State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

Saying no objections. Peter Wardlaw. If you want to speak for against this bill make sure that you signed up just outside the door and. Committee or somebody will pick it up and make sure you have the opportunity on the table. Does it to the table if you would just identify yourself to the committee we know you but device up for everyone else and the you're recognized president house bill nineteen the fifty seven. Thank you Mr chairman Jeff Wardlaw district eight. Senator Missy Irvin district eighteen. Subcommittee thank you Mr chairman for our call a meeting and let us here this bill. What we did yesterday was there was a group of legislators Boeser names on top of this page some of these names are legislators from LHC group where the bill was explained after the fact there's about ten of us including us Senator Irvin and some others from the Senate. I got on the phone with a few people that were involved in an Senate bill two ninety eight and had some Other interest groups involved. Right to include all the language it was possible that did not interfere with the get. with the cases that were being tried at the moment prior to January one. And basically this is the this is foster came out of that factory if you pay attention to the bill will kind of go through it real quick we get to you page three. Everything from line thirty four to page one is all the exact same of Senate bill two ninety eight when you get to there we had a definition chapter added that comes from the Montana law you guys all heard everybody discussing that yesterday it defines federal band we actually expanded that definition. Bigger than what the definition was in a Montana law because we included some tax language in that definition because we've all heard the federal government's going taxes out of the farm business so we want to make sure that that's not apple cool here in Arkansas. So then we go down to use line ten on page four we struck those referred to that they had in Senate bill two ninety eight those were the two acts from the federal government one was under sixties one was from the thirties those were basically the way game officials funded today as Pippin Roberts and money that's all the federal code on farm. Of possession. We also included in that the tax languages you see online twenty. Any tax or levy or fee or stamp imposed on farms after January one twenty twenty one so this bill is you see all the way through and get the last page on the second this bill establishes that it only affects everything from the body ministration forward Asa that was strong words because that's in fact it only affects everything from the bottom ministration forward nothing in the present nothing in the past only by administration forward so we go back and then on page five starts on the bottom of page four we get into the sovereignty part of the two ninety eight bill which was where they liberated the rights out. What we did here instead enumerating those rights because they did not numerator all the rights that were listed in article two in Arkansas state constitution we went ahead and listed article two is our reference that we we get a mall because we feel like they're all important to our Kansans and the voters and the violations for those I guess I left that part out while ago but the violations for those are that you could be subject to losing your law enforcement certification. The and the key to those that language is the ward subject to you're going to hear from some naysayers that that's watered down it's it's not our constitution lays out for every person that lives in this great country to have due process let's subject to does is ensure due process takes place before somebody is the commission and that due process is that the border standards has a look at that and they prove that they violated the subsections whether they violated the rights on the Arkansas Senate section article two or whether they violated the firearm bans going forward from January one or twenty twenty one that's what that sets up so you think about it your shares are elected and they don't have to be commissioned. So we had to have a way of actually punished and those folks so you'll see a paragraph in their. Page N. B. S. on page five line thirteen it's it's on page for as well but isn't any elected official who knowingly directs any law enforcement officer to assist the federal law enforcement agency in violation of rights because this is under the constitution part of a person as described under this subsection is convicted and guilty of a unclassified misdemeanor so we had to have a way of having punishment for them one thing we heard yesterday from the people that want this bill was there without any punishment in this bill. You would be at the Montana law and you would have nothing so we made sure to respond easement for the officer and then there was punishment for the elected officials that oversee those officers and that's the to punishment mechanisms and it's in both parts of this bill you have the punishments for the farm and then you have the punishment for violating rights because one thing we heard yesterday was they're looking for the federal government regulate church what we want to make sure and that's in article two we want to make sure that that doesn't happen in Arkansas we want to protect our people in Arkansas so we put that in there as well. So then you get down to To the last section and exceptions. And all morning we've heard everybody's pulling off the bill because of this paragraph. I wanna explain this paragraph very well. If you read this paragraph it has the words primary purpose is not and then it gives two reasons law enforcement activity related to a federal ban the investigation of a violation of a federal ban. The reason you have to have it say primary purpose and not purpose and that's the big contention at the moment I've heard from representatives on this committee this morning our system represent is not on this committee this morning. Is it any representative Tosh your law enforcement so you can you can help me with this but when you have a drug case are you have a robbery are you having any case. If there's a firearm involved those cases are elevated. If you don't have the word primary purpose here and it says purpose you will no longer be able to elevate those cases on those criminals. L. I. see representation on his head so I guess he agrees with what I'm saying so the words have to be primary purpose because it's the only way you lock up those criminals. That are selling drugs star kids there sexually abusing our kids are sexually abusing any any adult I don't wanna leave anybody out of that because it's very important we lock all those people up but firearm is used those cases are now elevated those people spend more time in jail it's it's similar to what we discussed with hate crimes that that elevates that crime if you put the word purpose in here take the war primary out you will no longer be able to elevate those crimes to those levels. So removing that word kills the ability to prosecute those criminals to the fullest extent of the law which is what I ran on when I ran for office that I would never be soft on crime so I will not amend that word out for that reason I understand the fear that they can use some bogus excuse for primary purpose I think they could always use that excuse and they will always be able to use that excuse but to make sure we protect the citizens of this great state we have to be able to prosecute every single violator if the full extent of the law and I don't want to see any criminals go free we heard yesterday on the Senate floor we watched it on the big screen that there's eight hundred some cases that have this elevation right now the law enforcement needs to test file needs to cooperate with. If you amend this word out you also lose that ability so this is a big deal and it does not water down the bill and and that's something we've heard that this is just a watered down version I think representative Tosh to tell you. That the current the decommissioning and officers not a watered down bill it is probably a stronger bill what it doesn't do it doesn't give up qualified immunity it in the previous bill when you find an individual you're criminalizing that individual which means you're given up qualified immunity for those people to be under cover for those people to be in that investigation. And that was something that we heard from law enforcement that we could not give up. So we had to come up with the way they still gave this bill teeth. Antietam off that it meant something to this law enforcement agencies across the state and the way we've done that was subject to that way those people still have to go through due process. And they get a penalty if they violate this bill or they help the feds take our guns are to help the feds violate our rights to church our rights to search and seizure our rights they're all listed in article two it's a lot of them so with that Mister chairman I'll be happy to take any questions from the committee. All questions from committee representative makes you're recognized for a question. Start things off here representative I appreciate the the work that you all have done on this last night Cody Hiland too many of us know and respect on this committee came and spoke to the Faulkner county Republicans about the problems with Senate bill two ninety eight and So I'm very thankful that we've got a clean bill that we can support that doesn't have all the problems and the potential criminals loose on our streets the one one of the concerns that thank you you brought this up maybe address this with Senate bill two ninety eight was that it was going to create a situation where it was going to allow criminals to file civil lawsuits against our police officers does this fix that or are criminals we're gonna see a flood of criminal filing lawsuits against our police officers no Sir we took that language out of like I said the only punishment language in this bill which is one of the reasons some of the. Some of the groups are not supportive of this bill because I think it's as doc used the term watered down but as you said you know what you'll have happen is they'll suit every law enforcement agency for every arrest and everything out there but what it does say in here or is that your subject to that decommissioning and then if you're elected official constable Attorney General sheriff prosecutor you're subject to that unclassified misdemeanor thank you. It further questions from committee members. Rep representative Wardlaw I agree with you when you say the wired up. The certification and and in the same sentence with law enforcement I can assure you in the law enforcement community do certification is a. It's a severe penalty usually that that is reserved for those law enforcement officers that have truly crossed over to the dark side and so just stay that language in the year was really alarming to me that it would be that severe to take someone's livelihood away from home if they were share merely is distinct of you know a federal law enforcement agency because we're expecting sometimes our law enforcement to know all things about the all situations all the time and that's that's impossible to do so I did read it understand that there is due process for the law enforcement officers as long as we provide that due process for them to have their to have their day to depend the their decision or whatever the area or what was required of them That's good because like you said what we're going to leave the size it one more time the ward decided the certification is taken away a A law enforcement officers livelihood I'm making your stripper name of everything you possibly could when you do you certify and the odds are he'll never work in law enforcement again so that's a issue extremely severe penalty for law enforcement so for anybody to say that it's not let let that would concern me because I can assure you U. S. law enforcement community and I don't know of anything you could do to whom much more than to be certified so with that said the I don't really yes I have a question in that I just want to follow up and and reiterate what you had said about the certification make sure. What I stood on that in that is that is is a beer penalty in my in my opinion so representative Gonzalez you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr president Wardlaw think part of the reason the other bill of got vetoed wasn't because the notification and that bill and I see that that's in it in this one as well and in a couple of different places right now I'm working on page four of believe line sixteen says any any law shall be electoral laws shall be considered and all aboard no effect of the state it's been said time and time again we don't have the power to nullify federal law federal law preempts state law so can you address that how how are we handling that. I understand and talk coming during the what they can't force us to cooperate in confiscation or anything like that but we can't nullify federal law right. We. We can't. But we we've been kind of told that we can go in the future so that's why if you look in the bill it refers to that as after January one of two thousand twenty one and that said in numerous paragraphs down through these. Yes sloughed outside and that said numerous times down through the bill so we've been told that he would not venit veto this bill of he did send a message this morning of the bill is still extreme but eight he said he would sign it so that's where we're at on this bill. Follow up recognized so I guess my concern is not really him veto under another bill in my of my concern would be is is is this bill even constitutional will it hold up if it's if it's challenged. We we've been told that it would but I mean that's about as far as I can to go with you we met with a lot of attorneys and went over it we stayed going over to almost eleven o'clock last night bill was sent over to be filed three times and all three times that typos are still had funds and this and that in it and get back and go back and forth so the answer to that is yes we've been told it would so that's where we're at I'm not a legal person I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer that for you but we had some that answered that for us it said yes okay thank you thank you representative Ladyman you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman. The representative Wardlaw there's other competing bills that have been filed. The. How does this bill compare to those are not the all knowing you review those bills are they different if so what's different with them the biggest differences qualified immunity and debate the biggest difference under qualified immunity is anytime you find a law enforcement officer even if you find on the calendar. That's a criminal code. And that no one believes qualified immunity. And that makes it to where you can't get a law enforcement officer to work undercover representative Tosh can probably comment to how qualified immunity protects those people out I'm not a law enforcement officer so I can't go there but I can tell you that that was the biggest sticking point. Last yesterday afternoon on all the law enforcement agencies that we conversed with was whatever you do we have to keep our qualified immunity. And that was why did the commission came out and as you are representative Tosh say that's probably the strongest thing you can act. To discourage a law enforcement officer to from violating this is decommissioning it's not a fine it's actually decommissioning that gets their attention. Follow recognized so the other bill does not have qualified immunity in the other bills that fines which Nolan void qualified immunity because as a criminal act. One more follow up recognized. If we we've got a lot of decisions to make today here and on the floor if this bill gets out goes to the floor. And we pass it what support do we have on the Senate side or do we know that I mean was this bill going anywhere. We don't know what they're gonna do have you all talked what support we have in the Senate. What center here solid are answered. Thank you you know obviously saw the debates that happen on the Senate floor so I think there's there is a desire to ensure that we have in what representative Meeks said a clean bill that. Takes Takes everything that Senator Stubblefield worked on that that fixes the issues and the problems that are very clear to me and to a lot of us in this capital on both sides of at the capitol in the house and the Senate so you know it is my intention I worked closely with one of my share of sexually came and testified for two ninety eight and and in the in the House Committee but over the weekends we discussed the big time issues and Senate bill two ninety eight and it was actually his suggestion that I filed the Montana bill which I did and so then it through discussions what we decided was the best course of action to try to get as many people on board as possible was to merge my bill which is Senate bill seven twelve which is the Montana bill with us a version of two ninety eight and so I went to work we rolled up our sleeves yesterday evening and stayed here probably till I have no idea what time I think I got home at eleven and we work hard to make sure that we combine those two approaches to the best of our ability to make sure that you had the language in there to find the right balance and I think that's the bill that you have before you is the right balance between what is considered the Montana bill which is the Senate bill twelve seven twelve that I filed at the request of the sheriff who testified for senate bill two ninety eight. Because he then understood in discussions with prosecuting attorneys the huge implications of those existing eight hundred cases and how we cannot proceed forward with two ninety eight as it is written we had to change it and replace it and fix that the qualified immunity was also a big sticking point with him as well and so for me and and I think it is for all a lot of our folks in the Senate as well but we are working hard to and make sure everybody knows of you know the process and represent Wardlaw and I have been working around the clock literally texting people at two AM and. Six eighty and five AM and so we're get we're working through that. Red recognized for a question. Okay Mister chairman president Wardlaw we talked earlier. And the. I have support what both bills were doing on the push back on the bad administration and believe we need to do it but. This bill that you have now did you get input from the chief of police o'shea ation the sheriff's association of prosecuting attorneys because the last thing we need to do is not back our law enforcement we've got the deep fund the police far on the left and then we start pushing them a with with criminals and five of penalties on the right. Who's going to be a law enforcement officer in war and I just I want to if you got in their input on this bill we did take their input we did talk to them I would say we didn't give me and a lot to share certification of the sheriff's association sticking point was we don't want any penalty period well my point back to them was if you don't want any penalty are you worried about the bill do what are you doing wrong. And their answer back to me was we're not doing anything wrong lesser with the nurse not a problem and if you don't foresee do anything wrong don't what is the issue and they said we just don't want anybody to be able to arrest us and that's why I can't work with that you've got to give me something that I can work with and there has to be teeth in our bill I totally agree with this to a groups that said that if you're on a Montana bill and there's no teeth you don't have anything I can't argue with them at all on that so we had to come up with some way to punish bad actors in this bill the last thing we want to do is have that actors were no punishment and we didn't do that here there's no wall there's no gallon water poured on this paper there are punishments in this paper for violating the rights of an Arkansas for violating the rights of the second amendment there are punishments and there has to be punishments are you don't have anything I should I wouldn't be in this table so to say I gave them what they wanted to answer that is no but to say I didn't take the things they have to have to do their job the answer is yes because I didn't take the qualified immunity I didn't give them the right to be sued as representative makes brought up I took all those things off the table and I say I was a group of the we there was no there was no I there there was no reason for me to be set at the as a war than the people in that room said Jeff you're the one going to the in the table we beg Brandt Smith to to state here that the table I added that that discussion happen he said that if he would support the bill but he didn't want to run the bill and so here I am but it was discussed it we did the best we could to be on the law enforcement side but actually take up for like a our Kansans and in this bill follow up. Recognized so so a law enforcement did have some input they had input okay thank you. Thank you representative Eugene representative paid you're recognized for a question. Represent your Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair. My question with a lot of those just answered by last statement but I will ask this. Is there any association. That's certainly going to pop up. Here once he gets out of both chambers if it gets out of both chambers and say there is problems has there been enough bedding because last time. This thing was on what eighty days to ninety eight out there for eighty days and then suddenly. All these problems so. Vetting this thing so that we don't go through all this trouble and find out that we've got to come back and try to try to fix it again. The only issue brought us today by any group is on the last page and is that primary purpose that I went through in the very beginning of my presentation. And they don't want anybody arrested for any purpose of a firearm. The problem that is is I went through all that discussion earlier was that that's the way you elevate those crimes is one of firearms used whether it's a drug crime robbery a sexual offense any of those offenses are all elevated through a drug the Rev par if you take the word primary out of this you eliminate the way for prosecution to use that elevation and we we won't get in there I mean the bill either dies or goes forward but we won't give in on the fact that we're not prosecuting people to the full extent a law so your answer is there are some groups out there and against but it's because of that word primary. Follow up Mr. The representative Richmond it's ten o'clock and the house is convening that team and we're going to take a recess from this committee so that we can be in the house when it to. When it goes into session so I'm notify the committee members what we're going to come back and Thank you come back in the committee provide now we're recessed. Committee members if you would go ahead and take your stage will get started back up. Committee members will be retiring from. We returned from recess and I believe. While ago representative Richmond you had a follow up question is that correct Sir. Okay. It back you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair and and I'll direct this question to you represent Wardlaw and and maybe so someone else who can speak can can better address that are are my concerns is still not and I understand your side on the not taking the word primary out of there but when you address that your addresses importance as far as other crimes and and I I recognize that but you. My my concern is is still that it could be used as a gateway to. To cooperate with the federal government to to. infringe upon some of the people's rights as far as right on as a secondary purpose not as a primary one so I would ask for you to address that are if not you maybe someone else's I think for five some people are going to speak for against this maybe they can address that issue force. I mean I would go back to what I said earlier I think that concern is always there it concerns there today and I was told this morning there's no not warrants that are taking place and all they find is a twenty round magazine and they take pictures with the post a newspaper like they've done something and I got ounce of marijuana so the answer that is at I think that's the case but I think what you have to do is you have to send those officers there due process to make sure they understand that we mean business and it better not be the primary purpose and we we stand on that and we elect prosecutors at IndusInd big problem in the state is prosecutors don't have elections once we elect them there for ever. And we elect prosecutors that stand with the people of Arkansas to make sure that that primary purpose is not violated. Of but with anything it can be violated and I can't sit here and tell you it won't be. The. Asians from committee members. Saying none represented Wardlaw if you would just step aside I believe we've got. Okay two people signed up to speak against the bill. That's all I have listed present everyone else in the room that will speak for against it you need to sign up but first personal call alone is your impression Gary if you would just have to sit down the table. The data by yourself to the Committee and you're recognized speak against the bill. Parvesh chair and committee and I I'd like to say I appreciate being here when you all being here but we're all tired. I do not like to testify against bills I'd rather talk to you all by individual face to face and I'm in a position now where I'm concerned one cheek of record laws and choose another one but anyway we're voicing opposition to this bill the subject to and of the questions that representative back put up about primary purpose and how that can be made manipulated and Mister like you a lot of time spent in law enforcement in the past we would manipulate anyway we could legally get by to to affect the rest of. The and I noticed that does it reference to ninety eight is not about to ninety eight. But the longer concerned with two ninety eight are manufactured for one the NO prosecutors going to file charges against an officer that is testifying against a. At dark back it's not gonna happen. what is the largest group in Arkansas on B. and Aldrick we're sure not that's the last thing we want to let criminal got closer threat to us and what we're fighting for sold for the qualified immunity and all that come into effect is going to have charges and that is not going to happen however if that enforcement mechanism and is in there. And the the fans or the state have. Went too far against the everyday citizen that is up to the public to apply pressure to that prosecutor because they are accountable to by both. so otherwise that's a non concern And but I don't know we're all trying to find a solution to a complicated problem but this bill here between the two bills and all the bills it's been filed of it's got so convoluted and everything and if we go through this bill here we might as well just saved all their for in the contention and I hate and discontent and put together a program and said we promise we're not going to do this thank you people of Arkansas and I'll take questions if you all have a I know you all want to get out here ninety two. Any questions per per year. A representative Payton you're recognized for a question thank you Mr and Mr president I really appreciate all your efforts and you being here on many occasions to fight for gun rights and second amendment liberties. That doesn't go unnoticed but I want to try to ask you to objectively look at this bill and tell me in the absence of other legislation that's been filed and ran this session. Would you have supported this bill and appreciated that milestone merits well I wouldn't of. At. I say I wouldn't it would be dependable and if I could have some leeway here on the subject to. I know I get you all know I work behind the scenes Law but it's like the bill of rights ordinances that many of y'all or get involved with that county level or subject to and I'll wrap Tosh is very thank you subject to those I will I was the instigator of that all right Scott County being from Scott County and believe it or not our judge is a Democrat he's Democrat and I approach team hello two years ago about this issue and I said this is gonna be a common problem. So we sat down along with water attorney in the law that curry's we took is consideration and I are county judge is a lot like many of you know one PM loggers Tim is a master at putting of working together and statute since all of our county judge forget also so we went down and we went through this well you've heard the issues of it being unconstitutional and the reason a lot of the county court courts and return your rainy water come out against it. But the on that Scott County ordinance call it did a lot for public perception and reality it didn't do anything because the word of seventy two was in there that we inserted and those officers are never going to be prosecuted if they violate that of. Ordinance hi amber if any officer is hired by the Scott County sheriff's department they have this I'll waivers that they signed. and that's a warning to them as for the bad ones and for the good ones they've got covers a sheriff I can't do that this is against the law. So it's not it's it's not anyway and a law enforcement is is giving good law enforcement covers now what I have found and to be perfectly clear the state troopers that I have spoken with her kind of like minded collection of brown they fully support this bill and I won't name for obvious reasons but I fully support this bill because they are scared that if something did come down they will get pressure to enforce these laws and they said we will have to walk off our job these are good officers well guess what happens your bad officer retain and we're losing good officers let's get and we're losing good officer right now Walker white and that is a huge concern. These officers need cover. Follow up. A recognized told officers you're saying need cover of the ones that you just said would fully support this bill yes okay they are warning something to cover them to say no served their balls no Sir we cannot do this this is against the law. And you think they're in support of this bill I know they are okay thanks I can't call or name for obvious reasons but. Representative love you're recognized for a question thank you Mr and I want to go that and I guess I'll continue with what representative pain Sir you stated that we we are losing good officers that night kind of explained to me because I'm I'm late in this conversation explain to me why we're losing good offices again they're getting tired all the everything is coming down almost sacked I'm I spent over twelve years in federal law enforcement already a an eighty S. side. Of I wouldn't go into it now for less money what everything is going all and and I will tell you if you talk to these officers and their families and children I will tell you that I would not recommend I'm going to law enforcement. It goes so much deeper issue that just this bill here when you go down this route is just like the sheriff's department I understand position are and they don't pay enough to. you know I've been hit run up run for sheriff Scott County why would I want to do that I mean I'm retired but upon what I want to go run for sheriff Scott County for a measly forty thousand dollar a year job twenty four hours a day seven days a week. and but what is happening that needs to be addressed at some point the sheriff's department or hiring officers they go down they get certified and they come back and work for ninety days and then their goal they're going to have paying department somewhere else yeah and that's a problem it is got to be fixed and I'm not sure how now we're at all to share sensation at all why and how to ask them to sit down and reach consensus all all this legislation in court having the public fights so far they've resisted and same with prosecutors Education same with this two ninety eight I we've asked to set down and reach consensus on this legislation and quick but we all in the position that you all are in right now all of thank you Mr chairman I will go on the record saying I do believe that we do need to raise the pay of officers because I do think the pay is too low in to my second question you and your testimony you stated that the federal government the state government call too far is that I guess in in force and rights was or. Something in your testimony assent this will this will not protect from the federal the state going too far too. In regards to somebody's rights and I wanted to go back to that part of your testimony I'm not sure exactly. Of what you're trying to ask Well when you were testifying to the bill. I think you were you were going to the protection against the law enforcement one law enforcement address right he said this this bill will not protect if the federal or the state government goes too far the you're talking about the bill the actual bill that we're hearing right now yes Sir themselves or it won't it says subject to the government will never hold themselves accountable. Okay so you can you give in and give me an example of what going too far use I'm trying to get an understanding of what you're. Of what you send this bill won't do. Well If you go back to represent backs question their government EP late at AM let's say the federal government right now all of the body and ministration I realize you're probably a Democrat but there is no. What they're wanting to do with our gun rights in the nation it does pass they're going to come in full force and trying to to the enforcement. I'm not sure if that answers your question I'm I'm trying to. I'm not trying to Dodge a question I'm just the one yes I'm just trying to get a basic understanding of of all of the payment yet update your love follows all of you I was just trying to get a basic understanding your your concept that's what I was saying I mean what I'm Democrat or Republican it really doesn't matter I'm just trying to I'm trying to get a reference from right from which will from what part you're speaking so that I can understand if you're saying that my account when I was refers representative politician and I'll thank you Rep Tosh their friend of mine and I realize numbers respect and his with Arkansas state police but he cannot deny of along with myself when I was in law enforcement I would push the issue to the Max to the affected arrest and if I could get around like subject to or whatever at that time would not disappoint my life I probably wouldn't but you know we're we're all issues with law enforcement is they're teaching ways to get around the constitution instead of protecting the constitution. And respect I mean what you're trying to. do all one hand you're destroying on the other when you start circumvent and citizens rights and I think you can relate to that. Okay our. Representative back your. Recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair of and I just want to let rate on one year answers while ago representative Payton asked a question about that he said law enforcement supports this bill and you said they did are you the state police thank you right he said that they support this bill. So I want to take a question just a little bit farther with date do they support this bill but. Because of because of the contents of this bill are today support this bill with a support another bill I should ask that helped them as far as a conflict of having his to support federal regulations so they support concept because it gives an covered teller supervisor hello out and I will tell you the in years past when I was working law enforcement there's a lot of words that I got from my superiors of national followed by a border probably destroyed my career. Thank you. Thank you representative will Ladyman you're recognized thank you Mr chairman I came in early I hope I'm not repeating questions you already gotten but. My question I came in late answer You know my dad was a policeman and I was a mayor work with police departments and you know our law enforcement officers need to have a clear identified way to enforce every law yeah that's the object with so. Do you think this bill gives our law enforcement officers clear understanding of what they're being asked to do is unclear covers are that Hey yeah it is for violating their all those everybody is of the mindset that's the job of the court or if it's the job of the court why do each of us and I would I have many times for mild to uphold and defend the constitution. So it's up to each individual two of. It's our job to do that and these officers at least have a basic understanding of what our constitution is what is and what isn't and that this wording gives them cover your site now we're not going to go do this on the problem calls or we're going we're not going to give some cover. Questions from committee members. J. none about Pepperidge Richmond. Thank you Mr are trying to make the short. When you say give cover you're saying that the bill house bill nineteen fifty seven gives cover to law enforcement is that what you mean of. Somewhat but not as much as it needs to. It's a suggestion. Okay thank you thank you Mr thank you would you would you agree here that. The certification is a very very severe reserve but severe punishment for law enforcement officers going to talk about taken away their livelihoods so I don't think we can ever make and I know you would probably agree with me make light of the fact that that's in the bill well and that that the laws are provided due process but they still face that possibility of would you agree or well would you comment on that I'd be happy to ripped Tosh I think it takes too far to be honest with you. I think it's too severe now because there's going to be officers make mistakes honest mistakes a national reason we told the sanity and we don't care what the enforcement mechanism is we don't care if it's twenty five dollars or whatever just lawyers and enforcement mechanism and their but if you go to the the dirt the certification route and you made mistakes in your career I've made mistakes in mind we're all human and Those officers should be thrown under the bus for making a mistake now if it's a what we're looking for a page design and or malicious that's a different story I don't see any officer not pulled the previous year that are reserved for. he tried to get me to come on board as of now I'm done with that I'm retired usable for you come on the reserve I said and I considered it I said yes I will. But I said here's the deal as long as you if you make mistakes trying to do right we have no problem but I city if you're done actions that are not right I said I will do everything in my power to burn. And he said we'll I have no problem. So I don't see good officers owner of the bus actually what we're trying to do is protect them. And I hope you all can understand. Thank you Mr president I appreciate your testimony is in the public relations from committee we've got one of the person signed up to speak against the bill Ballinger grain. Dallas green. Yes Mr grain left In room no one else is signed up to speak Against the bill representative Wardlaw Pete have seat back to the table pleasure. Wardlaw you're recognized closing your bill thank you Mr chairman. Couple things kind of funny to me listening to Mr Simpson's testimony they were come first line by line on this whole bill yesterday his group was one of the things they had in their original bill into ninety eight was the commission of law enforcement officers. They had no due process and that bill it was just a straight the commission so him to sit here and say that's too strong that's too far that's not what he had he had it straight the commission right off the bat no due process. Strong is not constitutional one of the reasons were set here today and we're having to fix this bill was because those words not being correct you have to have due process we're all afforded due process under the constitution of the United States and the state of Arkansas that's all that subject to does give you due process. We got it takes a few minutes ago from share sociais Asian there now support of our bill and do not oppose This bill does give the cover that is needed for our law enforcement officers not to enforce any federal bans or taxes levied by this administration or any administration going forward that's what we're asked to do our constituents the reason we all got thousands of emails and hundreds of techs in the last two days override a veto to ninety eight because our constituents are scared to death because of the campaign we just lived there a year ago they're gonna come after the one thing we hold dear and true here in Arkansas and that is our guns there's nothing I care about more other than my family god and Jesus that my guns. Hi at three gun safes my house Lempel of my trucks outside the parking lot with windows probably busted in because it's full of them to. I mean it's one thing that is very important to me I've run three bills this session two bills this session has filed three but run to bills this session already that are set on the governor's desk that expand our rights to carry firearms something not very much believe in this bill make sure that believe gets to live on for the future of this state this bill ensures federal government can't come into taxes out of it they can't take away. And we can have a law enforcement in our state county or city governments that cooperate to achieve those goals that's what this bill does it also ensures that our rights in our constitution or not taking away as well ensures we go to church we want to go to church we together we want together we can keep our search and seizure not cars we want to this bill does all that the same way to ninety eight does it but it does it in a constitutional way with that Mister chairman I'd ask for good vote and I would ask for motion do pass representative Wardlaw has close with the bill he's also made a motion for a do pass should join the discussion on the motion. So none all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Regulations a bill is passed. Members are. That's in committee. That some of you didn't pick up yesterday so if you didn't get chairs combined say Maddie pick up prepared our this meeting is adjourned.