California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 1939 — Dog licensing: issuance: puppy licenses.

Last action — In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law authorizes counties and cities to issue dog licenses and dog license tags for a fee, as specified. Existing law also prohibits a public animal control agency, animal or humane shelter, or a rescue group, as defined, from selling or giving away to a new owner any dog that has not been spayed or neutered, except as specified. A violation of provisions governing the regulation and licensing of dogs is an infraction or a misdemeanor, except as specified. This bill, until January 1, 2018, and only in the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Clara, would additionally require each pet dealer, as defined, humane society, rescue group, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other specified entity to submit once a month, except as specified, a report to the local governmental entity that is responsible for licensing dogs in the city or county in which the pet dealer, humane society, rescue group, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other specified entity is located. The bill would require the report to contain the name, address, and telephone number of the person who receives a dog, and other information regarding the dog that was adopted or sold in the previous month, as specified, by the entity submitting the report. The bill would require the entity that submits the report to retain a copy of the report for 12 months. The bill would prohibit the use, distribution, or release of the information contained in the report for any purpose except to ensure compliance with existing state and local law for the purposes of (1) providing notice to the person adopting or purchasing the dog regarding laws requiring the person to obtain a license for the dog and (2) providing notice to another local governmental entity responsible for licensing dogs in the jurisdiction in which the person resides that the person has adopted or purchased a dog, if the person does not reside in the jurisdiction of the local governmental entity that is providing the notice. The bill would exclude a rescue group that places fewer than 20 dogs in a calendar year from these reporting requirements. A violation of these provisions would be punishable by a civil fine of $50 for the first offense and $100 for each subsequent offense. The bill would exempt an act in violation of the above-described provisions from the provision which makes the violation a crime. The bill would authorize other counties not described above to enact local ordinances implementing a program consistent with these provisions. This bill would authorize a licensing agency to issue a puppy license to the owner of a puppy that is 6 months of age or less, which would expire when the puppy reaches one year of age, except as specified. The bill would require the owner of a puppy to obtain a dog license tag upon the expiration of the puppy license. Because a violation of this provision would be an infraction, the bill would create a new crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make conforming changes. Existing law authorizes a dog license tag to be issued for 12 or less of the usual fee required for a dog if a certificate indicating that the dog has been spayed or neutered is presented from a licensed veterinarian. This bill would authorize the city, county, or city and county to specify the means by which the dog owner may provide proof that the dog has been spayed or neutered. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  2. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.

  3. Referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.

  4. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  5. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 42. Noes 23. Page 5195.)

  6. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  7. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 6.) (May 9).

  8. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (April 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  9. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  10. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.

  11. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  12. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  13. From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.

  14. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Pan · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Pan

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 1939 PAN Assembly Third Reading

Passed 42 Yea · 23 Nay · 15 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4121015
Republican 0200
Democratic 1000
Total 4223015
% of votes cast 53%29%0%19%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gorell — Not Voting
Hagman — Nay
Campos — Yea
Carter — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Fong — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Allen — Yea
Galgiani — Nay
Cedillo — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Gordon — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Halderman — Nay
Hall — Yea
Cook — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Block — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Huber — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Jeffries — Nay
Knight — Nay
Logue — Nay
Miller — Nay
Monning — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Perea — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Fletcher — Not Voting
Butler — Not Voting
Donnelly — Nay
Mendoza — Not Voting
Olsen — Not Voting
Solorio — Not Voting
Valadao — Not Voting
Williams — Not Voting
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blumenfield — Not Voting
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Not Voting
Buchanan — Not Voting
Harkey — Nay
Hill — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Lara — Yea
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Not Voting
Morrell — Nay
Norby — Not Voting
Pan — Yea
Silva — Nay
Smyth — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Conway — Nay
Eng — Yea
Davis — Not Voting
Yamada — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Gatto — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Not Voting
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 9 Yea · 6 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8602
Democratic 1000
Total 9602
% of votes cast 53%35%0%12%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Davis — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Gatto — Nay
Campos — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Donnelly — Nay
Blumenfield — Not Voting
Bradford — Yea
Lara — Yea
Solorio — Not Voting
Wagner — Nay
Fuentes — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1939 do?
Existing law authorizes counties and cities to issue dog licenses and dog license tags for a fee, as specified. Existing law also prohibits a public animal control agency, animal or humane shelter, or a rescue group, as defined, from selling or giving away to a new owner any dog that has not been spayed or neutered, except as specified. A violation of provisions governing the regulation and licensing of dogs is an infraction or a misdemeanor, except as specified. This bill, until January 1, 2018, and only in the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Clara, would additionally require each pet dealer, as defined, humane society, rescue group, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other specified entity to submit once a month, except as specified, a report to the local governmental entity that is responsible for licensing dogs in the city or county in which the pet dealer, humane society, rescue group, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other specified entity is located. The bill would require the report to contain the name, address, and telephone number of the person who receives a dog, and other information regarding the dog that was adopted or sold in the previous month, as specified, by the entity submitting the report. The bill would require the entity that submits the report to retain a copy of the report for 12 months. The bill would prohibit the use, distribution, or release of the information contained in the report for any purpose except to ensure compliance with existing state and local law for the purposes of (1) providing notice to the person adopting or purchasing the dog regarding laws requiring the person to obtain a license for the dog and (2) providing notice to another local governmental entity responsible for licensing dogs in the jurisdiction in which the person resides that the person has adopted or purchased a dog, if the person does not reside in the jurisdiction of the local governmental entity that is providing the notice. The bill would exclude a rescue group that places fewer than 20 dogs in a calendar year from these reporting requirements. A violation of these provisions would be punishable by a civil fine of $50 for the first offense and $100 for each subsequent offense. The bill would exempt an act in violation of the above-described provisions from the provision which makes the violation a crime. The bill would authorize other counties not described above to enact local ordinances implementing a program consistent with these provisions. This bill would authorize a licensing agency to issue a puppy license to the owner of a puppy that is 6 months of age or less, which would expire when the puppy reaches one year of age, except as specified. The bill would require the owner of a puppy to obtain a dog license tag upon the expiration of the puppy license. Because a violation of this provision would be an infraction, the bill would create a new crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make conforming changes. Existing law authorizes a dog license tag to be issued for 12 or less of the usual fee required for a dog if a certificate indicating that the dog has been spayed or neutered is presented from a licensed veterinarian. This bill would authorize the city, county, or city and county to specify the means by which the dog owner may provide proof that the dog has been spayed or neutered. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 1939?
AB 1939 is sponsored by Pan.
What is the current status of AB 1939?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 1939?
Track AB 1939 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1939

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1939

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →