ALC-Game & Fish/State Police

First of all, um, Well thank everybody for being here today. We are, uh, We're kind of wrapping this up. And. We've had uh. A lot of work that has gone on. In this study over uh. Over the last several months, um, I want to personally thank Our staff Um, the bureau, the Attorney General's office, everybody, uh, that has been involved with this, there's been a lot of uh a lot of hours spent. Pouring through this information that we've, uh, that we've looked at in these, these summaries. I want to thank the, the legislators that are here that have been at these committee meetings. I appreciate your input, uh, Also, I want to thank, um, I want to thank some folks from the public. Who have been who have been helpful, those of you that we've heard from, Uh, we are, we are grateful, uh, that we have folks out there who are watching what's going on here. Um, Whether we always agree or not is beside the point, but we are grateful. I know, uh, I, I want to speak, uh, and thank, uh, thank Mr. Steinbach, thank Mr. Efferson, others that have watched out. Um, make sure that, that to help us. Ready to make sure. Language is correct and even thank those, um, who, who maybe. Haven't agreed with us all the time. We appreciate the, uh, the civil. Discourse that we've been able to maintain during this process. And anyhow, um, I'm gonna turn it over to my co-chair for just a minute, um, who's gonna explain about The bills And the, uh, the drafts that we have in front of us today and then we'll, and then we'll go from there. Senator Hill. Thank you, Representative Miller. As Representative Miller said, I want to say a special thanks to each and every one of you for, for your input. There've been a lot of emails, phone calls, messages, some we've been able to get back to, some we have not, and that's when we're having these meetings, so if we were not able to get back with you, we're glad you're here to, uh, to express your opinion whether it's the same as ours or or not. We greatly appreciate that and that being said, appreciate y'all being here and what you have in front of you today is Actually the same. These The same. Information you had last time was actually exhibit C last time. Uh, for the committee members. There has been no changes in that whatsoever. Those changes will come after today and once the changes, uh, are made, everything will be posted online for at least a week for everyone to have plenty of time to to review it before our next meeting, which is going to be Decem December, October 3rd, hopefully, uh, so with that being said, I need to start out with a motion, Mr. Co-chair. Senator Hill, I recognize you for a motion. I move that we request that ALC executive subcommittee to grant an extension of the October 1, 2024 firearm study report deadline to allow our subcommittee to complete its revision and the recommendations and draft legislation. And that they permit us to continue to meet on the study and provide them with our final report and recommendation at the October 17th, 2024 meeting. Proper motion, we have a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Back to you. uh, thank you, Senator Hill. Uh, next up, I would like to recognize Senator Rice. For a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a motion regarding the journey language, the revision of 5 73503 that you have in front of you was revised to clarify that this is referring to an individual's right to carry a handgun while on a journey by stating that anyone who is legally permitted to possess a firearm in this state. Also that may carry a handgun, also either openly or concealed. Also without a license also at home are On a journey away from home. The definition of journey that is referenced in the language defines journey to mean a person has left his or her home or the curtilage of his or her home either on foot, horseback, bicycle, or in an automobile for any purpose or duration. I believe this clarifies the journey language and should address any concerns that journey was being removed from the law. A move that we adopt the draft language to be included as a recommendation of the subcommittee and include it in the final report. That's a proper motion. Do we have a second? I have a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Uh, Next up, Senator Rice, I want to recognize you for another motion. Thank you Mr. Chair, uh, regarding courtrooms and courthouse language. The language you had in front of you regarding who may possess a handgun in a courtroom or courthouse. Of the state simply keeps the language as. Currently exists in law, the language is currently located in Arkansas code 573122. Mr. Chair, I move that we adopt the draft language to be included as a recommendation of the subcommittee and included in the final report. That's a proper motion. We have a second? I have a second. OK. All those in favor say aye, uh, any opposed? Motion passes. All right. That concludes the uh the business that we have here today. Oh. OK, um, well. I back up. With my previous comments, um. The state police is here do, do y'all have anything to add to this? You are recognized at this time. Please identify yourself for the record and you're recognized. Mike Moyer, serve as major for the regulatory division of state police. Tiffany Dicus serve as a lieutenant with the regulatory division of the state police. You are recognized, please go ahead. we were reviewing everything that was different, um, 573,503 says that in order to possess or carry a handgun openly or concealed, you must be 18, 573309 for the CHCL issuance requires that you be 21 unless you have military service. It's just a difference that we noticed. And then we also found. Under 573601, a mention of the word enhanced still exists in that statute. Do we have any, uh, do we have any questions from committee? State So what, what is y'all's recommendation on that? We just wanted to point out that there is an age difference between, uh, somebody that can carry without a license, which is 18 versus somebody that can, uh, carry with a license is 21. We just want to point out the, the age difference on that. And then also on the enhanced part if we are, uh, going down to one license that is just gonna be a general license that just the word enhanced needs to be removed. All right, um, You know, I'll recognize you and make that motion again we bang it. Senator Hill, you're recognized for motion. OK, committee, after hearing what they said, I make a motion to remove the word enhanced. Proper motion. We have a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. Senator Irvan, I'm sorry. Are you, you have a question? OK, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the age difference, um, do you, do you have a recommendation on the age difference of making that consistent or um. If you're going to one license, could you just walk me through that a little bit more in detail because that probably needs to be addressed also by the subcommittee today. We do not have a recommendation on the age. It was just the difference on the age that we noticed, uh, CHCL has always been 21, um, as far as the process going down to one license, um, that will just be to where. Instead of having two licenses for a basic license and then an enhanced to be able to go on prohibited places it would just one license would cover everything. OK, so does this age discrepancy. Create a problem for going to that one license. No, not for the license, it does not. It does not, but you can be 18 and Carrie without a license. According to this, uh, document, yes. OK. Well, I just, I think that probably is an area that needs to be looked at a little bit more in detail or with some folks that may need to look through that with a recommendation because I, I think there needs to be some consistency with the age. I'm, I'm not really prepared to make any kind of a recommendation myself at this time without understanding it a little bit more fully. So, anything else you can provide us, that would be great. Do we have any other questions from committee? Senator Payton, you're recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So with the age identifying the age. The the concealed carry license is going to Permit carry. In places that are prohibited to people without a license. Is that correct? Yes, to some of those places there will still be a shorter list of prohibited places. So there is a reason then. To have the license limited to. Adults that are 21 years or older. Unless we decide that we want to back that down to 18 to match the other. Would, would you think there's a reason because of the The prohibited places that are becoming available to a. A concealed carry licensee. I think that's a valid point, yes, sir. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. um. Representative Woolridge, you recognized. Sorry, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, what is the legal age in Arkansas to be able to buy a pistol. Or handgun. Mhm 21 for a handgun. That's what I thought. All right, I just wanted to verify. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have any other questions from the committee? Senator Love, you're recognized? Thank, thank you, Mr. Cha. So I, I've been trying to follow this. Um, I know that we had 2 motions, but I, I did want to just kind of back up to, uh, the one about the courtroom in a courthouses, uh, and I guess this is a question through the chair to Senator, uh, Rice, is this, is this added language, Senator Rice? To, to the, to what we have. Because I mean it's uh it's it's all underlined, so I'm assuming that this is added language to. Senator Rice you recognize. Journey was Taken out of the proposed language for last meeting unbeknownst. To me and others. Uh, that had been a point in. Work group discussion. That journey not be bothered. It is established law. And it was, uh, never an option. On my behalf is to remove it. It has been clear, so that, that was putting it back in what we're looking at today, someone took it out. I don't know. Got you. And, and it was also court, the courtroom and courthouses was at courthouse is different. That's not, that's not the journey. The courtroom and courthouse, there was discussion and, and feel free if somebody else wants to uh correct me on this, but to my understanding, there was, the committee had problem understanding the difference on that. courtroom is a courtroom. Courthouse is a building that the courtrooms in sometimes and a judge has the authority for his courtroom. What he wants or does not want in there and that's what we didn't change. We, we put it back in under existing law. OK. All right. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you for the clarification. And, and so. In following the, the, also the other conversation, um, is this, is the, I guess the the thought of, of this. The thought of the committee, are we, are we saying those with or with this piece of legislation, are we saying those that are 18 years of age can carry. Open carry. And then you have to be 21 years of age to carry concealed, is that, I mean, like, can, can somebody clarify that for me? Senator Love, I don't think, uh, I don't think that's, that's, I just want clarification. That's, that's, that's all, that's all I, I'm gonna just asking is pretty, it's pretty clean. We, we're. Constitutional carry state. And I believe it says open or concealed. Uh, what we just, what we just had voted on, uh, the motion that Senator Rice made. Would Now That being said, the point that The fine folks from our state police made was that you have to be 21. To get a concealed carry. Permit And you had to be 21 to purchase. Is, is that, is that the clarification you have to be 21 years of age to purchase a handgun. Or to purchase a firearm. I would need to, I would need to, yeah, you have an answer on that, ma'am? Yes, I clarify, you have to be 21 to purchase from a federal firearms licensee. You only have to be 18 to purchase in a private sale. So you can buy a handgun in a private sale from individual to individual, but you can't buy one from a licensed dealer until you're 21. OK. Thank you. Uh, do we have any other? Questions From committee. All right. See you then. Thank you, I'm, I'm sorry, Senator Payton. Thank you Mr. Chair. Just for discussion purposes. Arkansas law does not. Prohibit somebody under 21 from buying a handgun. That's federal law, isn't it? I don't think that's in Arkansas code. I believe that's correct. Yes, sir. OK. So as far as the state of Arkansas, we recognize constitutional carry, which means concealed or unconcealed for adults, 18 years and older. Is that your understanding? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Thank you all very much for, uh, your presentation for the information. Thank you. Um, committee, I would also say real quick and just for the sake of the public. What is currently Arkansas law. We are not. Voting on changing except for. The However many 12 or 15. Recommended. Motions that this committee has made in past. So if we're bringing up just for clarification, for asking about. Which is great to ask so that we all know, but if we're asking about, um, Something that has not been made a motion. And voted on by this committee. Then it's been the the desire. Of the chairs and the Committee, I believe that. It still remained. Current law. So the only things that we're gonna that as we. Why mess up? Are the things that we have voted on the, the recommended changes. Uh, I just wanted to put that out there just so there's clarification. Uh, that we're not. Trying to slip in something else on, you know. ProAc on one side or another. Uh, we are only, if, if we hadn't voted on it. It's our desire that it remain the same. Um, now that being said, we will move on to our. Public comment part or I'm sorry, Mr. Fortner. All right, y'all, I'll suck at this new uh computer thing so y'all just have to forgive me. You're doing just fine, representative, better than I would, uh, for another point of clarification if I could, so everybody unders I hope can understand it. What our committee has done is make recommendations to be submitted to the legislature in 2025. This is not. Changing anything what we've done. These are recommendations to the full body to consider these is this, is that not correct, Mr. Chairman? You're correct. Thank you. Senator Irvin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to add that this committee has done its due diligence in having a lot of meetings where the public has been invited at every single committee to weigh in every single committee. It has been their choice whether they've been at the table to put their comments on public record or not. Um, that's a choice that's been made, but, um, that they have been invited. To participate in this process. And I appreciate many that have come, um, and sat in the, in the, um, in the audience, but I also would appreciate for them to engage in the process and give public comments as well, um, because I feel like this legislature and this committee process under the leadership of our chairs and our ALC chairs have given Deference to this being a process that includes public input, and it's just I wanna know, we have not really heard much from the public by their choice, not by ours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Irvin. Um, I'm gonna back up again. Before we go to public comment. I know we have, uh, game of fish here. Do y'all have anything? Would y'all like to come to the table with anything? are Thank you. Also, I know, uh, Sheriff's Association. Is Is here or was, do y'all have anything? Going once or twice. OK, uh, prosecutor association? OK. OK. All right. Now We're moving on to the public comment part and first on the list that I see here and Is Miss Anna Morchetti. I hope I didn't screw that up as bad as I did last time. You're welcome to come to the table and identify yourself. For the record. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Um, my name is Anna Morchetti, and I am here just representing myself as a concerned parent. I really appreciate your comments about, uh, encouraging people to have time for public comment and for you to be listening. That's really important as a constituent, so I really appreciate that. My daughter is in elementary school and my son is a middle schooler and do you know what the leading cause of death is for kids their age. It's guns. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens in Arkansas and the United States, surpassing car crashes, cancer, poisoning, and suffocation. I just read Firearms are now. Represent 30% of all of the deaths that occurred among individuals 15 to 17, 30% of all of the deaths. So we know when vehicle fatalities were the leading leading cause of death for children that lawmakers focused on injury prevention and harm reduction, including passing laws that increase the safety of the vehicle and requiring car seats and seatbelts, and I believe a similar strategy must be considered for firearm injury prevention. Just this morning, uh, less than 3 miles away, there are 2 schools who went on lockdown. In our area here. And we know that shootings in K-12 schools have increased 31% in the last academic year. But the bottom line is that we know that gun laws work. So Arkansas ranks 50th in the nation for the strength of our gun laws. We have the weakest gun laws in the country and one of the highest rates of gun deaths in the nation. When we compare states head to head on the top 50 gun safety policies, a clear pattern emerges. States with strong laws see less gun violence. like ours that have failed to put basic protections into place have a rate of gun violence 2.5 times higher than the states that are national gun safety leaders. So instead of allowing or making it easier for people to carry guns at places where children play and congregate, including school bus stops. I urge you. I urge you to prohibit firearms from those places. As well as prohibiting people from possessing and storing handguns in cars on school property. And I believe that most Arkansans want the state law to follow the federal gun-free School Zones Act to help keep our kids safe at school and at school bus stops. This past Thursday, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, there was an article that ran that was titled Arkansas Schools Ad Security amid a rash of threats. And the Arkansas Department of Education said when an environment is unsafe or threatened, critical instruction and learning stops. Having guns on K-12 grounds will make a child's environment unsafe and will make them feel threatened. Which according to the Arkansas Department of Education is when instruction and learning stops. In the same article, the Attorney General's office was asked if they had any proactive programs. To help schools deal with these situations of school threats. And the spokesman, Mr. Jeff Lamaster, said in a text, not that I'm aware of. I also attended the school safety commission meetings back in 2022. And that group was brought together after the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and nowhere in their safety recommendations, did they list allowing adults with zero gun safety training with 0 gun safety training to carry on K-12 school grounds or at a school bus stop. That was not in their recommendation for how to keep our children safe at school. The good news is that there are evidence-based equitable solutions to prevent gun violence, and these solutions are supported by most people, including gun owners. I thank you so much for your time and for listening. Thank you, we have a few questions for you if you'd like. All right. First up, uh, Representative Beatty, you're recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm over here. Um, I appreciate you coming today and sharing your thoughts and, um, and. And insights on this issue with the committee. Just want to go a little bit further into what you were saying as the leading cause of death in, in middle school children, uh, there's a step further than that, that it's, it's not, it, it's pretty much suicide by firearm. So instead of happening on the campus or in school, these are things that are happening in the home. And I think that's a, a very key, um, part of, of what you were saying that was left out that it's actually Suicide that's happening in the home, um, with, with firearms at that, at that location instead of happening on school grounds. And would it be all right if I respond or you're OK, thank you. That that is a a wonderful point and suicide prevention is definitely part of this discussion. So I'm glad that you're bringing it up. Um, I would also bring up the point that if we are allowing 18 year olds. To be on school grounds. With a handgun without any training if they purchased it through a private sale. That now you're introducing Someone who has access to a gun at a school in a parking lot. And if their vehicles unlocked and if it's known that they bring their firearm to school every day, you are now giving someone who is having a moment of suicidal thoughts, access to lethal means at school. I, I don't have anything else. Thank you for your thoughts. All right, uh, next up, we have another question from Senator Stubblefield. Thank, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, ma'am, are you, are you aware of Plano, Texas. You've heard of Plano, Texas? They have the highest gun, uh, Per capita per person of any city in the nation. And they're also ranked number one as a safest city in the nation. Chicago has the highest. Some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet they have the most deaths of any, any city in the country and most, most studies including the Kaiser study, says that the United States is not even ranked in the top 50. As far as gun violence. We're not even the top 50. Look at the latest studies. So I just want to make sure you understand that there's a lot of things floating around that are not so these are true. I look these up. any of those statistics and any of the reports that I have read right now, we know that there is access to lethal means in the United States at a much higher rate than other countries and that gun violence is a uniquely American problem. And that Arkansas ranks 50th in the nation for the strength of our gun laws compared to the rate of our gun deaths. So I'm happy to provide the the research behind that. Um, I would love to, to hear. The research that you have as well. I just have not come across that in, in the work that I do. I would suggest you go to take a visit to Guatemala. Well, we're talking about schools in the United States in Arkansas allowing firearms on the campuses here and my children go to school here. This is something that is very personal to me and so I think talking about what's happening here in Arkansas is my focus. most of the schools in my district. Uh, we have teachers that are armed. In fact, some of them have more training than a lot of law enforcement officers. But we're not talking about teachers being armed. We're talking about allowing citizens with no training. To be on school grounds with a firearm. There's there's not training that is required anymore to be on a K through 12 campus in Arkansas. Uh I'm gonna interject right here if we can that we're. Very happy for you to be here. And, uh, and I appreciate you taking questions from the committee and I want to make sure that that's what this remains. If you have a question. Um Ms. Porchetti has been gracious. To sit here and take questions, but we're not gonna turn this into a back and forth, uh, discussion, uh, just so the committee can understand, otherwise we'll be here for quite some time. There might be a difference of opinion in the room, uh, I'm not sure, but anyway, Senator Soberfield or You wrapped up. All right, thank you. Uh, let's see, next up, Senator Irvin. You recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you again for being here and for your testimony. I appreciate your input and, and for you to have the courage to come and, and make your comments part of the public record. I think that's really, really important. So I commend you for being here. Question is on bus stops in your, where your children go to school. I'm not sure if they ride the bus to school or not, um, but are those bus stops smart in any form or fashion? Do you know by the school district that this is an official bus stop. It's like a is it a designated signage or area or anything like that that you know of? So I do not believe that those are marked in our area, but I, from what I read, um, in the supplements that were sent out from the previous meeting is that it would be based on bus stops that were presented by school districts before the school year took place, so they are defined areas. I don't believe, and I, if someone has more information, I don't believe there is signage at those. Particular stops. OK. And the reason I ask is I know there's a difference between urban and rural, and I live in rural Arkansas. My kids did ride the bus from time to time to school, um, and they would pick them up at the end of my driveway. And so that's my private property, you know, and so, um, that would be odd, I think, for us to have laws that would limit my ability, you know, to provide a firearm at my own property. If that makes sense. I'm just trying to eliminate the difference and that the law is, you know, it, it's something that has to address all areas of the state of