ALC-Game & Fish/State Police

Thanks. Uh, folks, just a reminder, anyone here, if you are in the public and, and you wish to speak, you have just a few more seconds to sign up. Uh, before we pull the signup sheet. And then we'll get started here and just the sign up sheet is, is outside. Yes, it's outside. All right. Good morning everybody. If, uh, we can find our Sets will We'll get started First of all, I want to thank everybody for being here. Uh, today. And I appreciate the, uh, Game of fish, the state police. Y'all have been uh excellent throughout this whole thing. We appreciate your input, uh, thank you to the staff, the Attorney General's office and all those who have, uh, been active participants, uh, members, thank you for Your forbearance and Understanding and input as well, um. We have today. Uh, y'all should have a copy of the final. Um, Final report and the drafts. And We'll just move right on. Into, uh. Some discussion If there is any. Senator Peyton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna have some questions for. BLR and and uh. The Attorney General's attorney? They said no. OK I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Uh, could we have, could we have If y'all would introduce yourselves for the record, then. We'll get started. Jennifer Cryin, legislative attorney with the Bureau, uh, I've been assigned to this committee and I've been assisting with the firearms study. I've prepared the bill drafts. I'm happy to be here and answer any questions. Alex Benton with the Attorney General's office. All right. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, if y'all would look at page 14. Of the draft And Senator, is this JLC 174 as of 949 and 59 seconds. So on page 14 starting. On line 9 this is this is language we are. Striking, it starts to talk about any church or other place of worship. It says, however, this subchapter does not preclude a church or other place of worship. From determining who may carry a concealed handgun into the church or other place of worship. Can you tell me where we put that back in language, um, Because We're striking a paragraph there. That seems to allow a church to set a policy. And it does not specify. Whether that would be with a concealed carry license or without. And later, I think it was around page 18 maybe. I did find where we talk about. Somebody with a license, a licensee's ability, but the existing language that we're striking would, would seem to me. That it that they would not have to have a license. If that church or place of worship. Had a policy that they didn't. Require a license. Uh, Senator Peyton. Uh, with regard to the first question, um, the church language on page 14. Uh, in The section that's being repealed 573306. That section. Applies to persons who are licensed, uh, to carry a concealed handgun. And in the new language, uh, that provision is not in the license subchapter. It's actually not in, uh, 573-601. Um, it is in 573. 504 with regard to persons who are not licensed. Excuse me, Ms. Jennifer, could you tell us what page that is? Uh, yes. So the where you would see that, well, you would see a provision that would cover this. It's not the same language, but starting on page 21. 573504 places a person without a license is prohibited from carrying, um, this would be covered on page 22. Um, line 32. 8A into a place owned or operated by a person or private entity that prohibits the carrying of a firearm. So a, uh, church or other private entity could Prohibit carrying a firearm by persons who are not licensed by, um, placing a sign at the entrance under this provision. But that same language is not in the new subchapter 6 with regard to, um, People who are licensed. So on page 21, line 20, where it says places a person without a license. is prohibited from carrying. You're saying that a place of worship is not included in any of that. Well, it would be included on page 22, um, 8A line 32. That language would cover a place of worship with regard to people who do not have a license to carry a concealed handgun. Now, with regard to people who do have a license to carry a concealed handgun. Which would be on page 24, section 573601, that language is not in that section. So that doesn't apply to people who have the concealed carry license. If you could be more specific, what doesn't apply? The prohibition or the allowing the prohibition, a church or other private entity, uh, would not have the right under this section to Place a sign at the entrance to prevent a person who does have a concealed carry license from carrying in their concealed weapon. OK. And so somebody who does not have a license. Could carry into a church or a place of worship if allowed by the church or the place of worship. Uh, Right, right, and the attorney General is agreeing with that interpretation, yes. So, if I could continue with the Another related question? So on page 21, which we were just talking about this section. Uh, in 573504. We're saying places a person without a license is prohibited. And then on line 26, we refer to a private