UnderratedF00l said:
I emailed Curt Bramble about this yesterday, and he responded with his personal cell phone number. I called and had almost an hour-long conversation with him about his blocking the veto override session, and simply, his argument comes down to process. He argued that the legislature should have been more transparent with HB 76 -- for example, it did not have a public comment session in the Senate, only in the House.
He was swayed -- slightly -- with the "any expansion of freedom is a good thing" argument, but still, he will refuse to vote for the override session. But, if the override session happens, he will vote in favor of overwriting the veto.
Interestingly, he did mention that he's had about 500 emails on the topic, and that he's responded to each one with "here's my number; call me and we can chat" -- however, he said that I was the only person who actually took him up on the deal. He hasn't had a single phone conversation with anyone other than me.
Interesting. Over the weekend one of the folks involved in the leadership of one of the pro-RKBA groups reported to me via email that he had visited with Sen. Bramble for an hour and been told that the reason Bramble opposed the veto override was "lingering emotion" from Newtown...along with But hey, I'm sure what Sen. Bramble meant was that of the 500 emails he sent, only you had responded with a phone call. Yes, that is honest. :disgusted:
Senator Bramble is a master debater. He is very well versed in his art. But I'm reminded why one of my favorite definitions of "lying" is simply,
"ANY communication intended to leave a false or inaccurate impression." It is why the oath in court is not merely to tell the truth, but to tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Let us remember that Senator Bramble was the Senate sponsor of (one of) the only anti-RKBA bill to pass this session, HB50. That bill makes it dramatically easier for a gun owner to lose his RKBA (for 6 months) due to a "protective order". These orders are issued without benefit of any criminal trial, much less conviction; and the person subject to them is not afforded the full rights of the criminally accused. Some gun groups had worked with the sponsor to lesson how bad the effects on RKBA were, and so were more or less obliged not to oppose the final bill once they got some concessions. However, GOUtah! openly and actively opposed the bill and I personally expressed my opposition and concern to Sen. Bramble. He carried the bill to passage anyway.
Then, he turned around and on the last two days of the session, personally killed Paul Ray's disorderly-conduct-fix bill, HB 268 S1. Bramble was the Senate floor sponsor and asked his colleagues to "circle" the bill, delaying action on it. He claimed he did this because he was surprised to learn that there was law enforcement opposition to the bill he was not previously aware of. Never mind that he had had the bill in the Senate for well over a week when he circled it, that no law enforcement groups changed position in that time, and that only one law enforcement group opposed the bill, others had taken a neutral position after having received certain concessions in the House. At the 11th hour, Sen. Mark Madsen took over floor sponsorship of HB 268 so as to try to save the bill, but by then it was too late. Sen. Bramble had, single handedly, killed one of the two most important pro-RKBA bill in the last session.
Notice that the exact reason he gave for killing HB 268 by preventing it from even getting a vote, was insufficient reason for him to even vote against, much less take any significant action to defeat HB 50, or even to amend it further (which admittedly would have killed it). Hmm. Double standard on his part?
Now, he has almost single handedly killed our constitutional carry bill by being one of only 10 Senators (and one of only 5 Republicans to join the Senate Democrat caucus) to go on record as opposing the veto over-ride session.
Then he turns around and claims he'd vote for the bill if the over-ride took place? Cheap words. The vote that matters is the vote to over ride that few voters will ever see. Once the over-ride is in session and the bill is likely to pass, I can easily imagine at least one other person on that list would vote to over-ride just to avoid being so publicly outed as being anti-RKBA. (This is the same situation, in reverse, as those dishonest/gutless US Senators who would vote against certain gun grabbing bills on the final vote where their vote won't affect the outcome, but who refused to support the initial filibuster where their vote did matter. Thank heaven the second filibuster held and the gun grabbing, universal registration scheme didn't come up for an actual vote.)
He claims he votes against the over-ride because the bill didn't get a senate hearing? But he would vote for the final bill if the over-ride is held? Why? On what logic? Anyone who knows legislative procedure knows that the vote on the session is as material to passing the bill as the vote on the bill itself. Not to mention, how many other bills did Senator Bramble support in the final days of the session that did not have a hearing in both houses? For that matter, did he not vote for the bill in the Senate on the floor even though it didn't have a senate hearing? Would he have us believe that a veto somehow means that retroactively a bill must have been through hearings in both houses to be legitimate?
He is very artful in his craft.
And sadly, he can afford to be on this issue because we have failed to ever inflict any real political consequences on him for his past actions that have been, in some cases, shall we say, less than helpful to our cause.
If we don't find someone credible to challenge and replace him, we deserve to have him continue stabbing us in the back--or even front--whenever he wants...all while claiming to be very "pro-gun".
If anyone lives in his district and would be open to running against him, let me know. If anyone knows someone who lives in his district that might be drafted to run against him, let me know. The only place a challenge has any hope of being effective is in the GOP convention. But you can't beat somebody with nobody. So until we have a warm body willing to run, phone calls and emails mean nothing anymore. Political pressure can only be applied if there is some credible threat of actual political consequences at the ballot box.
Charles Hardy
GOUtah!