Wednesday, February 5, 2020

A Civil Society Doesn't Punish the Innocent

Simple enough, right? And we're all presumed innocent until the State can prove its case in a court of law. Right?

And NH shouldn't be assisting the feds to violate that basic principle, either. Right?

The NH House Judiciary Committee hears HB1192, "relative to forfeiture of seized personal property", 2/5/2020. As so often is the case these days, we've been even here before.

A Nashua cop, for one, disagrees, and warns of the "charity" work that he and his gang will be precluded from doing if their legalized theft is curtailed. He needs that money, y'see, to prosecute the unauthorized, failed and horrifically expensive (in blood, treasure and liberty) "War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™. It's his. Found it fair and square. Why are we bothering him with this "due process" bullshit, for suggesting that maybe he shouldn't be law enforcement, prosecution, judge, jury and executioner all in one -- and all for a healthy haul? Besides, they do so much good with some of it, donating to charity and whatnot, maybe getting his picture in the paper. It's a long-standing tradition, with a storied history, after all: steal from everybody, then make a relatively small show of your false "generosity" with other people's money. Capone, for example...

Fortunately, the final 2 speakers, from Americans For Prosperity and the NH ACLU (guess what the cop's reaction was -- g'head, guess -- that's right! exasperated eye-rolls! you know him so well...), relieved me of the growing desperate need to fill out a pink card to testify...




"Compliance Is An Issue"

I would most certainly agree, Rep Cleaver: coerced compliance of peaceful individuals in an ostensibly free society is, indeed, an issue. And as the HHS and State Police bureaucrats state clearly, this is an incremental step. Told ya so. The unbelted aren't "offenders" now, Captain, but that's what you're advocating: more criminals. Fiat criminals. For having harmed no one. Why am I not surprised in the least...

HB1622, "relative to the use of passenger restraints in motor vehicles", before the NH House Transportation Committee, 2/5/2020.

Yesterday, up against HB1621, the 'helmet' bill (so I couldn't even get over there to sign in against it), Senate Transportation heard their 'mandatory seatbelts' version, SB609 (and there was also a third that was mercifully withdrawn; there is clearly absolutely no shortage, sadly, of unbidden arrogant nannies in NH's legislature this year.).

We've been here before, too, of course, but much more recently. And before that, there was the Year of the Bribes in 2009 -- that's the "grant" repeatedly discussed, which wasn't sufficient to sell out our autonomy back then.

I had provided both Transportation Committees with a transcript of the testimony that I delivered most recently on 2018's HB1259. Honestly, I didn't even need to testify, because all the arguments are addressed in the transcript -- as I assured the Committee Chair before the hearing that they would be. I include that here, below the hearing video.

Press



2/6/2018

My name is Bill Alleman, and I’m here today because my autonomy is yet again under siege. Certainly this applies to so many relentless attempts to impose overreaching legislation on ostensibly free individuals, but I'm just applying it to this one today. I encourage the further extrapolation to others as an exercise for the Committee. I’m here to speak for vanishing first principles.

Who should have authority to control our lives, the individual or the State? I contend this is hardly a trivial matter in a country founded on fragile individual liberty. Yet history and ever-expanding law books clearly show us that every successive generation is habituated to incrementally less freedom. Surely even this bill's supporters would concede that this won't be the end of their social engineering. There will always be "just one more" incursion on the fundamental concepts of individual liberty and personal responsibility -- for our own good, of course. What these supporters can't or won't grasp, however, is that "our own good" is also "our own business." It concerns me greatly that far too many -- including legislators, as we’ve already heard -- don’t fully appreciate or respect these concepts today. Nevertheless, the Founders still assure me that I need not worry about having to surrender them for myself. That is a fact. In a Constitutional Republic, rights do trump “the majority.”

As an aside, you’ve heard that seatbelts can actually cause harm. I would submit that if you pass a force-backed mandatory law that you know may cause harm – whatever the percentage – you are responsible for that harm. And to borrow a well-worn concept, one death because of legislation is one too many. “Edge cases” make bad law.

I'm not here to argue against the efficacy of seatbelts, however. That’s an issue for education, not legislation. Not government force. All the personal stories and statistics you’ll hear today are surely heart-rending, and certainly delivering bad news is incredibly hard. But these aspects are completely irrelevant to the fundamental fact that we each have a right to make our own choices -- and yes, even our own mistakes. Even if the statistics "aren't quite what we'd like to see." That's how a free society works.

