2023 SB 2 Portantino Carry Restrictions: It's back!

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Apr 28 is the last day for bills to be heard in Policy Committees. If this goes to Fiscal, that’s another step. In between, it has to go back to the Floor for 2d and 3d Readings and then to the Assembly.

They’re busy swapping office perks for votes in both the Senate and the Assembly as well as trying to read the tea leaves from New York.

Thanks for the dates!

[dougd1015]

Really no surprise here.

[chris]

Originally Posted by dougd1015

Really no surprise here.

Not at all.

[N0b0dy]

SB-2 has now been referred to rules committee

[ritter]

Originally Posted by N0b0dy

SB-2 has now been referred to rules committee

I'll never understand how a bill can go to a committee with no text. Got to pass it to know what's in it? Seems dishonest.

[Dvrjon]

Rules Committee determines which policy/finance committees will hear bills based on the subject of the bill, not its contents.

Policy Committee first, and this will probably go to Senate Public Safety. Text has to be in print 3 days prior to action in the committee.

Fiscal Committee will follow due to state and local costs.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Rules Committee determines which policy/finance committees will hear bills based on the subject of the bill, not its contents.

Policy Committee first, and this will probably go to Senate Public Safety. Text has to be in print 3 days prior to action in the committee.

Fiscal Committee will follow due to state and local costs.

Oh, I'm sure those are the rules. Just not sure how "Transparent California" expects public participation when there's no text. I do appreciate your clarification. Always trying to understand the process.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by ritter

Oh, I'm sure those are the rules. Just not sure how "Transparent California" expects public participation when there's no text. I do appreciate your clarification. Always trying to understand the process.

They can amend it in rules, but what’s the rush?

When you see it, you ain’t gonna like it.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

When you see it, you ain’t gonna like it.

Truth. I wonder how stupid it will get with sensitive places... And good moral character.

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by ritter

Truth. I wonder how stupid it will get with sensitive places... And good moral character.

It'll be as idiotic as the one that didn't pass, maybe even more idiotic. Our legislators here like to go for an over the fence hit.

[Usual_Suspect]

If it's the same Bill as last time, there were no exclusions for Judges or Reserve Deputies/Police Officers. I am at a loss at how their lobbyists have not zeroed in and prevented it from passing.

[Dvrjon]

FIFY

Originally Posted by Usual_Suspect

If it's the same Bill as last time, there were no exclusions for Judges or Reserve Deputies/Police Officers. I am at a loss at how their lobbyists have not zeroed in and prevented it from passing gotten amendments excluding these groups.

[TruOil]

I think that there will be significant changes. Obviously good cause is history. However, the last bill also dropped good moral character, so we have to see if that changes. I also believe the massively restrictive limits on where one can carry will be highly influenced by the developments in NY and NJ courts. If the Legislature had any sense, they would not change anything on where one may lawfully carry now, as that is the only way they might avoid a challenge. On the other hand, I suspect that they will keep the punitive training requirements and/or psych eval as about the only ways to discourage applicants. Because we all know that the Powers That Be do NOT want us carrying guns.

[Rickybillegas]

The main objections I have is the 'no public buildings' the no carry within 1000 foot school zones. If these two are omitted, I can live with it. I know the other restrictions are unconstitutional, but that won't stop them.

We may have to wait a long time for relief from SCOTUS. In the meantime they will pass the law, there will be injunctions and stays and who knows how long we will have to wait for getting rid of this nonsense.

[Tiberius]

I'm going to go out on a contrarian limb here and say "Good." It's exactly these sorts of blatantly over-reaching, deliberately unconstitutional efforts that led to Breun and solidified what the 2A means.

These clowns in the Legislature are going to confirm that the Supreme Court meant what it said, and are going to end up painting themselves into a corner. Once this gets tossed, there will be no argument. (Ok, no genuine argument).

And I'm not so sure that the Supreme Court will tolerate being blatantly ignored for long - and may act quickly. This involves a fundamental Constitutional right, and the Bruen court was clear that this right not a second or third-class right. So, good.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

The main objections I have is the 'no public buildings' the no carry within 1000 foot school zones. If these two are omitted, I can live with it. I know the other restrictions are unconstitutional, but that won't stop them.

We may have to wait a long time for relief from SCOTUS. In the meantime they will pass the law, there will be injunctions and stays and who knows how long we will have to wait for getting rid of this nonsense.

The Legislature is perfectly aware that if they eliminate the exception to the GFSZ NO ONE will be able to carry pretty much anywhere in any urban (incorporated) area in the state. Schools zones are literally impossible to avoid if you plan on going anywhere. And that was precisely the intent, a direct attack on Bruen. Why they think that it will survive any level of review is beyond me.

