A bill for an ordinance amending Section 38-130, D.R.M.C. concerning the regulation of assault weapons, banning bump stock firing mechanisms, and conforming the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to state law. Amends Section 38-130, Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning the regulation of assault weapons, banning bump stock firing mechanisms, and conforming the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to state law. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-3-18.
This is regarding the bump stock legislation under pending. We have nothing called out. All right, Madam Secretary, thank you for putting the items on the screen. Councilman knew where you put council bill of 1400 series of 2017 on the floor. And move the council bill 17 1400 be placed upon final consideration to pass. All right, it has. Make sure it's been moved and checking it. It has been moved. I need a secondary grate. It has been moved in. Second it. Councilman Flynn, your motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I move that council. Bill 17, Dash 14 would be amended in the following particulars on page two, Section one Line 20 will be amended to include a new subsection three that provides three dwelling units. Has the meaning set forth in the zoning code. I'm sorry. A dwelling has the meaning. I should read from the yellow sheet. Dwelling shall have the same meaning set forth in the Denver Zoning Code. Page two, line 20 through page three, line four, renumbered paragraphs two through seven as three through eight in subsection B, accordingly, page four after line 27, add the following three. A person who possesses a magazine that holds or may be modified to hold between 16 and 20 rounds if he or she a owned it on July 1st, 2013, be maintained continuous possession of such magazine and c possesses the magazine within the dwelling in which the person resides. On page four, line 28, strike three and replace with four. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Questions or comments? Murmurs, accounts go from me to second. Thank you. So we already had a second on there. Councilman Flynn, your comments. Yes, thank you. First of all, I want to thank my colleague, Councilman Espinosa, for working with me on this. As you know, last week, I had a concern that we would be essentially criminalizing a lot of law abiding, good, decent gun owners in Denver who have followed our ordinance for 28 years that limited high capacity magazines to a maximum of 20. And in conforming this to the state bill that passed in 2013, the bill, as filed, did not import the grandfathering provision which allowed people to continue to possess that which they legally possessed. As of the passage of that 2013 state bill and in passing the bump stock ban, which we heard testimony and I've had email from various gun owners who said they are completely supportive of that. I know I've heard from a few who aren't. But I know that most folks I've heard from are very supportive of that. But they were very concerned about about the fact that we would be criminalizing folks who for self-defense at home or for whatever reason, have been following our law since 1989, and have a magazine that maybe has 17 round capacity. And suddenly we'd be making we're making that illegal and we're putting them in a dilemma. Do I get rid of it? I know we received information that you can get a a ten round magazine for as little as 20 bucks. That's not the point. The point is putting. Good, decent, law abiding people through the needless exercise of getting rid of something that is perfectly legal today. But we're saying you can't have tomorrow. And so, Mr. President, I initially wanted to do to import the full grandfathering, but in working with Councilman Espinosa, we were able to arrive at a compromise that I believe will have a majority of the votes tonight, and that is a homesteading provision that was suggested by a gun owning constituent of mine. If you keep it in your home. You're good to go. This addresses the problem that was brought up last week, Mr. President, where it's difficult to enforce whether did you own this magazine before July 1st, 2013, under the state law, if it's not in your home, we don't have to bother asking that anymore. So it addresses the enforcement issue. And if it's in your home, we're never going to see it anyway. So God bless you. And if you go out to a shooting range or whatever, then take your take your 15 or your ten round magazine with you and leave the 17 or the 20 at home. I think that this is a compromise that I want to thank, Councilman Espinosa, for reaching with me and coming to one on something I think is rather an important piece of legislation in what it principally does, which is to ban the bump stocks. And I think it's unfortunate that we had to get into this level of debate about conforming the bill, conforming with the state bill. But I think this will satisfy a lot of folks. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, counsel. Councilman Flynn, for your your amendment and your comments. I don't know. I'll put it in my comments and I'm not even at this moment. Sure, I'm still with you on it. And it sort of depends on some questions I have. And it mostly as a result of me sort of meditating on this time and again over the weekend. But it really still you've seen me do this before where I'm still at odds with myself on something. So the question I have in this comes from constituents reaching out to me as late as today with their own concerns about this amendment. So the questions I have are. Are we? Do we have. Do you have any sort of confidence that we will not run into a sort of slippery slope here where we are? The bill is proposed, has a very clear, you know, direction with regard to to the magazine capacity. If we create a homesteading provision where we're not going to run into some sort of litigation about the definition of, you know, why or why, why a dwelling is so much more significant than a person or a person's vehicle or something like that you have. So is this a this is a question in Councilman Flynn. Correct. Councilor Flynn. I can't guarantee that we won't be in litigation over anything that we do. Councilman So I obviously can't give any guarantees on that. I just believe that this is a reasonable compromise to allow the legal continued possession of that which has been legal for 28 years here in Denver. And I think that's a slippery slope that I'm more concerned about, is that in five or ten years, we don't come back here and say, okay, now you got to get rid of those and we're going to limit you to ten or fewer that we don't go through this again. Councilman Esmeralda, do you have another question? Yeah. And that's a legitimate concern because, you know, one of the original compromises I made, as you know, when a constituent put forward the measure, he was recommending an eight round limitation. The compromise was to to to meet this the state at its number of rounds. But I still think that from a clear sort of public health side, I think the 15 outright ban was was was appropriate. The other question I have is what what does concern me is we're defining this as dwelling. That's a new portion that I hadn't seen until today that would encompass apartment buildings as well in their entirety. We don't limit dwelling to just the apartment unit itself. But my real concern on the apartment, even in particular, is that what we're still allowing is 20 round capacity magazines in any number in dwellings, and a certain percentage of our calls by our law enforcement are to dwellings where it would be, it would be a gun owner would be okay to have that. I mean, the recent shooting incident in Douglas County was a call to a dwelling in an apartment building. Do we have do you have some sense about why this line would be better than an outright 15 round band? If all's our concern is the the the cost impact to the legitimate gun owner who could easily accommodate this this change. Counselor. I'm not sure I understand the question. The question is, do you have a sense about what percentage of calls our law enforcement make to homes? Ah. No, I don't know. But we have law enforcement here. I'm not sure that they're prepared to answer that at all. Okay. They're not. Next question. Okay. That was it. So I'll save the rest of my comments. But now you're sort of sorry to see what what would sort of been in my mind of late on going on what I thought was a very reasonable compromise, I think. All right, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to look over at our city attorney. Kirsten, I don't expect you to have the answer to this because I just brought up. But do we have any provision regarding collectors of like antique guns that are that like an old timey gun or anything like that in somebody's home or in a or in a museum or anything like that? I mean, do we have any provisions that keep that protect people for having. Let's say an old, old fashioned gun that has more than 20 rounds from 16 to 20 rounds. Is there anything that protects people that are collectors and anything like that? Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel And I don't know. And keep in mind that we're just talking here about high capacity magazines, the type of guns. And I don't want to turn a tough question over to Mali, but Mali Bartowski, from our prosecution and code enforcement and here is might have some idea about that. I mean, maybe and maybe we can go ahead and clarify that question. If there's an antique gun that has a it's its capacity is more than 15. That's like a collectors antique gun or anything like that. Not to my knowledge. But we can look into that and get back to you. Okay. So I'm just wondering if there was any kind of anything that a property owner is entitled to. Under any kind of collectors. You know, classification or anything like that. Because I know there's people that are like showmen and stuff like that and they. Good evening, counsel Marlee Bordeaux Ski with interim director of the prosecution section of the city attorney's office. There is no antique kind of an exception in any of our ordinances, even existing. Ordinances right now. So this would this exception would be unique to that particular ordinance. Okay. And if that helps. Okay. Now, let me ask council president, we ask one question of Councilman Espinoza. Okay. Go ahead, Councilman. I was under the impression that you were supportive of an amendment. And you if you had that impression, you weren't wrong. When Councilman Flynn wrote this to me on Friday. I actually really like the idea that that at least the intent of the the magazine restriction was was met because you couldn't leave the house with it. And so. But what what what you're seeing in my response and in my hesitation now is just thinking back to again, our problem in in this nation and to risk to to life safety is is that is is each bullet and reducing the number of rounds there is a legitimate law enforcement concern, and that is the intent of the magazine restriction. It was supposed to be ten. There was some there was some anecdote that was shared at the state when they