You’ll hear the argument, basically, "But Dad, all the other states are doing it!" To me, the obvious response is, where in these united States, in this "land of the free," does one go, can one rely on anymore, to escape government meddling? Proudly, it has been NH. But this bill seeks to eliminate the very last refuge on this issue, the last of 50. The final extinction of seatbelt self-government. There will be nowhere left to retreat for those who would dare claim the temerity to make their own decision, whatever that might be.

Is that really necessary? Must the spirit of self determination be eliminated everywhere? Must NH, also, embrace paternalism? Is there absolutely no room for limited government in even the smallest corner of this country anymore? "We are Borg?" And ominously, what similar personal decisions shall we surrender to the State next, for the good of the collective? There are, indeed, virtually infinite ripe candidates, many affecting this Committee’s own private lives I have precious little doubt, and only "live free or die" hypocrisy needed to regulate them all.

I did not elect representatives to sell out my liberty for the return of a few pieces of my own silver. I also did not elect domineering mommies and daddies. The growing micromanagement of my life must stop. Despite what proponents of this bill seem to believe, I am a sapient, legal adult, not a child to be molded by the state -- please tell me right now, here for the record, if you contend otherwise. I do not consent. I reject government's authority to presume to protect me from myself. I require that my government respect my decisions, and instead protect me from those who would, through the force of intrusive government, impose upon me their will, their view of how I should live my life, what risks I should be "allowed" to take. No! It is my choice, not my neighbors'. And significantly, it is my neighbor’s choice, not mine.

In closing, government can’t make life “safe,” and laws do not stop crime. They merely define it. And this bill would thus "merely" define a whole new class of nonviolent "criminals," worthy of state aggression, who never asked for the state’s "help" in the first place. Please stop government's unauthorized and unwelcomed behavior modification experiments. Please defend vanishing first principles. Kindly retain our NH culture of individual liberty and personal responsibility, and reject the insidious, insatiable, and un-American nanny state, and only its latest onslaught in the form of HB1259. Thank you.

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

NH Bikers Prove Still Formidable

Well, at least we now have an idea of what it takes to turn profligate spendthrifts into self-professed -- yet highly selective -- fiscal frugalistas. And this from a constituent of Rep Mangipudi: "I support this law because ... riding is the ultimate freedom." Hey, who says nanny-staters have no sense of irony?

HB1621, "relative to the use of protective head gear while operating motorcycles and motorized bicycles", 2/4/2020, before the NH House Transportation Committee.

We've been here before, of course, but not for a while -- ten years ago, in fact. The odds haven't changed much, it seems: still the State against the majority. Who will win? Call your reps and place your bets.

Final "Blue Sheet" (i.e., attendees not speaking, but with an opinion nevertheless) tally: 4 in favor, 259 opposed. I'll leave it to you to count the speakers...

And don't fall for the sponsor's cynically-offered "divide and conquer" amendment, appeasing bicyclists.

Press


Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Stated Simply: NPV Makes GOTV Efforts Pointless

Paying attention yet, collectivists? Your "Get Out the Vote" campaigns in NH will be so much utterly wasted effort. Because their vote will be ignored. They could have just stayed home and saved the trouble.

"One man, one vote" (or not so much)? Not so fast. "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" would "allow" you your vote, by fiat, only as long as you agreed with the majority. Have a different opinion, though, and, well, you still vote with the majority. NH's electoral votes will not be her own to delegate. And thus NH voters' votes will not belong to them, either. Your vote will be recorded as whatever CA and NY want. If you like their choice, fine for you. But choose another path, and the record of your preference disappears. Poof! Disenfranchised. Like you never voted at all. All your vote are belong to us. Yours has been assimilated. NH, your vote is simply not recognized anymore. Absolutely no reason to bother spending the time casting one. How's that for "spirit of the Constitution"?

If any of the voters in the states falling for NPV want to know what "yeah, your vote doesn't count" really means, just wait until the NPV -- and thus their own ostensible electors (who haven't gone anywhere, jbtw) -- goes against what they thought they and their state voted for. Yes, that will happen, citizen. "Wait, what?!? That's not fair...!!!" Oh, the outrage and gnashing of teeth that will follow that entirely predictable revelation. But, hey, you told your state to ignore your vote, in favor of what other states wanted...

HB1531, "relative to the release of voting information in a presidential election", before the NH House Election Law Committee, 1/28/2020, seeks to make an effective objection to this "hive mind" movement, by jamming a monkey wrench into the gears that grind so fine.

And another consideration. Dispense with the Electoral College (by ratifying a Constitutional amendment, obviously, right? -- because we don't modify the Constitution by popular vote in this country), and what do you think presidential campaigning would look like then?

First, every stop will look like a "yuge" Trump rally, for one thing, because there's no need (nor ability, functionally, given the following) to go out on the street to face actual voters. Or a highly controlled appearance in a tv studio, because even if you're a decent candidate, that's just what you need to do out in the vast west, and in the high-delegate-count states, in order to reach the whole state.

By contrast, tiny (and politically hyper-active) NH (arguably too-) easily does "retail politics", even for national campaigns. Reporter: "What do you think of the candidate, ma'am?" Voter: "I'm not sure yet: I've only met him 3 or 4 times." Yes. Pols stop at diners and such, hold livingroom "town halls", and go door-to-door. They talk one-on-one with actual (and notably, 'uncommitted', even hostile) voters -- who can often respond with "who the hell are you, and why should I vote for you?" People pose to them real policy questions that they can't avoid. And it's all captured on video, so you, Ms WA voter and Mr. NM citizen, get to learn from it, too. And NH being especially small, everyone in the state can get themselves to any appearance, to inject a frustratingly unscripted moment (like, say, this). We revel in it, actually.

Can, e.g., Californians say the same? Can Californians do the same, just given the geographic expanse of the state? Hell, you could come to NH and join right in -- which is probably at least close to as practical as getting yourself to L.A. or S.F. -- and watching on the big-screen...

But do you think they'd bother to stop at diners in Fresno anyway? No. Major staged rallies before network cameras, in big cities in the half-dozen most delegate-rich states is the only opportunity you'll then have to vet them. Which is, needless to say, no opportunity to vet them at all.

Whether you consider these proportions valid now or not, what do you think this map will look like when -- because there's no longer any reason to talk with you -- CA(55), TX(38), FL(29), NY(29), IL(20), PA(20), OH(18), GA(16) and MI(16) (that's a total only 29 shy of EC victory) are the only states any candidate feels any need to visit -- and then simply broadcast to, in advance of their respective primaries?

Thus, there are really 2 aspects at risk with the National Popular Vote. The first is that your vote is made irrelevant. But the second is more selfless. So you're welcome. For the effect of the Framers' prescient gift, the Electoral College. And for the gratis "due diligence" earnestly exerted by FITN NH -- which, until repeal of the EC leaves them no reason to stop here at all, benefits you at least as much as it benefits us.

Quit your whining, and take advantage of your resources. Or...

We could reclaim all the arrogated power that government has stolen (contrary to not only the "spirit" but to the letter of the Constitution), return it to where it belongs, the individual -- the smallest and most vulnerable minority, right there -- and no one will need to care about any of it anymore. Get on with running your own life. Go in peace...

Press



Thursday, January 23, 2020

"The REAL problem with marijuana in the state of NH..."

That's criminal defense attorney Mark Sisti, speaking in the title. Here's the whole statement (from about a minute-and-a-half past the hour-and-a-half mark):
"The real problem with marijuana in the state of NH, the problem that we have, is that it is illegal. That is the problem."
Add to his "criminal justice" perspective the idea that prototypically fundamental to liberty is the concept of unilateral control over our own respective bodies. A foundational litmus test to the philosophy of self-ownership.

So the problem, as always, is fiat prohibition. Of substances. Of objects. Of behavior. Unauthorized prohibition. Market-defying prohibition. Winners-and-losers-picking prohibition. Rights-violating prohibition. Constitution-overstepping prohibition. And on this fiat prohibition, yes, "Live Free or Die" NH is now a painfully conspicuous "island of prohibition". Does that seem right to you? Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...

