House Education Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1243
· 8 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “This is House Bill 1243 by Representative Collins, and I do believe that Representa…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB139
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB139”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1260
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1260”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1262
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…mmittees. Also, Representative Eubanks wishes that we place House Bill 1262 as a special order of business. Do I have a motion in that…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1479
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…. When I came to this committee two years ago to talk about House Bill 1479, I went through a litany of college campus shooting inciden…”
|
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 3, 2026
Eddie. The chair sees a quorum. A couple of business items before we get into our agenda. There was a joint meeting of the Senate and House Education Committees scheduled for four o'clock today. That's been canceled and that'll be rescheduled at a later date. We're going to have Mr. David Matthews, who was an attorney in the Lakeview case, come and talk to us a little bit about Lakeview, but we will try to reschedule that as a joint meeting between the House
and Senate Ed Committees. Also, Representative Eubanks wishes that we place House Bill 1262 as a special order of business. Do I have a motion in that regard? For Thursday, the 14th. I have a motion. Representative Ratliff, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? We will have a special order of business for Representative Eubanks Bill 1262 for Thursday.
With that, in our attempt to keep good relations with our very, very good friends on the Senate end of the building, we are going to go ahead and listen to Senate Bill 139. I believe Representative Mark Perry is here to present that bill. Representative Perry, you are recognized to present Senate Bill 139. sir and we thank you for being here thank you mr. chairman appreciate the opportunity to bring this to
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:28
you I know you got a busy agenda today it's okay
with chair I'd like to invite mr. Tony Wood with the Department of Education and Scott Beardsley with first security absolutely and also and also Martin McBride, and he's with Stevens. Mr. Chairman, the Senate Bill 139 is actually a proactive way to solve a, to have a procedure for curing a bond deficiency with school districts.
I'm not an expert in that manner. That's why I've got the experts here at the table, and this time I'd like to be able to I'll turn it over to Ms. Tony Wood, Mr. Beardsley, and have them
Speaker 7
2:22
give you some updated information. Go right ahead. Arkansas presently has a post-default process for curing bond deficiencies. This is an effort to make it a pre-default system.
Actually, the rating agency has raised questions with it being post-default, And that's why we're pursuing this. And either Mr. McBride or Mr. Beardsley could comment in
Speaker 8
2:43
regard to specifics. Either one of you gentlemen are recognized. Thank you very much.
Speaker 14
2:57
Good morning. I'm Mark McBride. I work with Stevens, Incorporated. And between our two firms, we do a lot of work with the
Speaker 16
3:04
school districts in the state of Arkansas,
serving them as financial advisor. As Mr. Wood said, this program is a proactive attempt to enable Arkansas school districts to sell their bonds at very attractive and marketable interest rates. It's an intercept program so that districts that have a problem in the issuance of their bonds and paying debt service, those funds would be intercepted from the state and would ensure that the debt service on these bonds are paid in a timely fashion. This program is modeled after a number of states and has been successfully reviewed by
the rating agency. So that's what we're trying to do with
Speaker 17
3:48
this legislation. Does anybody else have anything to add to
that? And I do believe this is part of the Department of VED's legislative package. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Very good. Committee, do
Speaker 17
3:58
we have any questions in regard to this bill?
Speaker 20
4:03
Okay. Representative Cozart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. How many schools fall into this category right now?
Speaker 16
4:11
In terms of a category, there's really no schools that fall into the category. This legislation would become effective July 1 of this year, and school districts would have the ability to utilize the intercept program for bonds issued after that date. It's a common occurrence now when school districts issue bonds that they utilize the intercept program and obtain a writing on their bonds, which enhances the marketability of the bonds and lowers the interest cost. So it's an important program that's been done in the state for a number of years.
We're just proposing to change it from a post-default program to a pre-default program, if that makes sense. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sir.
Speaker 23
4:55
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the bill, it says
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
5:00
the bonds will be issued, prescribed by the school district's board of directors. So that varies from each school district, or is there not a uniform way for recommendations of the state that these bonds are issued?
Speaker 29
5:19
Well, the bond districts are obligations of the local school district. They're required to submit an application to the Department
Speaker 31
5:25
of Education. So the department is already involved in that process, but the local school board is the authorizing unit of government. Is it normal practice
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
5:34
for those school districts to take the recommendations of the Department of Education? As general rule,
Speaker 7
5:41
unless the district was in fiscal distress, we support the position of
Speaker 8
5:44
the local board of directors to seek additional millage to support the sale of a bond.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Biviana. Do we have any other questions, committee? If not, do we have anybody in the audience who wishes to speak against this bill? If not, do we have anybody who wishes to speak for the bill? With that, what is the pleasure of the committee? Representative Ratliff? We have a motion to do pass. All in favor? All
Speaker 17
6:12
opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much, Representative Perry. Mr. Chairman and committee, thank you all very much. Okay, committee, we
Speaker 35
6:24
are going to take up our special order of business.
This is House Bill 1243 by Representative Collins, and I do believe that Representative Collins has an amendment to the bill. And, sir, if you'd be so kind to come to the end of the table and present your amendment, please. And
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
6:50
that amendment is being published right now. It should be on your tablets. And if it's not on your tablets, Mark will get you a hard copy. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee. This amendment to House Bill 1243 essentially gives public colleges and universities the opportunity to opt out of the provisions of HB 1243, similar to how the bill itself gives private colleges the opportunity to opt out.
And I'm not aware of any opposition to the amendment from the public two- and four-year colleges and universities. And happy to take questions. Committee, do we have any questions in regard to
the amendment to House Bill 1243? Madam Vice Chair. Thank you for being here, Representative Collins. I just was glancing at
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
7:43
the amendment, and I noticed that on number one it said he or she is a staff member.
Speaker 44
7:53
Do we have a definition of staff elsewhere? Yes,
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
7:56
Representative Klammer. In House Bill 1243, there is a definition of staff. It's essentially full-time employees with faculty on either a nine-month or 12-month contract. Okay. That's fine. I just didn't
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
8:05
remember the reference, and I didn't have it pulled up. Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Representative Deffenbaugh, sir. Motion at
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
8:22
have any other questions? Representative Hobbs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Collins, I noticed they have to, I guess, kind of re-adopt the policy banning handguns,
if that's what they wish to do, on an annual basis. Could you tell me your reasoning behind it,
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
8:37
having to redo it yearly? Yes, ma'am. There are many decisions that a board of trustees will make. I think many of these, whether it's policy or budgets or whatever, are things that happen on a recurring basis. Given that we're talking about opting out of the law of the land, I think it's fine and appropriate for that to happen every year. The other element is as trustees and decision makers change over time and as circumstances
change over time, I want to make sure that all of the public colleges and universities have the opportunity to consider, you know, their ongoing policies either to opt in or opt out based on where they've been in the previous year. Okay. Thank
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
9:22
Representative Hobbs. Representative Linderman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Collins, I have a, we just got the amendment, so I have
a couple questions about that. One of them is if they allow, do they have to allow every staff member or can they specify
or contract with certain staff members to do this?
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
9:39
Representative Lenderman, the flexibility that the amendment gives the public colleges and universities does not allow flexibility there. Where it allows flexibility is on the locations on campus where they can opt in or out. So for example, if a university said we want to allow concealed carry for professors and other full-time staff in some of our buildings but not others, for example, UAMS Hospital, they would have that authority.
What I did not want to get into with this bill nor with the amendment was a law enforcement scenario. So for example, if you say there are Army Rangers and there's a certain training program for Army Rangers, there are CIA agents and there's a certain training, there's police officers, there's a certain training program for them, all of those types of things, I'm not attempting to address those in the bill. So if a person is looking for some type of armed security or something along those lines,
I believe setting that up separately would be the way to go. And if they wanted to say, for example, in addition to being a fill-in-the-blank, you're also going to be a armed support personnel or security personnel. We at the University of XYZ are going to set up a 40-hour training program. The requirements are one, two, three, and one of those happens to be you hold a concealed carry permit, I think the university would be perfectly free to do that. But this is a bill which basically says the concealed carry program that the state of
Arkansas runs and the state police director is responsible for is adequate for what it's about, which is, you know, self-defense of an individual. And it's not about creating a parasecurity organization on a college campus. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Representative Linderman. Representative Carnine, do you have a question, sir? No. Okay. Do we have any other questions from the committee pertaining to this amendment? If not, do we have anybody in the audience who wishes to speak against the amendment?
Anyone wishing to speak for the amendment? If not, Representative Deffenbaugh, do you have a motion, sir? MR. Motion do pass on the amendment. We have a motion to adopt the amendment to House Bill 1243. All in favor? All opposed? Motion is adopted. Representative Collins, you are now recognized to present House Bill 1243
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
12:11
as amended. MR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The first thing that I always think about when generating legislation is, you know,
what is the purpose or what is the reason that we're doing this? And I think on something like this, it's even more important because it's such a big thing. And so I want to share that with you. In my view, we have a significant problem in America. And the problem I'm talking about is the number of crazies and killers that select our college campuses to murder our loved ones.
And this is a recurring problem. It's a frequent problem. It's not going away. When I came to this committee two years ago to talk about House Bill 1479, I went through a litany of college campus shooting incidents. Of course, at that time, the massacre in Blacksburg, Virginia, was more prominent in our minds. And since then, the problem has not gone away.
In fact, since 2010, which is the past 37 months, there have been 31 different incidents in the United States of shootings on campus. In those 31 incidents, 58 people have been killed and 37 have been wounded. Just some of, just to top line a few of them, May 10, 2011, San Jose State University, three dead. March 24, 2012, Mississippi State University, one dead.
March 24, Jackson State University, one dead, one wounded. April 7, 2012, Oikos University, seven dead, three wounded. October 31, 2012, UCLA, four wounded. And January 15, 2013, Hazard Community and Technical College, three dead. And this is also something that we in Arkansas are not immune from. We've had incidents on campus in our state over the past ten years,
including two killed at UCA in 2008, two killed back in 2000 at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. And these things happen even though we have wonderful, wonderful, wonderful law enforcement officers, both on our campuses and off our campuses, in the state of Arkansas and in other places. So in my mind, it's more than just law enforcement people. So what is the idea, and how will it help us to reduce the number of our loved ones being killed on college campuses?
We have a program in Arkansas, many states have it, about concealed carry. And what that allows citizens to do after going through what I believe is a rigorous background and screening process by the state police department is to carry concealed handguns legally. They're allowed to carry handguns in many, many, many places. In fact, far and away most places. Some places are specifically prohibited, and that includes college campus buildings.
So killers and crazies, when they're plotting where they're going to do their evil deeds, not all of them, of course, but some of them think through this notion of the gun-free zone and where people are unprotected, where they can have more control over what they're trying to accomplish, whether it's the number of people they intend to kill, whether it's the particular people they intend to kill, whether it's the specific place and time and all of these other elements.
So I believe that by allowing concealed carry holders on university campuses to carry at work, we're going to have a deterrent effect that will help save lives. I think there is a smaller effect, but which could also be important, of protection or the protective effect of these concealed carry holders on campuses. Most of these incidents, you know, are over in just a few seconds, so it's very, very difficult for anybody, even if you're literally present in the room,
to do much about it. But sometimes we have the most horrible and egregious situations where an individual begins killing in one location and after those folks are killed then moves to another location and literally hunts people down. This potential situation is actually something our universities recognize. Early this year at U of A, you know, they sent out a statement to all faculty about emergency preparedness.
And there's a lot of good information in there. And it talks about things like severe weather. And one of the scenarios was about active shooters. And everybody's given good advice and good information. Call 911, evacuate if at all possible, lock or barricade themselves away from the shooter. But the last sentence recognizes the cruel reality that we have to deal with today. And it says, defend. Use chairs, desks, cell phones, or whatever is immediately available
to distract and or defend yourself and others from attack. There's a reality. It's unpleasant. We have an opportunity here today to do something about it. Okay. When I worked at Procter & Gamble, I had a boss that used to tell me sometimes people fear that the cure is worse than the disease. And so a lot of people had a lot of input and a lot of concerns expressed to me.
They would say to me, Charlie, we understand there's a concealed carry process, and we understand there are a lot of requirements. There's background checks for mental health, drug addiction, alcohol, jail, and many other things. You have to be 21 years old and a lot of other considerations. But with all of that said, we're still very, very concerned that there could be some immature people, even though they've got a concealed carry permit on a college campus. There are a lot of, you know, young boys, for example.
And let's say somebody's in a dorm room, they're properly, you know, handling everything they're supposed to do, but somebody else realizes that they're there and an 18-year-old gets drunk and all of a sudden runs around and breaks into somebody's dorm room and finds the gun. I mean, you know, you could be creating a scenario where there's more accidents or more problems than you're actually solving. So one of the things I did with 1243 is ensured that there is no way that this bill would allow weapons to get in the hands of a student any more than already exists.
Now, I think we all saw on Friday that a student carried a weapon into a university building in Fayetteville. That weapon discharged and injured that student's hand. Unfortunately, that student should make a recovery. Three or four months ago at UA Fort Smith, some people smelled marijuana coming out from under a dorm room, and when the police went in, they found a handgun in the room of this 19-year-old student. So nobody can ensure that handguns will not be brought on to a university,
but this bill, by eliminating the ability for students to carry and also expressly forbidding the storage of weapons in a dorm room, does everything I can think of to ensure that we in no way increase the danger from potentially students getting a hold of weapons. The reason I do that and the reason that I thought that was a reasonable approach is because the deterrence effect that I mentioned, which I believe is the prime life-saving benefit
of the bill, is still attained by this change. And the fact that some people, faculty and staff, could have weapons on campus, I believe is a powerful deterrent to crazies and killers. So those are the key points that I wanted to make this morning. And, Mr. Chairman, if it's okay with you, I'm happy to take any questions. Representative Collins, thank you very
much for your presentation. Committee, I believe we are going to have some questions.
So Representative Armstrong, if you would begin,
Representative Eddie L. Armstrong
Unverified
21:00
please, sir. Representative Collins, I think I can support your bill with the amendment that you put on it, but I also would like to encourage all presidents, chancellors, and boards of directors and trustees of colleges to make sure that the concealed carrier gets some kind of training other than the concealed carrier training. Do we have any other questions from the committee?
Okay, if not, do we have anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against this bill? Okay, we do have some folks who have signed up to speak for the bill, and first is Mr. Don McGowan. I'm sorry Mr. Andrew Faulkner if you are available sir Mr. Faulkner thank
Speaker 17
21:57
you for taking time to come today
and you are recognized to speak for the bill Representative Collins
Speaker 5
22:09
if you would assist Mr. Faulkner thank you sir
Speaker 67
22:12
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. And thank you, Representative Collins. I'm
Speaker 68
22:19
here today to voice my support for House Bill 1243. I've been paying attention to this issue, as I'm sure a lot of people have since the horrible crime that occurred at Newtown, Connecticut.
I'm just a regular citizen. I do not represent a lobby here. I do not represent an institution. I represent myself as an individual,
Speaker 70
22:40
an individual who wishes to have the right to defend myself from horrific and random attacks like the one that occurred at Newtown. The reason I support this bill is very simple. I'm a family man. I'm a husband. I'm a father. I consider myself a good employee, one who works hard so that I can sustain my family. I am a responsible gun owner.
I own firearms for all the reasons that one might be expected to own a firearm. One of the primary reasons is for my protection and the protection of those that I love. To this end, I have obtained my concealed carry license, and I carry a concealed firearm to exercise that right of protection. I accept the rights and responsibilities that come along with being granted such power. That power has been granted to me by the state of Arkansas, by my local law enforcement officials, by the Arkansas State Police, and by the FBI,
pursuant to the laws that come with the awarding of such power. I'm allowed to protect myself and my family at home. I'm allowed to protect myself and my family when we travel through this state. I'm allowed to protect myself and my family when we are out in public. But because I am a state employee working at a university, the state which allows me the right of self-preservation pretty much everywhere else does not allow me to protect myself at work.
Unfortunately, my place of employment, a place of education located in a gun-free zone, seems to be a common target of those who want to inflict the most harm upon as many innocent people as they can, Newtown being the most recent and most horrific example of that. With the world being the kind of place that it is today, I do not see why I would be asked to give up my right to self-defense and self-preservation in such a vulnerable environment, when the same environment, or ones just like it, seem to be the greatest targets of opportunity for criminals and madmen.
People who stand up against this bill say that more guns are not the answer. For my own university, even the police force say that more guns are not the answer, and I respect that opinion. They say it will turn the educational environment into the Wild West They say that it will be a distraction They argued that it will open a Pandora's box to more violence I can't say whether or not that more guns will offer more protection for everyone involved Because I'm not arguing for a collective right I'm arguing for an individual right
One that has been enumerated in the Declaration of Independence The U.S. Constitution, the Arkansas Constitution and many other state constitutions across this country. I can say that for myself, extending the right to carry to my place of employment, even if it is a university campus, will definitely mean an added sense of security and protection for myself. It will mean more security for my family, especially since my wife also works at the university campus.
It will mean more security for those that I work with. and it will mean more for those, more security for the students that I work with. I say this because for me personally, I view my colleagues and students as valued assets to my own life, to the university, to our community, and to the society as a whole. Like the teachers at Newtown, I would gladly sacrifice myself to protect them. But in that sacrifice, I would hope that I would also have the opportunity
to free those that I was protecting from danger. The teachers at Newtown selflessly and courageously sacrificed themselves to shield their students, but they did not have the tools at their disposal to remove the danger that then turned on the rest of the defenseless victims. I cannot speak for everyone, but I refuse to be a martyr or a helpless victim in any circumstance that is within my control. By denying people this right, whether they want to exercise that right or not,
you automatically put them into the position to be either a helpless martyr or a victim. To the opponents above, I would say that there is no current study or examples that support the claim that more guns lead to more violence. In fact, many studies point to the opposite effect. I believe that the state of Utah has already implemented such legislation as this, even for their students, and they have not yet reverted back to the Wild West days of the O.K. Corral or Dodge City. This fear is the fear of the unknown, and since this movement is new to the world of academia,
but nothing new outside of it, it evokes pictures of horror and therefore elicits rabid negative responses. I choose not to live in fear. I choose to want to have the ability and option to fight and to fight on a fair playing field if the circumstances so dictate. I understand the fears of our campus officers, which are real police officers and fully equipped. They have a tremendous responsibility to keep us all secure, but the fact of the matter is
they cannot be everywhere at once or respond in a split second to an incident that is occurring on the other side of campus. These brave men and women are called first responders, and they do their job well. I believe and trust in our officers' abilities, but they respond to an incident after it already starts. Just for an example, in under 10 seconds, a simple 10-round magazine, if that's what people are limited to in the future, let's just take that for an example,
just a 10-round magazine, can be emptied in under 10 seconds, rendering 10 people either shot or killed. I don't care how good your officers are or how well trained they are. It probably takes 10 seconds for dispatch to receive a call, relay accurate information to the officers, even if they're already in route. Under normal circumstances, I would defer to all of their judgments and relinquish any power that I may have that they may exercise their own, doing the job that they have sworn to do.
However, in the case of a madman roaming the halls when the shooter is six seconds away from my door and the police are 20 seconds away from the building, I want the option to be able to fight for my life and not just the option of cowering under my desk with my phone telling my wife that I love her with the possibility of my last breath. And to that point, I have not yet seen a door, a window, a desk, or a chair in an educational office or classroom that is bulletproof. To end this statement of support for this bill, I can say that I have respect and views
of the opponents of this bill. I can understand their fear and apprehension. However, I refuse to let that fear deprive me of the individual right to self-defense that is given to me by the Second Amendment and as a necessary extension, the right to life. I am a responsible gun owner who has passed all the required background checks pursuant to Arkansas in federal law, I'm a reasonable person who would only choose to exercise this right in the wisest of manners and under only the gravest of circumstances.
I'm an honorable citizen of the state, my community, and my university. I only ask that you grant me and other individuals like me the power to preserve our own lives when such dire circumstances, God forbid, such as the ones that occurred at Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook, occur on our campuses with the ability to carry on campus we have an equal opportunity to save ourselves and possibly many others by denying individuals that right you are betting that the
campus security force and local police officers will receive accurate information get organized respond and take action in time enough to prevent any or minimal loss of life in nine times out of that may even be the case. But I do not want to bet my life or the lives of those around me on the off chance that I find myself staring headlong into that one out of ten chance. To have the law dictate and say that I do not have the right to defend myself in that situation and to not give
me some kind of equal footing as that of the criminal is tantamount to purposefully sending an innocent person to death row and that is why I want to support, I want
Speaker 71
31:24
to voice my support for House Bill 1243. Thank you very much Thank you
Mr. Faulkner we appreciate your time, we appreciate you being here today. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against this bill? We have Mr.