were pursuing ten where a person could shared that they saved them. They saved their life by with that 15th round. And so magically we ended up going from 10 to 15. Was the original legislation that the state proposed at ten. Correct. And so even Glocks themselves were originally manufactured with ten rounds or they have the standard ten round bracket because that is the sort of normal limitation. And so to Kevin Flynn's point, it's not unreasonable to think that at some point, if we could if it made sense, we could pursue a ten round limitation. But again, my goal was really the stock ban originally and and create conformance with the state. But since since there is a legitimate life safety reason on why you wouldn't want an enforcement reason on why you wouldn't want additional rounds. I'm sort of. Sort of. As much as I appreciate the effort to not just grandfather the way the state did, which is really, really confusing. I think this is a good compromise. But I me personally, I don't know that I'm still willing to go there. Having thought about it some more. Okay. Let me let me go to Councilwoman Ortega. So circle back around with me. I know we don't have somebody from law enforcement prepared to answer the question. I just want to know. Quickly council president just what the what your standard issue police you know handgun what the magazine is in a standard issue handgun per the manual. Police officers want to answer. And my asking my asking around that is that I assume under some kind of situation where you're entering an apartment or somebody is firing from inside the apartment, depending on the sound of the other mechanism. A person could probably wonder, hey, that was the that was the 10th round that he shot. He must be out. Or there must be a pause as opposed. I'm just wondering what the what the. Please, please introduce yourself to see. What's a standard issue magazine capacity on any kind of gun. Right. I'm Officer Morgan with the Denver Police Department. Thank you. The standard for most full sized pistols is a. 17 round magazine and most. Full. Size rifles is 30. Okay, enough, sir, just to make a distinction. We do have SWAT, which are able to handle much more than that as well. Correct. They generally carry the same. Capacity of weapons. They have different. Weapons available to them. Okay, great. Councilman Ortega. So if you could stay up there, that was part of my question. So the most of our officers are now carrying nine. Mm. Correct. That's correct. Okay. So you're saying the average is 17? Correct. Okay. So how easily is it to swap out a. Ten round or 15 around for what is built for 17 round magazine. I'm not sure I understand the question. You mean to convert. A smaller one to a larger one? Yeah, the magazine, by the way. So instead of because I think Councilman Espinosa said at our last meeting that, you know, for the price of a magazine, which is somewhere around $20, you can swap them out. But I don't know how easily it is to actually replace what is normally made as a 17 round magazine for, say , a Glock or, you know, whatever kind of weapon that, for example, our officers carry. To then for the public reduce it down to the 15 round that is now in this ordinance. You generally can't reduce the actual magazine, but to. Change out the. Magazines takes a matter of seconds. Well, that's that's what I'm. It's the replacement issued. Not right. If you purchased a new magazine, it takes. Less than a minute to transfer the ammunition to that magazine and then that magazine to the firearm. Okay. So they are readily available in the market then to replace a lower number, a magazine that carries a lower number of bullets than a 17 round, for example, in Colorado. Most of them are 15. Rounds, not ten enough. To. Comply with state law. Right. Okay. Thank you. That answers my questions. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right, Councilman Flynn. Yeah. Yeah, that is right. Councilwoman Sussman. Actually, I had a question for you. Council President We have a motion on the floor and I would thought this was a comment period. But are we dividing now between question and comments with motions on the floor rather than just a public hearing? Yeah. Councilwoman, there's an amendment on the floor so we can both ask questions. I don't think we're necessarily into comments, but asking questions. All right, I have a comment. Okay. Flynn. Mr. President, you want to go to Councilwoman Black? Oh, just point blank. Thank you. I just have a clarifying question of our police officer. You just said when you walked away that in Colorado. Magazines have 15 rounds in order to comply with state law. New manufacturer. So if you were going to buy one legally in the state of Colorado they have they AR 15. Correct. Or smaller. A firearm that is a small couldn't legally buy one that was larger. No. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn. Thank, Mr. President. I didn't have any other questions. I was just coming in for comments. I don't know if anyone unless someone else had a question. Once you start that. Okay. Thank you. I'm offering this amendment not because it is an easy or relatively inexpensive to go out and replace your currently compliant grandfathered magazines with new ones. I'm offering it because, number one. I think we all. We're all sitting up here realizing that a person with criminal intent certainly isn't going to go do this. Someone who's going to rob a convenience store isn't going to say, Oh, I can't use this magazine. I have to use a smaller one. All we're doing is putting law abiding, decent gun owners in Denver in a dilemma of do they now go out and get rid of what they have now that we've told them for 28 years is fine and proper and is still fine and proper under the state legislation. Just because we want them to. And I think that we owe them we just owe them the right to keep in their home at least. What they've legally held for the last 28 years. Councilman Espinosa this morning sent me an email. 