Judiciary Committee- House

Until about five o'clock this afternoon at the bills don't get heard by then they'll come over to the thirsty agenda and they'll be the first bills up on Thursday also those members who are here in writing bills today. If you'll just come to the table by yourself and if the Senate if the members of the committee have any questions and you have somebody who might be able to answer those questions will go through the for and against sheet and use that that should speed up things just a little bit first bill we're gonna take up today's house bill thirteen eighty six representative Gonzalez you're recognized to present your bill. Good morning Senator Ballinger. German you're recognized to present house bill thirteen eighty six and members the next bill down Senate bill fifty nine I believe is the companion bill to this bill not that they'll be presenting them at the same time that I'm guessing what you hear on the first one you will be hearing basically on the second one representative Gonzalez you're recognized thank you madam chair. Move's log into this if this bill all the. Committee all have of we've already presented this bill once and it ended up failing on a roll call vote so we're here to hear try that again. maybe we can get this pass yeah I'm a manager I did have an amendment on this bill that we presented last time you we still have the. I believe it's engrossed but let us check because we don't have the extra minute up here. I'm sure I I pulled the bill off from online and it didn't have the amendment in it so. It's it's it's not engrossed. On I just pulled up off the agenda and it's not that's a concurrence. We don't it's not up here we're we'll try to see if we can find if they did not send it over. Well I'm in. Without that amendment can can we. Just hang on just a minute okay let me get it. Ballinger I'm I'm OK with moving on to Senate bill fifty nine of the committee is what we wait on that amendment. I recognize you to run Senate bill fifty nine while we wait on the amendment to get over here thank you senator fifty nine work with the representative Gonzalez is the is the house sponsor working together and actually Senate bill fifty nine is is the other half of the second amendment liberty safeguard act that was filed in two thousand thirteen which cause didn't make it out of the house Judiciary so it didn't go any further than that but there's two parts of the bill that we split it into into two separate bills Senate bill fifty nine is the part of the bill that deals with intrastate commerce in firearms so that's a firearm that's manufactured stays in state there's some limitation restrictions on it but essentially it's it'll be regulated under under state law it also relies on the same language as House Bill thirteen eighty six where it it is it is the anti commandeering doctrine that makes words constitutional so this wouldn't prohibit ATF from from coming into the state and enforcing federal laws but what I would do is make it from the state level we're not going to apply state resources to enforce federal laws when it comes to firearms are manufactured in state happy to answer any questions about that. Members are there any questions. A no questions. We have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill Senator Ballinger you're recognized close for your bill hi I'm close for the bill and do a would appreciate a good vote and the motion. Member center Ballinger has closed for Senate bill fifty nine what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you venture. Representative Gonzalez we're going to have to call the drafter on your. Amendment we haven't beat he's not answering so we're gonna try to see if we can find it another way members are there any objections to letting representative Gonzalez come back here in just another bill or two after we get the amendment. Seeing no objections represent Gonzalez who hung around for just a little bit will get your amendment up here. Member committee. Let's turn to Senate bill two ninety eight Senator Stubblefield. Senator Stubblefield you're recognized to present your bill members this is Senate bill two ninety eight. Thank you madam chair thank you committee I appreciate you a. Moving us up a little bit this I'll try to make this as short as possible because I know you've got a long agenda I looked at it and uh this is one time I wouldn't be able to be on house judiciary I said on Senate judiciary but thank you for your time indulgence this morning of Senate bill two ninety eight is of is really of it's not that complex a bill is real simple you've heard a lot of this bill before the only difference is that we amended out some of the certification problems that the state police had so we took those out Senate bill two ninety eight really just reaffirms the sovereignty that is granted to us the state of Arkansas under the tenth amendment as part of the bill of rights most of you know the bill of rights was ratified on December the fifteenth seventeen ninety one. What most to you are some of you may not know is without and most callers agree without the tenth amendment there just might not have been a constitution because it was considered by the members of the several states to be a prerequisite before they would even ratify the constitution they were not willing to relinquish their sovereignty to one centralized government they knew too well it's a seven hundred year history of living under a monarchy and they were not willing to return to that form of government. They also know you nature and they knew all too well that if they ever gave complete power to one central government ensured that government. Ever take a single step beyond the boundaries that were specifically drawn for it that it would take possession of a balance bill power that would no longer be susceptible to any definition. Then how do we get where we are today a lot of people ask me that fact an older gentleman asked me this weekend just how did we get to where we are today well the founders knew this might happen and they said because of the inattentiveness of the citizens and the representatives over a long period of time it would slowly allow the encroachment of an all powerful government to move in Senate bill two ninety eight is not only about protecting our state sovereignty in state rights but it's also about protecting our god given rights. Forty two James Madison the primary job of our state legislatures was to be the guardian of the people's liberty against federal encroachment that you and I. This is the greatest hope you said to save the sovereignty of our state. You're not a representative in the declaration of independence it said very plainly to secure these rights talking about the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness our god given rights not granted to us by any government or man but by our creator that governments will put in place. No government should ever be able to and friend to regulate or put qualifications on any of these god given rights. That's number one responsibility we have as people's representative who are to protect the inalienable rights of our citizens. This bill also Senate bill two ninety eight also includes a section that would prohibit state and local agencies and their employers from enforcing federal laws that infringe on other enumerated rights of the Arkansas state constitution that state of the state of Arkansas can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control and that refusal rests on a well established legal principle the Senator Ballinger just mentioned known as the anti commandeered during document that has been upheld in five Supreme Court cases simply put the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal active program. The cornerstone of those spring court cases was prince versus US. And the latest one was back in nineteen ninety seven. Having said that I would be glad to take any questions that's the basis of the bill. Representative call you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair Senator Stubblefield doesn't doesn't this put our law enforcement officers in a really awkward position. Representing collaborative with. Protect our law enforcement officers because I've talked to many of them and what they tell me is they do not want to be put in a position where they have to enact an unconstitutional directives of executive order our law coming down from the federal government upon their own citizens they do not want to be a part of that. So and I don't think a lot of would be that this law would protect them from having to do that in making sure they have the legal authority to stand up against any unconstitutional directives executive orders our constitutional laws. follow up please madam chair you're recognized for a follow up thank you and who makes the decision about whether the what's and Constitutional. This bill. This bill is what makes in constitutional. Representative Hudson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and I want to kind of pick up where representative McCall left off I know you say this bill determines it but there has to be some ultimate arbiter of whether or not a directive regulation or law from the feds is constitutional or not in this doesn't provide any sort of procedure so the concern would be of indivisible sheriff's departments are making these decisions are going to have an uneven application of the a determination as to whether or not a particular law is constitutional or not so how do you square that with the fact that there's no procedure in this bill well there is a procedure in this bill the General Assembly you and I whenever something comes down that we detected by being on constitution we also have an attorney general. And we applaud you see law enforcement agencies and courts throughout the state it all can determine whether or not any of these orders that come from Washington infringe upon our constitutional rights those are those are really pretty simple of even though they're not directly laid out those are the things I was with the Avenues at this that they would have to go through to make sure that these laws were unconstitutional and it shouldn't be very easy because this bill lays out in our constitution lays out the federal government is in you you will notice representative has to the federal government was gave given. Under the constitution just a few flowers. Of the power war piece of printing money. In a small amount of interstate commerce other than that that was it so when someone makes a comment. That under the supremacy clause the United States government is also operating that's absolutely false that the federal government is only Supreme when it when it a deals within the powers it has been given that are pursuant to the constitution in other words anything outside of those limited delegated powers we've given to the federal government there I constitutional all those other powers were granted to the states. Follow manager. You're recognized for a follow up so let me give you an example sheriff in Northwest Arkansas decides that he will no longer pick up illegal immigrants under the two eighty seven G. federal program because he declares that it is a violation of their due process. Are they allowed to do that under this bill okay allowed to pick up the legal limit M. ops ought not to. Will limit let me answer that by saying this. Marijuana laws are still illegal under federal law. So if the fed wants to come in and shut down all of our marijuana shops and shut down our tire marijuana business they could do that under federal law and yet even though Arkansas has passed a law saying they can't do that. So would work the same way with immigration law at quick follow up madam chair. You're recognized for another in I don't think that answers the question I appreciate that what I'm saying is are you telling me that very sheriff's departments can have different immigration policies if the sheriff's department in Washington County says we're not gonna obey two eighty seven G.. But a sheriff's department Pulaski County says we are so are we going to run into a situation with these hypothetical I gave not marijuana with the hypothetical I gave in which some sheriffs are cooperating with federal authorities to pick up illegal immigrants and some sheriffs are not because of two different interpretations of whether or not this bill allows them to ignore a federal direct. Just on immigration. We would follow the Arkansas law we would follow the Arkansas constitution. Thank you manager. Members any other questions. I see no other questions we have several people who signed up to speak we have Mister Chris Brown who signed up to speak for the bill Mr brown. Your come forward. You'll identify yourself just press that button right there in front of you define yourself and will recognize. Good morning my name's Chris Brown on the sheriff in Cleburne county as to counties north here and brought some notes with me this morning more to keep me on track so that I don't want to because I know you'll have a busy day ahead of you. I am a I'm here to testify in support of this bill and I'm here to encourage you to do the same are to vote for the bill I want to share with you for just just a couple of minutes why I support this bill why I think you should as well we had a Senator Ballinger mention of that at the introduction of the bill. Our founding fathers were very intelligent and when they set up our government with the set up the bases that would become our country you can look back on it if you if you study history or or anything like that and really see the genius and how they set all this up. And I'm in in our declaration and made the statement that that is often overlooked they talk about our life and liberty and pursuit of happiness but often that second phrase behind that is the one that gets ignored or left out and that phrase is that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. And. Really what what that tells me and and should tell all of us in government that our primary purpose are primary existence is to protect the rights and liberties of the people that we serve and this is my personal opinion of my personal opinion is that that means that every bill that is up for consideration whether it be at a local level or state or federal level should be first viewed in the context of is this constitutional but how it does this protect the rights and liberties of the people that we serve. And I'll tell you that's why I'm very excited to be here this morning to talk about this because I think that this bill does exactly that but it helps to protect the liberties of the people that we serve directly. if the if if you remember back to the beginning of twenty twenty there was a lot of controversy over a county is trying to step up and pass ordinances or resolutions that would declare themselves Bill of Rights sanctuaries or second amendment sanctuaries and really the controversy was over whether the counties have the authority to do this whether they have the authority to enforce it and and really regardless of whether you think they do or they don't I think what we can agree on is that the state absolutely has the authority to do this as the sovereign entity and it again my personal opinion I think this state not only has the authority to do but I have think that the state has the responsibility to pass laws like this when they can see impending over it from the federal government with the with the amount of counties and citizens that stood up and and pushed for things like this for ordinances like this I think it was it's pretty clear to see that our counties and many of our citizens are very very concerned about a federal government that could be out of control. and so I want to talk for just a second about the oath that we take as as police officers and as elected officials I've been a police officer for thirteen years I've been elected sheriff after four years in Cleburne County in the oath that I take is to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Arkansas. and that's an oath I take very seriously but notice that. What is not part of that both is the oath to enforce specific laws and really that is because if there is a law that is in clear contradiction with the US constitution or the Arkansas constitution in order to enforce it we would hear only violate the rest of our oath. it is a. It is what I believe is our most important job as government officials elected officials and police officers is to make sure that whatever we do we do in the scope of protecting the rights and liberties of the citizens that we serve I have talked to to several other sheriffs and the sheriff Staley from on a county is here with me today and feels the same about this but we are very excited about the bill we don't think it's a necessarily a perfect bill but we think it's a very very good bill we're very happy to support it and we would urges to pass it in and send it to the governor. Thank you sure friend we be willing to take the question yes ma'am represent flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. sure I I. Just listen to what you're your your position is and. I understand I understand what you're trying to say in support of the bill what I'm I'm clear about is how we can. Council law that basically says to a law enforcement officer. And that they don't have to enforce certain laws. Certain federal laws. And at the same time I guess take the responsibility of interpreting what that is isn't that the role of the courts rather than enforcement you know doesn't that sort of create. A conflict. In the in the Doesn't that create a conflict in terms of the constitution itself in terms of separation of powers. All that creates a conflict necessarily and and I think this kind of goes back to what represented Hudson was asking a little bit ago and that is is really how does how does enforcement decide to enforce laws or like you said what is what is on its face constitutional or unconstitutional and certainly the courts are or the the last person or the last piece that gets to decide that what I would say is that is that we as police officers make that decision on literally every interaction that we have through a process called discretion and so that's that's why if you go to one city one city may enforce speeding a much more heavily than another city or stop sign violations or anything like that police officers have since the beginning of of policing back in Boston chosen to enforce or not to enforce certain laws in this this simply reaffirms police officers ability to do that. Thank you madam chair. How represent college you're recognized for a question. We are really have the same question the representative flowers it but based on your answer I just want to kind of ask you a little bit more about that so you talked about discretion and enforcement and those are enforcement tools but determine the constitutionality of something is different from that it's not the same as enforcement its interpretation of the law and that is actually reserve for the judicial branch so I'm just curious I mean if you've got a federal court that rules that it is constitutional and you've got you who believes it's unconstitutional you're saying that you would not enforce that law at all because you believe it's unconstitutional just tell me about that process sure I mean I think. If if you look back through history where Tierney starts as in the courts. and that's been proven all the way back to even if the red at the at the very beginning of of when a lot of the started and and so I think you know I mean it may it may send me to jail at the end of it I'm okay with that but I have to stand strong on my convictions and I have to stand strong on the oath that I took Discretion is a large part of that but you're right the courts do have the state to to determine that at the end. Represent Ferguson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. To ensure quick question. Some question as my. So my law enforcement people in pine bluff and Jefferson County hi this is this bill. Help you fight crime. I don't know that it does necessarily help us fight crime but again I go back to my my previous statement that as as police officers as as the oath that we taken as government officials our first responsibility is to protect the rights and liberties of the people that we serve. Part of how we do that is by fighting crime. Okay D. D. one follow up madam chair so you're recognized when I ask you how does this help you fight crime. The. You don't know that it helps you but with but you're talking about what your convictions are. So. But it doesn't hurt you nor does it prevent you from fighting crime I guess that's my question how does this bill actually help you and other law enforcement officers Fite the criminal element they will face in today's society in the state of Arkansas. I think it's a very good question the the. The way that I look in and read this bill what this actually does is put the the state's backing behind a law enforcement officials to stand up when a government one federal government over reaches in and to answer in an earlier question I apologize remember who asked it what local law enforcement state and and local law enforcement does not enforce federal law and and so what this bill does is is simply say that the state can't assist in our state as state or local agents can't assist in the enforcement of those specific laws so it doesn't doesn't hurt us in any way from from enforcing anything it simply gives us a place to stand on going forward if if there's something that that that this bill it deems to be on its face unconstitutional. One question madam chair and I recognized so is it. Would I be accurate in saying that this bill gives law enforcement the opportunity to determine. Base if it's a federal crime that you feel this for region and that you shouldn't be involved in it gives you the opportunity not to enforce that. But to enforce go state cracked and we get gives you the opportunity to decide I guess we would absolutely still be able to enforce in any state law that's on that's on the book this this simply prohibits us from from assisting in federal agencies for those of those laws that are listed in a way that I understand yes. Thank you and you. Represent a slight you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair sheriff brown will of we're discussing your oath you give an oath to the constitution United States Constitutional state our Arkansas support and three and and opposed the laws of Arkansas during these if these are deemed unconstitutional by of with this is to provide you also with support about defending individuals constitutional rights is that correct yes Sir okay thank you madam chair. Representative flowers you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair sure from earlier that you were speaking you were answering a question and you mentioned are reckoned representative Collins question. And you mentioned something about tyranny starting in the courts. Do you believe that this law is necessary to prevent terror any do you believe chair any is occurring at I mean when you mention that it just sort of struck me and I was just wondering. I don't know that we have reached all the way there yet and I hope that we never do as a country I think that this is a fantastic measure at the state level because this this is the state's fight should be the state's fight not the counties nothing is a fantastic measure to just help ensure that it never does come to that. Follow up madam chair you're recognized for a follow up with it and I'm not trying to quiz I'm just trying to get your thoughts on what that is like what is tyranny to you what does that look like. Well Tierney to me I think any time the federal government chooses or even the state government chooses to to step into a place that restricts a person's individual liberties. Thank you madam chair. We have no other questions share thank you for being here today our next individual who signed up to speak for the bill is Mr Loggains. Tim low. Are you good. Okay. The next individual we have signed up to speak for the bill. Looks like Manfred I can't read the first name but. The sell or buy C.. Chris maybe. It may be mispronouncing that name but it looks like B. O. U. S. E. wire S. C. L.. The next individual we have signed up The Dallas green Mr green. With that we have no other individuals who signed up to speak for against the bill Senator Stubblefield you're recognized close for your bill. I'm sure up representative Smith pulled thank. Thank you madam chair nice clothes for the bill thank you madam chair thank you colleagues for hearing Senate bill two ninety eight. The house bill fourteen thirty five. Was. A bill that was similar to this one I did amend out everything that Senator Stubblefield amended and his two ninety eight so what you have is really an amended bill to what you heard a couple of weeks ago and You've heard some testimony today and I would ask for a do pass motion motion on this bill. Are you making the do pass motion are you asking for one I'm making a do pass members we have a do pass motion on the floor is there any discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye aye All opposed say no. The ayes have it motion carries. Thank you colleagues. Representative Gonzalez will come back to your amendment has come. Members the amendment only pet is being passed out to you. Right members I believe we have the amendment front of this represent Gonzales you're recognized to present your amendment. The merger committee this is the same amendment the Joe graciously adopted for me the last time I tried to run this bill it gets the attorney general's office to neutral on it says instead of. They set a standard they shall represent the individual says the intervention under this section shall be for the sole purpose of defending the. Propriety of the laws of the state of Arkansas so with that they are they're neutral on this I would a creative field adopt the amendment. Members are there any questions on the amendment. I have a motion to adopt the amendment I have a motion to adopt the amendment is there any further discussion seeing no discussion all in favor adoption amendments say aye All opposed say no us have it The Amendment has been adopted you're now we're recognized to present your bill as adopted ready manager Committee this bill same same bill we've we've heard before and and presented before I'll save you a whole lot of time you want to do and. Take a motion to pass if you give me one. Or I'll take questions of a whatever every owner it. I see no questions and I see no one has signed up to speak for against the bill. Representative Gonzalez have you close for your bill yes representative Gonzalez's close first bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass as amended. We have a motion to do pass as amended is there any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have a motion. We have a roll call. Brent. Representive Underwood. Yes representative McCullough. No representative Hudson. No representative Collins No representative Richardson represent at No representative Cooper. Yes net representative Clowney. No representative Slape. Yes representative Scott. No representative Crawford. Yes representative very. Yes representative Gazaway. Yes representative Cavenaugh. Yes representive Richmond yes representative Nicks. No representative flowers No representative Ferguson. Representive Smith. Yes. The passes congratulations you've passed your bill as amended. Thank you enter. Represent a slight you're recognized to present house bill seventeen ninety two. Represents like you're recognized members bill seventeen ninety two thank you madam chair my us Moscow sponsored come table with me please represent Collins sure thank you. Colleagues I don't know if it's because of the. Represent Collins is the being with me on two committees that he seems to be getting a lot wiser because he joined this bill with me so then hopefully this'll stop roll call also but. Any help this this is one thing for the defendants and for law enforcement on the fine collection of a lot of times been incarcerated again and if they are a in the ETC and they have funds and counties or other places then the sheriff has to go down pick up the inmate taking back up to the courts cordial here that he's is and president at the time and to take him back and makes exceptions but we have to bring them up in in person to see the judge at that time why he is in arrears on his funds this bill will help take care part of that in and up will help take care of all of it if would I'd like a representative call instead putting his two cents. Sure well I appreciate representative Slape Anna and a large number of people who've been involved in this we've been trying to find ways to make sure that fine collection is done in a reasonable and equitable way and that we are getting to the outcomes that I think we want which is enforcement and safety without making it overly. Unitive when people are or trying to be out and and a part of society so I mean this is a good step forward that will help us get to a more equitable results and I it in an essay for result as well. Members are there any questions. I no questions we do have an individual is signed up to speak for the bill Mr Whitmore mark with more. Mark what more. With that we have no one else who signed up to speak represent a slight you're recognized to close for your bill thank you madam chair yes at this point I am close then move do pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no congradulations gentleman you've passed your bill thank you mayor. Representative clan you're recognized president house bill eighteen twenty nine. Members were still waiting for an amendment on that bill. BLR so with that we'll go to representative Richardson House Bill sixteen eighteen. Members if you'll turn to House Bill sixteen eighteen representative Richard Richardson you're recognized coming present your bill. Morning colleagues Jay Richardson District seventy eight. House Bill sixteen eighteen I brought to you guys few weeks ago and it failed to get out of out of committee of the made some adjustments to it and bring it back to you today. Before I get into that of. I want to acknowledge why this bill is important You know we just heard. Sheriff speak about of for going with the national government says or and and doing what is done in the state. This bill is protecting poor people. Poor people they get caught up in cash bill. Not just. By race these are our Kansans people that we all represent who have trouble who make bad decisions and then and stuck in a cycle of paying cash bill because they can't pay it they end up in jail they stay in jail until they can pay it then they lose their job they use they lose their homes all these things as a result of this. Sixteen eighteen is a bill to remove cash bill misdemeanors and and today you're going to hear of the sheriff's association you gonna hear the prosecuting attorneys all of these guys are against this bill. And I understand why they are I don't agree with it but I understand and I respect them for what they've shared with me. But we've gone back in I removed the rebuttable presumption that was initially in the bill thanks to of some good feedback from Mister Gazaway who who really gave me some good insight on how to view this of and in a and I'm and I'm sure wouldn't able to get quite to a point to where he was completely comfortable but he did provide some very very good insight. Of. So that's done we remove the rebuttable presumption and we've also added as one of the excluding misdemeanors being one of negligent homicide what which wasn't there before so that's been added you know in the past or in our in my last run with this bill there was some questions about some of the data that was available in this out there and I've got data from three or four different pieces or or in the from the very Institute from appeal and from box in each one of these have built into something specific of. The very institute says that it and using of New York City and says the New York City consistently has had the lowest jail incarceration rate of any major US city as a result of the local changes in bill practices that have been enacted. The appeal. Is that the percentage of failure to appear. resulting from defendants absconding is exceedingly low. And this is by the Syracuse University law. law professor Loren gold in which is the author of the twenty eighteen law review article the largest study. On court appearances today conducted by the bureau justice between nineteen nineteen two thousand four in forty of the seventy five largest US counties found that more than three quarters of the defendant showed up for all of their court dates. All of the court dates. So that's the that's the that's a relatively high percentage and and and what I know that law enforcement is worried about is use is people not showing up because they don't have cash bill attached to. and I understand that but if we follow our constitution cash bill should be the last option unfortunately and today is the first option is not the last. I could go on but I'll stop right there and take any questions about sixteen eighteen. Members are there any questions represent the slate you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. Representative Richardson in Alaska. In twenty nineteen at a senator in Montana when we were looking at the sum what was going on so the jails and bill had said they went from away from the bulk cash bail it didn't take him very long to lay repealed that because of the crime rate went way up in Utah if they'd put it in and twenty twenty and in six months they repealed it because of the the crime rate went up in is having the same instance in Harris County in Texas in the in twenty twenty in New York now is those thank you about getting away or repeal in there no cash but will they seems to be an up tick when this happens do you see that I would I would first want to. I verify the data that you said not verify that it's correct but ask the question of. Where those individuals where they removed from cash bill from felonies and misdemeanors because this bill only removed from misdemeanors and I am aware that it has been removed for felonies that's not what I'm advocating for of mine is misdemeanors and do I know about what you said. I know about New York and I've heard there's conversation about it but I'm not seeing anything that says they've they've moved forward with that. Full of manager you're recognized follow up of of Alaska and Utah do know for sure and understand in Harris County but. The. In your classifications misdemeanors. Does this include domestic battery. I don't think domestic batteries on their left bill so I didn't look at it I apologize okay how about the negligent homicide is included it is excluded okay. I thank you madam chair. Represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Representative Richard I guess. You know things that people may do when they're out on bail they're not convicted yet at this point right I mean right so. It means we don't want necessarily I mean I understand someone who's accused of a crime might do something when they're out in society but we can't just lock everybody up just because they've been accused of a crime is this a fair understanding intelligence there okay thanks thank you. Represent closure recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair of represent Richardson. just to be clear this would Allow those convicted on not convicted but accused of a misdemeanor to be released on their own recognizance and return to court without paying any money correct but follow up manager you're recognized but it would not. prohibit the courts if someone doesn't show up from Extending any fines or warrant or anything if they didn't comply and didn't show up right that that is correct actually think there's a another bill coming out that is going to try to remove driving privileges a driver's license for those that don't appear in court so yeah that they still have that ability to do that thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we do have some individuals who have signed up to speak for against the bill first person is Melanie Martin to speak against the bill. You're from four to defy yourself the record you may begin. You where I was comfortable forty. One. Madam chair members of the committee I'm Melanie Martin and I am little rock District Court judge criminal division and I took the bench on January first twenty nineteen after having some twenty seven twenty eight years of history in the criminal justice system. I'm elected from an urban area I do realize that we have some. Six thousand or so defendant's come through the court each year say will probably two thirds of those are misdemeanors my court does have jurisdiction as other district courts first parents of first appearances setting of bonds and also taking up other matters and I know there's been quite a discussion on this bill already I wanna make my focus hereby make. To the amended bill I'm as we know of course the Arkansas rules of criminal procedure running through rules eighty nine allow for citations and reconnaissance and also a judge to make. Independent an individual decisions on defendants who are arrested the amended bill here and and one thing that they did jump out I mean I know that that there were certain enumerated offenses they're listed but there are many that we left out. That would require necessitated judicial appearance before a judge and if I may mention those not not listed here harassment harassing communications misdemeanors a misdemeanor assault against family or household members. Need a judicial appearance. Certain criminal mischief offenses criminal trespass stalking. Is not listed in this mandible violations of orders of protection violations of no contact order are also not enumerated there and and I do want to point out what's the difference here will these do and should require mandatory appearance because when a defendant is arrested there are certain conditions that might must be abatements be advised by the court as well as the defendant being there in certain parties the conditions include no contact orders when a person is arrested on certain certain offenses also the defendant should be advised that that there is a prohibition of wrongful acts your what person is on bond and such in courtroom appearances allow a judicial officer a judge to make individual determinations looking at the factors in the criminal code. another area that I that I saw here lease on citation forms on its maybe but not not as important the bill didn't even list that requires a date of birth from a defendant which is how dependents are tracked and there's no distinction here between felonies and misdemeanors so sometimes you may have felony charges along with misdemeanors this bill does not point out that there would not be citations in other words how does that mixture work out between felonies and misdemeanors another area this bill there at the end the compelling circumstances I didn't see that anywhere else in this amended bill but one thing that did jump out at me was two years of looking at two years of failure to appears well I'm and I'm. Going into this a little bit deeper let's say defendant has been incarcerated for five years. There would be a true history of failing to peers there is it's important for a judge to take into account all these factors including of course that a monetary bond should be a last resort people should never have to buy their way out of freedom. It also one of the circumstances that a judge may must take into effect is the nature of the crime. And the likelihood of the conviction. And also how this nature of the crime would affect a defendant returning back to court. The compelling circumstances here along with the failure to peers also the person presents an imminent identifiable identifiable threat to a specific person Another thing I do want to point out a person is arrested at three o'clock in the morning two o'clock in the morning sometime in the last day that certain relevant information is not available to share in the jail the sheriff who would make a citation decision won't Happer half full histories of a sheriff for the jail ranking officer on duty may not have information even as to the arrest affidavits in other words the nature of the charges if the warnings to be served. I know that you are familiar with pre trial releases on felonies and the fact felonies must be filed within sixty days present role eight point six and moving on to discuss bill bonds and I'm talking that surely bond here. You know. If an an ideal world everybody would come to court welcome back to court right but we don't live in a perfect world. We have not appearances we have certain misdemeanor offenses that should and do require the judicial parents and a prompt appearance within forty eight hours. On certain misdemeanor mean misdemeanor offenses these people would be saying the judge the courts do not have resources to send personnel to locate bring to court or into custody every defendant who fails to appear. Especially when you're dealing with citations. and this is the reason the bondsmen are necessary and vital to this process again money should be a last resort no one should ever have to buy their way out of freedom but there are factors in place according to rules of criminal procedure that guides the court courts and also also the majority of our misdemeanors are already cited. They're released. But not all the way across the board. And I'll be glad to take any questions. Members are there any questions for judge Martin. Seeing no questions thank you judge Martin for your testimony today. Next we will recognize John Dolly Stelling. I was close come Monday I'm. I action or. Your field recognized if you'll. State your name and then you may make your stay. Thank you that it is kind of counterintuitive if it's red it's on. Okay. Lonoke county sheriff John Staley. You're recognized to present testimony of talking historischen just a little bit yesterday for text I've just reiterate what the judge said and a majority of our misdemeanor already sided out but. This doesn't cover enough and it is in conflict with rules criminal procedures She went over all that really well. I don't know what else I could add to that point other than there's some. Instances. Where you have to rest my somebody has a so they're probably in talks their drunken public disorderly Mr Robert window offrir misdemeanors. You may have to hold them in jail right now. We usually do that and release of the citation later but some of those it's a perpetual incident where they don't go back of the court we don't have that information time if they bond out. We have a resource to go find them and bring them back to court I know felonies are a major concern but. What we're over run right now with the with issues we've got this pandemic where we've released people citations those numbers are not readily available yet because we haven't calculated them we're still catching up COS come to court and we're if they were bonded the bonds would actually appear in court there's a two point five percent rate of return of well two point five percent of people fail to appear when our bonded the rates a little higher what about higher through this pandemic I know this is this is a crazy year but our goals are to. Not least the poor but some folks are committee misdemeanors they're gonna have to be held accountable to come back to court because they're just not showing back up. And I I get more numbers later but like I said we're still calculate or last this last year than crazy your law enforcement agencies are are out working hard. You got battery said I'm. It just limits us to what we can do. Members are there any questions of the share. Represent a slight you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Sir sure Stokely this of. Without the bond in the warrants issued for failure to appear. It will be up on the burden bill upon the shares to fund individual or and bring to court that times are correct that is correct and and my. Where there is once a I know it says something about that appears that failed to appear once a misdemeanor as well the way I understand would be in a perpetual until we get the judge to issue a bond that felt appears a misdemeanor would write a ticket for that one so I'm out. I don't know where that would end and I'm sure there is an end in the in the work there. But that's also misdemeanor is a bill to appear so would still be in that same situation siding out without a ball I don't to be available on business because like I said there percentages a lot better than ours I have a stack works right now and Tax to get the number but it's it's around eight hundred warrants and over a majority of those in our once we have for misdemeanors are built appears. That's why they get a warrant for misdemeanor. Follow up manager you're recognized for a follow up of those eight hundred of its out of how many were on a cash bail. Our. Those misdemeanors yes Sir none of those were on cash bail or the bonds were brought in a court and I I say unless estimated would have to go through and see which ones are which but summer new misdemeanor is that the. Didn't get but will get a warrant for there's an affidavit for. but. Hello majority of those are fail to appear. Thank you sure thank you manager. Represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I understand you know the desire to to outsource to the bail bond industry and you know it's obviously if you don't have to pay and if it's the accused who has to pay and the industry gets their money that's kind of a process that doesn't so much involved else funds but have you ever looked into and if you have to tell me about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of some of these things that have been done in other jurisdictions like taxing defendant's at reading it out Texan people to remind them to show up to court those are very low cost I mean they're done. Detainees and have pretty high rates of of effectiveness in other jurisdictions and if you've done just tell us about your experience at our look at what you're talking about but most of your agencies we only live on pennies so those pennies are a lot more expensive to the agency's whatever's that person who is self accountable they're the ones who. Did. Accuse what they've done they've yet been given paperwork and I'll tell you what most of their phone numbers don't work we we do we follow up we'll call until a it's not a. Program where you just automatically do it we take that weren't gonna servant will call on the the numbers are going to change numbers more than I change clothes and. Of the reliability of that process. The the expense I don't know an agency the ability of other than the larger agencies. So I hope your committee of. That's the thing that you have some of those programs may work in it that's just a step one of the stepping stones to do to try to get people to come to court route is like to judge that is not a perfect world people should be. They should come to court they get a citation that that's in lieu of arrest of in lieu of going up and Buckingham. They should show up to court most undergoing probation anyway. But yes Sir that answered questions. See no other questions thank you sure for your testimony today. We have another individual is signed up to speak against the bill actually Bowen from the prosecutor's association. Thank you madam chair members of the committee my name's Ashley bell in I am a attorney at the prosecutor coordinator's office I am speaking today on behalf of the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association in opposition to this bill I you've heard me testify before on this bill and judge Martin did a tremendous job of explaining a lot of our reservations and concerns I did want to bring up a couple of things first off. This bill focuses a lot there's been a lot of testimony about money bail cash bail under this is Arkansas rule of criminal procedure nine point two U. SEC requirements before the issuance of money bail can happen and it states that it should only be set after the judge determines that no weather conditions will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant court so to the extent that cash fund in in in case law as well there is a preference against cash bail so the concern in that regard is already being addressed by the rules of criminal procedure. Another thing judge Martin mention is this list of compelling circumstances is on page three I think it's section D. it doesn't appear to actually refer to anything else in the bill and this language is the language that contains the two year look back period for failure to appear as well as the imminent identifiable threat. And correct. I think that the issue is it doesn't refer to anything else so when can it be applied and if it can't be comply because it doesn't reference anything in the bill is there any ability to even look at a failure to appear from my reading of the bill there isn't and so that would not be anything that could be taken into account under this version of the bill. Judge Martin also mentioned a list of offenses so and under this bill there are five offenses that appear to be excluded or someone would not have to be cited out for misdemeanor. She mentioned the list of of offenses that would be affected I also made a list so I won't go into everything but one of the major ones I saw was endangering the welfare of a minor in the second third degrees those are those are misdemeanor offenses so if you've got someone who's living in a home with a minor and they're being sided out immediately because they don't fit this list then they could potentially go back into the home with the victim of the crime and there's no no contact order issued because the judge would have to see a defendant in order to get that first appearance in order to set a no contact order or any other conditions of bond so that's something that we would be largely concerned with is that the unintended consequences of this bill is that we have people are going back into the home with their potential victims and there's no no contact order and there's no conditions. Additionally just a few more offenses I don't know if you mention terroristic threatening second indecent exposure public sexual indecency voyeurism sexual solicitation violation of no contact order order of protection interference with visitation interference with court ordered custody sexually grooming a child or the actor. Session of sexually explicit digital material harassment harassing communications and stalking in the third degree these are all misdemeanor offenses and our position is that these are serious enough that the judge needs to have the ability to come into court and look at the circumstances and say maybe we need a no contact order maybe there needs to be a prohibition against against having weapons there are other crimes that deal with hearing weapons such as possessing instrument of crime furnishing a deadly weapon to a minor hearing a deadly weapon carrying a firearm in a publicly owned building such as a K. through twelve school a court room Justice Building so these are all issues where if a person is allowed to see a judge a judge can make that determination and decide based on the individual case what is appropriate as a condition of release so that would be our position and I am happy to answer any questions anyone may have. Members are there any questions is of miss Bowen. See no questions thank you for coming again to the committee thank you I appreciate it if no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Richardson you're recognized for your bill thank you madam chair As the prosecuting attorney identified a couple of a misdemeanor is that that they have concern with I think we're past and some laws right now that will allow some of the gun usage in somebody's places so I can see those coming off of that list sometime soon of this is this is an important bill that I think affects a lot of people in a way that issue of like I said we have we've got some opposition to it but. It is what it is and I'm close from a bill. Are you making a motion. Thank you motion do pass thank you. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no the nose have it your bill has failed. Representing Maddox you're recognized to present house bill sixteen ninety three. Represent Maddox you're recognized thank you madam chair. Committee members this is the uniform fiduciary income and principal act or I hope it becomes inactive should say this is a very simple bill it was brought to me by the it's basically uniform law commission bill and was brought to me by the Bar Association this bill just clarifies which state law applies regarding trust administration it includes a default rule state in the law governing a trust is the law of the state where the trustee has its principal place of administration it allows for total return investing which which regardless of whether it's a growth income or principal so that's very beneficial for trust and the beneficiaries this allows for more individualized estate planning for estate planning attorneys in Arkansas to do more things that are beneficial for that the beneficiaries of the trust which is what this act is about there is no known opposition the Bar Association brought at the bankers associations for it just makes us hopefully in line with all the other states the other states that are adopting this again I said it's simple it's not real simple it's a fairly link the bill but it's it's again it's a uniform law commission bill there is no known opposition that I'm aware of I'll be glad to take any questions. Representative Richmond you're recognized for a question. Representative Maddox in the thank you madam chair in your introduction there you referred to this bill as an act that it's already an act that just because you're assuming that the this committee is already in the pocket and you're going to get your way. I'm not sure I should answer that no not at all I have so much respect for each committee member and I know you're in a vet I know you've already read the bill and I know it's not an act yet but I know it soon will be that's a good answer thank you ma'am Jack. Members any other questions. I see no other questions we have no one who signed up to speak or for speak for against the bill represent medics you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you committee and I am close Rockville and I appreciate a good vote. Members representing Maddox is close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no motion carries congradulations you have passed your bill. Representative Penzo you're recognized to come forward and present House Bill fifteen fifty four. Members there is financial a fiscal impact statement and we also have an amendment that will be passing out. So if you'll take a look at your the fiscal impact statement as the amendments being passed out. Thank you chair as my amendment came over yet they're passing it out right now for going on just a moment have you signed it. We're getting if you sign that I have not okay. And I had someone drive in to testify with me can they come to the table in on just a minute. Right representative Penzo you're recognized to present your amendment to house bill fifteen fifty four. Okay with the but I'll be able to have someone come to the table with me to let's get your amendment adopted first okay we'll have a just now receiving the amendment myself and my my witnesses Would you like to pull your bill down to be heard this afternoon. If if that's a if if that would be preferable to Committee it says like maybe you haven't had a chance to review your amendment members are there any objections to representing Penzo pulling is bill down and be placed on this afternoon's agenda. Seeing no objection come back fifteen minutes after adjournment and will thank you okay thank you Committee. Represent Wardlaw you're recognized president house bill eighteen ninety eight. Representive Wardlaw. On the. Members let's turn to House Bill. Eighteen ninety eight representative Wardlaw you're recognized to present your bill I actually thought I was done and judiciary but here I am again I just can't get enough punishment I guess thank you madam chair this bill I had a constituent call me last Wednesday night on my way home. And his daughter lived in Mississippi and actually passed this in Mississippi so I'll pull that up look that it went through it and basically what it does is it extends your home to your vehicle in the purposes of carrying a weapon if you look back through the years back in two thousand and eleven or two thousand thirteen we changed that journey definition to outside a county line the problem is a lot of our constituents work in this constituent was that is in that definition they work within the county so they never leave the county. So all this does is change that definition to or when they get their vehicle and they crank it may leave the House there on that journey so these folks can have protection with them in their vehicle and with that I'd be happy to take any questions. Members are there any questions of representative Wardlaw. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Wardlaw you're recognized close for your bill I'm close and I appreciate a good vote members represent Wardlaw is close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations thank you madam chair committee. Members let's go back up to House Bill eighteen twenty nine representative Clowney said amendment has have will be passing that amendment out. House Bill eighteen twenty nine thank you madam chair members it will be easier to understand this amendment in the context of the full bill but as you can see it changes the word after to before and it changes at there was a spot in the bill that said two years of changes that should read three years so I'd like to move to adopt the amendment then we can talk about the bill as a whole members we have a motion to adopt the amendment is there any discussion all in favor say aye any opposed the adoption we have adopted amendments you're now recognized president house bill eighteen twenty nine as amended thank you members when I ran for office I never envisioned sitting at the table talking about posthumously conceived children someone this morning asked me if this was the plot of the movie ghost but it's not it's a real issue an Arkansas law that needs addressing what happens is you can imagine some folks may have I don't know see a terminal illness and decide that they want to have want their their partner to be able to have children in and to be able to have a child and to have that child be considered an error for the purposes of inheritance even if the donor of the genetic material is no longer alive when that child is conceived this bill the the original law a past I believe was two sessions ago and since then there were some internal inconsistencies in the law that came out and said this bill is an attempt to address those it does a few things so first It allows for a child of a decedent to be considered illegitimate child for purposes of inheritance if it is clear that the decedent before they died wanted that to be the case and if the child is conceived within two years twenty four months of the death of the decedent so it's not something that sort of goes on indefinitely into the future the child would have to be conceived within two years after the death of the decedent there is a six month time period because you know when when folks die in and estates get dispersed there's a lot of interest in that happening as quickly as possible if there is genetic material from someone who has died that may be used to conceive a child the person who is responsible for that would have to report that to the personal representative of the state within six months of the decedent's death if they haven't reported that within six months and this is where the amendment comes in here so if you look down at line twenty four on page two. if the personal representative receives the notice before the six month period. Then the representative of the estate has to hold on to that property not knowing if there will be an additional air until three years have passed at which point they would know if there would be a posthumously conceived child so that's what the bill does in a nutshell happy to try to try to answer any questions I talked this over with the Bar Association they're good with it made some changes based on their requests and so I think that there's no opposition that I know of. Members are there any questions. Represents fifth you're recognized for a question. There I thank you madam chair Representative Clowney this is really an interesting bill to me because of all the things you said. You mentioned partners or spouses but what about does this involve share get as well. I mean you've got material from. The couple. But. Would would this bill also include bringing in a Serra get to carry the. The egg you know the invader ROW fertilization and implant sure it would apply to matter who carried the child yes okay thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have no one who is signed up to speak for against the bill representative clan you're recognized to close for your bill I'm close to make a motion to pass. As amended. As amended members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no motion carries congratulations you have passed your bill thank you Committee. Members let's turn our attention to Senate bill three thirty four representative Gonzalez you're recognized to present Senate bill three thirty. Members we have an amendment will be passing that out. In the right. So you're ready for me to present the amendment we can't present until we have each member has a copy of it and so you signed it but yes they didn't send over enough copies of okay hang on. How patient you are represented Gonzales. I can be patient. The Amendment sorry engrossed in it. I suspect they'll have it here I think in just a second okay they've gone back to the back to make their own copies real quick for you okay so we don't have to wait on. Right members you should have the amendment in front of you is anyone has not received the amendment yet. Okay this site has hang on. Richey Richmond have you read have you all got me amendment of their okay I believe now everyone has the amendment. Represent Gonzalez you're recognized to present your amendment to house Senate bill three thirty four thank you madam chair Committee I'm sorry that I didn't already have this engrossed I'd just kind of dropped the ball on that Yes Sir one of its mergers of all right with Senator Ballinger Jones on this thank you On page three it talks about the the bill talks about The use of of property for economic benefit