ALC-Game & Fish/State Police

If we can have everybody kind of get to their places, um. We'll get started First of all, I want to thank everybody for being here today, uh. We should have a She'll have a pretty good time and and make this uh. Make this go pretty easy. I won't recognize my. Co-chair Senator Hill, uh, for any comments, and then we'll get started. OK, like to let everyone know we're gonna have a sign up sheet wherever it went for anyone that may want to talk today it's right here in front. So, uh, if you need to sign up to speak today, she's got the sheet right there. Uh, today will be the day to do that and so please get up there and sign up and it will be after we finish the presentation that we have in front of us, that'd be one of the last things we do today, so please get up there and, and sign up if you want to speak. So, this will be the only, only chance you, you get to do that. So please get up there. That's all I have to say, sir. All right. Um, first of all, we Have its table, uh, from BLR Ms. Jill Thayer, um, she's gonna, uh, present the draft study report and including the recommendations that have been adopted uh to this point and managers are, uh, identify yourself and. The floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it on? Jill Thayer, Bureau of Legislative Research. So you should all have in your packets a draft, uh, report of this subcommittee's firearms study. I'm just going to take you briefly through it and then uh Jennifer is going to talk to you about the bills that are attached to that and Alex Benton is here with the AG's office and she's going to talk to you about a few open issues you still had from last time. So this is our standard. form of these types of reports. Um, it goes through the work that the subcommittee has done to date, the different topics that you covered and the different entities that you've heard from. Um, we have beginning on page 2, a table of all the recommendations that have been adopted to date by the subcommittee. So I'm going to briefly touch on each one and then pause for Jennifer to talk you through the attached bill. Um, it's my understanding that then if, um, there are any changes that the subcommittee wants to make, uh, BLR would go back and make those before your next meeting, um, your next meeting is when you would adopt the final report to send to the executive subcommittee. So, starting on page 2, your first category that you heard were hunting recommendations, um, the first, uh, recommendation that was adopted was a repeal of Section 1543105, and, uh, Jennifer has the bill on that one. Good afternoon. I'm Jennifer Cryin, a legislative attorney, and I'm working with this committee. I also work with the Judiciary Committee, um, I have for you a, uh, proposed bill, uh, to be sponsored by Representative Wardlaw. It is the one identified as JLC 176. And it simply repeals, uh, the current section 1543105. So, Mr. Chair, we take any questions from the committee on that one or if there are none. So the next one is a recommendation that was adopted to repeal Section 1543-205 and Jennifer has a separate. Bill on that one. And so this is, uh, the bill identified as JLC 177. To be sponsored by Senator Boyd, and it simply repeals the current 1543205. Do we have any discussion from committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next bill and recommendation that you have involves. Uh, creating a single licensing scheme for concealed carry and constitutional carry. And this is the larger bill in your packet and there are several recommendations that come out of this one, I don't think I'll go through. Well, Jennifer can go through the 1st, 3 that are there, I believe would probably be the easiest before we need to pause, um, and that would be the single licensing scheme, the school bus stops and parades or demonstrations. OK. So the single licensing scheme is addressed on in section 6 of JLC 174, um, if you turn to page 14. Of the bill, um, Section 6 amends the current, um, Arkansas code 573322 in subsection G of this, uh, statute, uh, that is where the current process for obtaining what we refer to as the enhanced concealed carry license is set out, um, specifically in G3 and in H and I, um, there are provisions for Persons to be trained and to be identified, um, to, to carry, um, an enhanced concealed carry licenses in those sections are being repealed. And so that leaves you with the single licensing scheme for the, um, concealed carry of a handgun. And then, um, did you want me to move on to the school bus stops? OK. So, um, I'm skipping the gun-free school zone Act because there is no recommendation to change current law, um, school bus stops is addressed in section 2 of JLC 174. Beginning on page 2, In the current 573119 subsection or subdivision B1C, uh, kind of in the middle of page two. you can see in the stricken language that current law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm at, at a designated bus stop, and that language is being stricken. And then we have new language that will cover later in this bill that doesn't include the bus stop language. And then similarly, um, parades or demonstrations, that is, um, also contained in some of the stricken language in JLC 174 in section 5, we are repealing 573306, beginning on page 9 of the bill. So that entire section is being repealed. And if you look on page 12. Number 17, um, about 3/4 of the way down the page is, um, the prohibition against carrying a firearm where a parade or demonstration is taking place and that language is being stricken, and then in the new language, later on in the bill that, um, parade or demonstration language is not included in the news or discussion none we'll move along. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On beginning on page 3 of the report, the next recommendation deals with, um, sentencing for violations, um, Jennifer has some. Blanks and JLC 174 here and she can explain those where we do need a subcommittee recommendation on amounts. So in JLC 174. If you'll bear with me while I turn to that, um. We have some new provisions, um, in Section 9 beginning on page 18 of the bill draft, we have a new subchapter, uh, 573501, um, setting out the, um, statutes dealing with possession of a firearm without a license. And then after that. On page 22, we have a new subchapter 6, dealing with possession of a concealed handgun with the license. So in those new subchapters, we have two places where, um, there are criminal penalties mentioned. And so the first place is at the top of page 21, and that's in the new section 573504, that, um, talks about the places a person without a license. is prohibited from carrying, and there's a long list of places like inside of a school, the state capitol grounds, um, I won't go through the entire list, but you can see it there on pages, uh, 18 through 20, and then at the end of that subsection B. As a person who violates subsection A, so a person who carries without a license in one of those places, um, upon conviction is found guilty of a blank and the language that you'll see there at the top of 21, it sets out penalties as high as a class D felony, um, down to A violation. And I, I think that, that Ms. Benton is ready to talk with you about the possibilities, um, of what you could, um, could do here. I, I think we weren't certain what language the committee wanted to include at this point. Do you want to Talk about that Ms. Benton, you're recognized. Hi, Alexandra Benton with the Attorney General's office. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I believe that the original motion by this committee was to adopt, um, a, a financial penalty and it was anywhere from. $100 to $10,000 it was that broad, and I don't believe the committee made a decision on the fine amount. So I believe that is just an open question for the committee to decide today to recommend to fill in that blanket. OK. uh, Representative Wardlaw, you recognize? Mr. Chair, I have a motion on the amount if you're ready it may make your motion a motion. To set the penalties on. Draft JLC 174 up to $1000 per fence. That's a proper motion. Do we have a second? Any discussion by the committee. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, just wondering if the attorney might wanna suggest the difference is that whether we put just the higher amount, the up to, or do we need a floor? Because if we don't put a floor, the floor would be 0, which means. There would be no monetary penalty anywhere from, I believe, 1 cent, yes, to, to your 0.1 cent to up to $1000 and given the language up to 1000, that would give judicial discretion to talk about the severity and the totality of the circumstances, uh, and to be able to make those fact decisions, uh, on a case by case basis. Thank you. So um I just wanted to point out that if Representative Wardlaw wants to go with. motion or maybe amend it to have a floor or leave the judicial discretion in there, I'm good with it either way. I just wanted to point that out. I think we lead the motion as, as stated. All right, we have Motion, we have a second. Any more? Mr. Chair, I do have one question. You can ask your question on your motion, sir. Go ahead. And I, and this is for Ms. Benton since we're allowing her to answer questions during the motion. We, we have this outline to be placed 2 times, but both times in JLC 174. Could this motion stand as an umbrella for both of those times? I'm I'm being motioned, yes sir, so that, that was my only question, Mr. Cha. OK. Any other discussion? Representative Wardlaw, just, just for clarification. You're up to $1000 will take place in JLC 174. In both spots that are blank, correct? So we only have to have one motion instead of two. That's right. OK. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Alright, any other discussion? Or questions Saying no Um, All in favor say aye, uh. And pose like sign. motion passes. OK. Mr. Chair. So we'll move on next to, um, the recommendation regarding publicly owned buildings. Um, the recommendation of the committee on, and I think also the meetings of government entities as those both sort of go together, are both in JLC 174. So Jennifer can, um, explain that. Pardon me, uh, In the, uh, new language beginning on page 18, 573,504, uh, once again, addresses the places that a person without a license is prohibited from carrying and Then on page 22, 573601 addresses the places that a person with a concealed carry license is prohibited from carrying, so both of those would be addressed in those two sections. We'll take any questions. If not, we can move to the next. Representative Rye, you're recognized, sir. Alright Any questions or comments? Seeing that and we'll move on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I believe Representative Wardlaw's motion just covered this next one, regarding sentencing fines and penalties. Um, there's a section here on airports where the recommendation of the subcommittee was to make no changes to current law, so there's no related bill to that one, publicly owned educational institutions is also in JLC 174 and Jennifer Can explain that. That is on page 22, the new language in 573, uh, 601, once again for, um, persons with a license and then back to, um, page 18, 573504 for persons without a license. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this next topic, officers of the court and the discussion regarding courthouses versus courtrooms was one that you all left open for further discussion at this meeting, and Alex Bent in with the AG's office has information for the subject. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, in a previous meeting of the subcommittee, I had flagged, uh, what I perceive to be an ambiguity in the law on who could carry in a courthouse, um, and that was in Arkansas code annotated 573122 subsection B. Um, the Supreme Court has since clarified that potential ambiguity, uh, and, So in Corbett at all versus Pulaski County Circuit Court at all that case number is CV 23477. The Arkansas Supreme Court, uh, stated that the statute unequivocally permits certain individuals, including one law enforcement officers to bailiffs and 3 officers of the court to possess handguns in courthouses within the state. Uh, the opinion then went on to say that attorneys are officers of the court and are recognized under the statute as individuals who are authorized to possess handguns in courthouses. Uh, that opinion in it, it distinguished courtrooms from courthouses. Um, but the court declined to opine on any potential challenge to the courtroom provision because that issue was not properly before the court in that particular case. Then in June, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued administrative order number 23 regarding courtroom security. Um, and that administrative order states that judges shall have the inherent authority to control the security in their courtrooms, which includes but is not limited to judicial chambers, trial court assistance offices, law clerk's offices, jury rooms, jury assembly rooms, witness rooms, court reporters' offices, coordinator's offices, and and juvenile officers' rooms. So the, the court has has spoken on this specific issue, um, and any ambiguities have since been, uh, resolved. And Mr. Chair, I would just add, uh, Jennifer can point out where there is language in 174 that that addresses this. Go ahead, Ms. Jennifer. Yes. So once again, um, beginning on page 18, 573504 would be the section that controls persons, uh, without a license. And, um, A2, which is about two-thirds of the way down page 19 prohibits a person without a license from carrying a firearm into a building that is owned or operated by a municipal county or state government. So that would include courthouses. Um, so that's the section for without a license, with a license would be, um, on page 22, 573601, um, down near the bottom, a 7 and 8. Deal with courthouses and courtroom. So, Mr. Chair, then we'll just keep that language as is in the draft if that's thank you. Um, the next issue is another one that you all held over for discussion at this meeting, and it is, um, discussion of the discrepancy between board of Corrections members and post-prison transfer board members regard regarding where they can and cannot carry. And Alex Benton has information on that. All right, Ms. Benton, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in Arkansas code annotated 573323 Talks about the post-prison transfer board that members of that board may carry their concealed handgun into a building in which or a location on which a law enforcement officer may carry a handgun. But that is only if the post-prison transfer board member. Um, Or revocation hearing judge is on official business of the board. That's the key phrase on official business of the board. Now, if you jump to 573,328, where there's a similar provision for the Board of Corrections. It says that a member of the Board of Corrections who is a licensee, so they must have a, a license to conceal carry. They may carry their concealed handgun into a building or a location where a law enforcement officer may carry a concealed handgun. However, the Board of Corrections portion does not also have. Kind of uh within the scope of their official business provision. And in a previous meeting, I had just noted this for the committee that there is a discrepancy, but there was no subsequent recommendation from our office, um, I think