Senator Ernie Lopez Answers The Question

Video  courtesy of Catch It Live

20 Comments on "Senator Ernie Lopez Answers The Question"

  1. Doug Beatty says:

    Interesting. One can’t wonder why there is no discussion of the gun control and death penalty votes?

    For some reason the minds behind Delaware right apparently considered it wise to pay Frank to post a Deliverance reference in my direction instead of commenting on these two votes that left Senator Lopez’s constituents feeling shafted. “Forward” indeed.

    Apparently it’s a good idea to focus on a minor party with less than four thousand registered than it is to focus on a republican that sold out his district. “Forward”. Where have I heard that before?

  2. Book says:

    “Sold out.” Please explain how it he sold out his district.

  3. Laffter says:

    Is there something wrong with “forward”?

    Or is it just that you prefer “backwards”?

  4. Book says:

    Take a look at IPOD now, it is backwards.

  5. waterpirate says:

    This is where we get to talk about ” representative governance ” not the loudest voice. I feel as do many others that Senator Lopez is a perfect fit for the 6th. A district that has been described as solidly ” center right “. I believe that Senator Lopez is fullfilling the wishes of his constituents.

    That being said, Hb 35 and the repeal of the death penalty is what alot of compassionate people truly believe. Life imprisonment is cheaper and better than killing another human being, and expanding background checks, in no way is a infringement on law abiding citizens 2nd ammendment rights. I am sure the constitutional giants in the county will be along shortly to tell me how wrong I am.

  6. Doug Beatty says:

    Actually, I would have voted to repeal the death penalty as well but not on compassionate grounds. Keeping somebody confined until they expire might be considered harsher than execution by some. Some crimes are so horrible that putting the offender to death is logical. In a perfect world.

    We live in this one where a Judge who hands out death sentences actually said in open court “….the term ‘Sheriff’ is undefined…”. I’ve seen first hand too much mischief in our courts from Judges, cops, and prosecutors to feel good about the state having that kind of power. I would have voted for repeal too, and everybody would have known that going in.

    As for HB35, it can’t be applied to criminals. You can’t prosecute a criminal for not ratting on himself with a background check. Fifth amendment, see Haynes v U.S. 1968 for one example of case law on this.

    We also know from ten years of the Brady Bill that background checks don’t slow criminals down, they just ignore them. If HB35 has any effect on criminals access to guns it will be an expansion of the black market. Examining venues in America that have instituted strict gun control can provide guidance here.

    As for infringement? Some would say yes, it’s an infringement if I have to pay a fee and submit to a warrantless search to exercise a constitutional right. Some would say no it isn’t.

    Bottom line, this legislation doesn’t do anything to criminals and only affects the law abiding. It won’t stop crime, or violence. It does allow de-facto gun registration.

    The point is that DR chose to focus on IPoD in stead of these votes that have garnered their share of social and broadcast media attention. So we thank you for that.

  7. Jeff Cragg says:

    Doug, I’m not sure I follow your comments. Re: IPOD, are you complaining or complementing? Or both?

  8. Book says:

    The reply I expected.

    Using your logic, why not repeal any and all background checks? They do not prevent crime after all. If you want a gun you get one. Right? Doesn’t matter if you just got out of jail. Right?

  9. Harry Whittington says:

    Doug Beatty is telling everyone what Ernie Lopez’s district wants from 45 miles away.

    I live in the District, neither the death penalty repeal vote or the gun background check vote will hurt Ernie at all in this district.

    His “no” vote on gay marriage will cost him more votes than both of those other bills combined.

  10. Doug Beatty says:

    Jeff, a bit of both.

    While I did vote for and endorse one incumbent democrat in the last election I have largely been a friend to the GOP, even going against the IPoD by endorsing Kevin Wade.

    When you had your meet and greet at the Magnolia Fire Hall I showed up. brought a friend and didn’t post any snide remarks about the turnout which was smaller than the event IPoD just had.

    You were the GOP candidate for governor. We outpaced that event on our first outing and I get smeared by your paid blogger?

    If DelawareRight wants to be in the business of trashing me and my associates we can go that way if we have to.

    I would rather discuss ideas in a mature manner to arrive at solutions.

    Either way, it’s your call.

    Harry, you’re right. With broadcast and social media offline for the last couple of weeks there’s no way I could possibly know what any of Ernie’s constituents are saying about those votes. My bad.

  11. Doug Beatty says:

    Book, doesn’t it work that way already? Are you telling me that this law will stop somebody who just got out of jail from getting a gun?

  12. Jeff Cragg says:

    Doug, Appreciate the answer. You’re welcome here. While I cannot control all discussion or insults, nor would I try to, having a free and open exchange involves sharp elbows sometimes. The answer to bad speech is good speech. You’re invited to your own post, it just can’t be a pure IPOD ad. I’m sure it could be interesting and “move Delaware Forward”. (I’m sure if you worked at it, there’s an appropriate tune that might tickle Frank too!)

  13. Doug Beatty says:


    I appreciate that.

    I’m no stranger to the sharp elbow on either end. I prefer not to do business that way unless pressed.

    I’ve been working on a case for a while that might interest all here regarding family services. If it comes time to write it I’ll send it to Steve for consideration.

