Transcript Highlights:

• What about any background screening? Is that supplied along with that?
• No, we do not do background screenings. Okay. Thank you.
• So no, we do not do extra background. I have a follow-up, please. You recognized. Okay.
• It also cross-checks between the organizations and the other programs as well.
• We check what they publish to families and make sure it matches.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met to continue reviewing how Family Empowerment Scholarship students are funded through the FEFP and the role of scholarship funding organizations. Staff gave a statutory overview of parent, SFO, and Department of Education responsibilities, including application deadlines, eligibility verification, quarterly payment timing, cross-checks to prevent duplicate funding, and the 99% district FEFP limitation for certain awards. The committee then heard demonstrations from Step Up for Students and AAA Scholarship Foundation showing their parent portals, application workflows, reimbursement systems, school enrollment/invoice processes, and marketplace tools for tuition, tutoring, and approved goods and services. Step Up reported major growth since HB 1, saying its scholarship population expanded from about 260,000 to more than 440,000 students, with application processing averaging about 10 days. It also highlighted faster tuition, provider, and reimbursement payments, multilingual support in English and Spanish, and resources such as videos and a call center. Members asked about support for Creole speakers, optional Florida ID numbers, student identifiers, marketplace pricing, tutor qualifications, background screening, and how awards differ from funded status. Step Up said it does not currently support Creole, does not do background screenings for tutors, sets no marketplace prices itself, and uses a unique internal student ID separate from the state ID. AAA demonstrated its revised software for the 2025-26 school year, including an eligibility screener, household and student application steps, messaging with staff, reimbursement requests, and administrative review and payment batching. AAA said the new system is custom-built, more transparent about award value versus available balance, and designed to better handle quarterly funding for UA students. Members questioned AAA and Step Up about student ID numbers, public-school cross-checks, fraud controls, school fee schedules, whether schools must participate, and reimbursement timing. Both organizations said they report quarterly to DOE, receive public-school cross-checks, and recover funds when students return to public school; AAA said its average reimbursement turnaround is about 14 business days, while Step Up said its reimbursement approvals have improved significantly. The committee also requested follow-up information, including one-pagers, data on income levels and demographics, and additional details on forecasting and system costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• checks and what's is for the background checks and what's possibly<00:12:59.320> getting<00:12
• <00:13:53.600> used background check is currently being used background check is currently
• <00:13:58.399> check<00:13:58.600> with people pass the background check with people
• pass the background check with flying<00:13:59.120> colors<00:14:00.040> for<00:14:00.279
• <00:14:57.959> you've background check process and then you've background check process and

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But that would also preclude any kind of 13th check. check or COLA if it's not actuarially sound.
• check.
• checks of current volunteers, staff, and board members.
• checks that we currently require.
• effective September of 2013, and a 13th check effective September of 2019. a 13th check effective January

Bills: SB1, HB500, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, state budget, mental health funding, education funding, infrastructure improvements, public safety, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• check, that has some vital information about who they are and what they're capable of doing?
• We do a participation form, an eligibility check form academically.
• I wanted to make sure that we had some checks and balances. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
• Have you checked to see if they are a registered agent and have passed all the qualifications?
• It's you have to disclose certain things and you have to pass a background check and basically complete

Bills: SB389, SB525

Keywords: athlete agent, registration, endorsement contracts, name image likeness, eligibility, unfair trade practices, student athletes, unclaimed property, abandoned property, escheat, state treasurer, administrator, claimant, purchase agreement, assignment, property recovery, owner verification, documentation requirements, fraud prevention, bankruptcy