school kindergarten. On line 29 we we refer to a private school pre-K. Um, so my question is. How do we define The private school kindergarten and the private school pre-K, and the reason I'm asking is because many churches have private schools. That are not Dedicated solely to the school. They have other events and other activities going on, maybe at the same time that the school children are there, uh, obviously they have church on Sunday when school's not in session. So if we're talking about the facilities of a private school kindergarten or a private school pre-K. Um, How do we define that? Senator, this bill does not provide a definition, uh, for those terms, There may be definitions in other law in the education code. I'm not certain, um, I've not been asked to research that yet, but in this bill, there's no, um, specific definition provided. OK Yeah, that would seem to be a problem. Because, um, when we say pre-K, I mean, basically, Is there any difference there between a regular daycare? Like I know a lot of churches that have daycares. Is that considered pre-K? This bill does not have a definition that would would squarely answer that question. There, there would be that ambiguity here and there to your other point, um, there is no like contemporaneous aspect in any sort of definition, um, whether if it's in a church, if the school must be in session for these prohibitions to attach, uh, and then when it stops becoming a school, and when you start becoming just a place of worship on Sunday, um, would that these prohibitions attached or not. That is a question that's open. So in regards to that, just for the committee's benefit and, and maybe the attorneys could, could speak to this. We have a similar provision that a sex offender can't live within so many feet of a school. And uh Near Rosebud, Arkansas is a church camp. That also has a church and also has a, a private school. The church camp only operates 3 or 4 months in the summertime. The, the. Private school operates during the winter months, of course churches on Sunday and Wednesday, but the sex offender moved in next door. And argued that He was outside the perimeter because it's 80 acres. And the, and the building that houses the school and the church was enough. Far enough away that it wouldn't apply. We successfully argued that it was the boundary of the property line. Because the whole camp is dedicated to the school and to the church and, and to the camp. So what I'm saying is, when we say a facility, I mean, is that the building or is that the property line? And when we have a prohibition, Would it work the same as it does with the sex offenders where, you know, we're arguing on one side that we want to push it out to the. Real estate boundary. Well, on the other side we're going to be arguing that we want to bring it back to the classroom. So Senator, I think I take part of the latter part of your question to be a question about the change from the term on-school facilities and previously it was on the developed property, is that what you're getting at? I'm just, I, I guess my question is how do we narrow the language of 573504. To identify whatever it is we're trying to. Provide the prohibition on when we say private school or kindergarten, private pre-K. I think we're casting too broad of a net. We need a definition or we need new language there. And I, I can't suggest the language because I'm asking. I don't, I don't have it settled in my mind, so. I'll get out of the queue and let somebody else ask a question if you please. All right, uh, Thank you, Senator Payton. Uh, Next up we have Senator Irvin. Thank you. So along those same lines, and I, last week we had asked, um, uh, the bureau to, to provide some research on how to clearly define this, and they've given us some examples, um, BLR has, um, but I've also think that it's really appropriate to have the Department of Education and Courtney Salas Ford work with this committee on that definition because it is different, um, and for example, In Alabama public school facility means any education facility under the jurisdiction of a local board of education, whether termed an elementary school, middle school, junior high school, or high school, um, Mississippi has one that's a little bit broader, um, Tennessee and Louisiana, again, they're, they're, they're very different, um, uh, some are. Some are more expansive and some, some are not. But the point is, I think it has to be defined. So, and, and we've had this conversation last week when we brought up the conversation between defining facility. As it relates to higher ed is different than as it relates to pre-K through K. So, I think it just would be prudent for this committee and the members of the committee that have expressed that concern to really get with BLR and, um, the Department of Education for that, um, clear definition, and I've spoken to Courtney Sallis Ford this morning. I know she's in a meeting right now about this, so we don't have an answer yet about that because. It is different and it needs to be, uh, more