House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 26, 2026

Transcript

147 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:30:22

   All right, everybody come to order.

2. 0:30:32

   Okay. I am going to call on Chairman Gunter if he'll open us up in a word of prayer.

3. 0:30:40

   Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for the many blessings you've given us. Thank you for the time here spent, uh, doing the work of the people. I pray that you bless those that are here, bless the ministry of their lives, and that, uh, uh, help us with the decisions we have to make here. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen.

4. 0:31:02

   Those of y'all that kept talking during the prayer, thankfully the Almighty didn't send lightning and strike and kill all of us, so thank you. I gotta give y'all a hard time. Okay. This will hopefully be the last Judiciary Non-Civil Committee meeting of the year.

5. 0:31:22

   Although there ... Uh, although I do anticipate that there could be one on day 40, uh, in the morning, so. Anyways. Uh, Chairman Strickland, thank you for all of your, um, hard work in getting the great House bills out of your committee. And so hopefully we'll be able to, hopefully we'll be able to return the favor. So just remind us real quick on this one.

6. 0:31:49

   Yeah. Mr. Chairman, uh, it may be the third time y'all have heard this bill, so I'll be very brief. Senate Bill 572, um, deals with our current immunity for self-defense law, and it, it attempts to, um, clarify some of the procedural requirements, but it also creates, um, and codifies a new procedural requirement where you can raise this immunity defense saying that, "I cannot be charged with this particular crime. The crime cannot move forward because I acted in self-defense." It allows that, um, proceeding to happen as early as arraignment.

7. 0:32:22

   It also flips the, um, burden. Currently, it's, it's based on case law. There's a preponderance of evidence standard that you have the burden as the accused of showing that the self-defense immunity applies. This makes it where you make a prima facie case that the immunity, uh, applies, and then the burden flips to the state. And the state then must meet their burden by clear and convincing evidence that the immunity would not apply. And so it, it also attempts to, to codify... Well, it doesn't attempt to. That sounds like a lawyer saying that.

8. 0:32:52

   It does codify that, um, when making the initial probable cause determination for an arrest, that there will be consideration as to the fact that you have this claim of self-defense. It does not, it is not the intent of me and it's not the intent of anyone that I know of working on this bill, that you would not be able as an officer to still arrest someone for any crimes, even if they say it's self-defense. That probable cause determination is made by an officer now before an arrest is made, and the language though it's been discussed whether it could require a hearing on the front end.

9. 0:33:24

   So that, I, I go to a scene, there's been a murder or alleged murder, and because someone says, "No, it wasn't me," that I have to wait and not arrest that person. That's not the intent. It just clarifies that you will consider, um, in looking at probable cause whether or not, um, someone is, has made a case for self-defense. Finally, um, there's also one clarifying part of the bill on the first page, or actually page two, that confirms that you can't use this defense when the person that, um, that is, the person that, um, would be the victim I guess you'd say, is a law enforcement officer acting in their official duty in, in the public scene.

10. 0:34:02

    It, I think that's probably the case anyway, but, uh, based on how the law is written, but it clarifies that as well. That is the bill, Mr. Chairman. Happy to take any other questions.

11. 0:34:11

    I see no questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you want to just slide over. All right. We've had public comment on this bill already. I notice there's one or two names that they have not, uh, signed up before. Uh, so those of you that have already spoken, anything you want to add? All right. Your discretion is a- amazing, thank you. Uh, let's see. Tyler Mann with the DeKalb DA's office.

12. 0:34:49

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Tyler Mann. I'm the Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs in the DeKalb DA's office. I'll be brief. My district attorney, Sherry Boston, has testified against this bill. In my opinion, this bill would create a crisis for us. I understand that with respect to the sponsor, he says what the intent of the bill is. I don't think that's gonna matter when we get a flood of self-defense claims and we have to litigate them over and over again. With the change in the, um, standard and the language about arrest, it's not that there's gonna have to be a hearing at arrest, and it's not that officers don't evaluate the full scene when they get to a, a, a scene where there's a, a guy holding a gun and a body on the ground.