1036. Thank you for finding this middle ground. Great work. We didn't actually handshake on it, as you recall, councilman, but we did fist bump. And I guess fist bump is the new handshake. So I would ask the councilman that you'd give this consideration and give the people of Denver who in good faith have been following our law for 28 years, that the right to continue to follow it and to truly conform this bill to state law, because right now, the way the title is written, it says we're conforming it to the state legislation and we are not. We are not. We're changing our number to 15, but we're not including the grandfathering provision that would conform it to state law. And so I asked my colleagues to vote yes just to respect the rights of our of our citizens. Thank you. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, I want to confirm that I did, in fact, fist bump him. And I do still stand by the fact that I do appreciate the amendment as it is today versus where I thought we were going. And so I, I think we have an improved, you know, we're doing the right thing, whether we amend it or we don't. I just happen to know, you know, think that personally, it's we're doing we're doing a better job. If we if we if we don't amend. But I respect and even any and all my colleagues, regardless of which way they vote on that amendment, because I do think as far as a compromise is concerned, those who are in fact, concerned about that, that inconvenience of sort of, you know, historic existing magazines, it's a decent compromise , but it is exactly the same one without the amendment, meaning that if you have that, if you if you continue to possess it in your home and you never have a reason for the law enforcement to go digging through your personal possessions, you're going to be fine, you know? But if if if you take it out of your home, then you're in the same boat that you are with or without the amendment. So from again, from from the sort of from a genuine concern about the the the availability of high capacity magazines, the damage that can be done. You know, I just think in my own estimation, we're this close to sort of going one step further to to, you know, preserve, you know, better, better preserving the health and well-being of our our citizenry. And I don't again, for you know, if you want to go, the explanation I made before, which was if you if you want to go to the range, you're going to be paying a fee of 18 bucks an hour unless you're a member and a box of bullets, just 25 rounds is going to run you another 12 bucks. So you're already willing in to just to spend a couple of minutes in a range. You're you're investing more than it would cost to come into compliance. And each one of those magazines that you has has a real, real value. So you can sell that and offset the cost. And it's just a matter of, yeah, it's an inconvenience, but we do these things. For the right reasons, and I'm okay with that. And so I do still. So I do still think it's a good amendment and a good compromise. But I am I don't. Me personally, you won't see me going there on this one things. All right. Thanks. Councilman Espinosa. Dr. Sussman. Thank you very much, Mr. President. This was a very tough one for me. This because I like I think most people are alarmed at the gun violence in our society. And you can see other places that have limited gun ownership like Australia and Canada. And the difference in our gun violence and I know that gun violence is perpetrated by violent people, not by the gun itself, but the correlations can't be denied. And I was very happy to vote on making bump stocks illegal. But the the the amendment tonight made me think a lot about why do I need to be a realist or do I need to think about what it means? Because this amendment is is very intriguing. But I try to think of an analogy, and one of them I thought of was a switchblade. If you are going to say switchblades are dangerous, they're dangerous wherever they are, whether they're in my car or at a restaurant or at home, they are just as dangerous. And of course, we. We really legalized switchblades some years ago. Interestingly enough, we made it illegal, but we wouldn't say that a switchblade was safe in my home. A safe thing to have in my home, but not a safe thing out in my car. And to me, that made the analogy a little bit a little bit easier for me to understand how I wanted to vote tonight. If a girl if a certain kind of number of rounds in a magazine are dangerous outside of the home, they're dangerous inside of the home. And the rate of our domestic violence and then accidental firings are so scary about what's happening here. And I know that it's difficult to enforce this, and I don't think I can change my mind about the dangerousness of some of these weapons just because it's difficult to enforce. We don't usually make laws, let's say, oh, well, let's let them do it, because we'd be hard to catch them. And I so I after much thinking about this and and my feelings about gun violence and whether a weapon is dangerous regardless of where it's located, I think I'm going to have to vote against the amendment tonight and stick with the original proposal by Councilman Espinosa. All right. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilman Kasich. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be voting no on this amendment tonight. I believe that when you have a path to reducing harm and you have a new standard for the community, you change the standard for the community and you ask the entire community to meet the same standard. I think about the shootings that have occurred in our city and how many of them focus on the home. So South Denver had someone who, you know, called police down and shot a tank, I believe, and created an explosion and, you know, created a showdown with police in South Denver from his home. We have youth that sometimes get a hold of guns that are in homes. We have home is the most dangerous place in America for women. And, you know, we think a lot about mass shooters and strangers. But the truth is, women in this country are far more likely to be shot by their intimate partners. And so if the moment of reloading while someone's locked behind a door gives them a moment to get to a phone or, you know, go to safety, I all you know, all of those situations focused around the home and so on. Unfortunately, gun violence often is occurring from a home base and not from some anonymous hotel room or some anonymous place in a in a public place. And so. So I vote for harm reduction. I vote for reducing risk, and I vote for a consistent and clear standard that everyone in our community meets. That, to me, is the best way to govern. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman can. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So I appreciate the fact that Councilman Flynn was trying to find some way to address this concern of putting people in this precarious situation where they're in compliance with state law, but will now be in conflict with this this law that's already passed. First reading, I know at our last meeting somebody had talked about a potential grace period as maybe an answer to give people time to replace the magazines so that they are in compliance with local law in hearing how. Affordable it is to do that, you know, basically sort of makes my decision for not supporting the amendment because I think. You know, for people who typically own a car and a lot of them do target practicing. I've gone to Target practicing with friends in the past to some of the local ranges. And, you know, you spend that money on the on the bullets themselves. So, you know, the amount of money you would spend to just swap that out and replace a magazine would would not be that expensive for gun owners. You know, if we were not in a situation where it. Appears to be an epidemic in this country. And again, to Councilwoman Nature's Point, I think she's the one that mentioned this. You travel around the world and you don't see the kind of gun violence that exists in the United States. And if there is a way that we can keep our community safer by passing this provision, then it's not unusual for Denver to pass laws that are more stringent than state law. We've done that on so many different things. And I think this is just one more example where Denver is trying to lead and be proactive in how we protect our community. And so I will not be supporting the amendment tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a really tough issue for many of us up here. I am no fan of guns. Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Kennish, your remarks were were very moving. I've also talked with Councilman Flynn a lot about his original proposed amendment and about this compromise. I think compromise. It's great that Councilman Espinosa was on board with it, too. I've also talked to our city attorney about it. And Councilwoman Kenney, she talked about consistent and clear standards. And one of the things we talked about I talked about with city attorney is consistency with state law and clarity for people. Since 1989, people in Denver have been allowed to have 20 magazines. Mr. Emerson is my constituent and he has made some very persuasive arguments to me and I know that he is a law abiding citizen. There are also some legal issues around private property and private property rights. So I have been convinced that this is a reasonable compromise. I am going to support it, as I said that I would. That said, if the amendment fails, I also will support the original bill because I think it's important. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black Councilor Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think there's two issues here. One is the bump stock ban, which I absolutely support. And the other is a question on capacity in magazines. You know, I wish that we had a little bit more time to discuss the amendment. I don't think it's any of fault of yours. Councilman Flynn, I think it's just a the process in which our council works. I would have loved to ask a little bit more about, you know, more details about magazine difference in capacity when you're talking about 16 to 20 rounds and 15 and what we encounter, you know, and if we ever confiscate anything like that or ever run into it, as opposed to just your your regular, you know, 15 round capacity, if we ever come across those those others. Then I think of just this policy, and I never thought it would actually come to city council. I've been following on the state level, on federal level, but now it's here and it really spent some time thinking about it since last week. And, you know, to be to be quite honest, my own position changes based on whether it's in the public or at