[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6313466,"mediaKeyId","2387844-bdbaf1353077e52484c327c661ea9251","parentId",2387844,"title","Votes at a glance: results on other bills considered by the House","audioSeconds",2545,"startMs",2389000,"endMs",4934000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2387844-bdbaf1353077e52484c327c661ea9251&start=2389&end=4934","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2387844-bdbaf1353077e52484c327c661ea9251/thumbnail_2389000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6313466/North-Dakota/Votes-at-a-glance-results-on-other-bills-considered-by-the-House","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6313466-129f6b991af104a743c64dcb2c8adceb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771144419&Signature=c7cug8gDfSBrr9PnFQ0Lv-L0v6Kmnd-PIbIbtIcVPyXl-FoPCsJ3BZijwwvIKhkD2PSfLwWUZklMoF19vWSb0z3ZHUaWg0d57Ti-c8y~fF2w1bpYxuZlB5xaVdVn7cc1YNxHJfp9VwyGtrohFt1uroXujnNtdj9bSqtY40n4~sGAShc1-5oMvrc~ElvTRTZ3dX8C-9xMpgmOSoK8yzCdJMIE0Zem1ERAGOeJiS4FiwQ9J1rZLWTqWVVzpGu7FoIANBOWfr6gEWuNOd4cWekPbn3aoB~9AGEknZmrSjm~olLihyb0B0KAKEG7mp5rPiLxRxGCmpWst7gUa65~nUPQbQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-25T00:00:00Z","article","The North Dakota House considered a series of bills during the session. Key outcomes recorded on the floor include:

- House Bill 13‑26 (self‑defense exception for convicted felons): Failed 44‑48. The bill would have limited a convicted felon’s ability to invoke justified use of force as a defense in some circumstances; proponents argued it closes a loophole, while opponents said it could remove a person’s right to defend themselves depending on possession definitions.

- House Bill 12‑96 (produce license to carry on request; mirrors section of HB15‑88): Failed 21‑71. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee recommended do not pass, noting it mirrors language already approved in HB15‑88.

- House Bill 14‑11 (prohibition on red‑flag or extreme risk protection provisions at state or local level): Failed 39‑53. The committee recommended do not pass on the basis that local officials should retain authority.

- House Bill 13‑50 (dangerous‑weapons exclusion for tools used in trade/profession): Failed 39‑53. Critics, including the State Attorneys Association, argued wording was too vague and could be misused; supporters said it was meant to protect legitimate tools of a trade.

- House Bill 13‑52 (possession of firearms at church or place of worship): Failed 39‑53. The bill sought to remove certain statutory church exemptions; debate touched on First Amendment and property‑owner arguments.

- House Bill 13‑65 (possession at publicly owned or operated buildings; required metal detectors/staffed security if posted): Failed 29‑62. Committee analysis noted potential large fiscal impacts for political subdivisions if metal detectors and armed staffing were required.

- House Bill 11‑63 (Legacy Fund school construction assistance loan fund): Failed 5‑84. Appropriations committee recommended do not pass, noting the program size would have been large relative to Legacy Fund assets and could disrupt fund allocation.

Votes on motions earlier in the day included returning Senate Bill 2340 to the House floor for re‑referral to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee (motion carried) and placement of House Bills 1438 and 1609 at the bottom of the calendar (motion carried). Several items on the sixth order were deemed approved without separate amendment consideration.

