The chair [Rep. Gerlach] ruled the point of order not well taken.

  [Repetitive motion: Representative Prosser moved that Assembly Bill 744, relating to strip searches and providing a penalty, be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety. Motion failed; other intervening business.]

  Representative Prosser moved that Assembly Bill 744 be referred to the committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the motion out of order because that motion had previously been made.

  Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 744 be referred to the committee on State Affairs.

  Point of order:

100   Representative Ferrall rose to the point of order that the motion was out of order under Assembly Rule 69 (1).

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion for rejection of assembly amendment 9 to assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 293 was not in order because the motion had previously been voted on.

  The chair [Rep. Kedrowski, speaker pro tem] ruled the point of order well taken.

  [Repetitive tabling motions:]

  Representative Dorff moved that Assembly Bill 16 be laid on the table.

  The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 16 be laid on the table?

  The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-42, noes-53.] Motion failed.

  Representative Barczak moved that Assembly Bill 16 be laid on the table.

  Representative Shabaz asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 16 be referred to the committee on Local Affairs. Representative Rutkowski objected.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled Representative Barczak's motion for tabling out of order under Assembly Rule 69 (2).

  [Background]:

  Representative McClain moved that Assembly Bill 991 [relating to the standard deduction and filing requirements under the personal income tax] be made a special order of business at 3:01 P.M. on Monday, September 26. The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 991 be made a special order of business at 3:01 P.M. on Monday, September 26?

  The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-41, noes-55.] Motion failed.

  Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 991 be made a special order of business at 2:00 P.M. on Monday, September 26. [Call of the assembly.]

101   Point of order:

  Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that the motion to make Assembly Bill 991 a special order of business at 2:00 P.M. on Monday, September 26 was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.

  The chair ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Duren asked unanimous consent that Assembly Bill 495 [relating to personalized license plates] be placed at the foot of the calendar

  of Thursday, May 19. Representative Kirby objected. Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 495 be placed at the foot of the calendar of Thursday, May 19.

  The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 495 be placed at the foot of the calendar of Thursday, May 19?

  The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-46, noes-48.] Motion failed. [Intervening text omitted.]

  Representative Shabaz moved that Assembly Bill 495 be placed after Assembly Bill 385 on the calendar of Thursday, May 19.

  Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory under Assembly Rule 69.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Thompson moved that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 577 [relating to a limitation upon the rate of increase in real property equalized valuation] be withdrawn from the committee on Taxation and made a special order of business at 10:01 A.M. on Thursday, March 18. [Similar motions had been made and lost on 2/3/76 (ayes-40, noes-54), 2/10/76 (38 to 58), 2/24/76 (40 to 55), and 3/9/76 (38 to 56)].

  Representative Hanson rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory because it had been made several times previously.

  The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken. [Motion lost, ayes-41, noes-54; no further action on bill.]

  Point of order:

  Representative Behnke moved that assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 421 [relating to prohibiting state and local subsidy of abortions] be taken from the table. The question was: Shall assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 421 be taken from the table?

  The roll was taken. [Display of roll call omitted; ayes-51, noes-46.] Motion carried.

  Representative Rooney moved that assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 421 be laid on the table.

102   Representative Norquist rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order under Assembly Rule 72.

  The chair ruled the point of order not well taken. [Intervening business: not tabled; AA-1 to AA-4 adopted; AA-2 to AA-4 rejection refused.]

  Point of order:

  Representative Shabaz moved that assembly amendment 4 to assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 421 be laid on the table. Representative Wahner rose to the point of order that the motion was dilatory because it had been made twice previously.

  The chair ruled the point of order not well taken because the motion had not been made since the adoption of assembly amendment 1 to assembly amendment 4.

  Point of order:

  Representative Dorff moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 185 [relating to establishing a 48-hour waiting period for the purchase of handguns and providing a penalty] be laid on the table.

  The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 185 be laid on the table? The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; motion failed 46 to 48.]

  Representative Sicula moved that assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 185 be laid on the table.

  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that the motion was not in order because there had been no intervening business.

  The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.

  The question was: Shall assembly amendment 2 to Senate Bill 185 be laid on the table?

  The roll was taken. [Display of roll call vote omitted; motion carried 52 to 42.]

  [Background:] Assembly Bill 222, relating to state finances and appropriations constituting the executive budget bill of the 1975 legislature, and making appropriations:

  1. Rejection of senate amendment 1 refused (ayes-14, noes 18; p. 776)

  2. Tabling of senate amendment 1 refused (ayes-16, noes-16; p. 777).

  3. Motion for rejection of senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1.

  4. Tabling of senate amendment 1 refused (ayes-15, noes-17).

103   5. Senate amendment 1 to senate amendment 1 rejected (ayes-19, noes-13; p. 778).

[Point of order:]

  Senator Whittow moved rejection of senate amendment 1.

  Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that pursuant to senate rule 66 the motion to reject a second time in the same day was out of order.

  The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Senator Whittow moved that senate amendment 1 be laid on the table.

  Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that there was no intervening business and therefore a motion to table again was out of order.

  The chair ruled the point of order not well taken as a vote on rejection was considered intervening business.

  Representative Welch asked for the following division of assembly amendment 22 to Senate Bill 300 [relating to disposal and recycling of solid waste, granting rule-making authority, providing a penalty and making appropriations]:

  Part 1: Page 9, line 27 thru Page 10, line 7 and Page 16, lines 4 thru 6.

  Part 2: Remainder of amendment.