Arkansas, and sometimes we get into that, but I just for my purposes wanted to know because I know in, in my area, those are not designated or the school district doesn't designate it and it actually changes from time to time depending on who's riding the bus, um, or who's being picked up or dropped off or whatever, so it's not always the same. same places every single day. So I was just curious. Uh, thank you for your information. May I respond to that. So again, I think that the spots that they're talking about though do have to be designated before the school year. So if there was a change, I'm not sure how the law would interpret that. What I will say is that the My understanding is that the bus stops are in the right of way of property, which can be used for other purposes, um, including utility work, and that's where the bus stops are and Even if it is your private property, this law would then allow Any other citizen to stand on your property with a loaded firearm next to your children. So that's the part I, I understand the difference between what a rural community is facing in an urban community, but I just think Again, it's different you're thinking about a parent protecting their children at the bus stop. I might need my firearm compared to now we're going to allow Strangers, the legal ability to stand next to your children. On your property if that's where your bus stop is. Feels Very dangerous and vulnerable for the children in my perspective. Thank you. Thank you, uh. Except we still have. Representative Pilkington, you're recognized, sir. Thank you, Chairman over here. Thank you. Uh, thanks for being here today. Um, Yeah, one of the things and, and the center briefly mentioned this, we obviously see a different rates when it comes to, uh, the children who are more likely to be killed with gun violence. I know for white children it's 2.3 per 100,000, which is below the national average where for African Americans it's 11.5 I believe per 100,000. And so, you know, obviously, I think the desire is to no longer make schools soft targets, make them hard targets by allowing people to carry. But I guess, you know, you, you mentioned. You know, Evidence-based policies to, to help reduce this. But if you're someone in Arkansas and you're wanting to make sure that more of these urban areas that you're not seeing a high rate of violence against African American kids. But yet in places like mentioned in some other place like Chicago and Washington DC and places like that where they have strict gun laws, it doesn't seem to be changing the tide and so I was curious if you could tell us what would be different than someplace like these blue states have done that haven't effectively decreased the number of African American children being killed by guns, uh, as compared to, to some more hard targets. So I guess that's it's maybe a convoluted question, but I, I hope you're kind of understand the point I'm trying to get as I feel like we're both on two sides of We're both wanting to protect kids, but the idea is one is saying we should not make them hard, we should make them hard targets instead of soft targets. And is there anything that's different than kind of what's currently being provided in some of these other states where we're just not seeing the reduction in those deaths so. That's me resting my question, probably making it more confusing, but I hope you can alleviate us. Or enlighten us Thank you so much. A great question, and I, I do want to come back to, I do believe there's common ground that we're all trying to protect our children. So I appreciate you saying that and I think when we have that common ground as our start, we can go a lot further, so I, I think the argument that I would make to to what you brought up is just that, um, it sounds like maybe you're talking about. Our kids would be safer if more good guys with guns were around them then bad guys with guns, but what I'm trying to say is that this law opens it up to a flood of all. Citizens who can legally possess a firearm, so you are. Opening legally the floodgates for people to come onto school grounds with a firearm and be around children. I know it's not in the buildings, but on the rest of the campus and statistics show that just the introduction of a firearm around children does increase the, um, likelihood that they will be shot. So I, I would love to see the statistics that you were talking about with Chicago, but I know in, in general, when you look at states. Who have enacted laws that are, are meant to strengthen, um, commonsense gun legislation laws that those states have far lower rates of gun deaths. OK, we have uh Sender Love. You're recognized for a question. Thank you. And, and, uh, Ms. Marchetti, thank you for For coming and speaking because I know this, this is not the easiest, uh, I wanna first, uh, make comments, uh, um, um, I wanna thank uh Representative Pilkington for thinking about African American kids, um. Because that was one of the things that I was thinking about as we were talking about guns on bus stops. I would not ever be an advocate for anyone having guns at a bus stop and when I was talking to some of my colleagues we were thinking about. An 18 year old. Untrained At a bus stop, and what does that look like in our community. And so thank you for what you're doing. Thank you for how you're, you're speaking out, but, um, let me ask you this because I, I think. Um, your kids. And my kids actually went to the same junior high school, if I'm not mistaken, is it Forest Heights? I'm, I thought you were, um, no, my, my students do not go to that school. I mean my children. OK. I thought, I thought they were at Forest Heights. So, my bad, I'm mistaken. Um. But talk to me about. About this, um. If you had a child that was at a bus stop. In Little Rock. And there were kids around, I mean, we're talking about 18 year olds right? because my kid is at a bus stop in. You eloquently put to to Senator Elliot's I mean, Senator Irvin's question. About how the bus stops move. How safe do you feel like your kids would be. With untrained kids, 18 year olds having access to guns. Talk to me about. That feels incredibly dangerous. I cannot imagine. Getting a text from my child saying I'm at the best bus stop. There's someone with a gun standing next to me. And having to respond if, if this passes eventually in the next session that that there's nothing to be done. You're going to have to Stand there in fear. I just think that the it's not like a law enforcement officer standing next to them. That would, that would be very different. It's not a student resource officer. This is a citizen who again could, could be 18. It could also, as we heard in the last committee meeting from, um, another individual who gave testimony, who represents parents of murdered children that uh a lot of gang violence is happening in Little Rock that we could now add into it. This, this use of the school bus stop for intimidation or different purposes that are not, I, I don't believe part of what you are intending in this, um, that we're talking about today. So as a parent, that would make me very uncomfortable and fearful. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh, next up, we have a question from Senator Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm, I'm right here. Um, Ms. Marchetti, I, I sympathize with your concerns. Obviously, we want to keep the kids safe, uh, As, as everybody's been having this discussion, I've just been sitting here y'all wondering. How do you achieve that goal? In light of the fact that the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment guarantees The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, and in my opinion, that means to keep would be to have them and to bear me would mean to have them with you. Um, so when you mentioned that Arkansas is 50th. In the gun laws Do you, do you have any statistics on the other 49 states and how many times they've lost in court. By having one of their restrictions proven unconstitutional. Do we have that number? I have not seen that number, but they, they have many laws that have been on the books for a very long time. That's true. And so I, I mean, I think we need to find ways to protect the children. We need to go to extreme measures to protect the children. But we need to recognize that there is constitutional rights. Of every American citizen. And, and many of those rights come in before they're 18 years old, but at 18 years old they're considered an adult. And if we're going to restrict or take away a constitutional right, That that requires it being adjudicated guilty of of a crime before we take somebody's rights away. So I just want that to be part of the discussion that we recognize that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And so as we try to meet these challenges of securing the bus stops and the buses. I don't know if you're thinking these people are there to get on the bus, but I mean, we do have a 21 age limit on the concealed carry permit. Which allows them to carry in restricted places which a school is one of those restricted places. So I'd just like for it to be part of the conversation of whether or not What you're proposing would violate the Second Amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't believe it would violate the Second Amendment and and the school bus stop has been a protected sensitive area in Arkansas, so this would be a change, and I, I. I think that we've seen in our our lives there are many areas where we have different rules. In, in an airport, um, there, there are places and people that we've decided it's not safe to have a firearm. So my belief is that a school bus stop should remain protected. I also believe that a school grounds the entire grounds should be protected under the federal um. safe schools zone Act that we have and I do not believe in taking everyone's guns away. I appreciate adding that into the conversation, but I think there is a way to have a sensitive area where children are unaccompanied. That that be one of the places that we decide there is common ground that that should be a place that's that's designated a safe place. All right. Thank you. Ms. Marchetti, we appreciate you being here. Appreciate your. Uh, civil discourse and, and being a class actor, sincerely. Uh, now we're gonna let you go before we wear you out and you don't want to come back. Thank you so much I appreciate the questions and the dialogue. Thank you. Next up we have Mr. Brad Phelps. Um, if you would, sir. at the stop, sir. Thank you, thank you, um. All right, moving down the list. Next step we have uh. Mr. Craig Shelton. I said that correctly. If you would, uh, just identify yourself for the record and who you represent. Uh, you'll have to turn your mic on there, sir. Does, does that work? Where we go? Uh, I would like to thank the committee, Representative Miller, Senator Hill chairs the committee for letting me, uh, Speak today. I am Craig Shelton. I'm a local, excuse me, sir, Ms. Shelton, could you pull that mic a little bit closer to you. Is that better? I think so. Yes, sir. I am a local firearms instructor, uh, part-time, low activity. I've been in the business for about 3 years, so low time. I'm also, uh, grew up in Little Rock and uh retiree of the, uh, Arkansas National Guard and the US Air Force and currently a student at Bowen Law School in spite of my white hair. I've submitted, uh, summary of the topics I wanted to speak to the staff, so you have that in writing, but I'd like to go, go through those for the committee. First, I'd like to thank the committee, uh, as has been spoken earlier for just the openness and breadth of the coverage. I've attended a couple of the prior meetings over the course of the year and, uh, submitted comments previously. I think that's great. Next, the uh proposed revision of the licensing structure to go to a single license and do away with a separate enhanced license. I will tell you as an instructor. It's very confusing that of the states that have advanced enhanced licenses in their system, no two are the same, so it's quite confusing explaining to folks, if you travel, this counts that doesn't, or if you're from outside Arkansas, that counts and this doesn't. So the, uh, change to a single license system is going to be very beneficial when we look at, uh, state reciprocity of people traveling across state lines. I would like to, uh, first thank Senator Rice because I've, I've watched your, uh, participation and. strong concern here, uh, and on the motion that was made to go ahead and accept the proposed language on the courthouse and courtroom. I, I feel obliged to point out a couple of, uh, actual logical structure and grammatical structure, uh, ambiguities in the language as currently proposed. Subsection 7 addresses courthouses, subsection 8 addresses courtrooms. If you look at them together, you may realize that. Whereas Section 8 lists specific people, uh, officers of the court, bailiffs, uh, law enforcement officers who are allowed in the courtroom. With uh with their firearms. But the way it's positioned after Section 7, they are denied access to the courthouse to get into the courtroom. That can be corrected simply by merging Section 7 and 8 into a single statement that makes it clear the, uh, intent of who should it be allowed in the courthouse and courtroom. Then a subset of that in the list of, uh, folks who are allowed to under the law, carry into the courtroom. Uh, there's a punctuation situation that causes ambiguity in the statement that is by use of only commas. It's unclear whether the statement is approved by the court applies only to the other individuals or to the. Officers of the court. Law enforcement and so forth, so I would suggest, uh, considering appropriately changing from commas to apostrophe or semicolons, I mean, to shift the obvious meaning of, of the listed groups, the only ones that, that require the court approval or the other individuals, those, those two things together, I think will clean up the logical and ambiguity of the proposed legislation. I appreciate that one of my written comments is on the unnecessary use of the word enhanced. I appreciate the state police have already addressed that. Finally, there's an issue that I did not see in the proposed legislation. That, uh, I know is at least brought up during prior hearings, we still in Arkansas face an open issue with the uh ATF on whether or not it's appropriate to relieve holders of a license of a, a full N check upon purchasing a firearm from a federally firearm licensed dealer today, those of us with with license whether basic or enhanced, can make a speedier purchase at a. Uh, gun shop because we do fill out all the, the same paperwork, but we don't have to wait for the next check to come back. Other states that have gone to medical marijuana or recreational marijuana and not incorporated that into their review for the license, uh, have had ATF come back and remove that authority. Based upon that until the state police can report to you a resolution of what's going on with The, uh, interaction of federal law and the ATF enforcement, I would recommend that under 5773,309, subsection 6. That subsection B, be deleted from from current law, the, uh, legislation could always readdress that issue once there is a resolution of the pending, uh, possible change from the ATF into the house that addresses the state. One item that I would like to suggest the committee review comes out of the discussion we just heard. Uh That is, and this would, would require the committee to, I'm not an expert on this, but I have had to teach from the, uh, subject matter. Is the issue of the intersection of federal and state law on firearms in and around schools. The ban on Firearms within 1000 ft of a school and in the school building is entirely federal law. Uh, we just heard the reference to the, uh, federal law on safe guns. The only thing state law can affect under that law is not the buildings, but the 1000 ft limitation can be alleviated if the state issues a concealed carry license and authorizes in the state law that the holders of the license can be within that 1000 ft radius. Uh, there's some confusion on that and that I discerned in the discussion that the committee had just a few minutes ago and I think that asking for a clarification of that intersection of federal, state law from the Attorney General's office and possibly the state police might help address that to the committee further. Uh, that, that concludes my observations and and comments on the proposed legislation. I thank you for the opportunity to be here. Thank you, sir. We don't have any questions from the committee at this time. We do appreciate your input. Thank you. All right Next up on the list is Mr. Gary Epperson. If you would please come identify yourself and who you represent? You turn the mic on, Mr. Epperson. There he goes. Is it on now? You're good. OK. let her rest. Senator