• 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.

Assembly Partner to SB93?

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Any idea why there is no AB for a no-permit system? AB126-SB90 match up for shall issue but SB93 is out there all alone.
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
Any idea why there is no AB for a no-permit system? AB126-SB90 match up for shall issue but SB93 is out there all alone.
It was explained at the NRA thingy that if the Senate voted and passed SB93, it could then go to the Assembly for a vote. There doesn't need to be a companion bill.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Because nobody in the Assembly submitted one. It is no more or less complicated than that.

That would be wrong. I have heard from several sources, including a couple staff members of Representatives that 'they' have a companion bill but the caucus leaders (Jeff Fitzgerald's name came up) didn't allow it to be introduced.

As Phred said, when the Senate passes their bill, they can send it to the House to be considered.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Understood but

It was explained at the NRA thingy that if the Senate voted and passed SB93, it could then go to the Assembly for a vote. There doesn't need to be a companion bill.

This means that there will be no Assembly action on no-permit unless and until the Senate passes it. Any Assembly changes would then have to be approved in the Senate. I'm not sure if this helps or hurts SB93 but it seems like an unnecessary complication. Is there Assembly support for no-permit? If this is a better method why would shall issue supporters introduce separate bills? Only one bill would form the basis for a new law but simultaneous finetuning would be more expeditious, wouldn't it?

Is there an advantage either way or is it a 6 vs 1/2 dozen issue?
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
Is there Assembly support for no-permit?

Cosponsored by Representatives Mursau, Kleefisch, August, Farrow, Kapenga, Kerkman, Kestell, Knilans, Knudson, Kooyenga, Kramer, Krug, Kuglitsch, T. Larson, LeMahieu, Murtha, Nass, Rivard, Severson, Strachota, Tauchen, Thiesfeldt and Wynn

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/sb93

Representative Steineke added as a cosponsor
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Cosponsoring a Bill in the Other House?

Must be a Wisconsin thing. Or "cosponsor" simply means "supports."
 
Top