ALC-Game & Fish/State Police

You ready? Let's call the meeting to order. Appreciate everyone being here today. We got, uh, a little bit, uh, to go over. It's been a yearlong study. And I want to reiterate the word study is what we, what we have been going over. And uh with, with the study where we will make uh. A presentation to the uh ALC execs to make decisions on what they want to look at and what they want to do. And so I appreciate y'all being here and we'll get started on this and Representing Miller, is anything you'd like to add? Uh, no, just want to thank everybody again for participating in this and, uh, I want to thank all the staff, been a lot of. A lot of hard hours put into this. I think the, uh, the folks in the public who have contributed a lot and been here. We appreciate your input, uh, and Hopefully we can Arrived with a, a, a product that. That is palatable to all. So thank you very much. Members the uh. The study has been online for y'all to look at. To to go over and if you have any questions or discussions today, we'd like to make that all transparent to the public and with that being said, I'm gonna open this up for questions. Senator Peyton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna have some questions regarding the language and JLC 174? I assume we're going to. Vote on whether to recommend each individual draft out or you planning on putting this in a package. This is an entire package. OK, well, I'm gonna have some questions about 174. OK, what page and let's, let's go with your question. OK, uh, page 19. Line 2 Say carrying a concealed handgun without a license. It does not say anything about an unconcealed handgun? I'm curious as to whether everything is up chapter 5 is going to. Apply to just concealed handguns. Or if it's also going to apply to unconcealed handguns, which is not mentioned in the title. Central Peyton, I hate to ask you to do this, but I was conferring with my co-chair here. Could you repeat that again? Yes, page 19 line number 2. Subchapter 5. The heading is carrying a concealed handgun without a license. So my question is, does it apply to carrying an unconcealed handgun. Without a license Because all the things in Subchapter 5. We need to know whether they whether our intent is just to have them apply to concealed handguns or also have them apply to unconcealed. Let's get missed up. Let's get staff down here to uh to answer these questions for us. Ms. Benton, would you like to join? We were looking for you back there in the back. Please introduce yourselves for the record. Good afternoon. I'm Jennifer Cryin. I am the, uh, legislative drafting attorney with the Bureau assigned to, uh, staff this committee, and I've been assisting, uh, with drafting bills for this study and conducting research and summarizing the law throughout the study. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Alex Benton with the Attorney General's office, uh, and, uh, to your question, Senator Peyton, no, it would not impact open carry. It would be concealed only without a license under 5. would only apply to concealed, so we're talking about, I mean, is this not part of it where the prohibition on minors possessing handguns? Is that not part of subchapter 5? Yes, yes, sir, it is, uh, but it would, there's no prohibition on minors possessing openly this subchapter. No, sir. Uh, Mr. Chair, if I could, I have some more questions. Thank you. So also on page 19. Line 28. It talks about a journey as defined in 573-101. More familiar with that current definition. Is there anything in this packet that would redefine journey? From what it currently exists in 573101. I'm sorry, Senator, I think I might be on a different version of JLC 174 JLC 174. OK, it's, it's subject or it's 573503. Line 28. It's line 28 on page 19 of what I'm looking at, but I, I can answer that question for Senator Payton. um, in the packet, there is nothing that provides a different definition for journey. That's what I wanted to know. So the current definition. In 573101 is not being changed by, by our recommendation. Uh, correct, that's not in this packet. OK, thank you. If I could continue, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. So page 19, line 23. Which is in subchapter 503, if you, if you're looking at different printout that I am. Um, it says except as provided. In 573504 A person who is not a minor and who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law. May carry a handgun. My question is why do we need to state federal law there. And if we're going to, wouldn't we want to put as of a certain date because federal law can change outside of the state's control. And, and it's still gonna be unlawful if it's, if it's unlawful federally, but do we need to codify that in state law and law and adopt whatever the future federal changes may be. In our in our code. Senator, uh, in terms of, I think what this is getting at is, you know, persons that are otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms would be, I believe, in the first committee meeting, we, we denoted a, a case that was, um, in federal court about, um, orders of protection and people losing their rights to possess firearms, and that was under a federal criminal statute. So I think that that's getting at. Pardon me, but the way this reads. If the federal government tomorrow decided to say. No man could carry firearms, only women. That would be federal law and we would be adopted. Well, that would be a blatantly I I I know it's for hypothetical, but that would be blatantly unconstitutional and we would certainly file, but there are a lot of levels that they may be willing to go to at the federal level that I would not want to see adopted in the state law. So is there a reason why we have to state that, or can we not just say under state law, instead of including federal. Um, there is, there is no reason why you could not make that change. No, sir. There's no, no reason why you could not make that change. I was just in the draft, I would eliminate the or federal. So we're on line 23 of page 19. And it would just say under state law, you would. Remove The Two words that. say or federal. Senator Peyton, would you put that in a motion form? Uh, so moved. Would you restate the motion? I moved it on page 19, line 23 of the current draft of JLC 174. We removed the last two words or federal. OK. We have a motion and a second, any discussion. Senator Irvin. Any discussion? Being none, all in favor say aye, aye. Oppose same sign. Thank you to Senator Peyton. Your, your motion has, has passed and we will look at uh getting that in the, uh, the final draft. Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I continue with another question. You sure can. Take your time on page 20. Can I ask you one question, Senator Peyton, before we start. Where have you been at the other meetings? I've been here, but I haven't had this in front of me until the last meeting and tell you the truth, they were not numerically submitted. By draft number, and I spent the whole meeting flipping back and forth trying to find out what page they were on. Thank you, sir. I was just curious. And I wasn't invited to any of the meetings that you had in the back room. Uh, page 20. Line 28. Go ahead. Page 20, line 28. It says any athletic event not related to firearms and that is extremely broad. Uh, we're talking about. You can't, where you can possess a firearm. And any athletic event, I mean, they, there are people who call things athletic events that I never dreamed would be an athletic event. But just for an example, let's just say they have a 5K run. Or a cycling event. That encompasses the whole town. You know, they're running up and down the streets and all around the town. And all of a sudden, if there's an athletic, any athletic event. Not related to firearms. You can't possess a firearm. And, and that's just way too broad. There has to be. Some way to state what we're trying to achieve there. Without saying any athletic event. Tell me again what line is I'm having to go back and forth page 28. Line 28, OK. So maybe the Attorney general's office or? BLR could comment on that. I, I found where this language this language originally, it exists in current law, which in current law in your packet would be page 11, line 6 is, so that is. The state of current affairs. There's no change in the law there. On page 11 line 6 is being stricken. That is correct. It is being rewritten over here. Well, so it's that just, so everything that's been stricken. To be restated over there and we don't a lot of it is because we're not, we're not really putting new laws in or rules where rewriting and changing it, try to make it our job is to scrutinize the existing law. Go for it. And that's what I'm doing. We don't need to restate this in its same form in the same form. Whatever the intent is, however, whatever athletic events we're trying to cover. This statement is too broad. Because you can have athletic events. That encompass Enormous areas. That are regularly not. Uh, dedicated to athletic events. If you follow me. I'm gonna let Representative Miller. Like a. I don't necessarily disagree with you and I was. I'm trying to read on here and see and. Uh, Ms. Jennifer and Ms. Alex, if y'all want to weigh in, was this not Related to like school ground, school activities, that kind of thing. I remember going over it. But I, I wouldn't trust my memory on exactly. No, sir, this is, this is not directly related to school grounds. It, it certainly could apply to school grounds, um, or, you know, if, if the school owns property at a different location where they have their, their soccer fields or or what have you. Um, it, it could be intertwined, um, but this is a separate line that does not have to be read always in conjunction with a question. So A rodeo is an athletic event. Hm So. If you're at the rodeo arena, the fairgrounds, or? Or horse show is an athletic event. I mean this. That's my example that it's way too broad. I can, I can sit here and dream up a half a dozen examples of athletic events. They encompass Enormous areas that would not normally be. Pro prohibited places. So what is your solution for that? to eliminate line 28 on page 20. Eliminate, eliminate the rest of the subsection accordingly. You think should be eliminated completely or should there be some restriction we can define what we're trying to accomplish. You're, that's, that's why. You probably shouldn't ask me because I believe in the Second Amendment and carrying everywhere all the time. So if you want to Eliminate some athletic events or the majority of athletic events, then somebody other than me would have to try to state that in as far as me, I would eliminate that line. Um, Mr. Chair, I think, uh, Ms. Benton had a Comments she's trying to make, sir. I, I misspoke earlier. It, it is in connection, so on page 19. Line 34. In or on the following education-related property. So I, I misspoke. There is that nexus to education, um, in terms of athletic events. So a rodeo for your hypothetical would not be included but a an