13. 0:35:29

    The question is whether this new standard is gonna apply to that officer before he can arrest somebody at the scene of a shooting. This is a crisis for us. We have a lot of shootings in DeKalb County where there are two gunmen, where it's mutual combat. So what I envision is an officer arriving at a scene with two people with guns and maybe a body in some large conflict, and they both say, "Well, I f- I didn't shoot first. He came at me first." And you're asking an officer in that moment to evaluate, presumably based on the standard outline, the flip to this very nondescript clear and convincing evidence standard at the scene before he can arrest someone.

14. 0:36:03

    If I'm an officer, I don't read this law to say that I have to have a hearing. I read this law to say that if they both claim, there's n- nothing in the bill that defines what a prima facie showing is. That means that they're saying, "I acted in self-defense." That is a prima facie showing without some standard attached to it. It doesn't say it needs to be a prima facie showing to a preponderance of the evidence. It's just any prima facie showing. So we show up- There are two gunmen and they both say, "It wasn't my fault. I was acting in self-defense," and the officer can't determine, I read the bill to say that he can't arrest anybody.

15. 0:36:37

    So now we have two gunmen set free, probably in an ongoing conflict, to do whatever comes next. The issue this bill seems to want to address is delay in self-defense hearings. There is nothing in the bill that sets times for that. That's the solution to this problem. Uh, and if, if you give me one moment to make one more point.

16. 0:37:00

    If the bill instead said you have X amount of time to file a motion, you have X amount of time to have a hearing, and you have X amount of time to rule on that motion, then the delay portion is set. As it stands, we are going to have a flood of self-defense motions, probably in every single shooting case, and all it's gonna take is a statement that there was self-defense, then this flip to an unclear burden, and then a mess of a hearing before trial. This always happens before trial. There's been some implication at prior hearings that this is a trial issue. It is not. It is never.

17. 0:37:31

    That's how immunity works. You have the hearing beforehand. If you're granted immunity, there is no trial. That's already the state of the law. The fix here is to set a reasonable time limit on these motions and hearings. I'll take any questions. Thank you.

18. 0:37:44

    This is a question for the author, or for the, uh, witness. Representative c- or Chairwoman Silcox.

19. 0:37:51

    Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to ask, do you know if the Sheriff's Association is opposed to this bill?

20. 0:37:57

    I don't, no. I'm sorry.

21. 0:37:58

    I mean, I think they... Maybe we can ask them.

22. 0:38:01

    Okay. Number six.

23. 0:38:05

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

24. 0:38:06

    Representative Gunter.

25. 0:38:06

    Um, thank you for being here and representing, uh, one of the best DAs that we have here-

26. 0:38:10

    The best

27. 0:38:10

    ... in the state of Georgia. Uh, well, I represent Gwinnett too, so-

28. 0:38:13

    Yes, you do. Okay. Yeah.

29. 0:38:15

    Um, um, so my, my question is, um, so I wanna make sure I'm clear. You gave two reasons. The first reason was that law enforcement would have to make a quick assessment sort of on the scene, and then the second reason, you said it would cause, um, for your office to be thrown, I guess, into a state of confusion. Could you repeat that part again? I wanna make sure I understand.

30. 0:38:35

    Sure. To be clear, an officer is making a PC, a probable cause determination regardless. The problem is that self-defense is a complicated analysis of law and fact. That's why a judge makes the decision, because of the law that's involved. And though officers are, are evaluating all the factors before determining probable cause, they're not equipped in the moment to make a legal determination on self-defense. And, and I think the bill reads or can be read, and might likely be read by a court, that they have to make that legal determination in the moment, and that is not realistic, no matter how much training you're gonna give to these officers.

