City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate

Chesterville you're recognized to present Senate bill two nine eight. Thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee. If my voice plays that it was because I hollered a little bit too much last night. Thank you they were going to pull it out but anyway. By Senate bill two ninety eight deals with the sovereignty of the states. Years ago I was in Denver Colorado and listing to a constitutional scholar and I'll never forget the remarks he made he said this American people ever realized how much freedom they have lost in a and it's the state of a realize the amount of of of power that the constitution it given to them. That we would have a major transformation and reformation or country not a completely agree with that you know we currently live in a country that is drifted so far from the limited that were imposed upon Congress by the constitution when it comes to the grant and enumerated powers that were given to them and as we say today we we continue to watch a more centralized decision making government government the girls more hostile every day to the constitutional restraints it was placed on them. Let us never forget what Thomas Jefferson said he said that the self government is is a governmental feature of a constitutional Republic he said it was by this so percent of our citizens that we were steadily conducted from a monarchy to republicanism and it is by the same agency alone that we can keep from falling back. Let me read to you what the tenth amendment says tenth amendment was part of the bill of rights was ratified on December the fifteenth seventeen ninety one most scholars agree that without the tenth amendment. We might not even have a constitution. Because most of the state. Knew that giving this much power to the federal government and not allowing the state to have power they weren't ready to two of ratify the constitution. The purpose of amendment was to clarify the powers granted to the federal government those granted to the individual states let me read to you what those powers are James Madison made it very plain the federal is forty five he said the powers delegated by the constitution to the federal government are few and defined those are to remain to the state governments are numerous and indefinite the former will be exercised principally on external objects as war. Peace negotiation and foreign commerce with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected those are the powers that were granted to the federal government under the constitution the power reserved to the states will extend to all objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concerning the lives the liberties the properties of the people and the internal order moot improvement and prosperity of the State. Those were the powers that were granted to the state. The founders made it very plain even in the even in the declaration of independence that the that the federal government the main responsibility of the federal government was to ensure that our inalienable rights were protected. And what is amaze me in the last few months I have asked. Hundreds of my own constituents along with other people that I've met during the course of the last two to three months and asked them if they could tell me what eight a number rated an inalienable right is into my surprised ninety percent could not do it. Let me tell you what a naval Roddy is according to the. The court to the founders. In the declaration of independence Thomas Jefferson said that we're all we're all endowed with certain inalienable rights among those are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the two ends it to ensure these rights in other words into to make sure that no one infringe upon these rights governments are instituted among men so first and foremost. The responsibility of the federal government is to make sure that our god given rights rights given to us by our creator by virtue of our existence the very fact that we were born government never granted these rights to this that we given to us by god therefore no government can take him away. Those are those are your in a minimal rights every human being receive these products from the creator simply by their existence and that's without regard to ethnicity gender geographic extension. So try to include life liberty the pursuit of happiness the right to defend oneself the right to defend your family your home your property due process. A trial by a court all of those things are included in the bill of rights. what is sad is so many of us have bought into the lie that the primary purpose of the government is to is to of provide jobs. To provide a strong economy to provide national health care. But instead first and foremost the job of the federal government is to make sure that our god given inalienable rights are protected let me just give you a few examples of where we are today when it comes to some of those and they they were able rights concerning the freedom of religion. The right to bear arms. Just a couple weeks ago in the ninth circuit. I think this was in Missouri the ninth circuit appeal to lower court ruling. Stating that a coach. Thanks for a coach who's coaching high school basketball. Junior high ball team. Can be fired for kneeling with his players in a moment of prayer voluntarily. But that same coach can kneel when the national anthem is played in nothing is wrong. On January the seventh there was a Facebook post that was removed from Facebook. March content let me tell you what that Facebook post was it was second chronicles seven fourteen and I think most of us in this room today know what the scripture says it says if my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and turn from their wicked ways to seek my face I will heal their land that was removed from Facebook because of its content. Then a week ago just a week ago. USA today come out with an article. That. Called Christians are cake and the the whole article was referenced around all Roberts university. Because they felt like all Roberts university because of their belief system should be removed from the NC double a tournament. In the article USA today says it there are cake rules are out of touch with modern society. And that there. Deeply bigoted anti LGBTQ policies can't and should not be ignored. Keep in mind this is a Christian university that believes in the Bible. And yet the media referred to the Bible AS and modern a relic of the past. And it finally. In Providence Rhode Island this last year. An elderly blind lady was told by the local government officials that she could no longer share phase in a city park. Because it was against the rules. Something that what should have been actually illegal and contradictory to the constitution in regard to discrimination by the government officials who censor the religious expression in a public setting you know where in the constitution does it say you cannot express your religious views in a public setting in fact just the opposite is what the founders intended. Some may say what about the supremacy clause. What about the supremacy clause pass my mind the individuals I talked about sprint C. closing guess what reaction I got most of them said that the nearly everyone and says this means that the federal government is absolutely supreme and all it does. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem that most people leave the with the supremacy clause is a leave out three the most important words in what those words are in pursuant there of. That means that the federal government is only surprising when it's actions are in pursuant of the constitution and since the constitution delegates very few power to the general government it isn't Supreme very often I read you those flowers while ago that were delegated to the federal government by the constitution keep in mind that the federal government is not the law of the land the constitution still is the law of the land in fact the people of the state Supreme of the people of the state or supreme and sovereign in the American system of government the people of the states created the federal government and the delegated to the few instrumental powers yes the federal government does enjoy supremacy within its spear but once it moves one inch outside the spirit is this is no Supreme set all when the federal government takes action outside of a spear. Delegate it is void Hamilton. Master made very clear that the federal government had no constitutional stored forty to establish a law that deals with the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives liberties and properties of the people. That is a duty that is reserved specifically for the state's. Founding fathers established the separation of powers because they had witnessed over seven hundred years of Tierney usurping the rights of the people they knew what it looked like. And the founders understood human nature they also knew their own history and the people would become very inattentive to the rights and that is exactly what's happened over the course of the last hundred years as we've watched a federal government grow out of control no more powerful than gold more corrupt mine I add. Knowing that James Madison said this and this is very important besides the security there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced because the state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government and be able to resist with more affect every suction of power than any other power owners can do and the greatest opponent to a federal government it may if the state legislature to be sure guardians of the people's liberty what that means is according to James Madison the primary job of our state legislators. Legislatures was to be the guardian of the people's liberty against federal encroachment. That's our job. That's the greatest hope to save the sovereignty knowledge of our state. The other states thank you and I are the ones that were elected to represent our people. Jefferson Madison also knew the if the Republic wishes alive when the government exercises power outside of the delegated power of the constitution it is an active usurpation. The bill prior tracks in the bill of rights are actually restrictions placed on the government by the citizens they do not give the government the power to determine the limits of people's rights only the third amendment has an exemption the rest of not the government the power to do anything regarding those ten amendments. For a number of years the federal government has been deceiving the people and believing there are limits on these rights and that only the government. Can impose those limits. Now. What we center this morning one of those rights is the second amendment as we sit here this morning just two weeks ago. Congress the house of representatives passed two bills. Out of Congress one was H. R. eight this act would criminalize private gun sales conducted without a background check. That includes also gift or a loan to someone without your family could be your family But it criminalizes all private gun sales conducted without a background check this bill simply creates a gun owner registry it would include federal form forty four seventy three the document said dignity of the farm purchaser and the make model and serial number of the farm transferred over time this will become a registry of gun owners and and always it is always lead to gun confiscation. But let me share something with you. For most of my life I've always. When I first read about the second amendment I've always looked at it as a as a brick wall that stood between the people and the federal government. And over a period of a hundred years we have allowed the federal government to come in and take a brick out here in a breakout here and another one here in pretty soon you know what's going to happen with the passage of all these gun laws that wall is going to come tumbling down in that is the goal that is the final go that is the agenda of the federal government to completely take away and I'll get into this some of the specifics of that just a few minutes. H. R. fourteen sixty six the other bill would allow the FBI to put a hold up to thirty days rather than the three days currently allowed by law for background checks this bill makes it incumbent upon the law abiding citizens to prove his or her innocence to the government to exercise their second amendment rights to purchase a firearm instead of the government being responsible for approving an individual is prohibited the waiting at this waiting period could mean the difference between life and death for a victim perhaps of the stalking or domestic abuse because I think you realize as well as I that evil people bent on harming or killing other people are not going to be deterred by waiting period. And hot on the heels of the the patches Division to gun control measures. This past Thursday senator Dianne Feinstein and senator David Cole so seal low of Rhode Island introduced a ban on modern sporting rifles. Commonly owned ammunition magazines in the US Senate this bill Bennett this bill bans the manufacture the sale in the possession of all modern sporting rifles and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds it sets a combat Senate a compensated conference cation program we're gun owners can turn in their now banned guns and magazines in exchange for an undetermined cash Staffan. Sound familiar. Same thing was used in nineteen thirty nine. It it requires gun owners to do not hand over their guns and magazines to the federal government to register those items. Last week during the news conference press secretary Jen Psaki said in the press conference. And I quote that the president the president Biden is