off-campus do we no longer so we no longer have school sponsored rodeos. We used to, I, I mean. Back when I was in school. Well School sponsored rodeos. And I agree with you back when I was in school, they had them too, so, uh, Senator Peyton, if you would get back in the queue, I've got a couple of other questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair I actually this is its own number. So 6 is not under one. It's under A. So it actually does not. It it's not education related. Uh, it's under A and it's actually not written correctly. A person who carries a handgun under 5-73503 shall not knowingly carry a firearm. And then it says any athletic event not related to firearms, actually, many of It should say on the state capitol grounds to any meeting to it, it's not written correctly to begin with. Number one, but number 2, it's not under one. A, or it would need to be moved up to section one and it would be, um, it would be its own number C. If it were actual athletic events on school. Related property, property, education-related property. So, Um. These are not. Like I said, these are not written in my opinion, they're not written correctly number, I mean. 12, I don't disagree with Senator Payton, um, because when we've had legislation before us for physical therapist. They consider walking an athletic events. For purposes of them being able to treat people. So, I'm not sure how athletic event is defined in current state code. But we would probably need to take that into consideration, um, But his examples that he's brought up are problematic because this is very broad sweeping. So, uh, those are my comments, and you can respond, but the way I read it is Not the way you're reading it. That's correct, Senator Irvin, and as to your comment about the definition of an athletic event, it is not defined in the subchapter, so a court would take it to mean its plain meaning. Um, so an athletic event, um, would be just looking a dictionary to define athletic event and it would be a broad, broad definition. OK. So I, I appreciate that information, Ms. Benton, and so with it being very broad and not clearly defined, I, I would agree with Senator Payton's, um, Observation. Thank you, thank you, Senator Irving. Uh sorry, I, uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also ask the bureau if this language needs to be changed to where it reads correctly for numbers, um. 345. 7 maybe. Senator Irvin, um, I agree with your point on number 3, the state capitol grounds. It looks like that should say on the state capitol grounds at any meeting of the General Assembly Act. A meeting place, um, for number 5. So those prepositions could be added. What about 7 and 8 and 9. I'm sorry, what I'm, well, that's not, yeah, I, I yeah. Point well taken. I think the The into in this current draft. To your point does not clearly modify. The remainder, because they have semicolons and it's followed by or so point point well taken that N2 does not modify the state capitol grounds in a meeting of the General Assembly. OK, so. So we would need to. Change if we strike 6, let's just, but if we, we would need to also what, 789, what would it need to be say? Into a place owned online. We probably need to be in. I'm. And then 7 would need to be. Sent to Irvin, if we could come back to you just in a minute. I think, I think we're gonna have this covered in just a minute. OK, that's fine. Do my job. Thank you, Senator Irvin. Representative Miller. Oh, yes, sir. Uh. Folks, I was just gonna say, number one, like this. We're, what we're doing right now is. What this committee has been tasked with. Uh, so if you're If you're looking at something you're unsure. Now is the time to speak up. We've met for Wow and um this is good. And so I would encourage. To uh To continue with it so we can get this right. Whether it was in existing law prior to this proposal or not, doesn't matter. We want. Uh, we want to make it right. Senator Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the catch by Central Peyton. I, I have a couple of questions along that line you said some of this may be straightened up. But uh that would definitely include. Softball fields. Where Uh, there's multiple games going on where we carried way before I was in the Senate and passed laws that very much said that we could. Uh And by Carrie, I mean, uh, at least half the vehicles there had a. Uh had a gun in it, uh. So that would be included, right? But not only that, A pickup football game. Where, uh, when I was younger, we used to get together every Sunday afternoon, uh, and play football. That's an athletic event, is it not? That'd be a real problem. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Clark. Representative Wardlaw. Ms. Chairman, it's proper time. I have a, uh, draft I'd like to present to the committee. Uh, I don't know if this is a proper time, but a lot of the questions that have been asked that I've been listening to. Our Fixed in the draft that I have and I'd like to, uh, present that whenever you see fit. We're gonna make this the proper time if you'll, if you'll go down front with the two attorneys and present what you have. And if staff would please pass out. Information at Representative Woodlaw has. Yeah Yes, sir, Senator Peyton. I think I'd like to move for a 30 minute recess so we can study this draft. Well, we'll, we'll stay in recess for 30 minutes. Mr. Senator Peyton, would you like him to explain it first, then, then take a 30-minute break? Time to absorb it before we yeah that would definitely take place, I promise you that. Representative Wardlaw, go ahead, then we'll recess. You know, bear with me. I've never been down here before. Since the new equipment, let me be clear. Members, you got your draft in front of you. I want to start off by saying this is the backbone of the draft is being passed out to you is the same backbone you had in front of you all go, uh, it'll be Jay JLC 174. It'll be a new version. And if you'll walk with me, we'll go page by page, line by line. And we'll start on page one. One of the problems that came up through this whole study from the public through emails to, uh, Terry Rice and myself and the chairs of this committee has been the concern of journey. So We came up with some legislative intent language and stuck it in on page one. That legislative intent language makes it very clear that the legislature's intent here was to clarify and clean up Arkansas's gun laws from where they were to a very good version that anyone can actually read. So if you follow me through that intent language, it goes on to page 2. You'll find a section 2 had been added. Section 2 is the journey language itself. It's added on line 14. And I'm gonna go kind of fast that way you guys have time in your recess to digest some of this. If you follow me over to page 10. And we won't we want questions during or at the end. I'm fine. Just, just a quick question. What, OK, the journey that you just did, that you just, you said that's a new section, but it's not underlined. So as we're moving through this it's not underlying because it's not new to the law. So there is some underlying, there is some strike language there that absolutely clears that language up to make it very, again, I'll go back to my opening statement. When we started this rodeo in executive committee a year and a half ago, and yes, it's been a rodeo and it's fun to ride 8 seconds. And it's been a long 8 seconds of my life. Um, we said that we were going to make these laws crystal clear so anyone could read it and understand where they could and could not have a gun. That was the purpose of this study. Um, so if you read on pay line 14 there it says journey means a person has left his or her home or the curtilage of his or her home, and then it strikes out either on foot, horseback, bicycle, and automer. The reason for that is if you leave your house, I don't care how you leave your house, you left your house, you're now on a journey. That means you can now have a firearm in your possession. So that is as crystal clear as clear can get and not as the purpose in that strike through language. But the rest of that language is current code language, therefore, it doesn't need a line. And you're gonna find that that's the way most of the inserts and additions here have taken place. They're just clean up to current language that's already there to make it clear, because the, the draft we were looking at, everything was, this was new and it was hard to tell what was existing. And what was not. And again, this is that backbone is in this bill. So just follow me through and for, for the record, this was, uh, put online. So this has been out there. I think I had this copy posted 5 o'clock yesterday. I'm looking at Terry at 4 or 5 o'clock somewhere in there. Yeah, it was posted yesterday afternoon, so we tried to be as open and transparent as possible with this copy. So if you guys would, and like I said, you're gonna have some time to digest this. So if you want to just take your pencil and mark these lines. I'll go through it kind of quick because it is a couple of pages here of edits. Uh, go to page 10. We're gonna go down lines 4 through 36. And this section was um. That's right. All right, sometimes I have to get reminded of what we were doing. Page the lines 4 is where the journey language did exist and it was made very apparent by, uh, different members, interest groups that they would like to have that more broad, so it was moved to section 2. So that was the change on, on page 10. So everywhere we made an edit, you're gonna hear me bring it up because I want to be transparent as all get out that that was where an edit was made. So page 21, hang on just a second, Representative Wardlaw, we have a question for you. Go ahead, uh, Centra Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chart, uh, and Jeff, thank you. I, I appreciate your attempt to go through this line by line and, and I understand we're going to recess. I appreciate all that. I guess my question is, I know the AG's office is sitting here, uh, at some point, I'm assuming they're going to have time to digest this as well, to make sure, because I, I don't know if, if we haven't seen it. I, I don't know that they've seen it either. They, they have not, well, we had a conversation this morning and yes, you're right, I want their opinion. OK. I just, I just want to make sure we have enough time to do all that, but I appreciate what you're attempt to transparency in doing that right now is. Uh, for clarification center Gilmore, we have plenty of time. We'll just stay here till we finish. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sandra Peyton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I promised I was listening, Representative Wardlaw, but what was the change on page 10? The only page on Chat journey was extracted from there and then added in on page 2 under section 2. The concern was journey wasn't broad enough and and existed loud enough so we moved it to the section 2 so it's in a standalone above itself and not under any exemptions are hidden. We want it very broad and open. It's it's in its own section, where is that section? Do you know that's on page 2. I read that language earlier, so you're back. OK, that's just where we extracted it from and like I said, I had the bureau go through and, and mark out every edit we made. So that you guys could see that we were being transparent with every place something moved or changed. So we'll go to page 21. Mr. Chair, is that OK to proceed? Yes, sir. Page 21, lines 4 and 5. There was a misunderstanding here are a misty here in the old bill that there was a loophole for certain juveniles. Just for the committee also Representative Woodlaw, no. That sheet is on here. They have that in their package. Thank you. So you guys have all the edits, which, but I still want to go through them to make sure they very last page, very transparent here. Cause I can tell you some of those descriptions out to the right are confusing. I've already fell into one of them this morning myself or this afternoon. So on, on page 21, lines 4 and 5, there was some confusion about certain juveniles being able to carry in certain places. So that language was there to clean up, uh, to capture juveniles who were adjudicated under the old law, um, we want to make sure that we don't miss anybody that was that committed a felony either prior or now or any time, um, make sure that we capture all that. If you follow me down lines 22 and 23. Same, same actual loophole was fixed, uh, it addressed whether a minor could carry a firearm and who a minor was. So it's just clarifying again, a juvenile, same thing it did on lines 4 and 5, Line 25, um, so here was one of the concerns we got in, and it brings up, I think, Senator Irvin's point earlier. The current law says grounds and says developed properties. This will make a lot more sense in a few minutes. And because of those two terms, it's really confusing on whether you pull up to the Capitol and you, and you park on the roundabout out in front of the tunnel, whether you're breaking the law if you have a gun there or not, because you're on the grounds and you're on developed property. So, We decided to change those terms to state Capitol building and you're going to see that all throughout the rest of the bill and I'll point those out and you're going to see when it talks about a school that it's now the school facility. Not the school developed property. That way when you're in the, in the dropoff line dropping your kid off, you're not breaking the law by having a firearm in your vehicle. Uh, so we want to make that very clear, very crystal clear, and change the type of language that was in current code to make it better for Arkansas public members to understand what that actually means. So, um. On line 25, school property was changed to school facility, and then line 26, it was added or private to include private schools and K-12 schools and places that a person without a license is prohibited from carrying. And would you state the page you own? 21. I haven't moved from 21, um, and on line 29 again, develop property was changed to school facility. And like I said, you're gonna hear that quite a few times throughout the bill. Moving on to page 22. We, uh, lines 12 to 16. was changed. To uh change it to buildings owned or operated by, that's under the court system. So currently, the way that law was written, I think, uh, Mr. Steinberg, uh, included input here. I think it was Senator Hills, uh, part, uh, so we want to say thank you to him because we did the language was incorrect to follow the court case that had ruled, so that was just to clean up that language. Lind 17, you'll see it change your state capitol grounds to state Capitol building. Again, that's where, uh, one of those changes, I think Senator Irvin has a question. I'll wait. Go ahead, Senator Irving. So this is where it should say into the state Capitol building. Oh, and I need to say something. Uh, I was told by the bureau as I was walking down here, there was some prepositions that were supposed to be included in the draft that did not get included in the review process yesterday, we rushed through this yesterday to get it out for the public. They will go back and clean up those pre prepositions, so you are 100% right and there's going to be about 2 and it's, it's already been noted and will be fixed. 4 final vote on this bill ever takes place. OK, well, can we go ahead and just, you can pencil that you're, can we go ahead and make the changes? Is that acceptable? Yes, I just wanna. So I'm gonna take it that when we go into recess, they will do the corrections on this. Hopefully. I don't know if that's enough time, but we'll try. It's probably not enough time. I get in trouble for saying that all the time, maybe. Yes, Senator, thank you for pointing it out and, and I did not know that till I was walking to the table. OK, so Gilmore gets a kick out of making me late for my own meetings. OK, so 17, which I should say into the state capitol building, 18 should say at any meeting, I believe 2 should say at any meeting. We have Senator Peyton's issue on 22, but I was just noting. Um, and then into 2223 should be into a portion, I think, and. I'll, I'll defer to him. Uh, and, and, and if the chair pleases, I'd, I'd just soon hold on every page until we address everybody on the committee's issues, so. That's fine with the chair. Let's turn your mic back on center Irvine and let you say it again. Hang on just a second. So my issue was on 30 line 31 should say into a place owned or operated and then 23 should be into a portion of an establishment. So those are just the changes that I would recommend. making notes of this? Yeah. Ms. Jennifer's doing the same thing and she is awesome. I can't brag on her enough, by the way. I think I make her nervous half the time, but she's really good at her job. Senator Payton had something down. Yes, Sarah Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So yes, the page you're currently on, page 22, line 22. Uh, I'd made a point that that that language is way too broad. To say any athletic event not related to firearms and so my suggestion was that we eliminate that land in its entirety. And I had previously made a motion that we all voted on. To amend Page 19 line 23 of the previous draft. I don't know where that language is on this draft. OK, we've got, you made a, a motion while ago and it was voted on on the athletic event. No, wasn't on Netflix was to remove the federal law that's correct, you are correct. Ms. Jennifer, if you're telling me page 1 line 13 in this draft. Yeah, there it is. So we've I would want that to be amended on Or change I, I guess we would, uh. Probably need to expunge the previous vote and have another one. I don't know, Mr. Chair. No, sir, we're not going to expunge it. We're gonna add that to it. I will, I will accept that addition into my draft. So that's easy. The federal law, so you don't have to have a motion or vote. because we'll vote on it as a whole at the end we've already had the motion on that earlier before you got here and so it's in there, so we'd like to just include that. And so at the end. Yours is accepted, then we'll have Mr. Chair. Um, when she makes the edit, she's gonna take to remove. That uh Oh Page 22, line 22. Uh, in your Upcoming draft. I would agree to remove it if the chair would take a vote at the committee if the committee wants it removed, I would, I would accept that removal. I so moved that I, I make a motion motion. I make a motion that we remove. Uh, line 22 of page 22 of Representative Wardlaw's current draft. And renumber the subsequent sections. Thank you. That is a proper motion. Do we have a 22, Representative Miller. Any discussion Saying none, all those in favor say aye. Oppose same sign. The eyes have it. Representative Wardlaw, if you would add that to yours. Thank you, sir. Like I said, Ms. Jennifer's keeping notes as we go. Thank you, Senator Payton. So ready to proceed, Mr. Chaser. So I think the next one if if I didn't get mixed up, is page 23, line 17. And members. There was, there was a lot of confusion in the old code over the signage that had to be displayed by private business, and it was listed in the code, if I remember correctly, and somebody can slap me if I get this wrong, but it was listed multiple times in the code and it was really convoluted how it was listed. So The agreement we came to with the interest groups was take out all the convoluted statements and they're gone. But in doing that, reworded the signs to indicate whether firearms could be carried on the property or renumbered and then re-renumbered the following subdivisions. So if you compare this to the The draft that you just went over, you'll notice that there's a whole section missing. But when you look at that section, if you look up two more sections, it was already said in very plain English, so you didn't need that other section. So it was taken out to simplify the ability for private business to have a sign on their door that you cannot carry a firearm within their business. So again, back to the original deal, it was done to make it easier for the common man to read it, common lady. So if you'll follow me to page 24. I think Senator Peyton's really gonna like this one. Uh, we removed. The references to a member of the United States Armed Forces acting in course or scope of his own official duties. Um, That was one of the major exemptions to the bill, uh, your previous copy that you allowed them to be totally 100% exempt from any gun laws in Arkansas, so that was pulled out. Um, Line 24, I mean, page 24, line 29, 32 and 35. Again, another one of those changes of developed property to school facilities. We'll move on to page 25. Lines 15 through 24. Combine the subdivisions B7 through B8. Of the code into, to clarify the name individuals who may carry concealed handgun in a courtroom, courthouse, courthouse, annex. So basically that was done again to satisfy Doctor Steinberg, I believe, I think I referred to him wrong earlier and I'm sorry for that. He is a doctor. I want to make sure I put that on there. Um, And he's pointed out numerous times to us, but that was corrected there. Page 26. Lines 15. The lady at a previous subdivision B10. Slash D Wording of signs, that was another place that sign paragraph was, was also repeated and now removed, uh, which makes it very clear on a property owner how to display their signs. Page 27. Lines 1 through 13. Remove the reference again to member of the United States Armed Forces Act in in course and scope of his or her official duties. Another place, Senator Peyton will be happy. I want to make sure I'm consistent with that statement. I'm here for you. Page 27, lines 25 through 27. This language was, was his new language, but it was added similar to strike in that line we struck a while ago on page 22. It was, it was, uh, we have more activities going on with our kids today that involve firearms such as skeet trap. Uh, gaming fish, guns, gun safety classes, all those things. We want to make sure that we wasn't going