Dave McBride & Greg Lavelle: Twin Executioners Of Assault Weapons Ban?

Filed in Delaware, Featured by on March 26, 2018

Let’s first state the obvious: The so-called leader of the Delaware State Senate has given the finger to every student, family and person who took part in the March For Our Lives throughout the world. That includes Delaware and, yes, former VP Joe Biden.  He ‘pulled a Schwartzkopf’, but, in this case, it was even worse.  When Speaker Pete assigned a bill to an inhospitable committee, it was generally with Jack Markell holding his coat. That’s why minimum wage legislation always ended up in Bryon Short’s Business Lapdog Committee, where Short, Q. Johnson and Andria Bennett used Chamber of Commerce talking points to bury the bills.

Dave McBride could have assigned the assault weapons ban to any number of committees, as is his prerogative as President Pro-Tem.  For example, he could have assigned it to this committee, where all five members might have voted to release the bill.  He could have assigned it to this committee, where, even with Bruce Ennis as chair, there were likely three yes votes to release the bill.  Hell, he could assign it to any committee he wanted. But he chose to assign it to a committee that appears to potentially have three votes against releasing the bill.  That was not by accident.

Dave McBride, who perhaps isn’t in touch with his constituents b/c he doesn’t even live in his district, but consorts with the yahoos in Lower Slower, betrayed all of those who have felt the impact of these mass shootings.  He has gone against his own Democratic Party in favoring the lobbying interests of the NRA and the Delaware Sportsmen’s Association over children, teachers and families.  He should be embarrassed, but he won’t be.  He’s the smartest guy in the room. Just ask him.

Which brings us to Greg Lavelle. Let’s look again at the composition of the committee that will consider this bill:

Chair: Margaret Rose Henry

Members: Bruce Ennis

Bob Marshall

Greg Lavelle

Dave Lawson.

Ennis and Lawson are lost causes.  Marshall and Henry are sponsors of the ban.  That leaves Greg Lavelle. Lavelle represents a district in which, I believe, the vast majority of voters support the assault weapons ban.  He is running against a teacher who no doubt will make gun control a centerpiece of her campaign, especially against Lavelle. Especially if Lavelle kills the assault weapons ban.  Wait, let me check (heads over to Laura Sturgeon’s website)…yep:

The problem of violence in our state has many causes, but common sense gun legislation must be part of the solution. Our legislature has already taken steps to make gun ownership safer in Delaware, but we should go further. I will support efforts to ban assault weapons, limit the maximum magazine size available in Delaware, and require a state permit to purchase and own firearms. I applaud the bipartisan effort to ban bump stocks, and trust that amendments will be introduced to address the concerns of current owners of these devices.

You know what to do.  If you live in his district, call Greg Lavelle and urge him to do the right thing.  His Dover # is (302) 744-4135.  His e-mail is Greg.Lavelle@state.de.us

Also, if you care about the issue, call Dave McBride and demand that he not stand in the way of progress. His number is (302) 744-4167.  I always encourage politeness, but, in McBride’s case, I’m not gonna insist on it.  What he did was the height of cynicism. Disgraceful, in fact.

If you are students, teachers and/or supporters of March For Our Lives, mobilize right now.

BTW, the bill isn’t on Wednesday’s committee agenda. But HS1/HB 330 is. WWGD (What Will Greg Do)? We’re all watching, Monsignor.

 

About the Author ()

Comments (26)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. spktruth says:

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/03/25/living-terror

    If this doesn’t change their stone cold hearts, nothing will!

  2. Que Pasa says:

    Lavelle has no guarantee that Sturgeon won’t use gun bans as an issue however he votes.

  3. spktruth says:

    Now is the time! If not now, when? Polls show a majority support big change, not incrementalism. That ism is dead.

  4. Michael says:

    “but consorts with the yahoos in Lower Slower” Liberal hate speech..

  5. Brand it as you like. Dave McBride doesn’t live in his district. He spends most of his time in Lower Slower. He has next to no contact with the people who do live in his district. If he had such contact, he wouldn’t be doing the NRA a ‘solid’ down in Dover.
    I’m just letting his constituents know so that they can hold him accountable at the right time.