  14. Harry Whittington says:

    Doug, if elections reflected what we in Sussex County hear on the radio and in social media, then Christine O’Donnell would have won by a landslide in 2010, instead of losing by a landslide, and Ernie Lopez wouldn’t be our State Senator today.

    You may want to try a more accurate measuring stick.

  15. Book says:

    Doug, than why doesn’t a legislator put a bill forward to do just that? If they don’t prevent those who should not have a gun from getting them than why have them at all?

  16. waterpirate says:

    Hb 35 is kid stuff, when compared to what may or may not be coming down the road. Many people viewed hb 35 for what it really represented, an effort. whether it is effective or not will be seen in the future, but having to pay a fee for a gun transfer is not a infringement.

    What many people see as a true infringement is regulation beyond what the BATF holds us to. If a version of 37 is re- introduced, that is when the fur will really start to fly on both sides of the aisle.

  17. Frank Knotts says:

    Well, as I live and breath! Mr. Cragg, welcome to the kindergarten.
    Doug let me see if I can put this in perspective. A lot of people like scrapple, not many know how to make it. Some have talked to people who know how to make and think they then know how to make it. Some people know the ingredients that go into making it, but still can’t put it all together to actually make it. So if you like scrapple, but don’t know how to make it, let those who do, make it.
    In other words, A lot of people got upset about Sen. Lopez’s vote on the death penalty, however after today we see that the bill may never make it out of committee in the House. Many people got upset about his vote on the background checks, but as I reported here even Speaker of the House Schwartzkopf is not in favor of that bill and will vote no on it, so it may fail to pass the House as well. The gay marriage bill may have a chance to pass even with Sen. Lopez voting no. The point is if you know what the end product will be, it allows you to play with the recipe.
    Now let me point out something you said above about me ignoring certain issues, here is a link to my post about the death penalty,
    Here is another post on the death penalty
    Here is one on gay marriage,
    Oh! Snap! I get it, because I didn’t write a post about guns I have let the entire state down.
    Now let me address what you had to say about background checks above.
    You said that background checks will not stop criminals from getting guns, on this we agree. You then say that HB 35 will only grow the black market for guns. Why would that be? Law abiding citizens will be able to purchase guns through lawful dealers with the background check. So are you saying that criminals are now buying guns from lawful dealers? And if the new background check will drive criminals to the black market, then you are admitting that the background checks will stop criminals from obtaining guns from lawful dealers. Or are you saying the lawful citizens will now choose to break the law simply to avoid the fee?
    Doug, I am against the background checks, because I believe they will be used to deny future gun owners, and though I have not written here about my views, I have spoken on talk radio and with members of the Legislature. What I am trying to point out here is that while we agree on this issue, I feel that you and others have gone about it all wrong in your opposition, simply my opinion.

  18. Doug Beatty says:

    My experience doing the rent-a-cop and Special Police thing is that areas with stricter gun control have more expansive black markets. In NYC there are about 60,000 legal registered guns. Best guestimate is somewhere around 3,000,000 ‘undocumented’ firearms in the big apple.

    Most of these are not owned by ‘criminals’ that is the major crime these undocumented owners are committing is owning the gun without permission from the city/state.

    Here all in my neighborhood shots are frequently heard. A consequence of living mortgage free for me. I’ve gotten to know my neighbors and am confident in stating that background checks won’t stop the thugs in my neck of the woods from getting guns, and no they aren’t writ large getting them from dealers or law abiding folks.

    And yes, I’m going out on a limb and saying that if our laws become restrictive enough then people who just want to defend themselves will buy illegal guns like I’ve seen it go down in D.C..

    Will HB35 alone do that? Not to a great degree IMO. There will be some folks who want to own a gun that the state doesn’t know about. How many of them will break the law to accomplish that remains to be seen, but we can be reasonably assured some will.

    Book, you bring up an excellent point, why have these laws at all. That was the position of the late Aaron Zelman, founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. I was his webmaster for a time and miss him greatly.

    The fact is that we have over 30,000 gun laws on the books. Apparently criminals don’t pay attention to these laws. In fact the only thing that criminals pay attention to is being locked up where they can only prey on each other. Sad but true.

    It is the hallmark of stupidity to assume that these laws have anything to do with public safety or that progressives respect the Second Amendment and just want ‘reasonable’ restrictions.

    I never said you didn’t write about the death penalty. What I said was that on this site there was discussion of the HB35 and Death Penalty votes by Lopez, and that this outlet seemed to fixated on IPoD. The accuracy of what has been said here is another issue altogether.

  19. Frank Knotts says:

    Doug, what has been said here has been opinion, end of statement. Again, if you slow your roll you would see that we agree. I just happen to think that many on this issue have gone too far in their zeal. When I look at Facebook and every other post is a photo of a gun, well this puts many average citizens off, who do want a gun, but who feel that many are “gun nuts”. Again it is about the optics of how you go about getting your point across.

  20. mouse says:

    Interesting how important it is to right wing republicans for the state to be able to kill people, to assure there are no impediments to obtaining implements of death for dangerous violent people and the love war of course. I wonder what the moral implications are lol?

Got something to say? Go for it!