. THIS IS A SPECIALLY
SET. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY HEARING WE ARE SAID
TO HEAR ONE MATTER WHICH IS AB
FOR SIXTY FIVE BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER EGGMAN. LET'S GO AHEAD
AND ESTABLISH. QUORUM NO WE
NEED ONE MORE WE NEED ONE MORE.
BUT IF WE COULD CALL AND HOPE
THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER EGGMAN'S
AVAILABLE THAT WILL BE HELPFUL
THERE'S A NOTHER COMMITTEE
COMING IN AFTER WE ARE CG
CONCLUDED SO. LIKE TO TRY TO
GET GOING. THE REASON
. PLEASE
COME JOIN US HAPPY TO HAVE YOU.
I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE WE'RE ONE
SHORT OF A QUORUM AND I KNOW
SENATE INTO RUSSIA WAS IN THE
HALL. SO IF WE COULD TO. HAVE
HER COME JOIN US. I'LL HAVE A
QUORUM RIGHT NOW WILL START AS-
FANTASTIC. ALL RIGHT. MADAM
SECRETARY OF PLEASE HELP US
ESTABLISH A QUORUM PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL JACKSON HERE JACKSON
HERE GORGEOUS TO RUSSELL.
RUSSELL HERE GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ
HERE JONES MONNING. MONNING
HERE STERN I'M BURKE Y. CASKEY
WHITE HOUSE HERE RIGHT WE DO
HAVE A POOR MAN QUARTER WE
EXPECTING OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES TO JOIN US NEWS
WORLD. ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS
PROCEEDING NOW USUALLY WE LIKE
TO EXTEND THE COURTESY OF. OUR
FORGET. SO OF WE HAVE ONE
MATTER BEFORE US SO I WANT TO
REMIND EVERYONE THAT FOR THAT
MEASURE WE WILL ABIDE BY THE
POLICY WE HAVE IN THIS
COMMITTEE THAT THERE BE TWO
MAIN WITNESSES TWO MINUTES EACH
FOR SUPPORT AND SIMILARLY TO
MAIN WITNESSES TO MANAGE EACH
IN OPPOSITION. ANYONE ELSE WHO
WISHES TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION
WILL CALL UPON THOSE IN
ADDITION IN SUPPORT TO PLEASE
COME TO THE MICROPHONE GIVE
YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION ONLY
AND WILL DO THE SAME THING
AFTER THE OPPOSITION TO
WITNESSESIF THERE ARE YOU HAVE
TO WE DON'T NEED TO GO ON
FOREVER TO WE CERTAINLY TIED TO
THOSE WHO ARE HERE TO EXPRESS
THEIR OPINIONS. AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME SO WITH THAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER EGGMAN YOU HAVE
AB FOR SIXTY FIVE THE FLOOR IS
YOURS THANK YOU VERY MUCH MADAM
CHAIR ALL OF YOU FOR TAKING THE
TIME TO HEAR THIS BILL TODAY
INTO THE COMMITTEE FOR WORKING
ON AND I KNOW OFTENTIMES BILLS
INTRODUCED IN THE SECOND HOUSE.
CAN BE TIME CONSUMING FOR
PEOPLE AND EXPECT IT'S BUT I'D
APPRECIATE. THE WORK THAT AN
ANTI THIS. AB OR SIXTY FIVE. A%
BILL TO BETTER PROTECT
SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE
FROM GUN VIOLENCE. AB FOR SIXTY
FIVE WOULD CODIFY TO EXISTING
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT THAT
ESTABLISH A JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
PROCESS. FOR COURTS TO ENSURE
THAT FIREARM RELINQUISHMENT IN
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING
ORDER CASES ACTUALLY TAKE
PLACE. I WOULD MAKE THIS
PROCESS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA. WOULD ALSO ALIGNED
THE CIVIL RULES LANGUAGE WITH
THE CRIMINAL RULE WHICH
MANDEECEES PROCESS SEES
REQUIRES AN EXPEDITED REVIEW
PERIOD. CALIFORNIA 33% OF WOMEN
27% OF MEN EXPERIENCE SOME FORM
OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THEIR
LIFETIME AND IN TWENTY
EIGHTEEN. OR OVER A HUNDRED
SIXTY SIX THOUSAND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE RELATED CALLS
PERSISTENT ACROSS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. OVER 45% OF THOSE
CALLS REPORTED SOME TYPE OF
WEAPON BEING USED IN THE
INCIDENT. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE
POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ANY
TIME THERE'S VIOLENCE
OCCURRING. INCREASES THE RISK
OF HOMICIDE BY AT LEAST FIVE
HUNDRED PERCENT. IN FACT OVER
HALF OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
VICTIMS HAVE BEEN KILLED WITH A
FIREARM. A MONTH AN AVERAGE OF
FIFTY TWO WOMEN ARE SHOT AND
KILLED IN THE UNITED STATES BY
AN INTIMATE PARTNER. AND THERE
ARE NEARLY ONE MILLION WOMEN
ALIVE RIGHT NOW UNITED STATES
WHO HAVE BEEN SHOT AT. OR SHOT
BY A AN INTIMATE PARTNER. EVEN
WITH OUR STATES ROBUST FIRE
LEGISLATION THERE ARE STILL
OVER TWENTY THREE THOUSAND
ARMED PROHIBITED PERSONS WHO
HAVE FAILED TO RELINQUISH THEIR
WEAPONS. OF THOSE 2300018%
BECOME A PROHIBITIVE PERSON DUE
TO A RESTRAINING ORDER. UNDER
EXISTING LAW RIGHT NOW. WHEN A
PERSON BECOMES A SUBJECT OF A
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING
ORDER THEY AUTOMATICALLY.