  6. Anonlib says:

    Can the ban even pass in the senate without LaVelle’s vote? Need to pick up at least 1R with Ennis voting against it. It’s a controversial issue and if it gets killed in committee less of McBride’s caucus has to deal with the heat, but Sturgeon can still use it as a campaign issue.

  7. On this issue, I think Cloutier’s a yes. And there may at least be a chance with Lopez and Simpson. Lopez b/c his constituency is generally more moderate than the rest of Sussex County, and Simpson b/c he’s retiring and is not a knee-jerk gun guy.

  8. RE Vanella says:

    Michael’s triggered. You might want to try a safe space.

  9. Alby says:

    “Liberal hate speech”

    I love when they point out that maggots have feelings, too.

  10. Jason330 says:

    “And there may at least be a chance with Lopez…”

    Lopez’ alleged moderation is complete smoke and mirrors. At heart he is a chicken, and he knows it is far worse to piss off conservatives than it is to piss of moderates and liberals.

    I have $10.00 on “He’ll vote with the worst in is caucus.” Any takers?

  11. RE Vanella says:

    Associate Justice John Paul Stevens calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col

    “During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating ‘one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.'”

  12. RE Vanella says:

    Obviously Stevens is Associate Justice (retired).

  13. Mark Blake says:

    Rep Kowalko needs to stop using opinion pieces from any media source, even Forbes, that are patently misleading as they omit several data points to draw conclusions that can’t be extrapolated to show a trend or correlation, since without manipulation of the data, no such correlation can be found/made. Here’s a good showcase on the topic of gun deaths that debunk the falsehoods (from both sides of the issue). Any elected official that votes for Sen Townsend’s “copy-cat” bill from Maryland should be aware that while Townsend touts that the legality of such a bill has already been established and/or adjudicated, his is either totally inept as a lawyer or just being completely disingenuous. For those that might not know, Maryland is in the US 4th District Court and Delaware is in the US 3rd Circuit Court, thus any decision rendered on an issue for this Maryland “copy-cat” bill has NOT been “established”, “settled”, “determined constitutionally valid” (etc.) and has yet to be heard (on appeal) by the US District Court that Delaware should an appellate case be presented, assuming this ill conceived overreaching law be passed in violation of both the US and DE Constitutions. Be sure to read the other related articles on the issue. https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/the-gun-homicide-epidemic-isnt-ac13b21ff3f9

  14. Rethug gun nut claims that Kowalko, Townsend, et al are ‘misleading’ the public on gun control. Unlike, say, every Rethug gun nut EVER. Not only a Rethug gun nut, but, if this Mark Blake is THAT Mark Blake, he’s also the Rethug who got swamped by Matt Meyer by a 2-1 margin for NCC Executive. Sounds like he’s auditioning for Party Chair.

    For the record, all Kowalko did is link to a piece in Forbes Magazine. Granted, it’s not Breitbart, but who the fuck is Mark Blake to come over here and argue that anybody should ‘stop using opinion pieces from any media source’? Oh, and THEN links to a fucking opinion piece?

    Oh, and Mark? Are you an attorney? If you’re THAT Mark Blake, you’re not. You’re a, and I quote, “owner/partner-property management company” with a BS in International Business Development. Or, at least, you were. But you clearly believe that you’re better versed in the law than Bryan Townsend. You’re not. Not even close.

    You’re just a Rethug gun nut fuckwit. Make that a fuckhalf-wit.

    I, however, will defend you from those who claim that you’re not even worthy of sniffing Greg Lavelle’s butt. You ARE worthy of sniffing it. And licking it.

  15. RE Vanella says:

    Legal pedantry is a big tell.

    It’s also cool that one would twist oneself in knots to “prove” that all the suicides, domestic violence murders, kindergarteners slaughtered in their classrooms, worshippers massacred in their churches, people murdered by cops, etc. isn’t, by some standard, an “epidemic”. Real cool, bud.