Speaker 17
31:41
Joseph Youngblood with us today Okay, do we have someone who wishes to speak
Grayson Teague
Unverified
31:49
against the bill? Yes, you are, sir. If you would be
Speaker 73
32:04
so kind as to introduce yourself to the committee. Yes. Eric, can everybody hear me? My name is Grayson Teague. I am actually here on a tour for Leadership Hot Springs, and we are meeting and experiencing state government today. I just happened to walk in here and hear this conversation. This conversation
about House Bill 1243, correct, will directly affect me next year as an incoming freshman at University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. I can completely understand the opposition's right to support this, and there are some good things, like the representatives built here that would ban students from having firearms on campus, I believe is a great idea, and it's brilliant. But the idea of one of my professors, whom I do not know on the first day going in, having a gun, kind of scares me. It might make me fear my professors, and where this
is an opportunity where I'm supposed to be finding myself along with learning, I think it could be a detrimental environment, not only to me, but other people entering in during my years. And I really I wish that maybe instead of just giving professors the right to own guns and on a concealed weapon permit, maybe we could instead beef up the security forces on campus, which would provide maybe more officers, along with new jobs for people, which is something that's always a great thing
and something we're definitely looking for in a recession. And it would create more trained professionals who it is their job to provide safety instead of people who possibly might be, might accidentally be those crazies that the representative talked about. Because even with all the mental background checks that we can provide, some people will slip through the cracks. It's error, and it happens everywhere and every day. and it would make me feel safer as an incoming student
if there were more security forces trained specifically to do that job than someone who just passed a mental background exam. So thank you for your time. Thank you very much,
Speaker 17
34:16
sir. We appreciate your input. Mr. Joseph Youngblood is here with the University of Arkansas, and he wishes to speak for House Bill 1243. Mr. Youngblood, you are recognized. We appreciate you being here today, sir. You may proceed.
Speaker 76
34:34
Do I have the chair's permission to open up my laptop to speech? Yes, you do. Thank
Joe Youngblood
Unverified
34:42
you. All right, so my name is Joe Youngblood, and I'm here representing... Is it on? Can everybody hear me? I'm sorry. I got a little bit closer here. My name is Joe Youngblood, and I'm representing various student groups at the University of Arkansas who support Representative Collins' bill. I'm also the author of the bills at the University of Arkansas student government level that support Representative Collins' bills. And so I have a statement here.
To begin with, concealed carry on campus is primarily an issue of whether licensed citizens who have been trained and certified after receiving classes from a state licensed professional instructor and passing written and shooting tests who responsibly carry a firearm for self-defense everywhere else in their lives should be rendered vulnerable simply because they choose to educate the next generation of leaders. It is important to frame the context of this debate. In the status quo, a metal sign is considered the primary deterrent to crime on our campuses. No reasonable person could ever believe in this fallacy.
Both sides of this issue must concede that criminals who wish to bring firearms on campus have no desire to follow the laws that ban them from doing so. What this means is that law-abiding citizens with concealed carry licenses are disarmed by these signs, but the criminals are not, granting them a monopoly on force within what we optimistically term a gun-free zone, but which recent history has shown is absolutely not the case. This leads us to the following conclusions. One, this debate has nothing to do with criminals bringing guns to campus. Concealed carriers are far more law-abiding than the general population, as well as being far less violent,
300 times less violent according to a study of Florida's concealed carry licenses. Two, the opposition to campus carry is scared not of criminals but of the law-abiding citizens who concealed carry. The overwhelming body of criminological study conclusively demonstrates that concealed carry is safe and it makes society safer. I offer the following quote from the Chronicle of Higher Education summarizing a study by the National Academy of Sciences that I feel can put an end to this sort of concern. No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons
causes a major increase in crime. This is the opinion of the professionals who make the study of these issues their profession. So why would faculty need to carry out firearms for self-defense the reason is quite simple crime happens on college campuses from assaults and robberies college campuses are not immune to crime the presence of concealed carriers on campus offers tangible benefits these include a strong correlation between the allowance of concealed carry and a sharp decline in violent crime due to deterrent effect that the possibility
of self-defense has on criminals an individual who already intends to commit a crime is not deterred by signs saying firearms are banned the empirical evidence reinforces this point Since 1950, every single mass shooting, which by the FBI is defined as a shooting involving more than four people, with one exception, has been in a gun-free zone. Why, then, should university officials deny the option of effective self-defense to the faculty they employ because they cross a property line onto campus? Contrary to misinformation being spread about the carrying of concealed firearms by faculty, this isn't putting guns in the hands of every single teacher.
This isn't arming every teacher that wants to be armed. The only citizens who would have a concealed firearm on campus are the same ones who responsibly carry at the grocery store, movie theater, and gas station, everywhere else in their lives, safely and without incident. But how do legislators and campus carry advocates know that the bill would not result in campus shooting galleries when these faculty members, who many people feel their training is insufficient, are granted the right to carry their concealed firearms in their classrooms? The overwhelming body of evidence already referred to shows this,
but there's significant evidence for more than 200 campuses in six states that actually allow people to carry concealed firearms on campus, in some cases including students. Since Colorado State University first decriminalized concealed carry, there is yet to be a single injury on any campus involving a lawfully armed citizen. For those who say they would feel uncomfortable with the idea of faculty being armed around them on campus, do they also feel uncomfortable walking around in public? Is this discomfort mitigated by knowing that, according to a University of Chicago study published by Newsweek, that when shootings do occur, concealed carriers hit innocents only 2% of the time, compared to 11% of the time for the police?
This is not an indictment of law enforcement, but they have incredibly difficult jobs to do when they come onto the scene after these events unfold. Law enforcement has an incredibly difficult job. Concealed carriers' jobs is infinitely more simple. They protect the life of themselves and the lives of the others that are immediately around them when a threat of grievous bodily harm or death is immediately apparent. That is the only time the law permits them to draw that weapon and use it. A study by the Texas Department of Health and Human Services found that Texans are 20 times more likely to be struck by lightning
than to be injured or negligently killed by a concealed carrier. There's no reason those statistics would differ from Texas to the state of Arkansas. In regards to concerns about the learning environment, the premise behind concealed carry is that people around you are not aware you are armed. As policy stands, the only people who can and do bring weapons on campus are those who do it illegally, and they are the ones other students and faculty should be concerned about. Concealed carry does not ruin the shopping environment or the theater environment or the environment anywhere else in the state of Arkansas. It's awfully hard to understand why the argument that states it would ruin the learning environment should be considered.
Additionally, criminals fear armed citizens even more than they fear the police. As the saying goes, 100% of criminals like gun-free zones. Why wouldn't they? It guarantees them the right to prey on innocent persons at will. I believe that when criminals universally support the status quo, it should probably be changed. A large part of deterrence stems from the fact that criminals would not know which faculty could put up armed resistance, and that risk has been proven to cause second thoughts with criminal individuals. Empirical evidence of this can be discerned from the Aurora, Colorado shooting. Despite that shooter
living in close proximity to seven theaters showing the same movie that night, the gunman chose the Cinemark Theater despite it being neither the largest nor the closest. He chose it because it was the only theater that openly announced it was a gun-free zone. Gun-free zones should be at more aptly named defense-free zones because 19 major shootings in the last 10 years stand as evidence that campus gun bans are ineffective at keeping students and faculty safe. On the other hand, seven attempted mass shootings in the same time span were stopped by a concealed carrier. The most recent one in Clackamas, Oregon was actually stopped by a college-age concealed handgun license holder. Dare I say it, concealed
carry saves lives. Though mass shootings are rare, when they are stopped by concealed carriers, the average number of fatalities is approximately 2.3 people. But when the police are the responding force, the criminal is free to rampage in the interim, and the average number of fatalities skyrockets to over 14 persons. Before I close, I'd like to point out that one of the great mistruths about this debate is that somehow faculty and staff don't want concealed carry and that this is something that bears consideration. As the gentleman before me bore witness to and the letter that I have in my backpack
that I'll be reading tonight at the University of Arkansas by another professor, they show that some of the support that these bills first received came from people and faculty and staff and I believe it's shameful to act like their opinions don't matter or to allow people who are against these bills to put words in their mouth or allow administration's opinions to convince us that some kind of consensus exists. I can tell you that amongst the people I've spoken to, campus carry is strongly supported. But that assertion isn't scientific, nor should it, or the inverse, that everyone, that people who are against this bill have spoken to are
against it, should be considered by this committee. To the prominent opposers of the bill, I have this to say. We need to see facts from academic and peer-reviewed sources, because I've provided a strong body of evidence for concealed carry on campus. Every statistic and study I have cited as public, peer-reviewed, or academic. These are highly reputable sources, not from a polemic opinion writer or anti-gun organization. We need to stop discussing baseless hypotheticals about blood in the streets or every little thing that could go wrong. History proves
these concerns are invalid. Statistics and facts show that it simply isn't the case. But perhaps a testimony from a decorated law enforcement officer from a major city can clarify this better than I can. This is a quote from Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association. I lobbied against concealed carry in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert. Legislators should consider
this bill in the light of facts and reason, not fallacious hypotheticals or hyperbole, and justify allowing licensed law-abiding citizens the option of effective self-defense on campus. Permitting state law to deny the right to lawfully concealed carry to the faculty and staff of our universities based on faulty reasoning or fear-driven myths and misconceptions is a serious mistake that the state of Arkansas cannot afford to make. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 17
43:34
Thank you, Mr. Youngblood. We appreciate you very much. Do we have anyone that
Speaker 5
43:41
– Mr. Youngblood, if you would – we have a question.
If you would be able to take questions, Representative Hobbs.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
43:47
Absolutely. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Youngblood. Can you tell me more? I think I heard in your testimony that you
said people who have their concealed carry have taken written and mental tests. Is that correct? Yes,
Joe Youngblood
Unverified
43:59
ma'am. In the state of Arkansas, it is an eight-plus-hour test that involves both passing a shooting portion and a written test portion in regards to the applicable self-defense laws. I don't know
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
44:10
if there's someone that can help with that clarification or not, but I know people who have
their concealed carry who did not take a written test, who actually
took maybe a three- or four-hour course in concealed carry, and that enabled them to get their concealed carry, and there were no – when you say mental, I'm assuming you're referring to a psychological test. I'm referring to the background
Speaker 79
44:32
checks applied by state and federal agencies as per Arkansas law. Again, I'm stating what the Arkansas law mandates as the minimum. I don't know what anecdotal experiences people have had, but that's what the state law says is the minimum, so that's what the state police require, and beyond that, I can't speculate
Speaker 84
44:51
as to what individual people might have experienced. But actually happens? Okay. Thank
Speaker 17
44:56
you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative Viviano, do you have a question for Mr. Youngblood? No question. Motion at the proper time. Thank you very much. Do there be any other questions for Mr. Youngblood? Thank you very much, sir, for coming and being here today. Thank you all very much. So anyone that wishes to speak for or against the bill, no opinions are suppressed here. Everyone
will have an opportunity if you see fit. We would appreciate distillation of your argument and or thoughts.