BECOME A PROHIBITIVE PERSON WHO
ARE REQUIRED TO RELINQUISH ANY
AND ALL FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
WITHIN THEIR POSSESSION OR
CONTROL WITHIN TWENTY FOUR
HOURS. THE TWO RULES OF COURT
INTENDED TO SUPPORT THE SCHOOL
HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED ON A
LIMITED AND OFTEN TIMES IN
CONSISTENT BASIS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. IN THE CIVIL
CONTEXT THIS IS ESPECIALLY
CONCERNING BECAUSE THE ONLY
JUDICIAL OFFICER WITH KNOWLEDGE
OF THE FIREARM RELINQUISHMENT
PROCESS IS THE JUDGE. AND THE
SURVIVOR. WHO FILED FOR THE
STRAINING ORDER. AS OFTEN SELF
REPRESENTED SO WITH THAT AB.
IT'S ME GETS A RESTRAINING
ORDER BY LAW THEY ARE REQUIRED
TO RELINQUISH THEIR FIRE ARMS
WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME
AND PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THEY
HAVE DONE SO. OFTENTIMES WHEN
WOMEN GO BEFORE WHEN THEY'RE
THE JUDGES SINGING FOR THE
FIRST TIME THEY ARE NOT
REPRESENTED. SO THEY MAY NOT
KNOW TO EVEN ASK AND THE JUDGE
THEY'RE VERY BUSY OFTENTIMES
DON'T ASK HAVE YOU RELINQUISH
YOUR FIREARMS. IS THERE PROOF
OF THAT. THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE RIGHT NOW
THAT IS NOT STANDARD ACROSS IT
IS ALREADY REQUIRED THAT THEY
GIVE UP THEIR GUNS BUT THAT
RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO PROCESS.
TO CHECK TO SEE IF THEY HAVE OR
HAVE NOT LEAVING IT UP
OFTENTIMES TO THE- VICTIM OF
THAT VIOLENCE TO BE ABLE TO
TELL THE JUDGE YOU NEED TO ASK
THEM FOR THEIR FIREARMS. THAT
SHOULDN'T BE US SO THAT'S WITH
THIS BILL WOULD DO WOULD JUST
SAY THAT. THE FIRST TIME. THAT
PERSON COMES BEFORE THE JUDGE
THAT THEY ASK THEM THEN HAVE
YOU RELINQUISH YOUR ARMS AND IS
THERE SOME KIND OF PROOF OF
THAT. WITH. ME HERE TODAY THIS
BILL IS SUPPORTED BY THE-
TWENTY. IS. GIFFORD'S LAW
CENTER PRESENT PREVENT GUN
VIOLENCE THE CALIFORNIA
PARTNERSHIP TO END DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE THE CALIFORNIA POLICE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION. WITH ME
TODAY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU
MAY HAVE ABOUT THE PROCESS IS
ALISON CAP PART THE DIRECTOR OF
LEGAL SERVICES THAT WE'VE WHO
REPRESENTS SURVIVORS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. IN COURT AT
NO COST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON
I. I AM ALISON COME PART I AM
THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL SERVICES
WITH LEAVE I'M SORRY. YOUR CAN
HEAR ME A LITTLE BIT BETTER I
AM THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL
SERVICES WITH WE OF AND ALLIES
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. EGGMAN NOTED I
AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THIS COMMITTEE MAY HAVE ABOUT
THAT PROCESS TODD THAT
SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
GO THROUGH IN. PARTICULARLY IN
FAMILY COURT. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES HERE IN SUPPORT
OF THIS MEASURE. ANY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON.
PLEASE PROCEED TO MINUTES IF
YOU WERE THANK YOU AT THANK YOU
CHAIR WOMEN THIS IS TRACY KENNY
I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND I ACTUALLY
HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF STAFFING
THE FAMILY AND YOU CAN A LOT
VICE RE COMMITTEE FOR THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL WHICH WOULD BE
CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING THIS
LEGISLATION WERE TO BE ENACTED
SO I JUST WANT TO SHARE SOME OF
THE CONCERNS ABOUT COMMITTEE
HAD ABOUT HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT
IT I MEAN THIS THIS NATION
BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THAT IS
READY. TO GO FOR IN THE WAY
THAT WE DON'T EVEN SURE HOW TO
IMPLEMENT SOME OF IT BECAUSE OF
THE AMBIGUITIES WE ALSO THINK
THERE WOULD BE SERIOUS
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IF IT
WERE TO BE ENACTED IN THIS FORM
AND IT IS NOT THAT WE DON'T.
TAKE THESE ISSUES VERY
SERIOUSLY THIS IS A COMMITTEE
THAT CHAIRED BY TWO VERY FOLKS
WERE VERY INTERESTED IN
ENSURING THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
VICTIMS ARE PROTECTED THAT OUR
ORDERS ARE IN FORCE WE THINK
THAT IS AT LAUDABLE GOAL AND
ONE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SIT
DOWN WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE MOST
EFFECTIVE MEANS TO DO THAT. IN
A TIME PERIOD THAT ALLOWS US TO
GET THE DETAILS RIGHT BECAUSE
THESE ARE COURTS THAT HAVE VERY
HIGH VOLUMES AND THERE ARE A
LOT OF PEOPLE SEEKING
PROTECTION AND IF WE ADD A HUGE
VOLUME OF NEW HEARINGS AND TO
PROTECT NO ONE EVEN SHOWS UP
BECAUSE. THE SERVICE
DEPARTMENTS ARE VERY VERY TO
EMAIL SIR. IN THE STRAIN PERSON
NOT EVEN GETTING SERVICE OF THE
HEARING. SO YOU HAVE A REVIEW
HEARING ON FIREARMS WHICH YOU
HAVE VERY LITTLE INFORMATION SO
FOR EXAMPLE. WHEN A PERSON
SEEKS A PROTECTIVE ORDER. THEY
THERE IS A QUESTION ON THAT
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
REQUEST FORM DO DOES THAT DO
YOU THINK THAT THE RESTRAINT
PERSON HAS A GUN. AND YOU SAY
YES NO OR I DON'T KNOW SO THE
COURT MAY HAVE A FORM THAT HAS
A CHECK BOX I DON'T KNOW THAT'S
THIS. EVIDENCE THAT THE COURT
HAS TO MAKE THESE SPECIFIC AND
DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT THAT
ARE REQUIRED BY THIS PROPOSED
LEGISLATION. I'M NOT EVEN SURE
WHAT. ON THE REVISED FORM FOR
THE COURT TO THEN TRY TO
DETERMINE DO THEY HAVE A GUN OR
NOT DO THEY MAKE A FINDING THAT
THEY HAVE A GUN OR NOT MAKE A
FINDING THAT THEY HAVE A GUN TO
THEY SAID A REVIEW HEARING THE-
CASE. IS IT IN TWO DAYS AND IF.
