Amendment 2 has received by far the most publicity,
which would introduce the “strict scrutiny” standard to
any state government attempts to restrict firearm usage. Some opponents argue
that it could make it more difficult for legal authorities to prosecute
criminals regarding gun possession, but any reasonable understanding of the
doctrine would not support that contention. Given the continuing demonstration of the salutary impact that increased gun ownership
has on the quality of life, this deserves passage.
Amendment 3 tackles the complex subject of retirement legislation by
trying to give more time to understand it by filing these kinds of bills
earlier in a legislative session. But it creates practical problems, such as
when a new Legislature is sworn in new members would have almost no time to
even introduce such bills. Further, it creates asymmetry in power relations
against those who would want to change things, as a sooner filing would allow
for more time to have specific vested interests create defensive strategies. And,
the bills can change substantially anyway throughout the process, negating
earlier revelation if that even is necessary to understand them. The Constitution, and House and Senate rules, already give retirement as a subject special
treatment meaning they must be filed earlier than other bills, which thus needs
not be expanded upon nor be allowed to become that much more difficult to
change by cluttering the Constitution further with this requirement, so this
needs to be rejected.