Summary: The Civil Law and Procedure Committee met on May 18, 2026, and first took up Senate Bill 389 by Senator Connick, which would update Louisiana’s athlete-agent law to address NIL representation for high school and college athletes. Testimony from the Attorney General’s office said the bill is needed because NIL agents are currently largely unregulated, especially as NIL activity has expanded into high school sports. Assistant Attorney General Olivia Nuss explained that the measure adopts a revised Uniform Athlete Agent Act framework, creating a state registry and oversight process for agents representing student-athletes in endorsement and NIL matters. John Curtis, head of school and football coach at John Curtis Christian School, testified in support, saying agents are increasingly approaching young athletes and families without qualifications, charging high fees, and sometimes trying to steer athletes to schools. Committee members asked about how the system would work, who would administer it, and whether the Louisiana High School Athletic Association would have a role. Witnesses said the Department of Justice would house and enforce the program, while LHSAA would help disseminate information to schools, parents, and athletes. Members also raised questions about contracts involving minors and whether the bill should address agreements extending past the age of majority. The committee adopted technical Amendment Set 5462, then reported SB 389 as amended without objection. Afterward, Senate Bill 525 was voluntarily deferred at the author’s request, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Check<00:08:33.680> it. >> Check it. >> Check it.
• to do to make sure um compliance check to do to make sure um compliance check that<00:08:41.360>
• >> Check. >> Check. >> Check.
• >> Check. >> Mr.
• Check.

Bills: HF3935, HF2216, HF4354, HF4210, HF4212

Keywords: assisted living, healthcare, training, unlicensed personnel, resident rights, safety regulations, nursing home, long-term care, guardian, conservator, arbitration, mandatory arbitration, consumer protection, fee increase, rate increase, price hike, private pay, public funds, Medicaid, waiver services

Transcript Highlights:

• From various backgrounds and with various cognitive and developmental conditions, including autism spectrum
• checks, and undergo training.
• The federal and the law enforcement, like the others, do any of these go through a background check if
• The American Polygraph Association does require that there is a background conducted and that there's
• I mean, every young woman I know in the dating world does a background check on whoever they're dating

Bills: SB 36

Keywords: transportation, regional authorities, mobility, infrastructure, sales tax

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Bob Seth check. As mentioned. I represent a couple organizations.
• Fdle conducts background screening. >> Okay. That's all I have for now.
• checks, please. >> Thank you, Mr.
• President specifically background checks.
• We are eliminating any exemption for background checks, for teachers, for teacher certification. >> Any

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• stuff doesn't show up on uh background stuff doesn't show up on uh background checks<00:01:36.520
• One is: background checks are required in the state of Minnesota to hire, so what role do background
• One is: background checks are required in the state of Minnesota to hire, so what role do background
• Background checks are required in the state of Minnesota to hire, so what role do background checks—what
• have the background checks for for Stu have the background checks for for Stu for<00:14:59.040><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It has to do with recordkeeping and background checks and having a system of background checks, having
• /c><01:15:13.679> a<01:15:14.159> system background checks and having a a system background
• checks, have being able to of background checks, have being able to uh<01:15:16.960> have<01:
• check from Aaliyah needed a background check from Aaliyah on<01:15:28.320> a<01:15:28.480>
• /c> they did the background check on uh had they did the background check on uh had a<01:16:01.280>

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It would authorize the PUC to conduct background checks on employees and contractors who have access
• Background checks are an easy way to ensure that this information remains secure. in safe hands.
• In 2023, the legislature passed legislation which authorized the PUC to conduct background checks on
• The current system does not view background checks as a requirement to allow for effective screening.
• We think that conducting background checks on those currently employed or contracted with the PUC is

Bills: HB1951, HB2715, HB3092, HB3237, HB3278, HB3511, HB3592, HB3675, HB3778, HB3782, HB3826, HB3970, HB4016, HB4049, HB4341, HB4344, HB4406, HB4427

Keywords: collective bargaining, public works, government contracts, labor agreements, state funding, removal from office, political subdivisions, local government, judicial proceedings, administrative judicial region, electric transmission, public convenience, landowner consent, utility regulation, energy infrastructure, energy consumption, higher education, governmental entities, sustainability, electricity reduction

Transcript Highlights:

• It established TNCs as a new carrier class and set initial requirements for permitting, background checks
• check requirements, prevention of sexual assault and harassment, background check requirements, prevention
• It established TNCs as a new carrier class and set initial requirements for permitting, background checks
• The CPUC implemented enhanced background check requirements for all TNC drivers transporting unaccompanied
• The rideshare experience, from always-on background checks to in-app features that keep users connected