Irvin, I'm up here testifying today, but, uh, I appreciate the committee, the time is spent, especially dealing with us. I appreciate the effort in trying to simplify these gun laws in the process that we've went through and basically that's what I wanted to cover today. It's just going towards Arkansas's appreciation. I'm open to any questions y'all may have, uh, one other thing I am kind of circulating a proposal. Amongst some committee members for study, it's not anything that is pressing to be done this next session because we need to get it right, but basically, if you can't stop the bad guy, why stop the good guy. On that, uh, go from there and then you can put exceptions and eliminate probably. Close to 200 pages of firearms laws. Now as far as what I have seen on this proposal and it was very, very brief. Is it appears that we're trying to criminalize good people from carrying in certain places. And that is not needed. It's redundant. Arkansas law in place now already has takes care of that and no trespassing laws. Why do we want to add further to that? Basically now if the business tells you to leave and you don't leave, you can be charged with trespassing, that's been inadequate for years and years. Uh, why should we criminalize uh many of us that may not even see a no gun sign. When we go in, a lot of businesses that put them up, you'll never notice them. Oh, that's about all I had to say, uh, if y'all have questions for me. Uh, I mean More than willing to ask. We have any questions from the committee? Say no, Mr. Epperson, we appreciate you being here. Thanks sir. Thank you. I appreciate y'all's time you bet. Next up we have Mr. Nathan House. If you would please identify yourself for the record and who you represent. Thank you, sir. My name is Nathan House. I'm the owner of Arkansas Armory. We're a Federal Farms licensed gun shop, and, um, a concealed carry instructor been for about 14 years. So, first of all, I just want to thank the subcommittee. I, I have reviewed your proposed legislation, uh, in depth, and I am very impressed with the amount of work that you guys have put into it and just how well written this legislation is. So we, we talked about a lot offline and, and it's some of the best proposed lawmaking I've seen. And, and I just wanted to thank you for that. I, I did go through and I have a list of things that that were uh. A concern to me things that maybe need to be addressed as you're, as you're looking through it. And I, I do have this document that I'll make available to this committee and I've also sent it, uh, electronically and can send it out as well. Uh, specifically, when, when looking at 573-502 on the prohibition on minors possessing handguns. Uh, there's no exceptions there in the law, uh, the proposed law change where a minor may possess a handgun within that section. And, uh, there are exceptions that are listed in, in. Uh, 504 and 602,504 being places where someone without a license is prohibited from carrying. And then in 602 is where somebody with a license can carry, but specifically in 502, there's penalties even under 502, but we don't have exceptions. And even federal law provides for exceptions when a minor can be legally in possession of a firearm. For instance, if they're engaged in target practice or if they're using a firearm to defend our home. So I would just encourage, uh, you, you guys to take a look at. Uh, even just 18 US Code, uh, 922 to to see kind of where those exceptions are at in, in the youth handgun safety, uh, US law and provide for those same provisions within 502 on where miners can legally possess a handgun. People that are under 18. Um, in in 573-504. So this is about, uh, places where someone without a license is prohibited from carrying. Um, I would, first in, in 504, A7 considered more concise language, uh, specifically, uh, it says that you're not allowed to carry into a portion of an establishment except a restaurant defined in 351202. License to dispense alcoholic beverages, beer or light wine for consumption on the premises. So instead of saying alcoholic beverages consumption, On the premises beer and light wine, consumption on the premises to shorten that down to alcoholic beverages, beer, light wine consumption on the premises. Next, um, and this will fall into 504 section 9, I would consider changing some of the verbiage there and, and some of the punctuation around the signage that's required in order to prohibit carry, uh, into the, into a place. Currently under 573306. It talks about, uh, the sign that says carrying A handgun is prohibited and, and the carrying a handgun is is prohibited, is in quotation marks. The, the new code in, in 504 and in 601, uh, removes the quotation marks and, and changes it to carrying a firearm is prohibited. So why is that significant? Well, number one, there's probably a lot of signs out there already under carrying a handgun is prohibited, that business owners have purchased and put up and by changing it to carrying a firearm was prohibited. It, it may require the replacement of signs by, by business owners. Not a big deal because that's probably a little bit more specific, but it's just something to consider. What is more important to me are those quotation marks. And what quotation marks mean in the law is that it must say that exactly. And, and why that's important is because it means something very specific to people that are carrying firearms either concealed, uh, with a license or without, and if we open it up to allow just, well, what would a reasonable A person think, you know, maybe with a gun with a slash through it. Uh, with, with that count as a, as a sign that would prohibit carry into a particular establishment. Well then, what is a gun with a slash through it even mean? Is, does that mean they're carrying of all guns is prohibited, or does it mean that the carrying of concealed handguns is are prohibited or the unlicensed carry is prohibited or, uh, the, the, uh, the unlawful carrying of a firearm was prohibited. And so when, when you open it up to a reasonable person interpretation, people got to deal with that in court. And so that's why in states like Texas and in Arkansas. We've had a long-standing, carrying a handgun is prohibited was the language and whatever that language needs to be is fine, but in quotation marks so that it means that exactly and we don't give the latitude, you know, and, and that sign must be displayed at every entrance, clearly readable at a distance of not less than 10 ft. So those are some really important elements that I would like to see in 504 and in 601 of, of your proposed changes. Um, And going along with that in in in section 504 and then 601, there's a, there's a section in there in, in, in part 9 that allows a person to just verbally tell someone that, hey, you're not allowed to carry a gun in here and that had the same forces making it a prohibited place. I strongly recommend that we look at getting rid of that. And in my black and African American clients do as well. And, and the reason that that's important is Whenever we can put a bouncer or, or somebody that's attending the door at the front door of your business. And if you come in and you look like this, well, no problem. We just won't say anything to you. But if you look like this, hey, if you've got a gun, you need to take it back out to your car. And so when we allow people to pick and choose who's going to come into their establishment, uh, just based on what a person says at the front door, I don't think that that's very good practice, and I think it legalizes discrimination. A sign that has very specific wording, clearly readable at a distance of not less than 10 ft at every entrance is applicable to every citizen that comes into that establishment. And the, the way that law got there is because the bar and club owners, back when the enhanced law was passed, didn't want to have to put up signs because it would chase business off. They'd always enjoyed the prohibition in 306 and not having to have a sign. Well, well, what if we just hand them something in writing? What if we just tell them verbally? I, I just think that that's bad practice and I would strongly Discouraged just Allowing anything that a reasonable person would consider a notice to, to count. I, I would like very specific language for that. Um, in, uh, Section 505 persons who may carry in certain prohibited places. Um, I, I recommend removing section 9 there. Um, uh, Section 9 is the section that allows uh