[Ash359]

Originally Posted by Usual_Suspect

If it's the same Bill as last time, there were no exclusions for Judges or Reserve Deputies/Police Officers. I am at a loss at how their lobbyists have not zeroed in and prevented it from passing.

I'm pretty sure they did prevent it last time

[Rickybillegas]

Of course they know full well that much of their proposed are unconstitutional.
In their preamble, they go on and on about how "wide spread carry" is dangerous and the studies back this up (from manipulated Everytown funded studies). They also know full well that in the Bruen decision that was exactly the opposite of what the majority opinion stated; that is that the right to carry out to be and is historically widespread and should exclude only areas historically regulated. They know this.

So, they are playing games. And they are open and obstinate about it. They are playing games to appease their anti-gun donors and hoping that they can pass these laws into effect for as long as they can before they are finally overruled.

Only law enforcement, military and criminals should own or posess firearms.
Just like Mexico

[Ash359]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

The main objections I have is the 'no public buildings' the no carry within 1000 foot school zones. If these two are omitted, I can live with it. I know the other restrictions are unconstitutional, but that won't stop them.

We may have to wait a long time for relief from SCOTUS. In the meantime they will pass the law, there will be injunctions and stays and who knows how long we will have to wait for getting rid of this nonsense.

Not being allowed into any place that doesn't have a "guns welcome here" sign is pretty terrible too

[Ash359]

Only thing I can see is probably a limit of how many guns you can carry to 2

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by Ash359

I'm pretty sure they did prevent it last time

It didn't pass, I think by only one vote. But that's only because they insisted on urgency. If they had tried to pass with simple majority, it would have passed with flying colors.

I'm hoping enough new members of either party will object to some of the exclusions for ccw and either prevent passing outright, or insist on omitting some of the worst exclusions, or at least prevent urgency.
Remember there were a few democrats that voted no on the bill.
Conservative rural counties.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Ash359

I'm pretty sure they did prevent it last time

Upon what do you base this?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

The main objections I have is the 'no public buildings' the no carry within 1000 foot school zones. If these two are omitted, I can live with it. I know the other restrictions are unconstitutional, but that won't stop them.

We may have to wait a long time for relief from SCOTUS. In the meantime they will pass the law, there will be injunctions and stays and who knows how long we will have to wait for getting rid of this nonsense.

GFSZ:
For the record, the failed version of SB 918 would not have eliminated licensed carry within the GFSZ. It established a limited prohibition within the zones to exclude carry on a street or sidewalk adjacent to the school grounds.

(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:

(5) When the person holds a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, who is carrying that firearm in an area that is within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school, but is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 from carrying a firearm in accordance with that license as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), or (e) of Section 26230.

That last bit about CA PEN 26230(e) is important:

(e) Except in the places specified in paragraph (14) of subdivision (a) {colleges/universities} a licensee shall not be in violation of this section while they are traveling along a public right-of-way that touches or crosses any of the premises identified in subdivision (a) if the concealed firearm is carried on their person in accordance with the provisions of this act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law. Nothing in this section allows a person to loiter or remain in a place longer than necessary to complete their travel.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by Ash359

Not being allowed into any place that doesn't have a "guns welcome here" sign is pretty terrible too

That's what I actually meant. I mis-stated by saying no carry in public buildings. What i meant was the language dictating that BUILDINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC (unless otherwise posted allowing concealed firearms).
that would mean every time I pull into a gas station mini-mart, or store, I need to disarm, store firearm properly and then go into said store unless the store posted otherwise.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

GFSZ:
For the record, the failed version of SB 918 would not have eliminated licensed carry within the GFSZ. It established a limited prohibition within the zones to exclude carry on a street or sidewalk adjacent to the school grounds.



That last bit about CA PEN 26230(e) is important:

Thanks for that clarification.

[TruOil]

"When the person holds a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, who is carrying that firearm in an area that is within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school, but is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school."

This is hardly limited, and is a massive trap for the unwary. You cannot drive down any street adjacent to a school--which means you have to be a block over from each and every portion of a school. And which requires you to know where each and every school is. How many of them are located along major thoroughfares? How many schools are there in LA or San Francisco, and do you know where each and every single one of them is, or at least enough to plot a route to avoid any you may pass, before leaving home? I can tell you this: I live in a relatively small town, but there are schools along every single large street, and there is no way I can get from my house to my office without violating this law. No my friend, the law is designed to make it as difficult as possible to carry a firearm in your vehicle in any city or town, but to sound "reasonable" while robbing you of your right.

[mural9999]

I think we can confidently predict that this bill will come back as bad as last years if not even worse given the mass murders the past week. We all know legal CCW did not contribute to this but could have helped prevent it.