NO ONE SHOWS UP THAT REVIEW
HEARING WHAT IS THE COURT
EXPECTED TO DO. THEIR
REQUIREMENTS TO COMMUNICATE
WITH THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION OVER
THE RESTRAINT PERSON. I'M NOT
SURE WHAT THAT MEANS WHICH IS
THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION OVER
ME OR YOU HOW IS THE CORTES.
THAT IS WHO IN THAT ENTITY. IS
THE COURT TO COMMUNICATE WITH
THAT'S NOT SPECIFIED.
LEGISLATION BUT- FUNDAMENTALLY
I THINK THAT IN TERMS OF
GETTING. GUNS FROM RESTRAIN
PARTIES WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLY.
GREAT MODEL IN SAN MATEO COUNTY
THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE.
EXPANDED TO MORE OF THE STATE
WHERE THEY'RE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
LOOKS AT ALL OF THESE
RESTRAINING ORDERS AS THEY COME
IN AND- ANY. ONE WHERE IT SAYS.
YES OR EVEN I DON'T KNOW
THEY'RE CALLING. THE RESTRAINED
PARTY THEY'RE CHECKING UP ON
THM THEY'RE CHECKING THE
DATABASE IS TO SEE IF THEY'RE
REGISTERED FIREARMS AND THEY
ARE. GETTING THE SURRENDER OF
MANY MANY MANY FIRE I THINK
THIS IS THE WAY TO PROTECT
PEOPLE. NOT TO UP LOAD OUR
COURT COUNT THANK YOU FOR YOUR-
TESTIMONY AND I THINK THAT. MAY
GIVE US SOME. GUIDANCE GOING
FORWARD THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY NEXT WITNESS. OUR
COMMENTS REALLY ALIGNED WITH
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL SO I'LL
KEEP MY TESTIMONY BRIEF. BUT AS
WAS SAID FIRST AND FOREMOST WE
WANT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT
THE RELINQUISHMENT OF FIREARMS
BY RESTRAIN PERSONS. IS A
SHOULD BE A PRIORITY AND THE
COURTS PLAY A BIG ROLE IN THAT.
BUT WE NEED A THOUGHTFUL
SOLUTION AND AS WRITTEN AB FOR
SIXTY FIVE IS NOT THAT. AB FOR
SIXTY FIVE YEAR HAS TOO MANY
TEETH BECAUSE OF SEPARATION OF
POWER ISSUES. BRAILLE MEANT
ISSUES AND DUE PROCESS CONCERNS
OR NOT ENOUGH TEETH BECAUSE
THERE'S NO BENCH WARRANTS NO
EXPLICIT CONTENT AND NO DUTY OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO INVESTIGATE.
BECAUSE OF THE LAST MINUTE
CONSIDERATION THIS BILL MANY
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED BUT
NO ANSWERS PROVIDED AN AS THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL JUST BROUGHT
UP ONE SUCH SUCH QUESTION IS
WILL THIS BILL ACTUALLY RESULT
IN MUCH MORE GUN RELINQUISH
MINUTES. THE DISCUSSION THAT
WE'RE HAVING IS A WORTHY ONE
AND ONE THAT CJ'S NOT ONLY
WILLING TO ENGAGE IN BUT IS
EAGER TO ENGAGE IN IN THE FALL
SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A MORE
THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION. AND FIND
THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THESE
PROTECTED PERSONS THANK THANK
YOU VERY MUCH OTHER WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE WILL
LET'S BRING IT BACK TO THE
DíAS I APPRECIATE. THE R.
ARTICULATION OF THE ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE
IMPLEMENTATION I AM THOSE
STRUCK BY THE FACT THAT WE
REALLY DO NEED TO START
ADDRESSING THIS PROBLEM I KNOW
HAVING. LISTENED THIS MORNING
AT THE IN PUBLIC SAFETY THE
STORY ABOUT. THE INDIVIDUALS
PRIMARILY WOMEN BUT NOT
NECESSARILY EXCLUSIVELY WHO ARE
AT RISK AND WHO HAVE BEEN
MURDERED IN WHOSE CHILDREN HAVE
EITHER WITNESSED OR BEEN
MURDERED AS WELL. AND I HAD A
SIMILAR SITUATION IN MY OWN
DISTRICT THE NUMBER YEARS AGO
FOR WHICH I THEN BROUGHT
LEGISLATION THIS IS A PROBLEM
THAT SEEMS TO KEEP GROWING. AND
HI HAVE DISCUSSES SO WITH THE
AUTHOR WHO WAS MORE THAN
WILLING TO CONTINUE. TO TIGHTEN
THIS UP FIVE I WAS AND WHERE
THE SAN MATTEO MODEL BUT I
SUSPECT THAT IT'S ONE THAT WE
CAN PURSUE GOING FORWARD SO ARE
YEAH. I WANT TO COMMEND THE
AUTHOR I DO WANT TO MOVE THE
BILL FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN.
INSIST ON SORT OF PUTTING THE
KNEE AND EVERYONE'S BACK
WHETHER IT'S TO JUDICIAL
COUNCIL AND I SERVE ON THAT SO
I KNOW THEY WILL DO A- VERY
COMPREHENSIVE EFFORT TO BRING
THIS. MATTER TO SOME KIND OF A
DOABLE PROCESS AND- BEING THE
SPOUSE OF A RETIRED JUDGE HE
SAID ON THE CGA I. UNDERSTAND
THE CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE COURTS WHO ARE CLEARLY
OVERWHELMED PARTICULARLY IN
FAMILY LAW. THERE MAY BE SOME
OTHER WAYS WE CAN DO THIS I
KEEP THINKING. YOU KNOW. THE
PRIVATE SECTOR KNOWS JUST ABOUT
EVERYTHING ABOUT US. WHY CAN'T
WE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR IN THE
PUBLIC SAFETY SECTOR HAVE OF
THE KIND OF SYSTEMS IN PLACE
WHERE A COURT CAN ISSUE A
RESTRAINING ORDER I'M THINKING
YOU DON'T. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE
TO KNOW THAT A PERSON HAS A
REAL HAS A GUN YOU JUST SIMPLY
SAY. A RESTRAINING ORDERS BEEN
ISSUED IF THIS PERSON HAS FIRE
ARMS THEY MUST BE RELINQUISHED
HE GOES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT THEY
CHECK IF THE APP SYSTEMS
ACTUALLY FUNCTIONING PROPERLY
THEY COULD FIND IT OUT IN A
HEART BEAT. THEY COULD HAVE A
DESIGNATED TO. PORTION OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT THAT WOULD MAKE
SURE THOSE GUNS WERE. ROUTE
RELINQUISHED MEAN THAT THIS
COULD BE DONE IF WE REALLY BUT
OUR- OUR MINDS TO IT AND
CERTAINLY WOULD SAVE A LOT
ALIVE SO I WANT TO. COMMEND THE
AUTHOR IT'S AN URGENT ISSUE AND
CERTAINLY GOTTEN A MAN'S AND
WHAT HAVE YOU AND NOT THE
FAVORITE WAY OF DOING THINGS
HERE BUT- YOU KNOW THAT TWO
DOLLARS YOU CAN GET YOU COFFEE
IN THE MALL. OF COURSE A THREE
DOLLARS BUT ANYWAY. THAT YOU
KNOW I THINK THIS IS A VERY
IMPORTANT WHEN I WENT THANK YOU
FOR FROM BRING IT FORWARD.
QUESTIONS COMMENTS CENTER WHITE
HOUSE. YEAH. CAN WE DIRECT. OUR
ATTENTION TO PAGE EIGHT WITHIN
THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT GOES ON
BECAUSE WE TALK ABOUT
CODIFICATION OF THE- COURT
RULES WERE ALSO EXPANDING IT.
TO T. R. ROSE AND WE KNOW THAT
THIS IS STAFF ANALYSIS SAYS IT
HEROES THERE'S NO NOTICE TO
THIS PERSON. SIX ONE ONE THING
IT'S EMERGENCY. BUT IT'S ONE
THING TO SAY. YES THEY WAY I
CAN ORDER AND THEN THE SHERIFF
WILL SERVE THEM. IT'S ANOTHER
THING TO SAY THAT THEY'VE GOT
TWO DAYS TO. GET RID OF ALL
THEIR GUNS. ARE AND RELINQUISH
THEM HOW DO YOU TAKE CARE OF
THAT PROBLEM. I NOTICED. THAT
KNOWS WHAT I MEAN I THINK THE
CHAIR HASPOINTED OUT WE I
WOULD TAKES OFFENSE AT THIS
HASN'T BEEN A THOUGHTFUL
APPROACH I THINK IT'S BEEN A
TOUGH APPROACH AND IT COMES
WITH SOME URGENCY AND I HAVE
CERTAINLY SAID THAT WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS INTO
WE CAN GET ALL THE ISSUES
RESOLVED TO TAKE IT FORWARD I
DON'T THINK. ANYBODY ARGUES
pCOMMUTING ABUSE TO BE ABLE TO
KEEP THEIR GUNS BUT I
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE THAT IT
WOULD BE HARD THEN TO NOTICE
THEM TO HAVE THAT PROCESS IN
PLACE SO YEAH IT'S THE IT'S THE
DUE PROCESS YOU KNOW THEY THEY
MAY BE BAD ACTORS THEY MAY BE
VIOLENT THEY MAY HAVE
UNREGISTERED ALL THAT MAY BE
TRUE BUT THE LEAPS WHEN WE DO
BILLS WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
BACKSTOPS IS THE DUE PROCESS
WERE FINE WE'VE ALL TRAINED IN
IN THE LAW TO SAY YOU GIVE THAT
PERSON NOTICE BEFORE THEIR CORE
INCLUDE IN VIOLATION OF THIS
NEW STATUTES. FOR JUST PROCESS
NOT THAT I MEAN MAYBE THE
INCIDENT YOU HAVE YOUR WITNESS
WILL TELL HAS SAID HERE THAT
THERE'S INCIDENTS OF A 5100%
INCREASE IN MURDERS AND
VIOLENCE I GOT THAT I GOT. THAT
BUT STILL WE'RE A STATE OF
RULES. RULES THAT HAVE FALLEN.
CENTER I DON'T THINK THAT AND I
TOTALLY AGREE AND WE HAVE
FOUGHT VERY HARD IN THIS
COMMITTEE TO MAKE SURE DUE
PROCESS AND NOTICE AND ALL
THOSE FUNDAMENTAL.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
MAINTAIN. I DON'T THINK THAT
THE- JUDGES AND THAT THE-
JUDICIAL COUNCIL. WOULD ALLOW.
ANY KIND OF. SEATING WITHOUT
THAT INHERENT TO PROCESS THAT'S
THE WE'VE SORT OF GOT A ROAD
MAP HERE AND THE SUGGESTION AND
I KNOW HAVING TALKED TO THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SHE WILL
CONTINUE TO FILL THE SAN. WITH
THE ASSISTANCE AND I AND I
THINK THERE IS A DESIRE TO
COLLABORATE WITH THE COURTS AND
IS A FRAMEWORK. AND I DON'T
THINK FRANKLY THERE'S A CORD
THAT I CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD
FIND SOMEONE IN CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT OR WOULD WOULD. HAVE
ANY KIND OF CRIMINAL OR EVEN.
IN A CIVIL CASE OF COURT ANY
KIND OF CONSEQUENCE WITHOUT
THAT NOTICE REQUIREMENT THAT
JUST A FUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. SO IT'S-
ARE YOU COULD ARGUE I THINK
THAT IT'S IMPLICIT IN THIS
BECAUSE IT IS SO FUNDAMENTAL
BUT CERTAINLY WORKING ON THIS
GOING FORWARD. TO MAKE IT AS
CLEAR AS POSSIBLE I THINK IS
SOMETHING THAT'S SORT OF A
FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THIS
DISCUSSION. SO HOW WOULD THAT
HAPPEN. IF I CAN JUST POP IN TO
TRY TO HELP CLARIFY OKAY. HEAR
ME I'M I THE INTENTION I
BELIEVE BEHIND THE LANGUAGE IS
NOT TO FIND SOMEBODY IN
VIOLATION BEFORE THEY'VE
RECEIVED NOTICE BUT THE
EXISTING RULES ALREADY ABOUT
FIREARM RELINQUISHMENT.
DIRECTOR THAT ONCE A RESTRAINED
PERSON HAS BEEN SERVED WITH THE
TEMPORARY ORDER SO THEY'VE BEEN
GIVEN NOTICE THAT IS WHEN THEY
HAVE TWENTY FOUR HOURS TO
RELINQUISH THEIR FIREARMS IN
FORTY EIGHT HOURS. TO FILE A
FORM AND USUALCOUNSEL WITH THE
FORM CONFIRMING THAT THEY HAVE
DONE SO THAT THEY HAVE COMPLIED
WITH THAT RULE SO WE'RE NOT THE
INTENTION BEHIND THIS IS NOT.
TO HOPE SOMEBODY YOU KNOW IN
CONTEMPT OF A COURT ORDER WHEN
THEY'RE NOT AWARE OF THAT COURT
ORDER. AS MENTOR POINTED OUT
THAT'S THE GOAL THE REASON THAT
I EIGHT ONE OF THE REASONS TO
INCLUDE T. R. ROSE AS PART OF
THIS IS FOR EXAMPLE I T. RO MAY
BE ISSUED IN THE FAMILY COURT
SETTING ON AN EX PARTE BASIS.
AND THEN THE PARTIES MAY COME
TO THE FIRST NOTICED HEARING
AND LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE. THEY
COME TO THAT HEARING IT GETS
CONTINUED FOR SOME REASON
BEFORE IT'S HEARD ON THE
MERITS. THE T. R. O. IS RE
ISSUED AT THAT POINT IT'S
CONTINUE. SO WE DON'T AND WE
WANTED TO TRY TO CLOSE OF A
POSSIBILITY WHERE YOU MIGHT
HAVE A CONTINUANCE OF A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.
BUT YOU HAVEN'T DEALT RIGHT
THERE AT THAT FIRST YEAR WHERE
BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN NOTICED
AND HAVE APPEARED. WITH THE-
PARTY HAS REALLY WHICH THEIR
FIREARMS BECAUSE THE EARLIEST
THE EARLIEST POINT IN THE
PROCESS WE CAN ADDRESS THIS.
DESI FOR WE MAKE VICTIMS THEIR
FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE
COMMUNITY AT LARGE INCLUDING
OUR PEACE OFFICERS. ONE OF THE
CHOICE OF. AGAIN LEGISLATION
COMES IN LATE THERE'S. THERE'S
NO OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE
AMENDMENTS BUT I DO BELIEVE I
THINK IT'S JUST FUNDAMENTAL
THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE NOTICE I
MEAN YOU AND THAT I THINK WOULD
BE A REQUIREMENT ANY COURT. IF
IT ISN'T IT SPELLED OUT IT WILL
GETS BILLS THAT BUT I THINK IT
AS A LEGITIMATE NOTICE THE
RIGHT ONCE YOU GET THE
RESTRAINING ORDER YOU CAN ORDER
IT SAYS AND ON AN EX PARTE I
MEAN YOU HAVE TO SERVE THE
PERSON THAT'S REQUIREMENT IN
ANY ACT PART BEATING THAT YOU
CAN GET IT WITHOUT THERE. BEING
PRESSED. BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO
CERTAIN. CHALLENGE YOUR PLAN I
THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE
GONNA HAVE TO WORK ON IS. IN A
FAMILY LAW MATTER WE KNOW THAT
MOST. FAMILY LAW LITIGANTS ARE
IMPROPER MEANING THEY DON'T
HAVE A LOT. OF AND THAT'S A
CHALLENGE BUT WE DO HAVE JUDGES
AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL. BE ABLE
TO CREATE SOME. OF RULES IN
SOME PROCEDURES. WHERE THE
COURTS WILL RECOGNIZE THAT
WE'RE GIVING THEM A LITTLE BIT
MORE WORK TO DO BUT- THIS WILL
SAVE LIVES AND I THINK THAT'S
PART OF THE- THE URGENCY OF
THIS ITEM. SENATOR I'M GONNA SO
IF YOU'LL INDULGE MY NEWNESS
TARDINESS AND IGNORANCE I'D BE
GRATEFUL. I HEARD WHAT THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL IN GEORGIA SO
SEE SHE HAD TO SAY I ALSO
RECOGNIZE THE URGENCY THE
ISSUE. I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WE-
IT SOLD OVER TILL JANUARY BUT
IF WE HADN'T URGENCY CLAUSE. IN
PASSED IN JANUARY I REALIZE
THAT THE LAYS IT FOR THREE
MONTHS. BUT THERE DOES SEEM TO
BE SOME AMBIGUITY THAT NEEDS TO
BE RESOLVED WHAT. I WAS I WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN. I THINK YOU KNOW
MOVING FORWARD NOW AND THEN IN
JANUARY AND HAVING TIME OVER
THE OVER THE BREAK IN YOUR
WORK. NEEDS TO STILL GO BACK TO
THE OTHER HOUSE AND- YOU'RE
STILL THERE'S STILL TIME TO GET
THESE ISSUES RECTIFIED I THINK
AND THEN YOU'RE RIGHT WITH
URGENCY BECAUSE IT CAN BE A
LOT. SOONER BECAUSE- AGAIN WE
DON'T GET IT STARTED AND THEN
WE HAVE LONGER TO EIGHT IN
JANUARY TO START THE WHOLE
PROCESS AGAIN. AND I SURE
DIDN'T SAVE. AN ISSUE IN MY
DISTRICT. CAN GO ON ABOUT.
POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS SHOT AND
KILLED BY SOMEBODY WHO SHOULD
HAVE RELINQUISHED THEIR
FIREARMS. AND I HAD IS THE CASE.
WE CAN HALF AGO. WE'RE SOMEBODY
WAS THAT PERSON WITH A
RESTRAINING ORDER SHOWED UP. AT
SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOME A SCHOOL
TEACHER THE WHOLE SCHOOL
ETIQUETTE SHUT DOWN. AND THE
PERPETRATOR WITH ENDED UP BEING
SHOT AND KILLED BECAUSE YOU
POINT THE GUN AT THE POLICE
WHEN THEY SHOWED UP. AGAIN YOU
KNOW IT HAS IMPACTS THAT
REVERBERATE ACROSS THE
COMMUNITY AND ESPECIALLY LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
WHERE PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY.
NOT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY WITH
THEM WHEN THEY SHOW UP. WHAT
THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION SO
YOU'RE GOING TO. LOWERIT'S
GOING TO GO OVER TO JANUARY AND
WE'RE MOVING FROM MOVE FORWARD
TODAY RIGHT TIME TO PICK BUT
THEN. AND YOU'RE YOU'RE
CONSIDERING AND URGENCY CLAUSE.
THANK YOU. ONE FINAL QUESTION I
APPRECIATE THAT THAT INSIGHT
INTO THE PROCESS. TRAGIC
SITUATION A MAJOR GAP I'M JUST
TRYING TO DRILL DOWN YOU IS
THIS JUDICIAL COUNCIL THE
JUDGES CONCERNED ABOUT YOU
PROCESS RESOURCE. IT SEEMS LIKE
THERE'S SORT OF. THERE'S TWO
THINGS BEING TALKED BUT HERE IS
WHAT I'M HEARING IS NOTICE
REQUIREMENT AND DUE PROCESS IS
YOU SEEM TO BE BUILT ON THE
EXISTING. SERVICE WHAT IS THE
CONCERNED MORE ABOUT WHAT THE
SORT OF. ANCILLARY PROCEDURES
WILL BE AND WHAT THAT WOULD
TRIGGER ADMINISTRATIVELY MORE
SO THAN THE- UNDERLYING
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS THERE
ARE ALSO DUE PROCESS CONCERNS
FOR EXAMPLE THERE'S NO CURRENT
AUTHORITY IN THE LAW TO SERVE
SOMEONE. BY EMAIL THAT IS NOT
CONSIDERED A VALID METHOD OF
SERVICE THIS LEGISLATION WOULD
BE THE FIRST BILL TO ENACT
WITHOUT SOMEONE PROVIDING
CONSENT SPECIFICALLY THAT TYPE
OF SERVICE. FIND THAT EMAIL
THEMSELVES AWAY THAT YOU WOULD
NOTICE SOMEONE OF A LEGAL
PROCEEDING IN WHICH THEY MIGHT
BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT IS
SUBJECT IS CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS. BY EMAIL AT THEIR
LAST KNOWN EMAIL ADDRESS THAT
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT AND THAT
THAT IS A SERIES DEPRIVE THIS
CONCERN WE HAVE WHAT WE DO. IF
THE PERSON SAYS WHY CERTAIN BY
HUMAN EMAIL DOESN'T SHOW UP AT
THE HEARING. SHOULD THEY BE
HOLDING OUT HIS HAND SHOULD
THEY BE SUBJECTED THEM TO
SANCTIONS THOSE YEARS. IN
ADDITION WE ARE CONCERNED THAT.
THERE WILL BE A VOLUME OF THIS
AND THAT AMBIGUITY. LEAD TO A
LOT OF UNNECESSARY PROCEEDINGS
BECAUSE THERE ISN'T THIRTY
ABOUT WHEN THIS HAPPENS AN
EXTRA TIME. IN PROVING THE
NEGATIVE THAT SOMEONE DOESN'T
HAVE A FIRE IN BASED ON THE
FINDINGS LANGUAGE. NO I DON'T
WORK AGAINST MYSELF HERE BUT WE
DO HAVE LEGISLATION THAT I
BELIEVE IT'S PASSED BOTH HOUSES
THAT. LOOKS AT DIGITAL SERVICE
PROCESS AND. YOU CAN TELL WHEN
SOMEONE'S BRED AN EMAIL SO I
HOPE IT'S SOMETHING THAT. YOU
GUYS START TO LOOK INTO BUT I
WE DO HAVE PROCEDURES IN PLACE
WE JUST DON'T HAVE SOMETHING
LIKE THIS WHERE IT IS JUST.
