Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Status of SB93 & AB69 as of 5/31

  1. #1
    Regular Member Da Po-lock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Green Bay, WI
    Posts
    131

    Status of SB93 & AB69 as of June 1st

    I called my legislators again today for my weekly pester call and was told the following;

    Rep. Klenke (R) was of course in a meeting but I spoke with his lackey Matt. This guy I don't like because he supposedly lost 2 of my previous emails.
    I questioned the status of AB69. Nothing scheduled for it anytime soon in the assembly. I explained this bill has been sitting for 2 months with no progress, WHY ?
    I also questioned Klenkes stand in it and on SB93 and he did not know anything about either issue but if I gave him my phone number the Rep. would call me on his way home tonight. I declined and said I would prefer email (I want his stand in writing).

    Next was Sen. Hansen. Talked to Rachel who said he is out in the district, I asked where, she didn't know.
    I commented he co-sponsored AB69 and asked the status of it and she had no idea either.
    I then asked the status or SB93 and she told me there was nothing scheduled for it any time soon either but that the Sen. was no way in favor of it at all. I told her I gave up on Hansen because I already know he does not want any part of it. I then asked when SB93 will be scheduled for session and she said it wasn't even on the agenda for June. I damn near lost it then. I asked how then does it GET on the agenda. She didn't know. I asked WHO then does create the agenda, the chairman or who. She didn't know that either. She said she would try to find out and get back to me. I told her I didn't want to wait that long and asked for a cell phone number to call Hansen myself but she could not do that. I explained that since he was in the district he should be available to take my call. She had no response. I did question what his agenda was in district, if he was working issues or too busy with the recall that he could not talk to me and again she didn't know.

    I explained my concerns to both Matt and Rachel that;

    1) Both of these bills need to get moving THIS MONTH because after June 30th they will recess until Sept 13.

    2) Every minute that goes by I and my family are being denied our 2A right.

    3) I questioned if there were stall tactics going on to delay any action on these bills until the recall elections are over.

    4) These legislators work for US; we, the overwhelming majority, have CLEARLY explained what WE want and what we expect them to represent and we don't care what they want is to have.

    I urge all of you here to PLEASE contact your legislators NOW and keep the pressure on them until we get what want. Constitutional Carry and Castle Doctrine WITH Stand Your Ground. So many of you here have worked very hard up until now. Now it up to all of us to support your efforts by barraging them with phone calls, emails and letters. We NEED to get these bills done by the end of June.

    Thanks.........Da Po-lock
    Last edited by Da Po-lock; 06-01-2011 at 11:55 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member cleveland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Allis, WI
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Po-lock View Post
    I then asked when SB93 will be scheduled for session and she said it wasn't even on the agenda for June.
    I'm not surprised that it is not on the schedule, but I'm surprised she told you.
    Last edited by cleveland; 06-02-2011 at 03:55 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Nothing will be done until after June 7 when the legislature reconvenes after the Memorial Day break. The next scheduled date that non-budget bills will be sent to the governor is August 4. SB93, in whatever it's final form, will not be signed by the governor before that date. If SB93 misses the governor on Aug 4. The next scheduled date for bills submitted for his signature is Dec. 8. Pressure must be put on to demand it be scheduled for the June floor period. The Fitzgerald boys have all the control.


    Proposed 2011-2012 SESSION SCHEDULE AT A GLANCE
    From SJR1 (PDF)
    2011 InaugurationJanuary 3, 2011 Monday
    FloorperiodJanuary 11, 2011 Tuesday
    FloorperiodJan 25 to Feb. 10, 2011 Tu − Th
    FloorperiodFebruary 22 to 24, 2011 Tu − Th
    FloorperiodMarch 8 to 10, 2011 Tu − Th
    Bills sent to GovernorMarch 24, 2011 Thursday
    FloorperiodApril 5 to 14, 2011 Tu − Th
    FloorperiodMay 10 to 19, 2011 Tu − Th
    FloorperiodJune 7 to 30, 2011, OR budget passage
    Nonbudget Bills sent to GovernorAugust 4, 2011 Thursday
    Budget Bill sent to GovernorAugust 4, 2011 (or later) Thursday
    FloorperiodSeptember 13 to 22, 2011 Tu − Th
    FloorperiodOctober 18 to Nov. 3, 2011 Tu − Th
    Bills sent to GovernorDecember 8, 2011 Thursday
    FloorperiodJanuary 17 to 26, 2012 Tu − Th
    FloorperiodFebruary 14 to 23, 2012 Tu − Th
    Last general−business FloorperiodMarch 6 to 15, 2012 Tu − Th
    Bills sent to GovernorMarch 22, 2012 Thursday
    Limited−business FloorperiodApril 24 to May 3, 2012 Tu − Th
    Bills sent to GovernorMay 10, 2012 Thursday
    Veto Review FloorperiodMay 22 and 23, 2012 Tu − W
    Interim, committee workMay 24, 2012, to Jan. 7, 2013 Th − Mon
    Bills sent to GovernorJune 13, 2012 Wednesday
    2013 InaugurationJanuary 7, 2013 Monday
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 06-02-2011 at 09:06 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Nothing will be done until after June 7 when the legislature reconvenes after the Memorial Day break.
    How long do these a55clowns get for Memorial Day???

    "Politicians - more time off than teachers!"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    The "normal" path is for scheduling to be done by the Committee on Senate Organization consisting of:

    Senator Fitzgerald (Chair)
    Senator Ellis
    Senator Grothman
    Senator Miller
    Senator Hansen

    They have not met since SB93 cleared committee. I would expect they'll be meeting a couple of times to schedule business for this floor period.

    On any given floor day, there is an agenda item where "Motions may be offered". Any senator could state "I move to bring SB93 to the floor." If the motion is seconded, there would be a floor vote and the bill would be brought up for discussion / voting.

    I don't expect that to happen in this case, and it's probably better if it doesn't - I'd rather see it get scheduled and discussed so people know what they're voting for/against when the inevitable amendments come up.
    Last edited by Teej; 06-02-2011 at 10:10 AM.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Po-lock View Post
    I called my legislators again today for my weekly pester call and was told the following;

    Rep. Klenke (R) was of course in a meeting but I spoke with his lackey Matt. This guy I don't like because he supposedly lost 2 of my previous emails.
    I questioned the status of AB69. Nothing scheduled for it anytime soon in the assembly. I explained this bill has been sitting for 2 months with no progress, WHY ?
    I also questioned Klenkes stand in it and on SB93 and he did not know anything about either issue but if I gave him my phone number the Rep. would call me on his way home tonight. I declined and said I would prefer email (I want his stand in writing).

    Next was Sen. Hansen. Talked to Rachel who said he is out in the district, I asked where, she didn't know.
    I commented he co-sponsored AB69 and asked the status of it and she had no idea either.
    I then asked the status or SB93 and she told me there was nothing scheduled for it any time soon either but that the Sen. was no way in favor of it at all. I told her I gave up on Hansen because I already know he does not want any part of it. I then asked when SB93 will be scheduled for session and she said it wasn't even on the agenda for June. I damn near lost it then. I asked how then does it GET on the agenda. She didn't know. I asked WHO then does create the agenda, the chairman or who. She didn't know that either. She said she would try to find out and get back to me. I told her I didn't want to wait that long and asked for a cell phone number to call Hansen myself but she could not do that. I explained that since he was in the district he should be available to take my call. She had no response. I did question what his agenda was in district, if he was working issues or too busy with the recall that he could not talk to me and again she didn't know.

    I explained my concerns to both Matt and Rachel that;

    1) Both of these bills need to get moving THIS MONTH because after June 30th they will recess until Sept 13.

    2) Every minute that goes by I and my family are being denied our 2A right.

    3) I questioned if there were stall tactics going on to delay any action on these bills until the recall elections are over.

    4) These legislators work for US; we, the overwhelming majority, have CLEARLY explained what WE want and what we expect them to represent and we don't care what they want is to have.

    I urge all of you here to PLEASE contact your legislators NOW and keep the pressure on them until we get what want. Constitutional Carry and Castle Doctrine WITH Stand Your Ground. So many of you here have worked very hard up until now. Now it up to all of us to support your efforts by barraging them with phone calls, emails and letters. We NEED to get these bills done by the end of June.

    Thanks.........Da Po-lock
    Hansen is a LOST cause & has been since the first day he became a Senator, He is ANTI CONCEALED CARRY. As he has stated in many letters I have gotten from his office.

    Klenke has no back bone & will go along with what everyone else is doing, so do not expenct his support for constitutional carry unless it is the popular bill. He just wants some form of Concealed carry, he does not care if it's training and a permit. I spoke with him on the phone for 30 minutes about a month ago...
    Last edited by GLOCK21GB; 06-02-2011 at 12:17 PM.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  7. #7
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    OK, 2 amendments to the 'Castle Doctrine' (AB69) were introduced yesterday. I have read neither, just posting them for comment:

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/AB69-AA1.pdf
    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/AB69-AA2.pdf

    This is according to http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69hst.html
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 06-05-2011 at 12:15 PM. Reason: For clarity. Added reference to Castle Doctrine.

  8. #8
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    link is broken page not found
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  9. #9
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverclotheshoff View Post
    link is broken page not found
    I just noticed that. I will dig around. Usually the links start working again later.