Here we have, before the NH House Criminal Justice Committee, 1/23/2020, HB1648, "relative to the home cultivation of cannabis plants and the possession of certain cannabis-infused products". Legalization. Yet even still again. But without the nasty "commerce" bit this time (because evidently Republicans are opposed to commerce -- and, for that matter, Constitutionally limited authority -- who knew...?)

Only one devoutly prohibitionist state rep and the ever-reliably prohibitionist New Futures testified in opposition, mostly with confusion regarding the actual content -- although the NH Chiefs of Police Association did bother to send a lobbyist to sign in for them in opposition (your employees lobbying your representatives in contravention of your expressed interests: think about that), and we can rest assured that forever-presuming-above-its-station law enforcement will inevitably put the screws to the more easily statist-manipulated oligarchs in the Senate, if and when we get that far.

We've been here before, of course, far too many times, but servant government's recalcitrance toward the people's will, in an ostensibly free society, is increasingly untenable. Perhaps we must accept that it's simply time for more accountable representation...

Press



Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Government May Not Muzzle Its Critics

Let alone with its employers' money. Seems self-evident, doesn't it? One might even be forgiven for presuming that the 1st Amendment and Right-to-Know prohibited it. Even if finalized by "mutual agreement" -- because the taxpayers don't have a seat at the settlement table.

Government can't hide its (effectively admitted) transgressions. Your servants shouldn't ever be able to unjustly attempt to destroy your life, and then, as a condition of ceasing and desisting its reckless lawlessness, compel your silence on the matter. It must not have the option of escaping public accountability for its actions. Ever.

Ever.

You are the employer. You are the taxpayer. However many "bags of money" there are, you're on the hook for the damage that ostensibly warranted their distribution. You were obliged to fill them. You have a duty to understand fully what your servants are perpetrating in your name and on your dime. You are the only sure remedy to more bags getting distributed in the future. You have every right to know the particulars empirically conceded with the settlement by your servants. Government doesn't get to buy silence regarding its abuses with (your) money. A guaranteed silence that only encourages more abuse -- of you as taxpayer, and of you as potential target. "More difficult settlements" is a good thing if it encourages government not to put itself in that position in the first place.

And I'm fairly confident actionable slander and libel statutes will survive, so...

HB154, "prohibiting non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements involving a governmental unit", before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 5/14/2019, is such a stipulation. And evidently the NHDoJ agrees. Sunlight is the best disinfectant...



A Right to Your Own Body -- And a Right to Defend that Right

Neither guns nor weed are within any delegated 'prohibition' purview of any government legitimately authorized by this US Constitution. It's that simple.

With hoplophobic hysteria (among other problems already, to be sure) having gleefully descended on the freshly Democratically-controlled NH legislature this term, the several state RKBA groups have been working overtime endeavoring to get their constituents out to relevant committee hearings and contacting their ostensible "representatives". Thus, I've expected that the public hearings for these bills would be well-enough attended and sufficiently reported that my own camera wasn't needed -- indeed, unnecessarily taking an SRO spot from someone else, who just might provide compelling testimony, too.

Plus there are the obscene parking problems in the State House's vicinity lately, even without high turnout, what with construction and the booted meters and garage spaces reserved for the Privileged Class as far as the eye can see. It shouldn't be too easy to instruct your servant government, after all...

But this day, 5/14/2019, is the typically far less well-attended Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Session to hash out and arrive at said committee's official mob-rule/damn-our-constricting-lawfully-delegated-authority recommendations to the full body on, among others, 4 of those gun bills (so there's still time to contact your Senator), all beginning at about the 9:20 mark:

HB109, "requiring background checks for commercial firearms sales", ("Ought To Pass" 3-2),
HB514, "imposing a waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm", (OTP/As Amended 3-2),
HB564, "(New Title) relative to possession of firearms on school property", (OTP/A 3-2),
HB696, "establishing a protective order for vulnerable adults" (here are overviews on this one), (OTP/A 3-2).

So much head-smackingly self-assured cluelessness that cries out for addressing here, certainly -- not that it hasn't been addressed before, ad nauseam, to no effect. But I'll confine myself to arguably the most egregious: the empirically false, addle-pated conviction, at base, that criminals obey laws. And further that if the children can be assured that if the rights of (only, since they're the only ones who will comply, duh) law-abiding citizens may be violated (without Constitutional authority, needless to say), then the children will rest easy that they are somehow now made safer. That the children would buy that speaks mostly to their government-school education, seems to me. The "gun-free" school bill stops everyone but the individual it (says it) wants to stop -- and, indeed, assures him publicly of that fact. What could possibly go wrong...?

