House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1415
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1415”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1408
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1408”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1449
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1449”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1409
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1409”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1440
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1440”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
0:00
There we go. I'll make this short, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the chair and the vice chair and the other members of the committee for your ongoing diligence on all these difficult matters that have come before your committee. I've said before and I'll say again, this is the hardest working committee in this building, and I know you deal with a lot of tough issues, and I commend you for that. Like this committee, the state of Arkansas is founded in common sense, and undoubtedly the laws that we pass in this body are a reflection of our great state, not only within our borders, but across the country.
And as a former member of this committee, I know many of the subject matters that you deal with are complex and oftentimes are no easy answers. As you deliberate in the remaining weeks on these bills, I ask that you continue with your steadfast reasoning and keep in mind what's best for the state when you cast your vote. I want to thank you for your service in this House, in this General Assembly, and our great state. I appreciate, I sincerely appreciate each and every one of you sitting around this table, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today.
Speaker 3
1:18
Now, y'all go to work and get something done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is
there anybody here not on committee that wishes to run a bill? Is there anybody here that's not on committee that wishes to run
a bill? Representative Fite, are you ready for yours?
Representative Fite, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
2:06
Chairman. I would like to invite Ginger Kimes from the Domestic Violence Resource – she's the Domestic Violence Resource Prosecutor from the Prosecuting Coordinator's Office to join me here.
Speaker 17
2:21
Members, you have before you House Bill 1449. The purpose
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
2:32
of this amendment is to rewrite the enhancements to do away with the sequential prosecution requirement. The reason that this was requested by the Arkansas prosecutors was that currently, if If a defendant commits domestic battery, let's say on July 1st, then again on August 1st,
but the August 1st case goes to trial first and is convicted or the defendant pleads guilty to this offense first, the prosecutors cannot use the August 1st conviction as a prior for the July 1st trial because the August offense did not occur prior to the July offense. I know that sounds complicated, but according to a case that has come up before us, the language prior offense makes it a requirement that priors used for enhancement purposes occur prior to the current offense.
So what this would do is bring the domestic battering statutes in line with DWI statutes, and it would allow a prior conviction to be counted for purposes of enhancement, even when the actual offense occurred after the offense currently being tried. And I'm going to open now for questions and ask Ms. Kimes to answer any of your technical questions regarding this bill.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
3:59
any questions for committee representative Gillum thank you mr. chair just one question and this may fall on the technical side of things represent if I you may even know the answer to this you mentioned that this came from a case that it actually transpired I was wondering how many cases this had actually done with have we had and there's whether statistics are behind this Is this a widespread issue or isolated? I guess it's really what I'm after.
Speaker 25
4:31
Ginger Kime, staff attorney for the prosecutor coordinator's office. And it has happened a few times. We have one specific case, the Colburn case, where it was appealed, and that's where we got the law that said the way it's written now, it's going to have to be tried in chronological order. But I know that once we got that case, once that was handed down, then we just knew we can't use them. So we do have defendants who are going forward and pleading guilty on their second offense pretty quickly
so that that cannot be used as a prior. So I know that's happening, but as far as a
Speaker 28
5:19
case that's been appealed, I'm just aware of
the Colburn case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You don't have any statistics that we can review in consideration of this issue, do you?
It would show that this is a widespread problem. No. All right. And what we have, perhaps, is a situation where, well, let me ask you this. Does the prosecutor have the right to pursue prosecutions in whatever order he or she wishes to do so? He does if he's aware. Well, you would presume that if a person is charged with an offense in his office, since you said his,
then he would be aware of a subsequent offense. He is not
Speaker 25
6:19
always aware because, as an example that's happened in this state, you have someone who is arrested, say, January 1st in Saline County, but in a completely different county such as Pulaski, he's arrested January 8th, and he quickly pleads guilty to the January 8th offense. Well, you're dealing
Speaker 38
6:36
with a hypothetical rather than a reality,
aren't you? No. Well, how many cases do we have other than this one?
I don't have exact statistics. Do you have any statistics other than this one? No. All right. Now, I'm opposed to domestic battery and domestic violence, but this is also a very sensitive area because many people who engage in domestic battery or domestic violence wind up having to interact with each other over years and having to provide support for each other and many times reconcile. And since this is important, do you want to just add more enhancement simply because the prosecutor in this particular case failed to do his job?
Speaker 39
7:24
Oh, I'm sorry. There must be a misunderstanding. This is not a new enhancement.
Speaker 25
7:29
This enhancement is already on the books. It is just rewording it so that it will be exactly like the DWI enhancement. The DWI enhancement, the Supreme Court ruled on it with Sola v. State, and they said that the chronological order should be immaterial. If you've got a prior offense, you have a prior offense. It doesn't have to be tried in order. So all we're trying to do is make sure that that domestic battery statute reads just like the DWI statute,
but it's an enhancement that's already on the books. We're just dealing with the order in
which it's tried. All right. But we
wouldn't be here if it had not been for a prosecutor who had failed to take into account the report from the
Speaker 25
8:12
state police. No, sir. We're here because the Supreme Court interpreted our statute to read that it has to be in chronological order. And I think that earlier before that case, we assumed that it would be applied just like the DWI statute and it would not have to be in order.
All right. That case gave us
a lot of clarity, so now we know. Well, my question still goes back to the quality of counsel representing the prosecutor. And I don't see, since we don't have a history of action here, why it should be changed simply because one prosecutor out of some 28 to 35 failed to do what he or she did. But what you're saying is really this is an inconsequential bill because you're just trying to cause it to be similar to another bill which has similar consideration.
Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Any other
questions from committee? Doesn't look like anybody has asked
Chair
Unverified
9:16
to speak for or against the bill. Representative Feit, do you want to close for your
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
9:23
bill? Yes, thank you. I appreciate the questions. I believe this is a good bill. I believe that it would strengthen the cases of domestic battery that come forward in Arkansas, and I would ask for a good vote.
Representative Scott, you got a motion? Motion at proper time. What's the motion? Do pass. Got a motion? Do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Ayes have
Speaker 8
9:53
it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Representative Vines, you're recognized to present House Bill 1415.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
10:17
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. If I can direct you to House Bill 1415, I believe if the chair will permit, we have a handout of information to coincide with this bill. All right. We'll get them passed out now. Okay. While they're passing this out, I'll give you a little bit of background about this bill
and the need for basically some cleanup language and amendment to a bill we ran last session. Last session we passed, it was a House but the Point, actually a Senate bill, and it became Act 571 of 2011. It's codified in Arkansas Code and taped at 5-64-215. And what it did was it listed several, I think it was seven synthetic substances that we banned and put on the banned substances list.
Amongst those were K2, spice, salvia, bass sauce, a bunch of those topics that we found were becoming a threat to the public out there that were readily available without prescription and in convenience stores, retail stores, wherever. and we passed this law to ban those. But as with any synthetic substance, the moment that we listed those banned substances, so to speak, the so-called, I don't want to call them chemists, but the cookers came up with other versions, other types,
and what we've done with this bill is gone in and added general groups and other known synthetic cannabinoids that are found in Arkansas and other states. And what we're doing is adding them to the list, and we felt strong enough about it that we wanted to come in and amend that law that we just passed to add these specific types. And as you can see, the Grubs Arkansas and me will not allow me to pronounce any of those, but trust me, that's some bad stuff that they're listing in there.
I also have Cindy Moran. She's a Quality Assurance Manager with the Arkansas State Crime Lab. She prepared this presentation for you, and I have her here to answer any questions. And also, Laura Shue
from the Attorney General's office. They'll come forward. Ms. Shue, Ms. Moran,
if you all just let everybody know who you are, you're recognized. Hi,
Speaker 67
13:01
I'm Cindy Moran with the Arkansas State Crime Lab,
Speaker 70
13:04
and I'm the Quality Assurance Manager. I'm Laura Hsu, and I'm an Assistant Attorney General with the
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
13:19
Criminal Department at the Attorney General's Office. We'd be happy to entertain any questions. I don't know if anybody signed up for
or against, but we'd be happy to
answer any committee questions. Mr. Walker, you recognize? Just one. It seems like most of this is in the high-income areas of Arkansas.
I look at page two, and it's largely in northwest Arkansas, Pulesky, and Faulkner County. Can you tell me how this happens to be concentrated in the areas of wealth more so than in the areas of poverty? I mean, it's not relevant to the bill, I guess, but I'm just curious
to know. Actually, I really think it has
Speaker 67
14:06
a lot to do with our colleges and universities and
the placement. These compounds are targeting our young people, the 20-year-olds, the 18-year-olds. I think that if you look, Pulaski County, Faulkner County, you've got Washington County. So I really think that that's the reason why. And we've seen this trend since we started seeing them in 2010.
But you have no empirical evidence to sustain that. No, we don't. Now, for those people who live in the poorer counties, what's the future of this spreading
to those areas? What's the benefit? I mean, how do people benefit from use of this? I mean, the people who sell it, what is
Speaker 75
15:03
the benefit they get? The sellers? Yeah. A profit. I understand that, but, I mean, how does it work? Are you
Speaker 67
15:09
talking about the compounds themselves, the synthetic cannabinoids? Yeah. Well, it's a synthetic cannabinoid. Basically, it activates your, I don't want to get into a whole bunch of scientific terms, but activates your CB1 and CB2 receptors.
Marijuana activates primarily the CB1 receptors, so they're going to get an effect, hallucinations. These are five to ten times, sometimes more potent than what we're seeing in tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the active ingredient in marijuana. We're seeing things of acute kidney failure across the nation with these substances. Thank you. Representative Fyke, you're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How often do these substances fall into the hands of children or minors? I
Speaker 67
15:59
actually didn't run those stats, but I know that a lot of our poise control calls and the four deaths attributed here in Arkansas were younger people, 20-year-olds. And I guarantee if you ask any of your children or grandchildren that are in junior high or high school, they've heard of it, they've been offered it, because we've asked several of the young people. We go out and we give presentations of awareness on these compounds.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
16:25
I'll go even further, Representative Fite. After we passed this bill two years ago, we thought we'd gotten our arms around it, And I was in another part of the state, which anywhere Arkansas, was in
a convenience store, was there to check out, and there were these bath salts for sale in there, not
for these purposes, but they were for sale and readily available, and I don't know that there was any restriction on them. And it literally was in months, if not weeks, from the time we'd passed the original version of this bill.
May I have another question? Representative Locke, are you recognized? Let me ask. Many of these people who in these numbers on page two have not been charged with crimes, have they? 385 up in northwest Arkansas, I guess, the top county. Many of them, and in Pulaski County, 149. Many of them have
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
17:18
never been charged with crimes. I believe you're right. These are
just the cases that have been analyzed. Yes, sir. Would these people, do these people manifest some symptomatology when they are under the influence of this drug?
Do they show it some kind of
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
17:36
way? Like in a, probably a bad analogy, but similar to like a breathalyzer
Speaker 88
17:42
or something? No, no. Do they act any differently? Any different? I mean,
Speaker 67
17:47
is their behavior any different than normal people? Yeah, there's confusion. You may have heard of people running their cars into stores. They're
hallucinating. I see. Now, would these people, and this
is a little controversial, would these people be eligible in Arkansas to obtain a gun permit?
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
18:07
I do not know that, Mr. Walker, but I'd be happy to look into
that. Well, anybody would be eligible to obtain a gun permit if he or she hasn't been obtained. who has not been convicted of a crime, isn't that correct? Convicted
right, thank you. Any other questions for committee? There wasn't anybody signed up to speak for or against. We got a motion to represent. Ms. Rines, you
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
18:37
are close. Yes, I'd appreciate it, and I'd appreciate the committee if they'd allow me to further address this issue
that we started a couple years ago and continue in the pursuit of protecting our children and youth out there. I'd appreciate a
positive vote. All right, Representative McElroy. Got a motion due passed. Representative McElroy, all those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, committee, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Representative Scott, you ready to present your bill? Representative Scott, you're recognized.
Unknown speaker
19:13
Present House Bill 1408. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Committee. Senator Scott, thank you. I just want to remind you, you've got a couple of minutes, it looks like, here that we'll need to take up first, so you're recognized.
Speaker 51
19:53
Okay. I've got to go back to my desk. I'm sorry. Okay.
Do you have this in front of you, Mr. Chairman? I believe it should be on everybody's tablet.
Okay, great. Okay. Should I read it? Is that the procedure when there is an amendment? We need to adopt the technical
correction one first. I believe it's BPG 298. Yes. You'll just need to explain to the committee what it does, and then we'll leave it to the pleasure of the committee what they want to do with it. That's not the one I have
in front of me. Hold on. I am so sorry.
Speaker 112
21:04
Just one. This will just fix up a couple of typos. Oh, okay, great. And that's just a technical correction. Okay. The other one you've
got, and that's what you're going to need to discuss. Okay. Okay, I now have
it in my hands, so thank you for your patience. Thank you, no problem. This is to amend House Bill No. 1408 as engrossed H-2-2213. It's page 12, line 24, and what I'm asking is that you delete ben, the word ben, B-E-E-N, and substitute and.
And also on page 12, line 26, I would ask that we delete, that you delete, been guilty, and substitute the words, been found guilty. Thank you for your consideration. Any questions from the committee? Got a motion. Representative Gillen, what's
your motion? Motion to amend. Got a motion to adopt the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Looks like the ayes
have it. First amendment has been adopted. Now you've got one more amendment.
It looks like BPG 315.