31. 0:39:06

    The second is that because of the way the process is changed in the bill and the standard of proof, instead of having the, uh, accused make a preponderance showing, which is 50% plus a grain of sand, in front of the judge about self-defense, which if it were to happen in a short amount of time, would be an efficient way to handle the process. Any minuscule showing of self-defense requires the, the government then to rebut it by clear and convincing evidence, which doesn't mean a whole lot in a criminal context. It's gonna create a nightmare of clogging the courts for our office and many others.

32. 0:39:45

    Okay. Thank you, sir.

33. 0:39:46

    Thank you.

34. 0:39:48

    John Harris, come on down. No, excuse me. Mr. John E. Harris.

35. 0:39:55

    That's fine. I wanna talk to you afterwards. You and I talk before. Uh, thank you for hearing me out. Um, I'm John Harris. I work as a paralegal for, uh, criminal defense. I've done it for several years. I've seen lots and lots of self-defense actions. The one thing I wanna point out first is that while this might cause a crisis, as the last person said in, in prosecution, every single time the prosecution brings somebody to court, it causes a crisis in their life.

36. 0:40:28

    The prosecution has zero risk. They can bring anything that they can get an indictment on, and they laugh about the fact that they can get an indictment on a ham sandwich. It's something we all laugh about, although it's not funny if you're the ham sandwich. So, um, the prosecution already has a very high burden on self-defense. When they go to trial as somebody, uh, that has an affirmative defense, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this, uh, this person didn't exercise self-defense.

37. 0:41:04

    Um, so they already have a very high burden. And if they've already indicted this person, and I'm not speaking to the, to the issue that he was talking about with, with the officer. There may be some issues there, but I'm not speaking to that. I'm speaking specifically on the motion. If they already have an indictment, then they should already know that they cannot just bring this person in and drag them until they'll plead guilty. They should already know that they can bring enough evidence that in a self-defense, uh, posture, they can bring this person to a guilty, a guilty verdict.

38. 0:41:39

    Otherwise, they shouldn't do it. The prosecution has no risk. One of the failings of our judicial system is the prosecution has no risk. This gives the prosecution, uh, this gives the defense... You guys gave the defense the right to d- to defend themselves. You gave them self-defense. I remember when a lawyer would tell you in a hurry, "There's really no self-defense law in Georgia." Okay? But now you've given them that self-defense and, and now the prosecution doesn't want to have to meet some sort of burden.

39. 0:42:17

    It's the prosecution's burden, not the defendant's burden. It should not be the defendant's burson- burden to get to a self-defense, even in a pretrial, even in an immunity. It should not be the defendant's bur- burden. It should be the prosecution's burden. Clear and convincing's pretty heavy, but you know, it's not r- beyond a reasonable doubt, which is where they should be going.

40. 0:42:38

    If they can't get to clear and convincing, then they shouldn't be able to get to a trial, 'cause they're not gonna get to, uh, beyond a reasonable doubt.

41. 0:42:48

    Mr. Harris. O- one last thing and I'm done, if I could. Yeah. Okay. I also would urge you to make this retroactive to any pending case, pending case. I, I right now know people that have not committed any crime in the world, but are simply fighting for their life because they got attacked with their family present, and they're afraid, uh, they're, they're afraid. Okay, I'm done. All right. No questions. All I have signed up left on this bill, other than one, are for it.

42. 0:43:22

    We are fighting for quorums across this capital, so we're going to dispatch very quickly. But I wanna invite Mr. Jeff Plousard up. I know you hadn't testified before, so if you'll just keep it as brief as you can, sir. I know you've been here for several hours. I saw you sitting outside, so come on down. Mr. Chairman, I'd like everyone on the committee to have a- Sure ... a copy of the statement.

43. 0:43:53

    If you'll just give that to, us right here in the middle, we'll get the rest of them passed out, and you can get to testifying.

44. 0:44:04

    Appreciate it. Proceed. It's kinda low.

45. 0:44:20

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Jeff Plousard. I teach in the Gwinnett County Public Schools. Today, I'm representing the Georgia Majority, Majority for Gun Safety. We support the Second Amendment. We are a coalition of advocacy groups working to reduce gun injuries and deaths in Georgia. We are here to testify against the ex- expanding the existing Georgia Stand Your Ground law.

46. 0:44:51

    We are proud to join with law enforcement and the Georgia Sheriff's Association in opposing the expansion detailed in Senate Bill 572. The existing Georgia s- Stand Your Ground statute, as amended in 2006, is clear and offers plenty of justifiable protections for self-defense. The existing law allows people in public places to legally use deadly force if we believe our lives are in danger. Conversa- conversely, the bill before us today is confusing, unnecessary, and a radical expansion from Georgia's existing Stand Your Ground statute.

47. 0:45:31

    We share the strong concerns of law enforcement and the Sheriff's Association about this expansion. The provision that is most dangerous is the one that shifts the initial burden of proof from the defense to the state that the use of force was unlawful. The Sheriff's Association, in opposition to 572 on March 17th before this committee, the Sheriff's Association cited strong concerns with changing the initial burden of proof from the defense to the prosecution.

48. 0:46:06

    The representative of the Sheriff's Association said that, "If enacted, 527 might have several unintended consequences, including a spike in the number of self-defense claims, because claimants would no longer have the initial burden of proving self-defense." In addition to being radical, 572 is confusing. At the March 17th hearing, we found out that the language in 572 was lifted directly from the Florida Stand Your Ground statute.

49. 0:46:40

    The district attorney from DeKalb County told us at the March 17th hearing that it is not uncommon for legal terms to mean slightly different things in different states. Therefore, why would we want to insert a Florida law into the, our Georgia statute? Wouldn't that be confusing? Which brings me back to the primary goal of Georgia Majority for Gun Safety, reducing firearm-related injuries and death.

50. 0:47:12

    School-aged children are the number one victims of death related to firearms. In fact, gun-related deaths is now the number one cause of mortality for school-aged children. We learned at the March 17th hearing that 12 states have adopted expansions to stand your ground similar to those found in 572. Stand your ground states have shown a 7 to 11% increase in monthly firearm homicide rates.

51. 0:47:43

    Florida saw a 24 to 45% increase in firearm homicides after enacting their expansion to sta- stand your ground. Mr. Plousard, if you could- Studies have also shown that there's- Mr. Plousard, if you could just wrap up for me as quickly as you can. S- studies have also shown that there's no evidence that stand your ground laws reduce crime or improve public safety. In conclusion, the bill before us today is confusing, unnecessary, and a radical expansion from Georgia's exist- existing stand your ground statute, which is working just fine.

52. 0:48:18

    Therefore, we strongly urge the members of this committee to vote no on 572. Thank you. We are happy to answer questions. Thank you, sir. No questions. All right. Thank you, sir. Okay, for the rest of y'all that are for this, you wanna exercise y- your discretion either way. You wanna testify still? 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman. All right, come on down

53. 0:48:50

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was very, that was very generous. Uh, to the members of the committee, I would just, uh, notwithstanding the veracity of the claims that have been presented to you by proponent and opponent testimony, I would remind the committee that this self-defense measure contemplates more than just firearms and murder. It could be a physical altercation. It doesn't necessarily have to involve a gun. So just keep in mind that this is not gun specific, and if anyone tries to say this is just more murder with guns, that's not true.

54. 0:49:28

    It could be a physical altercation that does not involve murder, and that individual would receive the same defense under this measure as the more extreme, scarier examples. Thank you.

55. 0:49:45

    All right. No questions. And I see Sully, Sullivan.

56. 0:50:05

    I'm gonna make this quick. Um, I just wanna say that this bill advances three essential, uh, objectives, which is clarity, fairness, and legal consistency. Um, the Georgia law already recognizes the right of individuals to use reasonable force. However, the ambiguity in application can lead to inconsistent rulings, prolonged litigations, and uncertainty for both defendants and prosecutors. By providing to additional statutory justification and the articulation and rebuttable presumption, this legislation strengthens clarity without removing judicial discretion.

57. 0:50:42

    The rebuttable presumption ensures that individuals who reasonably act under the imminent threat are not automatically threatened as criminal defendants, whilst still preserving the state's ability to challenge improper claims where evidence contradicts justification. Um, to disestablish the clear timing and standards for immunity claims, this bill provides procedural clarity. Uh, when immunity from prosecution must be raised, the applicable standard of proof, the burden of proof upon the parties.

58. 0:51:13

    And number three, for extending civil immunity, uh, consistently, the amendment, uh, ensures that civil immunity aligns with criminal justification, findings by extending protection to include claims brought by legal representation of heirs or the individual against whom the force was used. If the court determines that force was legally justified, individuals should not face financial ruin due to civil litigation arising from the same justified act.

59. 0:51:43

    This provision prevents contradictory outcomes and reinforce legal consistency across criminal and civil proceedings.

60. 0:51:53

    Thanks, sir. I see no questions. I have no one else, uh, signed up. What's the will of the committee?

61. 0:51:59

    Move to pass.

62. 0:52:00

    I got a motion to pass and second. Any amendments? Seeing none. All those in favor of the passage of Senate Bill 572, LC49-2741, say, "Ah." Ah. All those opposed say, "Nah." No. All right, give me a show of hands for yes. Three, four. All right, those opposed? Chair votes in the affirmative. You own rules, Mr. Chairman.

63. 0:52:28

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. It's been a pleasure.

64. 0:52:32

    Likewise.

65. 0:52:33

    Thank y'all.

66. 0:52:33

    Come back. Well-

67. 0:52:34

    I won't be coming back.

68. 0:52:35

    All right. Well-

69. 0:52:36

    But I'll be across the street and hopefully, um, defending the stuff y'all do or telling you how you got it wrong, so.

70. 0:52:41

    Well, Ch- Chairman Strickland, uh, I, I just wanna say on behalf of-

71. 0:52:51

    Questions for him

72. 0:52:51

    ... on behalf of, uh, Judiciary Non-Civil, it's been a pleasure with you as a partner across the aisle. I think that we've dispatched, uh, very well over the years, so I wanna thank you for being a great partner.

73. 0:53:02

    Well, thank y'all-

74. 0:53:03

    So-

75. 0:53:03

    ... for y'all's service. I've enjoyed my time serving with y'all.

76. 0:53:05

    Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And I won't make you present Senator Hatchett's bill.

77. 0:53:09

    Please don't. Thank you.

78. 0:53:12

    Thank you, Senator. All right. Uh, members, we have Senate Bill 398. Senator Hatchett, uh, had a personal situation that came up that wouldn't allow him to be here until 1:00, so, uh, I think Representative Kendrick said something about she needed to go eat lunch, and, uh, the chair agreed with her that he needed to as well, and I would expect the same for all y'all. So what we're gonna do is, uh, we're gonna move on. We're in a posture of, uh, making some amendments. I had talked with Senator Hatchett about this.

79. 0:53:45

    Uh, due to other legislation having passed already, uh, covering a lot of what he would want, I am going to, uh, submit the following, uh, substitute to the committee once there's a motion, but I wanna explain this real quick. I would strike all ex- all the lines except for s- line 63, where it starts with A.

80. 0:54:15

    And I'm going to put a... I'm gonna actually keep the subsection C in there, because what I will be proposing is to amend OCGA 16-11-61, that is your peeping Tom statute, since this deals with virtual peeping. So I'm gonna strike all the language before, and I'll trust Ms. Carter to amend the title as well to reflect that we're making a change to OCGA 16-11-61. I'm gonna include where you'll see there in the current form, starting with line 63 And all the way down to the period after adult in line 66.

81. 0:55:01

    And that will be the amendment once I propose it.

82. 0:55:05

    So-

83. 0:55:06

    Well, let's review it.

84. 0:55:08

    Sure. Chairman Leverett.

85. 0:55:10

    So the chairman is, the chairman is proposing to delete, um, this-

86. 0:55:16

    Everything before line 63, and then-

87. 0:55:20

    And then we're renumbering C as A?

88. 0:55:22

    No, C will ... It, it will remain C because of where it's going in OCGA 16-11-61.

89. 0:55:29

    Oh, okay. So then, then line 63 through the period after adult on 66.

90. 0:55:35

    Correct, and then I'll be deleting everything after that.

91. 0:55:38

    Okay. So that will become paragraph C of 16-11-61.

92. 0:55:44

    Yes, sir.

93. 0:55:45

    Got you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

94. 0:55:48

    Okay, number s- six. Representative Kendrick.

95. 0:55:50

    Thank you. I have a clarifying question, uh, since you're, you've seen the code. Is ... To keep the c- language consistent, on line, uh, 63 and 64, do we use the language knowingly and intentionally?

96. 0:56:04

    That's what I'm proposing to do.

97. 0:56:06

    Okay.

98. 0:56:06

    And every member can determine for their self whether they wanna vote for that language or not.

99. 0:56:10

    Okay. Thank you.

100. 0:56:11

     Thank you. All right. So that's just explaining the amendment before we get into any posture, but I'm gonna need a motion, if there is one, to move the bill.

101. 0:56:22

     Move due pass.

102. 0:56:24

     Uh, motion due pass second. All right. Um, I will propose as the Smith amendment, uh, what I just detailed to the members.

103. 0:56:35

     Second.

104. 0:56:36

     All right, moving the Smith amendment. Any discussion from members of the committee? Seeing none, all those in favor of the Smith amendment say aye.

105. 0:56:46

     Aye.

106. 0:56:48

     All those opposed same sign. All right, it's on. Any other amendments? Representative Kendrick.

107. 0:56:53

     Um, I'm going to ask for an amendment to add knowingly and on line 63 and 64 before the word intentionally.

108. 0:57:23

     Okay. You hear the Kendrick amendment.

109. 0:57:27

     Second.

110. 0:57:27

     All right, there's a second. Any discussion on amendment? Hearing none, all those in favor of the Kendrick amendment say aye.

111. 0:57:34

     Aye.

112. 0:57:35

     All those opposed same sign. All right, it's on. Any other amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the passage of Senate Bill 398 as amended with this committee substitute, with the Smith and Kendrick amendments, say aye.

113. 0:57:50

     Aye.

114. 0:57:50

     All those opposed same sign. All right.

115. 0:57:55

     It is on the rules. Okay, last bill we have before us, and you'll see Senate Bill 61, with permission, uh, from the author and the Senate to use this v- as a vehicle for our purposes. I'll be real quick to this. Um, what this bill would do is create new Georgia felonies for identity-based impersonation, advance payment seller scams, and certain violent felony-related interactive content on social media.

116. 0:58:28

     Uh, this would ensure that there's more legal review of complaints and fast restriction of content after Georgia law enforcement, uh, allegations and in- investigations, uh, into these alleged incidents. And this would also solve the jurisdiction problem by expressly treating operation of an online platform for purposes of discovery and getting a- access to this information, uh, accessible here in Georgia as a business transacted in our state.

117. 0:59:04

     And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the basis of this bill. I understand that, uh, Representative Clifton was unsuccessful in getting this, uh, across, and so we wanted to give it one last try. Representative Panitch.

118. 0:59:24

     Oh.

119. 0:59:24

     Oh, Kendrick, I'm sorry.

120. 0:59:25

     Um, you're on the amended SBC-

121. 0:59:30

     Mm-hmm. Correct.

122. 0:59:31

     Um, so I'm on the technology committee.

123. 0:59:34

     Mm-hmm.

124. 0:59:34

     And so, um, at the appropriate time, I would like to make an amendment that we-

125. 0:59:39

     Okay

126. 0:59:39

     ... um, data and technology-

127. 0:59:41

     Okay

128. 0:59:41

     ... specifically for federal law enforcement.

129. 0:59:43

     Okay. All right. Uh, real quick, uh, Pat, y'all have anything y'all want to add?

130. 0:59:56

     And I'll come back to you on that, Representative.

131. 1:00:06

     The hour's late, the time is busy, and-

132. 1:00:12

     Question.

133. 1:00:14

     Uh, the, the, the thing is that you guys pa- passed a lot of bills, a lot of good bills. I want to remind you, one of the actions you took yesterday was on Senate Bill 594.

134. 1:00:27

     Yes.

135. 1:00:27

     And in 594, you used part of this bill, which is now 61. All I would point out to you is that if you're going to do this, make sure you don't give us the same bill in two forms, or give us extra to it, because we don't ... As a prosecutor, as the defense bar, we have to divine your meaning, and even though you're gonna tell ... You can say it in a bill, the court says that's meaningless, so you're leaving it up to us to figure it out.

136. 1:01:01

     So when you give us two things, two things that say different, two things that are supposed to be the same but are slightly different, we have to divine why you were different

137. 1:01:09

     So I would just point out that please review your decision yesterday, which was a pass, I believe it was a rather su- so substantial pass, and make sure that the language is harmonized.

138. 1:01:22

     Thank you for that. Thank you. All right. Um, I don't think I have... Oh, Tripp Richardson, come on down. Oh, wait, that was on 398. I apologize, Tripp. I need to go back to the optometrist as soon as we sign it out, ladies and gentlemen. All right. Okay. I see no one else signed up. Uh, we'll hear a motion if there is one on the substitute.

139. 1:01:52

     Move due pass. All right. Got a move due pass. Do I hear a second? Second. All right, got a second. Any amendments, Representative Kendrick? Thank you. Um, so again, this similar bill to, um, Mr. Smith's point came through the Technology Committee. Um, and lines 52 through 72 were specifically, um, agreed to be stricken out because of a conflicting federal, uh, communications. Let me... The Section 230 of the Communications Dec- Decency Act of 1966, uh, protecting online platforms, specifically social media platforms from the comment section from liability, um, from content that's posted by third-party users.

140. 1:02:36

     Um, so we stripped that language out not to clash with, um, Section 230 of the federal law. So that's gonna be the amendment that I offer to stay consistent with that. Okay. All right, you hear the Kendrick amendment. Uh- Can I ask a quick question? Yes. Vice Chairman Hong. Thank you, Chairman. Um, just had a quick question. So I know the language in this is saying, um, that there's actual notice, there's notice to, um, in receiving a police incident, there's a- an actual police incident report and an official communication.

141. 1:03:16

     So I understand that federal law, I think it's just you, you can't really tell what's on your platform, but upon notice, and I, I kinda know this aspect of it 'cause I carried another bill, um, regarding that AI music bill, and so we had a lot of conversation about it. And so, um, I think in this language, I guess my question to you is, do you not believe that with us having saying that there's actual notice and then you have to take it off after notice would be, would, wouldn't go against that federal law?

142. 1:03:54

     Uh, I am not a, you know, Section 230 expert, but, you know, one, I wanna stay consistent 'cause what this bill did already pass, you know, to, to Mr. Smith's point, so I don't wanna give them, you know, sort of a hodgepodge of, um, of issues. Um, but I think to your point about the notice, it really starts at line 52, which is the thing that's triggering it that I think is, is running afoul of Section 230, is, is, is starting before we get to, even get to the notice section, I think is the issue.

143. 1:04:26

     But again, I'm not a 230 expert. I'm just trying to be consistent with what we've already passed and what I know is, is, might be preempted from the start.

144. 1:04:41

     Okay. I don't know if that's us or somebody else.

145. 1:04:48

     All right.

146. 1:04:51

     You heard the Kendrick amendment. Is there a second? Second. All right. All those in favor of the Kendrick amendment say aye. Aye. All right. All those opposed no. No. All right. It's on. Okay. Any other amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the committee substitute of SB61, LC number AM490321S say aye. Aye. All those opposed same sign.

147. 1:05:22

     All right. It's on the rules. We are adjourned.