Judiciary Committee- House

I would ask vice chair representing Smith to come forward to conduct any. All right. The Representative Dalby are you prepared to present your bill and the and the concurrent Amendment. Yes thank you Mister chair members this bill is a bill that we passed out really the first week of the session and house bill ten fifty eight in is often happens it gets down on the Senate and the Senate made a couple amendments this would be for Amendment number two with the Senate did is they added a date or to become an effect which would be January first twenty twenty two and then the expanded a little bit as to what charitable organizations would fall within this bill and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. All right seeing no questions. All those in favor they've been number saying aye. The motion we need a motion I'm sorry I'll make a motion to get her in the Senate amendments all right. All right thank you amendment number two would you like to. Present that I did and with that I would move that we offer on my phone is blowing up in my pocket so I need to move that away so that could be dangerous Mister chair all right So with that members I would move that we can current Senate Amendment number two and I would ask for a good faith. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed and there is none. Thank you thank you members. Can. All right members we're going to turn our attention now to Senate bill twenty four. A Representative Pilkington is here to present at this bill we have an amendment on your desk. I believe everybody has received that amendment if you have not. if you have not gotten Amendment let us know. So at this time members were turning our attention to the amendment and representing Pilkington are recognized you to present your amendment. Thank you madam chair Today present you an amendment on Senate bill twenty four as many of you know after Senate bill twenty four and regionally failed in this committee there are members who had run concerns about lawfully present and so what I did is I worked with some of the various stakeholders to try to find some common ground language that they feel comfortable with and so this is this is that amendments the gunners of Arkansas all are in favor of this amendment they believe that it provides clarity and will help make sure that we don't end up in situations in which someone loses their right to stand their ground simply because they. They were in a place where they were lawfully present but there may be an extended circumstances of the NRA's neutral on this amendment I know that's something I've been asked a lot about its and so their father passes the five a dozen passes but I know that's a concern for some people it's here and then the the prosecutors association while not seen a formal statement I do know they are opposed to it but I think that you know having worked with some of these by bill lawmakers of aspen to make these changes they believe that it provides more clarity and if that's what we need to provide to make us feel more comfortable this bill I think that's what we need to do that's part of the legislative process I don't want my own vanity to get in the way of what I thought was a good bill when I've got other colleagues to bring a good team G. one points he know and when one of those points you know when I was listening to test my last time was when Michael Kaiser represented USA brought up some points about about providing clarity and so this is what I hope to do and with that I ask for a good vote on this amendment. Members are there any questions represented Pilkington regarding his amendment. Represented Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair Representative contend I. See that you have serious felony such as arson theft burglary murder or rape in this definition of lawfully present those are some examples of serious felony but defined for me the precisely what is a serious felony. Can I get a copy of the amendment I was not given one. Thanks so much. So you're asking what is a serious felony by this definition. I'm. To be honest I I sing anything that's listed here is considered a Sears felony or or or infractions like it's you know I would consider serious felony like the one we just passed in the house a few weeks ago about stealing packages from the front of someone's porch and I think that's a. But up for the course of the side. I see Representative rich man who help me draft this amendment has something to say on this as well follow up. You're recognized for a follow up thank you I and I understand that you will represent a Richmond or others may have an idea of what's yours felony is but if it's not defined here with precision I'm not sure how we're going to expect people out in the world to know the difference and they're making in many cases life or death decisions about whether standard round applies so what can they look to other than future court decisions for precision when I need to make decisions about whether or not they have the right to stand around. Senate gives you get hot Also what you're saying is so it is in a situation which they might need to you stand your ground and they need to determine whether at that point that they are breaking a crime committed a serious felony you know in the language in SB twenty four you know it's pretty easy to know if you are with specially with this lovely present if you are not breaking the law then then you're able to you stand your ground if you you know I would even suggest that if your break any sort a law you should really consider whether or not that you need to use in your ground but some of the situations you need to make life a decision calls and even in the current law teacher treat you need to make life or death you know there might be life or death decisions and so you know if I but I would say if you're committing any sort a felony you probably should consider whether or not you need to stand your ground that points but like I said this is a this is just providing some clarity you know I think one of the issues yes on brought up is whether or not the you are. Accidentally trespassing on some honey land that's not yours and you come into a situation in which you know you need senior grounded a finger self defense someone else you're with I think any normal judge or jury would determine that that is that kind of trespassing would not meet the level in which that you know you shouldn't should lose your right to self defense which is locally what this is about you know what what what stage do you lose your. Your ability to defend yourself. Thank you. Represented Clowney you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair Representative will continue mention the number of times that you did