House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (1)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1051
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1051”
|
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
all those who could make it know some members went home to their districts and will not be back at least two members have called me and said they will try to get back but likely not be able to make it we're going to continue with people's business first item this morning on our agenda is House Bill 1051 I see Representative Altus he is here to present 1051 Representative Altus you are recognized please introduce your guest thank you mr. chair I have with me
Speaker 7
0:32
Anthony roulette with the NRA and the this bill is been amended by the NRA lawyers mm-hmm and so he's here to help us help me present this bill still uh we We have about several handouts. Are they
attached to them? Reverend Aldis, we've already passed them out there in the members' hands
already. Okay, super. Thank you.
Speaker 7
1:03
First, I'd like – yesterday I was reading the Constitution,
and I'd like to read the Second Amendment. It says, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed. So to me, bear arms means to carry. So this is our constitutional right, to carry arms. However, the citizens of Arkansas, the poorest citizens of Arkansas,
are being deprived of this right because it costs somewhere between $200 and $300 to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. and therefore the poorest of our state cannot defend themselves in in your packet there's a letter from it should be right on the top and it's from robert bob bailey an officer public information officer arizona department of public safety and i'd like to read that letter if it's
Okay, it says, Arizona has a longstanding open carry law. Additionally, and you know, Arizona's been in the news lately. Additionally, lawmakers passed legislation last year which no longer requires a concealed carry weapons permit in order to carry concealed in Arizona. Of course, prohibited possessors are still prohibited by federal law. I don't know of any consistent problems which our agency has experienced with gun owners. On the question of statistics, the FBI keeps uniform crime reports on a national basis.
I have provided a link to that report and sent to the FBI on a regular basis on this state. In my personal experience as a state police officer, as long as gun owners, possessors, are forthright about the weapons in their possession and where it is located, and keeping their hands on the wheel or visible and away from their weapon, it is not a problem. We will seize the weapons during a traffic stop or other law enforcement contact, unload the weapon, and run a stolen check on the gun as a matter of procedure. At the end of our traffic stop or contact, we deliver an unloaded firearm to the owner-possessor and ask they reload the weapon at a later time.
Certainly, officer safety and caution is always paramount for our officers, and dealing with gun owners-possessors is no exception. We, as law enforcement officers, still have to honor and respect the rights of citizens to bear arms, whether open or concealed, in this state. Yet remain extra vigilant at all times for the safety of all involved. Respectfully, Robert Bob Bailey, officer, Arizona public information officer. Also, I have another letter. It says at the top, it says, Why Open Carry Gun Laws Work, U.S. News and World Report.
About the, let's see, one, two, three, four, five, six paragraph down, it says, The 2006 FBI study, Violent Encounters, a Study of Felonist Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers by Anthony Penzotto, revealed that criminals carefully conceal their firearms and they eschew, which means avoid. I looked that up. The use of holsters, in other words, in layman's terms. This report tells us that, statistically speaking, citizens who are openly wearing a properly holstered handgun
and are willing to subject themselves to the intense public and law enforcement scrutiny that open carry brings with it are not criminals. And in D.C. v. Heller, this constitutional decision was made, And it says plainly that the right to bear arms relates to the carrying of unconcealed guns. So I'd
like for you to look through some of those articles that I've passed out.
If it's okay with the chair, I'd like for Mr. Roulette to make some statements, and then we'll take questions. That's
quite okay. Please say your name and who you're with for
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
5:10
the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Anthony Roulette. I'm the Arkansas State Liaison for the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. We're the lobbying arm of the NRA. I'd like to say that on behalf of NRA's members in the natural state, I'm here to state that NRA fully supports House Bill 1051, the Defensive Carry Restoration Act.
I hope that members of this committee will support it as well. This legislation will remove the prohibition on openly carrying a handgun for personal protection by law-abiding citizens, as well as clarify the law relating to traveling with a handgun. It does not change any provision regarding the current concealed handgun law, and it does not allow the open carry of handguns anywhere concealed carry is currently prohibited. Arkansas is currently one of only seven states that does not allow law-abiding citizens to openly carry a handgun for their personal protection.
In other words, 43 states seem to trust their residents more than Arkansas trusts its residents. Are Arkansans less responsible than the residents of, say, Kentucky or Missouri? I certainly don't think so. Are Arkansans less safe with handguns than residents of, say, Louisiana or Virginia? Not according to anything that I've seen. So why shouldn't this committee pass this legislation? The only reason I can think of for opposing this legislation is if you simply do not like the idea of handguns being carried openly by law-abiding citizens.