With that being said, do we have anyone that wishes to speak against the bill? Okay, we do have a gentleman, Mr. Chris Campolo. Please excuse me if I'm not pronouncing that correct, sir. You are recognized, sir,
Speaker 17
45:41
to speak for the bill. You may proceed when you are
Chris Campolo
Unverified
45:48
ready. Thank you. I will distill my thoughts.
Speaker 17
45:53
Representative Collins, would you assist Mr. Campolo, please?
Speaker 87
45:59
Thank you. My name is Chris Campolo. I teach philosophy at Hendricks College, and I'm here to support this bill. I want to say right away how proud I am of the two students who have already testified today and how interesting their testimony was. I don't have citations and sources. I'm just going to tell you how I feel as a professor in a classroom. I teach ethics. I am not a Second Amendment crusader. I'm not a member of the NRA. I'm just a teacher, and I teach in a college.
now I've been teaching since 1990 in a classroom that's more than half the years of my life if there was something that would harm that environment which I consider sacred I would not be for it it's why I get up in the morning and it's what I think about when I go to bed at night I would not be for anything that I thought could hurt that environment now a lot of my colleagues
oppose this bill I've seen petitions and they sound like they sound like Mr. Teague sounded and I respect that opinion the worry is won't this make people afraid in a classroom I don't want anyone afraid in a classroom I think we can look around and find out what really happens in classrooms where concealed carry is allowed for faculty and ask, are people afraid in the classroom? So if you look and find the student body president
at the University of Utah, where a concealed carry is allowed, and you ask him, as NPR did, are you afraid in the classroom? He says, this doesn't come up. We don't think about this. We don't have this conversation. It's not a worry. Well, he's just some kid, right? So I, out of the blue, you emailed a professor at the University of Utah. I don't know him. He doesn't know me. He's a philosophy professor. I thought I should stay in my field. And I asked him, is there fear? Is there worry? Does it ruin the intellectual climate? Does it make people not feel like they can ask questions or have discussions or disagree? I'm going to read you his whole answer. It's very short. He doesn't know me.
Here's what he said, and I can give this email to people. I had to take his name out because I didn't ask him if I could share it. So here it is. Don't say anything. Dear Chris, I'm not sure this is going to be the feedback you're looking for, but to be honest, the thought that folks around me might have a gun never crosses my mind. In fact, I've never heard anyone, colleagues, students, et cetera, mention the point of concealed carry laws around campus in the two years I've been here. Maybe I'm just oblivious, though. Smiley face. I personally have the feeling, for what it's worth, that this is one of those things that
might make people feel on edge, nervous, odd for a short while should the existing ban be lifted, but then folks quickly get used to the idea, and it no longer affects the intellectual climate much, if at all, again, for what it's worth, truly, and the signature. That's the whole email he wrote. That's some direct evidence that the things that my colleagues and some students are worried about is not really going to happen. That's what I believe. These people don't experience
it there. I think we have some indirect evidence as well. I don't think I see people walking through Walmart afraid or in my grocery store or at the gas station. Everywhere else where concealed carry is allowed, people get on with their business responsibly. You don't see a climate of fear making them unable to pump their gas or have conversations or fight about parking spaces. So I think we've got indirect and direct evidence that this is
not something that we need to worry about in the way that some people are worried about it. I'm not making fun of those fears. I just think we can hear from people. We can watch. We can see what people are like. And this is not something we need to be afraid of. I had some other things to say. They're so close to what has already been said. I just want to, I just want to leave you with this, that again, I would never do something that would make my students feel more uncomfortable than a philosophy class already makes them.
I need that atmosphere to be one of trust and concern and care, or else we can't do the thing that we need to do, if I thought that this bill would interfere with that, I would be against it. I'm not afraid of that, so I'm not against it. I'm
for it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Campola. We appreciate you taking time to be here today. With that, do we have anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak for or against House Bill 1243?
If not, Representative Viviano, you have a motion, sir? A motion do pass. A motion do pass as amended. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? A motion do pass as amended passes. Thank you, Representative Collins, for being here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Committee. With that, members, we are going to move on to House Bill 1260. Representative Ratliff, are you prepared to present that bill today? Yes.
If you are served, make your way to the end of the table, and you are recognized.
Speaker 95
51:58
Mr. Chairman, I've got House Bill 1260, and I've got Dr. Kimbrell with me here today. This act is Simplified Accessibility of Data on Public School Websites. Basically, what this is going to do is they've got to put it under state-required information so it's easier to find on all these websites. I've got Dr. Kimbrell here backing me up today. Dr. Kimbrell. I thought these people were all here to see you.
Speaker 5
52:28
I thought they were here to see you, too. They're
Speaker 96
52:36
certainly not here to see me. Dr. Kimbrell, do you have anything to add, sir? Not much, except the fact that we constantly get complaints and concerns about not being able to find those required reports on school district websites. I would be hesitant to say that in all situations they're intentionally done that way. But I think in building websites, sometimes we're not real cognate of doing that to make those websites very accessible to the public.
