Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And local elections (which state legislators really are) are, well, local. You can spend all the money you want, but most people don't care very much. Gun enthusiasts care a lot about guns, so they'll tend to win a lot of local elections that most people don't bother with.

I don't think there is any equivalent to a recall in the UK. The recall seems to allow some of the assembly to try to eject some others by calling for a referendum on it.

In the UK, an MP once elected cannot be forced from his seat except at a general election.

If the government loses a vote of confidence they resign en masse and a general election is called.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think there is any equivalent to a recall in the UK. The recall seems to allow some of the assembly to try to eject some others by calling for a referendum on it.

In the UK, an MP once elected cannot be forced from his seat except at a general election.

If the government loses a vote of confidence they resign en masse and a general election is called.

Wait... if a coalition lose a vote of confidence... are they forced to resign?

A coalition government would have to. The government must resign and call for parliament to be dissolved. It isn't something that can be done to individual members, so it is different to a recall (if I have understood it correctly...)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A coalition government would have to. The government must resign and call for parliament to be dissolved. It isn't something that can be done to individual members, so it is different to a recall (if I have understood it correctly...)

I see... (I think).

In your system, a "vote of NO confidence" has actual teeth.

In the US... they only do two things: Jack & gak.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I'm shocked Colorado Springs EVER had a Democrat representing it.

I'm not...

There's a ton of Californian transplant living in the whole state. Also, Denver and the Boulder region tends to be very Blue.

Isn't this a serious issue in pretty much any state within driving distance of California?

I've heard of similar situations in Oregon, Washington state, and apparently now Colorado as well.

Why are these people leaving California, then immediately trying to make the new state exactly like the old one?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I'm shocked Colorado Springs EVER had a Democrat representing it.

I'm not...

There's a ton of Californian transplant living in the whole state. Also, Denver and the Boulder region tends to be very Blue.

Isn't this a serious issue in pretty much any state within driving distance of California?

I've heard of similar situations in Oregon, Washington state, and apparently now Colorado as well.

Why are these people leaving California, then immediately trying to make the new state exactly like the old one?

Because they don't realize they're part of the problem!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think there is any equivalent to a recall in the UK. The recall seems to allow some of the assembly to try to eject some others by calling for a referendum on it.

In the UK, an MP once elected cannot be forced from his seat except at a general election.

If the government loses a vote of confidence they resign en masse and a general election is called.

Well thats kind of an instant recall election right there. We don't have that luxury.

Yeah, you guys can get rid of everyone that you don't like. We can only do one at a time. Sounds like that's a better system

Imagine how well they would all cooperate if they knew they were all getting fired if they didn't!

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Imagine how well they would all cooperate if they knew they were all getting fired if they didn't!

We can't even get our gak together enough to not re-elect them

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I'm shocked Colorado Springs EVER had a Democrat representing it.

I'm not...

There's a ton of Californian transplant living in the whole state. Also, Denver and the Boulder region tends to be very Blue.

Boulder has a lot of hippies

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think there is any equivalent to a recall in the UK. The recall seems to allow some of the assembly to try to eject some others by calling for a referendum on it.

In the UK, an MP once elected cannot be forced from his seat except at a general election.

If the government loses a vote of confidence they resign en masse and a general election is called.

Wait...does this ever actually happen?

Boulder: 24 square miles surrounded by reality

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think there is any equivalent to a recall in the UK. The recall seems to allow some of the assembly to try to eject some others by calling for a referendum on it.

In the UK, an MP once elected cannot be forced from his seat except at a general election.

If the government loses a vote of confidence they resign en masse and a general election is called.

Wait...does this ever actually happen?

Not often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motions_of_no_confidence_in_the_United_Kingdom

 ironicsilence wrote:
Without making a statement on the gun control laws, I very much support more recalls of elected officials. They might start voting the way there constituents want them to if they have to worry about losing there job.

I'm not really sure that works. Politicians face election pretty regularly as it is. A recall is basically just an election brought forward.

I mean, I can see gun activists being very happy with this, as it sends a clear message about the acceptable scope of gun legislation in Colorado, but as a message to politicians at large it doesn't really mean much at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well thats kind of an instant recall election right there. We don't have that luxury.

No, the motion of no-confidence isn't voted on by the people. It's a motion within parliament, voted on by the members of parliament.

The equivalent in your system would be a motion within the House of Representatives passing a motion that John Boehner and his team are no longer fit to run the country (because remember in the Westminster system the leader of the House of Representatives is effectively the Prime Minister).

If I remember correctly. These two were the primaries behind the new regulations that got slammed through the state legislation. It was a knee jerk reaction from Sandy Hook School shooting. Another thing if I remember correctly to is Colorado is like one of the prime hunting states to.

OT a bit

Anyone hear a rumor about Missouri getting ready to pass some laws allowing individuals to purchase automatics?

No I haven't heard anything about Missouri trying to pass an automatic law.

Would be kind of hard. Aren't full autos banned at federal level?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
No I haven't heard anything about Missouri trying to pass an automatic law.

Would be kind of hard. Aren't full autos banned at federal level?

Yup.

