What’s going on in the Delaware legislature? Those guys love to make laws, let’s check up on what they’re up to. The 5/14/15 Edition

So I did a little analysis of bills in the Delaware legislature, what the Republicans are supporting, what the Dems will bring us. And I discover the scariest bill of all is co- sponsored by a Republican! Read on….

Everything about Owning a Car Will Get More expensive in Delaware

And we can thank Pete Schwartzkopf, sponsor of House Bill 140.

This bill increases several revenue sources for the Transportation Trust Fund. The motor vehicle document fee is increased from 3.75% to 4.25%. The fee for late renewal of a driver’s license is increased from $1.15 to $10, and the fee for late renewal of vehicle registration is increased from $10 to $20. The fees for reinstatement of a suspended or revoked driver’s license are increased from $25 to $40 and $143.75 to $200, respectively. The fees for issuance of duplicate documents is raised, with the fee for duplicate driver’s license increased from $10 to $20, for duplicate titles from $25 to $50, for duplicate vehicle validation stickers from $1 to $5, and for duplicate registration cards from $2 to $10. The fee for a vehicle temporary tag is increased from $10 to $20.

Well I suppose we can also thank the Democrats if it passes.

NO WAIT!

I am to understand that one Republican vote in the Senate is needed to pass this plethora of fees that will rain down upon us.

I am very suspicious of Greg Lavelle, MSNBC’s “rising star”.

Let’s see a Republican dare vote for this.

Opt Out-Why No republicans here?

It’s HB50 and it allows parents to opt out their children for the “Smarter Balanced ” testing standards.

Lord they are giving children so many tests and signing them up for Common Core and teaching them God Knows What….

The idea here is that parents can prevent their children from participating in a test that is part of Common Core.

Anything, ANYTHING, ladies and gems, to keep that horror from our children.

The problem here is that they name these tests something new every week and they are always given cutesy, innocent-sounding names. I mean, come on, a Smarter Balance….what could be wrong with that?

I wonder why no Republicans are sponsoring or co-sponsoring this bill as you can believe most Republicans want to keep their children out of Common Core.

But I am learning to navigate the state legislature site. I am learning, albeit from afar, how deals are made. And I understand that this is the norm so perhaps there’s something I don’t know.

Not to worry, I have calls in to some of these legislators and know I will hear from them soon.

Republicans and Marijuana
This is HB39 and I dunno, it makes sense to me. I mean come on, you smoke a doobie one night with your friends and you should get a criminal record?

Less than an ounce is quite a bit; you could share doobies with your friends for a couple of weeks but still and so, it’s not he stuff of capital crime.

And don’t forget that Delaware is going all out to get marijuana legalized that the tourists may smoke on the beaches in Rehoboth. More on a Republican and this marijuana issue later.

The purpose of this bill is to decriminalize the possession or private use of a personal use quantity of marijuana. More specifically, persons who possess one ounce or less of marijuana shall be assessed a civil penalty that will not become part of a criminal record and must forfeit the marijuana. Likewise, the private use or consumption of less than an ounce of marijuana shall be punishable by a civil penalty

There are no Republicans sponsoring this bill and there’s nothing wrong with this.

Except Ernie Lopez is sponsor of a bill that would allow medical marijuana to be distributed to epileptics. Again, nothing wrong with this.

Committee member, State Rep. Ruth Briggs King, R-Georgetown-Long Neck, said the bill would be at cross purposes with the felony crime of dealing marijuana.

King said this about the proposed bill that would keep me out of jail for that doobie. Cause who knows, maybe I will sell my doobie on the Rehoboth boardwalk.

Or something.

I am not criticizing here. This marijuana thing is a changing issue and America is not a doped out country.

Perhaps the Republicans know best sitting this one out.

In photo, from left: Reps. Steve Smyk, Ron Gray, Bobby Outten and Danny Short, Speaker of the House Pete Schwartkkopf, CHEER Executive Director Arlene Littleton, Reps. Harvey Kenton, Ruth Briggs King, Dave Wilson, Rich Collins and Tim Dukes, and CHEER Senior Management Analyst Ken Moore.
Again With the Guns

There are two things that are certain in this world. One is that should an accident occur, like the Amtrak derailment, the liberals will be out and about demanding more money for infrastructure.

And should any kind of violence occur involving a gun the liberals will be just as shriekish demanding that we all give up our guns.

econd, this Act amends § 1448(a)(6), Title 11 to provide that any person who is prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a deadly weapon because the person is subject to a Family Court protection from abuse order is so prohibited immediately upon the entry of the protection from abuse order from purchasing or otherwise obtaining, and within 24 hours of personal service of the order, from owning, possessing, or controlling any deadly weapon.

Now the above verbiage is confusing. First, let me note that NO Republicans are sponsors of this bill.

It’s the PFA thing (protection from abuse). How did the gun control fanatics overlook this? As I understand it, once a PFA is obtained the person subject to the PFA cannot buy a gun until the PFA is lifted and he or she should have to turn over any guns they already have.

I got a bridge to sell anyone who thinks that’s going to happen.

So okay, a person with a PFA should probably not have a gun. But how is this thing going to be enforced? Are they going to go into the PFA recipient’s house and search for a gun?

Lookit, well-intentioned laws are the big problem in that….come on….laws should not be enacted unless they are enforceable. Somebody, somewhere will abuse the intent.

Further….come on….they just want to take away our guns. They are determined and will not be stopped from their maddening quest.

No Jury Duty for Breast-Feeding Moms

Came across this SB84 and learn that it will allow breast-feeding Moms to be exempt from jury duty.

So okay, I suppose there’s a logic to it. But how is the breast-feeding status to be achieved for verification? A doctor’s note? A vial of breast milk given during jury selection as proof?

You pick your battles and this is not mine. A breast-feeding Mom should be relieved of jury duty, I suppose. But it once again lends itself to abuse.

Senate Bill 94 and why this obsession with “military-connected” youth?

This Act requires the Department to develop a regulation for the identification of a “military-connected youth”. The Act further provides that this identification is not a public record, is protected by the federal Family Educational and Privacy Act and shall not be used for purposes of determining school achievement, growth or performance.

The verbiage goes on to state that the purpose of the bill is:

is to ensure the necessary individuals at the school level are aware of any military connected youth for services and supports.

Say what?

A co-sponsor of this bill is our own beloved Senator Ernesto Lopez. As such I sent an email to Senator Lopez asking that he call me for more details.

Ernie responded promptly to my email asking what was my concern. Allow me to just copy and paste my response.

Ernie,

First of all, when I clicked on the shortcut to see the verbiage of the bill it just brought me a blank screen.  I understand this isn’t your matter but it makes it all look suspicious.

Ernie, I have a problem with any legislation that requires “identifying” a school pupil as anything.  I don’t know what a “military connected” youth is though for now I assume it’s a child of parents in the military.

But why?  Should we identify children of doctors or waitresses or whatever?  Why single out these military connected pupils?  The bill does not say why this should be done but again, students of parents serving in danger zones, far away….maybe it’s best the teachers know this.

But again, my father was a carpenter and cut off his fingers in an accident.  Point being, is this the school’s concern?

It’s a slippery slope and through some computer wizardry I was able to copy and paste a Word copy of the bill and get some of the verbiage.  Did you know the following is in the bill?:

(26) Establishing, for purposes of student discipline, uniform definitions for student conduct which may result in alternative placement or expulsion, uniform due process procedures for alternative placement meetings and expulsion hearings, and uniform procedures for processing Attorney General’s reports. Such regulations shall apply to all districts and charter schools. This paragraph shall not be interpreted to restrict the ability of district and charter schools to determine which student conduct shall result in expulsion or an alternative placement . ; and

I see a lot of info about expulsion and alternative placement….is this what you want?  For these “military connected” youth to be easier expelled?

Now the above is Section 26 of the bill and this new section for military connected youth  is Section 27.  But I intend to point this out in my column.

I see this bill as an attempt to easily identify children of soldiers that they may be targeted for discipline more than others.  I don’t see them getting any additional benefits because of this bill.

Us crazy Tea Party types are NOT happy about this, Ernie.  When our legislators go about singling out solders’ families we get concerned, silly us.

Please note that I could not get the text of the legislation to come up and when I opened it up in a Word document I could only see two little page icons, totally unable to read anything. I noticed that the text in the little page icons was highlighted when I ran the mouse over it so I “coped” then “pasted” in another notebook type of program. That’s how I discovered that bit about expulsion and such.

Senator Lopez has not gotten back to me but I assure yon reader that this bill is sinister and gives me the creeps. Notice how they don’t expand on the services that will be offered.

They pass the laws, people, and the laws are always on us. Is there any logical reason why little Susie’s school file should indicate her father is in the army that has anything to do with school? At least any more than any other parents’ occupations might affect a child? Like, say, the child of a cop?

Senator Pettyjohn and other Republican senators, be aware that what seems like a nice thing could be sinister as hell.
===================================================
I do not respond to comments on my posts. I certainly have no problem with such commentary and, indeed, encourage it. But I’ve written my piece and I don’t want to argue it further.
Please feel free to email me at patfish1@aol.com if you want to send me a special comment or have any ideas or information you want to share.

NEXT : Tidbits, Tidbits, Tidbits. Great interview next week.