So what we're trying to do here is make it easily accessible. All of those reports that are required by state mandate, they be in one area, one click away, so that you can read them as
Speaker 97
53:12
a member of the public or even for us. We have trouble sometimes
Speaker 23
53:18
finding things on their websites. Thank you,
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
53:20
Dr. Kimbrough. Representative Hobbs, you have a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Kimbrell, do you also support making the ADE's website information easier to access?
Speaker 96
53:31
Well, have you been on it lately? Not this week. Well, I mean, we redid it in the last six months totally, and it now has parent places. It has a searchable engine. It has,
Speaker 97
53:41
we thought, and we took a lot of feedback from across the state from parent groups and other groups to help build it. It took us about six months to build it, but we think it's much more friendly, and I've gotten lots of comments from parents and others that it's much more friendly. Well, thank you for that effort. I have looked at it within the last
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
53:56
six months, but thank you. Well, if you've got some suggestions, we'd love to hear them.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
54:02
Thank you. Representative Deffenbaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Kimmer, I'm just curious. What, like, give me an example
of what kind of data that is supposed to be on a district
Speaker 98
54:17
website that we can't find or have trouble. It could be teacher salary schedules. It
Speaker 96
54:22
could be district personnel policies. It could be their school student data reports as far as student performance, all of
Speaker 97
54:28
those required reports. And there's a lot of them that have been legislated over the years.
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
54:37
Go ahead. So these, in general, have they been hard to find? I mean, have they been hard for people to
Speaker 97
54:44
find? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That's really what's driven this is lots of complaints about we can't find this and we can't find that, and why don't you ask schools or make schools, put them on a simple link of state-required reporting so that they can go to those and look at them. Okay. All right. Thanks. I appreciate it. Representative Douglas.
Speaker 106
55:10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When you say teacher salaries, in what form are they supposed to be on the website? Are you supposed to have an actual copy of the contract? Yes, ma'am. Are those supposed to be in some order, like by schools or alphabetized? No, ma'am. There's nothing in
Speaker 97
55:33
the law that requires them to put them in any certain order. Most of them do them alphabetically.
And so they don't go by school. They'll usually do them alphabetically. So if a school
Speaker 106
55:45
district does not have their contracts scanned in, there is a – It's actually a violation of the standards. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Douglas.
Speaker 17
56:01
Do we have any other questions? Representative Linderman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Kimbrell, I'm glad to
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
56:06
see you and James on the same side today, by the way.
A question I have is regarding school board minutes. In the past, trying to find those, sometimes you can't find them for the past year. From my experience, is there a timeline that the school board is required to post the minutes of their meeting on the website where they are available for people, and do you all monitor that? To answer your first
Speaker 97
56:38
question, I'm not exactly sure that there is an exact timeline.
I think they are, and I'll have to refer to our legal counsel on that, whether there is a particular time. But I think they're supposed to be updated regularly. I don't know if that means if there's anything in the law that requires that that's every, you know, within two months or when the minutes are made official. But that is one of the problems that we're running into is that they may be at one site here back years ago, and then, well, when we had a new person do it, they put it under this area over here under the web.
And so when you look, you can't find the most recent. But I'll ask if Mr. Wider, Mr. Lassiter, has been able to look into that as far as the required time frame. But I think they're supposed to be updated regularly. And I don't know if that means every two months, every month. I haven't looked at that statute lately, but that is one of the ones that we're talking about. Okay. Thank you. Mark White,
Speaker 113
57:40
Staff Attorney for the Department. There is not a requirement for keeping it for a particular period of time.
Now, I know when our standards unit goes out, they do check the minutes, and so ordinarily they expect those minutes to be up to date as of when they check it. And usually, I mean, it would have to be at least two months before that visit because what happens is you'll have the minutes, and those minutes are approved at the subsequent meeting. And so we don't necessarily require them to have unapproved minutes on the site, but once those minutes are approved, we expect them to be up there. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. Thank you, Representative Linderman. Do we have any other questions from the committee?
If not, do we have anybody in the audience who wishes to speak against this bill?
Anyone wishing to speak for the bill? If not, what is the pleasure of the committee? Representative Linderman, we have a do, pass. All in favor. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much, Representative Ratliff. Representative Catlett, do you want us to pass over 1270? Okay, we're going to pass over House Bill 1270. We'll try to catch that up Thursday, if that's okay with you, Representative Catlett. If not, we'll accommodate your schedule however you need us to.
Members, do we have any other bills today that we need to address? if not the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn meetings adjourned thank you very much we will see you Thursday at 10
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative James McLean Chair
Unverified
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 7
Speaker 8
Speaker 14
Speaker 16
Speaker 17
Speaker 20
Speaker 23
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
Speaker 29
Speaker 31
Speaker 35
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Speaker 44
Speaker 5
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
Representative Eddie L. Armstrong
Unverified
Speaker 67
Speaker 68
Speaker 70
Speaker 71
Grayson Teague
Unverified
Speaker 73
Speaker 76
Joe Youngblood
Unverified
Speaker 79
Speaker 84
Chris Campolo
Unverified
Speaker 87
Speaker 95
Speaker 96
Speaker 97
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Speaker 98
Speaker 106
Speaker 113