we just wanted to point out how those two boards are, are treated differently in Arkansas code for the committee whether or not you would like to. Change that or leave it as is. OK I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion that we do away with, with both. Uh, do we have any discussion on the motion, the motion a motion to do away with both of the two that Alex just mentioned. Senator Peyton, I can ask. Thank you. I, I just need clarification. What he means by doing away with, in other words, are we doing away with the, their ability to carry that we're doing away with their ability to carry as far as they, uh, border corrections are a parole board. To be able to carry uh into the same places as the police officers do because they do not have the training. We're talking about board members. We're not talking about the Department of Correction workers. OK Thank you. Represent Fortner, you're recognized, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, just a little bit more clarification for me is that that they are not going to be able to carry in the prison facilities or adjacent to there it's not that they can't carry it they can't carry at the prisons. Am I correct there Mr. Chair, if I may take that question you, Representative Fortner, yes, the, these statutes give, uh, board members, uh, broad privileges that law enforcement officers have, um, but they are not held to the same standards of, you know, some class training, things of that nature. So, it's not just prisons, but it would be inside of a school building, um, inside of a school bus, um, anywhere that a law enforcement officer may carry. These members are given the Privilege to carry in those same places. Thank you. Just a little more clarification on that. Uh, these board members who are appointed to these positions are given more authority than legislative body to carry into these places. So I don't think that they should have it any more authority than anyone else. Am I saying that proper? It's been. I certainly don't disagree with you. Any other questions or discussions I see none all in favor say aye, can you oppose like sign. You know, the eyes have. The Yass have it. It passed Mr. Chair, the uh next recommendation at the bottom of page 3 is a separate bill the subcommittee adopted a recommendation to, um, regarding state police duty to issue licenses just to make language more uniform and clear that the state police are required to issue, um, these licenses and Jennifer has that bill. OK, Ms. Jennifer, you recognized. Thank you. So that bill is identified as JLC 175, and it is to be sponsored by Senator Rice and Representative Woodlaw, and there are just two places currently in, um, 573-301 and following and that subchapter that state that the division of, um, Arkansas State Police may issue a license and so in sections 1 and 2 of that bill, I have, um, Amended the language to excuse me, excuse me a second. Committee members There's a lot of information being given right here. If y'all need to have a discussion, feel free to go outside, but if we could just hold it down. There are some folks trying to hear that can't. Myself being one of them, so appreciate that. Sorry for the interruption. You may continue. Uh, in sections 1 and 2, I've changed, uh, the May to shell, and those are the only changes, Mr. Chair, the next recommendation on page 4 deals with, um, In involuntary commitments. The recommendation of the subcommittee was to further study this issue. Currently, there's no path to regain the right to possession of a firearm if it's been taken away due to involuntary commitment and, uh, Jennifer has a bill on this one as well. This bill is JLC 184 to be sponsored by Senator Hill. And it proposes that legislative council conduct a study to determine the propriety of and potential procedure for restoring the path to possess a firearm to those persons, um. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. We're having any questions from the committee. Representative McAlian, you're recognized. Representative Ray, you're recognized. I don't know how that lit up. I didn't press anything. We're just making sure y'all are awake over there. Uh Seeing no other questions, we'll move along. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next, uh, category of recommendations involves law enforcement officers, uh, the first one is, uh. A recommendation to create one code section providing the same authority to all judicial districts regarding treatment in the code of their bailiffs, probation officers, etc. and Jennifer has a bill on this one. This is JLC 180. And currently the way that it is drafted is simply to repeal the language that currently applies to only the 6th judicial district, the 18th Judicial District and the 19th judicial district as well as the 22nd. Uh, but there is no comparable language for any of the other judicial districts. And so, um, that language is. All right. Do I have any questions from committee members? You, Mr. Chair. The next recommendation deals with a ward of, uh, service. Firearm upon death or retirement of a law enforcement official, and we have a separate bill on this one as well. This one is JLC 179. And so what this bill does is it goes through and repeals all of the current statutes that award a pistol or permit, um, the family to. Or officer to purchase a shotgun upon retirement or death of the officer and I'm currently in code. We have separate statutes for all different types of law enforcement officers. Um, and so those are all being repealed and then in section 4, we have a proposed new section that would apply to all law enforcement officers. Do I have any questions from committee members? Thank you, Mr. Chair. The last category of recommendations are just listed as other. They're, um, miscellaneous that have been brought up by members of the subcommittee. The first one dealt with, um, municipal municipalities and counties and, um, how they will be allowed to treat firearms um in their own local laws. So we have a separate bill. This bill is JLC 178. And, um, it. In subsection B, it provides that a local government shall not enact an ordinance or promulgate a regulation concerning firearms that is more restrictive than state law. And it's to be, uh, sponsored by Representative Fortner and Representative. Senator Boyd, you. Sorry, my screen went off and I hit the button to get it to come back on. Anybody else? Any other screens going off? Thank you. The next recommendation is one that was discussed at your last meeting. Um, we do have a draft bill for purposes of your discussion today, and this one is relating to the fines for, um, shooting at trains, and I believe Senator Boyd had, um, asked that this be brought before the subcommittee and Jennifer has the draft bill for purposes of your discussion. This bill is identified as JLC 183, and, um, as Jill mentioned, this one is to be sponsored by Senator Boyd and um there are just two blanks there to, um, well, I've stricken out the current fine amounts which are $25 to $250 and then I've put blanks there for you to fill in the new fine amounts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what I'd like to do is propose today that we fill in $100 on the least amount. And $5000 on the most amount and so this is what caught my attention is the firearms, but there is pretty broad. You can throw stone, sticks, clubs, and I'm just not sure we want to set too high of a minimum fine for a train which has a still, you know, is, is made out of steel or maybe it's made out of wood or something way back when, when the statute was written. Uh, but if you look at the top end of that, uh, if you had $100 in 1900, that's still like 3,000+ dollars today. So I think that by going in that range, I realize it's pretty broad, but the statute is, it's pretty broad. So I'm open to any other ideas, but that's where I'd like to start the discussion on how to fill in those blanks. Senator Boyd, I know this, this is yours, but what, what about if we call it a class A misdemeanor and let that, let those fines take care of itself during that. That time period in that category. Senator, I think that might be a good idea to set any fines if they're already out there. So, so the, so it also includes up to 3 months in jail, so if we did a class A misdemeanor, that's up to a year in jail. Is that correct? Yes, Senator. Does it have a minimum? No. Uh, so I, I strike my original proposal and, uh. I, I'd like to propose we write this in a way that it just changes it to a class A misdemeanor and gives the court the flexibility to figure it out based on the circumstances. Is that, do you, are you putting that into a motion I'm, I'm making that motion if somebody, whatever happened next. A second motion, we have a second. We're having a discussion on the motion. Wardlaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I agree with everything Senator Boyd said, but I think we are in a set of ceiling of where that court can go with that fine. And, and I'm happy with whatever ceiling that needs to be, but I don't want to leave it open. So if we want to do $1000 or $2500. Whatever that needs to be. Representative Woodlaw currently the maximum fine for a class A misdemeanor is $2500. I'm fine with that as long as there's something there, I'm happy. Thank you, Representative Woodlaw. The other discussion on the motion. All right, seeing them. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Chair, the last recommendation that we have on the table here is uh another one that was held over for a discussion today, uh, that Senator Boyd brought up regarding the Civil War reenactments in Arkansas code 65501. So we don't have a bill for that at this time. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this one proved a little bit more complex than what I thought it did, uh, but Jennifer has sent me some information about how other states do that. So I'm gonna work with, uh, Jennifer to, to draft a bill. Tennessee especially had, had some language that at least cursory, I liked, so, uh, I, I will be back in in touch on that. Boyd, to, uh. Be more lenient for those. Equal justice under the law. That's all I can say. Thank you. uh. That is all that we have unless there are other recommendations, the subcommittee would like to add to the report. Do we need to do we need to pull this one down? Um, if, if there's no current recommendation, we will just exclude it from your report. Senator Boyd can run that during regular session, correct? Perfect. Thank you. All right, well. So y'all don't have anything else, y'all are good. All right, well, hey, thank you all very much for being, uh, hard work. Now we will move, uh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We have um. The state police here, uh, do y'all have anything that y'all would like to add or? Whatever to All right, thank you. Um, Game and fish. Do we have somebody here from Game and Fish. All right. Um, Chief of Police Association. You saying prosecutor coordinator, sheriff's association. everybody here from the sheriff's association? All right. And uh. DOT, do we have anybody here from the highway department, seeing nuns. Uh, we will now move to. The, uh Public car a motion Oh. My bad, hold up, hold everything. Representative Wardlaw, you are. I'd like to make a motion to include JLC 152. In the recommendations, it is an act to prevent local government regulation of knives or knife making components. I think Ms. Jennifer has the bill if members would like her to explain it explained. I think it should be explained for the public to hear. Ms. Jennifer, have you left the building? Yes, um. I have JLC. 152 to be, uh, sponsored, I believe, by Representative Woodlaw. Um, And, um, Representative Representative Carr, I'm sorry, um, it. Amends two sections of current code, the first section is 1416, 504, which concerns the regulation of firearms and ammunition by local government. And that section, um, provides that local government shall not enact any ordinance or regulation pertaining to or regulating in any other manner, the ownership transfer, transportation, carrying, or possession of a firearm or ammunition or components of firearms, and then the bill adds to that and knives or knife-making components. So it would add in knives and knife-making components to that. And then the other, uh, section is 1,454 1411. Which, um, is basically the same statute, but the first statute applies to municipalities or counties. I'm not certain which is which, and then the second one applies to the opposite. So it's the same section, one is for, um, cities and towns and want us for counties. And so it does the exact same thing, the statute currently prevents those local governments from regulating in any manner the ownership transfer, transportation, carry. or possession of firearms, ammunitions, or components of firearms, and then the bill adds in, um, or knives or knife-making are there any questions? All right. So you know We have a motion We have a further discussion. You know, everybody in favor say aye you oppose. Motion carries All right, now we are. Back to like. Senator Rice, you're recognized. Sorry, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. These things we've added, can they be added to the document section. Of our agenda today were, uh, they'll have public notice on it. I believe that's the intent documents are on there other than the ones we've added. Thank you. Yes, so I think that Alright, now we are. Uh, moving to the. Public comment Section and. First up, Anna more should I, I hope I said that correctly. My apologies if I didn't. Ma'am, if you would, uh, please introduce yourself for the record. Yes, you were very close with the name. It's Anna Morchetti. And I am here just as a concerned parent. I have an elementary age student or child as well as a middle schooler. And before I uh give my comments, thank you for allowing public comment today. I really appreciate it. And I do know that we have a lot of common ground amongst us on keeping our children safe, especially when they are in school or traveling to and from school. And so my comments relate to that. The first thing I wanted to mention is that I do feel like the proposed legislation to not change the Arkansas law that is currently does not match federal law, still leaves a lot of confusion for Arkansans. Um, and that actually was something that, um. Mrs. Benton mentioned in the January meeting that the Attorney General's office at their first recommendation did say, and I quote, It is the attorney General's belief that the inconsistency should not be permitted throughout the code. Arkansas citizens should be aware of one law and be able to follow that, and we should not deviate from that. Further, Arkansans should not have to decide if I'm going to comply with Arkansas law, or am I going to comply with federal law today. So I Do not believe it's good policy to have that discrepancy, and I think it makes it hard for Arkansans who are legally owning firearms to commit a federal crime by bringing a firearm onto a K-12 campus. I also did have a question about. Allowing Firearms onto K-12 grounds. I know it's not in the buildings, but in the parking lots in drop off. There is not a mention of pre-K buildings and there are standalone pre-K buildings that I didn't know if, if there was some reason that that was left out, or there's, are those gonna be considered? Different than a K through 12 campus. That