As the progressives love to profess....Never let a tragedy go to waste.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB2

“Service temporarily unavailable”

Can you guys keep the OP up to date so we only have to check there to know (1) where the bill is at (it’s current status), (2) what’s the next step and (3) about when will that take place? Just PM the OPoster or send an alert (small red and white triangle near top right of post by its number) to Mods with that info. That way the rest of us can quickly find out what we need to know. Thx!

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Paladin

“Service temporarily unavailable”

Can you guys keep the OP up to date so we only have to check there to know (1) where the bill is at (it’s current status), (2) what’s the next step and (3) about when will that take place? Just PM the OPoster or send an alert (small red and white triangle near top right of post by its number) to Mods with that info. That way the rest of us can quickly find out what we need to know. Thx!

My recollection is that Leginfo is often down in the early a.m. somewhere around 6-6:45.

Legiscan provides an alternative source.

It’s still in Senate Rules as of now.

No way to tell when it will go to Policy committee, but it will be noticed in the Senate Rules Committee Agenda.

[Rickybillegas]

This will probably go the way as NY. The bill will be as bad as expected or worse, and pass and be signed into law. There will probably be a temporary injunction at the lower court level soon after a lawsuit. Then a stay on the injunction at the circuit court level. So we can only hope the circuit court rules the worst aspects unconstitutional; either that, or SCOTUS steps in on NY and rules as such. We will be in limbo for periods of time waiting and not be able to go almost anywhere pending final resolution.

I hope I'm wrong.

[N0b0dy]

First revision has been published. At first glance, it looks as evil as SB 918 plus some more. Truly awful but I guess not surprising given our legislators contempt for the 2nd Amendment.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB2

[Rickybillegas]

They're going full court press. Just read a press release by Bonta with an adamant appeal that 2nd does not preclude non carry on private property.
Then he lies outright by stating "no Owner should be forced to allow guns on their property!" No Owner is currently forced to allow guns on their property.

The battle is on. They are not going to give an inch. They are going to fight to the bitter end. They are prepared to lie, distort and threaten those who are opposed to their agenda.

[TruOil]

At least they retained the exemption for CCW holders from the GFSZA:

(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:

(2) (A) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle. is within a locked container in a motor vehicle or is within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle at all times.


(B) This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.

(5) When the person holds a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, who is carrying that firearm in an area that is not in, or on within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of, of the public or private school, but is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, but within the grounds of the public or private school. or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 from carrying a firearm in accordance with that license as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), or (e) of Section 26230.

[mural9999]

Originally Posted by TruOil

At least they retained the exemption for CCW holders from the GFSZA:

(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:

(2) (A) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle. is within a locked container in a motor vehicle or is within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle at all times.


(B) This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.

(5) When the person holds a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, who is carrying that firearm in an area that is not in, or on within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of, of the public or private school, but is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, but within the grounds of the public or private school. or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 from carrying a firearm in accordance with that license as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), or (e) of Section 26230.

This is a huge word salad but I think this section is the kicker:

"who is carrying that firearm in an area that is not in, or on within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of, of the public or private school, but is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, but within the grounds of the public or private school. or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school."

I read this as saying carry is no-bueno 1000 feet from grounds of school, street/sidewalk adjacent to the property or in any parking controlled.

If I read this properly, then this section basically makes it impossible to travel in any city without becoming a felon multiple times a day. Unknowingly so as well. Total dumpster fire.

[Rgarbarino]

At the press conference Bonta actually said SB2 is "Bruen Compliant".... we'll see.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

They are prepared to lie, distort and threaten those who are opposed to their agenda.

The pro-gun forces, and conservatives in general, will continue to loose badly until they learn to adopt, use, and follow through with the same tactics.
Secondly, SCOTUS dropped the ball with Bruen when they allowed the states to keep any means of a permitting system to exercise a constitutional right.
Sharedshots has been saying this all along.

[igs]

(d) A licensee authorized to carry a firearm pursuant to this chapter shall not carry more than two firearms under the licensee’s control at one time.

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by mural9999

This is a huge word salad but I think this section is the kicker:

"who is carrying that firearm in an area that is not in, or on within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of, of the public or private school, but is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, but within the grounds of the public or private school. or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school."

I read this as saying carry is no-bueno 1000 feet from grounds of school, street/sidewalk adjacent to the property or in any parking controlled.

If I read this properly, then this section basically makes it impossible to travel in any city without becoming a felon multiple times a day. Unknowingly so as well. Total dumpster fire.

Did you read the correct amended portion?