Perhaps it makes you a little bit uncomfortable. There's no reason to feel that way, though. Clearly, the experiences of the 43 states that do allow the open carry of firearms has been that this kind of law does not lead to more crime, vigilantism, or safety concerns. Arkansas should not expect a different experience and there should be no reason for this legislation to make anyone uncomfortable. But if there's no legitimate reason for opposing this legislation, why should you support it? After all, Arkansas has a fairly reasonable permit system for the lawful carrying of concealed
handguns. Well, as Representative Altus pointed out, not everyone can afford the cost of a permit. Should those who are suffering economic hardship be denied the ability to defend themselves or their loved ones? Again, I don't think so. Another reason to support this bill is to clarify a somewhat confusing and ambiguous provision of the current law prohibiting open carry. One defense against prosecution for illegally carrying a handgun is to claim that you are carrying a weapon when upon a journey. I've spoken to many Arkansans who have stated that they are unclear as to what this provision means.
Thus, they have no idea how to lawfully transport a handgun when upon a journey. House Bill 1051 will eliminate this confusion. Again, on behalf of NRA's members in the state of Arkansas, I ask members of this committee to support House Bill 1051. A vote in favor of this legislation is a vote in support of the Second Amendment, a vote in support of the right to self-defense, a vote in support of law-bying gun owners, a vote in support of those who may suffer economic hardship but still want to protect themselves, and a vote in support of making the laws of Arkansas easier to understand.
Speaker 27
8:28
and I'll take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Roulette. We do have a few questions.
Speaker 28
8:35
I'm going to defer to Vice Chair Wilkins for his questions, for who I ask mine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Roulette, for being here. You mentioned I was going to ask a question about the transport of a firearm across state lines, and you mentioned that this bill would clarify that. You didn't say how. Would you just briefly explain how it clarifies it?
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
8:58
Certainly. It removes the restriction on traveling with a firearm and having a firearm openly carried in
Speaker 26
9:05
your vehicle or on your person. It removes
Speaker 28
9:10
that restriction. Is it true, however, that if I am, let's say, traveling to Texas or Oklahoma or somewhere, that I still would not legally be able to have my firearm? Let's say I'm driving to Dallas. Tell me what the law says then when I'm in Texas.
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
9:30
I can't speak specifically to Texas law. I don't handle Texas. However, in general, there is a federal standard for transporting firearms which says if you're going from point A to point B and your firearms are legal, you can transport it, case, unloaded, separate from the driver's compartment, so basically in the trunk. Now, Texas law may have a different specific law regarding transporting firearms in the vehicle.
Every state does. I believe Texas has restrictions on carrying openly. Therefore, I believe that their law also is restrictive as far as transporting a firearm in the vehicle. If you're traveling to other states, however, those same kind of restrictions are not going to be there. Again, the vast majority of the country does not
Speaker 35
10:18
have a restriction on the open carrying of firearms. All right. Thank you
Speaker 37
10:23
very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Vice Chair Wilkins. Representative Altus, I have a couple of questions.
Let me first start by saying the statute that's written is ambiguous
and confusing to me, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what – and this is not necessarily your amendment. I think the statute in general is somewhat confusing, So I'm trying to figure out exactly what your amendment does to what I think to be a confusing statute already. So I'm on Section 1. In Section 1, a person commits the offense of carrying a weapon, and weapons
can be a knife, a club, or a gun, unless they have a concealed weapons permit.
Is that what that section says? So if you have a concealed weapon permit, then it's okay to
Speaker 7
11:12
carry. Is that what that section does? Yes, on line 33,
Speaker 45
11:17
I think. Okay. Can I address that real quick? What it does, what this legislation, or what Representative
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
11:25
Alta's legislation does, is currently there's an absolute prohibition on carrying a weapon if he or she, if the person possesses a handgun, knife, or club.
What this does is it removes the handgun specific language and keeps the knife or club language, because that's not our fight. It's kind of a strange aspect of the law, in my opinion, but it's nothing that we get involved with. And then it adds, unless with a license issued or recognized under the code of the law, a concealed handgun. So what it's saying is the restriction on openly carrying is gone.
if you're carrying concealed that restrict you're violating the law unless you have a permit issued under the statute so basically says you unless with a license issued or recognized under 573 301 a concealed handgun so if you're carrying a concealed handgun and you get pulled over or stopped by a police officer you're in violation unless you can produce you have a permit are licensed to carry it. But the open carrying is now removed
Speaker 46
12:38
from the law altogether as far as any kind of
restriction. Okay, Mr. Roulette, I don't know
how you got there, but let's take that a little further. So if I have a concealed weapons permit, then it's okay
for me to openly carry? Is that what this means? Yes, you can
Speaker 48
12:58
openly carry with a concealed carry permit, but you can also openly carry without the concealed carry permit.
Okay, so the language in line 33 doesn't require me to have a concealed weapons permit to openly carry.
Speaker 48
13:10
Correct. That is just to specify that if you're carrying a
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
13:15
concealed handgun, then you have to have a carry permit in order to be complying with the law.
Okay. Now let's go on to, let's see, this would be line
26 on the second page. This is a list of places where I believe you cannot carry a concealed weapon.
I believe that's what the statute site refers to. In that list, if I am openly carried, I don't have a concealed weapons permit, but I'm openly carrying, am I still prohibited from openly carrying in those places under the statute? Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. Right now, many businesses, for example, will say no firearms allowed on their property, not just the person when you're inside the workplace, but also in your car, in your truck.
Does this statute allow for someone who's openly carrying to keep their gun in their truck, for example, but not in their place of business? Not if there's a sign. Many businesses will put
Speaker 7
14:28
on the door that says no guns or a picture of a gun with an X to it or whatever. You know, that's still against
the law to carry in those places. This bill does not change the prohibited places whatsoever.
I don't have a list of those prohibited places in front of me. I looked at them
earlier. On that list, does it say except for a place where it's prohibited or where it's supposed that you can't bring a gun? Does that say that in the statute? I don't remember right now. Nobody says? That as well as a number of specific areas. Yeah, right. And I would note that that includes the state capitol in case anybody's carrying right now. That's a prohibited place that you cannot carry. For right now, I'm not sure that I'm any less confused,
But I'm going to yield right now
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
15:26
to Representative Wright, who had a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Alpes, I've got a question, and again, I'm kind of like the chairman. This may lead toward the underlying statute itself, but the way I read it now, under Section one subparagraph a um it's unlawful to carry a weapon with the purpose to employ uh or any of
those weapons with the purpose to employ as a weapon against another person however if you have a license pursuant to 573 301 you can carry a gun with the purpose uh to carry it as a weapon against somebody else. Can you clarify that for me? I don't
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
16:18
know that it reads that way.
I guess you could make that argument that it's saying that you
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
16:26
can carry it as a weapon against the person. Well, I am. I mean, that is my argument. The way this statute reads now, the way I interpret it, it's okay if you have a
Speaker 62
16:40
sealed permit license to carry that weapon with the purpose to use it as a weapon.
Speaker 26
16:46
Again, I don't read it that way. Do you disagree? I disagree, then, yes. I think that it can be perhaps interpreted that way, but again, I don't read it that way.
I think that this is clearly removing the restrictions on open carry and putting in
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
17:04
the definitions of when you can conceal carry. But, again, I don't see it as allowing someone to carry concealed with a permit for the purpose of using it
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
17:15
as a weapon against a person. Well, A subparagraph 3 says,
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
17:24
unless with a license. Do you have a suggestion for language that would clarify that?
Speaker 58
17:30
Not right now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all
Speaker 5
17:34
I have. Thank you. Have a license. Hopefully, if you
Speaker 70
17:37
have a license, you're not going to be carrying for the purpose of a
weapon against a person, hopefully. not sure why she would carry it but anyway let's see representative Rogers you're
Speaker 77
17:55
next thank you Mr. Chair that kind of concerned me that last statement was hopefully but
anyway my questions are about age requirements are there any that are in this statute or any that apply that we're missing this bill doesn't
Speaker 7
18:11
change any of that uh it's against the law to own a gun under 18 i think and uh the felony uh and uh mental defective it's all
Speaker 81
18:21
outlawed outlined in another uh section of the code doesn't change any of that okay
Speaker 77
18:30
is that the same as like the
institutions of higher ed or public schools places of that nature yeah
Speaker 84
18:36
they're they're in another section of code I think 306
Speaker 7
18:39
or something like that all that's in another section of code none of that changes all the prohibited places are still prohibited thank you miss Rogers
Speaker 27
18:50
we're set to Shepard all right representative Walker Mr. Walker, would
you make sure you hit your mic, we can't hear you.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:08
I did. Representative Valtas, you say that this is a bill to enforce the United States Constitution? Yes, sir. I see. And I would like to hear again how this enforces the United States Constitution by authorizing every citizen to be able to put in a holster
a weapon and walk down the street kind of that in
Speaker 7
19:35
force okay amendment to says a well-regulated militia being necessary to
the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringe
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:45
so we all know parts of the militia well-regulated militia as part
Speaker 7
19:51
of the people everybody for instance in the nation of israel everybody there part of the militia by their part of the national
Speaker 70
19:57
guard the most of the people in this room are probably part of the national guard so
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:03
you are you are trying to empower us as a part he said it would be a part of the militia
to enforce the laws of the united
Speaker 7
20:15
states that's the way i read the uh... amendment
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:19
to the constitution let me ask you something There's a right to protest private action and public action. A person, however, may not
protest a private action on private property, on that person's private property, unless he's in a public spot.
Do you understand that? No, I don't know where you're going. Well, I didn't tell you where I was going, but you understand that a person has a right to protest. I guess. All right. Well, as I understand it, if I want to protest against Walmart's policies, I cannot do it on Walmart's property if they choose to say I can't do it. All right. So I must be on public property in order to picket or otherwise demonstrate my dissatisfaction with their policies or practices.
If Walmart doesn't want me to bring a weapon onto their property, am I still under your bill allowed to do so? No, if there's a
Speaker 7
21:29
sign on their door or a sign on their gate or a sign on their parking lot or anything, you are not allowed to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:38
carry a gun on their property. Well, there's no sign saying I can't protest either. So, you know, you're saying that I can protest because there's no sign.
Speaker 7
21:48
You just told me that you couldn't protest on private property.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:52
No, no. It's an election. So if I carry a gun and there's no sign, can Walmart tell me that I'm not welcome after I get on the property? Yes. Is that clear in this
Speaker 7
22:06
bill? I don't know that there's a whole lot that's really clear in this bill because the original code is not clear. All right. Well, if
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
22:13
it's not clear and you're talking... code is not
clear and so we're trying to improve let me ask you know another
thing you say you're trying to you're trying to protect poor people
i came in on that part of your presentation you send the
poorest people cannot defend them and you're trying to spare the state this three hundred dollar registration fee i guess or something like that license yes sir a lot of people can't afford have you done an impact study to see how what people are going to be enhanced to have a state's going to be advantage by uh... this bill to help her poor this is the bill to help the poor let me ask you further if i may mister chair
are you aware that or a different portion of the number of citizens in this state for african-american who've been incarcerated and uh... and found guilty of
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
23:16
you're aware that when those people uh... leave uh... they often go home to their mother's home
feminist home places like that what happens when they go home and they find that the mother or father or brother or sister has a weapon are they further punished by being either put out of the house or being sent by being sent back to prison because they are in the presence of someone who has a weapon you you understand that most probation terms
most felons are in a position where they cannot be
Speaker 7
24:06
around As long as they don't touch the gun, I'm told it's just fine. If there's a gun
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:13
in the house and they don't touch it, that's fine. You may remember, I read
Speaker 7
24:19
this 2006 FBI study that says that criminals do not open carry. They don't even
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:25
carry holsters. So it's been proven. Just a moment. Now, on what do you rely on that a person may not be sent back to prison
be held liable for violating his term of probation if he is around a weapon but does not touch it, on what do you rely for that? Either you or Mr. Roulette. Is that roulette like the... Just like the wheel. Like
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
24:55
wheel. We tend to make a little more money that way. I see. I see. The federal and most state laws basically say that So you're not in violation of the statutes if you're around people with firearms, provided you don't handle them, you don't touch them.
Now, if you want to make, if somebody makes it a condition of parole, well, yeah, they can make any number of things a condition of parole. They can even make it so that, you know, if they had illegal contact with members of their family, that they can no longer be in contact with those members of their family. So there's a difference between what's a violation of statute and what is a violation of a
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:38
parole. Are you familiar with a number of cases where persons have been convicted of being in a vehicle with other people who are on a journey,
and the person who may be in control of the car is the one who has a weapon, and the other, the felon is the one who is a passenger? And the felon is sent back to prison under those circumstances. I'm not familiar
Speaker 45
26:03
with the number of cases in that. Do you have a specific number in mind?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
26:08
Well, no. I wondered whether or not you all considered whether or not this would actually be helping any situation or would it be creating a situation where more people will be sent to prison for simply being around weapons?
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
26:23
In our opinion, no. We don't believe it's going to create a situation that's
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
26:27
going to cause more people to set prison. This isn't about belief, it's about objective evidence, in my opinion. Do
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
26:34
you have objective evidence? I have seen absolutely nothing in the 43 other states that allow the open carrying of firearms. I would indicate that this creates a greater instance of individuals being sent back to jail because they were in a vehicle or with somebody who had a
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
26:49
firearm in their presence. As I have looked at the way the legislation developed in the other states, NRA generally takes a position
and people line up either for NRA or against NRA and not real hard questions like this are ever asked so you're either for being able to carry a weapon or you're against it and I'd like for us to as a state even though we're one of the few remaining ones take action on the basis of empirical evidence and basic necessity rather than what somebody thinks or feels would you not agree that that's important
Speaker 18
27:22
Well, I would state that if there were empirical
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
27:24
evidence that would indicate that loosening these laws is creating somewhat of a problem, then folks would be pointing to it.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
27:32
Now, I have just two more. Recently, in the last several years, young people in this state have been killed by law enforcement officers, older people as well, because police authorities simply thought they had a weapon. uh... how does this you wear them for the most memphis the case of a little boy
and there is a little rock right around the court not too far from here on a sure at the new situation where on the second floor of the apartment building men in his own apartment uh... was killed uh... with because of all this the fault that he may have a weapon Don't you think that this authorizes police to have too much authority to just think that some law is being offended and then be able to respond? I
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
28:33
don't think that, since you're asking my opinion.
And again, I will point to the 43 other states
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
28:41
not had this problem. Well, I'm asking about race. It seems like all the situations where this
problem arises, where for people to kill accidentally or because I thought there was a weapon or whatever, almost all of the situations involved black people are Mexican people. Well, I would... My question is, have you all studied that at all? I mean, I understand that if you're going to come here, you're going to present not
only the emotional response, but you're going to be prepared to say how this is going to to enhance us as a civilized society and how it's going to cause us to be better people and how it's going to prevent excesses. You would agree with that, wouldn't you? What I would... Would you agree
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
29:23
with that? I would agree that we are here to promote this legislation because we understand it to be effective a
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
29:29
legislation. And you would also agree that you need evidence on which to base your evidence, I mean, base your legislation if it's going to move us more toward a civilized society and protect
Speaker 18
29:39
people. I would say that the evidence is in the 43 other states that have not experienced any problems
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
29:45
with open carry statutes. And to go to your point you raised before about African Americans and Hispanics, those 43 other states have African Americans and Hispanics living in them. And, again, there is not a problem. If there were a problem, you would see empirical evidence pointed to by folks who don't support the rights of gun owners time and time again. But it does not exist. Well,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
30:06
I'm asking you for the evidence that you all have created. Have you all created
any study of any kind with respect to the need for this legislation in Arkansas?
In Arkansas? In Arkansas? No, we have
Speaker 120
30:26
not. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Hammer, you recognize?
Speaker 127
30:34
I'd like to focus a couple questions on the Second Amendment, please. If concealed permits are still, the way this bill is written, clarify for me, please, will concealed permits still be required if you're going to open carry, yes or no?
No. Okay. One of the arguments that was presented a while ago is that part of the motive behind this bill is because it financially imposes a hardship upon the poor population of our society. Is that correct? Yes. So what this bill would allow then is that we're going to remove the requirement for concealed permits
and allow open carry. Is that correct? Correct. Unless you're
Speaker 131
31:25
carrying a concealed gun. You've got to have a permit to carry a concealed gun. Okay. I, too, have a
Speaker 127
31:33
copy of the Second Amendment, and I'd like to read it just for clarification. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is right out of the encyclopedia. The comment right underneath, that is, the amendment prohibits only the national government from limiting the right to carry weapons.
The amendment was adopted so that the Congress could not disarm the state militia. And are either one of you lawyers? I'm not a lawyer. Okay. Well, then we all have the opportunity to express opinions here. My opinion on the Second Amendment is that it's dual purpose. One is addressing the issue of the state, and the other is addressing the rights of individuals. And the key word in the Second Amendment to me is the word infringed.
And could you tell me how, outside of the financial aspect that you've already brought up, How are the rights of citizens being infringed upon the way the law currently is written now? And how, what you're proposing to do, will that infringement be removed? If you believe that it's there, you must because this bill is being presented before us. Well, one of the
Speaker 45
32:57
ways that it's being infringed is because the current law is so vague.
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
33:05
Again, the provision I spoke about earlier about what is the phrasing, yeah, going on a journey is so vague that nobody understands it. That's an infringement if you don't understand how you can travel legally with your firearm that the Constitution says you have a legal right to keep and bear. So that's another area besides the economic aspect of things that we think is being clarified and helping to remove and infringe.
Yes, sir. Mr. Hammer, you're welcome to ask additional questions. Let me remind the membership
that we're going in session in about 20 minutes. We're going to have to wrap this up in about 18 minutes, and I sure would hope that we
Speaker 137
33:54
today, and we've still got some public testimony. Thank you. You're right. You're right.
Speaker 127
34:00
Just out of curiosity, what does a safe firearm, and I'm going to ask that it be limited to pistol, what is the average cost of a safe pistol, not one that's going to be questionable?
Speaker 139
34:13
Would you mind rendering an opinion about that?
Speaker 99
34:15
You can go into most pawn shops and get one for less than $100, $65, $60.
Speaker 139
34:21
And if you go into those pawn shops, are they required to run the national background checks and everything? Yes,
Speaker 127
34:26
yes. Okay, are gun shows required to do that? If I go into a gun show, do I have to show, am I treated to the same standards at a gun show that I am at a pawn shop or a licensed gun shop or Walmart or
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
34:39
someone like that? Any time, no matter where you're purchasing from a licensed dealer, they must run through the background check.
If you're purchasing from a licensed dealer, and a pawn shop is licensed as a firearms dealer, just under a different type of license, but they're licensed as a firearms dealer under federal law. So anytime you're purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, you have to go through the background check. All right, about
Speaker 127
35:02
to wrap it up. If a person is going to make such a serious decision as to whether or not to purchase a firearm and to put that on their hip, would it be unreasonable to expect that they would at least budget within their personal budget
to be able to afford both if they can go out and at the bottom end of the ladder be willing to pay $100 for a pistol and not budget money to have the $300? I'm just curious about your opinion on that, please. In my opinion, you
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
35:33
know, what value do you place on your life? I mean, if you're concerned that you have the need for a firearm for personal protection, your first goal is to get the firearm for personal protection. If you need to worry about what the state requires as far as carrying a concealed
and getting the money together to go through the process to get a concealed carry permit, well, you'll take that under consideration at a later date because the most important thing you need to do right now is to acquire the firearm that you feel is necessary to provide for your personal protection this legislation would remove the inability for you to then use that firearm for personal protection when you're away from your home because it removes your requirement to get the carry permit in order to go away from home
and carry your firearm you can carry it openly as long as you can legally own that firearm
Speaker 127
36:27
okay last question you referred to something you referred to a comment a while ago that implied that one of the primary motivations behind this bill is to clear up the issue of the word journey why could we not just address the issue of journey without the issue of open carry why are you
Speaker 139
36:45
linking the two of those issues together and that's my last question thank
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
36:50
you well we support clarifying the language but we also support open carry seemed like
a good idea to get it all taken care of
Speaker 145
37:09
in one fell swoop Thank you. That's all, Mr. Hammer. Mr. Radley. I have one question, and I just don't see any training for a person in here that has never handled a gun, and that bothers me. Why don't we put some training in here before we just hand
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
37:24
a guy a .357? First of all, you're not just handing it to them, but the experience we've had, again, in the 43 other states,
is that the people who feel the need to carry a firearm for personal protection are going to go out and get the training. They're relying on that firearm to perhaps save their life. They want to know how to use it, and they want to know how to use it safely and effectively. They'll get the training on their own. That's been our experience in every state. Even states with concealed carry permit laws that require training. I mean, individuals tend to go out and get more training than what the state requires because, again, they want to be able to use that firearm to protect their lives. So you're
Speaker 145
38:01
saying the training and the concealed weapon is good?
Speaker 143
38:05
Good. Thank you, Mr. Ratliff. Mr. Wright, I'm sorry, Mr. Shepard
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
38:12
here, if I recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a few questions very briefly, and I would just say at the outset that there may be those of us who are concerned and seek to defend the Second Amendment but are also concerned about doing it in the right way and providing the public with good statutory language for our courts to apply. And one of the concerns I have is we've said, and I think it's been established that the laws presently on the books are vague. I've heard that more than once, correct?
And in some ways, I feel like we're trying to take the back door into fixing it. If we meant to clarify journey, why didn't we just clarify journey? And if we mean to say open carry, why don't we just say open carry? I'm a lawyer, and I read this, and it's very confusing to me. And I'm concerned that it can be interpreted a number of different ways. But the two or three questions I have, one, are you concerned that this will actually have a chilling effect on people carrying handguns?
In that now, if open carry is allowed, certainly it will be more in the forefront of the public's attention. You may have additional stores, restaurants, and others who are placing restrictions that say no handguns. Whereas right now, it maybe is not on the front burner. Are you all concerned about it having a chilling effect on our ability to carry a handgun into a public place? I think there's always some pushback.
Speaker 7
39:42
I don't know all these things for a fact, but I've been told that 60 or 70 years ago, a journey was defined. And I think in 2007 or 2009, the definition of knife was changed. It used to say three and a half inches. And now that's been eliminated. So over the years, the language has been changed, but it's like what you're saying, what you're implying. There's going to be some pushback. there's going to be some chilling and uh and there's going to be some some people that are
that don't want this thing to change because you know like right now if you read the the code of 120 it says a person commits the offense of carrying a weapon you know if you've got a pocket knife in your pocket you know and you may use that for the line 29 purpose there then you're guilty of the offense. Okay, then your defense is carried on on the next page. But if you've got a knife in your pocket
with the purpose, then you've committed the offense.
And so this is hard to rationalize all of this whole
Speaker 149
40:54
section of code. Okay, and a follow-up question.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
40:57
We've heard about the 43 other states, and certainly I've tried to look at that on my own. And as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, many of these states provide for local preemption of their state laws. In other words, cities, counties, other subdivisions can say the state may provide for this, but we don't allow it, correct? Yes. That's correct. And in Arkansas, the state has preempted the field of handguns, correct?
Correct. And this will be the law across the state of Arkansas. Well, no locale, municipality, county, they cannot undo this. This will be allowed, correct?
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
41:34
Which is what we prefer. In the states that do allow open carry but allow for localities to restrict, it creates a patchwork of laws that is just making confusion. And so, yes, we support a statewide preemption aspect of it so that the localities can't create a confusing patchwork of different ordinances and laws. And I
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
41:52
agree with that 100% because we don't want to have someone traveling from Eldorado to Little Rock
to have to figure out if they're okay in Hampton and Fordyce or Dallas County or Calhoun County or whatever. We want to be able to provide some clarification and certainty as to what the law is, which again comes back to if we're going to make a change, let's provide some certainty and some clarification. But in referring to these 43 other states, because of the fact that there are many places that have allowed local statutes to regulate the use or carrying of handguns,
Arkansas, in fact, does allow statewide carrying of a concealed handgun, which in many ways is much broader than what might be allowed in a state that is a
Speaker 49
42:39
so-called open carry state. Well, not necessarily. The open carry provision is different from
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
42:45
concealed carry. So most of the states that allow for restrictions on a local basis on open carry, if they have a carry permit, they don't allow those same restrictions. So they would be like Arkansas, that if you have a concealed carry permit, it's not subject
to local ordinances. And then finally, there
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
43:04
was reference made to Heller, I believe, the Heller case from the United States Supreme Court. And am I to understand that what is being said here today is that the Supreme Court
Speaker 152
43:18
has stated that there can be no regulation of handguns whatsoever?
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
43:24
No. The Supreme Court has stated in Heller and also in McDonnell, which basically made Heller applicable nationwide rather than just under Washington, D.C.,
has stated that the Second Amendment clearly protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, and protected among that is the right to carry, that
Speaker 26
43:44
is to bear arms. But it does not say that there are absolutely no
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
43:50
controls that can be applied. And in those cases, those were actually, were those concerning
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
43:58
weapons in the Heller and McDonnell cases? Yes, they were ostensibly bans. The Washington, D.C. and the Chicago laws were de facto bans because they imposed registration requirements in order to possess firearms that people could not need.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
44:13
And then finally, there's been reference made to the fact that we want to allow maybe those who are underprivileged the opportunity to carry a handgun. If that's the case, then why don't we lower the cost for a concealed carry permit? And you're telling me today that what we're going to say is we want to allow those less fortunate to carry a handgun, but they have to carry openly while those of us who can afford it can carry concealed. Again, it comes back to the fact that some people here are interested in good law, making good law,
and I don't understand why we take this backdoor approach. If we're going to talk about open carry, let's talk about open carry. If we're going to talk about reducing what it costs for our citizens to carry a handgun, let's talk about that. Let's don't try and bootstrap it onto our concealed carry laws because I think in the long run it does a disservice to our citizens. I appreciate your testimony. I certainly am interested in protecting the Second Amendment, but I do have concerns that we may be making a vague law even more vague.
Speaker 156
45:17
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Nichols?
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
45:25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just not necessarily follow-up questions, but questions that may be similar to some of the others, but it's a little different approach. In your testimony, when Rep. Hammer asked about gun shows, you said that licensed dealers had to do a background check. Is it your testimony that at gun shows only licensed dealers buy and sell guns?
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
45:51
No, that's not at all what I said. I stated that licensed dealers all run background checks.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
45:56
Okay, but at gun shows, you have people who are not licensed dealers. Is that correct? I haven't been
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
46:02
to an Arkansas gun show in quite a while, but I presume that, yes, that
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
46:06
is the case. So, if they have no license and they're at a gun show, they can buy and sell guns and there's no background checks. Do
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
46:13
you agree with that? They can, yes, they can sell firearms out of their personal collections without requiring a background check, just like you can buy one from your neighbor, buy one from a family
member without requiring a background check. That is correct. Private transfers are not regulated
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
46:29
in that way. Now, you also mentioned about our law being vague on the journey aspect of it, and you also had mentioned that our law violates the Second Amendment. Is that correct?
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
46:46
on the Second Amendment. Okay. Now, the McDonald case and the Heller case, the D.C. case, those two cases that challenged state law on the Second Amendment round,
or the D.C. ordinance and, I guess, the Chicago law or Illinois law. They challenged that law based upon a violation of the United States Constitution, correct? Correct. Okay. And you're claiming that our law is big, which also is a constitutional standard, which there has to be certainty to it, And there's also your Second Amendment claim. Why hasn't your organization challenged Arkansas law the same way the folks did in District of Columbia and the folks in Illinois?
If you're coming here and telling us that Arkansas has passed a law that is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Second Amendment, why haven't you gone to court to challenge that law? I go through the
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
47:46
legislative process and lobby to change the law as much as any organization would that may find that laws are unconstitutional in their mind. We'll try the legislative route first. Maybe we will have to go to court over this. I don't know. I'm not an attorney. I don't work in our general counsel. I don't make those decisions.
I put our policy in play as far as our legislative activities, and this is on our legislative agenda. So it's certainly the route that we're choosing to go this time. I appreciate your encouraging that we take the state to court.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
48:17
Well, if you're telling us that our laws are unconstitutional, they can violate the Second Amendment, I think that's an avenue that your organization could pursue, and that's your similar organization that pursued that in other states. So that's just my comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, President Nichols.