All tallies and outcomes above are taken from the House roll call and floor record during the session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Floor Session Tuesday, Feb 25, 2025 10:28 AM - 11:59 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The House voted on multiple bills during the session; several public‑safety and administrative measures failed while a number of firearms‑related bills and other proposals were debated and disposed of.","taxTitle","House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28308,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6313471,"House approves bill ending cost‑sharing for some diagnostic breast exams for PERS members",548,4905000,5453000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2387844-bdbaf1353077e52484c327c661ea9251&start=4905&end=5453","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2387844-bdbaf1353077e52484c327c661ea9251/thumbnail_4905000.jpg","/articles/6313471/North-Dakota/House-approves-bill-ending-costsharing-for-some-diagnostic-breast-exams-for-PERS-members","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6313471-8c1b0fabe4f40cd6b12188f11e1a2acc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771144419&Signature=orotyA9OAoaaRBHF~MI4v0MSyPchKRvFI79qel5D5lcSDN75ellmestsmhyqo1nWwJrmGdr09OBAnWYYIMdHuqLgJ2WMB-HpzXPVea0tj2FH9xi37d-PXukauq-86obOZVbcAec-grJC5Ab2qE7eRikfiMcj3ZHv3dVR5ocGnlgE6r8vcomiarD7dUj0ZYROlQHAC7EzuQX8JSjR49lnBdprni7V6PI9HGbaVljvZjkPygso4nfaa6FOTZ1VSGmz5XekwDBxFNEc6fVyfgt5Y5CBO2eY~neck-LzcKWaBPinEOgCqYg4Ji~o89YQq8fTitKbS0taGBm67b44Jd67kw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The North Dakota House of Representatives approved House Bill 12‑83, a measure to eliminate member cost sharing for diagnostic and supplemental breast screenings under the state Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) health plan during a pilot period. The final vote was 66‑26 in favor.

Representative Carls, sponsor of the bill, framed the measure as a targeted step to improve early detection of breast cancer. \"Currently, an initial screening, a mammogram, which is utilized for average risk women, is at no cost share. This bill is a cost share bill,\" Carls said, noting that follow‑up imaging and supplemental tests such as ultrasound or MRI can result in significant out‑of‑pocket costs that may deter follow‑up care. Carls cited studies and department statistics showing breast cancer’s prevalence and argued early detection saves lives and reduces long‑term treatment costs.

Appropriations committee members raised fiscal concerns. Representative Richter, explaining the committee’s 19‑1 do‑not‑pass recommendation, said the program as drafted would move a significant portion of Legacy Fund assets into a loan fund in a different bill and that the fiscal note for HB 12‑83 estimated multimillion‑dollar costs to the insurance program. Representative Pyle, who spoke in opposition, said the appropriation and premium impacts — an estimated $3.3 million in the first two years according to committee review — warranted caution.

Supporters noted favorable reports from the Employee Benefits committee and an earlier policy committee, which recommended the bill. Representative Carls said 10 percent of patients need follow‑up screening after a mammogram and about 15 percent of women at high risk require supplemental testing; removing cost barriers, he said, would improve detection. Representative Halvorsen asked members to weigh policy considerations and the policy committee recommendation in favor of the bill.

The chamber recorded committee testimony and a fiscal note during floor debate; the legislative analysis cited an estimated increase in premiums to cover the expanded cost‑share removal and noted retiree impacts. After debate the House approved the bill 66‑26. The bill now goes to the Senate for further consideration.","The House passed House Bill 12‑83, which removes cost sharing for diagnostic and supplemental breast examinations for members of the North Dakota PERS health insurance plan; the measure passed 66‑26 after proponents cited early detection benefits and opponents cited fiscal concerns.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6313476,"House passes bill widening where firearms may be carried, carving local posting option",1575,764000,2339000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2387844-bdbaf1353077e52484c327c661ea9251&start=764&end=2339","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2387844-bdbaf1353077e52484c327c661ea9251/thumbnail_764000.jpg","/articles/6313476/North-Dakota/House-passes-bill-widening-where-firearms-may-be-carried-carving-local-posting-option","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6313476-3c57010735148516f2c6be7b4c611948/orig.mp4?Expires=1771144419&Signature=J1H2c2vXHBmeR9pSKXByJ72c0fgos7eZLXxR4MQwokGjF9vMjYwZnvl02HZdQM7llOihNhII2wJoLpHk-1qY1af9NWHCxTVILfxAKeNIdXnV~HAxcMjkrhSvC4HLqECAz2C9Y2o8-wi3~Z6DKq-YjKk9hGldPM3LXEH6LcmIlzZziwI4-~05SUkpwc9uZBznGkGxI5pbqW2AgIECY8A8JtV5YBWWkevxxDp1EoambbOvoZDOfcWvA2pLu9sM4ZV3GjzCJN4WwrHeTzFnvVpPveSXAxqxhz5ZAgLYj7rEtJ2R8puxF7w2gZOxJNXCXP1ADfNnv4sDLVxOBKpG1nqq5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The North Dakota House of Representatives on the floor approved House Bill 15‑88, a measure that changes several statutes governing where people may carry firearms and creates a new process for political subdivisions to control weapons in publicly owned buildings.

