yet to be, it would be better and more patriotic of you to never pull the lever again. I don't intend to be mean - I'm just offering you some elder advice to think about.

What is perplexing is that there are many Court Justices who say that they are an Originalist in regards to their interpretation of the Constitution as it pertains to their own individual judicial philosophy.

When the 2nd Amendment was created/originated the arms at that time consisted of muskets and muzzleloader type of arms.  Therefore, a true bona-fide Originalist interpretation of the Constitution should be that the 2nd Amendment should only allow the right to carry a musket or a muzzleloader type of arms.  Semi-automatic arms and other current forms of arms should not be covered under a true bona-fide Originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

[Coondog Hog]

The whole system needs to be overhauled.  I don't have a side in this fight.  I just don't like the fact that lobbyist such as NRA have more pull than the citizens.  Aren't elected officials supposed to vote in the interests of the people?

You dont think some of these guys will get hammered over their yes vote for this in the next election?  The NRA is indeed a big lobby, but guns will bring out more voters than just about any other issue even more so in a red state like AR. These guys brought the heat on themselves.  By not having it right the first time they put themselves in this tight spot.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

You dont think some of these guys will get hammered over their yes vote for this in the next election?  The NRA is indeed a big lobby, but guns will bring out more voters than just about any other issue even more so in a red state like AR. These guys brought the heat on themselves.  By not having it right the first time they put themselves in this tight spot.

Exactly.

[Inhogswetrust]

So those who wanted more exemptions voted for no exemptions instead of a getting some? Hmmmm....

That is a head scratcher. They could have voted for it and then came back with more exemptions later in another bill. Maybe it would have passed or not but at least they would have some of what they wanted already if it didn't. That's the problem with some politicians today they want no part of compromise.

[Inhogswetrust]

Government blew it, now getting it right.  Media overplayed it, made it sound like 72000 fans going to shoot their pistols after each score (like a scene from Blazing Saddles).  CCL holders some of the most law abiding citizens in the state.  Property owners should have a right to keep people with guns off their property.

Private property owners do have a right to keep guns off their private property.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

That is a head scratcher. They could have voted for it and then came back with more exemptions later in another bill. Maybe it would have passed or not but at least they would have some of what they wanted already if it didn't. That's the problem with some politicians today they want no part of compromise.

They didn't have time to introduce another bill for this session. Saying they wanted more exemptions is just an excuse for why they cowered to the NRA.

[ricepig]

They didn't have time to introduce another bill for this session. Saying they wanted more exemptions is just an excuse for why they cowered to the NRA.

You can introduce a bill on the last day of the session, I would imagine it wouldn't pass, but you can introduce it.   

[(notOM)Rebel123]

You can introduce a bill on the last day of the session, I would imagine it wouldn't pass, but you can introduce it.   

Well, true...but you get my point. It wouldn't get any support because they were ready for the issue to be over & done with. But yes, I stand corrected.

[ricepig]

Well, true...but you get my point. It wouldn't get any support because they were ready for the issue to be over & done with.

Hey....hey.....If we are suppose to start getting the points of posts on here, we're going to need some remedial classes! As to the issue, yes, they are wanting it to disappear now. I guess the NRA, and I own guns, is going to grab someone off the range, duck blind, or tree stand to run against those who voted for it.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Hey....hey.....If we are suppose to start getting the points of posts on here, we're going to need some remedial classes! As to the issue, yes, they are wanting it to disappear now. I guess the NRA, and I own guns, is going to grab someone off the range, duck blind, or tree stand to run against those who voted for it.

Ha! Oh yes....like a good AD, they have a list in their pocket.

[a0ashle]

That is a head scratcher. They could have voted for it and then came back with more exemptions later in another bill. Maybe it would have passed or not but at least they would have some of what they wanted already if it didn't. That's the problem with some politicians today they want no part of compromise.

The pressure to get exceptions will never be that high again. I'm not saying that's their excuse, but it's a valid one. Political motivation on this subject is gone now.

[Inhogswetrust]

The pressure to get exceptions will never be that high again. I'm not saying that's their excuse, but it's a valid one. Political motivation on this subject is gone now.

Sure and those that wanted more should have known that would happen and thus taken what they could get which is what passed anyway.

[a0ashle]

Sure and those that wanted more should have known that would happen and thus taken what they could get which is what passed anyway.

That's why I doubt they were truly holdouts for more exceptions. They almost always know how a vote will go before hand. They wanted to be SEEN as a NO. No one wanting more exceptions would want to be seen as a no.

[bennyl08]

I agree but why even involve the NRA.  Poll your citizens.  Do your job and get to know your voting base and how they feel.  Don't let $$$$$ influence your voting.