Representative Scott, you recognize. And
I do. I have that in my hand. On page 5, line 18, delete concealed weapon and substitute the word handgun. On page 5, line 19, delete concealed weapon and substitute handgun. And page 6, line 11, delete or and substitute and. Page 6 also, delete line 25 and substitute occupant that has the licensee is carrying a handgun in public
or an incorporated area if the licensee is carrying a handgun openly. A licensee is not carrying a handgun openly under subdivision 20A of this section if the handgun is inadvertently exposed to public view. Any questions from committee? Representative Gillum, you've got a motion
to adopt it. Representative Steele, you've got a question.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
23:22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this question is on the amendment. Could you tell us exactly what the
purpose of the incorporated area is? Are you trying to make it here where your bill would not apply
to incorporated areas, or are you clarifying that it would apply to incorporated areas? It would not apply to incorporated areas. So that you could not openly carry in an unincorporated area. Or incorporated
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
23:48
area, I'm sorry. So this is basically a compromise amendment, is it not?
True, true. Initially, your bill would have allowed open carry in incorporated areas, correct? That's true. And you've amended this to mean that you could not openly carry in incorporated areas. That's true. Okay. But you've got a defense in the amendment if it were to
be open in an inadvertent way, is that correct? Yes. Okay. Let's say
you have it under your jacket and you have a concealed carry permit and the wind blows your jacket.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
24:23
So I guess it's fair to say that this amendment was put here in an effort to gain consensus on the bill. It's a compromise amendment,
is it not? I would not use the word compromise. I would use the word sometimes we have to take baby
steps, and we have to, I think someone said it best this morning, they said you have to learn to crawl before you walk. Well, I don't know about you all, but I had two children who after they learned to crawl, they never walked, they ran.
Speaker 133
24:54
But your aim is to make the bill less controversial, correct? No. I'm not criticizing that.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
25:03
bill. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Walker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, this term inadvertent causes me some concern, especially since it applies to incorporated areas. The inadvertence part, does it not?
Always love your questions. Always, always. I'm going to read it to
you one more time I read it but it says if it's inadvertent then it would necessarily
apply to any area if a person inadvertently showed a gun or allowed a gun to be
displayed Mr. Chairman could I introduce Nicholas who has come here to
assist me this morning would that be
okay You may. You may. Just introduce yourself.
Nicholas Saley
Unverified
26:04
Let everybody know who you are, please. Yes.
My name is Nicholas Saley. I'm
Nicholas Saley
Unverified
26:12
with Arkansas Cary. Could you answer the question, Mr. Say? Yes, sir. It's my understanding that what this language says is basically if inadvertent meaning an accident, the person didn't intend to expose the
Speaker 143
26:23
firearm, then they wouldn't be held legally liable for that. They wouldn't have to worry about losing their permit.
Well, let me ask about this kind of hypothetical. You're in a heavily utilized mall or a school event between competing schools, and a person has a concealed weapon, and he slips and falls, and the weapon is exposed and people panic and run around each other
causing possibly great injury to each other because of the presence of a weapon, is it your position
that that would be inadvertent and therefore he would have no liability?
Nicholas Saley
Unverified
27:10
Well, you are right. That is quite a hypothetical.
Speaker 141
27:13
But first of all, an athletic event not related to firearms in which you're
not participating, you're not allowed to carry a firearm. Well, let's use my mall situation where we have
a real-life situation in a mall in Minnesota, I think, or some northern city where that particular situation did happen.
Would the person be precluded from prosecution under the circumstance of inadvertence? I would think that the person
Nicholas Saley
Unverified
27:40
would be precluded from prosecution. I would also hope that, you
Speaker 143
27:43
know, Arkansans would be a little bit more level-headed than to panic at the mere presence of a firearm. But when people see guns, they
get, like at Hall High School yesterday, they panic, and it becomes a matter of closing schools and all other kinds of things. I
don't think Hall High School panicked at all.
I thought they did exactly what they should have if I heard the news report correctly. I think our schools are getting smarter, and
I think we are acting smarter. Well, they closed the school, conducted comprehensive searches and everything. That seemed to have been an obstruction to the expected business of the hour and of the day, and it caused a lot of people to suffer loss
of education. Okay. The loss of education.
I'm sure those teachers would be more than willing today or the next day to make that time up. I don't think that's an issue. I'm glad they closed that school. If my grandchildren were there, I would say thank you very much.
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
28:58
Representative Ballinger, you recognize? We are in no way legalizing carrying guns in schools by this bill, correct? So that's not a situation.
Speaker 95
29:06
Okay, thank you. Corrine. Any other questions from the committee on the amendment? All
right, we've got a motion, Representative Gillen, to
adopt the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed? Looks like the ayes have it. The
Speaker 78
29:34
motion is adopted. You recognize, present your bill as amended. Thank you all, and
thank you to the guests who are here this morning also.
If you have a concealed handgun carry license, House Bill 1408 will allow you to carry your handgun concealed in an open, unincorporated area. House Bill 1408 addresses a concern concealed license carriers have, and that is if their handgun is accidentally exposed. This bill would eliminate the exposure of a lawfully concealed handgun in unincorporated areas.
Arkansas is only one of seven states that bars any kind of open carry. There are 28 states that allow open carry and without any sort of licensing. 43 states allow open carry without the amendment that I am proposing today. Very simply put, House Bill 1408 allows concealed license handgun permit holders to have a choice, open carry or concealed carry in unincorporated areas.
Any questions for committee? Representative Bain, you're recognized.
Thank you very much. I've been deluged with emails, I think, as everybody on this committee has been. And as a general rule, I'll just focus on the ones down in my neighborhood, but I do like to occasionally scan and see what some of the arguments are and some of the other ones. A couple of them got very enthusiastic and made some comments that made me want to find out. They were excited because they said they could carry different caliber weapons as open carry.
Are we changing the law on what it can be carried on concealed versus open? And what would be the reasoning behind the happiness about being able to carry a different caliber of a weapon
Nicholas Saley
Unverified
31:33
with open carry? Right now there are no prohibitions on the caliber. I think what people are getting at is
Speaker 143
31:39
that if they are, let's say, hiking, just as a hypothetical, if they're hiking and they want to be able to carry a larger caliber firearm, it's pretty hard to hide that, especially in an Arkansas summer. That's extremely difficult to do. So in a case like that, a person might be able to conceal, let's say, a revolver with a fairly long barrel on it
that would be easier for a dangerous game. A side
follow-up. But I just want to clarify we're not changing the calibers of
the weapon when we go from concealed to open carry on basically a rural open carry, correct? That's correct.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
32:19
Representative Gilliam, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Scott on one of the handouts we've got here if you and you might not have this information if you don't that's okay I just and I also just want to thank you for your work on this bill and your approach to it and
making this the best possible piece of legislation so I thank you for that approach but I noticed that Texas is like us and they're still in the red as far as a non permissive open carry state and I was just curious Texas usually winds up with the reputation of really, it just kind of surprised me based on their reputation that they're in the red. Do you have any knowledge as to why they haven't already done this?