specific, I think, to Senator Peyton's point, um, And, and so that would just be. Because they The reason is we're, we are talking about two different instances and I think that the members of this committee have rightly expressed, if I have a firearm in my car and I'm dropping my kid off to elementary school. Well, that's technically eloped property. And so they would be in violation of the law. And we wanted to, to accommodate, correct? I believe that's what we have said. Cheers. Is that correct? Uh, we wanted to, to understand that. Predicament and create a definition that would be more narrowly defined. Higher ed is a completely different beast and animal then pre-K through, through. Kindergarten and you have private just as Senator Payton, um, outlined, and you have public, but in general, you know, could you create a definition that would be under the jurisdiction of, um, An entity. That that seems to be what has, um, has been utilized in a lot of these different definitions that I had the bureau pull from different states. So, uh, Mr. Chair, I can, we'll send this to the chairs for them to review, but I think before we have that clear definition in place, like I would. I would not be able to vote for this as a recommendation until we have that clear language, or we could, you know, make a, um, Make it to where we eventually know that we're going to put that definition in place. I yield to the, to the chairs, but I think that's a really, really important thing that needs to be defined. I'm gonna recognize my co-chair, Sandra Hill. Sent to Irving on on that. Last week we had uh. ASU here, Mr. Rodway had their attorney with them, and they were going to get back with me as they were in consultation with the UOA and others as far as the definition of the word facility. I have not heard from them and I took it that since they did not come to me or the, or my co-chair, that there was no issue with this whatsoever because if they would have had an issue, they should have reached out to us as we were instructed they would do last week, so I'm taking it that there is no issue whatsoever. Since no one was contacted. So, Mr. Chair, I would, I would concur that you as chairs should be consulted with any changes that are being requested or made. Um, I think they're here in the audience and so higher ed, though, is different than pre-K through 12. So Harriet is the one that did not contact us. So I think they, uh, are here and can speak to that. Um, But as far as pre-K through 12, I think we do need to Uh, hear from the Department of Ed on that. 11 thing to remember about this too is this is a study that we're just passing this on to, uh, ALC exec for them to, to look at and decide from there what's to take place. So since this is a study while we're studying, we can pass it on to them and they can, they, they can add, add some other information if needed. OK, thank you. And Fiona Senator Gilmore, I imagine he would work with you on this. Senator Gilmore, you're recognized? Thank you for the, uh, co-chair for speaking for me there, uh, no, look, I think there's a lot of concerns, um, raised, I think Senator Irvin has some valid points. We want to make sure we get the language right. It is important. I am curious if higher ed is here, um, if the chairs would allow. I'd like to hear from them because I, I do think that there was a lot of issues raised in the previous meeting, um, and I don't know if, if they contacted the members who raised those concerns, um, Or even just had questions about that so if higher ed's here, uh, if, if it's in the chair's prerogative, can we allow them to speak at the appropriate time. uh, and just say I want to make sure. Before we move on and I'm, I'm fine with higher ed coming to the table. I want to make sure because otherwise we can go off down a whole lot of different, uh, rabbit trails and we'll make sure that we have the first. That we have some kind of understanding either pro or con or whatever on the first issue, Senator Payton was raising about the, uh, The churches, the pre-K's. Private schools, that kind of stuff. Ms. Jennifer, you seem to have, thank you, Representative Miller. I do have, um, additional, uh, some provision that's been brought to my attention. I want to point out. So back to Senator Payton's question concerning the church. The first question that Senator Payton asked about, um, appointed, uh, to you, um, appointed you to the new sections um concerning, um, property controlled by private owner and the difference in the, um, persons who aren't license. and persons who are, um, but if I can direct you to page 25. This is 573-601. Once again, this is the section that, um, covers places that a licensee is prohibited from carrying, so places that a person who is licensed to carry, uh, may be prohibited from carrying on, um, line 30 of page 25 9 A. Um, this provision. states that a person who is licensed may be prohibited from carrying into a place owned or operated by a person or private entity or any place licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for