to leave here with a bill that we were going to find out an unintended consequence down the road that we didn't cover really well in language here. So that language was added to, I guess. I hate to say this because Senator Peyton don't want to strike it now, but to make it more broad so that they can have more guns on campus if they need it for whatever activity those kids were participating in. And Mr. Chairman, that is the last change we had to 174, so I'll be glad to answer any questions. Sandra Peyton, Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, uh, Representative Warlock I keep wanting to say, Jeff, uh. I guess on your. Chart of changes on the, on the back where. It addresses page 26. It says deleted previous subdivisions, part of what we were discussing right before this came up was on page 24 of the original draft. Which is the same section, section D. Uh, on page 26, your draft. Let me find it again, line 15. A subdivision D, uh, uh. It, it seems that you have. Um, Remove the language that I had concerns with in the previous draft, but you didn't mention it and it's not mentioned in your I did, I did mention it. I'm sorry. I, so that language is actually in that in the original bill twice. Uh, that's about. The signs. No, I'm talking about where uh. It's B10. Yeah, the sign that says openly or only concealed, yes, so. Can they not have a sign that says only openly? I mean, we're saying they could, but so if you read above that. And you got me in two versions here, so I'm. Telling back and forth. Representative Ward off, you will make sure you tell what page and line. Yeah, I'm trying to figure that out from Senator Payton. Well, I think your new language doesn't specify the openly or only concealed, so it's probably fine. Well, that was the first what you're saying was the intent of the change, um. The intent of the change was that the the private. Owner can display any sign they want to. Under the 174. Which is a current code, they have to. Provide the sign for openly or Openly are only concealed. So we took that out so that it's up to them how they want to do it and plus it makes it more simple for private property. It's private property. Thank you. I'm just glad I made your house Rice's a win. Thank you, uh, Representative Wardlaw, can you cover again the Uh, Restrictions on private business. For that's clear in the scenario. is if a person You can walk up to a business and there's a group of 3 people standing around the door there talking. And that sign may be behind those 3 people standing there talking, and I walk in. The business Uh, Just unknowingly if they don't want me in there, I don't want to be in there anyway. Let's go with the scenario. Was there a first offense and second offense? Yes, sir. OK, let's, let's go over that. I want to get to the right version of the bill. So there's a written Offense, which is the first offense. Well, It's a written notice posted on the, on the wall, and then there's a spoken notice to the person who is carrying the firearm to the place of owned or operated by personal or private business. So you get one Verbal warning, basically. And then after that, the private Person is. Is very legally able to ban them for life from his business, him and her business. Make sure I get my pronouns correct. You're gonna get me in trouble down here. And, um, so the discussion was on that, if I remember correctly, it's been a few days and a couple of nights of sleep. Was it is that. For life or what? Well, when you read the bill, it's very strict that that is to the operated by a person or private entity. So with it that way, if that business sells, that band goes away with the sale because the new person that owns a business is a new person. That entity is absolutely a new entity at that person at that time. So it's not a lifetime from the building, it's a lifetime from the person or entity in the building. Is that what you were asking me to do? Who's going to verify that there was a. First offense. I guess the person and entity would have to record that. It's the burdensomes on the person who owns the business. Uh, is that, is that not covered under? Existing trespassing. Laws now, you're asking the wrong person. Would you be able to Rice, as you know, if you own a private business such as yourself, you have the right to ban anyone at any time from the business for any reason. Uh, but I mean you won't be fair. I, I'm just trying to think of ways again, if, if I've been. Notified. But Uh Written First complaint Uh, So both parties have something, uh, if it's one person. And, and I think we discussed this before. If it's a manager that says. You don't come back in here and that manager. Changes the next week. Uh, if you don't, you know, that's just some of the scenarios that change, but the other thing again is. All signage is not always seen going in so. I, I'm fine with changing, so I just found it on the new bill, so I wanted to get her in line. Page 26, line one. If you go back to page 25 and start line 33, it starts, uh, section. Oh, it's under B. Underlying 33 and it carries over to page 26 of providing spoken notice to a person who is carrying a firearm at the place owned and operated by a person or private entity. I, I'm more than happy to have that changed to written if that would appease the committee that's the deal. If you come up with a 2nd offense, uh, and they just say that you, you violated because we told you the first time, give me proof that I've been told the first time. I'm, I'm. Again, I'm, I'm happy with that amendment if the committee sees. I'm not, I'm not asked for the amendment. I'm just, I, I'm trying to keep things from happening, uh, that shouldn't be happening. Is that a motion that you sent to Rice? No, I'm not going to be the one to make it most. Senator Irvin. Um, it's along that same, I have another question later on, but along the same topic line. I think Mr. House was one of the, um, witnesses that pointed out that this could be. Sometimes used in a discriminatory fashion, a verbal spoken notice. And so I. I, I prefer signage. I mean, I, I, I think signage is clear, and then there's a written. Uh, it's written, there's evidence that it's written because it's posted. So I just, oh, I didn't know if this was something that we wanted to consider as well. I mean, I, I hear Senator Rice's points, but I think my point was based on the testimony given by the member of Mr. House of the public about how sometimes a verbal notice can be somewhat used in a discriminatory fashion and written notice is absolutely more clear and it goes to Senator. Price's point that you can't really document a spoken notice. So we were in the wrong place on the bill, by the way, so I'm gonna clean this up real quick. The reason that signage was in there twice as there's two places in the bill that have that type of restriction. One's under alcohol and one's a private business. So let's back up to page 23. Go to line 4. And you'll see some of the same language providing spoken notice to a person who's caring for him in a place owned by or operated by personal or private entity. Follow me on down to line 7. And it says a person violates subdivision A9A of this section, if after we have receiving written or spoken. So, I want to make a good point here. I've always been to the place of more freedom. That's where I like to vote. It's where I like to be, and I, I know each and every one of y'all like that too. So I like the way this is written that if that place or business wants to do a spoken notice they can if they want to do a written notice, the law gives them the right to do it. So it's already there in language that You could do it either or, um, and then it goes into was that a change from the previous OK. No, thank you. Um, and it goes into his and her is carrying a firearm or remains at our returns and a keyword there, and we had, we spent a long time on this the other day, returns. To the place owned by person or private entity. I want to make a big point about the end of that sentence, personal or private entity. So that ties it to the ownership of that business being that person or that price entity, so it goes back to what I said before. About if that business transfers the buildings then open to that person again, but it's up to that private person how they conduct that business or prevent those people from coming back. And I really don't want to get in the middle of that business. I think that's up to that person. So that's the reason I like the way that language is written, and I'm sorry for being hung up, but y'all brought that point out on page 26. So I was digging through page 26, but it's actually on page 23. And I, and I, I, I wanna say something, Mr. Chair, if you'll give me some latitude. this study was made to be y'all's study. This study was made to be the council study. And I, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the ability to sit down here in front of y'all and sit here with the ink pen and make edits and make this a council bill. That makes us feel stronger than anything we've ever messed with before, and we did this numerous times in the past. We did it on EBD. We done it on, on procurement and our consultant told us this morning early committee that we had some of the strongest, best procurement laws in the state. Does that mean we're following them and using them? No, it's the reason we hired a consultant to come back and show us how to do that. But we do have the best laws in in the US on procurement. We just got to follow. So this right here process has proven time and time again to work. And I can't tell you guys how much I appreciate the opportunity to work with members the way we're doing today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I have another question. OK, well I'll come back to you in just a second, OK? OK. Uh, Centra Gilmore. I have a question on process, so if you need to take Senator Irving's question first, go ahead. OK, Senator Irvin, he gave you latitude. OK, um, on page 27, um, the added language, um. About educational activity that involves the use of weapons at a school, um, Uh, and I know we, we pointed that out or we brought that up in committee hearings with the game and fish, particularly, but. I'm assuming that 4H would be covered under line B. And then I, I wanted to know if we needed. Because, and I don't know if this would also, I just want to make sure minors are covered. In this because we have minors that are participating in these chap in the trap and shooting sports teams. And so I just want to make sure that this isn't just referring to the adults, but also to the minors. And, and so. Well, I'm on page 27 lines 19 through 27. And so I don't So that's the concealed carry chapter where that's language at, so a minor wouldn't have a concealed carry permit, but it's allowing those instructors to have, if I read it correctly, if they're participating in these events, they can have their firearm on them with approval from the school. OK. Do, but do we have anything in state law to protect those minors in those activities on school property. Because we have, we have, um. We, we. Sorry. Go back to page 22. You start on, I believe it's line 2. Participating at school approved educational course or sporting activity and the use of firearms and then it strictly says on line for a minor engaged in lawful marksmanship. So if a minor is to be in contact with that farm at that activity, they are approved there. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. And, and, and I want to say this, this is the most confusing thing I've ever done because in this bill, if you're not careful, You'll get hung on a certain line in a certain language, and if you don't read the section that you're under, you can't really relate why it's there. And then when you go back to that section, you go, oh, that makes sense. So you have to be really careful where you're reading and what you're looking at under what section to understand what it actually pertains to because you have the concealed handgun permit section. You have the open carry section, you have different sections here that really matter a lot in, uh, those provisions. So it's important to read it and it's in. Entirety not line by line. Back to you, Senator Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Wardlaw, and I appreciate your explanation on this, and I appreciate your thoroughness in going through this. I, I guess my question is either to you or to the chair, uh, I just want to make sure that we have enough time to consume this digest this, to work through it, because this is a process. Um, it is, I think the appropriate process to go line by line as we're doing. Um, I'm just again, concerned about, um, do we have a full understanding of what all of this does, um, I, I Trust reward law is very thorough generally in what he does. Um, but I just, again, I have those concerns of this is, this is a lot, and it's a very important subject matter. So that, that's my only question. I don't know what the chair's plans are or represent Wardlaw, Chairman Wardlaw of council's plans are with this, but do you, any of y'all have a comment? I do. So if you go back and look at the motion that put this study in place, um, The motion to put the study in place that this committee would submit a report, I believe it was by September if I'm right. I'm looking, that's correct. And then we, and then we extended which was September, so I want to be clear in my words. That's why I said it that way. And we gave an extension to here and, and I want to go back to my earlier comments. I find it very hard to take something from a study committee and finish it. And we wasn't finished with it in September. And I want to make sure that we agree in this committee. On what the backbone bill needs to look like before it comes back to executive and goes to council for a vote to go out in a proposed bill. So that's why we're doing this today. And if we can't get it done, Today, or next week before October council, um, then I would say we needed, we need another extension because I, I don't want to take it from one committee to another to finish it because it's not the same input that started on the, on the study. So I, I, I'm very strict that I'm OK with the recess. I'm OK with everybody getting OK with where we are, because it is a very important issue, and it does have a lot of consequences across Arkansas, so I am very good with whatever we need to do to get it right, but I don't want to take it away from this committee to do that. No, and, and I don't disagree with that, Representative, and I appreciate your, uh, being amenable to that. And, and I recognize the process and, and I'm glad that we are going through the process. I just want to make sure that we have the time to commit to This to to get a good product out. I appreciate your commitment to that as well. Thank you. And I, and I, and Senator Gilmore, I add to that, I think we are in a good place. I think today's discussion prior to me presenting this copy, I think there's been a lot of those questions answered in this copy, um, and that was the whole purpose in the drafting of this copy because I think we all had some of the same concerns. Uh, so I'm, I'm very pleased where we are and I think we can get there today. I just, you know, want to make sure everybody has as much time as they absolutely need. I agree with you, Representative Wardlaw, Senator Gilmore, will Keep, keep your thoughts in mind and we'll proceed on and see how it goes today and at that point we'll make a decision on what we're going to do. Uh, Senator Peyton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Woodlaw, I certainly appreciate all your efforts in this, and I don't think anybody has Yourself or or anybody else has tried to. Slip anything in. Uh, But uh, I guess this is one of the last things I had notes on that may be hard for me to explain my position on, but on your new draft, page 27. And you might want to stick a second finger on page 18 to where you can flip back and forth. But at the bottom or near the bottom of page 27 line 30 and 31, it's talking about a licensee, somebody that has a concealed handgun carry license. And it says, uh, it's not unlawful. That they would have a concealed handgun in their motor vehicle. They locked or unlocked. And, and that makes total sense to state that. But it works off the assumption. That it would be illegal for somebody without a license. To have a concealed handgun. In their vehicle. So, uh, we don't need the state. That it's uh that it is lawful or it's not unlawful for a licensee to have a concealed handgun in their vehicle. This just makes it sound like for the rest of the world that doesn't have the license, it, it would be illegal. Does that make any sense to anybody but me? Yeah. Give me 2 seconds. I'm checking with attorneys to make sure I'm right. I don't want to speak without being correct. So, Senator Payton, uh, Again, I'll go back. Previous statements and do a lot in this deal. You got to read the whole thing in its entirety. And when you read section 2, on page 2. When you leave your house, you're on a journey, so you're covered in that parking lot are so why would we need to confirming the licensee because the licensee has to confer. Make sure I get this wired right. Can a licensee have an unconcealed vehicle unconcealed firearm in their vehicle. So we're saying they can have a a concealed one. What about if they want to have an unconcealed one. Senator, I, I apologize. I, I'm not, um, I've seen this at the same time as you and I, I'm not equipped or prepared to speak on this. I have the draft. I just had to. Figure out which pages to transfer my notes over. That didn't change. Now, this is not a change in your draft. Anyway, so I think we need to deal with that. Number one, if we're going to say the licensee can have a concealed, I think they should be able to have a concealed or unconcealed. I want to make sure it's very clear that the rest of the world can have a concealed or unconcealed, and for us to state. For us to use Arkansas code. To grant permission. It's just the opposite of how it should be. So. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Did I hear that in the motion? Not really time for motion. Yeah, it's not time for. Oh, I didn't know I had to, I say yeah, yes, sure it is if I want to call for it. Any other questions? uh. Representative Cozart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think on 27, the way I read that, it's, it's not unlawful for to to carry a concealed, but why would you leave an unconcealed handgun in a parked or unattended car. Now that would be my question if I'm going to leave a car, I'm not gonna put an unconcealed weapon laying somewhere that you could see it. So I mean, I don't know if that's the, the definition you were looking for, but that would be mine. I mean, I'm good. could seal it. And, uh, so that's, that's just the only thing I see in that part that might be different from what y'all are seeing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. In fact. Yes sir, go ahead. If it's on the same subject. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my response would be, I, I keep mine concealed also, but there's a lot of uh. I the beholder there. I mean, if you've got a little piece and if somebody's looking through the windshield and they're up on top of the hood and I mean, uh, what is concealed or what is unconcealed, uh, if they can spot any piece of the firearm that may be, uh, you know, under the seat or in the console, um, I mean, you know, it becomes. Subject to a lot of scrutiny. Whether or not you've got it concealed sufficiently. And I have had some. Friends and associates and neighbors that kept it laying on the dash of their old farm truck. Right. Would you mark to make that, uh, comment, Senator Irving? I mean, the way I read that it just means about, it's not about concealed or unconcealed handgun, whether you can see it or not can see it, it's just about leaving it in the car. So, um. I mean, to his point though, there are people that have, that do not have a concealed carry license that own a handgun that carry it in their car with them. That should be, that should not be unlawful. I mean, it's I, I think to his point, it may not be necessary because you put in section 2 in the journey. Definition. So it may not even be necessary to include this language, but I think, I think I would just wait till after we recess, let the AG's office really research this and get and get back to us on this because, like I said, I mean, I can speak to people that I know who do not have a concealed carry license for their handgun, but to have a handgun that they carry with them in their car. And so, um, we just want to make sure we're not. Penalizing that person from being able to protect him or herself. And I don't think it's about concealing the handgun or leaving it on the seat or whatever. It's just, it's about leaving. The gun. And I don't know why it says the concealed handgun. In his or her lock or an unattended motor vehicle in the parking lot. So, um, I don't think it's necessary, but again, Mr. Chair, I don't think now is the time to take a motion on this. I say that we just request that during this recess that we look at lines 29 through 32 and figure out why that's in there or, um, we can go back to our notes and see if it's necessary or not. And then I have another question for pertain to that during our recess, if you and Senator Peyton do not mind, I'd like for y'all To get with uh Miss Benton and let's get this worked out and maybe come back to us after the recess. Would you mind doing that? Yeah. And then I have another question. Go ahead, um, just I, I'm getting this, and I know that Ms. Benton, you've spoken to some folks about this as far as it relates to. Um, K through 12, and while we didn't include pre-Ks because we have, we do have pre-K facilities on campuses that are K through 12. Is there a reason why that's not in the definition and while we just went with K through 12 when it comes to public. I understand the issue with private