Nicholas Saley
Unverified
33:03
It's my understanding that a good deal of the states that do not allow open carry
Speaker 143
33:07
are in the South. And the reason for that is a good deal of these gun control laws are either Jim Crow laws or they were laws that were passed with racial intent. And, you know, you take a look at that map, and there are some northern states that are red, but a good solid majority of them are in the south. Okay. All right.
Chair
Unverified
33:28
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative McElroy, you recognize?
Representative Mark D. McElroy
Unverified
33:35
In the concealed weapon training, are there any or is there any training for weapon retention? I know when police officers are trained, you know, they have a retention training there because, you know, they don't want that weapon to wind up in somebody else's hand. And, you know, they wear the protective holsters and things. So, you know, someone see it, dive at it, you know, it's a bad thing. I was just wondering if there's any training.
Nicholas Saley
Unverified
34:08
Most instructors are going to talk about that a little bit. I talk about it, and for that reason, I haven't actually looked at the handbook, the state police handbook. I'm an instructor to see whether or not that's required or not. I do talk about it, and I advise my students that they use a retention holster. Retention holsters are
Speaker 143
34:25
a good idea. I would certainly encourage people to do it, but frankly, especially with a bill that's concerning rural areas, you're not talking about a lot of high-volume, high-traffic areas, and I think that that becomes a whole lot less important in those situations.
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
34:40
Representative Broadway, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Representative Scott. I noticed that your amendment addressed this as well as when you were presenting. And I'm curious, is there a problem? I would like to know how often individuals who are carrying concealed and then their weapon is inadvertently exposed, their jacket's blown open. Are those individuals often prosecuted?
Nicholas Saley
Unverified
35:13
I have asked this question of state police before, and I haven't been able to find a case where they have. I think in most cases
Speaker 143
35:20
a little bit of discretion is used by law enforcement. That's greatly appreciated. This is just an added protection
Speaker 29
35:34
for people. Thank you so much. Representative Shepard, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
35:39
Just a quick question. I'm trying to digest the amendment and how it meshes with the underlying bill.
And as I understand the intent of the amendment, it would leave the concealed carry laws as is, except to say that outside of an incorporated area, then you could openly carry. Is that what I understand the intent to be? Yes, sir. Okay, I guess my question is, and I think that was the attempt to accomplish that is by what the amendment that's BPG 315, and wouldn't there have to be some additional changes made before page five?
Because it seems to leave the kind of the underlying statutory language that was in the original bill as is. And I guess I just want to make sure that this is meshing together correctly and also so that I can have an accurate understanding of what the bill now attempts to do. For example, I think it's over on page three.
Let's see. Yeah, a lot of the changes early on convert the term concealed carry to handgun in public, but that remains unchanged under the amendment. And I'm just wondering if that's not, it seems to me that to accomplish the intent of what was indicated, that that would need to be addressed.
Additionally, on page 5, lines 1, 2, and 3, the bill provides a license to carry handgun in public issued under this subchapter does not authorize a person to carry a handgun in public into, but it seems to me that that likewise would need to be addressed because going from the original bill that was filed back to what's attempted to be amended,
it seems like we would need to revert back to the concealed carry language but then do the exception on the end of it with regard to the prohibited places, which I think is subsection 20 under, what is that, 573-307
Speaker 180
38:16
maybe, I think. No, I don't think that needs
to be done. I think when BLR made the change, the amendment, I think they did it correctly.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
38:32
When did they make the change? This morning. Okay. Thank you. Representative Nichols, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Scott, I have some of the same problems that Representative Shepard has. when we're looking at amendments and trying to, in our mind, engross them into the bill. And would you be willing to take this back and go through members' own,
and then when we're here at the committee, we'll be looking at the bill as it will be when we vote on it on the House floor. But to do something like that, that would require, I believe, us to expunge the vote on the amendment, and then you could take it back to and do a member's own and have it engrossed and we wouldn't have the problems in trying to, in our mind, piece this amendment into the main bill.
Speaker 185
39:35
Is that something that you would entertain? Where is that? Where
is that that you just showed me? Yes. Well, I think Representative Scott, in my hand, do you want to pull it back to get it where it all jives together better?
Speaker 194
40:03
Is that what you're... I think it might be good to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
40:06
go ahead and ask some questions on the bill so we make sure
we're covering everything that needs to be covered, and then maybe Representative Gillum can do a motion to expunge and we can get it all
taken care of. That's a fine idea, Representative Nichols. Representative Gillen,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
40:21
you're recognized for a question. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Along those lines, just a procedural question on how we go about this. I do understand that my colleagues have some questions about how the amendment would mesh in. If we pass this out of committee today and there are some questions that come about,
there is a mechanism for Representative Scott to amend before it arrives on the floor. That is correct. Am I right in that? She can still make an amendment before it arrives on the floor of the House? I don't believe so. She'd have to come back here. And then it would have to come back here, as Representative Nichols was saying. Correct. But
I also at this point was saying let's hash this out right now and
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
41:04
get it over with. I'm just making sure that everybody's clear on the procedural side of things. Okay. All right.
I'll hold my questions for everybody and give everybody else a chance. Thank you.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
41:20
Representative Steele, does he have a question? Mr. Chairman, I think Representative Nichols covered most of my questions, but I guess I would reiterate the same thing. If you're excluding unincorporated, if you're excluding incorporated areas, I represent a very rural district, and I think every place with 20 people or more is incorporated. So this would really just apply in rural areas, would it not? In very rural areas outside of even small towns.
Is that correct? That's correct. I don't think this bill is very controversial. I think that I can't imagine that it would have that much controversy. And I appreciate your amendment in trying to form consensus here. But I'll reiterate what Representative Nichols said. I think that if we continue to ask the questions that everybody, because everybody is here today for this bill. And nobody wants to come back. Mr. Steele is here to help answer questions. And so I would just ask the same thing. I think we've fleshed this thing out.
ask all the questions we can ask while everybody's here, and then hopefully you would entertain a motion to expunge the vote and incorporate your amendments into the bill and clean it up and bring it back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions
from committee? All right, looks like we've got some people signed up. George Holt. Is there a George Holt here? Mr. Holt, if you'll go to the end of the table, please. Introduce yourself
Speaker 95
42:31
to everybody. Unless nobody you are, you're recognized. Good morning. Good morning, how are you? My name is George Holt.
George Holt
Unverified
42:44
I'm from Russellville. I represent the Arkansas River Valley Gun Club. The open carry bill has been something we've watched for a long time. We have a lot of discussion about it. There's a small majority of our club members who actually are interested in concealed carry. They're more interested in protecting their butt. If they were to reach up to an upper shelf or something, expose a firearm, There's been little to no prosecution over that, but it would shut down some of the criticism of those people from the other people that happened to see that.
I would like to say that we're a pretty law-abiding bunch. I get frustrated at watching all the maneuvering in the Capitol here about our carry bills. We solicited some information from the state police. In January, there's 130,000 active permits up there in Russellville. our prosecutor helps us with our concealed carry classes. He represents three districts or three counties. Of those, there's about 4,800 permit holders in that area, and they've actually had a revocation rate, people that's been accused of domestic abuse or domestic battery or potentially
had a DWI with their firearm. But the totals of that is 0.3 percent, 0.3, not even 1 percent, not a half a percent, but 0.3%. So we're a pretty law-abiding bunch. So we just ask your consideration and control over how you deal with these. We're not your problem. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Witt, if you'll just introduce yourself to everybody, less
Stan Witt
Unverified
44:51
than who you are, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. My
Speaker 211
44:55
name is Stan Witt, and I'm the director of the Arkansas State Police. On behalf of the State Police, we oppose this bill because of officer safety reasons.
Oftentimes officers encounter suspects with guns, and they have to make split-second decisions, and sometimes those split-second decisions or those seconds are critical. If a person is allowed to open carry, we feel like that would cause an officer to have to pause to wonder whether or not that person legally can open carry or not, and that those critical seconds could cost an officer's life. Another concern of ours, Representative McElroy brought that up, was the retention holsters.
We feel like that a retention holster would be an absolute necessary item. We have concerns
Speaker 211
45:55
somebody from standing behind you in the grocery line and just reaching up and grabbing your gun out of the holster and start shooting people. So that's a concern of ours also. Another concern is if we respond to a situation where gunshots are involved
and we get there and there's several others with open carry, how long is it going to take us to find out who the bad guy is? So those are our concerns about this bill. And I've also been authorized to let you know that the Fraternal Order of Police and the Chiefs of Police are also opposed to this bill. Thank you,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
46:41
Mr. Chair. Thank you, sir, for being here. Your testimony is very important to me as someone who protects my safety, and I appreciate
you being here. Let me ask you, you all took your position prior to the amendment that was made today because that just happened. You didn't know about it. Let me ask you, would your opinion change with the amendment which would allow for open carry in unincorporated areas. Do you think there's a difference between incorporated and unincorporated areas? I don't think there's a difference. Thank you very much. Rep. Ballinger, you recognize
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
47:15
for a question. How long has the state police been aware that this bill was out here and was working through
Speaker 211
47:21
the system? I can't really tell you how long we've been aware. I was just
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
47:30
made aware of it this morning. It was my understanding they weren't taking a position on it before, so I'm kind of curious as to what changed just in the short amount of
Speaker 220
47:41
time. I can't tell you that. I just read the bill this morning, and we had a discussion about
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
47:48
it in our department. May I follow up? No. And the other thing that I have a little bit of trouble with is the issue with,
You made the comment that I'm not sure what would prevent the ability of a person who's at a grocery store line and someone coming up behind them and pulling a gun from them. But this bill actually will not allow someone to carry an incorporated area. So I think that that would probably exclude almost every grocery store in Arkansas, if not every one of them. Would that be correct? I assume that would be correct, yes. Okay. No further questions. Any other questions from the committee? Mr. Witt, thank you very much
Thank you, Mr. Chair It looks like we have J.R. Hankins Mr. Hankins, if you'll introduce yourself to everybody You're recognized Well, good
Speaker 224
48:35
morning My name is J.R. Hankins I'm Highway Patrol Major for the Arkansas State Police on the eastern region And a lot of what I've got to
Speaker 225
48:42
say has already been addressed I don't want to be a dead horse to death But I will go over some of the things Also, the bill has been changed just a little bit I was looking at what early this morning, but it's changed a little bit now, as you realize. But at any rate, it's been brought up about the retention holsters.
And, of course, that's one of the first things that we're taught as young police officers is every time that we go somewhere, there's always a gun present, and that's your gun. So the one thing that we are trained about is protecting your gun. And it's not just the good people. You've got criminals. You may have people who have emotional issues or mental issues who want to rip that gun off of you. So it's something that you've always got to take into consideration, and it's something that's involved in your training. You've got to realize that displaying a gun makes you a target. We wear a uniform, and we get paid for wearing that uniform, but we realize we're a target.
You also have to realize when you wear that gun out on you that you're a potential target. If someone comes in and commits a crime, they're going to take out the guy first that's got the gun. So you've got to decide what you're going to do in those situations. And then as the colonel talked about, we talked about law enforcement involvement. And as the gentleman from Russell said, most people that carry guns like this are good, honest people, but occasionally you get that radical person out there that we also must deal with that thinks you're infringing on their Second Amendment rights. So that can cause some tension between law enforcement and the people who actually wear these things in open.
and then you got to ask yourself what's the benefit to arkansans to openly carry uh to openly carry opposed to just concealing the weapon the only thing that i've heard this morning is that we can carry a larger caliber gun and then what would compel a person to use deadly force or would they know how to handle it how do if you go into a situation and you've got a gun on your side then and everybody knows you've got a gun and somebody comes in to commit a robbery, would they look at you to handle this? Hey, you're the guy with the gun. You need to
step up and do something. Would you know how to handle it? Would you feel compelled to handle something that you're not sure of how to handle, or even if you wanted to handle the thing? I don't think the average person out here, while it sounds real neat to be able to
Speaker 224
50:58
carry one out here, I don't think they realize the training and the potential deadly consequences that could come with displaying
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
51:18
a firearm. And that's all I've got to say. Could you imagine a situation where there was, let's say, a woman who was petite in frame
and was out running, jogging, the difficulty that it would be in order for them to be able to conceal carry and do so in a way that would not be restrictive to the activity that they're doing. And the question is if she is a law-abiding citizen who's already passed background checks that the highway department uses, that she's already went through all the training in order to get the license, that it would be relatively benign, wouldn't you think, for her to be able to be out running in an unincorporated area
Speaker 224
51:57
and be able to carry a firearm still? Yes, and I do the same thing. I jog and I carry a firearm because I'm a police officer,
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
52:09
but I normally carry that in a fanny pack or something of that nature. And then the other thing that I would question is in your reasoning of the – I'm so sorry. I forgot my second question. I appreciate you guys being here, and I don't want to come across as if I'm being harsh on you all,
But I do really appreciate your input and views. It would have been nice if we had the opportunity to incorporate some of those things into the bill beforehand. And now what we're just trying to do is enable individuals, like a friend of mine who has a wife who runs out in the national forest and would like to be able to protect herself. And it's awful difficult to do that. Even with a fanny pack would be more difficult than a holster that is actually designed to carry a firearm. But thank you. Thank you.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
52:58
Representative Steele, you got a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your testimony. I think Representative William had already asked if you all had an opportunity to take a position before or after the amendment. I guess my question is on the amendment. Currently, I would think the highway police, just about anybody that you all would pull over, would qualify as being on a journey. Yes. Probably. Most people, yes. So they would already legally be able to have a firearm visible. That's correct. You can't carry a firearm on a journey. But it seems that this bill, if it specifies that it doesn't apply in incorporated areas,
would almost by implication criminalize those firearms in incorporated areas, even if you're on a journey. Right. And you have
Speaker 224
53:38
to please understand that I had no idea that the amendments had been made prior to coming in here this morning. In fact, it was a few minutes ago.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
53:45
Okay. I just thought you might be able to speak to that because I would think that given the highway police, probably most of the people that they stopped would already qualify as being on a journey anyway and would already be able to have a
Speaker 224
53:56
gun. Okay. Now, I'm with the State Police. I'm
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
53:58
with the Highway Police. I apologize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Pradaway, you recognize your question.
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
54:09
Thank you. I'll try to make this quick. Does an unincorporated area include our state parks? Yes. So this would allow up in carrying our state parks? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Representative Pradaway, you recognize your question. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. You were saying that the State Police are against this. Was a poll taken or was this a panel that made this decision?
Speaker 225
54:36
It was the senior staff, the director and the senior staff. May
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
54:40
I ask a follow-up question? Has any kind of poll been taken of the State Police as a
Speaker 225
54:45
whole? As the troopers in the field? Yes. No, ma'am.
Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Hankins? Thank you, Mr. Hankins. Thank you. All right, that's all that we have signed to speak for or against the bill. Any other questions from committee?
Representative Scott, do you wish to close for your bill? Representative Ballinger has a question. I'm sorry. Thank
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
55:14
you. Representative Scott, if we were to agree to pass this bill, I mean, clearly the intent, and this is a question that I want to make sure that you answered. Clearly the intent of this bill is not to change the concealed carry laws, but yet just to make the modification that in unincorporated areas you would be able to open carry. And then the other thing that we would want to change is to allow the inadvertent show to decriminalize that.
Would you be willing, if we pass this, to make those amendments come back and allow us to verify that those are the only amendments and that the intent of the bill is still there? Yes, I would.
Then I have a motion at the proper time.
Representative Scott, do you wish to close? Yes, I do. I do want to make this statement for sure. Also, with what you just said, Representative Ballinger,
this bill does not allow anyone to carry a larger caliber weapon. I think that was a question that was asked, and I want to make sure everyone understands that. I think in Arkansas, this is a bill that we need to run, need to have a good vote on. It's not the outcome that I planned originally. However, I'm very pleased that we have taken these baby steps this morning to get this started,
Speaker 193
56:46
and I'd appreciate a good vote. Are you close to your bill? I am. What's the pleasure of the committee? Got a
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
57:01
motion. Looks like Representative Ballinger. What's your motion? Do pass. Well, as amended. Yes, sir. Got a motion.
Do pass as amended. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Those have it. Sorry, the bill fails.
Thank you. Roll call. Roll call. That's two roll calls. All right, give us just a second to get the sheet. They want her to take it back and engross it and comes back. It's just all those people are here. And frankly, I don't want to give any more.
Speaker 241
57:57
Representative Hodges, no. Representative Broadway? No. Broadways, no. Representative Neal? Yes. Niels, yes. Wagner? No. Representative Bain? Yes. Okay. Representative Ballinger? Yes.
Representative Fite? Yes. Fite is yes. Representative McGee? No. Representative
Speaker 243
58:35
Kazay? Yes. No. Representative McElroy Representative Scott Representative Walker Representative Gillum
Representative Shepard Representative Steele Representative Slinkard Representative Slinkard Representative Nichols Representative Williams Representative Scott, you got nine yes
the bill fails. Thank you. Representative Neal, are you ready to run your
Speaker 29
1:00:01
bill? Representative Neal, you recognize. Present House Bill 1409. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have Donna Tyler from the Department of Corrections here to answer questions on HB
1409. I'll let her go ahead and speak
Speaker 250
1:00:14
to the bill. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, 1409 just makes one name adjustment and one terminology adjustment. We want to change the name from the Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment to Community notification assessment to better reflect what is done there.
The risk assessment that is performed on sex offenders in this state is linked to which kinds of community notifications are made. The higher your risk level, then the more community notifications. When this was given over to the Department of Correction several years ago, it originally was to be done
Speaker 251
1:01:07
in each, by each city and county, risk assessment.
Well, that didn't work out so well, so the Department of Correction got it all. And we kind of put this thing together very quickly, and the name that was chosen in haste actually is not all that good. So we just want to change the name to Community Notification Assessment. We don't want to change any of what is done there, the assessments that are done nothing. So that's the first thing the bill does. The second thing is to change the terminology that is used on our highest level sex offender,
which is a level four. When this all came over to us, the sexual violent predator term was
Speaker 250
1:01:58
taken out of legislation in other states. That legislation contained the designation that is used in civil commitment statutes, which Arkansas doesn't have. And normally for
Speaker 251
1:02:11
that designation in those other states where this was borrowed, there There has to also be a finding of mental illness.
So all we want to do is drop that label and make it a sexually dangerous person so that there is absolutely no confusion with civil commitments or designations done in other states. It's not going to change how many people are given a level four or what the requirements are for them being a level four.
Speaker 250
1:02:44
It just simply changes their name. So we have two name changes, and that's it.
Speaker 5
1:02:55
Any questions from the committee? Representative Walker,
you recognized. Is there an agreed-upon definition of who a sexually dangerous person is? There is
Speaker 251
1:03:05
in those statutes, and there are all sorts of criteria that have to be met. That's a declaration that's made, and I believe that actually comes from the court. Well,
is being sexually dangerous a crime? No, nor is
Speaker 251
1:03:21
being labeled a level four sex offender, which that's the designation that will be.
How may one be relieved of an inadvertent or improper designation as a sexually dangerous person? Well, there are. Does she have any
due process? Yes, absolutely. And there are
Speaker 118
1:03:39
appeals that can be done and are. So all that is spelled out in statute. Is that by a beyond reasonable
doubt standard or is that by preponderance of the evidence standard? Now, you know I'm not
Speaker 118
1:03:53
an attorney and you got me there. I'm not real sure.
But a person would have the burden of proving that he or she is
Speaker 254
1:04:04
not sexually dangerous under this, wouldn't he? No. No. I
mean, this is an assessment that is done. I understand, but assessments are usually subjective, would you not agree? They have some objectivity, but they're usually subjective. I
Speaker 250
1:04:17
suppose to some extent, but they use an instrument of measure that is
the same for everyone. Well, it's still subjective because
there are no predetermined factors of objectivity
that have been universally recognized, have there? Well,
Speaker 250
1:04:31
it uses that instrument that is based on what other states have done and what we do. And I think it's
Speaker 251
1:04:37
been challenged several times through appeal process and maybe even court challenges, but it has held up. I mean, we have a very good risk assessment process. As a matter of fact, Arkansas may have one of the better ones in the country. Well, I understand
that, but I'm still concerned that when I walk out of here,
somebody can look at me and say he looks
Speaker 77
1:05:05
like he's actually dangerous that may
be wishful thinking but that could also equally apply to Representative McElroy Representative Vance as well and I just I don't like the idea I don't like the idea that somebody can be designated by another person
who has no real qualification for defining who one is or what one's proclivities are. Well, someone can call you that, but it doesn't mean anything.
Speaker 250
1:05:44
This designation, I mean, there is a process for getting this designation, and the level fours, that takes a court declaration that you are. That
Speaker 251
1:05:52
means the person's got to go to court? Yes. I mean,
first of all, without having engaged in any conduct? Oh, no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 251
1:06:02
no, no. No, because this is not done to the general public.
These are only those who have been found guilty or pleaded guilty to
a sex crime. Then I'm corrected. Representative Williams assures me that this is a
Speaker 161
1:06:19
good deal. It is. I assure you, not sexually dangerous. I'll second that. Thank you very much. Seeing no comments on that. Representative Scott, you recognize for
a question? Motion at the proper time.
All right. There's nobody signed to speak for or against. Representative Neal, do you want to close for your bill? I'm closed. Okay. First up, we had it looks like Representative Steele had a motion first. What's that motion? Do pass. Got a motion. Do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yes, ma'am. Is there anybody here, anybody else here wishing to run a bill? Representative Shepard, you're recognized. Representative Shepard, just tell us what bill you want to run.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:07:12
1440. You're recognized, President House Bill, 1440. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With the chairman's permission, I'd like for Mr. Brad Cazort with ACIC to join me here at the head of the table.
Sure. Okay. Members of the committee, House Bill 1440 basically will make available the registry that is or the database that's presently maintained by ACIC with regard to adjudicated incompetence or those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Under Arkansas law, there are three, under state law, there are three categories of individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms.
Those who are convicted of a felony, those who have been adjudicated incompetent, and those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Presently, that information is being provided to ACIC, and obviously the felony information is available to law enforcement and the courts. it was brought to my attention by my district judge in Eldorada that the information related to adjudicated incompetence and those who have been involuntarily committed is not made available to courts, law enforcement, or prosecuting attorneys.
That information, by virtue of a bill that passed several years ago, that information is presently being forwarded to ACIC, and ACIC forwards that on to the federal government. And Mr. Kuzork can probably address this in more detail, but as I understand it, there are basically three databases that gun dealers check when they do a background check. Some of that information is available through one of the federal databases. This bill merely allows ACIC to compile that information that they already receive
and make it available to law enforcement, courts, and prosecuting attorneys. And this is something that I have circulated among various interest groups, Second Amendment groups. I think this essentially closes a loophole because I think it's in law enforcement's interest and the courts and prosecuting attorneys to have information to know whether someone is actually prohibited from possessing a firearm, for example, when they make a stop, or just in terms of a court making a determination as to what's an appropriate sentence or otherwise.
And with that, I would like for Mr. Cazort to, you know, make any comments that he wishes to make or likewise answer
Speaker 270
1:10:10
any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brad Cazort with the Arkansas Crime Information Center. This database that we have, we've compiled from a law that was passed by the General Assembly in 2007 that required probate and circuit clerks to report to us all orders of commitment, plus also receiving from the criminal side determinations that somebody is unfit to stand trial
or not guilty by reason of mental disease and defect, for the sole purpose of us being able to enter that into the federal NICS index, which is a gun prohibitor index, because under federal law, those people are not allowed to have firearms. The law that was passed in 2007 was very clear that that was the only purpose we could use that database for, was to enter it into the NICS index, which is one of the three files that the FBI checks when somebody is applying for a gun. This law would just make that database available, allow us to make it available to law enforcement
and the courts. I will tell you that since 2007, it's not large. We have about 2,300 people that we've had those orders reported to us on in the last
Speaker 271
1:11:11
six years. So it's not a huge database at MR. Thank
Speaker 68
1:11:15
you. Representative Williams, you have a question? I recognize. MR.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:11:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Shepard. This is a good idea. I just have a couple of questions
maybe for Mr. Casort. I'm not sure. It looks like you are exempting this information from Freedom of
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:11:32
Information. Is that correct? MR. That is correct. And I think this – I
believe that provision just basically came from the Bureau in drafting.
I mean, right now the information is not available to anybody but the federal government, I mean, in terms of who they can provide it to. We wanted to be sure and make certain that we are limiting that information's availability only to courts, law enforcement, and prosecuting attorneys. That's the intent of the bill, and therefore the FOI, I mean, this stuff's not available right now, so it's not as if we're eroding the FOI availability of this. Well,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:12:04
my question is, if someone is declared incompetent or mentally incapable in a court proceeding,
that is available to the public, because that's an
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:12:12
order that's given the court. It would be available through the various clerk's offices, not through ACIC. Right, and
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:12:19
that's my, just practically, how can you, I mean, information is available. It is subject to freedom of affection through the various courts. Once it's compiled here, then you're trying to say that it's not
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:12:33
available. Well, Mr. Cazort just mentioned that none of the information available that ACIC maintains is subject to FOI, and so this is just an attempt to maintain that consistency.
Now, whether someone can go out and go to the various courthouses, contact the circuit clerks and gather that information, this bill has nothing to do with that, and that may still, I guess unless the record's sealed, they still have the opportunity to get that information. This just maintains consistency among the databases and records maintained by ACIC, and also it just ensures that we are making this as narrowly tailored as possible and limiting that access only to those three classifications of individuals.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:13:18
One follow-up. Mr. Besord, how is this actually done? Because I know as former chief deputy in the AG's office, the AG's
office has access to ACIC, but not everyone, a very select, we only had one or two people who would have access. How do you control access to that very important information if we're opening up to a broad range of folks like the courts? Is there going to be someone designated in each court, the judge
or his clerk, or how are you going to limit access like you've done in the AG's office? Anybody who wants access to
Speaker 270
1:13:48
ACIC has to make applications to the ACIC board.
We have a list of regulations they have to follow, and anybody then, once they're approved to have access, then they have to go through training, level one and level two training, so that nobody actually touches our terminal or sees our database who has not been thoroughly trained on what they can and cannot do with it and who has access to it. There are a number of law enforcement, most law enforcement agencies in the state have access, a growing number of courts have access, prosecutors have access, but they're all people who have been thoroughly trained on how to do that. And again, to address your question on the FOI, as Reverend Schaeffer said,
Everything in our database is exempt from FOI because we are a closed record state. It's, I guess, kind of magic that it's public information at the courthouse, but it's not public when it gets
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:14:42
to us. Mr. Nichols, you recognize. How does this relate when someone is just doing a background check? What information is available on a background check? These commitment
Speaker 270
1:14:51
orders are not returned on a background check because these are not criminal convictions.