And if you haven't stopped the criminal -- and again, unauthorized statutes stopping the law-abiding by definition won't stop him -- then "feeling safe" is, at best, entirely illusory, is nothing at all but a potentially more deadly "false sense of security", because you've purged the killing zone of any effective defense against those whom your statute won't stop. The school shooter is still coming. Seriously, have you not been following the news? All you've accomplished is to reassure him that his victims will be unable to defend themselves. The belief that an individual who would shoot up a school will still heed your prohibition on peaceful carry is flat-out delusional.

But first, they 'Exec' HB399, "relative to annulment of arrests or convictions for possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" at about :40 (OTP/A 3-2) and HB481, "relative to the legalization and regulation of cannabis and making appropriations therefor" at about 6:45, ("re-refer to committee" 5-0 -- merely returning toward Constitutional constraints should get more study...!), legislative hearings for which may be viewed here and here (House) and here (Senate).

Consider. Both of these topics, guns and weed -- each of them (one explicitly, even) undelegated "prohibitions", functionally -- concern what, in a free society (hell, even in this one), should be jealously-guarded fundamentally-protected civil liberties: unilateral control of your own body, and the ability to effectively defend that right from those who, whether with or without a fancy hat, would presume to violate it.

How can the Constitution-averse Duopoly -- that assures you that it is government, and will be respected, even if ultimately it has to kill you to "earn" it (because make NO mistake, every statute is backed by a gun) -- so easily and recalcitrantly trade sides on them?

Does that seem right to you...?

From MPP New England Political Director Matt Simon, 6/14/2019, because it needs to go somewhere (and tell Sununu about the rest of your rights, too, while you've got him on the horn):
New Hampshire friends, as you may know, I have been trying to convince the state to allow patients to grow their own cannabis for more than a decade. In the fall of 2008, with support from MPP, I began meeting with patients all over the state and encouraging them to share their experiences to help educate policymakers. Since then, countless patients have testified at public hearings to explain why they need to be able to grow their own cannabis as an alternative to opioids and other potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals.
The House of Representatives has listened, voting to pass *eight* medical cannabis home cultivation bills (in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.) Sadly, the only time the Senate agreed with the House was in 2012, and the bill was vetoed by then-Governor John Lynch (D).
It's good that we finally have a functional medical cannabis program and a few tightly regulated dispensaries, but many patients continue to suffer because they are unable to afford a regular supply of cannabis from the dispensaries. Since medical cannabis isn't covered by insurance, many patients simply can't afford it and are left with no choice but to continue taking opioids. Maintaining felony penalties against patients who cultivate cannabis for their own use is an insane, authoritarian policy, and it has no place in a state that has the temerity to call itself the "Live Free or Die" state.
I got into this intending to help *all* patients who could benefit from cannabis, and that is why I refuse to give up this fight.
This year, the Senate has once again listened to the needs of patients, and it has agreed with the House to allow limited home cultivation. HB 364 is on its way to the desk of Gov. Chris Sununu, who has not yet indicated whether he intends to sign it or veto it.
This morning, HB 364 even got an endorsement from Granite Grok, which bills itself as "the conservative voice of New England" and strongly opposes legalization for adults' use. And yet, because it is opposed by the police chiefs' association, the bill's fate remains uncertain.
On behalf of all the patients who have been asking for more than a decade, including many who have since passed away or moved to other states in disgust (note: home grow is now legal, not only for patients, but for all adults in all three neighboring states), I ask that you please take a moment to call Gov. Sununu's office (603-271-2121) and politely urge him to sign this critically important bill.
Media



Thursday, May 9, 2019

If Wishes Were Horses, We'd All Be Eatin' Steak!

And at unsustainably low mandated prices, too! And free ponies for everyone! Whee...! Ahh, fiat utopia. Sadly, however, TANSTAAFL intervenes. Everybody likes money -- you like money, too...?! Nobody appears to have any suggestions on where the funding for the bureaucrat-added costs of doing business is supposed to come from, though. Details, details... They do seem to understand well enough that their personal balance sheets need to add up. They're just not willing to concede the same realities for others. All your contract are belong to us; Love, the Central Planners...