was one of my questions that I had if, if some clarification could be made on that. At, at this time we're just hearing comments doubt that if you'd like to contact them. OK. And also, um, another comment is that, uh, you know, allowing, um, adults who can legally possess firearms to have a firearm on K through 12 campus does mean also that there will be students at high school who are over 18, who then fall into that cat. and so allowing a student to have a firearm on campus seems like a very dangerous decision to make. Um, I say that also knowing, I'm sure you all heard just a few hours ago, there was another mass shooting at a high school in Georgia, where we know right now at least 4 people are dead and 30 are injured. And so this is definitely something that to, to take very seriously about expanding access of firearms on K through 12 campus. I also wanted to bring up a concern about the school bus stop change. I was picturing. Uh, when you drive by a bus stop and you often see very young children, kindergarteners who are there, they're unaccompanied, waiting for the bus that with the proposed new law of of making the restricted area of a school bus stop no longer restricted, does mean that, that what we're saying is that someone could be standing next to that kindergartener with a semi-automatic. Uh, firearm. And that would be totally legal. And I just want to think about. The experience of a child and how much fear that would invoke as a, as a child to have someone, um, open carry or concealed carry at a school bus stop. Um, if that's really what we're trying to say with this bill, I know that probably is not the intention, but that is how it could be carried out. Um, as well as on school grounds in one of the pieces of information that was presented in a meeting, there was a comment made that you want to make sure our Kansans know that as they are taking their child to school through drop off that they can have their firearm. But the law does allow for Anyone who is legally in possession of a firearm to come onto school grounds. So it's not just a parent going through drop off. This is now anyone who legally has a firearm. And since we have, you know, we're 50th in the nation for our gun law strength, it means that someone who's been convicted of a hate crime or who's in the middle of a domestic abuse case who can legally be in possession of a firearm can now be on our K through 12 school grounds. And so I appreciate your time. I would love to follow up about those two questions for the standalone pre-K building. I think that's important to. Uh, to think about as well as students who are no longer minors who are still at school and uh legally allowed to own. Um. A firearm. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions next up from public comment is Mr. Arthur Broadbent the 3rd. If you would please identify. Good day to the committee. My name is Arthur Broadbent the 3rd. I, I am speaking extemporaneously as I was not really informed of this meeting until yesterday, but I am passionate about much of its content. I'm a retired 35 year educator. I have taught in middle school and in high school for all of those years. I've been deeply involved with elementary programs as well as a coach mentor for elementary teachers. So in that regard, I want to speak in their behalf since they are at school. at this moment, taking care of our beloved kids. I want to follow up on the previous comments. Regarding Having the potential for open carry on school grounds. During the past 40 years, our schools have had metal detectors, locked doors. Mental health training for teachers, active shooter drills, and more, all for the safety of our kids. Now within a building, all of those things are still there. But without having those kind of protections at a bus stop. Or on the school grounds, there's no way to actively protect school kids who are in playground activities, outside activities other than having someone monitoring. Additionally speaking for the behalf of our kids and their physical and mental health. For all that time our elementary students are trained to avoid anyone with guns trained to be on the lookout and on watch. For anything that may harm them, their teachers or. Their friends What sort of expect, um. What sort of Message Are we sending to our children? In the sense of having to look out for anyone who may have potential open carry? Are they a friend or a foe? What do we do? It seems to me that we are not really thinking in terms of the benefit of that child. Additionally, Moving on to comments about. Uh, city or municipalities or Counties not having any other restrictive, uh, measures more so than the state. There is often the discussion of state rights over federal. I would argue that on. A parallel, the argument of city rights or county rights over state is in the same genre. That should a city or county. Choose to have something that is potentially more restrictive. It would be in their right to do so. In the same argument as having state rights over federal. I think there are a lot of other areas where we need to have more discussion and more consideration of what is going