home. Right. If I was being you know, if somebody was entering my home and I did had no idea what they had. And I was in my bedroom. I wouldn't be wanting an extra for bullets. I'd want a whole nother magazine just in case. And it's not illegal to have another ten round magazine. Or another, whether you have a rifle or a pistol, a handgun. I don't think we're robbing anybody of not passing this amendment of a capacity issue. You just buy another magazine in typically you know in your head you how those magazines are able to exchange them within I'd say 30 seconds even. So in the public, however, it's a little different. You honor in a concealed carry. Usually the weapon that you have in a concealed carry does even have more than a minute. Your average pounds per magazine, some not so worried about that in public. Councilman Flynn, I hear where you're coming with this. I really appreciate, you know, being, you know, floating that out there and taking it. Could be a great idea, a good compromise to the to the table. But I don't think I'm there yet. I don't think I'm there yet in terms of how this policy affects our general public health. For me, it's not the I'm not in magazine rounds that really. That's that's a public health issue. It's the cost to these rounds, how quickly people can get a hold of them and how many times I've seen young people in my neighborhoods growing up and people who I've known for have died at the hands of one round. Versus anything else. So I'm not there on the amendment. Councilman. Councilman Flynn, I know where you're coming from. I just think, Justin, in the big picture, I'm just. I'm. I don't think it's an inconvenience to such an inconvenience to have to have another magazine as opposed to a magazine that holds 16 to 20. Okay. Seeing no other comments just reminded members of council we are voting on the amendment on the on the floor put forward by councilman flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn, i. Gillmor, i. Cashman. I can each. Know. LOPEZ No. New. ORTEGA Nope. SUSSMAN No. Black eye, Clark. Like Espinosa? No, Mr. President. No. Sorry. Some of the votes aren't showing up yet. Now they are. 66 nays. All right. 66 nays. The amendment fails. Now, Councilman, do we need you to order publish? It's already on the floor. So now we're going to we're going to put and vote on floor 1400 series of 2017. Madam Secretary, roll call. Espinosa comments. But. Doing it. Stop the voting. Okay. Members do you have comments on the bill that we just the comments about last week? Just firstly. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I fully support the bump stock ban, but I have to vote no because of the rejection of the amendment. I just want to explain my no vote is nothing to do with wanting bump stocks. I don't. I want them eliminated or I want them to be banned from the city. But I think that the the reasonable amendment that just got voted down, I think requires that I vote no, although I know the bill will pass. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I just. I didn't take time to thank my colleagues and everyone because. You know, the gentleman who brought this force to our attention in public comment is now sitting right in front of me. And so, you know, we didn't just run with it day one, but I can tell you that from day one, when I first when you guys first heard about this, I knew you were there on board and recognize that this is important for the city that you care about and the people in it. And so I'm disappointed. But I understand Councilman Flynn's own comments and positions. And I apologize to him and to you all for having to witness this sort of real time change of heart on my part. But I do want to thank everyone for sort of recognizing the potential potency of of of taking on any sort of legislation on this front. And and and and being willing to move forward. So I just wanted to thank you all. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Madam Secretary, roll call. Espinosa. Flynn? No. Gilmore Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Sassaman, I. Black guy. Clark, I. Mr. President, I. Please all voting in US Results. 11 eyes one ni. All right. 11 Ies one ney council bill 1400 series of two dozen 17 has passed. All right. This concludes all the items that need to be called out. All of the bills for introduction of order published were now ready for the black vote. Some resolution of the bills for final consideration council members. Remember, this is a consent or blackmail and you will need to vote. Otherwise, it's your last opportunity to call out an item on a separate vote. Councilman Newby, please put the resolutions for adoption on the table and the bills for final consideration for final passage on floor. Okay. I move the resolutions be adopted in bills and final final consideration be placed upon final and do pass and or block vote. The following I read the resolutions first 18 dash 006 118 Dash 002 518 002 618 Dash zero 0 to 0. Now the bills for final consideration 17 Dash 1450 618 Dash zero zero 1218. Dash zero zero 13. All right. Looks like you got it. What's an affirmation from our secretary? Okay, great. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black tie. Clark. I. Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew. Ortega Susman. Mr. President. I. Please cause Vali Nasr results. To advice. To advise. The resolution have been adopted and builds upon pace placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no hearings. If there are no objection from the Council, we will not take a recess. No. Thank you, guys.