I know I'm naive.  It's just silly to me how so many people get pissed off when the Razorbacks raise ticket prices or switch to Pepsi to generate revenue but they are perfectly content with their government pimping out policies to get funding.

Yeah, but a year from now, the voters aren't going to remember that he voted in their best interest to protect Arkansas sports. They are going to see that he has a B+ rating instead of an A+ and vote for somebody else.

[ricepig]

Yeah, but a year from now, the voters aren't going to remember that he voted in their best interest to protect Arkansas sports. They are going to see that he has a B+ rating instead of an A+ and vote for somebody else.

Doubtful, how many local representative races have you been involved in, in Arkansas?

[bennyl08]

What is perplexing is that there are many Court Justices who say that they are an Originalist in regards to their interpretation of the Constitution as it pertains to their own individual judicial philosophy.

When the 2nd Amendment was created/originated the arms at that time consisted of muskets and muzzleloader type of arms.  Therefore, a true bona-fide Originalist interpretation of the Constitution should be that the 2nd Amendment should only allow the right to carry a musket or a muzzleloader type of arms.  Semi-automatic arms and other current forms of arms should not be covered under a true bona-fide Originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment was created to allow militias to exist and protect the citizen's ability to bear arms. Not just firearms, but arms in general. This isn't just a modern thing of looking back, because the term firearms existed back then too. They explicitly used arms so that it would include things likes knives and bow and arrows and such.

In general, judicial and historical scholars come to an overall agreement that the term was used to convey what we call light infantry weapons. Basically, anything you fully operate handheld. For example, mounted guns are not handheld, cannons were not light infantry, tanks, missiles, etc...

The point it looked like you were going for is how the weapons used by militaries back then were not very different at all from what you would use at home. However, it is impossible to fully convey intent. If they wanted it to only be muskets, it would have said muskets. There's a process to amend the constitution for a reason.

Where the real interesting argument, IMO, of originalist vs modernist interpretation comes with the 4th amendment. Back then, the concept of a patent and such existed, so copyrights were a thing, but they did not cover intellectual property. This wasn't a case of intellectual property not existing, but that they did not see that as something worth protecting. Thus, a true originalist would only interpret the 4th amendment to include physical things like a piece of paper while electrons racing through a wire would not count as your property. Now, with any sense, obviously phone calls and emails and such are things where there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, that inherently requires a living document style of interpretation.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Yeah, but a year from now, the voters aren't going to remember that he voted in their best interest to protect Arkansas sports. They are going to see that he has a B+ rating instead of an A+ and vote for somebody else.

Don't overestimate the average Arkansas voter's ability to reason.

[The Hawg Marshal]

I know a couple of them voted no for reasons other than wanting more exceptions.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

I know a couple of them voted no for reasons other than wanting more exceptions.

So they voted for none instead of some.

[ricepig]

So they voted for none instead of some.

They voted for principle or principal.......

[(notOM)Rebel123]

They voted for principle or principal.......

....uh, yeah. Principal...is more like it.

[The Hawg Marshal]

....uh, yeah. Principal...is more like it.

Yep

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

Release the names of the 20 idiots that picked the NRA vs. it's citizens.

Could be something in the language of the bill that they thought could be done better. No one wants to endanger citizens. You statement is reactionary and uninformed...

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

So those who wanted more exemptions voted for no exemptions instead of a getting some? Hmmmm....

Yes... It happens all of the time.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Yes... It happens all of the time.

Doesn't make it the right thing to do. They are scared of the NRA.

[ricepig]

Doesn't make it the right thing to do. They are scared of the NRA.

Wouldn't you?? They've got guns!

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Wouldn't you?? They've got guns!

So do I. Several, in fact. 😀

[ricepig]

So do I. Several, in fact. 😀

Warmonger.......

[Jackrabbit Hog]

If you put me, Rebel123 and ricepig together, you get a Warren Zevon song!

[RME]

If you put me, Rebel123 and ricepig together, you get a Warren Zevon song!

Which one went home with the waitress?

[(notOM)Rebel123]

nm

[(notOM)Rebel123]

-

[(notOM)Rebel123]

If you put me, Rebel123 and ricepig together, you get a Warren Zevon song!

Lawyers, guns, & money has a nice ring

[ricepig]

Lawyers, guns, & money has a nice ring

Dang, looks like I'm going to have to go to law school now......

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Dang, looks like I'm going to have to go to law school now......

Well you already have the other two! Ha!

[PonderinHog]

Well you already have the other two! Ha!

If you had to pick any two...

[(notOM)Rebel123]

If you had to pick any two...

Good point.

[Sivad]

They are scared of the NRA.

Good. But they are more scared of the Razorbacks. Even better.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

If you had to pick any two...

Hookers and blow?

[PonderinHog]

Hookers and blow?

Let me review the options again.