on with some of these applications. So I thank you for your time. I thank you for the opportunity to uh Speak on behalf of our teachers and students. And thank you for the work of the committee itself. Thank you, sir. Um, just a note for the committee, uh, the previous speaker, uh, was speaking on behalf of himself and not all teachers and students on behalf of. Next up, we have. Smith. OK, sorry. Ma'am, if you would identify yourself for the. I'm Lakesha Smith, um. I work my parents somebody that you advocate for homicide. My concern is, good evening to everyone. I'm sorry about that, but I'm very passionate about what I do. I lost my son homicide 10 years ago. And his compassionate that you're saying the gun laws at the bus stop. I have 7 grandkids I have 12 grandkids. I have 7 to catch the bus. The others are scared because I have 3 to go to Central with the shooting. The own own. The concern is about the bus stop. When I see kids at a bus stop, cars driving by speeding. That's one thing. Then you have people who have cars with other gang members in the community pull up to these kids on a bus. And y'all saying it's fair for them to have guns, who's at the bus stop? It's not for a mother to come to a bus stop, her child fighting someone baby carry a gun. So you're saying it's easy for somebody to commit murder at a bus stop. That's what the law was saying. I can just come to the bus stop and kill someone because you're fighting with my child. I think the law needs to stay as is. It's no gun at a bus stop. An 18 year old can get on the bus at the bus stop, fight someone with a gun and shoot someone and leave. You can't never tell the half kids don't go to school. They'll just meet up somewhere and fight with the guns, you know what I'm saying? I feel like the laws all the way around, all the way around. It's bad. I have over 300 parents. Who's having trouble with the justice system. Then with the law now, baby carry a gun on the premises where the kids go to school who's traumatized already, of losing a sibling, they up there somebody can come on the premises now with a gun. It's not fair to the families. It's not. Something had to change. This is my first time ever coming. I'm glad I came. I found out yesterday evening. In The laws It's not to help people who lost someone to homicide. It's not to help the community, it's helping whoever is for cause it's not helping us. If you're gonna let somebody bring a gun to the bus stop on the school premises. Every year we have shooting at Central out there in the community. I know y'all know it. I don't know if y'all have kids go to Central. I have kids. And that's scary for me to be able to come on their premises with a gun. So I think the law need to be different than what y'all what the committee is learning to pass. It shouldn't pass. Mr. Hill, I talked to you plenty of times. We did a thing at um MacArthur Park. In the same day we had 3 shootings. And these are young people who have guns, young, and I think that we need to leave it as is, and it's like with felons. If they have a gun on print on I feel if they have a gun on the premises, they need to be charged as a felon. Why would you have a gun on the premises? If that's the case, the teachers need to have a gun. To protect themselves because the kids are fighting the teachers. The mass shooting we're having, teachers can't protect the kids in the class. I think that that's gun case that anybody can come on the premises with a gun. Teachers are be allowed to have a gun too. They're losing their lives every day, the shooting, shooting last week of Texas. I just think the laws. It's really bad about letting someone have a gun on the premises. It's not fair to families to have to worry her now. If somebody gonna come on the premises and attack my child. So they got in a fight with him at a game. They can come on their premises, any age, cause kids always walking on central property like property at the school is out at 3 o'clock, 3:45. It's not enough security at central. Or any high school. So I feel like the law needs to say as is. Without no gun laws on the premises. One more thing before I leave, and y'all was saying about Um, the rights to carry a gun. I feel like but now we have no other choice because she changed their law. And people are getting guns left and right. And it's scary to walk anywhere be anywhere when people have the right to carry a gun. Concealed or non-concealed. I have a gun. I have 5 guns to protect me and my family. But they are very put up. So my grandkids don't even know I have a gun. But I shouldn't have to feel like every time I go somewhere I have to have my gun with me. And you dropping your kids off, it is scary because you never know what families go through, and they have domestic violence. It's scary. But the laws shouldn't be that we should have be able to carry our guns on the premises. In a bus stop anywhere. There's something I have to say. Thank you all for listening. Seeing no more. Seeing no comments from the public. Of our. Next meeting will be at 1 p.m. Monday, September 16th. Uh, this will be our last meeting on this study, and we will vote. No, sir.