public consumption. Uh, this could be interpreted a couple of different ways, um, and we wanted to clarify what the committee's intent is, um, one way that, that this could be interpreted and it may need to be reworded just a little bit to, to clarify the intent, but it could be interpreted to mean That in order for this place to be covered by this provision, it must serve alcoholic beverages. Which For public consumption. Um, so a church most likely would not fall, uh, under, under this provision, but maybe it could, um. Or is it the intent that this apply to any place owned or operated by a person or private entity or separately a place licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for public consumption. So in other words, does this apply to all private entities or only those that serve alcohol? It's bad when, uh, the attorneys are looking at me asking stuff. I'm just pointing that out. Uh, so. Flip a coin. Senator Payner. Urban, which one of y'all are in the queue first? I don't know. Go for it, Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I'll punched the button while she was still talking, Senator Irvin. Uh, so do you have a suggestion on adding a word or two there to make sure that that is interpreted as two separate things? Well, I think the first question is what is the intent of the committee? Is it intended to be two separate things? Um, do we, do you want this to apply to, um, any place owned or operated by a private entity. Whether or not they serve alcohol, in other words, any private business could prohibit a person with a concealed carry license from carrying their concealed weapon into the business. Or only places that serve alcohol that fall under that description. I guess I can't speak for the whole committee, but I may throw another monkey wrench in it if you look at the top of page 25, that page you're on? Uh, Line 3, it says if a private school kindergarten through grade 12 allows a licensee. Could we change that or what effect would it have if we changed that to say a person and it would include unlicensed and licensed. Well, Senator, this um, this provision is back in a subchapter 5 on page 21 573504. That's the section that applies to persons who aren't licensees. And so have no effect on what you're saying. OK. I'll let somebody else go. OK, uh. Well, Senator everyone, we'll hear from you and then I'll. I mean, Yeah, the only church that I know that serves alcohol is a Catholic Church, so. It's called communion, but, um, so I, I, I find this to be a little odd because I, it would not cover. Your churches would not be covered here. So I, I, I find this to be odd as to why we're tying it back to alcohol. Can anybody answer that question? I think also there's a, there's a requirement here that in this hypothetical that the church be licensed by ABC to dispense alcohol, which I don't. know that that is a requirement or is occurring. But what about restaurants that aren't, that don't have an ABC permit or license, so. I would hope that if a restaurant is serving alcohol, they would have an ABC license. I know, but there are a lot of restaurants that don't have an ABC license because they, they're in a dry county and they can't get an ABC license and they don't serve alcohol. So, are they covered under this definition or not? I mean, not, I'm not talking about, I'm just talking about any restaurant. Well, I think, Senator Irvin, I think what we probably need to Ms. Jennifer. And I think this It's kind of being addressed with her question, uh, was it this committee's intent. For This to apply to All businesses are only Alcoholic serving businesses. Um, It was my understanding. Just from That it was All businesses. had, you know, could, could, uh, Post their Requirements or not, but I'll tell you what, I mean, if we're, if there's some discussion on that, I think probably before we go a lot further. If the bureau's got a question about What the intent of this committee is, I think this committee needs to clear that up right now for the bureau because it would make, uh, make what we're doing moving forward a little easier. So, um, I mean, I'm happy to hear any discussion, but again, my, my, and I may be. I may have had my head in the sand, but I think I thought that our intent had been, uh, You know, that, that any private business. had the ability to either allow or not allow. I'll recognize my co-chair. Any comments? I go along with you on that Representative Miller that if it's a private business, they should be able to do whatever they want to do. It should not be regulated by us. Is, is anybody in the committee remember contrary to that. Mr. Chair, for example, Wing Shack and Mountain View, you know, Wing Shawing keep it down over there, guys. I can't hear. I mean, Wing Shack and Mountain View, Arkansas doesn't serve alcohol, but it's a restaurant, right, so. Are we intending to say that They as a private business owner. I mean, just because they don't serve alcohol, then they can't post anything. I mean, I I mean, it goes back to what you're both saying. I think we just need to have an understanding about this because not all Not everybody dispenses alcohol, like the Dairy Queen. They don't dispense alcohol, so. But it's a private entity, it's a private business. Well, I mean, stores. For example, I mean, obviously, yeah, um. Senator Dodson, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, um, so on that, to that point on line 31 and page 25 there. Where it says. Or any place licensed to dispense alcohol for. Public consumption Why does that need to be there? Was it part of the original law and we just copied and pasted it over, or could that be struck out and then it would just apply to. Places that provide alcohol and all other businesses and simplify it. Senator, the, the public consumption phrase is a new phrase, um, and if you'll bear with me, I can pull it up in the old. raft, um. But yes, the, the public consumption is a, is a new. T since it's new. Do we need it? And we just get rid of it. Senator Dodson. And for the committee, uh, You make a very good point. And I appreciate you bringing it up. Uh, just so the committee. knows Senator Dodson's not on the subcommittee and can't therefore, make a recommendation. So if this is a recommendation that the committee needs. Feels like they need to make. Um, A committee member needs to make it. OK, Senator Irving, you recognize? Um, so it's actually in two places. It's on page 25. And, and like I said, I don't really understand where this language came from. If it's new language, I don't, I don't ever recall us having a discussion about this in this committee. But maybe I'm wrong. Um, and then it's also on page 22, I believe. But that's For consumption on the premises. I don't understand what license to dispense alcoholic beverages. For consumption on the. Premises Um, 22. 57. I mean, I, I don't, I'm not. The, um, language consumption on the premises was pulled from, uh, current law. If you'll look back on page 16 in the repeal language, um, the current 573306 prohibited places statute that's being repealed in this bill. Um, up on. Ones, uh, 9 through 11 is where that language appears in current law and establishment, except a restaurant. Uh, license to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. So that language was pulled over. OK. OK, so that takes care of 22, but what about 25? If I may, real quick before we move on, Senator Irvin, thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I, I believe the new phrase is. Public consumption rather than On the premises. And I think the language in on page 16 that is a strike through. That is supposed to be capturing, uh, a university's ability to stop folks from carrying concealed with a license into an arena that is being turned into a concert venue. Um, for example, a state has their arena that's on campus and they'll bring in Miranda Lambert and, uh, they have a hard time obtaining insurance for these venues, for these events, if they are not allowed to prohibit firearms because they also have to have that nexus of being licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages. So there, there is that, that nexus that they must be dispensing it under that license for that event and for that purpose. So that. That takes care of page 22. Right? If, if you don't want, if you, I, I guess the question maybe I miss, did not hear, uh, of what you were wanting, were you wanting 25. OK, on page 25, If we strike or any place licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for public consumption. If we strike that, does that mess up the scenario that you just Highlight, ma'am. It does. Yes, ma'am. OK, so that's why we would want to leave it in there. I'm page 25. Leave it in or, or, or, or alter. I mean, there, there's a couple of, I think there's a couple of questions on 9A of whether or not, one, the threshold question of does the committee want to Allow any private entity to prohibit firearms on their private premises. Question one, and then, if yes, OK, you can bracket that out. And then the second question of do you want an entity. To be able to prohibit firearms in a place licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages. And if yes, is that the language that you want or do you want to revert back to the previous language. So I know that's 4 more questions for you. I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I'm, I'm clear and understanding what you want. I've got a question real quick, uh, Ms. Jen Fraser, is this, this language, has it been in this, has it been in on the draft that we've been working on this whole time? Yes, it has. OK, thank you. Um, I'll tell you what. We're gonna take a 15 minute recess. And um. We'll be back in here at 5 minutes till noon. All right. Thank you, we're recess. If everybody will get their seats, we'll, uh, Hm We'll get back going. Thank you all for bearing with us. I think we have, uh, Couple of motions Senator Peyton. will recognize you first for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to, uh, move that on page 25 line 3 through 8. Which is subchapter 6. The Within that paragraph. We changed kindergarten to pre-K through grade 12. And then We take that paragraph and also include it. In 573504. Places a person without a license? What page is that? That's on page 21. 573504. I don't know where within that. Section 504, that needs to be placed. I'll leave that up to the bill drafter, but my motion would be to duplicate this paragraph. In section 6 on page 25, In in uh 573504, with the exception of changing one word, where it says a licensee that would say a person. I did. That's in a different spot. So pre-K would be added where the paragraph. Appears In section 6. Then the paragraph would appear also. In 573504. With the, with the change of licensee to a person. And licensee does appear twice in that paragraph, so you'd be changing it. Twice when you copy it over to 573504. That's my motion. I'm sticking to it. And we have a motion in a second. Um, We'll have discussion on the motion. I have a question, uh. And the I'll ask you, sir, is that for sure taken care of. The, uh, Private Issue In my opinion, that gives a private school. Pre-K through 12th grade. The authority to allow an unlicensed person to carry. At their facility. That would be licensed or unlicensed? Well, the way it currently exists, the license is covered and we're changing it to include pre-K and then by, by including that paragraph in 573504. We are also making it apply to an unlicensed person. OK. Outstanding. Well, we've heard a motion, uh, any other discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed same side? All right, motion carries. Uh, I believe we have. Another motion Senator Irvin, Yes, Mr. Chair, 2 motions. My first motion would be as part of our recommendation, we shall include a definition of school facilities, and I would authorize the chairs to work with BLR or this would motion would be to authorize you as chairs, um, and any other members to, um, work with the Department of Education and BLR to develop that definition of school facilities to be included in the final draft, uh, for The session. ALC chairs in your motion include I said any other, uh, members of the legislature that they would be included in that as well or anybody else on this committee. So that's my recommendation. Or my motion as part of our final recommendation. All right, do we have a second? The second, any discussion. On the motion. See, none. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. You are recognized for your second motion. And then I have a second motion on page 25, as we've had a lot of this discussion about, um, Any places that are licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for public consumption. I think, um, the example that was given to the page number on that? Yes, we're on page 25, lines 31 and 32. OK, thank you. Um, there's a lot of discussion about what specifically that would include, I think we need to make sure, um, that this is clarified to where the example given by Miss, um, Benton with the AG's office in discussion amongst our committee about if a stadium. On a campus of higher education turns into a concert venue, and they can, they are dispensing alcoholic beverages for public consumption or a football game, that this would be limited to the day of, of the event. Um, And I I believe that that language, uh, would need to be clarified and so I'd authorize again the chairs and any other members of the legislature, including members of this task force or otherwise, um, to have final draft language and clarifying, um, This, uh, provision. OK. Have a motion or have a 2nd. 2. All right, uh. Co-chair, you're recognized for discussion. Senator Irving, I want to make sure we're following you. I'm following you correctly on this. This is strictly for. Colleges and universities, correct? Um. It's not specific to college and universities. It's into a place owned or operated by a person or private entity, um, It's, it's not specific to just universities, but I, I think those. I think these need to be very specific, and I think we're working to include that. OK, because I could say if a college or university wanted to have it that way, all they had to do is just not have the concert and not have alcohol, correct? Well, again, I think they're going to have alcohol, but I think My intention is that they not put a sign up and limit it 100% all the time, but specific to the day of the event. Thank you, ma'am. I Question is, uh, Well a state college or university be considered a private entity? No, and I think we need to consider that, um, because this provision talks about private entity and I think it would be any place. Uh, Senator Gilmore. Like it was true, and I think just as a point of discussion on that, it was raised earlier and I think, um, Uh, rightfully so, there probably needs to be along with her motion a discussion, and I don't think this requires a motion because I think the way the language reads, it talks about places that they consume alcohol, there needs to be discussion around entertainment districts as we have those in the state. So I think that needs