ready and willing to sign gun control executive orders. Together these bills will transform the right to obtain firearms into a privilege administered at the say so of the government that set the stage for universal registry. Of gun owners in the transformation of the current shall issue for FFL transfers to eligible six by hours into a may issue system where the FBI can block sales on a case by case basis as they see fit. The ultimate goal and I hope you realize is the ultimate goal is to ban all firearms from law abiding citizens that logic holes NO how can you bet and I've never understood this how can you ban. Farm from law abiding citizens which ninety nine percent or more. And and and thanks is that will reduce crimes it is my close sense at all and. Because of the conduct of criminals for taking guns away from law abiding citizens and make it harder for those law abiding citizens to to keep and bear farm because of the conduct of a criminal makes absolutely no sense of the logic is like banning car to prevent drug driving or banning prescription drugs to prevent drug abuse it just to make any sense the new gun restrictions on law abiding citizens come at a time when violent crime is on the rise southern border is been pre open allowing violent gang members to our country while at the same time some cities have started to define their own police department I just spoke to a relative of mine who lives just north of San Diego last two weeks ago he said the murder rate in the county had doubled in the last two months and I ask him why and he said because the borders of open and the flooding into the county gangs and drugs. Now. How do we stop this. I mean I've already mentioned the fact that we got to this situation because the unattended best of not only citizens but state legislatures who have sat by and watch to an ever growing federal government assume assume powers that were not delegated to them and yet we never stood up and said those are not those are not constitutional. You know that even the Bible says god says my people perish because of lack of knowledge. We have a whole society that has not kept up with what's going on in Washington DC and slowly but surely. They're becoming all powerful. Based on medicines advice for states and individuals in federalist forty six. There's a there is a remedy it's a refusal to cooperate with the officers of the union and it represents in the extremely effective methods to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help support and leadership from state local government Michael Bolton of the tenth amendment Senator said by withdrawing all resources and participation in gun control of states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to the much needed in and after speaking with law enforcement in my area. All of them not everyone they all said we don't want to be put in the position to have to enforce an unconstitutional. Wall coming down from the federal government against our own citizens let me tell you what they have to convert a calm coming during provision says the Supreme Court decision from nineteen ninety seven is a cornerstone of those cases of five Supreme Court cases France Mursi's U. S. it reaffirms states rights in the constitution of the constitution center common during all it was judge Scalia wrote the majority opinion which struck down part of the Brady handgun violence prevention act. The tenth amendment says the powers not delegated to the U. S. by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people the anti commandeering doctrine may sound arcane but it's simply the expression of fundamental structural decision to withhold the Congress. To withhold from Congress this is judge Scalia to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the state judge Alito wrote conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the government to the states the anti commandeering doctrine simply represents recognition of this limit on congressional authority. Refusal refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rest on well established legal principle like I just mention. Finally. To ban guns because criminals use them. Still law abiding citizens at the right to their liberties depend not on their own conduct. But on the conduct of guilty and lawless criminals we cannot change what we will not confront. Americans ideas of always put god at the center of our country's foundation. That's no longer the case. You cannot quote. Like I've seen a motion over and over the constitution over and over and completely ignore what's in the constitution. There's a great distrust among our people to work politician is very rampant now in our country even in our state. You know one because so many does not keep the ward. They promised one thing and then they they don't they don't follow through. You and I took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies we have a federal government only wants to silence dissent but they actually want to criminalize dissent. Nine five Senate Stein is on record as saying many times that the Americans people should turn in all guns. They are now in a position to actually follow through with that attempt. What is doing away with the filibuster packing the courts doing away with electoral college the federal government has been on shutting down the American people's throats whether we like it or not we have a federal government that has become corrupt and addicted to power and instead of dealing with the corruption. Thank you just to to it. I'll be glad to take any questions. Thank you senator so we'll let me touch on a couple things and you pointed out. The. The Klein is a brick by brick slow decline in. When you. Push back it seems drastic to some people would you agree with that. Yeah I would agree. But we're not we haven't moved from what the constitution says. That's the correction to rise constitutions the same words that were written to in forty five years ago they have not changed and I I would just point out I understand I don't normally do this from the chair but I would point out at this point. Do you feel the news media. As a bias because tragedies happen. Good tragedies not Tracey's running people over with car. But yet in. Boulder Colorado. The tragedy just a Kurd and it is from what I see is just go silent. Colorado Colorado had in place everything that you could possibly do is force gun restrictions on the books including red flag laws. That would never represent prevented what happened in Colorado let me ask you one final question. Because. States. Have taken that almighty dollar the dangle at the end of the federal string. This is going to seem very. Drastic to some people. Would you agree with that I would agree that states have been treated like regional agencies by the federal government for so long they've user on tax dollars to dangle before us to get their way and to push their agenda yes I was I would say they're going to be some we're going to say you know we don't lose its federal tax dollars. Questions from the committee Senator Hendren you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. Senator Stubblefield jacket a few here and I'm just trying to understand exactly the ramifications in. What it is because what we like it or not I think we all realize that certain actions on the state's. That part will create a reaction on the federal government's part. I mean anything for instance do you think that there is a. Constitutional violation by the state requiring you to wear seat belt when you drive. Is that in an infringement on my my pursuit of happiness my freedoms constitutionally this is under state law yes. That's a state law okay not a federal law it's a state law that is in place in large part because the federal government says if you don't have that state law we're gonna withhold federal highway funds I think any time the federal government uses tax dollars to threaten states I think that is infringement upon a righteous okay so we've just. We've established that it happens and it's what we like or agree with it we know that's what's going to occur I had some concern brought to me from higher it that some of this could put them in a position where they have to decide between complying with cooperation with federal law or compliance with federal law or put at risk federal funding for some of their programs does that concern you are you willing to pay that price I'm there is there's Senator there's nineteen other states as pass legislation center this I think of another state and this is also another state legislatures of lectures right now being presented if enough states do this I think the federal government will take note. And and maybe hopefully turns you know sooner or later something's got to change we're on a a path that is unsustainable I thank you know that as well as I know that is forced if the spending and is for the regulations being put down on the state and is totally unconstitutional that means they'll always use our tax dollars to intimidate us and to try to get there will pushed upon us so the question about the so the measuring stick on these penalties that you have in here are what's constitutional is that are you talking primarily U. S. constitution Arkansas constitution about talk about the U. S. constitution and who made the minor or for on what is constitutional or what is not. Well we will go to the it will go to the AG or or the the state legislatures himself. So the Attorney General gets to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That's usually the way it works I mean I give an example as we passed two pieces of legislation this session. That the sponsors themselves readily acknowledge this is has been declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court and we're passing this legislation with the hope that the Supreme Court will overturn it and change their definition of what constitutional correct. Right. So I guess in that environment who who determines what is constitutional is that the state legislature by the legislation we pass or that the United States Supreme Court well the United States let's look at the prohibition not a United States we we were told yesterday Judiciary you left but you're all heard over and over over that bill is unconstitutional and yet when prohibition was passed. It was just a few years later that it was ruled unconstitutional one years constitutional two years later time constitutional so it all determines NO presented is on the bench who's sitting on the Supreme Court so you know you got legislation here that says certain actions will recall occurs something is unconstitutional and that's what I'm trying to understand here is that because the Attorney General says it's unconstitutional as it because the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional or the majority of the legislatures who makes that determination about whether or not it is a penalty for instance to prevent to in the enforcement of particular firearm regulation well that would I'd set it will come up it will come before the legislation that will determine that and eventually will go to the AG's office. You mentioned the several things here and again I just want to touch on a couple of them and I think you know Senator Stubblefield I got strong feelings about kneeling in the anthem and patriotism and respect and all those things but I also have strong feelings about the first amendment and the price that is been paid for the right to for people to participate or to voice their opinions in ways that I may not agree with. So in that it I guess what I'm saying is there's gonna be a difference of opinion about whether or not the legislature can pass rules or or laws saying you can't kneel during the national anthem I think the Supreme Court it's been clear but is your opinion then that the United the Arkansas can overrule that basically say we interpret the first amendment differently not. I understand the establishment clause and that in free exercise clause I understand that very well. But what I was pointing out is that what a contradiction it is to allow school to fire a coach because he's kneeling voluntarily with these players in a in a. That was founded on Judeo Christian principles and yes the same time he has the freedom to to kneel when the national anthem is being played. Okay and then is the freedom to do both of those and yet he's punished for doing the one thing that that is obviously within our constitution but what would this bill do to change that. Let me let me going to one final issue there's a lot of debate again as a at about military and because we start talking about the state's conflict with the federal government that comes somewhat sticky for instance the right now there's a big debate about the authorization to use military force act that was passed after September eleventh by which the federal government the president pretty much by himself or herself if we get to that point has. Use military force without authorization from Congress. And I guess what I'm asking is if the state legislature and the Attorney General decides that. We don't care what DC the Congress or the Supreme Court says we thank only Congress has the authority to make will make for which is a pretty strong argument would you say then that this legislation would say that Arkansas could say no Arkansas citizens including those station Little Rock Air Force base or any of our National Guard places can be used unless Congress authorizes the use of force in a form under check under the constitution it is up to Congress so this bill would give us the ability to penalize no this bill deals this bill deals specifically with the bill of rights inalienable right to know spoke to earlier that our mission specifically in this bill. Well it is always those powers were delegated to the federal government is for for peace commerce in the issues of taxes. Okay already have the authorities Senator. Well again today there's a testify can and furnished go ahead and finish your other question that I put you back in the queue I've got some other Abby fine thank you. Senator Clark you next. Sisters G. Stubblefield. Of those the of. Federal government have a. Prohibition against the of possession and use of marijuana yes I do Senator Clark the state of Arkansas have a constitutional amendment that allows it yes we do Senator Clark which one are we overpaying. We're back in the state. It's my understanding that there's been a Supreme Court decision against prayer at football games is that your understanding of our that. Of as a. Former of football official high school football official up until I was in the state Senate. Of you have any idea how many schools I went to that didn't prayer before football games probably none too. the. Me ask you this. Do you think that a school on that subject. Can't pray but do you think that the school could ask a state senator to speak before football game Amendment. Do you think a state senator could say everybody that wants to bow their head. I'm going to break we pray every day before we start to Senate. So we we have some things that are out of balance they are out of balance and and and and and coke and seem to be a close call at the moment when yes we did thank social circle thank you senator Clark. Senator Flippo you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair and I appreciate a lot of questions Sir Clark is kind of where I was gonna go First author civil Stubblefield you agree that Senator Hendren questions about the seat belts something a little bit about. Is driving a privilege or a right. The privilege okay so the seat belt is something that is you will be using the vehicle of which is a privilege and a right which you're talking about is a right provided in our constitution. The messages and calls and texts and emails that I've gotten on your bill those opposed it the single point that they have been making. Is that it's going to cost us federal money if we do this would you agree with that then some of the the communications and you've gotten as well I have not gotten those communications other than this morning when I walked in from so hopefully in a person the the the the point all of this is what the concern is. Is that we're going to lose federal dollars. The federal the federal holding up federal money coming to the states because they have a a a a they're they're they're legalized recreational medical marijuana in their states so they're picking and choosing where they want to where they want to apply it but what the states but the federal government cannot force the states to do constitutional in the open up the checkbook and we sell away our rights and our liberties for more federal dollars would you agree I would agree thank you senator president. Senator Johnson and Senator Hendren if you have further questions you can be at the centre jobs. Thank you Mr chairman. Senator Stubblefield attempting it Senator Flippo brought up driving I thank I know I'm in the minority probably on this I don't believe driving is a. Privilege I believe it's a ride but to say exercise certain rights you must agree to regulation so we don't all run into each other on the highway and I had a dear friend that recently passed away who was blind but I wouldn't want him driving out on the highway either so I I tend to believe in the absolute rights but there is a compelling case for government to regulate you you might recall speaking of driving a few years ago the federal government put out to the states everyone of you have to pass helmet laws for people ride motorcycles. And forty something states maybe forty nine states did one state wouldn't do it you know which one that was. California they would not do it because they have a lot of bike riders and they. It impose their sovereignty on the federal government and because it was a great big states that will be the state the federal government caved in and took that because we're not going to pull California's federal highway money out so we'll okay we'll let it go in there was actually I was around here when one individual it was a bike rider came became a lobbyist and worked for two three sessions and finally got the helmet law repeal now if I get on a motorcycle helmet no trust me but we get down to what is the federal government's role in this and it always seems to come back to the person brings in the money this is the problem that I have and and and I hope that you you you see this is that uh we have literally. Become conditioned to that process that because they have the money at some people called the golden rule they got the goal they make the rules and I'm I'm I'm concerned about that but I believe this question. Do you think it's okay for people Arkansas to have different laws than they have in Vermont or California or New York state is easy it is that okay with you think that's okay within our system. The people choose to do so we have so we don't have to have exactly the same laws and all fifty states is that we had so it be okay and again I know there's some people that would disagree with me on this one but I believe the biggest travesty of roe versus Wade was that it said that states had to allow abortion I I believe under the constitution a state could under its laws allow abortion I would oppose that if I were in my state as I have many times and recently voted pro life but do I think it's a state responsibility I do would you agree with that yeah and and it's I think we come down to the fact that we have to have this homogeneous Center rules that's decided by people inside the beltway that flies to everybody in the country if you think it's okay you know for we had a bill yesterday that prohibits children having of genital mutilation in my opinion there those that disagree with that but but we made that decision for Arkansas and I truly believe that if another state was in that same situation although I would greatly disagree with them I think they have would have that right to pass the art of defeated a pass such a law would you agree on that I would agree on that I would also add that one one row versus Wade was passed in nineteen seventy three. Federal government had to go in and change the anti Acton and we know of course that federal level that the US Supreme Court has declared in roe versus Wade that states cannot do that so we have a conflict here in unless unless they change that okay right but I guess what I'm saying is until that. You have been here that any law enforcement officer public officer employee of the state or anybody so. In this situation with it we Arkansas passed law banning all abortions and assuming that a group went down to enforce that law to say that there will they're going to block the clinic and we get into it right now basically this would make anybody to did gets in the in the in the way of the federal law being enforced subject to criminal prosecution. Is that right. I'm not sure what you're getting at center. All right so again under Arkansas law now that's been signed and the Arkansas constitution. Abortions are banned completely and again you understand no from a long time my position as one of pro life and I have what I believe also Brown have an oath to the constitution. So. Under Arkansas law under the Arkansas constitution. There should not be access to any abortions in Arkansas including rape and incest victims correct. By law signed into law so We know that probably they're going to continue and if even though the federal and the federal courts made so that bill out but they're going to continue so you have this conflict and I guess what I'm saying is assuming that a group goes down to forcibly prevent women from accessing from getting an abortion and law enforcement comes to it's called to protect the peace and to allow them to access that is then law enforcement guilty of a crime because they're not doing what our constitution says would they be guilty of going to a marijuana clinic because it's against federal law to sell marijuana the same scenario so does that mean yes no I'm not your man just at all I think you're going hypothetical after that we're not you know. This so for of the futures are. I mean law enforcement's gonna have decisions to make because we got the contribution state law and that one thing the federal government says another thing on that issue so if they comply with federal government are they not gonna be guilty of a crime state police. Finally this bill. We amended it to take out the certification issues I had with they were fine with this bill. But okay thank. Senator Clark the moment you read up can't we've got five signed up to speak I'll be very quick the center so full same scenario of if photo local law enforcement is to get to comply and decides to enforce the ban against prayer at football games of the going to create a conundrum when they show up to rest the pastor this prank. Well I might depend on where the football game is the pastor is I don't know. It could create a big conundrum thank you senator John Mayer you. Okay members we're going to move to the testimony from the audience let me remind you of the names I see on here I know you're very familiar we have As You no time constraints you came here we will to you to speak but be cognizant of things it's already been said and try to be concise first we have Wayne beach speaking for if you go to the end are the side at the end in speak next we're going to have Scott Bradley against The Dallas green for Then Scott Hamilton against and Paul covered for Mister beach please recognize yourself welcome and you're recognized to speak. Tester. One thing I want to ask these questions from the rules rules you will recognize I'm sorry your if you're just a citizen or if you're recognized or if you're recognized representing a group thank you know I'm not representing group I'm just just a US citizen. One question that I want to ask. The first question I want to ask is that everybody in this room this representing the citizens of Arkansas took an oath sworn oath they will protect support and defend the constitution United States this will constitution of this this state. I want to know how many and how many appeal. I do not believe that that says binding. Number one. Number two you don't have to answer now per twos I want to know who's willing to put their name on the bill. Exit disclosed that common. The bill the defense constitutional rights as citizens rights. Right now we've got a women have a they'll be a conference over another building across route over here. Concerning HR one U. S. C. H. O. one. The voting bill. That's that's the issue I think that that we need to really address here we go on does that belong to the state to make those rules that voting rules doesn't belong to the federal government. To make the rules for voting. Are you gonna make it and that's what the question is just an example this is more than just a gun bill this is a this is a constitutional liberty bill. That basically puts it to with the state insurance sovereignty and they can question. Of the federal government about their constitutional authority. That's what this is about and it gives the power to take the agency and they G. will basically prosecutors are going to fend that off that on constitution white in Washington. All and that's where we're headed with this is just is similar to the I seem to work you have to you have to challenge some of these some is issue special through and a law VOL civil liberties aw it doesn't matter who's president in B. Tropidion B. it can be up it can be but it can be it doesn't matter it doesn't matter is government in this state it doesn't matter who the legislators in the state we have a standard to go by we had to standards US constitution and you and the and the state constitution which one are you all responsible for and I agree with a lot of the a lot of the representatives here to centers that you have some good questions we have we have some by law issues here about a low standards. Which way we go. And and and I think the the government is closest to the people is one that actually has the authority. All anyway that's all I had to do thank you. Thank you for the questions from committee. I don't see any thank you for coming Mr beach thanks we have Scott Bradley few come then the table identify yourself for your with you're recognized speak. Thank you Mr chair I'm Scott recommend the Director of the sheriff's association. And I guess the first thing I'll make clear and talking to my share some know each one personally there's not a share for the state of Arkansas this going to go take a good citizens got away. It's not gonna happen they're not going to do it they're not going to support that. But with that said we understand what's trying to be what's being done here and I've talked to Senator Stubblefield when this first came up briefly in Tony Mecca and spine my concerns our concerns. And that is that one we we swear an oath and we do take that oath. And we believe in that And we support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of Arkansas so it kinda for us it's like if you support the the constitution United States if you do that are you work with your federal partners we're going to charge you we're going to punish you. So that's kind of an issue that we have. And we cannot on our partnerships especially are smaller counties. There there was a person and this is an example Timothy McVeigh thank you member Timothy McVeigh he came to Arkansas. And had plans to do harm here he ended up in Oklahoma City and I guess my point is there are people