because it would fall under, I think, a private entity. But Is there any reason why we would? Not put pre-K. For instance, Mountain View, Stone County School District, Mountain View High Mountain View Mountain View School has a pre-K on their facility. So they would technically be pre-K through 12 versus K through 12. I mean, it's just a little technical thing maybe, but I know just I think you have a lot you were wanting to say, so I'll, you can answer that part first so you can go back to where you want it to while I go when I missed you, may I address your, your first question about the it is not unlawful for a licensee to carry a concealed handgun in their motor vehicle. Now, the way that this is currently drafted, the plane meaning is, I think what you were getting at of. If you have a license, you may conceal carry in your vehicle. If you are a constitutional carry without a license, you may not conceal carry your, in your, in your vehicle concealed would be just that plain meaning of concealed whether it's partially concealed or not, I don't think would be, would be probative. However, To effectuate what I what I take your intent to mean is you would like it to read that it is not unlawful for anyone to carry a concealed handgun in their motor vehicle. If that is how you want it to read, then you would just need to strike three words for a licensee. Just strike those three words and that would affect that would effectuate your, your desire, I believe. Well yeah, I mean. Correct, because Because then it's in conflict if you don't, it's in conflict with open carry. And, and the definition of journey. Right? Cause the journey, if you're on a journey, that doesn't refer just just to a licensee of a concealed carry, correct? It applies to everybody. The difference there being, I think, carrying versus possession and carrying means being on your person versus in your vehicle you possess it, it's in your vehicle. It's separate and apart from, from your physical body, um, so, so those would not be technically be in conflict, but the intent might be in conflict. Mhm. I see what you're saying. I mean, I just. I think to effectuate what you want to do, you just delete for a licensee on page 27, line 30. OK. I still would like to prefer to do that motion at the end of our recess so we can maybe confer a little bit more about it. I, I, I think I agree with that, but, would you like to put that in a motion form? those three words, OK. I've got someone else that's going to if you don't want to. You know, well, I mean, I think we need to. Digest a little more. Sandra Peyton, are you? Thank you, Mr. Sher. Part of what you said a minute ago about a non-licensee. Not being able to carry concealed in their vehicle. What, what did you mean by that? I mean, as this is currently written, it would be unlawful for somebody without a license to have a gun concealed in their vehicle under this current language. So my concern was stating it the way it stated, it would be assumed. OK, so if it's, if this is eliminated this. Little paragraph right there, A. What effect does that have on our current law? I mean, there is no current law against having a concealed. Firearm in your vehicle, is there? That is correct. So I, I, to, to make it clear that nobody is in violation of the law for having a concealed gun in their vehicle. I would leave you know paragraph A, but just delete for a licensee so anybody who is lawfully in possession of a handgun who has not had their firearms, their right to firearms, um, taken away being a felon or, or what have you, can carry concealed in their vehicle. It's a point of clarification. I would not, I understand. I guess I understand what you're saying and, and maybe there's motivation for that. Um, And I really was interested in what something you said about the difference between possession. And uh Carrying And I think the 2nd Amendment says keep and bear. So maybe at some point we can start using that terminology. To keep arms or to bear arms. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I like your terminology. Senator, Mr. Chair, I just one more question, is it necessary? I mean, I understand and I would, I, I agree with changing it to for a person, um, but is it necessary to have section A at all. So that's why I'm hesitating on the motion. I don't want to just make them, I, I would prefer to be comprehensive. So if you will look at that during the recess, and then we can figure out if we want to just eliminate it altogether or Change it to for a person. So, you don't have to comment right now, but let's, let's, let's work on that during the break. Yes, ma'am, and if I may respond, Mr. Chair, I, I just, you know, the, the attorney General is is out traveling today and so I, I'm just, I can't offer any input today without running any of that by him, so I would just ask for for some time to be able to go to to my boss and make sure because I want to know, you know, obviously in the input I I give is going to have the weight of the Attorney General's office and I need the Proper approvals. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Painter, do you have any comments? Any other questions from the committee, Mr. Chair. Go ahead, Representative Fortner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I wonder. If, uh, the committee would want to consider if it would even be wise to uh perhaps. Have another meeting. And allow everyone, uh, including those that have come and testified to us already that we've made decisions they think. Like law enforcement. On What we have already decided, so maybe they could be here. To give their input, it's just I'm just asking a question. We'll, we'll take that into consideration as time goes on after our 30-minute break, we're gonna give everyone time to look at it. And we're gonna take a thirty-minute recess right now, and we will Reconvene it. We're gonna come back in at 3:30. We're going to reconvene in 2 minutes. She's Let's call the meeting back to order. Uh, Representative Wardlaw, would you like to take the, uh, witness stand? And you need Miss Jennifer and Ms. Minton down there with you? That would make me feel more comfortable. Ms. Benton, are you here? Representative Warlaw, you got 50% of what you wanted. That's usually about better than I ever got. She That's true. That's true. Oh. I told you how good she was. Y'all go ahead. I, I, I, I guess we're just open to questions or whatever the committee wants to do as far as action. the information that you were going to gather for us that in, and talk about, do you have that information available? I'm unaware of what information that is Peyton's question that he had. Oh, on the line 27. On the licensee. Carrying, is that what you're talking about? Yes sir. Yes So I think this is gonna make it really easy. And I didn't do my homework because I was doing other homework so y'all can punish me for it later. Follow me over to page 24. Line 27. And it's going to make these statements on 27 make more sense. And, and, and I'll say it again, I'll say this numerous times. You can't read this bill by one section at a time. You have to read it in its entirety for it to make sense. But if you read line 27, it says, it is unlawful for a licensee to knowingly carry a concealed handgun in the following locations on a school facility whether they owned or leased or Our public school kindergarten through grade through 12 inside a school bus, and I know that's another question coming up about K through 12. So when you read all that, you have to have that exemption in section. On page 27, at 573603 in order to allow somebody with a concealed handgun license to drive through that pickup line or drop off line. To be able to access. That area with a concealed handgun license. So that's the reason that two A and B are there the way they are, is to go back and give that exemption from the respirosity concealed handgun license that we have. And now we have answering questions. Senator Urban. OK, and then also on page 18, line 17. The word concealed. Is that necessary to be there or not? So if you go back to page 16. And you read section 9, it said this, this section deals with concealed handguns in university, college, and community college buildings. So the answer to that question is yes, because that's exactly what that section deals with is a concealed handgun on a university. College or community college building or parking lot. OK, um, I'm not sure if that satisfies what Senator Payton's concerns were or not, but I, I have some other questions quickly. If the chairman's OK, I'm OK. I'm good. Um, so just the question of adding pre-K. To this instead of K through 12, is there any reason as to Why I mean, I think we were just utilizing the existing state law which says K through 12. Is that correct? And I'm just, to my knowledge and, and, and for the record, I don't have trouble including pre-K if the committee wants to make that motion, I'm perfectly fine with that. It's my understanding we're gonna come back next week to give us a little bit more time or maybe possibly, and if that's the case, we have time to clean that up, so I, I'm fine with that. OK, so I'll make that motion just that we, and there's a lot of areas within the bill that we would need to change, I think, from be pretty easy. It'd be the same change we had with development property school facilities, and so on. So I think pre-K, pre-K through 12, and then it would, um, versus just K through 12. And I think public and private, because I think private entities as I read this correctly, are already covered to where they can give permission to somebody if they're private pre-K through 12, they can give permission to somebody who has a concealed carrier hand license and I that's the reason. Chair, if I got allowed to. I mean that was one of the agreements between the two sets of chairs, the reason we didn't plug in private more often is because we want to give the latitude for them to make that decision on their private entities should have the ability to make that decision. Um, and then is school facilities, I know that you said that, is that defined anywhere? And law or we need to create a definition for that. I mean, if we're changing the term, I was just, sorry, go ahead. I'm sorry. Uh, I, I know that it's not in this bill. It's not defined in this bill. I'm not certain whether it may be defined elsewhere. OK. We might just need to get an answer to that. I, you know, if we want to use that term, we may just want to include the definition or make a motion with the definition of it. I mean, I'm, I'm open to that. I don't know what that definition would be at this moment, but I would maybe ask that our Staff would research that and we could perhaps Consult with some attorneys. Um, School facility or, you know. Uh, I know we have a just like the other day facilities was a better wording than developed property because developed property could be a parking lot. It could be, yes, so we wanted to change that to, to lessen the broadness of the way it was and facilities would actually cover