General Categories > Laws and Legislation

GOP flexing—some—new statehouse muscle

<< < (2/2)

jFader:

--- Quote from: bkoenig on December 07, 2014, 09:26:16 PM ---I'll believe it when they start standing up to Ernie.

--- End quote ---

Very interested to see who stands tall & who bows! 

bullit:
What kind of person is Seiler?  Frankly, the Judiciary Comm is about the only one of real importance. 

DenmanShooter:

--- Quote from: bullit on December 08, 2014, 07:13:27 AM ---What kind of person is Seiler?  Frankly, the Judiciary Comm is about the only one of real importance. 

--- End quote ---


He is fair and a good conservative.  I have known Les for many years.  I was happy to see him run for office and to be elected.  He is a lawyer, though. :)  He is very accessible and you can discuss things with him like a regular guy.

Sandhillian:

--- Quote from: bullit on December 08, 2014, 07:13:27 AM ---What kind of person is Seiler?  Frankly, the Judiciary Comm is about the only one of real importance.
--- End quote ---

That's a great question.  From watching him on the Judiciary Committee while Ashford was chair, I wasn't impressed.  Hopefully, with Ashford and Lathrop gone, Seiler will be willing to have a little more backbone.  There's no doubt he will be an improvement over Ashford, but to what degree is yet to be seen.

DanClrk51:
Yeah I wasn't too impressed with Les Seiler either. He didn't support the bill at first in regards to keeping gun owner records (names & addresses) private because apparently nobody could point to a case in Nebraska where it happened that the media published the info.

Well I'm sorry but that is the WRONG approach and the wrong attitude to have. The legislature needs to be PROACTIVE not reactive. If we wait until we actually have a case then the damage has been done, and a bill after the fact would be too little too late.

He also heavily criticized Senator Bill Kintner's firearms freedom bill that would nullify all federal laws regarding guns in this state. I do agree though that the language in that bill was extreme and would have caused problems. Many said it would have gotten rid of any federal regulation including background checks and they would have had to arrest federal officials only doing their job.

But the main purpose of the bill was to push back at the federal overreach (proposed Assault Weapons Ban, Limit on magazine capacity, Universal Background Checks). In addition to the criticism he could have offered support for the heart of the bill and suggested amendments that would have removed the extreme stuff out and put it what we wanted, but he didn't do that.

I would have thought that a Heineman appointee would have been more conservative in regards to 2nd Amendment rights. I hope he changes his tune this coming session.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page