lawmakers and an elected officials to not have to go through the process to get a permit or whatever in order to carry into some of these prohibited places. I just think that the optics are bad for the citizens to carve out a special category of folks in the legislature or, um, in the governor's office to say, hey, you don't need to go. Through the process of getting a license like another citizen would. In Section 601, uh, it talks about carrying with a license, um, in, in 6016. It prohibits carry into any part, including a parking lot of a detention facility, prison, or a jail. Uh, and as it stands with the proposed language, a person without a license could have a gun in a, uh, uh, could have a gun in a parking lot of a county jail, uh, and that wouldn't be a problem, but a person with a concealed carry license could not have a gun in that county jail parking lot. So I would just, uh, recommend adding the same language into 504 so that licensees and non-licensees both are equally prohibited if you want to pro carry into a parking lot of a, a county facility like a jail. Um, In 601, uh, A 7, there is, there's a provision there that when it's talking about caring to courthouses and county offices, it says, and I would recommend that we remove or housing a county office as part of that language. Uh, what that does is. With the current enhanced and with the, with your proposed legislation, you're allowed to carry into state offices if you have a license, but that or housing a county office language that's in there prohibits citizens from carrying into the into the, into the state office that most of us go to, uh, most frequently, specifically into, uh, uh, the revenue office if we need to go get our car tags renewed or our driver's license renewed. What's often co-located at those state offices? Well, our, our county treasurer's office is in in. Because you go in there and you assess, well, that, that DFA office has a county treasurer's office in it and we can't go into there because it houses a county office. So I, I would strongly consider removing or housing a county office in 601A7. Um, I've already talked about those two, getting close to the end of my remarks here, uh, in 35 1202. This is relevant because it talks about what the definition of a restaurant is, and that is one of the codes that is referenced in the prohibited places list, uh, on your proposed language. I recommend changing the definition of a restaurant in 351202, uh, to a, to a definition that is a little simpler and one that is found currently in Texas law. Uh, and it just simply instead of it being a long and very convoluted paragraph about what a restaurant is in 351202. The the Texas definition says a restaurant is a business that operates its own permanent food service facility with commercial cooking equipment on its premises and prepares and offers to sell multiple meals for the consumption on or off premises, including appetizers, small plates, main dishes, desserts, and other similar food items. It just really simplifies that definition we don't have to get confused about what a huge pair. Graph about what the definition of a restaurant is. Uh, You guys, you guys also wrote about statute 1215 101. I would just ask that we add in Constable as a law enforcement officer of the state, that is one that was missed out. So just add section I and put a constable in there. I happen to be an elected constable, so that one caught my attention. And then in, uh, 141111 about regulation of firearms by local government. I would just encourage this committee to enact some teeth, uh, to that legislation that would prohibit local units. Of government, including cities from enacting provisions that prevent, uh, people from being able to carry into, into government facility into city facilities. Uh, right now we're, we're seeing cities like the city of Little Rock and Act provisions that prohibit carry and, uh, and, and so at least alternatively consider language such as, uh, that, that a notice under, you know, 573601, you know, doesn't have the force of law to folks that have a concealed carry license. And I've got that in my mind as well. I've got additional topics there, but I'll, I'll leave those for, for another time. Um, just briefly, those topics are the, the, the ABC, the alcohol Beverage Control Board is currently, uh, has in their, in their regulations, some regulations concerning guns. I would just propose that they be out of the business of regulating firearms in any way, I would think that that duty should go to the Arkansas State Police if you want to give that to an agency. Uh, I would say that, uh, we need to look at li for business owners, for when they post a sign. If they slap a sign on the door says, Hey, you're not allowed to carry here that, uh, those businesses have said, hey, yeah, I'll take care of your safety while you're here. And if they, and if they refuse to do that and, uh, people get hurt in their business and those those, uh, business owners are liable. Uh, Tennessee considered similar legislation at one point, and I would hope that we would do the same, uh, just to make businesses responsible for taking care of their citizens. Um, that's really about Oh, last thing I will say is possession of a, we've got a law 573133 about possession of a taser stun gun. I think that we've got a incorrect. Um, Age there, right now, the way that that legislation is written is that it is illegal for a person who is 18 and younger to possess a taser stun gun. Uh, but it's perfectly legal for an 18 year old to possess a handgun. And so I think that there is a mistake in the language and the law in 133, uh, that I just propose that we read younger than 18 years of age to purchase or possess a stun gun because I've got kids in college and I'd sure like to be able to give my 18 year old, a stun gun if if they need it. That's all in, and, uh, I'm glad to answer any questions. I don't see any questions at this time. We do what Senator Irvin, you recognize, I really appreciate the due diligence that you, uh, showed in your. Comments as well, and you will give us a copy of your comments. I want copies of actually everybody's comments that was, that was submitted. But back to you, I'm not sure if the game and fish is still in the audience, but I think your point about the federal, um, exceptions, um, for under the for prohibition on minors possessing a firearm, and I just wanted to see, um, I want, I really wanted to see from the game and fish, particularly because we have so many kids that are hunting, um, If you had a response to that comment, Director Booth. Because we have the clay shooting sports, we have, we have, um, Obviously youth hunting and so it's very often that a 14 year old is going to be out in the woods by themselves, perhaps sometimes hunting with a firearm. You're recognized, sir. Thank you for the question, Senator Irvin. I'm also the director of the Arkansas Game Fish Commission. I'm not aware of, of any federal prohibition that would prohibit a minor from possessing a firearm, um, legal hunting age, um, in Arkansas 6, and then we require licenses at age 16, uh, that is also the case on all of our, uh, public lands that are, of course, support. With federal funding, uh, and as you mentioned, uh, we also have youth shooting sports program, which welcomes about 5000 children, or, uh, 5000 miners anyways, um, that use shotguns every year. So is there a reason why we wouldn't, um, mirror the, the federal language of the exceptions into state law. Uh, not that I can think of, ma'am, but, uh, I would welcome the opportunity to get back to you. I really would like to kind of explore that, um, issue maybe, um, to his point. I, I thought it was one of the strongest points that he made. Thank you so much for being here and for the information. Thank you. Uh, Seeing no further questions from the committee, we appreciate, appreciate y'all being here, um. Committee, I'm gonna take just a second. And, and just remind everyone, the committee members, the public, um, Kind of our, our process here. We have Been given some reason and looked at reviews of, of our gun laws. The committee has voted. On I think 12 or 15, maybe a few more. Changes that have been drafted up. We will have a draft bill. Um, our bills. That will address these. Issues in just a few days prior at least they will be public. For at least a week. Um, Prior to our next meeting, uh, I just want to remind everybody that what we're changing. His only What the