Speaker 74
48:36
I recognize Vice Chair Wilkins for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In
Speaker 28
48:41
light of the time, I move that we limit the testimony for and against to a minute and a half on the side.
Proper motion, none debatable. Takes two-thirds of the quorum. All those in favor, I oppose no. Public testimony is going to be limited to one and a half minutes per side. Signed up to speak for
the bill. Paul Calvert be recognized for one and a half minutes thank you
Paul Calvert
Unverified
49:17
you recognize please state your name who you're with Mr. Calvert would you make sure
Speaker 132
49:32
your mic's on so we can hear you better better yes sir my name is Paul Calvert I'm here to support Liberty and Justice The right of the free people to arm themselves is an essential liberty that is guaranteed by the Arkansas Constitution. Article 2, Section 5 states that the citizens of this state shall have the right to keep and bear arms. I believe that House Bill 1051 helps to restore that essential liberty to the free people of the state of Arkansas.
As the law is currently interpreted, it is almost completely unlawful for people to keep and bear arms in Arkansas. I understand that the current law was originally written for the purpose of keeping blacks from arming themselves. that's what I've been told. Again, I believe that House Bill 1051 helps to restore this essential liberty to the free people of Arkansas. Is that it,
Paul Calvert
Unverified
50:16
Mr. Calvert? It is. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Calvert? Seeing none, thank you very much
for your testimony. Signed up to speak against the
bill, Lieutenant Cora Gentry and Chief Danny Bradley, I think, want to appear together, as well as Colonel Phillips, I believe.
Thank you for being here. Identify yourselves. You We have one-and-a-half minutes to make your testimony. Colonel Thurber with the Arkansas State Police. Excuse me.
Speaker 168
50:47
I'm Danny Bradley. I'm Chief of the North Little Rock Police Department. I'm here representing the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police.
Lieutenant Corey
Unverified
50:55
Lieutenant General Trout one more time. Okay, my name is Lieutenant Corey, I'm with the Arkansas State Police. We're also here to support liberty and justice. There
Speaker 172
51:10
are several things and I'll make the point quick. The points that have been.
Speaker 173
51:22
There are problems with that in that the officer in the field cannot tell what a law abiding citizen is,
as well as the people that do the background checks for concealed carry because the officers in the field, when they key up that microphone, do not have access to the same information. We talked about 43 states who open carry. I emailed the FBI back in December. There are only 11 states that actually have open carry. The rest of the states are permissive. You may or may not get arrested if you do it. So I think the 43 states is misleading. The cost of the permit for a concealed handgun, it's $144.25 to apply.
That's a five-year permit, $60 to renew. So over the course of 10 years, it's $20 a year. Also, one of the points that there is still left as a defense in the defense section of carrying a weapon, having a concealed carry license. So you're right that it does make it confusing
Speaker 172
52:25
as far as the law, and we would ask that you vote against this bill.
Thank you very much, Lieutenant Gentry. Anyone have questions for Lieutenant Gentry?
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
52:38
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick question. I noticed that the Sheriff's Association is not at the table, but I was told by my sheriff that they opposed this bill. Do you know if they're taking a position on this? The Sheriff's
Speaker 173
52:49
Association was trying to get here, and they authorized me to speak on their behalf if they didn't make it, so, yes, the Sheriff's Association opposes this bill. Thank you. We have 30
seconds left for anyone who wants to speak for the bill. Anyone else in the audience who
wants to speak for the bill? Seeing none, I'm going to recognize Vice Chair Wilkins for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move immediate consideration. That's a proper motion. None debatable. Two-thirds of the quorum is required. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion, I recognize Representative Hammer for a motion. I make a motion. I just need a point order,
Speaker 127
53:25
so I'm out of order. Can I make a comment with it, or do I just need to do a straight-up motion? We need
immediate consideration. We've got to take a vote. I make a motion. Don't pass. The motion is do not pass. The motion before the committee is do not pass on House Bill 1051.
All those in favor of not passing House Bill 51, signify by saying aye. uh... those no i said thank you very much we are trying to get two minutes to get to me
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Speaker 7
Anthony Roulette
Unverified
Speaker 26
Speaker 27
Speaker 28
Speaker 35
Speaker 37
Speaker 45
Speaker 46
Speaker 48
Speaker 53
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Speaker 62
Speaker 58
Speaker 5
Speaker 70
Speaker 77
Speaker 81
Speaker 84
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 104
Speaker 18
Speaker 120
Speaker 127
Speaker 131
Speaker 74
Speaker 137
Speaker 139
Speaker 99
Speaker 145
Speaker 143
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 149
Speaker 49
Speaker 152
Speaker 154
Speaker 156
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 66
Paul Calvert
Unverified
Speaker 132
Speaker 168
Lieutenant Corey
Unverified
Speaker 172
Speaker 173
Speaker 25