to be taken into consideration as well as we have this discussion. OK. Duly notedC can study that. Uh Alright, have any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor say aye, you opposed? Your motion Carries Now Committee, we are We have Heard these motions and obviously there's gonna be some. Uh, some other changes and the, the. We're going to hear a motion. Um And a little bit To adopt the final report, um, That is going to be Including. These motions that we have just heard, Senator Payton, you got a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did have one other issue that Mike could be handled as just a footnote on our recommendation, but Two places in this, uh. Draft JLC 174, it refers to current code 115117 and it creates a contradiction. With some of the language and so. I don't know if we want to try to address. an amendment. To 115 117, what page is that? It's not a page. It, it's not something that this bill is doing. This bill on page. Let me find it real quick. Page 23, this draft on page 23. uh 20. Refers to this section of code. Hang on just a second, Senator. Ms. Jennifer, uh, from BLR, would you please come to the table? I shared this with them and they may have an explanation for me, so. My question Um, Ms. Jeferby, is this referring back to current code that will no longer be. Code Should this Language Representative Miller, uh, no, a change to 115117, the statute that Senator Payton is, um, concerned with is currently not part of this bill, um, so that would not be included in the bill already. So what he's asking about is not even in this bill. It is Just by reference. Right. Um, it's my understanding, uh, what Senator Payton is asking about is, um, on page 23, line 20. Where, um, it provides the subdivision. A 8A of this section does not apply to the parking lot of a private employer if a person possesses a firearm that's provided under section 115117. And I think he has concerns about language that's in 115117. OK. And we did not look at 11 51 17. There's quite a bit of language in it, but the specific part that we did discuss was that if a firearm. A handgun is in a vehicle that it not have to be out of sight and locked. And this section of code 115117 requires that it be. Out of sight and that the vehicle be locked. In two different places in this. Section of code. So now we have a conflict where we took it out of Our draft. And our draft also refers to it on page 26 in line 20 again. Mr. Jeffer, are you prepared to speak on this, uh. 11-5-117. Um, no, sir, I'm really not. I, uh, this was just brought to my attention within the last hour and I haven't really had a chance to examine the statute since then, so, um, it's, it's not something I'm prepared to address right now, but I'd be happy to look into it and. Report back. That, Mr. Chair, if I may. I, I think our recommendation to the General Assembly could just contain a footnote. The Uh Some provisions of. 11 51 17 should be amended. To bring in, bring it into harmony with, with this, uh, draft. Right. And To your point, Just a reminder, this is a study when this, if, if this committee chooses to vote this out. This is not becoming legislation today or tomorrow. It's not going to the Senate. It's not going to the governor's desk. There will be, uh. And this is not a final draft. Even that's going to be presented to the legislature, I think it would be fine. Senator, if you want to make the motion that this committee asked BLR. To, uh, look into this. And, and you know, to provide further information to either this committee or Whatever down the road uh before this bill is actually drafted in. And a For real Bill form that y'all deal with. So come January. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I would move that, uh, BLR. For Provide. Comment On The effect That are Recommended legislation may have. On 115117. And that we In the report, informed the General Assembly that it may create a conflict. That needs to be addressed. Thank you you're trying to make the motion that says that you're asking Bayard to look into this and report, uh, report back to us, correct? Correct? Are we gonna be meeting again? uh. Would you make the motion that BLR look into this and report to ALC exec Committee. So moved. So, we have a second, we're having a discussion. Saying none. All those in favor say aye, aye. Any opposed? There are none. Motion carries. All right. Have a motion, sir. You're recognized, Senator. I have a motion for adoptation of the final report from the Arkansas Firearms and concealed carrier laws, study be passed on to ALC executive Committee, with the motions added to it that have been passed today. Promotion. We have a second? Second, any discussion? CNN, all those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Well, Once again, I want to thank the staff, uh, a whole lot. I think the the public and All the agencies that have been, uh, represented here. It's been a long process and, uh, we're grateful for your, for your input. And with that, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.