  10. #10
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I just noticed that. I will dig around. Usually the links start working again later.
    Here is the gist of the amendments from: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/doc...G%252FSB93.pdf
    Senate Amendment 3 to the Substitute Amendment
    Senate Amendment 3 to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 prohibits a person, other than a law
    enforcement officer, from knowingly carrying a weapon in a municipal courtroom if court is in session.
    Senate Amendment 4 to the Substitute Amendment
    Senate Amendment 4 to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 requires DOJ to suspend a license to
    carry a concealed weapon if the licensee has been charged with a felony and, as a condition of release, is
    prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.
    Legislative History
    Senate Substitute Amendment 1 and Senate Amendments 3 and 4 to the substitute amendment
    were offered by Senator Galloway. On May 25, 2011, the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities,
    Commerce and Government Operations unanimously recommended adoption of Senate Amendments 3
    and 4 to the substitute amendment and recommended adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1, as
    amended, on a vote of Ayes, 3; Noes, 2. On that date, the committee also recommended passage of the
    bill, as amended, on a vote of Ayes, 3; Noes, 2.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    Here is the gist of the amendments from: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/doc...G%252FSB93.pdf
    These are 2 amendments to the 'Castle Doctrine' Bill, AB 69, not SB93.

  12. #12
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    These are 2 amendments to the 'Castle Doctrine' Bill, AB 69, not SB93.
    Not according to this website: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/sb93

    Scroll down to "Links > SB93: LC Amendment Memo"
    Last edited by davegran; 06-05-2011 at 12:34 PM.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  13. #13
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    These are 2 amendments to the 'Castle Doctrine' Bill, AB 69, not SB93.
    Check again, it's SSA1-SB93.

  14. #14
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    Not according to this website: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/sb93

    Scroll down to "Links > SB93: LC Amendment Memo"
    I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about post 7 which clearly says AB69-AA1 and AB69-AA2 but the links are broken. AB69 is the Castle Doctrine. If you look at it's status page, it shows 2 proposed amendments but, once again, the links are broken. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69hst.html

    Sorry for any confusion.

  15. #15
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about post 7 which clearly says AB69-AA1 and AB69-AA2 but the links are broken. AB69 is the Castle Doctrine. If you look at it's status page, it shows 2 proposed amendments but, once again, the links are broken. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69hst.html

    Sorry for any confusion.
    In Post #11, you quoted a link to SB93. That is all I was trying to point out.

  16. #16
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    In Post #11, you quoted a link to SB93. That is all I was trying to point out.
    LOL! In 11, I was responding to 10, who quoted 9 which was in response to 8 stating that the links I provided in 7 were broken.

    I love multiple topic threads!

    Anyhow, it doesn't really matter. We are all right. SB93 has an amendment SSA1, which had w amendments pas SSA1-A3 and SSA1-A4.

    AB69 has 2 amendments pending, we can't read them because the links are broken.

  17. #17
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    LOL! In 11, I was responding to 10, who quoted 9 which was in response to 8 stating that the links I provided in 7 were broken.

    I love multiple topic threads!

    Anyhow, it doesn't really matter. We are all right. SB93 has an amendment SSA1, which had w amendments pas SSA1-A3 and SSA1-A4.

    AB69 has 2 amendments pending, we can't read them because the links are broken.
    LOL! O.K., now I'm on board... sorry!
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  18. #18
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Reading that link to the LRB document, on pg 3 it says that one of the disqualifiers for a WI license is if a person is not a resident. So non-residents would still be in danger of the federal "GF"SZ crime.

    Yeah, I know it says everyone with any license is considered licensed by WI, but do you really think the feds would respect that?

    And the amendment as discussed on pg 5 removes the requirement for metal detectors & lockers, going back to just posting signs.
    If the gov't is going to require that I accept them being responsible for protecting me, I want them to ensure that EVERYONE entering the building is also disarmed, other than on-duty LEOs. They would also have to protect people to/from their cars, if there were no lockers.

    Bottom of pg 5, the amendment keeps the magical 1000' zone unless someone has a permit.

    Both of those things need to go. Want to restrict my rights? Restrict everyone.
    Get rid of the 1000' zone, since it's useless in preventing crime.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  19. #19

  20. #20
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Awesome! They added vehicle and place of business. These are the amendments the NRA spoke of when they said the original bill didn't work for them. They had said they were going to get an amendment attached to fix the issues.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,319
    Protects you in your vehicle, home, and your business. What about out in public?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  22. #22
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Protects you in your vehicle, home, and your business. What about out in public?
    Haven't finished reading. Might be some time. We shall see.

  23. #23
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Protects you in your vehicle, home, and your business. What about out in public?
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Haven't finished reading. Might be some time. We shall see.
    If not, is would be an easy ammendment later this session or next session. I don't think the want to jump to Stand Your Ground without giving Castle Doctrine a little alone time on the books.

  24. #24
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Haven't finished reading. Might be some time. We shall see.
    LoSorte from the NRA wanted 'residence' changed to dwelling. He aslo wanted language based on facts and evidence, not a reasonable belief. "RESIDENCE" is deleted and "forcably entering" was changed to 'criminal act' whick opens it right up and I like it.

    I LIKE IT.

  25. #25
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Ok, read both amendments. Pretty straightforward. Only adds vehicle and your place of business, so,
    In this subsection, "place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.".
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 06-06-2011 at 02:31 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •