Judiciary Committee- House

One item on our agenda this morning and it will be house bill ten thirteen. House bill ten thirteen will be the only bill that we have on our agenda. And at this time I'd recognize representative flowers members at your desk or staying to be at your desk we have an amendment would be Amendment number two that it's being passed out and then give you a second to see that amendment. And also I want to call your attention you should have. The green. Legislative fiscal impact statement should be at your desk too so let's take just a. Couple moments represent flowers before you are recognized let's get our paperwork out and let people take a look at it. And then we'll get started. Members we also our analysts have put a copy of the bill at your death sentences thirteen pages long and we have this amendment that re referred to several different pages. So you should have all of that paperwork if anyone doesn't just let us know but I believe everybody has both the bill The Amendment and the fiscal impact statement. What you had an opportunity to come to review those if you I would look up here just so that we can come to know that we're ready I'm not Russian anybody just when you get an opportunity just Collins so you're ready. All right members I believe we're ready to proceed representative flowers you're recognized please introduce yourself for the record and you are recognized to present your amendment. Thank you madam chair. So the member of the amendment first of all representative Vivian flowers state representative for district sixty five out of pine bluff Jefferson County. it is my honor and pleasure to bring before you today house bill ten thirteen and I believe we'll start with My request that you consider adoption of amendment number two amendment number two Essentially does three things it strikes the language that was at the end of the bill that basically outlines how a petitioner would restore his or her voting rights which is repetitive because that is already covered in our state constitution and in law so we just too far from any confusion decided to strike that language the second thing it does is address a federal issue regarding CDL licensees that is defined at the end of the fiscal impact statement DF in a plot the language for for this substantive change and then finally you'll see where on page nine. There is a section that would require the prosecuting attorney to file a response to any petition where essentially the The conviction of a nonviolent felony resulted in a plea bargain where a firearm was used in the commission of the crime that is what I call my Tosh amendment that's something that he brought to me on Friday and I was happy to incorporate that into this bill with under the understanding that there were several members who are concerned about that being something that slips through the cracks and with that I answer any questions and certainly ask that you consider adoption the members are there any questions regarding Amendment number two. Seeing a question questions what is the will of the committee. We have a motion to adopt Amendment number two is there any discussion on that motion all in favor motion to adopt Amendment number two please say aye in a post say no the ayes have it adopts amendment two is adopted. Represent flowers you're now recognized to present your bill as amended. Okay. Thank you madam chair. So A lot of people don't know that I grew up in a household where I wasn't even allowed to play with toy guns. for a very short period of time we had a weapon in the house for protection which is something that my dad elected to do to protect his family I also grew up taking family trips with my uncle who is a pharmacist and keeps a weapon in his pharmacy and when we took family trips with him there was always a weapon in the center console. I always felt safe and never had to think about whether or not I would ever consider purchasing a firearm for myself. fast forward I was a single woman living in Little Rock and was burglarized twice so I bought a weapon. And I've had that weapon ever since and as I have to continue to live my life driving up and down the highway and living in a house alone. and now helping to take care of my parents I have a concealed Kerry license and I have purchase two additional weapons since then. And that is my right I am from I am a free American and I'm free as in our cans and to do that. Fast forward to a little over two years ago I received a call from a gentleman. I call Mr Hawkins he might be here today but I don't think he's here yet who contacted me he's my constituent and told me that he wanted to see if there's something I could do to help him because he made at an unfortunate and not smart decision when he was young almost twenty years ago or over twenty years ago and was arrested for I believe possession of an illegal substance with intent. He paid his debt. and now he has a family he has a business. and. He let me know I didn't notice on the several of you have heard this story that his business is landscaping. That riding lawnmower jacking is a thing. And he wants to take his young son with him. just like a lot of people to to run his business and show his son the ropes but he doesn't want to do it he can't do it because he believes that he would be vulnerable. And while the law allows for his wife to possess a weapon and maybe have it in the home to protect the family. What that does is pose a threat to his freedom say there was an intruder. And he's upstairs let's stay in their home and I don't know what their houses like but say he's upstairs and he hears a noise and he hears his wife scream and their weapon is in a drawer that's accessible only to them. Does he grab that weapon and go protect his wife or does he risk going to prison. Well. That is the quagmire that he experiences every day of his life even though he paid his debt to society and is a law abiding and has been for over almost twenty years. And there you'll hear from people today with a similar story. and so that's how. Vivian flowers African American woman Democrat from pine bluff ended up bringing you this bill. I started to work on it two years ago and found out that Senator Stubblefield in senator Caldwell we're working on it and we actually joined forces. we worked diligently with several stakeholders who helped us with the language including the prosecutor's office who I met with again in December to make sure that they were comfortable with the language and Refiled the Bill to put it out there because I knew that there would be this. wanted to make sure that anyone who had any issues concerns suggested resolution I mean as suggested amendments that we would get them and we've actually made several changes to the bill as you see they've been to amendments and it's a much better bill I'm almost glad that it didn't get out we ran out of time a couple years ago because it really is a good bill and so I'll go through a little bit about the bill. And then madam chair make myself available for any questions before we hear from our witnesses today. So essentially what the bill does is restore. The second amendment rights to our Kansans who have committed non violent felonies and this doesn't by the way this doesn't include all non violent felonies and I don't know how many of you have access to the bill which shall notice. Everyone has the bill at their desk okay okay great. You'll notice that. On page six starting in line nineteen. actually starting on line twenty five. It not only refers to the violent felony statute but it also goes through a very particular list of felonies that are violent in some non violent for example felony fleeing for example residential burglary those felonies are excluded from this bill. And that came after a lot of conversation with the prosecutor's office. And that goes all the way down to the next page online Actually. The next couple of pages but the bottom of the point is you'll see that it's an exhaustive list that covers all felony offenses that exists now and language incorporated for felonies that may pay for felonies that may not be in the code right now. If you will I also noticed there was a fiscal impact statement done and there would be no cost and we'll explain a little bit about how this process would work. the Bill the language of the bill was patterned after our first offender law as well as our Drug Court Act. And I think that's what's really really important for you to remember because for anyone who might say but there's a concern about the sealing of the record or there's a concern about the dismissal in the discharge process. We already do it. I've had a couple of members share with me a concern about the possibility of an employer. Not being able to access of the record of a non violent felon. through this process that nonviolent felon could apply for the same petition. As a first offender but not seek to get his or her gun rights back and that issue still exists right now today so the example I was given if someone was arrested and convicted of selling opioid drugs and but say they serve as a five year sentence and five years probation so after ten years then the clock would start. For ten years in this case. In the case of a first offender after they serve their sentence they can apply for this the petition and that same person might want to get a job as a driver and it ends up being a driver for a pharmacist. Under the current law that record is still sealed. So. That is not an issue that is particular to this bill. alone. I want to talk a little bit about the ten year cleansing period that we mentioned. That in just materialize out of thin air so the federal government the has done a longitudinal study. On the recidivism of federal prisoners are federal felonies in the federal system and in that longitudinal study and every other report from any state that I read. By the time you get to year eight recidivism reduces to two percent. So don't forget that. This bill would start the clock after the person paid his or her debt to society which could involve prison time parole time probation time so we're not just talking about ten years in a vacuum. there's been longitudinal study of state we were not included in that longitudinal study but. After ten years recidivism reduces to twenty percent. I ask you to think about that because what the study show is that these folks are less likely to re offend at a rate. That is much lower. In the general population outside of those being studied so I'm not talking about from the year one to eight or year one to ten I'm talking about those after that who have not re offended are less likely to commit a crime. Then the folks in here. And then the other thing that I would like to share with you is that we would not be setting a precedent. That there are almost two dozen states. That either. In which nonviolent felons never lose their rights. That's and Delaware Montana Ohio Rhode Island in Wyoming. And the remaining states create some sort of pathway. Outside of pardon in which I fell in a nonviolent felons could restore their rights. of those remaining states five of them are automatic there is no hearing process like what we have currently in what we would have under this law. New Mexico North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania and South Dakota and I'd be happy to share the link with you that describes how these processes work in every state. I think I want to stop now and answer any questions so that we can leave ample time for witnesses who have taken off work and everyone who is driven for three hours to be here today. The. Members are there any questions. The representative Scott you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman one representative flowers has this bill passed in any other states or did I miss that in your opening. So I wouldn't say this bill because every state is kind of different and let me give you an example so I just mentioned there were over. Almost two dozen states okay okay here's there almost two dozen states that provide a pathway so that there is some I would say similar legislation that exists. so for example in New Mexico a person convicted of a felony loses the right to possess a firearm this right is restored ten years after completion of sentence or earlier by pardon. I'll give you the North Dakota. In North Dakota a person convicted of a felony or class A. misdemeanor loses the right to possess a firearm a person convicted of a nonviolent felony or class A. misdemeanor regains their rights automatically five years after release from prison or probation. For someone convicted of a felony involving violence or intimidation the waiting period is ten years a person subject to a five year waiting period may petition the court to have these rights restored sooner so you'll see that in North Dakota It's just the automatic timeline and you use the pardon for a sooner attempt at restoration. and I'm I think it's important to know that in Arkansas under this law they would be a very I would say strenuous process. And this law if there's a victim involved in these non violent offenses the victim would be required to be notified the prosecutor would be required to be notified and then there would be a hearing from a judge which is the same process that we use for our first offender law as well as our drug court law and for you know. One of the questions that came up pretty consistently is about the existing law. Some very very narrow pathway I would say it's almost non existent the likelihood for the average person who has committed a nonviolent felony to actually go through what is a pretty Lengthy. Process and it should be it shouldn't be quick for I think a violent felon. the likelihood of that person. Being given and and a balanced opportunity that any other person in their circumstance would be given is slim to none and to be fair you know the governor sits in a very X. quagmire quagmire kind of situation because if the governor believes that you know the second amendment the second amendment is really a precious right. And that. People who commit nonviolent felons. Should get a second chance if we really believe in re entry. Is should the government be responsible for making that decision for throngs of people and having that on his or her record or should there be an even process for those folks and the other thing that I would and this doesn't do anything to change that that is constitutional someone let's say before year ten. Could say Hey I think I could get it quicker through the pardon process. For nonviolent of violent offenders could go through that process. After ten years. And the other thing that I think it's important is this is not something that is just there. For any time someone violates the law and that's enough time passed by there is one bite at this apple. And so it really does serve as I think Our population of people who are really less likely to offend or re offend it also serves as an incentive and I could send you information based on study and reports from Washington state. Where that data demonstrates that it really does serve as a sort of incentive for people to continue to exercise good behavior. Members any other questions. Representative under you're recognized for a question thank you manager. Representative flowers is there a way for a non violent offender to regain their second amendment rights. Without all of the ceiling and removing of records and five thank you for that question reserve under now. And that is because there's a federal law and I didn't know this until I started working on this bill. The federal law which I think is is. Strange but the federal law. Covers all felonies state and federal. And. Without the dismissal discharge in ceiling what we would be doing is that this this was a discussion in our very first meeting we would be setting our Kansans up to be free from arrest in Arkansas but that person could be hunting and ultimately with a weapon be violating the federal law be turned over from whatever game and fish law enforcement authority over to ATF and risk a federal possession charge for hunting. Thank you. Any other questions. Seeing no further questions we do have I'm sorry representing more you're recognized. Thank you madam chair It does this only apply if you've been convicted of just one felony or it doesn't apply if you've been of convicted of multiple non violent offenses of the same question so it there may be And I and I ask this the other day I'm I might not be using the right language but let's say there might be two counts but one conviction this covers one conviction so if a person. got in trouble at nineteen. And didn't learn their lesson and they they got it for in trouble again at twenty three two different non violent non violent felony convictions that person would not be eligible to restore their rights under this law. Any other questions. I see no other questions we do have a number of people who signed up to speak for against the bill manager before we go there I have and I don't know if I was supposed to share this I have to witnesses who came with me today could we have from the first. Without objection I'll allow that you can you can call your thank you so much and I'll just ask them to come at the same time miss Tammy bear and Mr Herald west. I don't believe this Mister Hawkins here. Arkansas are you in the room. Okay seventy two witnesses and. Okay your concert right here. If you press the button so the microphone will come on and then state your name for the record and then you'll be recognized to make your statement. My name is Tamera bear. Would you spell your lesson for us please yes but you have to pressure button. Okay. The it's quite. Okay. Last name is bearer. Or just use the microphone next to you we've been having trouble with that. Members if you have a microphone on the tree you turn your microphone saw. All right miss Barnett he'll start all over again please yes ma'am my name's Hammer bear my last name is spelled B. A. R. E.. You're recognized you may make your statement. I'm nervous so I wrote it down so if you could you get just a little closer to the microphone so we'll make sure everybody can hear thank you yes ma'am. I'm here today to tell my story. The reason why I support this bill. And I want to start. The first part to be about regaining my second amendment rights I grew up in the branch a small town north of Conway my dad was against math. Really. My dad was again Smith he taught me how to issue at a young age he taught safety but it also taught me that this was a way to protect myself if the need ever arose. I never considered alive without. The way to offer protection for myself until I got in trouble. Still not working. Thank you. Until then always had a gun in my house in my bedroom because it made me feel safe. I'm fifty I'm fifty six years old and I live alone in an apartment in Conway. Where I currently live I have a neighbor who makes me feel very uncomfortable the lady next door said the same she got a camera so she could see who would come up to her door and he would come up to her door he would not but he would just stand there is very creepy feeling. Again for me is protection if anyone came to my home and invited I would be defenseless and that makes me vulnerable. This is why I want my right to bear arms reinstated. The second part. To provide the discharge dismissal and selling of a felony conviction in January of two thousand five my dad was diagnosed with cancer he was given six weeks totally of. He and I were very close so it's very hard on me. It's still hard for me to talk about it. He ended up live in eighteen months and his glasses was that he was still here it didn't take away that every day torment of waking up and wondering if today was going to be that day. I couldn't find a way to accepted her deal with that or cope with it. I'll get my truck and I would drive around on the back roads in Greenbrier yeah. Thank you chri listen to music more and I was I was not driving or not stop by a friend's house. And this is where I met the guy who I. Help me start my path of destruction and help me stay on it for far too long. I hadn't been there that long when he handed me a meth pipe. This was a during a time when I really didn't care about a whole lot and I didn't think it would be a big deal I never considered that would start a long and very hard way of life. The within minutes I felt different it was like this huge burden had been lifted off of me I wasn't crying and so you know instantly became my skate. Any statements gave until March of two thousand nine. I was arrested. And I didn't get to go home I was sentenced to a facility in in pine bluff it was ours is a horrible place it has its purpose but it's very hard to live in that environment and I have your freedom. But the one thing. That helped me the most was. We had to go one once or twice a week. To a class where a counselor would. Ascus yeah asked to go through these various exercises going outside scream as loud as you can repeating positive affirmations but the one thing that helped me the most was when she said. Not for herself but for for ourself. She wanted us to write down. Why and how we ended up where we work. Once I started writing is like I couldn't stop in fact on my emotions my feelings everything was just pouring out on the paper I still cried I cried a lot. It was more of a cleansing cried like I was getting the screenshot of my system. My dad was diagnosed in January of two thousand five in December of two thousand five I left an eighteen year career at axiom calmly Arkansas. I spent the next three years running away from the grief. Do whatever it took to keep my mind off my dad. Even though my dad. Passed away in September of six. So still caught my world. You can figure out how to get get get out of it. When I was released that. When I was released from public immediately moved to Tennessee with my mom and my brother. It took a while about six months but I did find a job I worked as a server at a Japanese restaurant. If you're if you're a few years later they had decided to open a new location and they asked me to manage it I manage that location for about three years. And that was up until the time my son called me and said mom it's time to come home and at that point I was ready I was strong and I knew. There was nothing that could influence me to take that path again. And I wanted to be on it because my kids but I want to be close to my grandkids I have six grandkids you know and then the world. Not have hasn't been easy it's been extremely difficult. Not having a job trying to search for a job in trying to get a job when you're convicted felon. I feel like I've been lucky I feel like god has hand on me because he's. The doors have opened for me that I I didn't think would ever open for me. I wanna say it took about a year for me to finally get a job in Conway and I went through a temp service and they sent me to the common regional Medical Center I work in their environmental services department. Six weeks after I started. They terminated by supervisors they asked me to fill the position. Most hospitals don't hire convicted felons I kind of came in a back door and once I was already there and they got to know me. And you know they were ready to bring us underneath their umbrella. They didn't question it they knew my background and they said it's okay because we already know her. Most people don't get that opportunity to prove themselves. I want to say it was a couple of years a couple years I stayed in that position and I accepted set accepted a position as an administrative assistant for the maintenance department that's where I am today I work with some of the best people I've ever known and I'm very happy where I am. Not everyone has the same opportunities I've had and there are others who have similar story to mine they are the type of people this bill could help not criminals that people who took a wrong turn made a decision they didn't realize would impact their life forever people who truly do deserve a second chance. A bad decision should not be a life sentence. And thank you all for listening. Mr would you take questions if there are yes members are there any questions of ms bear. Seeing them thank you for your testimony today Sir you're recognized to give us your name and identify yourself anything you may proceed on probably more scared than she would. My name's Harold whist I live in western Arkansas magazine. And I was convicted of a felony in nineteen ninety seven. So it's been twenty seven years. Among businesses just retired last December on my own business since. Two thousand. Two thousand one a master electricians. So work. At any community and it never had any problems get. Several grand babies grow into it to already wanna go huntin. I can't take a. Without fear of going to jail but. Been married for thirty something years thirty two years away from me out over there. It may be the hardest answer you give all that is how many years you've been married. Whatever she says that's what it is. But the. I am probably abetted country hick is a feather could get. And I was raised on information. My weekends were on the mountain on the creek bank. And I've got a nearly nine year old grandson at home right now that. Better every day he wants to go and if we can score on your hand. Whatever the I can't taking. I think this is a good bill. And We should really matter if you're Republican Democrat liberal. Whatever. This is about a glass of. And. Let me. Burch said you should not pay for this for your whole life. Especially. Eighteen years the red heart shaped. You get a feeling you're sixty years old you're still gonna failing for a J.. You know. So. I believe it should pass hope bill of. Patrick. Mister west would you entertain any questions if there are any. Members do you have any questions of Mister west. Seeing the questions thank you for your testimony today thank you for being here members of. We have Dylan Jacobs the Attorney General's office if you like to. You may. You go then the table and then identify yourselves you'll be recognized. Since microphone issues I think we're just gonna have to use that one microphone that's working. If you bring it up this way we have to approve first so hang on just a moment. Hi I believe all the members now have the handout please state your name who you're with and you're recognized for C.. I thank you madam chair my name is Dylan Jacobs with the attorney general's office I have been with me Adam Jackson we hear on behalf of Attorney General Tim Griffin. and Commission is here to let you know that it's our position that you should vote no on this bill. I think it's important to say at the outset what this bill is and isn't or shouldn't be viewed as this isn't really a fire arms bill and why is that it's Arkansas law already has a way to deal with the problem of our Kansans with still felony convictions who don't have their firearm rights and that is a petition to the governor I therefore a pardon or a limited restoration of firearm rights with this which the law already provides for and that anyone with a felony conviction is eligible to seek and we think this poses somewhat of a separation of powers problem because it's an end run around the governors forty two Review and grant those pardon requests. And we think there's an additional separation of powers problem with the courts the the bill before you. Is is pretty explicit in how it directs the courts to deal with sealed records when when these petitions is granted in a way that's not true under the current twenty thirteen comprehensive ceiling acting it's not true under the first offenders action we think there are serious problems with that and it's quite possible that it would be struck down by the courts is enforceable in particular is the provisions about removing records from the docket sheet specifying exactly what can and can't show up when someone goes and and views our records of a of a criminal docket. And we also think it's important to know what exactly this is relevant to current law we already have today the comprehensive ceiling active twenty thirteen which provides for certain limited category of of felony offenses and largely for misdemeanor offenses a circuit court process by which We can have their convictions sealed and what is this bill do differently than that so. The first thing is that the proceedings when I fell in goes in front of a circuit court wants to have his conviction sealed under current law for the for the set of convictions that are eligible for this it's really the felons burden to show that this ought to be granted and there's a whole list of factors in the statute that circuit court has to consider at the minimum and the circuit court has has pretty broad authority to decide whether this is in the interests of justice and that's the standard that a circuit court has to apply under this bill this bill applies the current standard for sealing misdemeanor convictions to felonies and so what does that mean this means that a circuit court has to grant a petition to seal one of these felony convictions and less there is clear and convincing evidence that it should not do so and what does that mean clear and convincing evidence as we lawyers like to say is a very high burden of proof can't really describe a percentage to it but evidence wise it's it's much higher than fifty one percent maybe it's seventy five percent seventy percent it's it's a pretty high threshold that a circuit court has to to determine that this isn't warranted before can deny one of these petitions and the statute doesn't lay out like current law the various factors that a circuit court has to consider when it's doing this and it's not it's not you know entirely clear you know what if anything a circuit court does have to consider. another did change based on current law is. As I've been saying we already have the twenty thirteen comprehensive ceiling act or you can have these felony convictions sealed this bill doesn't replace that it adds an additional petition procedure on that is important because under the current At the ceiling act you you generally get one of these and under this bill the way that I read to you get another so under current law we only allow you generally I think to go out and have one set of felony convictions sealed and that's all we give you and that this bill adds an entirely new process with these much lower burdens of proof for another by the apple of sealing an entirely new set of felony convictions in the way that I read the bill as if someone's already had a set of felony convictions sealed under the twenty thirteen ACT they're still eligible to go and get a new set of felony convictions at sealed under this act and that's a real change. At the end so why or why and I'll go back to the the first one and may why is not firearms bill their processes under the law. Where felony can go get the firearm rights back and you could change the comprehensive ceiling acts of twenty thirteen today and. Make it so that all the convictions currently eligible to be sealed under current law come with the restoration of your firearm rights you probably do that it's there's still some problems with without running up against the governor's authority but that's at least a little bit more arguable you could do that today but we don't have to do is create an entirely new process for stealing all felony convictions that expands at least to some extent the number of and types of convictions are eligible to be sealed over above current law I can't tell you today exactly what The New eligible convictions are because the statute is is written in a different way than the twenty thirteen law there's a section of the twenty thirteen ACT that lists pretty clearly which offenses are eligible to be sealed and the bill here the way that I read it it's everything but a very long list I don't know how many of you ever seen the code books of the criminal law the very thick there's a lot of them I don't know what all the offenses are and they're certainly and it's it's. Very difficult to go and figure out what offenses under the under this bill are eligible or ineligible for this new second sealing process with their a lot of problems and risks there Media. Yes I'll turn it over to add to colleague Adam Jackson for for. Adam Jackson with the attorney general's office I do want to address a couple of questions that were brought up earlier They're in the process under state law it does when you go to the governor and seek the restoration of firearms rights is actually contemplated body the federal law as well the the federal gun rights law eighteen USC nine twenty one has a definition section it's eighty twenty that it says if the conviction. Try to pull up here was otherwise pardoned by the state action it's not going to be treated as a conviction so technically going the going the route of the governor's pardon with restoration of firearms rights does get federal firearms rights back as well. and there was some quite some comments earlier about how we already kind of have a process for this this is but by actually going through the court system to essentially get rid of a conviction as if it never existed this is something that would be new in the state the expungement under the first offenders program Is different because in that instance it's a delayed adjudication of guilt where a conviction is never actually entered so once probation is completed under the first offender program that's what they'll because the conviction was never actually entered the comprehensive ceiling act All that happens there is the conviction is sealed but they still remain to be a convicted felon this is not this takes a whole conviction that's out there and completely throws it out it really does nothing for I mean it'll throw out the conviction but it does nothing to hide the any conviction that went up on appeal the court records that are up on appeal as part of that OR any Supreme Court court of appeals appellate opinion of those convictions those are all still out there. All right so just to sum up again it's not a firearms bill and I don't know what it you all know Tim and he's not against firearm rights we have a process in place for that there could be a different process in place for that if you think it's a problem but we don't think this is the bill to do it and. I'd trade agreement urges you to vote no on this happy to answer any the members questions if there are any represent Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair my question is you talk about the dramatic expansion of fences. And so I take it that the the list of offenses that you would would prohibit you from being qualified is insufficient so this was turned into a more of a gun rights bill and you listed. Only those offenses where you would be eligible with that answer some of the questions that we're having here so they're they're two parts to that the first is in the way that we read the bill. This provides two separate instances where a a felony. Conviction or set of convictions can be sealed under this so that's double what you get under current law in the first place I think the part of the problem with the the list of offenses and we I think we identified a few that may be. Not be covered under this one is again as I mentioned the current law gives you a list of of felony convictions are eligible. This law says everything but. I don't I can't tell you that we don't cover everything that we should cover because I can't read this bill and figure out what all is eligible or not eligible this from reading this and it would take someone sitting down for probably quite a long time you know to figure that out and this is a law the people of its passage and have to work with you know our office in the prosecutor's office having to figure just to sit down and figure out whether a convictions eligible and you got to think you know from the person the perspective of a of a phone is trying to figure out whether their convictions eligible a lay person doing this you know that we pretty difficult you know what they're gonna have to go pay an attorney to figure out forum and so that again if if if the problem is firearms you need to file a petition with the governor and governor Sanders can units this term anyway to determine whether you ought to get your firearm rights back and our positions we think that's a satisfactory you know remedy for anyone trying to to to go through the process and get firearm rights back. Thank you thank you manager represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you manager I guess my question really was on a pretty similar topic but slightly different and maybe you can answer but when you say dramatically expands the number of felony convictions that can be sealed what what is being added what are the felony convictions that we are now letting people see but we couldn't let him civil for so as far as offenses I can't tell you sitting here today which offenses are being added because of the discussion I was having with representative Richmond I can't tell from this bill because of the way that it's written as an everything but versus current law which is you know has a section that is entitled only is eligible for for stealing we think we've identified a few I can give you a list because we're not certain of it but I think the dramatic expansion is is. Again double for a particular fell and what they can during the course of of you know committing crimes current law is you get one I guess set of felonies one in a course of a crime conduct and that's you know as I understand only get under current law and this. Create an entirely new process to or even if you had felony convictions sealed in the past you can get a whole new set of crimes sealed which is something not contemplated under current law It allows you to do it on this much lower proof so that's that's we think it's a it's a is it overall is a dramatic expansion of the ability of felons to have their convictions sealed verses the current state of the law and that's separate and apart from what it does in terms of fire rights firearm rights are very small piece of what this bill does from our perspective it's this is really a criminal justice bill really a public safety be a bill follow up you're recognized for a follow up so Allen side which I understand you're saying about doubling the opportunities if there's multiple crimes for ceiling outside of that do you do you know that it does dramatically expand the number of felony convictions AS in types of felonies or is that presumed to or you guys I mean I know you can talk on the bill but but you could tell from the code that I can answer that today okay the way that the bill reads it would take someone going and sitting down for a long time so it to figure that out I think we might have identified a few but I can't I can't tell you sitting here today a list of that thank. Representative had said you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair it. So if I understand what what your concern is correctly is that that we've been in this bill representative flowers creating this this new process but don't we already have statutes that that have created their own new processes and I'm thinking specifically of the Drug Court Act which also outlines a pathway for participants in the drug court one veteran courts on the specialty court programs to have their firearm rights restored and also is not explicit as to the types of offenses that are included and as as eligible for having those rights restored because they leave those decisions up to the rule making of the individual courts who are handling at the specialty court so why is it unworkable in this case but was workable and terms of the specialty court's. So I think this goes back to what my colleague was talking about under the the first offenders act for example it's a different process under that act you don't get a conviction the drug courts are there to address specific slice of of of felony issues and we already have a comprehensive ceiling act that is targeted at the exact same problem that this act is and I don't know in a setting aside the firearm issue I don't know that anyone thinks there's really something not working with our current comprehensive ceiling act people are eligible today to go and have a large number of felony convictions sealed I currently and this bill does something you know additional so that that I think people focus a little bit on firearms but that's a very small part of what the bill does it you attempt to completely erase these convictions and a much larger way than current law does and it does so with a much lower standard of of proof and we think the current system works for that especially when considering the the the governor has the ability to partner grant firearm rights and that's more involved process and it really brings law enforcement into the process is well anytime someone is going to request firearm rights to be stored the chief law enforcement officer where they live you know is notified about this and you know they can. if if this person is a problem then the governor is going to know that and if this person isn't a problem the governor is going to be told that where as you know going into this new bill I won't belabor the point but there a lot of problems with the procedures under this bill. Follows you're recognized for a follow up in and I appreciate your position on that but I'm not sure if it it got to the root of the question I'm asking which is in a situation which we have already taken the steps to expand the opportunities for firearm rights to be restored through the drug court program which has built into the statute which I'm reading now and a lot of discretion for the circuit court judge in setting and in the court in which they are making these determinations to use their judicial discretion to determine whether or not the at the felony and is eligible to have their firearms rights restored why can we do it in that case but not in the case of this bill and it and and and I understand you don't like this bill but I'm asking why in one case we trust the judges to take and this information gathered from the original petition from the prosecutors which is also included in H. B. ten thirteen where prosecutors have a chance to respond and and and to have a hearing if necessary why is the same mechanism that we use and specialty court's not applicable to what's in this bill because to me those mechanisms look very similar. Yeah I'm not familiar enough with the the specific drug court provisions to answer that question as of the first offenders act regime as my colleague was explaining the difference is there's no conviction in the first place and so there's no you know what rights taken away in the first place once you know that there is a conviction and I think the problem is not that we this bill. Does something. This bill gives too much. Discretion to the circuit judges the problem is it doesn't give them enough discretion so under the current ceiling act this new the circuit court judges are required to consider whether this would be in the interests of justice there's a lot of factors that are required to consider and they can consider more under this bill in circuit judges really don't have much discretion to deny one of these petitions after determine there's clear and convincing evidence to say that this petition should be denied which is the current standard that we apply to misdemeanor convictions. And this is just a seal misdemeanor convictions were not even going on the additional you know firearm restriction that we are under the current bill so it's taking away the power of the circuit judges to monitor this and you know the consequences are much greater than under current law. I think I've got something to help help us concern this is really what we've kind of been talking about the first offender stuff your interest as drug court to qualify for drug court the person is charged with a criminal offense that charge not a conviction so my understanding of drug court in this context is again they've not actually had the conviction yet and so what they're doing going through drug court is avoiding you know the conviction by successfully completing the report. if someone's here from the court they might be able to correct me on that but that's my understanding of it. Thank you and currently you can have I think seeds. I think all the way up to class a felonies sealed under current law for drug offenses and the governor has the ability to restore firearm rights. For for for drug felonies currently. The representative as well you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair this is a follow up to some degree on what representative Hudson asked. One of the things that you mentioned was trusting circuit judges to make these decisions like we do in ceiling what's the difference in making a decision about sealing or making a decision about drug court verses the procedure this out in this bill but there a couple of things that I noted in this bill some specific language that like you guys to comment on. One is this idea that we're reinvesting the circuit court with jurisdiction. so this is after conviction is been entered and the idea that this reinvest the circuit court with jurisdiction and then the question is not again referring to specific language in the bill to the White and that is to discharge dismiss and seal and so the way I understand it and I want to get your explanation on this. This authorizes the circuit court to discharge a conviction as if it never existed. And the way I understand your explanation and again I want to deliberate is that when we do that that has a whole host of other implications beyond maybe just this particular firearms issue that is for purposes the habitual offender statute or purposes of felony possession of a firearm for instance. Which requires a previous conviction and so can you explain how some of the specific language specifically the reinvesting the circuit court with jurisdiction in the language about discharging a conviction how those factor into what this bill does. Thank you representative Gazaway. Okay that specific language there about reinvesting the circuit court Filing a petition in the circuit court to reinvest restriction in the circuit court Government we we've been kind of scratching our heads on that one because the when a conviction is going up on appeal it goes up to the the appellate court to either like affirm the conviction or overturn it based on some problem with trial but to then re opened the case in this case to get rid of the conviction all the way around somehow jurisdiction has to would in theory have to be reinvested for that purpose now when you're because what you do is you getting rid of the conviction all together in the instance of ceiling a conviction you're not actually getting rid of the conviction or not I'm doing the conviction you're just sealing it to the circuit court it can can go and do that but to get rid of it all completely construction has to come back to the circuit court and that's what this whole idea of filing a petition in the circuit court to reinvest restriction in the circuit court is going about doing but it seems to me that that would likely have to actually come from the appellate court but this again goes back to the new ones difference between the ceiling route and what is actually happening here of getting rid of the conviction and this is most likely an attempt to get around is the issues relating to the the federal charges that you could still get because if you get rid of the conviction altogether obviously the federal your federal firearms rights come back But if you have to go through the state process with the pardon system that's how you get it back but this one's into a separation of powers issue because of that because the governor is the only one that can actually pardon. An offense and that is the Arkansas constitution article six section eighteen the executive clemency process so if you're going through the courts to actually get rid of a conviction you're effectively the courts of reading a pardon so it becomes a separation of powers issue that really falls with the the governor when your ceiling at or under the first offenders act you're not running into that because it doesn't have the effect of a part. Give a follow up call or you're recognized for a follow up okay I think you answered part of my question because I have continually heard you guys referred to the separation of powers issue understand that got the governor has the power for restoration of firearms rights currently but that is a specific constitutional provision that gives the governor that power and so you're saying to them to allow the circuit courts to do that would would give power to the letter I'm sorry to the judiciary to the judge that's only granted by the constitution to the governor. That what you're saying the pardon power yes okay all right that's all represent Crawford you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. you referred to this as a criminal justice bill. partly in twenty nineteen I ran a bill. because a grandmother could not. It custody guardianship of her grand child because she had written a hot check twenty five years ago. So we're in the same hot seat. And I understand the laws I understand rules we have to have that. But my question is. Will the attorney general's office and the governor's office. Commit. To helping these people get their rights restored sixty years later twenty five years later. This is ridiculous so just just reform has got to happen this is showing us it has to happen. And I'm just asking if. The offices would be available to help with that. so I can exactly speak for general Griffin on that I mean I'll say that the again. The current law provides for for relief on a lot of these issues both the current ceiling offer some of those old hot check conviction or you know for firearm rights but I know there's Just this bill in the works I can't tell you what's next seven Senate but I'm sure that it will be you know. Introduced and debated widely very soon and those issues might be addressed on that that's about as much as I can say. on that issue. Representative Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair of the my question is pretty simple actually so the bill has been out for awhile now have you guys reached out to representative flowers with your concerns regarding this bill or is this the first time you've come to the table. I'm not aware of who we have or haven't reached out to on the the legislative side Thank you ma'am. Represent more you're recognized for a question. Are you good okay. Represent heads up she's left. any other questions of these two gentleman. Right thank you Mr Jacobs. Jackson. Next we have speaking in favor of the bill is Gary Epperson strip person you're recognized come to the table state your name for the record and then you're recognized to make your statement. More than welcome chair committee thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this bill I've heard about rise bill if you state your name for the record with the option of a resident governor of Arkansas I'm trying to get through this quick because y'all gonna be here all day but this is not a power bill it's a human rights bill it's a good bill we disagree with the attorney general's assessment that violates separation of powers with the governor my call a ball address that later on committee with that thank you all and we're we're bill reckons Portis Bill. Thank you. Next we have speak against the bill John Shipley. Issued by what you get to the end of the table we all could identify yourself and you'll be recognized. Madam chair by may I have Colonel like Hager with me this morning yes okay thank you my name is Jenny Shipley I am general I'm general counsel for the department of public safety. Hi my care Director of Arkansas State Police and secretary department public safety. Madam chair by if I may the department of public safety is opposing this bill and we would ask the doctor members of this committee to that no on it hi there are several things and to not to be labor some of the points of already been made this morning we do think that we agree with that Attorney General's office and it does Basically take the pardon power away from the governor right begins to share that power with the judiciary which we think it's a problem with the separation of powers as well. We also thank we also agree with them that it would completely take away felony convictions not just give back gun rights Sometimes one of the things that this bill provides for is that when. This petition as is presented to a circuit judge. According to the language and and how I understand the language of the bill is that the judge can only consider that petition and the information concerning the conviction at hand. That judge does not have the record to look back on he cannot he or she cannot consider whether that conviction was pled down from more serious charges when the plea was entered They cannot find out if other charges were dismissed at that time they only have the conviction at hand to make the decision on so Considering the fact that there are already various ways which of our also been discussed by the attorney general's office. For those firearm rights rights to be restored we feel that this bill causes some issues with the court system. And takes away some of the powers of the governor. Okay you're recognized like to make a statement. Very briefly we I think you coming misconception with law enforcement is that we're anti gun and and truthfully probably hard pressed to find member law enforcement community that is not very pro second amendment rights and and very Support of our citizens to be able to defend themselves again this is Mister president I want to belabor the point but there are pathways that for people that have are convicted felons but our concern with this is that we've taken a pathway that you know made need to be Broaden some and to provide for that that course to go to the governor's office but our concern with this would be that you know it it it turns that four whether Pat that needs to be widened out into an interstate system and we have a you know this bill would allow for this to go in front of the circuit court judges which there's more than one hundred twenty in the State of Arkansas right now so it's just a very broad path and as a police officer in this state that you know we're we're facing of an epidemic right now with violent crime we know that a lot of the charges that and the the cases that we make in circuit court a lot of times are played down and it's so while this bill would eliminate certain felony convictions to be considered we also know as police officers that we go to court a lot of times these these cases are all wrapped into one and a lot of the I have crimes that were committed. Have been played down to only one case that where if all the cases it if all the conditions that apply to the case been heard full that they would not qualify but now under this the in in this circumstance that would not be the case so. I'm guessing you'll be amenable to answering any questions I see we have some questions representative Collins I believe I saw you first you're recognized for a question. Thank you manager and and so I'm on the violent crime question one make sure I understand so is your concern that will lose some deterrent power if we widen the pathway for gun rights to be restored or and or is it that these folks who were convicted felons to get their guns rights gun rights restored later will commit violent crimes are those both concerns either one concerns yes Sir I think and and many circumstances both concerns. A county record as a representative Richardson. Thank you look so much like you guys again. Thank you actually so my question is the same of you guys Bills been out for awhile have you reached out to the sponsor to talk about the things that you had issue with. No Sir I we have not reached out to her thank you. The members any other questions. See no questions thank you for your testimony this morning. Thank you. We have Mister Steve Taylor to speak for the bill Mr Taylor you're recognized to come the table identify yourself. Like to thank this committee first of all for allowing me to to speak before this is my first time my name is Steve Tyler from Columbia County Arkansas three idrive little further down from Tim Griffin about nearly thirty miles further down and he leaves and I feel somewhat like a Davy Crockett in Washington today I am very much out of my element so please bear with me. Well I'm speaking in favor of H. B. ten thirteen. I understand that this bill specifically exams what they're calling violent crime. And the charge that I received would be I think considered violent crime under this under statute. But if I can speak for myself I'll speak for those others. because I'm I'm with gaps in this is a human rights issue. I'm from Columbia County I'm active in the Columbia County Republican committee I'm active in my local church and I'm AT and I'm a logging contractor. I strongly believe in my faith the rule of law and the constitution of the United States of America. I work very hard to pay taxes and I wrote. But I don't enjoy gun sports in the state of Arkansas because I'm a convicted felon. I was arrested in August of nineteen ninety one and convicted in June of ninety two. I was sentenced to seven and a half years for defending my own life with a firearm. Because I was on the wrong side of the politics of Claiborne parish Louisiana. After being divorced my ex wife. Is that a. Okay said I can't hear myself up but after being divorced. My ex wife begin to keep company with a child molester named David. David began to cross the line with my nine year old daughter. Extremely concerned with the safety of my calendar I retain to attorneys to assist me in getting full custody of my daughter. David decided to take matters into his own hands. Completely unexpected and unprovoked. David attacked me from behind and rolled my head into the side of my car called nine hundred dollars damage to the automobile. He then maneuvered his left arm under my neck and lifted me off of the ground by my neck and began to beat me in the ribs with his right hand right fist. At the point of near passing out I pulled my pistol for my waistband. And I shot David in the stomach. David throat threw his hands up. And I caught a breath of air and then he and then he rushed me hitting me in the head with both hands as I ran backwards trying to get away from me. I raised my pistol and began to pull the trigger as fast as I could. David continued the attack and then suddenly fell to the ground. I was nearly murdered and I went to prison for. I cannot begin to explain the trauma and loss I experienced especially the loss of liberty more precious than my own blood. My financial and emotional situations can never be reckoned pitched but the one thing that this committee can do they start the process of restoring my liberty which was unconstitutionally violated. All felons have a god given right to peace and safety in their lives. H. B. ten thirteen will be a giant leap forward in restoring my right to protect and defend my life my family and my property not to mention the ability to put food on my table. The majority of our government in this state is Republican. They can call themselves conservative and Christian foundational principles of these three are mercy forgiveness and restoration. I played with my fellow Republicans to join with the Democrats. In this issue. Do the right thing do the constitutional thing and do the godly thing support H. B. ten thirteen for all convicted felons who have paid their debt. Thank you and yes I am open to question I have nothing to hide if you have a question Mister Richmond a representative Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair they serve for your testimony my question is you've heard testimony in here from other individuals talking about the existing procedures that we have were people can get their their gun rights restored how much do you know about those existing procedures actually I didn't know they existed other than that you can petition the governor for a pardon and I'm not aware of even the procedure but from what we would call straight to all of our that is very difficult thank you Sir thank you Mr. Seeing no other questions thank you Mr Taylor for your testimony today next we has. Every summer okay next we have speak against the bill Scott Bradley. Mr Bradley Mr sucks when you get to the end of the table feel defy yourself then you'll be recognized. Thank you madam chair I'm Scott Bradley on the Director of the Arkansas sure so she ation and I. There was a registration I did reach out so before you ask me and had and actually we did have some good conversations in the. The shares in the state and I brought to my board we discussed this bill and the original vote was to stay neutral okay I'm I told her that I would bring that up and could be completely open and honest. A lot of discussion but after that vote we start receiving some calls to other agencies and some other sheriffs and and then we'll get digging deeper into the subject and talking about it and with that I think what we came up with that is there is a pathway that you can get your rights back and that would be something that was for anybody the gentleman just spoke I think anyone can put in for that and I know it's a narrow pathway in it is you know pretty difficult. But if it's that important to you in your life to get your gun rights back and get your voting rights back and get everything in order there is a pathway for that it is to the governor I've written many letters of support and in the time I would share to. Citizens in my county that I knew personally knew and knew that they would to turn their lives around. And I do believe that motion heirs about here to speak for the shares believe in second chances for people that can do that and really time allows so. I don't you I really can't support this bill as it's written and I guess that's all I have to sign on bonus for any kind of any questions you guys have for me would be the best I can. Senate questions you're recognized Mister so. Thank you manager. I'm Gary sipes the Director of the Arkansas police chiefs association and like Mr Bradley just said the law enforcement is in the current law enforcement is against more runs of there's a lot of things that we like about your bill of. But there are more I have been used to it your gun rights back and and I was surprised to hear that that this gentleman didn't know that maybe we should publicize that more but as a cliche five hi like sure said had signed off on several applications to to seek pardon of also written letters And it's it's a kind of strange with the one of the individuals that helped build my house was a young man and he had been convicted of a felony drug charges and he asked me how to go about getting a pardon because he wanted is on right status on the. And the our role letter for him but I do not I don't know if he actually went through the process but he used a used one that also didn't know the process. Are you pole darkly shoes cross state and and they're all opposed to the bill as it is. Members are there any questions. Represent under you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair up to both of you you have mentioned the applications for pardon for the restoration of gun rights how many times has it happened that the pardon has been granted could you give me a a ratio of. I cannot give you an answer to that all I know is that typically during the year I would sign one. every year and I don't know what the the the and processors. I think a lot of it is part of the form that they have to get the the lawn for the lead law enforcement agency in the county to sign off on their on their pardon and I've signed many of those mob fabric of a chosen not to sign some of. I have made that decision based on personal knowledge that I had only those invade your county pretty rural area and I knew I was there my whole life so I knew a lot of people is there and if I didn't know I could find out things three family members and friends so I didn't I chose not to sign a lot of and I appreciate that ability to be able to to do that and that would go away I think a. Sullivan. I'm. You know it's is where it's a tough it's a tough decision but I think the board the shares landed on this was there is a pathway and and they're good with the way the system works right now. Hey rich when you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair police chief I'm sorry I just need clarification did you say you're not for more guns or did I misunderstand you. We we're we will less guns on the street just like the president Biden said we agree we agree with the second amendment don't get me wrong but the more guns of more violence more raw. Okay we'll we'll agree to disagree. Members any other questions. Represented the field you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair gentleman have you spoken with people in their use of which you live about this bill and got their opinions. They are always people I've spoken with the shares one second take my job away from me so that's people I'm talking to and and that's to their representatives are the folks Nick in the communities and that's the question I have seen people to get to receive their pardons okay I I have seen I've known several that come back to me and thank you for signing the letters and they've got received the pardons and enjoying the freedom of that about to speak on the more guns on the street I don't think that's the really the reason we're the shares are opposed to this bill we oppose this bill for the guys possibly getting into the wrong hands on the street I think that's probably what Kerry meant when he said what he said we're not opposed to law abiding citizens having firearms by any means but we certainly don't want the wrong people you know those those those forms I chose not to sign through the years but I chose not to there was a reason for that and I personally felt like that person probably didn't need to have those firearms in his possession so it was it was mental I sign more that I didn't sign a receipt that way I don't know if that's clear as mud or not but. Members any other questions. Say no further questions thank you for your testimony today thank you madam chair we have Leah herein to speak for the bill miss hearing you're recognized come to the end of the table identify yourself and then you may begin. Madam chair thank you very much for the opportunity I'm only here and I'm the national president of to a women and we speak in support of this bill both to a women nationally into a women Arkansas. I will accept questions. Seeing the questions thank you very much. Next we have Rick Edwards to speak for the bill Mr Edwards you in the room. Not saying Mr Edwards will move down Mr Calvert Paul Calvert. You're recognized to speak for the bill. Les Paul Calvert thank you Committee. So what I'm I'm not here. Supporting the idea of Ladyman sentences for criminals my my issue with this and I I at the with the current system is that we let a bunch of criminals who we assume are still very dangerous we turn them loose that bothers me if we can't trust them to be free why are we turning them loose if we can trust them to be free I think they probably need at least some of their rights or maybe most of them if not all of them because it's hard to live without them I think when we place such incredibly difficult barriers around these people it makes sense it makes our lives so difficult I think sometimes it drives them to re offend I've been working with them on here recently there's moved into one of my rental properties and it is difficult for him to navigate the system. Because it's it's just so hard and I think for a lot of us we look at some of these these things like won't jump to that who can that hoop over there but. A lot of us have not been in trouble and one of the reasons would up in trouble is because we had some better opportunities in our lives better upbringings and so we're we're not behind the eight ball sorry not and I'm not trying to defend these people's crimes but I think sometimes what happens. One place such severe restrictions on people we drive them back to crime. If there's two dangers we can't trust and don't turn loose if we can trust them to turn them loose let's give them some of the rights so they can function in society some of these people probably need the rights to defend themselves better than most of us because of where they're living it's difficult to find a place to live because it's it's so expensive and some of the better neighborhoods and so they they they rent in a in a rough neighborhood so it's dangerous the the people that that know them might want to hurt them if if they were they took a plea deal limit right so right on somebody and so there there might be maybe have a target on their back for that it in the committee these cases the they probably do need the right to defend themselves more than most of us to. But if if they're safe to let free turn loose and let him have some freedom thank you. Thank you Mr Calvert next up we have ten Loggins to speak for the bill. Thank you madam chair committee for this opportunity my name is Tim Loggains on executive vice president of gun owners of Arkansas as the president get absent stated earlier we we completely support this bill we think it's a good bill I do want to touch on a few more specifics on some things that were talked about by those speaking against it. a constitutional issue separation of powers if you if you look at. Article six section eighteen of the state constitution use of the governor's vested with the power to pardon commentate or or or set aside crimes. I'm pretty sure the folks who wrote a constitution would would have said the sole power. Instead of the power words matter the sole power to pardon and commute is not vested in the governor I don't see a conflict of interest I don't see this taking away from the executive branch's powers that's that's number one. number to send for all the the topic of the constitution article two section two of the state constitution says that you have a right to life liberty pursuit of happiness and the right to defend such. You were going to section five it says you have a right to keep and bear arms you look at Arkansas to section twenty nine and this is that those power outside of the authority of state government. This is what I love about representative flowers bill it resets the notion and the burden of proof back to the state we have the inalienable rights given to us from not. Most of us in here believe that. I'm a convicted felon I'll lose those rights may be justifiably once I've paid my debt to society. It's a reset this bill allows me as it not me personally I'm not a convicted felon Miller. This bill would allow convicted felons to pay their debt fully. And we're talking about ten twelve fifteen twenty years after the fact. The good citizen jump through the hoops. Petition forty of charge by the way that's a very important part of this because if you're someone who's been in prison you probably don't have access to attorneys. Certainly not the best stories in the world and in this recess the burden of proof on the state to prove that you're not eligible or should not be eligible to exercise your god given rights model one defense of yourself and your family is a god given right. And we don't believe they should have that right there should be compelling evidence the stage member state what that evidence is. so I appreciate your effort on on this bill and I and I'll be happy to take any questions of the committee might have and and again we ask that we get a pass on this the Senate bill. Say no questions thank you for your testimony today. Excuse me we have the answer last to offer information we have violent man and meant to read. German what you get to the end of the table state your name and then you're recognized. Thank you madam chair Bob McMahon prosecute coordinator representing the prosecuting attorney's association. I'm mad direct prosecutor a for the fourth judicial district and the president Arkansas prosecutors Association we're here we do have issues with the bill I think that I haven't talked with anyone who has a problem with the spirit of the bill because center I'm I'm sorry represent flowers worked with us we we sat down and we talked about the issues that we had to talk about the list of offenses there still some concerns that we have I'm gonna try not to just simply reiterate everything that everyone is sad but one of our big concerns which we have addressed with representative flowers this creates an additional sealing process so it's an additional felony they can be sealed because one of the. If you look at the definition of conviction it does not include a felony which has been already sealed under the first offender act up so that gives individuals the ability to have to felony sealed and have the farmers back we have no issue with those individuals who have been convicted of nonviolent felonies who have paid their debt to society getting their farmers back we think that those individuals ought to be able to tell what certainly to defend themselves we are we have no issue with that whatsoever that's not a problem with the bill probably is is not what the spirit of it it's with the procedure of it It under. Under the the previous bills under fourteen oh one that sixteen ninety fourteen oh one which is the coverage of sailing at it states that when. A conviction is is this charge dismissed and sealed it is evident incipit never happened same thing in in this particular bill we're concerned about individuals who have multiple felonies in multiple different instances being able to get their farms back This we're not concerned about sealing felonies we're concerned about sealing additional felonies that's a that's a big concern here The other concern is that which has been brought up before is this takes by all reading of the statute this takes away the virtually all the discretion to judges have in determining whether or not a petition should be granted under fourteen oh one sixteen ninety fourteen oh one comprehensive ceiling at a court may grant if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that granting would further the interest of justice the petition and bases it on number factors of the five factors including the individual's criminal history their likelihood to re offend and I I under this particular bill they can't consider that they can consider if they have violent misdemeanors they can consider anything other than what to provide in this petition so based on our reading and less we can determine that the petitioner was untruthful when the petition was filed then the judge is required to grant the petition and we are not able to object we can we can object but the judge considered can consider any objection that we have any basis for objection. can't talk about violent misdemeanors the person has Hey get input from any victim of of because they are victims of nonviolent offenses that their voices may be important to hate to hear so under under this particular bill the court what is presented with a presented and fines with clear and convincing evidence that it should not be sealed dismissed and just charge the court shall do it shall grant a petition that's the that's the main issue we have a couple of others that I haven't brought up with representative flowers to be fair is that I that I noticed recently is one of the exclusions in the definition of conviction is where it says a person is acquitted for any reason thank you persons acquitted but certainly has the right there the right to to have a firearm but it raises issues with five seventy three one oh three which is the possession of ours for certain persons and in that one of the individual the type of individual who is not eligible to possess a firearm is someone who's been adjudicated mentally ill and some was convicted or someone is acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect I think that is it is an issue that conflicts with the five seventy three one of three one other thing that I think I'm assuming this is just at a this was just overlooked because I did notice it myself until last night in the definition of or the list of excluded offenses. It does not include section five thirteen two oh one includes a terroristic threats which is five thirteen three oh one but it does not include five thirteen two one that includes battery first battery second aggravated assault aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer I'm assuming that was just an omission as opposed to an important omission because we went to the list we work with representative flowers on the list a lot of that list of stuff that we presented presented to our in the date she was she was good with so I think that's just in a garden but I don't know if Mister man is anything else to add no mention I really don't have anything yet again generally are of of concerns are with the procedure and I think I might echo one thing that the I believe the witness Shipley said we're a little concerned we're not really clear on what we would and would not be able to present during the hearing because it the one the bill does specifically say we are limited to what is apparently included in the bill so that is a little bit of concern on us what that actually means but other than that I think Mr directed it good job explaining our concerns members we have we do have a question representative Richardson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so it sounds like you guys did work with representative flowers on this bill we did okay in word or the amendments that are in the bill now because you guys have you guys worked on the amendments that are in the bill now we did add or we did request a few things there added the the adding of ocular if it's serious felony involving violence felony involving violence one of those was left out and representative flowers put that in there I can't remember the other one of the biggest concerns we had represent Richardson has been taken care of but that the it was the the piece of legislation that talked about a continuing course of conduct it'd Bentley I believe it would allowed an individual that would have had one of the offense is not listed to circumvent the the law in pick up offenses that were exempted and I think that's been taken care of in the amendment so that was one Arkansas is we're certainly addressed again there are still some some other concerns as far as the last amendment I think that you all talked about earlier today I mean we we did see that I still haven't seen it so we wanted fault in that in that decision there but we we were involved in some of the the earlier are the earlier Amendment provisions okay per se Scott you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I'm not exactly sure who this question is for but I keep hearing a lot about the circuit judges and so I was wondering if there's someone here to speak and actually give their position on this bill. Thank you everyone for I see no one from the circuit judges okay thank you. Any other questions members say no further questions thank you I'm sorry representative Hudson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I want to go back just because it as you appointed out you'd be the prosecutors working kind of through these issues and and I keep hearing that that the prosecutors are limited in the types of evidence that they can they can present and I wondered if you could show me where the bill you're so limited because I'm looking at let's see. I'm on I believe the eight page under procedure. At line. It's the ninth page. yes sorry ninth page. Hi line four beginning at sub to a. So the prosecuting attorney may file a notice opposing the uniform petition with the court setting forth reasons for the opposition to the uniform petition. And and then it goes on to require that the courts and have a hearing. Prior to granting the uniform petition so but I don't see where what the prosecuting attorney may. Include in their petition is limited because it seems to me and and reading all of the language together as as we have to do that the responses where the prosecuting attorney would include the information that they felt as relevant to not granting and that a not for not granting that the relief sought and and given the fact that in the same section there's a requirement to notify the victim. That the prosecutor could also include that information so where's the limitation on what you can present in either your response or in in hearing there's no limitation on what we can percent there is a specific limitation on what the court to consider and that's under sixteen ninety one oh four eighty two C. which is on page eight. beginning with line seventeen. Underinvestment jurisdiction circuit court may not consider any other matters concerning the person from the uniform petition not otherwise covered under this subchapter and that's and that's that's where we are not otherwise covered in this subchapter so on the next page what is covered in this subchapter if the prosecutors ability to file a response yes and to notify that the victims so it is covered in this subchapter right. What the ability due to file but it's it's unclear if the judge can consider what we are what we're presenting that unlike the under fourteen oh one where it's clear what the judges to consider the judges to consider arses likelihood to re offend their previous criminal history impact the input of the victim sure under that it's clear what a judge is to consider. Sorry you're done talking yeah. Under the under the the comprehensive ceiling act it's it's clear what a judge may and and is to consider under this one I think it's conflicting and I think it can be read I mean you read one way I read it another way and so it's it's it's conflicting. So that that's that's one less that's that's how I read it is that is a judge isn't to consider anything about the person other than if one one call so so. Were that to become clear would that be of assistance to the prosecutors it would I mean it that would eliminate that one concern of ours I thank yes I agree. Seeing no other questions thank you gentlemen for your testimony today we have no one else was signed up to speak for against the bill represented pleasure recognized close for your bill. No. Thank you madam chair. Sure. Representation recognized close for your bill sure. You all had a lot of information today. I would remind you that I began working on this bill with senators Stubblefield in Caldwell and. in my process this year in pre filing the bill reaching out to members on this committee and off. Including someone I know we all respect very deeply and that's representative Tosh. As well as representative Nicks. and I didn't say him first just because of the partisan implications of this I mean I. sort of talked around it or whatever but