House Bill 15‑88 passed after the chamber approved Division A (sections 1, 2, 5 and 6) 82‑10 and Division B (sections 3 and 4) 52‑40; the final vote on the full bill was 49‑43 in favor. Representative Heinert, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee presenter for the bill, described the major changes in Division A, including raising a knife‑blade length threshold from five inches to six, a new liability exemption for some public and private entities, and a modification to the requirement that a person produce a license to carry when asked by law enforcement.

The bill also modifies a statutory exception for parking lots and grants the Board of Higher Education authority to control buildings under its ownership, a change several members said could expand or clarify where firearms are prohibited on college campuses. \"The key word there is buildings, publicly owned and operated buildings. And now this says property,\" Representative Koppelman said, warning that the change could broaden gun‑free zones across campuses. \"Where this would be very different is property — if you think of an entire campus.\" Representative Porter, a committee member who spoke in support, replied that the statute referenced in committee (Section 62.10213 of the North Dakota Century Code) already addresses parking lots and public walking areas and that higher education would still control their buildings.

Division B contains two elements: it allows a political subdivision (city, county, park district or school district) to enact an ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms in public areas of publicly owned or operated buildings, and it adds a new criminal enhancement tied to the use of a binary trigger in the commission of a crime. \"This now puts the onerous back on our political subdivisions,\" the bill presenter said of the local ordinance language. Opponents said the change undercuts the state's long‑standing preemption on firearm ordinances dating to 1981 and risks creating a patchwork of local rules. \"As soon as we have a checkerboard of ordinances, and you come into a building and you're unsure, 'What is the city's ordinance on this?'\" Representative Koppelman said.

Supporters said the change preserves statewide gun law preemption while recognizing a property owner’s ability to post and restrict weapons on its own premises. Representative Porter said the committee aimed for a compromise modeled in part on Minnesota law: property owners who do not want firearms must post that restriction. \"It's their building. If you don't want guns in there, you need to now put a sticker on the door,\" Porter said.

A separate controversy in the debate involved a provision creating an additional felony for using a binary trigger during a crime. Some members called that provision symbolic or unnecessary; Representative Conmeade urged support, citing a local police fatality he linked to a weapon with such a trigger.

Votes on the bill were taken by division after Representative Koppelman requested the question be divided into Division A (sections 1, 2, 5 and 6) and Division B (sections 3 and 4). Division A passed 82‑10; Division B passed 52‑40; the full bill passed 49‑43.

Representative Heinert closed debate by recommending a green vote after committee adoption of all sections. The bill now moves to the Senate as passed by the House.

Provisions accepted in the bill will take effect according to existing statute timelines unless the Senate or enacted changes specify otherwise.","The North Dakota House passed House Bill 15‑88 after dividing the measure and approving two separate divisions that expand carry zones, add exemptions and create a new local-posting mechanism for publicly owned buildings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: results on other bills considered by the House

House approves bill ending cost‑sharing for some diagnostic breast exams for PERS members

House passes bill widening where firearms may be carried, carving local posting option