The purpose of this Act is to repeal the State's ban on electric guns. [More]
Per colleague
George Pace, who deserves all credit for beinging this to the fore:
At least it's introduced. We'll see if maybe someday it actually gets a committee assignment and hearing... but being unconstitutional hasn't really led to committee hearings in the past to repeal such laws around here... you know, "public safety" and all that...
As I may have told you earlier, last fall I sent the info re SCOTUS's Caetano unanimous per curiam and other assorted info re "stun guns" to every single legislator in the state, asking them to sponsor a repeal of the ban bill... I only heard back from senator Gabbard. I'm just sayin'...
2 comments:
An interesting question is, is Gabbard Pace’s direct representative (i.e., is Pace in Gabbard’s district)? If so, he may be bound by legislative rules to accept draft legislation from a constituent whether or not he stands behind it, as I previously discussed occurs in Massachusetts. Now, if Pace is not a constituent of Gabbard, chances go up that Gabbard may have some personal desire to fight for it.
What about the concept that a unconstitutional law is null and void from the date that it is enacted and applies to similar laws in all the states, territories and possessions of the United States? If someone argues that Caetano v. Massachusetts only applies to Massachusetts, do they also argue that Roe v. Wade only applies to Texas?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/roe-v-wade-fast-facts/index.html
Post a Comment