WITHOUT THE TYPICALLY AND IT'S
BEEN A THE LEGISLATURE'S.
REQUIREMENT THAT IT IS AT THE
CONSENT OF THE PERSON BEING
SERVED THAT WE WANT PEOPLE OPT
IN EMAIL SERVICE. WHAT ROUTE
WENT BEFORE WE TAKE AWAY THEIR
RIGHT. OKAY THANK YOU FOR THE
INTELLIGENCE. THANK YOU FOR
BEING THIS BORDER SIMILAR. YES
OF SENATOR RUSSELL. I JUST WANT
TO ASK IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC
PROCESS. THERE IS A FORM THAT
USED RIGHT FROM. JUST EXPLAIN
THE PROCESS OF WHEN THE
EXPECTED TO TURN IN THEIR
FIREARMS BECAUSE OF THE WHAT IS
A FORM OF PROOF OF FIREARMS
TURNED IN SOLAR STORM SO I'M
I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED AS
TO WHEN. THE PROBLEM OCCURS
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CORRECT.
DOES THAT WARM EXIST WHO USES
IT WHEN IS IT USE IS BEING
QUITE. THANK YOU YEAH I'M HAPPY
TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION AND-I'M SORRY THAT I CAN'T QUITE
LOOK AT YOU AND TALK INTO THE
MICROPHONE AT THE SAME TIME SO.
IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS YES
THERE IS A FORMER BELIEVE IT'S
A DV EIGHT HUNDRED TO JUDICIAL
CUSTODY Y. JUDICIAL COUNCIL
FORM THAT THE RESTRAINT PARTY
IS SUPPOSED TO USE IN ORDER TO
NOTIFY THE COURT THAT THEY HAVE
COMPLIED WITH THE
RELINQUISHMENT REQUIREMENT AND
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO INCLUDE
WITH THAT. A RECEIPT I PROVING
THAT THEY TURNED THE FIREARMS
INTO EITHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OR
TO A LICENSED GUN DEALER. I'M
IT'S NOT BEING USED IS THE
REALITY IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER CASES ONCE
THE RESTRAINT PARTY IS SERVED
WHILE I'M WITH NOTICE OF THE
HEARING AND THE RESTRAINING
ORDER THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
THAT ADVISES THEM THAT THEY
NEED TO RELINQUISH THEIR
FIREARMS THAT THEY NEED TO DO
IT WITHIN TWENTY FOUR HOURS
THAT THEY NEED TO FILL THIS
FORM OUT. THEY'RE JUST NOT
DOING IT THEY'RE NOT COMPLYING
FOR WHATEVER REASON WHETHER
IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE THEY JUST
DON'T WANT TO THEY DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THEY NEED TO ABIDE
BY THE- ORDER. BECAUSE DON'T
SIMPLY DON'T READ THE
RESTRAINING ORDER PAPERWORK.
SOLD BABE THEY JUST DON'T
COMPLY AND WHAT IS THIS. FORM
SUPPOSED TO BE. AND THAT'S WHAT
THIS WOULD DO IS ALWAYS MUST BE
SUBMITTED BUT WHEN AND THEN THE
TWO PARTIES GO BEFORE THE JUDGE
THIS JUST AS THE JUDGE TO ASK
DID YOU TURN IN THAT PAPERWORK
DO YOU HAVE THAT PROOF. THAT'S
THAT'S JUST THE MISSING LINK
THAT WERE ASKING FOR. THE LAW
ALREADY EXISTED THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. BUT IF
NOBODY ASKS THE PERSON AND THE
JUDGES THE BACKSTOPS. CASE
THAT'S WHO THEY'RE GOING
BEFORE. SO THIS IS A FORM THAT
WILL HELP THEM PROVE. THAT
TURNED IN SO THEN WHAT'S THE
PROBLEM MAYBE. THE CHALLENGES
WE. IF THE COURT HAS KNOWS THAT
THEY HAVE DONE THAT THE RULE
DOES ADVISED. QUESTION IS
THERE'S LOTS OF SITUATIONS IN
WHICH YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF THE
RESTRAINT PERSON HAS A FIREARM
SO YOU'RE SENDING A HEARING FOR
SOMEBODY WHO ISN'T. GONNA READ
THE PAPER WORK IN THE FIRST
PLACE AND YOU EXPECT THAT
THEY'RE IN A READ THE THING
THAT YOU SOMETHING ABOUT AND
THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HOLD A
HEARING IT IF THEY DON'T READ
IT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME
AND THEN THE- BUILDING A
HEARING. NO WONDER FOR THE
BECAUSE OF TECH PERSON IS NOT
ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO BE AT THAT
HEARING TO DO YOU KNOW TO ASK
IF I THINK IT'S BEEN RELINQUISH
THE BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT
WHEN THE PARTIES ARE IN COURT I
THINK IF THIS. LEGISLATION WERE
LIMITED TO THE TIMES WHEN THE
RESTRAINT THIS IS ACTUALLY
APPEARING BEFORE THE COURT
THAT'S MAKING IN FOLLOW UP
WOULD BE FAR. LESS CONCERNING
BREAST AND WANTED OF. EVERY
SINGLE CASE. THOUGH THAT'S A
DISCUSSION THE PROBLEM IS THAT
IF PEOPLE DON'T. WANT TO.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECOGNIZE THE WE
HAVE A COURT PROCESS IN THE
COURT SYSTEM WE DON'T WANT TO
REWARD THEM. I MEAN THE TRUTH
OF MOTHER THE REAL PROBLEM IS
85% OF FAMILY LAWLER. GOING TO
COURT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT
THEY'RE DOING. OF BECAUSE THEY
CAN'T AFFORD. AND TO THE
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME COOL
SHOULD HAVE SELF HELP PROGRAMS
IT REALLY CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE.
BUT THAT ISN'T THE ISSUE HERE
THE ISSUE IS HOW DO WE GET
PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT WHOWHO
HAVE DEMONSTRATED. PROPENSITY
TO VIOLENT BEHAVIOR WHO HAVE
FIREARMS TO RULE REMOVE THOSE
FIREARMS FROM THEIR POSSESSION
BECAUSE WE KNOW IS THOSE
STAGGERING NUMBERS. INDICATED
WHAT IS IT OF. OVER HALF OF THE
VICTIMS OF MURDER VICTIMS HALF
THE WOMEN WERE MURDERED IN THIS
COUNTRY ARE MURDERED BY AN
INTIMATE PARTNER WHO WHO KILL
SOME OF THE FIREARM. THOUSANDS
OF. I MEAN IT'S STUCK SO WE CAN
REMOVE THOSE FARM SAID SHE
ULTIMATE GOAL I THINK THAT'S
WHY WE'RE HERE. GETTING THROUGH
THAT PROCESS IN A WAY
UNDERSTANDING. THAT SOME PEOPLE
ARE JUST NOT GOING TO COMPLY
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO ON THE OTHER HAND THERE
PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE
READING IS IT IN A LANGUAGE
THEY UNDERSTAND IT. DOES THE
COURT NO CAN WE TRY O SET UP
SOME PROCEDURES SO THAT THE
COURT CAN THEN NOTIFY LAW
ENFORCEMENT. I MEAN THERE'S
THERE THERE THERE ARE A LOT OF
QUESTIONS BUT THIS BILL WILL AT
LEAST FORCE US TO GET THOSE
QUESTIONS. OF THE FOR THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL BEFORE THE A
CJ SO THAT WE CAN GET SOME
ANSWERS AND ALSO BEFORE THE. IN
A PUBLIC DEFENDER AND OTHER
AGENCIES WHICH MIGHT HAVE THEIR
OWN. THOUGHTS ON ON HOW TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS GOA. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS. THAT'S RIGHT WE HAVE
A MOTION SENATOR I'M SORRY I
JUST A QUICK QUESTION I MISSED
THE BOUNCING BALL BETWEEN
CENTER NUMBER AGAIN ASSEMBLY
WOMAN REGARDING NEXT YOU COMING
BACK NEXT YEAR WITH URGENCY
CLAUSE I UNDERSTOOD CENTER
UMBERG'S COMMENTS TO MEAN WE'RE
GOING TO KEEP THE BILL HERE AND
COME BACK. JANUARY BUT I DIDN'T
KNOW IF THAT'S IF SOMEBODY
COULD JUST EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE
DOING IN JANUARY VERSES WHAT
WE'RE DOING TODA. SELECT MY
UNDERSTANDING THE BILL WOULD
KNOW FOR OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE.
IT WOULD BE THEN RE REFER TO
THE NEXT PLACE WHERE THEN WE
WOULD HOLD IT IN WORK ON UNTIL
JANUARY WHAT WE'LL CALL COME
BACK TO SESSION. ALL THROUGH
THE BREAK WE'LL ALL BE WORKING
TOGETHER WE HAVE A SOUNDS LIKE
A VERY FIRM COMMITMENT. AMONG
THE PARTIES TO WORK ON THIS
BILL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE HAS REACHED OUT TO US
ALSO AND SAID THEY WOULD LIE
TO ENGAGE ON THIS. SO WE THINK
YOU KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME
WE'LL GET IT JUST RIGHT. AND
THEN WITH A NURSE TO CLASS BE
ABLE TO CLOSE IT OUT EARLY NEXT
YEAR AND MAKE IT LAW. NOT
INTENDING TO BRING IT TO THE
SENATE FOR. THE NEXT COUPLE
DAYS. OKAY. WELL I THINK WE
HAVE A PROBLEM THERE. IS THE-
MOTIONS TO PASS TO SET IT TO
THE SENATE FLOOR. WE COULD HOLD
ELDER. SO IS THAT YOUR IS THAT
YOUR DESIRE WOULD BE MY DESIRE
RIGHT TO WE HAVE A MOTION TO
PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR WE
HAVE AGREEMENT FROM THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO WORK WITH
ALL THE STATE BECAUSE I THINK
WE ALL WANT THE SAME THING. IT
IS COMPLICATED BY CERTAIN
DIFFERENCES TRYING TO APPLY A
CRIMINAL. OF PROCESS TO A CIVIL
MATTER WHERE IN THE CIVIL
MATTER YOU'VE LIKELY DON'T HAVE
COUNSELORS IN THE CRIMINAL
MATTER YOU DO. BUT WE GOT TO
FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET THIS
RESOLVED SO. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE. NO JUST THA I THINK I
THINK THE DISCUSSION HAS HAS.
IS PROCEEDING ALONG AS AS A I
THINK THE CHAIR IN THE LAST
COMMITTEE SAID AS A AS A WOMAN
I HAVE MORE I AM MOST LIKELY TO
BE MURDERED BY SOMEBODY. AND IN
AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP THAN
ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THAT I DON'T
THINK. TOO HARD FOR US TO
SOLVE. I THINK WE JUST NEED TO
ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES AND BE ABLE
TO SELL. THANK YOU ALL RIGHT
MADAM SECRETARY THE MOTION IS
TO PASS TO THE SENATE FLOOR
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL JACKSON HI
JACKSON I BORDERS RUSSELL
RUSSELL I GONZALEZ GONZALEZ I
JONES JONES I'M MONNING MONEY
AYE STERN STERN AYE AMBER AMBER
I WHITE HOUSE SKI. I KELSEY I
ATE. EIGHT TO ZERO THAT MEASURE
PASSES THANK YOU AND WE ARE
ADJOURNED