Summary: The hearing focused on transportation network companies in California, with the chair framing it as an informational hearing on the history, regulation, safety, climate, accessibility, and data issues surrounding Uber, Lyft, and smaller or autonomous TNC services. The CPUC described its decade-long regulatory role, including safety rules, background checks, insurance requirements, reporting obligations, and two major legislative programs from 2018: the Clean Miles Standard and the Access for All program. Members asked about complaint trends, data collection and disclosure, program implementation, and how the CPUC uses annual reports for policymaking, compliance, and program oversight. Uber and Lyft said the statewide framework has supported growth while providing safety and access benefits, but both companies emphasized that insurance is a major cost driver and argued that California’s UM/UIM requirement is unusually high compared with other vehicles. They said the Clean Miles Standard is pushing electrification but faces headwinds from EV affordability and charging infrastructure, while Access for All has expanded wheelchair-accessible service but still needs continued support. They also discussed transit partnerships, wildfire response, and the potential role of autonomous vehicles, with both companies saying human drivers will remain important and that future regulation should account for new technology. The final panel, including the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and UC Berkeley researchers, presented evidence that TNCs have increased congestion and reduced transit ridership, especially in dense urban areas. They described prior research showing TNCs contributed to congestion growth in San Francisco and noted that this work helped spur local taxes on ride-hailing trips to fund safety and transit improvements. The panel also discussed the CPUC’s evolving data-disclosure decisions, arguing that public access to TNC trip data is important for understanding transportation impacts and informing local policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• It would establish licensure standards, including use of a multi-state license, criminal background check
• <00:19:37.520> check<00:19:37.840> and<00:19:38.000> teleaalth criminal background
• check and teleaalth criminal background check and teleaalth and<00:19:39.200> it<00:19:39.360
• <00:19:53.760> checks<00:19:54.000> with diet's bill on background checks with diet's
• bill on background checks with fingerprints<00:19:55.120> and<00:19:55.280> it<00:19:55.520

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Madam Chair, members, by way of background, a similar bill to SB 1136 was heard and passed the House
• Madam Chair, members, by way of background, a similar bill to SB 1136 was heard and passed the House
• By way of background, members, this is an alternative route to claiming bankruptcy.
• By way of background, a substantially similar bill was vetoed two sessions ago.
• As my predecessors have said, by way of background, a similar measure was vetoed last year.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee heard a long series of Senate bills, mostly on third-read consent, covering education, public safety, health, courts, labor, and water. Several bills were briefly explained and then pulled from consent for further discussion, including measures on public records review standards (SB 1078), sexually explicit materials in schools/libraries (SB 1435 and SB 1567), burial costs in death cases (SB 1135), military flags in HOAs/COAs (SB 1184), court-ordered treatment guardianship (SB 1243), standardized state hiring (SB 1665), released-time religious instruction (SB 1741), firearm safety instruction in schools (SB 1424), student participation in extracurriculars after certain convictions (SB 1475), Celebrate Freedom Week (SB 1572), federal scholarship-granting organizations/vouchers (SB 1142), immigration-related arrest notifications (SB 1055), defamation standards (SB 1099), peace officer certification for military police veterans (SB 1107), mandatory reporting of child abuse/neglect directly to DCS (SB 1127), attorney licensing and discipline issues (SB 1148 and SB 1039), concealed weapons on college campuses (SB 1068), and firearm muffling devices/silencers (SB 1069). Members also raised constitutional, policy, and school-safety concerns on several of these bills, while supporters emphasized alternative pathways for students, veterans, and workers, and tighter reporting or licensing rules. Other bills were described without extended debate, including claims against the state for unpaid contracted services (SB 1097), workers’ compensation death benefits for surviving spouses who remarry (SB 1136), burial expense increases (SB 1135), state agency web pages for internal guidance (SB 1586), court-ordered treatment procedures and service of process in mental health cases (SB 1113), medical examiner authorization (SB 1123), tribal MOUs with DCS (SB 1125), controlled-substance scheduling conformity with federal classifications (SB 1188), EMT personal information protections (SB 1193), mammography notice updates (SB 1318), assisted-living referral disclosures (SB 1477), accommodation school GED instruction for 11th graders and students over 16 (SB 1166), credit enhancement board continuation (SB 1422), school district and charter school obligations related to religious release time (SB 1741), school firearm safety instruction (SB 1424), and school civics/freedom-week instruction (SB 1572). The committee also heard bills on CPA certification pathways (SB 1181), insurance adjuster licensing (SB 1415), county voter-registration rules online (SB 1040), campaign address privacy (SB 1259), federal land acquisition notification (SB 1281), water supply/demand assessments (SB 1202), environmental compatibility for power plants and small modular reactors (SB 1418), and groundwater recovery rules (SB 1785). The meeting ended with announcements and a brief recognition of Rep. Stephanie Hamilton with an “Affordability Award.” No final votes are shown in the transcript excerpt; instead, many bills were either left on consent, pulled for later discussion, or flagged for closed caucus. The chair then asked guests to leave so members could hold a closed caucus.