gymnasium. Or or anything to that, uh, an auditorium or anything, so we figured that would be best. Yeah, it just, I, I was just thinking we might want to look at that and see maybe some folks in higher ed could help with the definition of that too. Uh, that's just a suggestion that I had. That's it for me. Well, you want to turn that from a suggestion to a motion? Sure, I mean, I just, I would move that we ask our, our BLR staff and, uh, anyone. Also that wants to participate and submit, um, Uh, definition for school facility that we look at that and consider it. Uh, for the final draft and change K through 12 and change K through 12 through for pre-K, pre-K through 12, just so that we're. Consistent covering. I, I wouldn't want the reason for that is I know of school facilities that are pre-K through 12, all on the same campus. I'm gonna take that proper motion then to, to do have a second or hereby Representative Painter. Any discussion All of them in favor say aye. Oppose same sign. I have it, will. We'll look at that. Sandra Peyton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So back to, uh, page 27. About the concealed and the licensee in a vehicle. So I see, I see what you pointed out on page 24. This is all under subchapter 6. And, uh, so that would appear to only apply to a licensee. Yes, uh, so that satisfies part of my concern. But I still think. That if we're going to have the language in 573603, they're on page 27. That it's not necessary. And, and I think it's not wise. In paragraph A. To use the term concealed. I think we could say it is not unlawful for a licensee to carry a handgun in his or her motor vehicle or to leave the handgun in his or her locked and unattended motor vehicle that would cover concealed or unconcealed or anything in I mean, the reason it's worded the way it is, is because it refers back to the concealed handgun permittee or permit, however you want to. Talk about the licensee or license, um. So I think that language is consistent. When you're referring back to that program. So if like the program, but it's what it is. So if a licensee has an unconcealed handgun, In their vehicle. There's room for argument. But yeah, but if you've been through a concealed handgun class, you know, you're not supposed to have one unconcealed. There's also a law that I helped pass, a bill that I drafted, it said that if you apply to about someone that doesn't have a license, not someone that does have a license. Now the bill I'm talking about said that nothing in the concealed carry. Licensing law. Would deny a right. That somebody had prior to getting a license. So whatever rights. That somebody has. Prior to getting a license. The fact that they got the license. Does not deprive deprive them of any right they had beforehand. I wish I could remember the act number. It was 4 years ago we passed it. But it clarified. For the record, personally, I don't care how you carried a gun. Right, I want you to have it, but So I want to make sure this is consistent to give that exemption to the people that have the licensee, right, but your previous statement was if you've taken the course and you've gotten the license, you know that you can't carry it unconcealed. That's correct. That's not correct. Because if you can carry it unconcealed prior to having a license, you can carry it unconcealed with a license. I'm not gonna argue with you, but I would sit and And be glad to have that conversation with the lawyers and if are not concealed can be added there, then I'm fine with that. Thank you. If you'll, if you'll do that before. Our next uh draft and, and maybe call me or text me or something, let me know what's being said, but um. I guess we could leave the word concealed in there and just add or unconcealed. Yes, that's, that's what I have written here to ask. Thank you. I wasn't going to take one out just for clarification, I was going to add the other end, and that would satisfy my concern. But I wasn't gonna do that until we talked to the AG and attorneys, so, but I will give you the explanation as I get it. Thank you. OK, without a motion though, can you add that to your I'm not adding it to the draft. I'm asking for permission and then we'll come back and if that can be, if it can be, we'll get it out of. Let's go ahead and cover ourselves, go ahead and make a motion, Senator Peyton. Um I moved that the language in 573603 proposed on page 27 line 29 through 32 be clarified to include an unconcealed handgun in the vehicle of a licensee. OK. We have a motion, we have a second. Any discussion? Saint I. Just a quick discussion whether, what if it's a rifle? Or a shotgun. And I think this only applies to handguns. I, I don't think there's anything that makes it illegal for a long gun to be present. Just wanted to clarification. Thank you. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. The poll, same sign. Go ahead, Representative Borla. Just waiting on the next question. OK. Senator Peyton, do you have another one? No, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Wardlaw. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, we'll move on in the An agenda. Thank you, uh, you are dismissed. OK, we've heard a lot of information, so we're gonna. Move on to uh. The agency comments. We'll start with the AG's office. Seeing no one here, no one's here. We will skip on to the state police. Any comments on what's been Be said today? Nothing that after everything that was said, y'all have nothing today, thank you. Uh, game of fish. Thank you Uh, chief, chief of police association. Seeing no one's here, prosecutor, coordinator's office? The sheriffs Association. Uh, Department of Transportation. When we finished this study, there should not be any questions from anyone whatsoever because no one ever has any comments. So we should be in good shape there. Now we're gonna move on to public comments. Senator Irving. Department of Transportation, we're discussing this inside of a vehicle, um. There, there's no comments about that. And then I know higher E is here, and I think. OK, and school facility. OK. And then school facilities. Higher ed is here. OK. Center ice Thank you. I just gonna comment. I, I was contacted by R dot and asked if they needed somebody here. I told them the what we, uh, And in here covered what they had asked just for us to clarify so they, they were fine and, and unless somebody's got something question on here. OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator. OK, so we'll move on to public comments. Leah Herring. Shane Broadway. We kind of wanting to see how you can do by yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shane Broadway issue system. And I'm Brad Phelps, I'm general counsel for the AU system. Go ahead. Sure. uh, thank you very much for the hearing today and we're happy to be here to listen, um, Senator Irvin's motion, I just wanted to say we would welcome the opportunity to sit down and provide input on the question that you ask. I've actually been. Communicating with some people about that issue since we've been sitting back here and we plan to visit about it and, um, we'll get back to Senator Irvin if that's OK with, with the, the committee for for for full public transparency, so the rest of us will know what's going on. What are you talking about? The definition of a school facility. There was a change in the draft from Um, undeveloped property to facilities and I just want to, I think we'd like a minute to, to just discuss it as the senator had suggested just to see what we think of that change, make sure there's no issue that we haven't been thinking through and thinking about, and we would, um, we can certainly do that before the next hearing. What is your definition of facility? Well, I'm asking for your personal opinion, not sure, uh. When I think of a facility. Um, I'm thinking of buildings, but I, I can also think of the grounds as well. I'm just. Saying this off the cuff. I want to think through it, um. And I just wanna, and I just wanna be sure that. There's a consensus among our higher ed group on what that actually means because when I hear the word grounds, I think of everything. Sure. And I understand and, and you know, under law was coming from someone dropping off their child at school, K-12 versus higher so it would be different. We don't have people dropping off at a certain location. So I understand what he's trying to protect there. Uh, we just need to think through, because we don't have that. And so we're, our grounds are different. And more, I guess, encompassed and under, under current law of a licensee can leave their concealed weapon in their locked vehicle. That's current law and we operate under that, um, I just wanna have a minute to think through how this would all work together. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Any other comments? I think we're good. Thank you. Nathan House. Oh, got a question for you. I, um, so we struck on the any athletic event that's not related to firearms, we struck that language, but y'all are covered for the collegiate, uh, athletic events, correct? That's that's what I read. It's still, that's still in here you struck would just be K-12 is what we understood. And, OK, perfect. I just athletic events defined separately, correct? Yes. OK. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. OK, thank you. Appreciate it. Nathan House, Gary Epperson, you coming too? We'll take care of both of y'all at one time. Yes. Because he's gonna talk about concealed pretty, pretty much, I believe, and. And you'll talk about your side. I'm Gary Epson, president of Gun Owners of Arkansas, and I appreciate the work this committee's done, the chairs and co-chairs. There's been a And especially the ladies that Bill are that's been under the gun. But with the one day that I had a lot to say today's meeting has took the larger part of that away. For the sake of keeping it short, uh, we are still apprehensive about Journey. And uh I hope that's the right term where apprehensive, but we'll look at that when we get the final version. With it constantly changing, the other part, Senator Rice brought up, Senator Payton. Is the penalties for carrying past the no gun sign. And the confusion that that can cause when existing Arkansas statute covers those already. Uh, it's been in law criminal code for, well, ever since, I believe, uh, Uh, the dog hunters when they were the Farm Bureau and all that and trespassing was the last time around, but those laws all in all are pretty good and that this should apply. Instead of creating another offense fortrespassing to let the current law. Handle it like it has been and it's worked great. So, basically, that's all I have and I'm open to questions and we'll see what the final version comes, but I do appreciate the movement today because Senator Payton and a lot of the others is alleviated the questions that we were going to cover today. Participation definitely helps. We've been lacking that throughout. People have expressing their opinion, telling how they feel and moving forward with