out there that we can't keep up with that a county level that week we rely on our federal partners and we work closely with them. I'll say again and this is me talking I think if they were to implement taking good citizens guns why I think you see a lot of federal local federal agents resign. I think they would have a big issue with and I'm and I know the shares of Arkansas I think I can speak for the cheese we're gonna stand with our people always always. But these are just some issues that we have we understand what you're trying to do it kind of puts us in a precarious position and I guess that's why I'm here and back I was very attentive I'd one sure about coming here and talking and I know I'm the only one this maybe maybe the only one here that that feels this way but when the shares talk the group talk these are some of the issues that they had not feel locked my that's my job is to be here and bring these issues up. So that's why I'm here I mean that mainly if that's them that's the main reason is is not as much about the money. Is much ballots are partnerships and the fact that we depend on our federal partners to chase these people down in other states and we do a lot of good work with them. So I mean I guess that's that's kind of our point of view I'm sure I'm not covered everything but I mean that's kind of our point of view. I've got some other ones earlier and. Would you. I agree with what you said about your shares. Do you read history. Some yes. Do you know I'm not above but I do know you know there's in history there are other places it thought it could never happen here yes Sir but it did. A higher County Scott County. Passed a bill so actuary yes Sir our share supported that. Some of the counties couldn't do that and they said it was it was said by a lawyer that it was unconstitutional we get what it says and it is the constitution. It just doesn't agree with what some thanks so we were always going to disagree but there comes a point And I hope it doesn't ever come to that we're there will be decisions have to make in any you need to be at a I will go to the health of senator Johnson and then center so. Mr Viki's say one thing centered over you're recognized for a I appreciate your comment this would in no way affect your your ability to work with the federal government in catching people attempting right by this bill would do nothing to deter that. I just wanna make that. Senator judge you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman of. Sure Bradley welcome thank you and I appreciate you personally and professionally I think you know that you mentioned Timothy McVeigh what kind of gun that he used to kill all those people in Oklahoma City a number there was again involved Sir I believe it was a bomb made out of fertilizer and diesel fuel have we buy and fertilizer and diesel fuel land okay I want to make sure clear on that I I'm I'm I'm not picking on you at all but you brought this thing up and it can't help but make me think that I don't I don't see anything in this bill that would in any way inhibit cooperation between federal state and local law enforcement but I think it's a. There are people who believe and and I think they have a valid point I'm not sure I explored it carefully but that the the FBI is constituted in the twentieth century by J. Edgar Hoover was possibly extra constitutional that that it it sort of became a national police force and I'm I'm not faulting the agents the FBI who many of them are wonderful folks that have have saved our bacon in more ways than we can probably ever imagine but I'm I'm just saying is that do you do you not believe that there are some limits to. The powers that the federal. Law enforcement or really anything federal has within states do you think there can be or should be any limits whatsoever or is it just because you know we came from Washington so it's our it's our way of the highway do you have a concern about that sometimes I think it's I think on certain issues I do yes Sir personally and I don't want I I think you're I know you're going with that and I don't disagree. I just know that I can we count on these these partnerships and I appreciate the facts in this in it might be a mis read something or it doesn't affect those partnerships but where it says the. This may respond as part of this. The following persons shall not for sources federal agencies our offices in the enforcement of any federal statute executive order or federal agency director of the complex with the Arkansas constitution and that includes all law enforcement so that that was just I mean kind of concerns with this one bill to keep those partnerships I mean that's that's that's the concern and the fact that again we take our oath. To heart it does mean something to us on both levels and we don't get to choose the laws that that we enforce we we don't Michael we went for some. And we're happy to do that that's what we live for I'm very sensitive to that point and I appreciate you bringing it up yes but let me ask you about and they'll an illustration and get your opinion about it of and this goes way back and I'm not test your history knowledge on the on the you know that up until the passage of the thirteenth amendment we had states where slavery was legal only have states that slavery was illegal. And There was there was a law passed in Congress called the fugitive slave law which basically says if you're a slave in you escape to a Free State then you're no longer You're supposed to be sent back. And then we had a case where an individual by the name of Dred Scott was able to escape and he got into a Free State nieces I'm free and the Supreme Court which to many people is the is the Sturch Sullivan you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair I'm trying to ask a real simple yes or no questions you spoke with great confidence about the share some of our state and you know how they feel can you speak with equal confidence vote all the shares going forward in the future. Well I'm I don't know who they're going to be service or no thank you thank you Mr. I remember saying no more questions do have once you may I miss one the Senator Hendren then Senator Clark. Thank you Mr chairman so again I know. There's probably one person at the table here who understands the impact this is going to have on law enforcement's ability to have these relationships with federal governments and that she with federal agents and the. So you're telling me that this section it says that you guys have to every time make a decision about whether or not this conflicts with the Arkansas constitution is going to make it more difficult for you to have those relationships to do your job. I think that's the question I mean that was the question that we had the house is going to are we going to be able to do our jobs and enforce the federal laws that we swore to enforce we worry about that's kind of the with the concern so again because what it requires is every time that you interact with the federal agent or law enforcement. Somebody has to make a decision whether or not they're doing something that would conflict with the Arkansas constitution which is kind of hard for sheriffs and law enforcement to make out on the field on a As used it as we've been heard sometimes a time sensitive basis I think the sheer serve a good understanding of the constitution what their job is I just again. We've got great partnerships with some local. Federal agents that we we need right especially in our smaller counties that we need those relationships and and we we just don't want to be violating the law I guess mine forcing those federal laws that make sense yes thank you. Senator so we'll need to have some for groups would like to answer for questions of. When it comes down to the constitution obeying constitution would you buy the U. S. constitution over the state constitution. I you would not I don't I don't I don't. Constitutions so with the federal access your microphone. Sorry if the federal government says it's against the law to sell marijuana in Arkansas you would not obey that. You don't buy that so he would we're going to obey the law so it's against the law to sell marijuana in Arkansas with the recreational medical. I get where you're going okay are you gonna by the federal law state law. Well my the state. I mean I rest my case. Senator Clark you're recognized. Yes Sir Along the same one do you decide that the. Just before that that did for in your other services for the whole federal laws note I remember raising my right hand and swore and to uphold the constitution I don't remember sworn to uphold federal law. the the all swear to uphold federal law. The it says I do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States the constitution of the state of Arkansas and I will faithfully discharge the duties of chairman this case okay so the constitution yes Sir The four come back to the constitution of. It looks like we already have a conundrum. Of because if the fields will parade. marijuana dealership or a grower and of I think there would be listening intently right now because I know people get tens of millions of dollars invested in and then legally in Arkansas growing marijuana illegally in the United States. All marijuana would be very interested in knowing what the sheriff's of Arkansas or going to do if the fed say we your we want you to go raid this facility. It seems like there's a conundrum already there it. Yes there is so what we're gonna do. Well right now we're we're upon the states the state law but anyway there are laws in place how much you can have there's different issues there I'm and I get what you're saying but right now nobody's I should go rate at. No Sir. So that's where the rubber meets the road where is is will is when it actually happens but the. The since we've both will hold up a right hand to uphold the constitution of. Second amendment a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and the tenth amendment which is cited here each state retains its already freedom and independence and every power jurisdiction and right which is not by the confederation expect expressly delegated to the United States in Congress a simple. You take those two together second amendment mobile for its tenth amendment United States does not have the power to till Arkansas what to do except what's in the constitution. That when I will kill my right hand that's not necessarily benefits as it. True thank you. Okay membership our next witness chairman can I say one more thing you can closing is yes Sir I want to say that but most respect for Senate Stubblefield what he's doing and I know the shares due to and I'm a law enforcement again I want to stress it again we're not a business is taking good people's farms away and that's not gonna happen I believe my heart that's not gonna happen I just think there was some questions that we that we had in our partnerships and things like that I just wanna be clear on that. Thank you Sir. Read a I I would close in saying this prepare could you already agreed that we have conflict now before we've even had federal things delegated that we must do. That's contrary to state law so I would urge all share prepare in your mind what you're going to do thank you our next witness is speaking far is doubt thousand apartment I don't get is gone is green is great if you will come up you're recognized to. speak please identify yourself if your rep resenting yourself for organization and you're recognized speak I'm I'm Dallas green I'm representing gun owners of Arkansas today and I don't want to speak I just want to say that we are for this bill and I think enough discussion has gone around the table so an effort of time I'm just going to say that we are for this bill. Thank you for being here today. Next we have Scott Hamilton speaking against. If you will recognize yourself and who you're with. good morning yes Scott Hamilton I'm with the R. urban league of the State of Arkansas. just want something very quickly and briefly for those who use the second amendment as their defense when we talk about gun issues with the constitution was written the most widely used gun with a musket in order the voter must get one was referred for power in the back bill we're going placed a musket ball into the path out power. Then out on top of that and only after the steps were completely could you **** and shoot your weapon. This process would have taken several minutes so fewer casualties were possible then with the automatic or semi automatic weapons of today. Back then the type of automatic shot gun bill because is it but according to the national rifle association it was not use often because it to with your comments some things have changed quite a bit since then. And that includes firearm capacity Senator Stubblefield you said put more delay in enquiring a firearm could result in some innocent family being at risk thanks to the been there. I have saved the lives of six page people executed Georgia recently that the motor was acquired legally his weapon and use it on a similar that kill six so I think we need to think about that a recent mass shootings in the nexus to quick access to firearms is very problematic. We talking about protecting people and I don't think this is how many in this room today have never truly been a space where you need to protect yourself the firearm. I have. That's what you seem to be presenting versus state control is reach during the have a different issue that warrants attention I'm a little confused of reddit reddit members signs still will confuse what we're truly talking about here it's just that one really needs to question intent of this proposed legislation. Really seeing anywhere any challenge for what it is proper to be prepared for responsible gun ownership is that what we're talking about. This appears to be that seeking a problem quite frankly some other intent and I'm really concerned about the direction is points Arkansas. The discussion. In my comments today thank you. Thank you the questions committee. Senator Clark you're recognized. Yes Mr alto are you suggesting that The shooter in Georgia was are just of. So would not have legally obtained weapons what I'm suggesting is that six folks were killed that's what we saw my understanding and I think what it's been publicly displayed is that the should require the weapon utilize pretty proximate to the shooting so I do believe there's a nexus of that and I certainly think that in cases like that is where we need to be concerned you know do people have quick access to weapons or what a delay or some other rules that we look at result in saving more lives. But. The laws now. As they apply. What was or anything. That would have legally prohibit them from buying a weapon under current law enjoyed or federally. Both both federal mainly clearly that case now and what law what would you propose that would have kept him from buying a weapon what I would propose that as legislators that we begin to look at what things are important to human life and begin to address you know what makes sense I don't think any of the laws right now that we have prevent arc are impede anyone its core some people say good people whatever that means but people that are properly able to purchase a firearm I don't see any any issue there at this point and I don't understand quite frankly why we're not spending time to say let's address issues that we are experiencing we could impose laws that could save people and and that thing I was asking you for what specific law would you have passed that would prevented that person from buying a gun that would not have prevented me in you from buying a gun rights of our legislator I would spend time researching weight loss I don't have a lot to present that is not why I came to the table what I am suggesting is that legislators begin to look at the issues that we send society and we begin to develop and identify ways to deal with things that are truly challenges I agree with that are you aware in two thousand seventeen that there were I think three hundred eighty deaths in the United States vote of farms long barrel. The number three hundred eighty three eighty long barrel okay longer okay dot and dot that and realize that's what every time there's a shooting that's what they start about as assault rifles and sure you're aware that in two thousand seventeen there were over nineteen hundred stab people died from stab wounds with knives what I am aware of is that the numbers are are high I don't know the specific numbers so I can't say yes or no that I know your exact numbers but yes that we do have quite a few murders that are utilizing various weapons okay so I'm a little confused by the. But the I guess the knives have chain since the constitution was written and that was my other question is so are you suggesting since guns have changed since the constitution was written are you suggesting that the second amendment is void absolutely not. Okay thank you okay thank you. Senator Johnson and center so. Thank you Mr chairman I'll be brief because Senator Clark asked one of my questions Mr Hamilton of. First of all I'm not. I believe he is to the recent tragedies matter of fact it got a little bit too close to me my daughter. Is in Arvada Colorado she shops at king soopers grocery store not the one where the shooting took place but another one but from where the end of the alleged shooter lives in her little town or did so I take it very seriously also stop and think about. What would have happened if you she just happened to been in that store and he happened to choose that store instead of that and the person crossed my mind was would she be armed could she protect herself and hi you put all the theoretical is go out the window when you start talking about your own family so I guess where I'm headed on this is yes of a probably deranged individual and both in the latter case and in the Colorado case they they. Who is evidently not had not done anything. Criminally before that would have disqualified them from being able to either purchase farm or to be identified as someone that that shouldn't thank. I have broken the law yet so but then then they did so I I'm I could see that you say we need to figure this out and I'm putting impact on you you set the under to testify and tell us what we need to do to figure it out but I still haven't heard an answer yet I'm I'm I'm really asking of. Is there something specific that we as legislators you should do to to. And we've you sort of conundrum here and I guess I'll use it again I hate to where that word out. we have a second amendment and you create a moment ago that it's still in force so and then what we also want to stop criminals from doing bad things people so I am all ears listing to advice do you have any advice that would cause us to to come down what you consider the proper side of that conundrum sure I'll address several points that you made so on the first one that when you talked about your daughter or something family members being armed as I raise my hand and I have several in this room of the senior hands go up has anyone minutes pays. To use the forgot your you're not authorized to be asking questions so let me take that off the table I apologize okay X. statements that so in the statement I would I have personally been in this place where just about firearm is necessary and they were two young men that actually get a quote what you call the drop on me they by the time I realize that the weapons on me there was nothing I could do okay and what I did is I complied with their request and I lived another day that's one of the challenges of miss numbers I mean I I'm I'm a CCW I cared by about firearms training all that good stuff but in many instances that does not give you the opportunity that a lot of times that we assume that's fine I think that people have a right and should be a position that could protect themselves so there's a lot of times of assumption that having access to a firearm is going to protect you from as you said a deranged that's possible my concern here is that this bill Senate bill ninety eight really goes to a space of up of challenging state versus federal law and and will also you know it's good and that's kind of what I want to present here is that what we're talking about firearms in that space but this is a bigger this is a broader issue because not only could this be applied to violence but what else I think this is within where it is concerning so we've got two pieces here that of concern but the state versus federal it's a great question I said that quite a bit law school and it's one that I think that once discussion my question though is that is this the topic that we should be using your that we will take it is an independent space and then the term and how we should move for now to your question of the what do I suggest the legislators I suppose to do with that again looking at what we see as day to day issues in our society and make sure that we're addressing those I think you unit with its citizens your role is to look at what. We see in our society it will be to vote but I think one of the things that's extremely concerning is what impacts our citizens as a hold in the day to day basis. Thank you Senator Solomon you're recognized. Thank you some of the states that have in cities that have the most restrictive gun laws like Chicago and others still have high crime rates could you. Shortly addressed that pretty concise that relies on being long extensively right I don't have the answer for that we have quite a dupont but you're absolutely right thank you thank you Mr. Okay saying no more questions thank you for being here testify at the okay thank you to president is sponsoring got Senator Stubblefield. Thank you Mr chairman I just want to say one thing we're briefly out Watson interview of one of the employees at the supermarket where the killing took place when interviewed him he said he was a young guy that worked there any stood behind one of the counters you've done with the counters in watch one of these young younger the girl that worked there watcher being murdered any said the board shall never forget he said I'm going to purchase a firearm I'm going to learn how to use it and I hope and pray that my employer will allow me to bring it back to work with me so I can protect myself and my fellow coworkers that was the state. Mr chairman thank you for being here today our final witnessed signed up is Paul Calvert if you go the on the table I will would you say should be concise as possible we've. been honest sometimes imported and we want to hear from all sides. Yes Sir thank you this is. Excuse me miss Paul Calvert I appreciate Senator Stubblefield print bring this bill So I guess about the only thing I really want to talk about is pretty brief you know if if the feds are offering millions or even billions of dollars in exchange for helping The state officials take our rights away. We need to keep that blasted money. I mean that we don't want if that's if that's the exchange is that we're gonna take people's rights away whether it's seat belts or motorcycle helmets or enveloping to enforce unconstitutional laws against our second amendment tell me keep the blasted money. The college university so addicted to federal dollars they want state officers to violate our constitutional rights maybe the educational institution to close our doors. One more point this bill doesn't actually even challenge federal law it simply prohibits state officials from helping to enforce federal law as I understand it so this is what they call anti commandeering like we're not gonna get away but we can help you I think if I think that's that's the gist of the bill and I understand it correctly. And so I ask questions and I. But thank you for your time thank you in members have questions for Mr cover. About twenty thank you for being a mist covered thank you. Senator Stubblefield year are recognized close the bill. Thank you Mr chairman. Thank you committee for less than. Let me just close by telling his story. In Tennessee there was a man who lived up the mountain and had gotten to three young lads on numerous occasions and gotten the best of them will one day the three young lads gather together they said you know what we're going to get to this manage it I've got a plan he said we're going to take a bird. And we're gonna walk up to this man's house to more and we're gonna ask came what if I got my hand. In the old man's gonna say well you've got a bird young lad. And then we're gonna ask him is it dead or alive. And if he says it's dead then I'm gonna let the birds fly but he said is it to live then I'm gonna question bird with my hand. In order to get to the man so they went to the man's house. And they ask the question man what about got my hand. Hillman said lead you've got a bird. Is it better live. The old man said if the land overlooked its young man he said. It is as you will seven. So this is exactly what we are today we can either will and have the will to stop the payment. The federal government all we can go right along with the way we've been doing for the last fifty years and fifty years from now when our kids and our grandkids have surrendered a big part of their rights. You may look back to this committee meeting rival because I will be your major Sullivan. Look back and wish you could have done something different so I would appreciate a good vote now would make a motion to pass. I have a motion to passion Senator Stubblefield second Senator Flippo. Any discussion on the motion. If not all in favor aye aye opposed. The Bill pass is. Senator Stubblefield. Senator Ballinger recognized to present Senate bill fifty nine. You have an amendment correct. I really expected this be exciting but after that is going to be boring. All right so the amendment I dialed a run first and hopefully you will get adoptive the twelve The committee but this is the language of actually of Mr Calvert kind of pointed to that you guys talked about that the anti commandeering I actually thought this was already in the bill the problem is that this bill originally had sort of two parts to it one part we took out and it's a House bill is going to be ran different it when we took it out this language came out of it so we just basically put it are putting it back in it so this language would would come in on page four line twenty five it is the language that specifically limit the ability of state actors government actors to to go out and enforcement that I mean this dovetails nicely with the with Senator Stubblefield bill we didn't plan it that way but it's it's kind I think worked out well but everybody's here and got kind of the same ideas presented so if happy to answer questions amendment if not I'd I'd appreciate a motion to adopt the amendment. I have a motion to optimise second. All those in favor say aye. Are amended to better doctor thank you recognized so that this bill is is similar in spirit and different informed so what this bill bill deals with is the actual the manufacture and sale of firearms that remain wholly in the state so that the materials that they're brought in are not firearms that are either manufactured that are are built and kept in the state that we feel like that that would be something that should be regulated by the state and not not federal government obviously this does not and eliminate it isn't it's not true all of cation in the sense are in a position the fact that we're stepping in and saying that the feds you know can't