and. Says basically that you can't take property for the sole purpose of of economic benefit this just makes it clear that if if there is economic benefit not of that that's not the purpose of the property and and they're ancillary. Economic benefit that that's okay and then. On the last. Section of it it it takes the Arkansas department of transportation out of it they were the only ones opposed to to this bills we just remove them they they have their own eminent domain statute so there was no need to include them in this. Members represent Gonzalez representative Richardson you're recognized for a question on the amendment yes on the thank you madam chair so you you said that it's. It's removing. You can't take the property if it's for economic benefit but the amendment says that you can. What no it doesn't say that you can it just says that if if there is an economic benefit like that can't be the sole purpose of taking a property but just because it creates some economic benefit doesn't mean means that you can go ahead and take it okay okay thank you I got you still of the sole purpose absolutely not yeah I got you thank you. Members any other questions on the amendment. Do I have a motion to adopt the amendment. I have a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye. Any oppose the amendment has been adopted representative Gonzalez you're recognized president Senate bill three thirty four as amended thank you madam chair Senate bill three thirty four three thirty five or. Extremely similar three thirty four deals with this state government of three thirty five deals with cities and counties which I hope to be able to present them in a little while but right now what what what this particular bill does is it gives definitions to abandon property blighted property and public use also gives the public a cause of action if there if they feel like their property was taken inappropriately through eminent domain basically this codifies what is current practice for eminent domain make sure that that. We'll have the standard for forever well until the next legislature decides to change it possibly but right now we're just trying to get the same code Also describes of of. What you can do what the the state agencies can can get an administrative warrant for the taken property if you have a property owner that's not compliant on blighted property or band of property they want to get access to that it lays out how you get access to that property anything else you wanna add to. This represents Gonzales covered it yet this basically is current jurisprudence we have really good eminent domain law in Arkansas the problem is that's only as good as the next quarter court decision unless we actually codify that and so that's the effort here is at it after the kilo decision. Which on a US consul constitution will said basically that you could take someone's property purely for economic benefit and it be considered to be a legitimate government purpose so what what you found is Arkansas that's not the case and in our in our case law but what this does is codified that so that we're not in a position where where we have to worry about that changing the article to the Arkansas constitution of the preeminence on property rights most of us would agree with that and this just as a as a method a way of codifying that to protect protect our citizens. Members are there any questions. Representative Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and and I'm asking this because I'm. Just wanted to make sure I understand the procedure for the administrative warrant can you walk through how a state agency what that process looks like for purposes of the state agency seeking that administrative warrant. So give me an example like of of fact pattern that you're you're referring to well so I mean just looking at Page three under eighteen fifteen eighteen oh one the administrative warrant section where it says that the state agency may request an administrative warrant from a judge or magistrate to gain access to inspect the building so is that warrant going to a circuit judge how is or are they just. Swearinger warrants at the agency level I'm just trying to make sure I understand the procedure so if it if there were a administrative. Someone with the judicial philosophy within the agency I can see that happen otherwise I think good at go through distributor court and you get a warrant just basic like you would with the criminal warrant in order to be able to access okay it's just another level protection yes I just want to clarify that thank you. Per se Smith you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I don't know a lot about these things I'm not an attorney like you are a representative Ballinger I mean I Senator Ballinger. Go back a few years and you were still representative but I'm seller presented yeah but the. My County judges opposed to this bill and I'm just wondering if you're heading back from others thrown bill yes. Judge ought not opposed to Senate bill three thirty four well I put three thirty four in my tech and he fired back yes this is problematic so that's why I'm asking the question he's here he would have trouble through thirty five and I'm happy to address that we'll get there but but you know we ran the same bill two thousand nineteen and it would just basically ran out of time to get it out but in two thousand nineteen I had a the. Person working for the municipally who's also opposed to three thirty five not this one but they may become is like what you know we realize this is basically the law now but we want the law changed okay right so so the county judge yes there is there are there are some checks and balances in here that that aren't there otherwise so they have to they have to will have to make sure they keep a record that they've tried to but that is on the other bill not this I start say let's okay thank you for this bill it is the same form of fashion but this only applies stated. Represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I'm Senator Ballenger just because I'm not familiar enough with the way this process works so looking at this bill it looks like I am in order for the property considered abandoned taxes have to be delinquent for two years but it can be considered blighted just if it's determined that it's unfit for human use or occupation correct who determines who makes that determination about blight. Okay so what this is it are you looking at the definition section so you have the definitions but then you have the the procedure so they would essentially be a court will make that decision whether not admit that but those the ones the weather not the facts be the definite thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have no one else who signed it no one is signed up to speak on Senate bill three thirty four so representative Gonzales you're recognized close for the bill. All were closed Brigida motion do pass at members as amended. A representative Gonzalez's close first bill what are the wishes of the committee. Motion do pass as amended. I have a motion to do pass as amended is there any discussion. Seeing no discussion all in favor say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill. Thank you committee. Mmhm. Ballinger before it and I'm not sure we're gonna get to three thirty five before lunch because we have a good number of people who signed up to speak and but you are the Senate sponsor on house bill thirteen twenty seven and we have a concurrence in the Senate amendment do you want to present that I'd be happy to okay members let's. Concurrence is being passed out to you. The all it should be already on your desk. Senator Ballinger we're giving it to you so. You will look recognized to present the concurrence in the Senate amendment to house bill thirteen twenty seven okay not. This is the bill that provides for former judges have going to carry like we do with prosecutors and law enforcement officers no they they have a specific answer to security concerns and The Amendment just I think that it was a maybe me meddling a little bit but it just made it where it's consistent in form to what we do with the with the prosecutors and with former law enforcement and I think made it made a little tighter bill so that's basically amendment and I appreciate a motion for concurrence. Members any questions on the. Concurrence seeing no questions do I have a motion to concur. We have a motion to concur any discussion all in favor to the concur in the amendment please say aye. Any opposed say no. We have the ayes have it the currents has been adopted. Members were at twenty minutes to twelve I do anticipate that Senate bill three thirty five will take more than twenty minutes and I did promise the committee that helped me have a lunch today a to what Senator Ballinger represent Gonzales will be the first one out of the chute come ten minutes after we get out chair rules the record that. Members with that. We will be in recess until ten minutes after the end of session today.