I have recently been motivated by Mr. Atkins to take a look at his history of so-called conservatism. Mr. Atkins has always been the first to tout his conservative votes, so I have taken it upon myself to bring out some of his less conservative votes and sponsored legislation.
I found this one in the 145th General Assembly, HB 258,
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 11 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS.
This Act increases, from $34.50 to $65.00, the filing fee assessed by the Superior Court in connection with an application for a license to carry a concealed deadly weapon. The Act also extends the term of validity for new licenses from 2 to 3 years and the term of validity for renewal licenses from 3 to 5 years. Increasing the fees for licenses, as well as the period for which such licenses are valid, will enhance efficiency and preserve resources by reducing the frequency with which the Superior Court and Attorney General’s Office must allocate resources to administer the program.
Mr. Atkins was the primary sponsor on this bill. As you can see it raises the “FEE”, in other words the tax, for filing for a concealed carry permit. This alone, from someone who is never shy about telling people how conservative he is when it comes to gun rights, is bad enough, but then the synopsis goes on to tell us how extending the term of validity for a new license from two to three years, and from three to five for renewal, while raising the tax, will make things more efficient and preserve resources.
Well is it just me? or would have just changing the terms actually have saved the state both money and resources? If you don’t have to do something as often, then it will already cost you less, but that wasn’t good enough for good old John Atkins, the so-called conservative, he had to go and raise the cost as well.
It is up to citizens to fact check our elected officials, we can’t simply allow them to go on local radio and tip their ball-caps back on their head with a piece of grass hanging out of the corner of their moths, while saying, “ah shucks yawl, I am the most conservative man in Dover, why I voted to get a bus driver the right to have a flag on his bus, dag gummit, taint no one more conservative than me”.
As an avid gun owner, I followed this bill. It was asked for by the NRA, for the fact that it extended the permits from 2 to 5 years which was a good thing. Obviously of double the term, it only make sense to double the fee. Not sure you understand this. I checked the bill and see it also passes the House 41-0 and the Senate 20-0. Because of the NRA and Atkins sponsoring this much needed legislation there is no longer a back log of concealed carry permits in Delaware. Hope this clears up your issue. They are getting double the time on their permit for double the money. Simple math.
“NRA GUY”, thank you, you seem very knowledgeable about Mr. Atkins and his legislation.
If you take the time to read, and not simply react, you will see that I pointed out that extending the terms would have solved the problems any back logs and also would have saved money. Now one still has to wonder if the government is saving money by doing fewer permit renewals, then why was an increase also needed?
This has been Mr. Atkins way for quite some time. while on the surface his vote seems to be a conservative vote for gun owners, it in reality is a vote to raise taxes unnecessarily.
Or are you telling me that the NRA also asked to have the fee/tax raised as well?
As for the vote count, well just because you have a large number of people in agreement with you does not make you right.
” Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.” William Penn
I don’t know much about Atkins other than his A+ rating on gun issues. I do know that this was asked for by the NRA. If I pay 34.50 for a 2 year permit could you please explain to me how if I pay 65.00 for a 4 year permit this is an tax increase for me? My math tells me Atkins saved me 4 bucks while only having to be bothered with a permit every 4 years instead of 2. Again simple math, please tell me you understand this.
If you take the time to read, and not simply react, you will see that I pointed out that extending the terms would have solved the problems any back logs and also would have saved money. Now one still has to wonder if the government is saving money by doing fewer permit renewals, then why was an increase also needed?
Frank, you’ve failed. The NRA supported the legislation, and it passed unanimously. And if you double the term of the permit, doubling the fee isn’t draconian. I think that concealed-carry gun owners can afford $65.
Rick, thanks for seeing through Franks Bull-poop. This was never about the facts of the NRA or making it easier for the 2nd Amendment supporters.
It was only Franks annual erection for Atkins.
Puppets are not allowed, NRA GUY and Anonymous are the same person. Grow up and make your point without trying to look like more than one person.
The point is that a real conservative would have seen that simply increasing the years of the terms would have both saved the government and the applicant money. But a closet big government conservative like Mr. Atkins has to try and look like a conservative while acting like a progressive.
The end result of this bill that Mr. Atkins was the primary sponsor of, with his A+ NRA rating, was that the government does less while charging more. Instead of charging $34.50 for processing one permit, it now charges $65.00 for processing one permit.
And yes Rick, the NRA may have supported increasing the years of the terms, but are you or NRA Guy, or “Mr. Atkins” telling me that the NRA supported the tax increase.
Mr. Atkins is just another big government conservative, willing to grow government to make themselves look good.
And Rick I have to tell you that this comment, “I think that concealed-carry gun owners can afford $65.” Sounds an awful lot like what was being said about the “RICH” people who could afford to pay more for their health care in order to subsidize the ACA.
For the third time, yes we are sure the NRA not only asked for this bill but THEY WROTE THIS BILL. I agree, you failed on this one.
The NRA gives most incumbents an A+ rating. Let’s go over the most recent legislation that involved guns. HB 88, which was a poorly piece of legislation, was endorsed by BOTH the NRA and Rep. Atkins, along with every member of the House, except for Rep. Peterman. The NRA supported the legislation, did zero to stop it, and when it was defeated in the Senate, they tried to take credit for it’s defeat.
Most incumbents do NOT get an A+ rating. There was only two Legislators that earned that last election according to my sources and findings. As far as HB 88, of course if the NRA supported it the pro 2nd Amendment legislators are going to vote for it. Why would they oppose the NRA?
Besides that, we have gotten off topic from the authors claim that somehow when you double the fee and double the term of the permit it is a tax increase when in fact it’s 4 dollars cheaper.