As amended (01-31-23)...
Penal Code 626.9
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:
(5) When the person holds a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, who is carrying that firearm in an area that is not in, or on the grounds of, within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school, but is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, but within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 from carrying a firearm in accordance with that license as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), or (e) of Section 26230.

[igs]

26230. (a) A person granted a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, or 26170 shall not carry a firearm on or into any of the following:
(1) A place prohibited by Section 626.9.
(2) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a preschool or childcare facility, including a room or portion of a building under the control of a preschool or childcare facility. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the operator of a childcare facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm in the home if no child under child care at the home is present in the home or the firearm in the home is unloaded, stored in a locked container, and stored separately from ammunition when a child under child care at the home is present in the home so long as the childcare provider notifies clients that there is a firearm in the home.
(3) A building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of an officer of the executive or legislative branch of the state government, except as allowed pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 171c.
(4) A building designated for a court proceeding, including matters before a superior court, district court of appeal, or the California Supreme Court, parking area under the control of the owner or operator of that building, or a building or portion of a building under the control of the Supreme Court, unless the person is a justice, judge, or commissioner of that court.
(5) A building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of a unit of local government, unless the firearm is being carried for purposes of training pursuant to Section 26165.
(6) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of an adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison, or jail.
(7) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, nursing home, medical office, urgent care facility, or other place at which medical services are customarily provided.
(8) A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds.
(9) A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a vendor or an establishment where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises.
(10) A public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from a federal, state, or local government and sidewalk or street immediately adjacent to the public gathering or special event but is not more than 1,000 feet from the event or gathering, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through a public gathering in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle.
(11) A playground or public or private youth center, as defined in Section 626.95, and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to the playground or youth center.
(12) A park, athletic area, or athletic facility that is open to the public and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to those areas, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through such a place in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle.
(13) Real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife, except those areas designated for hunting pursuant to Section 5003.1 of the Public Resources Code, Section 4501 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, or any other designated public hunting area, public shooting ground, or building where firearm possession is permitted by applicable law.
(14) Any area under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university, including, but not limited to, buildings, classrooms, laboratories, medical clinics, hospitals, artistic venues, athletic fields or venues, entertainment venues, officially recognized university-related organization properties, whether owned or leased, and any real property, including parking areas, sidewalks, and common areas.
(15) A building, real property, or parking area that is or would be used for gambling or gaming of any kind whatsoever, including, but not limited to, casinos, gambling establishments, gaming clubs, bingo operations, facilities licensed by the California Horse Racing Board, or a facility wherein banked or percentage games, any form of gambling device, or lotteries, other than the California State Lottery, are or will be played.
(16) A stadium, arena, or the real property or parking area under the control of a stadium, arena, or a collegiate or professional sporting or eSporting event.
(17) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public library.
(18) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal, as those terms are defined in subdivision (a) of Section 171.5.
(19) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of an amusement park.
(20) A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a zoo or museum.
(21) A street, driveway, parking area, property, building, or facility, owned, leased, controlled, or used by a nuclear energy, storage, weapons, or development site or facility regulated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(22) A church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, including in any parking area immediately adjacent thereto, unless the operator of the place of worship clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.
(23) A financial institution or parking area under the control of a financial institution.
(24) A police, sheriff, or highway patrol station or parking area under control of a law enforcement agency.
(25) A polling place, voting center, precinct, or other area or location where votes are being cast or cast ballots are being returned or counted, or the streets or sidewalks immediately adjacent to any of these places.
(26) Any other privately-owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as prescribed by the Department of Justice and shall be at least four inches by six inches in size.
(27) Any other place or area prohibited by other provisions of state law.
(28) Any other place or area prohibited by federal law.
(29) Any other place or area prohibited by local law.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by mural9999

This is a huge word salad but I think this section is the kicker:

"who is carrying that firearm in an area that is not in, or on within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of, of the public or private school, but is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, but within the grounds of the public or private school. or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school."

When copying text from LegInfo which contains attributes (strike text, add text, colors, etc.) which "mark up" the changes from the original, those attributes are lost when the text is put into Bulletin Board. The text of this portion (and all portions of the bill) shows the existing text of statute and the modifications (additions...blue; deletions..red). Quiet has expertly laid out the "addition/ deletion" portion of this particular passage. It is always best to link back to the bill language to see what has been done.

The one caveat here is that the current versions of amendments will not show the original text. They only show the amendments to the currently in print version, so if (when) this bill is amended again (probably for Urgency) even for something as simple as changing a verb tense, all of these "marked changes" become unmarked, making the task of following what has changed in the past much harder.

So, hang on...They've left out the Urgency Clause for now, but when Newsom was preening during the Presser, he said they have the votes, and he wasn't talking about end-of-year enactment.

It's gonna be a bumpy ride.