• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Status of SB93 & AB69 as of 5/31

Da Po-lock

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
131
Location
Green Bay, WI
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:

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
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:

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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:

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
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:

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
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/document?cite=lcamendmentmemos%2F2011%2FREG%2FSB93.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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ

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.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
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!
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 
Top