Transcript Highlights:

• Free checking fell from 60% to 20% nationally.
• Monthly checking account fees increased from $4.34 to $7.44.
• So, kind of a little bit of retail background, some background as a legislator, knowing the challenges
• It's even less expensive in most cases than processing cash and checks.
• Please forward me your checking account balance and show me what you're paying.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on the future of payments and sales transactions by credit card heard extensive testimony from credit union, banking, retail, restaurant, and payments-industry representatives about proposals to limit interchange fees, especially on the tax and tip portions of transactions. Several witnesses opposed state-level restrictions, arguing they would create a patchwork of rules, burden state-chartered institutions, raise compliance complexity, and ultimately reduce resources for fraud prevention, cybersecurity, rewards, and access to credit. Others, including retail and merchant advocates, said swipe fees are a significant and growing cost for small businesses and that states should consider reforms such as limiting fees on taxes and tips, allowing surcharging, improving transparency in merchant contracts, and studying collection costs more closely. Witnesses also discussed recent legal and regulatory developments, including Illinois’s interchange-fee law, OCC and NCUA interim rules, and the ongoing Visa/Mastercard antitrust settlement. Industry representatives said the Illinois law has been delayed and is likely preempted for most transactions, while merchant advocates argued the state efforts and court rulings show that networks and banks do not set fees competitively. The proposed antitrust settlement was described by some as a meaningful but limited merchant victory, with temporary fee reductions and expanded surcharge/steering rights, while others said it still falls short of structural reform. The commission members pressed witnesses on the practical effects of fees, the cost of cash, whether merchants can pass costs through, and whether small businesses are actually seeing benefits from the current system. Members repeatedly emphasized the need for a fair middle ground that protects both small businesses and the payment system. No substantive votes or policy actions were taken beyond accepting testimony, and the meeting ended with adjournment after all scheduled witnesses had spoken.

Transcript Highlights:

• checks.
• we've recognized with uh background we've recognized with uh background checks.<01:10:33.840>
• with some of the OPLC background checks. with some of the OPLC background checks.
• approval of criminal background approval of criminal background checks.<01:11:17.120> Excuse<
• involving criminal background checks. involving criminal background checks.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires background checks for BHT providers who are not already subject to fingerprinting during
• With regard to the policy comment on the feasibility of background checks, we are currently working with
• SB 874 closes that gap by requiring without a background check.
• SB 874 closes that gap by requiring fingerprint-based background checks for all individuals providing
• So I really appreciate... ...are safe, that they have all the background checks that they need.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a series of bills focused on behavioral health, cancer screening, provider reimbursement, research funding, workforce licensing, and tobacco regulation. SB 16 would require counties to maintain procedures for designating and training professionals authorized to perform 5150 evaluations and initiate involuntary holds; supporters said it would expand the pool of qualified clinicians and reduce reliance on law enforcement, while opponents raised concerns about local control and implementation. SB 1124 would require CDPH to create and post lung cancer screening eligibility signage at tobacco point-of-sale locations; supporters emphasized low screening awareness and early detection, and the bill was advanced with amendments. SB 28, a CARE Court cleanup bill, proposed an ombudsperson, reporting, electronic petitions, remote participation, and other changes to improve accountability and access; it drew both strong support and significant opposition over concerns about coercion, scope, and whether the program is working as intended, but it passed the committee as amended to Judiciary. The committee also heard SB 874, which would strengthen oversight of Medi-Cal behavioral health treatment services, including background checks for providers and a stakeholder workgroup to develop standards; it passed to Public Safety. SB 1049 would let providers resubmit corrected claims within 90 days after a plan’s denial or recoupment action when the original claim had a correctable technical defect; supporters described delayed and withheld payments harming practices, while insurers argued the bill could duplicate existing dispute processes. The bill passed to Appropriations on call. SB 1224 would create a state framework to compete for federal ARPA-H funding for emerging therapies research, with testimony from a UC Davis psychiatrist and veterans’ advocates supporting expanded research into treatments for PTSD, depression, and other conditions; it passed to Military and Veterans Affairs. Later, SB 1057 would change how the Department of Public Health evaluates conviction history for certified nurse assistants and home health aides, shifting from automatic denial toward individualized assessment based on the offense, time elapsed, and rehabilitation; it passed to Appropriations with some no votes. Finally, SB 1314, a tobacco-related bill, sought to create a 600-foot buffer around schools and day care centers for certain tobacco retailers and address related issues such as cigar lounge definitions and nitrous oxide sales; several local government and public safety groups supported it, while health organizations and business groups opposed it unless amended. The chair announced that committee amendments were being set aside for now and the bill would move forward to Business and Professions with a commitment to continue working on the language; it passed out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill aligns Kentucky law with existing federal background check requirements for individuals seeking
• This bill aligns Kentucky law with existing federal background check requirements for individuals seeking
• On the juvenile part of the bill, it basically, under federal statute, when a background check is required
• At the end of the background check done by the federal government, they destroy all records pertaining
• to background checks.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:05 Attendance Roll Call: 00:09 HB 456 Discussion: 02:05 HB 456 Vote: 07:00 HB 136 Discussion: 07:54 HB 136 Vote: 09:36 HB 448 Discussion: 10:28 HB 448 Vote: 13:26 HB 220 Discussion: 14:12 HB 220 Vote: 17:14 HB 213 Discussion: 18:17 HB 213 Vote: 19:19 HB 518 Discussion: 20:23 HB 518 Vote: 23:03 HB 600 Discussion: 24:05 HB 600 Vote: 25:17 Adjournment: 26:32, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• check.
• Could you walk me through just a little bit of what the Current processes for the background checks and
• And so that's how the background check is currently being used.
• Of course, luckily, a vast majority of people pass the background check with flying colors.
• Has there been instances where somebody has made it through the background check process and then you've

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, I don't run background checks on these people when I get their appointments. Um, but what I...
• Do you get reports of the background checks if any have been done?
• I have not received any reports of background... received any reports of background checks.
• Um, so you don't have any background checks. Do you have any letters of testimonials?
• Yeah, we have a resume on everyone, but I don't have a background check.

Bills: SJR 12, SJR 81, SB 22, SB 32, SB 241, SB 393, SB 414, SB 458, SB 464, SB 568, SB 583, SB 609, SB 660, SB 664, SB 693, SB 731, SB 732, SB 746, SB 779, SB 783, SB 785, SB 868, SB 897, SB 921, SB 955, SB 1008, SB 1029, SB 1036, SB 1057, SB 1059, SB 1120, SB 1122, SB 1147, SB 1163, SB 1188, SB 1197, SB 1209, SB 1245, SB 1321, SB 1332, SB 1365, SB 1394, SB 1396, SB 1470, SB 1484, SB 1494, SB 1537, SB 1596, SB 1598, SB 1637, SB 1644, SB 1809, SB 1814, SB 1822, SB 1841, SB 1948, SB 2064, SB 2065, SB 2112, SB 2155, SB 2226, SB 2320, SB 2406, SJR 36, SJR 81, SJR 50, SJR 4, SJR 40, SJR 27, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 38, SCR 37, SB 1396, SB 1209, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 241, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 609, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1210, SB 1470, SB 264, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1484, SB 1273, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 1147, SB 1008, SB 2016, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 1370, SB 1321, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 693, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 1307, SB 963, SB 493, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1877, SB 1277, SB 32, SB 732, SB 660, SB 731, SB 921, SB 268, SB 1822, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 1058, SB 1267, SB 2112, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 2155, SB 508, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 779, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1948, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 1882, SB 1814, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 1371, SB 1394, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 458, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1809, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2320, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 664, SB 1637, SB 2064, SB 868, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 883, SB 249, SB 1318, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1067, SB 1786, SB 326, SB 1401, SB 1592, SB 1728, SB 1265, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1559, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1677, SB 95, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 871, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1316, SB 1314, SB 1313, SB 1426, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 1871, SB 36, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 760, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 762, SB 1271, SB 1818, SB 605, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 1967, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204, SB 1855, SB 863, SB 37, SB 241, SB 1147, SB 1394, SB 1814, SB 1948, SB 2155, SB 1209, SB 1396, SB 609, SB 660, SB 921, SR 373, SR 374, SR 376, SR 377, SR 379, SR 381, SR 386, SB 2332, SB 3040, SB 3041, SB 2332, SB 3040, SB 3041

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation, economic development, ad valorem taxation, franchise tax credit, personal property, public camping

Transcript Highlights:

• When you walk in and you have to do a background check, I have to check your IDs and go through a litany
• That's a federal background check.
• clear, you check your background, cross-reference it, and if your background's clear, you've got to
• for the LTC card and then you do the federal background check.
• People have already passed background checks, registered firearms, taken safety courses, and followed

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused heavily on firearms legislation, especially bills to repeal Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 (including H. 2618/S. 1671 and related repeal measures) and bills on firearm industry accountability (H. 2672/S. 1653). Supporters of repeal, including Senator Peter Durant, Rep. Ken Sweezey, gun owners, instructors, sportsmen, and women’s gun-rights advocates, argued that Chapter 135 overreaches, creates confusion in licensing and training requirements, burdens lawful gun owners, restricts pepper spray and semi-automatic firearms, and is being enforced in ways they said criminalize responsible conduct. Committee members defending the law said it was the product of years of work, public listening sessions, and multiple drafts, and argued that Massachusetts remains the safest state for gun violence and that implementation issues, such as live-fire training, had been delayed to allow time for regulations and infrastructure. Several witnesses also testified on H. 2672/S. 1653, which would create firearm industry standards of conduct and allow civil actions against manufacturers, distributors, and dealers that engage in unsafe or unlawful practices. Supporters from the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown, Brady, Giffords, and survivors described the bill as a way to hold the industry accountable, reduce the flow of crime guns, and give victims and the Attorney General a path to sue bad actors. They cited data on crime-gun traces, disproportionate impacts on communities of color, and examples from other states that have enacted similar laws. Opponents, including gun dealers and industry representatives, argued that existing law already punishes illegal sales, that most crime guns are stolen or diverted after lawful sale, and that the bill would improperly target manufacturers for the actions of others. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to remove the non-resident ban on semi-automatic firearms for hunting (H. 2710/S. 1676), with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers supporting the change as a way to restore access for returning residents, veterans, and hunting programs that had been displaced. Later testimony returned to repeal and related gun-law bills, with sportsmen’s groups arguing Chapter 135 was rushed, confusing, and harmful to youth hunting and lawful ownership. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing; it was a public testimony session with extensive questioning by committee members.