regulate the reason why this event be constitutional is because of the language that we adopted and this is basically the state won't put resources to doing that is actually very old idea my first bill I think I filed way back in two thousand thirteen was included this language actually was this in the other parts of town house bill and grand way back when it's something that several states that have adopted and and actually one state had adopted and and that's and and it was declared unconstitutional but it's because of an outright prohibition rather than relying upon the anti commandeering doctrine and say and state resources will be applied to it and I I totally get the position that law enforcement and it is an this is an easy for them hi they already have a really hard job and I think I think the job is harder today than it was three years ago I don't want to do anything that's more difficult for them however they have an obligation and frankly I fear that they're going to be faced with with the time that they're going to have to decide whether or not they're going to protect the rights of citizens of the state or they're going to comply with an overreaching federal government and I hate that I hope it never comes to that but I'm I fear if I had to guess I think that we may be. Facing the and so you know at this point I hope that maybe law enforcement see this is a tool that will take their hands out of enforcement of something that could ultimately hurt the constitutional the natal rights of our citizens. Have to answer questions about the bill the bill if you if you look at the language first part is is basically the the the. Legislative intent be come all the way down the page three is where in the definition page three where the prohibition come so just basically prohibits state actors to to enforce laws that deal with firearms that are wholly manufactured in the state what's exempted is is made ammunition that has explosive components to it that has to be it can't be carried by just one person or that and more than one round comes out of the the fire with one trigger pull so it would be things are fully automatic would also be exempted it would not be protected under this. Our committee members regarding explanation the bill or any questions Senator you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman so what is the position of law enforcement on the bill hi I haven't heard the position law enforcement on the bill my assumption is because of their position on the Senator Stubblefield bills that they would probably have concerns because of their partnerships and one thing that I think it's really important that we point out that you know the feds do have the ability to say we want we will not provide funds for you if you don't carry out this section but has been closely tied to that action and so if they develop a great program that that is designed to help local law enforcement to go gather up magazine capacities of more than three than ten rounds or to go gather up you know what they define as assault weapons well that's money frankly that I hope the state would reject anyway in law enforcement Jack because I feel like those are with the money being paid to you Sir rights and so if they say you know we're not going to give you money to help fight the war on drugs or or to help fight you know whatever after that those funds could be withheld because it's not related to the the the action of the state in which were saying we're not going to not going to to engage and participate so is there anything happening now that this is going to stop that that is service our problem right now that this is fixing it the answer to that is yes because right now an individual doesn't have the ability to go out and manufacture a a firearm and sell it to his neighbor so you can't go take still on wooden and springs and and build a gun insulted his neighbor and and the truth is even after this he if I were advising a client if you're gonna do that a large scale you should be concerned just like marijuana cultivators right it's still illegal under federal law and so you still if ATF wants to come in a rescue they can do that they're just not going to get the help of. Local law enforcement to rescue if you're out there you know building a gun so somebody goes wants to go in his backyard now start producing firearms as long as the stamps made in Arkansas and as long as the metes other criteria eightieth could still do something but this would prohibit state law enforcement from doing right so and then finally. You know I'm always curious about. Where people draw the line on second amendment well I mean we all draw different places and apparently here you've drawn on. A firearm that can't be carried by one person carried in use I mean where did that come from it came from the language and that they passed in Wyoming that they passed in Kansas they passed Montana several the places and and the reason for that is that is that we want to produce a bill is going to pass right so I mean I I'm pretty radical it comes to the right to bear arms I would probably draw lines around nuclear weapons trade you know I think citizens should be able to be armed but you know if you got something that if the blows up you're gonna blow up your old neighborhood and city it probably shouldn't on those but the reality is that the in order to get something passed we have to have those limitations but in theory you'd be willing to do what I mean the reason I ask that is a guy. Is. Obviously the is it would be possible to construct some firearms that could take down commercial airliners without too much difficulty and you got no problem with that well that's that'd be specifically prohibited this bill but what I would say is that that it that it is a debate that we should should have I think in this time in this society it be hard for us to just pull that trigger but I'm I'm pretty you know small L. libertarian I I would have a view that I trust people and if they are breaking the law meeting going out hurting somebody else then state shouldn't be meddling of the business but that's not really what this bill is about those limitations are in this. Right thank. Our committee members any other questions. We have anybody signed up to speak for against the bill. Same number Senator Ballinger close for your bill I'll close it I feel like this is a is a good approach that is focused on the real legitimate problem that we have and that is that we have a the federal government that is promising to come in and encroach on our rights and this is the method is something we can do is a state to to prepare for that to help protect the rights of citizens I think it's going to take many more states to do the same kind of thing before we'll get to the point where it's it's safe for people to go out manufacture them firearms assault on firearms but this is a the step is to make that happen so and I appreciate a good vote in a so for motion. We have a motion from Senator Flippo two this will this will be a motion do pass as amended. And the second from Senator Solomon indiscretion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Congratulations Senator Ballinger bill passes second reading. Hi this time we're gonna take just minutes of Senator Clark you wanted concurrent amendment. Two okay okay. The motion will be to concurrent house amendment one and two yes thank you Mr and members of the committee of house amendments one and two one just says representable of his co sponsored and the other of. The late stored waste water of and took eighty Q. out and put a and R. C. in in a couple places of eighty two got hold was after we pass the bill through house committee but we send it back to committee and. Did that form it doesn't do anything substantive of appreciate a good vote I hope that we. Adoptive a concurrent house amendments that we have a motion to concur on house amendments one to any discussion. Second. Senator rush all those in favor say aye. Post graduation thank you Mr thank you members twenty. Representative voted Johnson. House Bill sixteen eighty three. If you recognize yourself and the. You're recognized president House Bill sixteen eighty three thank you Mr representative Lee Johnson district seventy five committee members this bill amends the master settlement acted that's two things essentially one currently the year non participating manufactures cigarettes have to make payments it to our to the to the state government here and it's it's regulated to the AG's office that to make those on a certain date in the quarter they have to turn receipts to match those payments unfortunately with the dates are set up right now the dates the receipts and then the payments come at the same time so there's very little time to the AG to look into those said the validity of those and then I try to do the important they need to do so it moves the time back to the from the twentieth to the thirty S. FOR for that payment to be received so they have more time to that that process additionally requires a bonding process that they don't currently have to have so that if one of these manufacturers goes into default they are now would be required of a bond so that we don't lose money in the process if they were to default on these payments then I have some folks with the AG's office who can answer questions if anybody has any questions. Part any any committee members of questions. So you just have a question how this can affect the small of. Smoke shops that sell cigarettes to issued its just a strictly for the manufacturers so the folks that are selling tobacco products it shouldn't affect them unless I'm mistaken and that process I'm happy again to defer to the experts that are here. Arkansas if you want to come to the table and recognize yourself for the record. Thanks also honors I'm assistant AG with the attorney general's office to speak into the microphone got me now Charles honors assistant Attorney General. Thank you Mister dancer question it doesn't affect them at all okay. For any other questions from committee members. Senator Johnson. Thank you counselor and doctor Johnson. This is awful long building very little. Of is it necessary to that tobacco regulation be this complicated I again this is not I'm I'm I apologize for not only speak to the bill Mister chairman but I think it would. Service well to have that question answered. I can see yes and did my job but. I'm not putting trying to put you on the spot I'm just it anytime a bill is so complex I can't wrap my arms around it I feel like I need to kind of pull back and ask why it's that way that certain not figure on the sponsor or the attorney general's office Hodges I'm seeking for the citizen is tuned in watching the live stream do they understand what's going on because those were set up here may not completely understand the. You could use a mop size that yet and I appreciate what doctor Johns A. but could use of Bob size that where a person of average intelligence could understand. Okay so years ago when I was in high school nineteen ninety now exit college thank ninety eight master settlement agreement signed And. The legislation that came out of that first off those extra statutes so if you are not a participating company agents on and after selling green you must deposited into the escrow accounts and the money is there for twenty five years and data policy. we have to do that in order to as a state past this particular law in order to protect our settlement agreement payments and it also. creates a potential pool for recovery I mean cigarettes cause damage right. So you go back a long long time ago we had none of these particular laws and so what happened was manufactures would come in from China and India and they would jump into Arkansas and then they would stiffness they would not pay any deposits in I have a pile of judgments back in my office millions of dollars in unpaid stuff so we created these particular statutes we created this directory process we created that'll create despondent process in two thousand eleven but this is only for high risk manufacturers so way back in two thousand eleven which doesn't seem that far back the deposit these guys FOR making on a quarterly basis was about two hundred fifty thousand dollars last quarter it was almost a million dollars. In a quarter so if we get we don't get that money deposited we are subject to a potential penalty of up to three times that amount against our payments on annualized basis. So that in this all came from the tobacco settlement yes once again I guess it was a federal judge that drew all this up and I know we treat and that's one of the country wanted to play we had to follow these rules and so we we. Here we go back for following the money again I think it's a great explanation I appreciate you you give it to us thank you so not a problem and thank you representative John. Mr. Any other committee members have questions. What. Anybody in the audience wants to speak for against the bill. Saying a representative Johnson close for your bill I am Mr chairman thank you card. I have a motion from us Senator Hendren do pass the second Senator Johnson in discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed graduation present represent Johnson thank you committee members Mr president. Are we have a. Senator samples. Senate bill five ninety two. You're recognized you so for the record sent samples. You're recognized. Thank you Mr. Thank you Mr. Before I start presenting a bill of that has to have Mr bill still will come to the end table was placed thirty five regional. Members this bill is just simply a bill is trying to modernize the Your laws and Get us close to the other states as far as the the our call wait in the container size were describing what malt. Means in the bill we're describing beer we're describing the the content of the beer and the size of the container the Content of the beer will go from five percent to twelve percent. in the size of the container will be known of will be no less than sixteen ounces and we're describing the. Small bottles of spirit the slicker and a wine. And with that I'll take questions. Any questions from committee members. Saying none. Is there anyone in the are we have a Mr Bobby Robbie Mr love great sorry. To speak for the bill or Robbie Vogel. Well if you will identify yourself who you with the record you're recognized. Yes Sir Mr chair thank you my name's Robbie Vogel I'm with golden eagle of Arkansas if I may can I deferred my business partner the president of gold eagle of Arkansas berry caps he's also speaking on behalf of the bill. Which kept if you want to go and go the other table school take both of the same time. Just recognize yourself know you're with. Very caps gold medal Arkansas. You're recognized to present you Sir I'm here in support of the bill I think that this bill provides consistency with existing alcohol policy within the state I think it helps the vast majority of retailers in the business of selling out on the state provides options to our citizens the residents of other states have that our citizens do not I think it keeps Arkansas with surrounding states in line with their Arkansas alcohol policies I believe this balance is the interest of Arkansas citizens and its businesses. I do not believe that this bill is an expansion of alcohol policy we as a state have chosen a moderate and conservative approach to alcohol regulation and we have many counties that are dry this changes none of that you know. It appears we don't want to lead the pack when it comes to alcohol regulation and policy change and I agree with that however As a state we don't want to get separated from the herd that's usually never a good thing that's all this bill does is it keeps us with the hard it benefits our citizens in majority of our businesses it means you can buy beer with the similar alcohol content to wine while at the grocery store also buying your wine. It puts us in line with forty seven or forty eight of our other states. And these are moderate and conservative measures that benefit Arkansas's businesses and its consumers. That's all I have is part. Any questions from committee. Saying no questions. Of your dismissed we have a. We have a Mister John crow to speak against the bill. Schofield. Recognize yourself who you're with for the record. I am John crow one of seven liquor insurer would so I've got a retail operation and not used to doing this every day so Concerned about this bill because of the expansion I believe of a higher gravity I'll call beer in our grocery stores and convenience stores right now products over five percent or allowed to be sold in in liquor stores only and a changing this rule of the woken up over two thousand more locations for high alcohol content beers to be sold in grocery stores and convenience stores that's bad for me that's why I'm here is because it's when the pocket book but I also think it's bad for public safety this can be a lot more. Dear available at a high gravity with less restrictions right now a liquor store we pay higher permit fees we have more restrictions regulations to follow what we're A. B. I. think the ex the ex exercising more control Bill what a mess and. Yes. Yes. Going to go in a dinner for yourself for the record. I'm bill paschal I am the lobbyist for the United beverage of Arkansas associates. And I'm here to assist John the liquor store industry across the board in Arkansas Adam and Lee opposes this bill we believe it will expand access to minors by putting high content beer alcohol content beer in C. stores we also think it's going to put up to sixteen ounce beers up front by the checkout counters in C. stores and grocery stores which. We haven't done in Arkansas that's a big change in policy is John stated it will hit our guys in the pocketbook as you all know we had a major fight a few years ago online grocery stores that costs are folks anywhere from fifteen to twenty percent loss of revenue. we think this bill powers on. These high alcohol content beers often craft beers or one of the biggest sellers in liquor stores it brings people in the door and they buy the products and if we lose exclusive rights to sell these we're gonna lose a lot of revenue it's going to really hurt one other factor you guys should know as John mentioned what we're concerned about the safety aspects I ask the ABC to send me statistics on violations for Selling to minors in twenty nineteen and if you put the grocery store since the source together they doubled the violations for liquor stores in twenty nineteen for selling to minors so we're concerned about the safety aspect this bill we're concerned that it's really going to hit to the liquor store folks in the pocketbook after following the winding grocery store bill being enacted that was a big big below this will be another similar big below and really hurt the industry. Part any questions from committee members. Senator Johnson you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman Mr paschal you throughout some numbers that piqued my interest How many liquor stores are there in the state of our four hundred forty one how many convenience stores or grocery stores that sell beer are there somewhere in the neighborhood of two thousand well there's five hundred and something of a grocery store permits and there's over two thousand off premises of beer but that didn't mean there all C. store so someone and two thousand and call them that for this purpose we are somewhere in the two thousand so more than four times almost five times as many Of the other C. store for everyone column in there are liquor stores I guess when we had it is would it not make sense just on average that you would have more by it probably forty eight All Things Rick we have four to five times violations in the C. store so there for I mean I'm saying because using two different universes I don't think your numbers Pat that correctly lesser Justin my numbers are correct and you are you sure they're absolutely correct yeah but you know it's of. I think that ratio though based on the size of the the the number of units this violations let's just say the batting average yeah I'm just saying I'm not think that the batting average of the liquor stores is necessarily a whole lot better than the batting average of the C. stores because let's just say the C. store had more at bats that the percentage of violations percentage of violations pro rated by the size if you had some statistic on that I might you know be convinced but I'm I'm just thinking that it's this attitude that you know the Clerk at a liquor store is very responsible they would never sell someone under twenty one and a Clerk in a convenience store is absolutely irresponsible and they would and we know neither of those cases is absolutely true Tom an individual things but I'm just at a loss to see where this is creating a a serious issue I just wondered if you had something a little more. I waited to compare those more. Carefully I don't know if there's carefully since the term there any violations of selling minors bad we all agree price and there are hundred rakes the law yes Sir there are a hundred and twenty or so with the C. in grocery stores in twenty nineteen there only fifty six with four hundred forty one liquor store so Like to add is not just answer it's not just about sales to minors it's about the availability of these of these beers it's not just incremental thing that's being asked for this bill it's it's everything we're not just getting in line with states around us were surpassing that fifteen per this this equates to fifteen percent A. B. B. twelve percent A. B. W. fifteen percent is every single product that I sell it's not just. A few other beers it's it's every every thing. It's it's it's it's it's over reaching in my opinion. So Senator Johnson I I did a little survey of some of our liquor stores across the state in Fort Smith and Fayetteville little rock and I ask them and at the first time I asked we thought the bill was gonna be a B. V. six three now and we thought it was note at eight OO well I went to fifteen but when I asked them what how many products on that six three to eight OO category skews it was about a hundred and fifty. Now going to fifteen percent from six point three to fifteen percent A. B. V. that's over two hundred products that are now going to be a veil could be available in C. stores and grocery stores which now restricted the liquor stores. Thank you for your answer thank you for your that that's mine thank you Mr. Any other committee members of questions. Seeing none. A. Senator sample. You Committee clothes for your bill thank you German. Sure if you will be okay Mr will worked. I have a few comments for our clothes. Questionable thank you thank you chairman to the committee appreciate your service two three things of the liquor store industry is not universally oppose this bill will be communicated from the county line stores there's no opposition there so the opposition is a. From what you heard the twelve percent A. B. W. in the bill you might be curious about why that is eight twelve percent fifteen percent A. B. V. that's to put it on parity with what you already allowed resold by one products in grocery stores the commissioners simple as that the amount excuse for up to eight percent A. B. V. you are test for the hundred and twenty five honestly those above that we could probably warehouse for the for the state of Arkansas and in room six size or just not that many of the other thing is There's a size order portion in the bill to I think it's really important Arkansas. As order only allows the imperial pine to be sold individually nothing smaller so if you're British or German producer you can sell a sixteen point nine if you're lost forty in can't produce anything larger than sixteen ounce your Arkansas product cannot be sold individually in the state. So there the safety concerns that we've heard about I think I'm kind of used to be convenience store or motel you all know that let's talk about the economics with no one wants to hurt any permit holder out there we're just trying to make beer beer I used to sell milk if you regulated milk the same way you do beer you buy skim milk one percent two percent at a convenience and grocery store you go to a specialty store by whole milk and cream. That's how are keen an out of date or laws are in Arkansas it's very expensive in the C. store business to and they have margins on their products I just to put in the fuel underground storage tank the safety that you have there the the secondary containment so we're just trying to update our laws in a way that is consistent with the other state and we don't believe that there is a safety issue here at all those folks are permit holders as well tobacco permit holders they follow the law. Senator sample you close for you thank you I'm about to close okay members you've heard we heard the same arguments when the the wine bill was passed so that the grocery stores to sell more wine. we just passed a bill allowing home delivery of liquor. I mean all of the people that operate convenience stores there are people at the register do as good of a job. As a people to liquor stores and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone I'm just saying this is reality this is a good bill this will put us. In the modern age and I would appreciate a good vote thank you art senator samples close first bill thank. The chairman entertain a motion. Senator Hendren Jett a motion. I have a motion to pass in the second consented Jansson in discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Thank you bill passed to Senator sample resolution thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee. Our Senate bill five forty six senator garner you're recognized. Thank you chairman any one second pulled up please. Ready Mr chairman you're recognized center on bills Sentifi forty six this bill is the next step in consumer access internet connection for wind north the two thousand eighteen session laws are passed expanding access to mine both direct shipment for small one fine or small farm wineries in a grocery store we just had discussions about the grocery store bill this bill does nothing to be crushed or but it doesn't proven clarified direct shipments of wine to consumers in Arkansas. This bill removes the requirement to physically visit a winery to have wind shift you in Arkansas all right now if you go to winery at a state or someplace and you say you want a certain amount of wine shipped there they can actually ship it they're currently in Arkansas. Arkansas is the only state with this requirement only yes Sir act three one three from two thousand eighteen did that for small farm wineries but this expand its to all wineries. A pass this bill we are moving any threat of lawsuit based on interstate commerce law Commerce Clause. There's been recent Supreme Court cases that could put this in conflict who requires all wineries who won shipped Arkansas to register with the Arkansas beverage control division the filed required paperwork in to raise the fee from twenty five to a hundred dollars making this bill revenue positive. this will allow us have a process to have those wine shipped directly to people and I think it's a good consumer and economic bill that'll take any questions. Questions Senator Garner yes Sir. Two years ago we deal I've dealt with the bill that allows a Kroger's in Walmart some of the other grocers so one would put a a. Huge burden on my local wineries in my Senate district which