it. I mean, there has been some good questions answered today and this makes me feel a lot better that's moving in the right direction and, uh, so I appreciate we appreciate that. I should not get a message from you tonight at 3 a.m.? Well, Appreciate, appreciate your testimony, Nathan House. No, we've got a question right here. Sorry. So thank you for your comments. I really appreciate that. Um, so your main, uh, concern and you're you suggest are apprehensible about journey, is that correct? OK, OK. And then, um, I think also, you know, covering what we were discussing, you know, people that are open carry people. Without a without a license, making sure that they're covered in having a gun, you know, in their possession or, uh, and making sure that that right is protected, whether it's in a vehicle or, or not, right? OK. Um, so I, I appreciate that and then just quick question on the, the. Trespassing and the signage, that second issue you brought up, do you, is there Are you saying that you, that this language complicates our current existing laws that relates to trespassing or um. Or is a companion to it. It's unnecessary. You think it's unnecessary. OK, that's why it's been under current Arkansas law from permitless carry. Now the concealed handgun carriers were. Uh, subject to laws similar to what's in this language now, which affects your, uh, self-defense protections in the lawfully present under the standing ground law that we raised the fuss about. So that's as it relates to private entity and what will happen, ma'am, uh, under Arkansas criminal statutes currently outside of the concealed handgun if an individual goes into a business behind the no. Gun signs say you and uh several women are going to eat at a restaurant, you're talking or men, they don't see that sign of similar to what uh Senator Rice discussed, uh, they have not created a, an offense until that individual of the business tells them to leave and they do not leave and then they're subject to trespassing. So therefore, they haven't committed an offense in self-defense protection still apply. I see. OK. And, and under where it's defined in the concealed handgun statutes where they are restricted. Uh, they go past that old guns and they've compromised their standing ground self defense protections. And this has been law for years, uh, and it's worked fine. It's not been a problem, uh, I mean, why would we want to criminalize uh someone. $1000 or a felony even under this current wording on individuals that simply want to sell, uh, you know, defend themselves, self defense. OK, that helps me. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions on the committee? Thank you, Mr. Jefferson. Mr. House. Nathan House, owner of Arkansas Armory, uh, uh, concealed carry instructor, uh, and, uh, law enforcement officer in the state. So thank you for the time to speak. Again, I, I want to echo my statement from last time that I really appreciate the expert work that this committee's done on section on, on this, uh, exhibit B as it is already, by and large, this is very good, good law. um, and I, I was gonna talk about, uh, what, uh, Representative Woodlaw did about why, uh, it was necessary to have uh the, the in there about you can have your gun in your vehicle, uh, but I, I think he, he cleared that up. So in the sake of time I'll skip that. Uh, what I do want to say is, is that I, I know that the committee's goal is to, is to simplify this for our Kansans to to understand. And when I'm looking at, uh, representative Wardlaw's, uh, Version of this be one. I, I, I looked first at what the subcommittee did in their original draft, which is they, they repealed Arkansas code annotated 573,120, which is the offense of carrying a weapon and in and his version of the the the code we've now added back in that offense under a different statute number basically 573134, the offensive carrying a weapon and it, I, I don't, I don't understand it's, it's, what, what page are you on there? I'm sorry sir Looking at exhibit B1, and I'm on page 10. That is B1, page 10, and I'm, I'm starting with line 6. Line 6, OK, thank you. So, What we say as we jump down to to line number 9. He said, hey, it's an offense of carrying a weapon if, if you're carrying it with a purpose to unlawfully employ the weapon against a person. OK. No, no problem. I, I, we, that's, that's an important thing. We don't want people to unlawfully employ weapons against a person. But then we jumped down to section, I'm sorry, to line number 29, and it says a person is presumed to be carrying a weapon with a lawful purpose under this section if the time carrying the weapon, the person is one, in his or her own dwelling in their vehicle 2 or 3 on a journey. And so what it says is, is that no matter what, whether a person is in their home or away from their home, they are presumed to be carrying the weapon lawfully. And so how in section A up there back on in 9 and 10, could they ever be assumed to be carrying it unlawfully if we have said, well, they're only going to be carrying it unlawfully, that they're always going to be carrying it lawfully because they're either gonna be in their home or away from their home. And so I, I, I just don't. See that, um, 573134, that's been created really adds anything to to this other than confusion to to Arkansans. I think everything else in terms of, you know, when you can carry, when you can't carry with or without a license is all that is is already kind of been covered under, under section or under exhibit B that that's already there. I, and it just to me looks like a. A logical inconsistency in the law between Section A and Section C. Whenever we're saying, hey, it's unlawful, but it's never unlawful. So that's, that's the one comment I wanted to make about that, uh, there's other things in there, for instance, on line number 19, uh, when it talks about a knife means any bladed hand instrument. 3 inches or longer, and that's under current law, that's, that's current language under 573,120, but we're talking about the length of the instrument, not the length of the blade. And so if you've got a little 1-inch blade and a two-inch handle. I've got a bladed hand instrument 3 inches or longer. And I, and I don't, I don't even know that I, I, I'm not a big fan of any blade length, but why that, that should be there, but. But, uh, I'm in a 3-inch pocket knife isn't hard to get to when you had the handle. So I, I, I just would be careful with some of those languages there because you, you could. Potentially charge somebody with carrying a knife if they, if they had just a little pocket knife or something on that. So, um, I would just encourage in my public comments that, that we, that you go back to what you did in exhibit B, which is, is not have that 573134 in there. And I'm, I'm open to any questions. Any question? C Urban. Um, So I I kind of read, I, I hear what you're saying on page 10, and I just kind of want to go through it and maybe we need clarification from Representative Wardlaw on it, but, um, To me, it's, it's if they're unlawfully if they are going to break the like if they're well. To use with a purpose to unlawfully employ. Sent to Woodlaw, would you go back down front as well? Sorry. I was just. In other words, if it's going to be used in a crime. That's the way I kind of read that, but I just thought maybe clarification. I'm getting a copy. I left my copy on my desk. So if you, if you go back to page 5. Section 4. The language on page 10 is exactly that language. There's no new laws written here and I, and I'd hope I made that clear earlier when I was at the table. It was only cleaning up. Current language. So the, the knife language, the club language, the handgun language, all that is the same language that's in law today. And you can go back to page 5, you can see where all that was struck stricken. But in order to clean this up, you had to get rid of all those old laws that some of them were convoluting like some of them said you couldn't have a long gun here and then the next one said you could have a long gun here. So you had to wipe all that out and then go to the least restrictive, which means you can have a long gun here. So If this is confusing and we want to change current law, then I, I'm, I'm open to that as long as that change is less restrictive. I'm not going to be for any change that's more restrictive, but I want to make it very clear there was nothing here written new. It was always there. It was just somewhere in the code somewhere else, and now it's in one single code in a very easy way to read. Yeah, that I understand. I, to me, I, I don't think they're in conflict, but I was just wondering. Uh What was your question then? Well, just how line 10 reads. In other words, we don't want a criminal. I mean, I mean, if you're a criminal and you're committed that but that is exactly the same language it was today. That's correct. So tomorrow it will still read that same language, but that's what that means is it's keeping someone with a felony or misdemeanor or someone who has a malicious intent. That's how I read it. It's malicious intent. They're going to commit a crime. Thank you. Any other questions? Can, can I speak to that if you don't mind, sir. Uh, what I would say is, is that, that's correct. It, it, if there is an unlawful purpose, but then we go on to say that that there's, it's always presumed that there's a lawful purpose. it's because if you're either if you're at home, that's a lawful purpose or you're away from home, we have to presume it is a lawful purpose. And so my suspicion would be that a prosecutor would never try to charge a violation of 573134 because it, it's it's a logical inconsistency that that's number 12, correct, it is, it is a, uh, this is not 134 is not much of a verbiage change from the original 5. 73,120, but I'll remind the committee that the work that they did was to repeal 120 and so the, the change was, is, hey, we're gonna get rid of that because that was old law and was, was confusing. And so the, the change would be in B1 is, well, let's add it back in there and, and I, I don't think that that's necessary and is, is actually a logical inconsistency. Any other questions? Any more comments, sir? No, thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. Thank, thank you for coming. See no further action here. We've got the information that we need. The motions have been made. The adjustments are going to be made. And so it looks like we'll have another meeting. This will be Uh, available to the public, hopefully sometime late tomorrow. I'm looking at staff trying to get that idea. What, uh, what time do you think you'll have everything ready for it'll it'll be available as soon as we can, hopefully by tomorrow afternoon. At 5 o'clock. So if you want to look online to see what the changes are, we'll have another meeting Monday at 11 in Mac B. To, to go over this just to be as transparent as we can. And so that information will be available to the public until then, do we have any other comments, Mr. Co-chair? We're adjourned