committee has voted on. So I know we've gotten a lot of emails and I appreciate all the comments, uh, and, and, and I agree with a lot of it. I think there's been some outstanding points, uh, that have been made and I just wanna. I just want to be very clear that don't take it. Um, don't take it the wrong way. If you don't see some of what you've suggested. OK In the next, the upcoming draft legislation, uh, because we've, we've, we've been committed to follow our study process as a committee, and, um, And if the committee has had a member who's recommended making a change and it hasn't been made. So just want to make sure that's out there and that's understood. Uh, that being said, next up, we have, uh, Mr. Robert Steinbach. You would identify yourself and who you represent. We'll be happy to hear from you. Thank you, Mr. Chair Robert Steinbach, um, I am a professor and a columnist. I'm here in my individual capacity. Um, thank you, uh, also for your earlier kind words and, uh, thank you also, uh, Chairman Hill. Um, I will, uh, I take your, your good counsel to focus on those dozen or so changes that um you all had agreed upon for this round of of uh developments in gun laws. Uh, and I think Senator Rice, uh, for, um, proposing the change regarding courthouses, uh, I'm confident, uh, that it will correct the concern I had and I'm equally confident that if I find something, you'll hear from me. Um, so either way, um, so we're all confident in that. That's right, indeed, sir, thank you. um. So I, I just like to focus uh in this. Fashion, as you aptly described on, um, two other things. Uh, from the proposal, uh, as you know, perhaps, uh, I, I've been litigating for several years now, the ability of Arkansans uh to carry guns in a variety of places I subscribe. I, I come here to a friendly audience, frankly, I appreciate, by the way, Ms. Marchetti's courage, I may not have so much courage. I come to a friendly audience when it comes to enforcing gun rights and I've been litigating these issues, uh, for quite some time. One that Um Remained in court today is my litigation against the city of Little Rock, uh, to carry in City Hall pursuant to the law that already exists today and I see that we have a draft bill, a very good one, that says, uh, local government can't make up laws that are outside the scope of the state government. As perhaps obvious as that should be and perhaps unnecessary uh such a law should be, we know it's not the case, given the behavior of cities like Little Rock that case is currently in Pulaski County Court, so I'll lose it at the trial level as a consequence. Um, but I'll litigate it all the way up to the Supreme Court as I have, um, other cases, uh, including the courthouse case, which of course we want, um, so. Uh, perhaps a modest suggestion that we could put something in uh the draft bill, JLC 178 to further encourage cities to comply some sort of penalty provision, be it attorney's fees or for those that think somehow all of the hours that I put in for which I've not been compensated is because I'm looking to get rich on gun laws, make it a penalty that goes to the state. I'll happily litigate on behalf of the state and have that money turned over to the state. But we need to have some teeth in these laws because the localities just thumb our nose and they say things like where the independent, um, republic of Little Rockistan, um, but the fact is that these, um, uh, Soviet republics populating our state or thumbing their noses at this legislature over and over again and equally at me as I go to court and as do the Local judges who are unimpressed with the accomplishments of this legislature so that's one suggestion. Only one other suggestion which is a little convoluted and I'll keep it short and it may be beyond what this leg what you all are trying to do right now. I, uh, of the cases that I've litigated, I did lose one in the Supreme Court, and that was, uh, regarding, uh, the, uh, ability to carry a gun on campus of a university uh when the university, um, uh, has like a rock concert or something like that, and sells alcohol. Um, the law reads that the uh um the university can't opt out of that, uh, but the Supreme Court disagreed with that, and I lost that case. Um, so I will, and the current version of uh JLC 174, um, uh, makes it that the university, uh, can opt out of our carry rights if it's serving alcohol at a rock. Concert on campus. Um, so I'm not sure if that's within or without, uh, what, what you're considering. Um, those are the only two things that I have to mention. Excuse me. Uh, and of course I'm available for questions if there are any. Thank you, sir. Um, I don't see any questions from committee. Thank you very much we do appreciate you being here. I appreciate your input. Thank you, Representative. Yes, sir. Um, Next up, we have Mr. Shane Broadway. We appreciate you, Mr. Broadway. Uh, Next up, uh, we have. Mr. Wit Hall. If you would, sir, please identify yourself for the record and, and who you represent. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is Richard Whithall, and I do feel like I'm in front of a friendly audience because I've met with many of you and I have, uh, met with, uh, Pilkington just recently at a pediatric conference. I'm a hunter of 70 years. I have been a pediatrician for 50 years, and as of July 1st, 2022, uh, became a gun violence survivor when my grandson Isaiah Hall, was shot and killed July 1, 2022. Uh, my, my, the reason that I am here today is because I am firmly against having guns within 1000 ft of a school. I have taken care of many, many kids, uh, I, I've taken kids like care of kids like Cot Gray, the perpetrator of the tragedy that happened in Georgia and kids between 14 and 18 years old are obnoxious. Uh, they're not monsters, they're obnoxious. But there's a reason why we don't serve them alcohol. There's a reason why we have graduated driver's licenses and with the hormones raging through their bodies as many of us might remember, uh, their judgment is oftentimes not that good. Uh, I strongly believe that we do not want to have guns anywhere near our school kids. Our school kids are as a hunter would say they're sitting ducks and even though, uh, I really do appreciate. The advantages and appreciate uh Senator Irvin, what you said about hunting. It's a wonderful thing for kids. I've done it with all of my kids. Uh, I certainly do not want to see guns on a school campus where they can invoke harm on all of these kids. Um, I know that our legislators are under tremendous pressure to deregulate firearms. It is going to take a lot of courage, a lot. of critical thinking skills, and it's gonna take a lot of true grit to stop the number one killer of children. I recognize that it's about 50% suicide and about 50% homicide, a little bit less on each one and tragically, there's about 5% that are unintentional where a 3 year old or a 6 year old gets a code of a handgun. 18 to 21 year olds comprise 4% of our population. They're responsible for 21% of the homicides. So, uh, I think that allowing an 18 year old who is legally able to carry a gun on campus would be a travesty for us and for children. I would be more than happy to engage in further conversations, uh, with anybody that is interested in stopping this epidemic of gun violence in our children. Thank you, OK, sir, and I have a. A point I'll I'll put it in the form of a question, uh. But as, as it stands right now, And this is not changing with any of these proposals. As it stands right now, Nobody That does not have a license. Can carry on school. Grounds Period. You can't have a license. Unless you're 21, we've covered that already today. Uh, and just want to Make that I want to make that clear, um, so I don't, you know, I think there's been a. A misunderstanding that we're just. You know, gonna Gonna arm every 18 year old and send them to school. That's not what's happening. Um, and, and I do appreciate your concern. OK. Thank you. I am sorry for your loss as well. Thank you. And, and I would certainly agree and, and commend you for that. Thank you. All right, um, That is it on our list today committee. I want to remind everybody that we will Our next meeting will be Thursday, October 3rd, right here at 1:30. Um, and again, I will remind y'all that we will have a draft bill. That's gonna be available, uh, to view, uh, for at least a week. Prior to that meeting, um, That being said, I see no further business in front of the committee. We are adjourned. have