Mike as always, I can count on your honesty.
NRA Guy, your style of deflect and hide seems somehow familiar.
You completely miss the point that the state, thanks to big government John Atkins now charges more for doing less.
Again, and please find a calculator if need be, instead of paying $34.50 for a permit, a person now pays $65.00. The process is the same for the state so the state makes more money. Or will you now tell us the state gave up revenue?
I am sorry, does it cost the state more to process fewer permits?
Why didn’t the so called conservative John Atkins just increase the terms? That would have cost the applicants less and still would have reduce the number of permits and reduced the case load for the state. But oh no not Big Government John. After all as the author of the piece let me tell you what the subject is, the subject is that John Atkins likes to tell everyone what a conservative he is, the reality is quite different.
Let me get this straight.
NRA writes and approves bill.
NRA testified on House and Senate floor in support of bill.
Bill passes unanimously in 2010.
You complain about it 4 years later.
You woke up with an erection for Atkins.
You write story about raising a fee that cost cheaper after the legislation.
I think it’s pretty obvious who misses the point.
Anonymous, the first line in this post was, “I have recently been motivated by Mr. Atkins to take a look at his history of so-called conservatism.”
This takes care of your so called point about why I am doing this, Mr. Atkins chose this battle, I am just playing his game. The reason for posting about a four year old bill is answered in the word “HISTORY”, that means things that happened in the past. I will be moving both forward and backwards in the voting history of Mr. Atkins in order to show that his conservatism is of the big government type, if it is conservatism at all.
You also echo the so called point that this bill saves the tax payers money. Yet each time they apply or renew their permits they pay more. Answer the question, why was it needed to raise the cost of the permitting process? No matter if it is every two years, four years or sixteen years, the actual process of filing the permit is the same. The state now charges more to process that permit. Or can you not see that a real conservative would have simply extended the terms of the permits and saved the citizens money, while reducing the case load. But BIG GOVERBNMENT JOHN couldn’t see that, or maybe his handlers wouldn’t allow him to.
Now as for the NRA, big deal! You say, “NRA writes and approves bill.
NRA testified on House and Senate floor in support of bill.”
I say again, big deal!
The NRA is nothing but a lobbying group. So I guess you are pointing out that Mr. Atkins is a puppet of a lobbyist group.
I was formally a member of the NRA, I dropped my membership shortly after9/11 when they called my home and used the tragedy to fund raise. They are nothing but a self promoting fund raising lobbying group. Unfortunately too many good conservative elected officials feel they have to pander to the NRA.
I am little impressed with the fact that a lobbying group was responsible for writing legislation for the state, be it the NRA or the National Cancer Society.
But I guess what you are really saying is that John Atkins couldn’t even put together a simple bill to extend the terms and raise the tax without someone else writing it for him, and telling him that it was okay to vote for it. So he let a special interest group write legislation for the citizens of the state. Now there is leadership. LMAO
If you were as smart as you think you are, you would know that groups/lobbyists write legislation for a lot of legislators. Even the same legislators that you like and praise. Lobbyist is not a bad word or profession. They bring expertise in their field and knowledge to a subject.
But why am I telling you this? You already know everything anyway.
Anonymous, just because something is done all the time doesn’t make it right, nor the fact that some people I support do the same thing. What lobbyist bring to legislation is the bias of a special interest group. I can see why you support Mr. Atkins, you debate just like him, when challenged with facts and opinions you begin to turn nasty. I suppose you think a toll road on 404 is a good idea as well.
I knew if we pressed long enough, your real motive for writing this piece would come out.
The 404 issue. Mhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFyWPeou4Gcention Atkins to Frank and…………
The NRA is nothing but a lobbying group. So I guess you are pointing out that Mr. Atkins is a puppet of a lobbyist group…[t]hey are nothing but a self promoting fund raising lobbying group. Unfortunately too many good conservative elected officials feel they have to pander to the NRA.
The NRA has a long history of opposing candidates who propose draconian gun control legislation by funding their political opponents. They also have a long record of opposing various gun control referenda
in many states. They also have a long history of promoting gun rights throughout the media.
I’m sorry that you oppose an organization which works relentlessly to protect the US Constitution, i.e., Amendment II, the right to keep and bear arms.
Using your “logic,” every conservative in America is a “puppet” of the NRA. You would fit right in with Brzenski and Maddow on PMSNBC.
Rick, unlike yourself, I see both sides of the spectrum and the flaws within. The NRA has a long history of promoting itself. And yes conservative candidates are puppets of the NRA, the same as liberal candidates are puppets of homosexual lobbying groups, or anti-gun groups. You just happen to be one of those people who only sees the negative of those they oppose.
People Like Mr. Atkins run around crying about their A+ rating and then allowing the group to craft legislation based on the group’s special interest bias, be that about guns or gays.
If we are going to allow the groups to write the legislation then why bother electing representatives at all?
Anonymous, ooooooooooooooooooh! you got me, I was really trying to hide it since I stated above that he picked this battle, not specifically about the 404 toll, but about his total lack of integrity in the discussion of it. He tries to come off as this big time accessible politician, yet would not answer the simplest direct question about an issue he brought up, and when the flaws were pointed out he became argumentative and attacked not just me but others who dared to challenge his flawed logic.
So I decided to demonstrate that for all of his talk about being a conservative, I would show that all he really is, is a typical pandering politician, and certainly not any great shake at being conservative.
Now would you like to tell everyone why you come here under the name “ANONYMOUS” and defend him as if you had a personal stake in his reputation? Or should I tell them? The truth would add relevance to your comments.
Edited for content. Frank Knotts