  16. Dave says:

    ““but consorts with the yahoos in Lower Slower” Liberal hate speech..”

    I live in lower and slower and I have to say that it is difficult for me to fit in since my fashion choices don’t include camo. So yeah, “yahoos” is pretty accurate and I’m not a liberal. Swift himself would have agreed with it’s application. And if “yahoo” is hate speech, so are terms like “libtard,” which appears to be one of yahoos favorites.

  17. Alby says:

    He could have called him a muskrat-eater, but them’s fightin’ words.

  18. Mark Blake says:

    Wow, El, that’s some pretty harsh words there, and not how you typically react to a counter point post, but the Rethug moniker is getting old, time for some new jabs and condescending words to insult R’s don’t you think? However, I haven’t kept up my LinkedIn account so my Phd in Constitutional Studies doesn’t show up. (kidding, but I haven’t added any of the newer things). Yes, Meyer beat me by just shy of 50%, (big deal, I wasn’t expecting to beat Matt, but what if Gordon had won? Would all those voting for Matt have switched over to Gordon? (doubtful) Sometimes you have to be in the game to play. Matt and I, were really running against Gordon, as is/has anyone that’s attempted that in the past 8+ years has. Sorry that a reasoned, thoughtful post has triggered you as much as it seems to have done so. I was trying to show that both sides are playing fast and loose with the facts, oh well, maybe I should post under a pseudonym as you and others do (no outing needed for me, as I’ve always posted under my real name for the record). I guess we’re not to be having a beer anytime soon. Sorry for raising your blood pressure so late in the afternoon.

  19. RE Vanella says:

    I love when someone makes a self-described reasoned and thoughtful post.

    I do appreciate you writing under your own name though. Sincerely.

    Now take your reason and thoughtfulness and fuck off. Facts are there’s no other modern industrialize country with this kind of fucking carnage played out regularly. And here you are having some semantic debate. It makes you sound like a dummy.

  20. Mark Blake says:

    Thanks RE, (I think?) and in the spirit of continued divisiveness, I’m always up for a lively discourse over a good craft beer and even will buy the first round. I’m not prone to telling someone to f-off, as that makes some folks (present company excluded) seem unable/unwilling to have a conversation without resorting to expletive laced tirades. Honestly, I like this site as there are some thought provoking commentators and, in the past, it seemed that there was more openness to those of us not in the same club, but time they are a changing, (every damned day).

  21. RE Vanella says:

    I use gutter language often and dislike most people. I’m very prone…

  22. john kowalko says:

    Mark
    I don’t ever need or expect to need your advice on what I can and will post. Here is my retort to the emails from opponents of the legislation.
    “I am listening to all of those brave and thoughtful young men and women who have gathered across America demanding that we political leaders show a willingness to protect them and their families. They are calling for common sense. They are asking us to respect the dignity of human life. They want to be safe at school, safe at a concert, safe in a movie theater, safe in church and safe wherever they may choose to go. I’ve heard them loud and clear. I am proud to stand with them and honor all victims of gun violence with my efforts as a political leader.
    I will be considering all sides of the debate and make an informed decision at the time”
    Respectfully
    Rep. John Kowalko

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/10/06/ten-lies-distort-the-gun-control-debate/#4f1d2bb1fad8

  23. Mark Blake says:

    John, but we did share a common thought process on the Delmarva Electric Rate hikes, so I guess we’re able to have a thoughtful conversation when we’re both dealing with actual factual data, which your referenced Forbes article contained little of. It doesn’t use the actual data, just extrapolated points with many other data points omitted to skew the outcome. My point was for you (any elected official really) to stop using sources that aren’t factual. While you and I don’t often agree on issues, I have and will continue to enjoy having discussions on a myriad of topics, since being able to have a civil discourse on issues and important matters with others with a differing viewpoint, is always helpful and sometimes even very insightful. It is America, so I apologize as I should have used the words, “should consider…” in place of “needs to”. So I offer my apology to you for not being more precise in my language, John.