this is truly a bipartisan bill it is truly a bill that has been. Extensively vetted. It has been amended. So much so that I've had several members approach me and compliment B. on you know how easy it was to work with or. you know thanking me for bringing the bill and then amending it and I I just would say I'm at we all do that. I mean I don't know I don't know what anyone would expect I'm we're all here to work for our constituents to work for. the people you've heard from today and there are many many more like them. I believe that my constituent who's been calling me nonstop for over two years and was supposed to be here today probably didn't come because. He was and Intimidated. You heard both witnesses talk about how nervous they were. Mr west home he slept about a half an hour last night. And I think it takes a lot of courage to stand before a public. Elected body and share. Your record. And come to us and say how important this is to them and why it matters and so you've heard a lot today from several law enforcement agencies representatives. Talk about. Either say generally wives that they disagree because more guns should be on the street. And to some extent I believe that too but I mean we're one of the most permissive I have some of the most permissive gun laws in the country and the guns that are out there manufactured or out there. What we're talking about. Is restoration of rights. For many years I didn't own a weapon but I have the right. I could sell my guns tomorrow and I would have the right to do it. And I think that's what we're talking about with people who have been convicted of non violent felonies that did not use a firearm or weapon in the course of the crime they committed have completed the disposition with this state. We cannot continue to say that we believe in second chances and re entry not invest in it because that's what happens. We cannot continue to say that we believe in second chances when we get an opportunity like this. Everyone says they agree with the idea they agree with the spirit they work on the bill. And the day before we present. I get a call several calls. Yeah political and we are better than that. We are legislative body elected all of us by people. Who sent us here to pass legislation. In their best interests. I'm not a lawyer and I can't speak to all of the jargon you her but it was jargon I filed this bill last year. I filed it last year. And some of the very people who helped me with the language. Two years ago. Last year sat at the end of this table and expressed concerns that I have not heard about yet until I sat right there with you. We know that that is not how we do things around here I don't care what party you're with. We work for them. With all due respect we do not work for the governor we do not work for the Attorney General. We do not work for employees of the state in other agencies. No one who sat here and told you that they have problems with this bill. Expressed I I think it's a good idea I appreciate the spirit of it and this is what it would take. If representative flowers would be amenable to my amendment. We could we could be okay with it. The NRA is okay with it that's the word the last language I got it first it was reported that it was okay but they're okay with it. The sheriff's association was neutral I don't know what happened. In a few hours. Or a couple of days I'm sorry. So I want to bring us back to this. There are we are already doing this bill isn't that there's nothing in this bill that talks about. Pardon powers. It talks about for three prostheses that have to take place. In in order that the federal government will not be able to re arrest someone even if we gave them cover by state law. I said that at the very beginning. That is why there is a dismiss this charge and seal. This process. Is not new. It would take and you didn't hear from a C. I. see I was hoping someone would ask to hear from them. It would take the creation of a new form. That's it. It would take creating a new form. And extend expanding the process that already exist. Before I close. And I talked about the process we heard about clear and convincing that is used in language across the law. And it's a high bar because we need a uniform and fair process. Not for someone not for me to be able to go before a judge because that judge doesn't know her I like her or like how she stressed. They dismissed the petition. If there are very clear and consistent standards by which people can come to apply for this position. Victims notified prosecutors notified and there's nothing that limits what the prosecutor it's open ended for a reason. If you start listing everything that they can present at least stuff out. It's open ended so they can share what ever they need to share with the judge to consider. The judge can then consider. And then the judge makes a very clear it gives a very clear reason. If the petition. Is the night and that again is for uniformity and for fairness. And I firmly believe that the judges that are elected in this state under this law would apply it fairly. The point about having more more than one conviction I don't think that applies but again. That or the clarity about what the judge can consider is something we can work on we pass bills not only out of committee but on the house floor all the time saying. We can fix that in an amendment on the other side. I've seen many of you if you are new you may not have seen it we do it all the time. There are no constitutional or separation of powers issues here. We dismiss and destruction seal records already. And unless you believe that that is a set that it violates the separation of powers and someone should repeal that law. There are no constitutional issues I shared with you that almost half the states in this country. Provide a pathway some without a process. With the automatic time frame. Some never even take away the rights for non violent felons. This is a life sentence because effectively the process which is the pardon. Is not accessible and available to everyone. It just isn't you can say it is just because they can fill out the paperwork it is not. I know you all have gotten calls from people in your districts because I've gotten calls from people in your districts and mine. I will close with two points. Number one. Again with all due respect and I heard this from someone who is. Wine and passed. Guns dealing with firearms. And the work firearms and weapons all throughout this bill so you can say it's not a gun bill or weapons bill it is because I've had to defend myself with people who don't want me to run it if the gun bill but it is also a human rights bill. If you believe in the second amendment and really other amendments. This person told me. That in the last ten years. The people you heard from today have set at the end of this table and spoken against other measures dealing with the expansion of firearms. So while I believe that you should take all information to consideration I believe you should understand. That. That opposition. To legislations dealing with firearms is not new. And pass legislation passed. And finally I will say that we've talked a lot. About felons this nonviolent felons that and granted that is the status of people. Who have committed and then convicted of crimes. And in this case we're talking about for which they have paid their debt to society. But I want you to remember that we're also talking about people. We're talking about. Our Kansans. We're talking about our constituents and their families. Who should not be given. A blanket lifetime ban lifetime punishment from being able to protect themselves and their homes. Protect themselves on the road. Protect themselves and their businesses and go hunting with their families and friends. So I would ask you to remember that. As you cast this vote. And know that what ever the issues are that need to be changed we have several lawyers on this panel. Can be addressed in an amendment that I would be very happy. To include in this legislation so we can move forward. And our people. Can be assisted. And with that I'm close thank you madam chair represent flowers is closed for a bill I have a motion. Represents got you're recognized. I make a motion for do pass as amended members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion of the motion representative Cropper you're recognized for discussion thank you madam chair. I am for the people. All the way around I am for the second amendment. Sometimes I vote on this. In ways that I'm sure you guys current chat because it second amendment. I set my life on that. Thank you for bringing this bill. I would ask with all the opposition. If you would be amenable to pulling at them. Fix it. And then I will go with you. To the different organizations and people. And ask them to work with us to get this perfected so that we can pass a good law so that we can pass something where the felons have been sixty years out get their gun rights back in can go hunting and where the people who are fearful. Never committed a crime would be comfortable with what we're doing. Represent you know you cannot I'm sorry this is discussion among the committee members thank you members any other discussion. Represent Richardson you're recognized for discussion thank you madam chair I think one thing we've got to remember is this bill has been up for awhile a year roughly in my experience with representative while she's been very open to having dialogue with people who were brought issues to her and is always sought after those types of responses she just stated in our closing that she would be. Amenable to changing or making the corrections that were brought forth even today. So with that being of it being said I don't know why we can move forward passing this legislation out of this committee and allow those changes to happen as it goes for to the other side. Members any other discussion. Seeing no further discussion all in favor of the motion to do pass as amended say aye. All opposed say no. The nose habit the bill has failed I have two hands for a roll call barbers hill called the roll of members there in new members on the committee let me explain a roll call of this committee it takes eleven votes in the affirmative to pass the bill out you have three options on the roll call you can vote yes no or you can be silent those are your three options on a roll call with that barber if you call the roll. Representative index. Represent the next yes. Represent the Richmond yes represent the rich man yes. Representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway. Representative Watson. The Watson no. Representative Crawford. Representative Crawford. Representative Scott. Yeah representative Scott yes. Representative Clowney. Represent the county now. Representative Cooper. Representative Cooper yes. Represent the registrant yes representative representative yes representative Collins. Representative Collins no. Representative McCollum. Yes represent the college yes. Representative Hudson. Represented by Sen yes represent the Milligan. Represent the Millikin yes. Representative I know what. Representive Underwood no. Representative more. Representative more. Representative Duffield yes representative bill yes. Representative under. Represent under no. Representative Pearce. Representative Pearce now. Representative very. No representative very well. With nine votes five. Seven day. And three not voting the bill has failed. Members would give you what we need for Thursday so write these down Thursday we will hear house bill twelve thirty six. House bill twelve thirty six house bill thirteen fifty two. House Bill thirteen twenty seven and Senate bill one hundred so we got twelve thirty six thirteen fifty two. Thirteen twenty seven and Senate bill one hundred. I think that concludes our business thank you for your attention today and we will see you Thursday meeting adjourned.