Herewith, HB186, "establishing a state minimum wage and providing for adjustments to the minimum wage", before the NH Senate Commerce Committee, 5/9/2019. The sponsor easily acknowledges that the competitive market for goods and services in NH has already addressed this bill's intent: very few workers would benefit from its economic interventions. Because competition for good labor (it's why that Chatham ice cream shop calculates -- along with all of the other of their business considerations of which you know nothing, Senator Cavanaugh -- it's in its financial interest to pay such good wages).

So why is this necessary? Like the French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, it seems, our rulers observe, "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."

But if it is necessary -- and there are no nettlesomely negative economic consequences to meddling in the market's pricing signals, because money evidently does grow on trees -- to overrule markets (which have more data than you do) and commandeer other people's contracts because "We Know Better", then why stop at $12? Why not, say, $50? Or $100? Surely that would be even better!

No, because even supporters, one can only surmise, can somehow grasp there would be problems -- of their own creation, and therefore their responsibility -- even if they can't articulate them. And the arguments against $50 are identical to the arguments against $12. Or any, for that matter.

Most simply, they're not your contracts, and you have a "knowledge problem". Show some humility. "Wishing" a business can afford to pay what you want it to pay -- and that the job being done economically supports paying that wage -- doesn't make it so. If you believe it can be paid sustainably, then start a competing business and you will instantly have your pick of the best labor. And like Bernie Sanders, you'll profit like a true capitalist.

Here's an alternative to force-monopoly coercion based in economic ignorance: Private voluntary contracts, and free-market pressure via natural pricing signals and non-government-undermined competition. Yes, even for labor. All will be well...

Media
Some more context first...



Or...



Or...



Now the hearing...



Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Go East, Young Man

HB567, "relative to using the Atlantic Time Zone in NH", confronts the NH Senate's Executive Departments and Administration Committee, 5/8/2019. Hey, it's where we're laboriously headed already anyway, right? Besides, adjust your activities to the solar cycle, instead of thinking you're performing miracles by moving clock hands around. Ya don't actually create another hour of daylight, y'know...

The Massachusetts 'Time Zone Commission Report' to which prime sponsor Rep. Yokela referred can be found here (or as pdf). But let's start here. Nobody likes it. So why are we still doing it...?



And now the hearing...



Press

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

A Volunteer Recording a Government Committee

As said committee discusses (oh, so close...!) creating a committee to study requiring committees to record themselves, for the benefit of voters who generally need to be about earning their daily bread and acquiring the income necessary to satisfy said legislature's profligate spending habits (with, obviously, other people's money -- have I mentioned lately that taxation is theft?). As if those committees should actually be transparent and accountable, or something. Oversight. The Chair, herself, marvels at what could possibly be the motivation. But then, that's the imperious Senator Carson, so hardly surprising. And what the hell, if the volunteer can be obliged, catch-as-catch-can (so their machinations are still largely in the dark for the vast majority of voters), to continue to do their job for them, well...

HB457, "establishing a committee to study the making, preservation, and Internet availability of audio and video recordings of proceedings of committees of the house of representatives" -- which was changed in the House from the original bill that required them to just start providing you, dear taxpayer, with a video record of all their shenanigans (let's not be too hasty, after all) -- before the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee, 4/24/2019.

This hearing having been delayed about 10 minutes by the overlong previous hearing, the prime sponsor (and all 10 of the co-sponsors, to be sure) evidently had more pressing matters to which to attend. Thus your humble chronicler reluctantly finds himself in the uncomfortable position of offering the sole testimony standing between a summary "ITL" committee Executive Session recommendation and merely a discussion regarding government transparency and convenient citizen oversight -- thus, as I write this only a couple hours later, I have every confidence that pro forma Exec Session has already transpired...

Not including the 5-minute recess, under 3 minutes, total. Done and done...

[Update: As of 4/25, the bill's docket reports that the Committee Exec Session voted 5-0 'Ought to Pass', with a place on the Senate 'Consent Calendar' for next Thursday. Still only a miserable study committee, but... huh...]