I have a number of this bill would do further damage to Arkansas local wineries I want to committee to know that this bill this bill actually put some of our local wineries out of business I make it very tough for them to sustain their businesses. So I just want to get that out there in the front any other questions from committee members. Anyone in the audience will speak for against the bill. If Stan Hastings. Speak against the bill. Thank you recognize yourself for the record your speed my name is Stan Hastings I'm with moon distributors here in Little Rock the family's been in wholesale wine and spirits business since nineteen thirty five that whole time we've been under both federal and state regulation and then held a pretty high standard of I call it a very high standard Arkansas laws have always it with alcohol it's kind of been in the middle of the country and been on the cutting edge we had been on the tail end of things I totally understand the consumer today according to order our products online. That's we're all buying more and more products online alcohol is a little bit different what is a highly regulated item. If you're going to pass a law and allow to be shipped in though it should be a level playing field. To your point about our native wineries are held to a high standard also you today I've got permits to pay taxes our retail partners pay taxes these people are shipping this stuff and don't do any of that there's no reporting in this bill about fourteen states so far passed bills were the shippers happy to report where they're shipping it in and who they're taking it to put that in the bill so the state knows where it's going and can collect some taxes on it why are you gonna get out of state people advantage on us I don't think it's fair. If you're gonna let people ship it that's one that's a different question but level the playing field don't give them an advantage over all the Arkansas businesses are paid millions of dollars in taxes every year also in your allow people start shipping it in without it it's not fair. These two different questions here there's the question of being able to ship wine. Don't mind power problem is let's level the playing field. There's no way to hold of shipper responsible to deliver to somebody twenty one years old there's no mechanism in this bill for that shippers don't have a permit to hold against them there are retailers have permits we have permits we mess up they can come after this there's nothing here to call the roll of the ship responsible but dropped off in a college dorm but you kids eighteen years old thank you online order stuff what you twenty one yes or no that's the rocky. No come we were all there one time. Let's level the playing field if you're going to pass something or don't get out of state people advantage arbitration we have questions from committee sent Johnson Jr. Thank you Mr chairman. Tracings I'd told you the text I thought I might build this bill but he brought up a couple things that I had called Cosby to reconsider which is why we probably need to have a telephone conversation instead of text messages in the future but to I appreciate you bring out this level playing field issue I'm I'm for the level playing field even if maybe Arkansas sometimes maybe a little bit behind but I believe in fairness issue and and I'm I don't want to see someone get a competitive advantage I'd like it to be I know it can't always be perfect but I do see that the thing I did not see before this so I appreciate your testimony and it does show that testimony can make. Thank you senator thank you mispricing thank you Mr. Thanks to centenary of questions I do thank you Mr chairman so. Senator garner mentioned in several other states already do this is one of the few I guess we don't how do they address the issues that you brought up with regard to delivering to minors or dorms or the evolution a direct shipment of alcohol his twenty year plus evolution at this point there many years ago there were what we call reciprocal agreements where basically I could ship to your state you could ship to mine those were declared unconstitutional in a case called grand hold protectionism of state's. There's over the years different states of all different ways the current evolution of states that have. Direction of alcohol though is to start taxing it and there are I believe fourteen stated in the report if passed these were called ship reporting bills so the shippers after will then report to the state to receive those products and make sure that the shipper the supplier whoever that is on the other end is paying those taxes one thing that I don't see in this bill is also to distinguish between does exist tension between a supplier shipping and out of state retailers shipping because there's two different models out there on how this stuff is ordered there's a number of online retailers that are shipping again if out of state retailers can ship in our state let John over here ship it out. So. The taxes that you're talking about I mean because we pass the internet sales tax would they have to pay sales tax and what tax are you saying they should pay gallon each taxes we pay gallon age taxes on all products we sell so in addition to the sales gas account the host sales tier pays Galantis taxes it is based on proof gallons of product everybody was paid federal taxes of course a supplier is but in our case we remit to the state same as Robbie does every other person holds a wholesale permit in the state the state gallon each taxes these I'm not sure exactly what those rates are less on beer wine spirits courses IG suppliers pay those in the states at their end. The supplier the supplier does not pay the state level taxes the wholesalers to and all cases on mobile I believe. It in their sales tax on top of that which on alcohol depending on where you are in this state and bill could probably answer this better than I can but the state sales tax on alcohol ranges from ten percent to about fourteen in that run so when he gets to the sales tax is very substantial and then and then finally again I don't think you dress how do you how to the states prevent delivering these to minors. Some states have passed the rebels that make the shippers register and get a permit from the state so they can be held responsible make it right now the problem is UPS fed ex it based deliver something to somebody that's under twenty one what can you do to Don't do that again. They have no permit there's no mechanism to find them there's no reason there's no way to hold them responsible unlike John over there they can come in finding takers permit for report the defenders thank. Any other any other committee members of questions. Thank you Mistry's teams for testimony thank you. We have John crow against. I have anybody here to speak for the bill. I'll just quickly echo what Stan said it's it's unfair it cuts out to two years this state misses out on taxes and I know you guys care about that it's it's it's it's it's not good for business it's again a public safety issue there's no accountability it can be dropped off at somebody's doorstep they walk away who knows who gets the product I've got my life on the line my livelihood on the line and I'm not going to risk it And and and there's not there's nothing to hold anybody else accountable here so yeah withstand said. Thanks any any questions for Mr crow. R. C. none of what would come up testifies for the bill. Thank you Mr my name is Suzanne a lot and I represent the one institute. The purpose of this legislation is to allow for direct shipment of wine to consumers some of the concerns mentioned before were how do you regulate that already happens here the same standard that we currently have with direct shipment of wine for the small farm wineries would be the same that we we would use in this legislation this bill isn't designed to directly impact Arkansas honorees it's designed to open up commerce and allowed direct shipping from all wineries not just those of smaller size the main goal is removing red tape in opening up shipping for all wineries. There are currently forty five states that allow their consumers to buy and have shipped to them wines from any of the roughly twelve thousand wineries in the country not withstanding the concern of the Arkansas lottery's it is the norm in other states for their local wineries to happily co exist with the system that allows direct shipping by out of state wineries the number of local wineries and other states varies from few to thousands to something it something in between and every case we have found that allowing out of state wineries to direction is not harmful to the local one industry to the contrary it tends to generate a broader appreciation and interest in one. And the last twenty years there have been tremendous growth in the direct to consumer channel of selling wine as I said forty five states allow it. The retailer wholesaler and local wineries have continued to thrive no state has ever even considered repealing these laws to the contrary any legislative activity in this area has been toward expansion rather than contraction. The state will benefit our consumers will benefit and unless Arkansas's oddly different from every other state none of the bad results predicted by some will come to pass. That's all. Thank you any questions from committee. If not thank you for testifying. The last we have Theresa blue. If you will then the table. Testifying against that. The previous bills. Okay all right thank you because speak for anyone anyone else here to testify. Okay relinquish the chair. Thank you are you close for you will yes Sir I'll be brief you know I think this will be tax exact same way we do small wineries already in Arkansas and there is a mechanism requirement in law that you have to get signatures my twenty one or over and we're deliver the alcohol I believe we passed multiple bills this session that allows delivery of whole this fall the summer suit with that Mister chairman I'm closing on ice for a good vote. I. Sure entertain a motion. Seeing your bill does center on. All right we have a. House Bill twelve sixty four representative poking a. Senator days you'll be presenting that since the. J. here hi since this. Ever since is was referrred after the eighteen hour mark. Of we will hear without objection. Twelve sixty four House Bill twelve sixty four. K.. Thank you Mr chair and this bill deals with an. That amount that you and that a community or people can spend and. And it just raises basically the limit before you have to hire an architect so currently currently the losses after over a hundred thousand dollars have to hire an architect and to restore property or building a community and this bill was passed in the nineteen eighties there's been no update to deal with inflation and so really this bill all it does is raise is raise that number to two hundred fifty thousand dollars and if we truly adjusted for inflation it would be three hundred and twenty thousand dollars today so this doesn't even fully adjust for inflation and we and like I said we haven't adjusted it says cities small businesses are spending thousands of dollars in architectural fees which means they're investing less in and redoing properties and and updating in communities and investing in economic and things that will provide economic impact in the community there's a two year sunset on this bill so we can reevaluate in two years and C. F. two hundred fifty thousand dollars is a good number of we need to lower it back down to a hundred thousand and and so with that I'll take any questions. Our committee members you for an explanation the bill any questions. Senator Johnson you're recognized. Senate over someone both your bill but I'm just not quite sure that the the title is as clear as it should be. It doesn't seem to be exclusively to small towns in a minute you have really has to do with the value of the building is that correct. Well I think it's fair to say like it is an economic and development bill for small communities that don't have a lot of money to spend on fixing it property and so the money that they are spending a lot of it's going to architecture fees so you're correct like it's for communities across the state and go to any committee this would it. Let's say down south and main street there's a building that could be need to be but it be under hunt two hundred fifty thousand dollars well it would apply correct okay it's all the thank you thank you. Aren't Senator Rice you've question. It is first your first one for you and and I'm not opposed to the bill but when was the notification that this bill would be presented today. We were called. Five fifty three PM yesterday it was referred to five fifty three yesterday afternoon okay the into center Davis do you you know of any opposition spoken to the bill and there's no opposition this bill was amended and work through and with architects and others that maybe originally had concerns and so yeah I will say it was referred for I asked earlier but it wasn't referred from the house yet and so we're waiting on is actually get over here to the Senate but there was there was opposition stated in the House committee no they they work that out correct thank you again because it's only yes it's next to last leg I just wanna make sure in the code the legislation that we're doing that we you know we're fire and thank you absolutely like Senator have any other questions from committee. Sinan Senator does your clothes for bill I'm close will ask for it but please we have a motion to have a motion to pass Senator Johnson second by Senator Solomon. And discussion all those in favor say aye All opposed. Gradually Senator Davis thank you. Committee saying no other business. Where German.