That was made very clear in 2007 when we were maintaining this database that this would not be commingled with criminal records because they're not criminal records. So when somebody does an employment background check in Arkansas through the state police and not through an Internet company, what returns on that employment background check are any felony and misdemeanor convictions that have not been sealed or pardoned and any pending felony arrests that's less than three years old. Okay. Thank you. Representative Shepard, I have one just briefly.
What part of this, the intent to allow law enforcement officers, when, say, maybe they stop a vehicle, they'll be able to know if they're approaching a vehicle with somebody that's been judged mentally incompetent and can better handle that situation? And
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:15:41
I think Mr. Cazort can correct me if I'm wrong, but that is part of it. I mean, and let me be clear, this is not any type of gun control. these classifications of individuals are already prohibited under Arkansas law from possessing a firearm.
And it seems to me that that information is valuable information, particularly for law enforcement on the front lines, that if they have dealings with an individual, at this point, an individual who is otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm could possess a firearm, and law enforcement would have no idea that he or she is actually, in fact, violating the law. And so I think it's important for us to provide that information to law enforcement, and I think it's also obviously valuable to the courts and the prosecuting attorneys because at this point, again, in using some examples that were related to me by my district judge,
you can have an individual that is otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, but nobody knows it. I mean, the only reason why anybody knows that they're prohibited is just because a judge or clerk happened upon the adjudication or the involuntary commitment. So that's very correct. Your point is well taken. Thank you, Representative
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:16:57
Nichols. You had another question? Yes. Mr. Cazorek, after this bill is passed,
Will your agency do a match with the concealed carry permit holders to see if any of them should not be carrying? Representative Nichols, nobody on our database will have a gun because
Speaker 270
1:17:15
they will have all been entered into the federal NICS index. So if they had attempted to purchase a gun, they would have been denied. So nobody in this database that we have, people who have been involuntarily committed or found incompetent to stand trial, will have a gun by nature of law.
they would have been denied. Okay. Thank you. Representative Walker.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few years ago I had a case involving a person who went to court by a name that was fairly common, and it was determined that he was not the person who should have been in court because that person, my client,
had already been dealt with. There was no adverse finding or whatever. But there he was in a situation where he was presumed to be guilty because his name and a substantial address were somewhat similar to another person. and the judge was in that situation in a position where he could take what the state police presented and he could take it and it would be in effect a presumption of guilt
and the person would have no way for overcoming this presumption. Does not this create a problem when the judge is in a situation where he's part of the prosecutorial team by having received information in the first place that keeps him, that puts him in a position of having a predisposition to rule against the person who was inadvertently placed there? I don't, I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:19:00
really don't see that being an issue. I mean, that, I guess, well, we had a case,
and that particular case resulted in a person being incarcerated for a
long period of time, and the state of Arkansas wound up paying him a whole lot of money because it was very clear that it would have been simple for the judge not to have just taken what the record showed. Many of those records that come from the state police and from prosecutors and from public officials are not
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:19:37
correct. Well, number one, this database requires the ACIC to maintain at a minimum
the person's name and date of birth. So the date of birth is going to necessarily narrow that down. Now, beyond that, I mean, that's no different than prior criminal records. I mean, you have the same issues. I mean, any time you're maintaining records on an individual, there's always a risk of having the same name. But ultimately, it would be very easy. This does not create any kind of presumption other than making the records available. The records that are already maintained doesn't create any type of presumption. And ultimately, I'm sure that you were able to gain a successful acquittal for your client on his misidentification, right?
And suing for damages because of the multiple errors of the state.
I mean, usually, and this situation comes up very often because people are often accused of crimes. They present a driver's license, and that may not be their driver's license, but it has a date of birth
Speaker 88
1:20:47
on it, and it goes into the ACIS. I just believe
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:20:51
that if that ever came up, it would be very easily refuted by information.
Number one, the ACIC has the record, as I've indicated, we have required that they maintain at a bare minimum the individual's date of birth. I mean, that's certainly going to narrow the possibility of any kind of misidentification. And then beyond that, the ACIC records are ultimately based on court records, which in any kind of adjudication or involuntary commitment, there's going to be certainly a lot of information that's going to provide for the accurate identification of those individuals.
But, again, it's no different than what we face with any database that we have at this point
Speaker 88
1:21:36
in time, whether it's prior convictions
or court records for that matter. One follow-up. My only concern is whether or not we give this information to the judge so that the judge is in a position to have proof that may not be
proof and then thereby create an irrebuttable presumption that the accused cannot overcome. Well,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:21:58
ultimately, these individuals are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
If this information is useful in making that determination, if somebody is going to be charged with possession of a firearm, then there's going to have to be information presented to the court. And I don't think that we're not going to just be able to stand on the fact that their name is an ACIC database. The prosecutor is going to have to bring forth the proof of that. And so I'm very confident that that issue, if it ever arises, can easily be addressed. And Mr. Cazort may have some further comments. If you'll keep
Speaker 5
1:22:32
it brief, Mr. Gersort, we need to move on.
Chair
Unverified
1:22:35
We're taking too long on this issue. Thank you, Mr. And just very quickly, this database... He doesn't have to answer my question.
I'll withdraw it. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? No way to sign to speak for or against. What's the pleasure of the committee? I move to do pass. Representative Bain, we've got a motion to do pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, looks like the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. All right, continuing, moving out of order with no objections. Is anybody else ready to present a bill today?
Is there anybody here ready to present a bill? I'll get it straight. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Do I have a motion to adjourn? All those in favor say aye.
Agenda
Speaker Address
HB1449
HB1415
HB1408
HB1409
HB1440
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Speaker 3
Representative Charlene Fite Chair
Unverified
Representative Mary Broadaway
Unverified
Speaker 17
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 25
Speaker 28
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 38
Speaker 39
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 8
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 67
Speaker 70
Speaker 75
Speaker 88
Speaker 94
Representative Marshall Wright Chair
Unverified
Speaker 51
Representative Sue Scott Chair
Unverified
Speaker 112
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 133
Speaker 129
Nicholas Saley
Unverified
Speaker 143
Speaker 141
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Speaker 95
Speaker 78
Representative John Baine Chair
Unverified
Representative Mark D. McElroy
Unverified
Speaker 29
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 180
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 185
Speaker 194
George Holt
Unverified
Speaker 207
Stan Witt
Unverified
Speaker 211
Speaker 213
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 220
Speaker 224
Speaker 225
Speaker 193
Speaker 243
Speaker 241
Speaker 250
Speaker 251
Speaker 5
Speaker 118
Speaker 254
Speaker 77
Speaker 161
Speaker 270
Speaker 271
Speaker 68
Speaker 136