It was another token "the Feds can't tell us what to do and we will arrest all federal agents trying to enforce federal laws in our state because we are to dumb to know about the supremacy clause" bill. It passed and promptly got a veto by the democratic governor.

I saw it on a CNN snip. They have bills for an individual to buy auto's (dealers) at the state level. Also it seems in the bill to that Missouri law enforcement are not going to enforce federal laws concerning fire arms. Major reason being that since Federals are picking what laws to enforce then the same applies to them to.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
No I haven't heard anything about Missouri trying to pass an automatic law.

Would be kind of hard. Aren't full autos banned at federal level?

Yes and no. You can acquire a license to manufacture one, or you can buy a grandfathered in fully automatic weapon from a previous owner. As these are very rare, they're also extremely expensive.

For the purposes of this discussion, however, they are de facto banned at the federal level, so while the state can authorize them; you risk a federal prosecution much like marijuana dispensaries do.

 Jihadin wrote:
Also it seems in the bill to that Missouri law enforcement are not going to enforce federal laws concerning fire arms. Major reason being that since Federals are picking what laws to enforce then the same applies to them to.

I have read many such comments by local law enforcement, and they are disturbing. It is not within the purview of local law enforcement to determine which laws they are to enforce, and certainly not the constitutionality of said laws.

I really can't debate that Ouze. Being the federal government does it to. Examples will be some immigration and firearm laws. Only plus side I see out of it for them is daily operation cost.

I don't think the parallel between federal enforcement of immigration and the matter at hand are a good match... but I'm not sure. I'd like to say that it's different when ICE decides to deprioritize deporting children who were brought to the country as infants and have no criminal record as a matter of resource allocation, but that doesn't really pass the sniff test either. It could be fairly argued this is exactly what the local LEO are doing.

I might alter my original thought to be "it's not in the purview of local law enforcement to decide not to enforce a law because they feel it is unconstitutional". I mean, intent does come into play I think.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think there is any equivalent to a recall in the UK. The recall seems to allow some of the assembly to try to eject some others by calling for a referendum on it.

In the UK, an MP once elected cannot be forced from his seat except at a general election.

If the government loses a vote of confidence they resign en masse and a general election is called.

Wait...does this ever actually happen?

Not often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motions_of_no_confidence_in_the_United_Kingdom

There is a system, but it's pretty useless.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2011/12/13/want-to-fire-your-mp-here-s-how

It's useless in the sense that it depends on your MP committing a crime that brings him or her up to 12 months in prison. Despite the contempt in which we hold them, most MPs are either honest or clever enough not to fall into that position.

A recall system to let the electorate try and force a by-election at any time they liked, might allow knee-jerk reactions to every pissant bit of pubic aggro to totally derail parliamentary business.

 Jihadin wrote:
If I remember correctly. These two were the primaries behind the new regulations that got slammed through the state legislation. It was a knee jerk reaction from Sandy Hook School shooting. Another thing if I remember correctly to is Colorado is like one of the prime hunting states to.

OT a bit

Anyone hear a rumor about Missouri getting ready to pass some laws allowing individuals to purchase automatics?

Yep... it's called the Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436) It basically says:

The legislation declares that any federal policies that “infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms” shall be invalid in Missouri. It allows state misdemeanor charges to be brought against federal authorities who attempt to enforce those laws, or against anyone who publishes the identity of a gun owner
...

Here's the gooey part:

3. (1) All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present,
59 or future, which infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the
60 Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the
61 Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are
62 specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in
63 this state.
64 (2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not
65 limited to:
66 (a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;
67 (b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;
....

It was mainly a response to Highway patrol gave feds Missouri weapon permits data:

Missouri's database of concealed weapon permits was twice given to federal authorities investigating Social Security disability fraud in a move that has enraged lawmakers already angry over potential abuses in a new driver's licensing system.
...

Right now, the State House overrode the Governor's veto... it's now in the State Senate where it's expected to override the veto as well making it the law of the State.

This will definitely get challenged in federal court...

EDIT 1: MO Senate veto override failed.

 easysauce wrote:
wonder how long it will take the "vocal" (read hand wringing, shreiking, ill informed, super afraid, usful idiots for eroding the rights of others) minority to start complaining about how 95% of peopel support tougher gun laws and that they were somehow cheated by the EVIL GUN OWNERS

Start? When did they ever stop??

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
wonder how long it will take the "vocal" (read hand wringing, shreiking, ill informed, super afraid, usful idiots for eroding the rights of others) minority to start complaining about how 95% of peopel support tougher gun laws and that they were somehow cheated by the EVIL GUN OWNERS

Start? When did they ever stop??

they stopped for a bit to dance on the graves of the latest victims and use them to further the agenda,

 easysauce wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
wonder how long it will take the "vocal" (read hand wringing, shreiking, ill informed, super afraid, usful idiots for eroding the rights of others) minority to start complaining about how 95% of peopel support tougher gun laws and that they were somehow cheated by the EVIL GUN OWNERS

Start? When did they ever stop??

they stopped for a bit to dance on the graves of the latest victims and use them to further the agenda,

If you believe any of the nonsense that you spout on these forums I have a plot of land on Mars to sell you for cheap.