BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
History of AB69
I am not getting into to specifics of the bill, ammendments or substitute ammendments, just an basic overview and interpretation.
To start out with, a short lesson for those who may not understand this yet.
When a bill is introduced, it is assigned a number in the order it was introduced. If it is introduced by a Representative in the Assembly, it starts with “AB” for Assembly Bill and when it is introduced by a Senator from the Senate, it starts with ‘SB’ for Senate Bill.
When an amendment is offered to a bill, it is assigned a number numerically in the order it was offered, similar the way bills are assigned numbers.
An amendment offered to an Assembly Bill or AB, is called and “Assembly Amendment” or AA. So the first amendment offered to the 69th Assembly bill offered would look like AB69-AA1. The second amendment offered would be AA2 to AB69, or AB69-AA2.
The system is the same for a Senate Bill, or SB, and an amendment is called “Senate Amendment” or SA. So the first Senate Amendment offered to a Senate Bill like SB79 would be SA1 to SB79 or SB79-SA1.
Sometimes, rather than offering an “Amendment” which would amend the language of the “Bill”, the author of the bill may offer a “Substitute Amendment” which replaces or substitutes all the language of the original or preceding bill for the language in the Substitute Amendment.
The first “Assembly Substitute Amendment” to AB69, or ASA1 to AB69, would look like AB69-ASA1. Essentially, AB69-ASA1 replaces the original AB69.
The same goes for the Senate. The first “Senate Substitute Amendment” or SSA1 to SB79, would look like SB79-SSA1. Essentially, SB79-SSA1 replaces the original SB79.
In committee, all ‘Amendments’ and ‘Substitute Amendment’s must be given a motion and seconded to be read and voted on. If there is no motion and a second, the ‘Amendment’ or ‘Substitute Amendment’, is dead in committee. And there has been no Executive Session on AB69 as of yet, so no ‘Amendment’ or ‘Substitute Amendment’ have been acted on. And several of them won’t be, and I will get to that.
Now lets look at the History of AB69
AB69 was introduced by Rep. Kaufert on 3/30/11
The Public Hearing for AB69 was on 5/26/11. Watch it here: http://www.wiseye.org/videoplayer/vp.html?sid=5798
As a separate point of interest, the Senate version, SB79 had its Public Hearing on 6/2/11. Watch it here: http://www.wiseye.org/videoplayer/vp.html?sid=5837. SB79 has had no action on it since so I assume they will just be taking AB69 after it passes the Assembly.
On 6/3/11, Rep. Kaufert offered AB69-AA1 and AB69-AA2.
On 6/7/11, four days later, Rep. Kaufert offered AB69-ASA1. (Since this is a Substitute Amendment, I assume that his two previous amendments SB69-AA1 and AB69-AA2 are dead and those changes are included in AB69-ASA1 instead.)
The very next day, on 6/8/11, Rep. Kaufert offered AB69-ASA2. This tells me he made more siginicant changes and AB69-ASA1 is now dead.
An Executive Session on AB69 was scheduled for 6/9/11 by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics after the Public Hearings on AB106, AB109 and AB156.
On 6/9/11, the Executive Session on AB69 of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics was canceled at the very last minute by request of the author, Rep. Kaufert, to paraphrase Rep. J.Ott, “to make sure we are particularly on point with what we want to accomplish with this bill.”
The next Executive Session on AB69 for the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics that was scheduled for 8/4/11 was rescheduled to 8/18/11 to make some or all of the changes all our phones calls, emails, letters and personal conversations asked for. Word from Rep. Kerkman’s office is that that the word ‘privelage’ in the title of the bill is being changed to ‘right’ and ‘Stand Your Ground’ is being included and I assume that AB69-ASA2 is dead and all these changes will wrapped up in AB69-ASA3.
On 8/2/11, Rep. Craig, offered and Assembly Ammendment to AB69-ASA2-AA1. I sure hope they include this amendment in AB69-ASA3.
On 8/15/11, Rep. Hebl offered the first anti-self-defense amendment. He actually offered two, but each are the same to cover both AB69-ASA1 and AB69-ASA2. So, he offered AB69-ASA1-AA1 and AB69-ASA2-AA2.
That is all at this moment. I am awaiting Rep. Kaufert to offer AB69-ASA3 with everything we want in it.
I imagine Rep. Hebl will again offer his amendment as AB69-ASA3-AA1.
That is my take on it all.
I am not getting into to specifics of the bill, ammendments or substitute ammendments, just an basic overview and interpretation.
To start out with, a short lesson for those who may not understand this yet.
When a bill is introduced, it is assigned a number in the order it was introduced. If it is introduced by a Representative in the Assembly, it starts with “AB” for Assembly Bill and when it is introduced by a Senator from the Senate, it starts with ‘SB’ for Senate Bill.
When an amendment is offered to a bill, it is assigned a number numerically in the order it was offered, similar the way bills are assigned numbers.
An amendment offered to an Assembly Bill or AB, is called and “Assembly Amendment” or AA. So the first amendment offered to the 69th Assembly bill offered would look like AB69-AA1. The second amendment offered would be AA2 to AB69, or AB69-AA2.
The system is the same for a Senate Bill, or SB, and an amendment is called “Senate Amendment” or SA. So the first Senate Amendment offered to a Senate Bill like SB79 would be SA1 to SB79 or SB79-SA1.
Sometimes, rather than offering an “Amendment” which would amend the language of the “Bill”, the author of the bill may offer a “Substitute Amendment” which replaces or substitutes all the language of the original or preceding bill for the language in the Substitute Amendment.
The first “Assembly Substitute Amendment” to AB69, or ASA1 to AB69, would look like AB69-ASA1. Essentially, AB69-ASA1 replaces the original AB69.
The same goes for the Senate. The first “Senate Substitute Amendment” or SSA1 to SB79, would look like SB79-SSA1. Essentially, SB79-SSA1 replaces the original SB79.
In committee, all ‘Amendments’ and ‘Substitute Amendment’s must be given a motion and seconded to be read and voted on. If there is no motion and a second, the ‘Amendment’ or ‘Substitute Amendment’, is dead in committee. And there has been no Executive Session on AB69 as of yet, so no ‘Amendment’ or ‘Substitute Amendment’ have been acted on. And several of them won’t be, and I will get to that.
Now lets look at the History of AB69
AB69 was introduced by Rep. Kaufert on 3/30/11
The Public Hearing for AB69 was on 5/26/11. Watch it here: http://www.wiseye.org/videoplayer/vp.html?sid=5798
As a separate point of interest, the Senate version, SB79 had its Public Hearing on 6/2/11. Watch it here: http://www.wiseye.org/videoplayer/vp.html?sid=5837. SB79 has had no action on it since so I assume they will just be taking AB69 after it passes the Assembly.
On 6/3/11, Rep. Kaufert offered AB69-AA1 and AB69-AA2.
On 6/7/11, four days later, Rep. Kaufert offered AB69-ASA1. (Since this is a Substitute Amendment, I assume that his two previous amendments SB69-AA1 and AB69-AA2 are dead and those changes are included in AB69-ASA1 instead.)
The very next day, on 6/8/11, Rep. Kaufert offered AB69-ASA2. This tells me he made more siginicant changes and AB69-ASA1 is now dead.
An Executive Session on AB69 was scheduled for 6/9/11 by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics after the Public Hearings on AB106, AB109 and AB156.
On 6/9/11, the Executive Session on AB69 of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics was canceled at the very last minute by request of the author, Rep. Kaufert, to paraphrase Rep. J.Ott, “to make sure we are particularly on point with what we want to accomplish with this bill.”
The next Executive Session on AB69 for the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics that was scheduled for 8/4/11 was rescheduled to 8/18/11 to make some or all of the changes all our phones calls, emails, letters and personal conversations asked for. Word from Rep. Kerkman’s office is that that the word ‘privelage’ in the title of the bill is being changed to ‘right’ and ‘Stand Your Ground’ is being included and I assume that AB69-ASA2 is dead and all these changes will wrapped up in AB69-ASA3.
On 8/2/11, Rep. Craig, offered and Assembly Ammendment to AB69-ASA2-AA1. I sure hope they include this amendment in AB69-ASA3.
On 8/15/11, Rep. Hebl offered the first anti-self-defense amendment. He actually offered two, but each are the same to cover both AB69-ASA1 and AB69-ASA2. So, he offered AB69-ASA1-AA1 and AB69-ASA2-AA2.
That is all at this moment. I am awaiting Rep. Kaufert to offer AB69-ASA3 with everything we want in it.
I imagine Rep. Hebl will again offer his amendment as AB69-ASA3-AA1.
That is my take on it all.
Last edited: