House rejects amendment narrowing enforcement carve‑out in bill limiting calls for emergency services

An amendment to House Bill 249 that would have narrowed a proposed prohibition on enforcing local laws against people with disabilities and people assisting them failed on the House floor Thursday.

The amendment, offered from the floor during debate on House Bill 249 — a bill described in the reading as “residential real property, local limits on summoning law enforcement or emergency services” — would have exempted people with disabilities and those assisting them from a broader enforcement ban. The sponsor said the change was crafted to protect people with disabilities while keeping prohibitions aimed at “bad actors.”

Why it matters: The underlying bill and the amendment address when landlords, tenants or others can call 911 or emergency responders and whether local ordinances may penalize repeated or inappropriate calls. Supporters of limiting enforcement argued the change prevents misuse of local rules against people in genuine need; opponents said too broad a carve‑out would “gut the bill” and undercut tools to deter nonemergency calls used strategically by some property owners or tenants.

Debate and key points

The amendment proponent told colleagues the change was intended to ensure local enforcement tools weren’t used against people with disabilities or those assisting them. “It would prohibit a existing law or ordinance from being enforced against someone who has a disability or from being enforced against someone who is assisting someone with a disability,” the delegate said on the floor, asking the body to adopt the amendment.

Other members pushed back that the amendment’s language would remove enforcement authority too broadly. A member objected that the bill as originally drafted targeted repeat callers and bad actors who call emergency services for nonemergencies, and that the amendment’s one‑word change — “enforce” — risked eliminating enforcement tools meant to deter misuse.

Members also discussed older adults and other people who legitimately rely on emergency services; one delegate said the amendment did not explicitly protect elders but suggested that could be addressed in a different change.

Vote and procedural outcome

The clerk called the roll on adoption of the amendment. The chair declared the amendment failed and the House proceeded to order the bill printed for third reading. The transcript records the amendment as having failed; a roll‑call was taken and the clerk declared the amendment defeated. The bill itself was ordered printed for third reading and moved forward on the calendar.

What the record shows and what it does not

The transcript records detailed floor debate and the clerk’s announcement that the amendment failed; the roll‑call total printed in the spoken record is garbled in the transcript and does not provide a clear, unambiguous yes/no tally that could be reported here without risking inaccuracy. The article therefore reports the recorded outcome — the amendment’s defeat and the bill’s advancement — but lists the exact numeric roll‑call as not specified because the spoken vote text in the transcript is unclear.