this in an attempt to provide clarity and so I guess I'm just a little bit at my worries that this makes things less clear can you tell me under the language of the amendment as it's drafted right now this would allow people who were in the possession of guns in places that they know to be gun free zones to be protected using standard under the defense is that right correct so. Can you explain to me how we're making it more clear under Arkansas law to say not only to to say that you're not allowed to have a gun in these places but should you have one and use it you're actually protected under the law and that that strikes me is unclear not clear can you tell me how that makes how it increases clarity for Kansans. Sure so if you find yourself in a situation in which you know the you need to defend yourself or the life of someone else And you are not once again you're you're lawfully present you're not committing any sort you're not the aggressor in your knocks Committee the sort of serious felony that you're able to use it once again if you can remember those three things then you know that your have the right to defend yourself using standard ground thank you. Follow up. You're recognized for the follow up can you explain to me why the way that it's drafted you can in fact be committing criminal trespass as long as you are doing so without the intent to commit a serious felony why we protecting folks who are committing criminal trespass under this law. So the reason why is that I think the example I gave earlier was a lot of times some of those people who are in situations in which that they are lawfully present but. For them committed colonel trespass it's it's merely accidental and so it's. That was you know I give the example of someone who is actually on someone else's hunting property and not knowing and then comes upon a situation which they need to use self defense so you know we didn't want to strip someone's ability to defend themselves And so that's what we had at that that was the concern brought to me by members of geo way and some members of the legislature so I wanted to make this amendment to help alleviate that strain thank you just one more follow up and you're recognized for one more follow up thank you manager under Arkansas law it's my understanding that criminal trespass is when somebody has purposely trespassed onto another's property and so the scenario that you just described the accidental trespass I I still don't quite understand why we are protecting criminal trespass orders if that kind of trust pass requires intent under Arkansas do you know. I don't. Thank you. Represented very you're recognized for a question. Thank you measure up I just wanna make sure that our. earlier you did you say that the of prosecutors were okay with this no the prosecutors have not released a formal statement on this amendment but from my understanding when we were going back between the various stakeholders that they were not in favor of this okay thank you madam chair. Represented flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you. All represented coking ten so under this current language would misdemeanor domestic violence or stalking Perpetrators be protected under this law so someone who is committing a misdemeanor stalking offense or misdemeanor domestic violence would they not be protected under this law they would not be protected no ma'am. follow up. I recognize for follow up. I don't I don't see where misdemeanor stalking or misdemeanor Domestic violence offenses are enumerated in this In this particular amendment and if you could clarify that as well as and this is just a sort of piggy backing on You know previous I guess your answer to previous question you mentioned your answer was that all someone would have to remember is you know R. three exceptions which I believe there were six. So I'm wondering you know we're here legislators were policy makers and unclear as to how. This amendment would apply. And so I'd like for you to clarify. But also indicate you know how people in general who might want this law would actually be protected if with all they know is Hey this is where a standard round state if they don't know or remember those three or six exceptions how would anyone really be protected under this law. Could you repeat and rephrase your question sure so. To simplify the first part of my question. The first part of my question you said that people who would be committing a misdemeanor stalking or misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. Would not be protected would not be able to you stand your ground because they could they would then be lawfully present. And I'm wondering how that could be when I don't see. Misdemeanor stalking or misdemeanor I don't see that enumerated in the amendment I don't see how that's. Not covered. But even even with that if your answer is is in fact. Correct to the question and they're not. Ultimately I'm asking how would anyone truly be protected and be able to confidently utilize stand your ground when the average citizen would likely not NO three exceptions for the six exceptions that are outlined in this bill. How would the average person no that and be able to utilize the law. So the question is if I'm following correctly. Yes if someone is committing stalking R. as a misdemeanor for domestic abuse or whatever service situation if they are attacking a victim they are the aggressor they're not allowed to stand your ground whether this amendment on this bill or not. There's there's no protections for them into that I think that needs to be cleared up. On the other part about you know how to people know what they're not that they're able to you know or any situation which are able to use the same your ground offense or not I mean how are people able to know whether or not they have a duty to retreat or not and what the circumstances are for that I mean that's why we brought senior grounds to clarify to clear it up I mean I think most or cans and seen where stand your ground state when it back or not. and so that's why we brought stand your ground to the table was a help provide more clarity this is about you know what is lawfully present mean and so that's why we're doing this to clear but some people of processes that is confusion once again your first point if someone committing a crime or as an aggressor in the situation I mean they're not able to use this I mean a if someone has a. We for any stocking them in then shoots them I mean in no way can I use the stand your ground defense I mean it's just doesn't make sense so I hope that answers your question. Nope doesn't but thank you for trying. At recognized. All. Yeah represent bilking to enough. Does the existing law that we have right now in place does it define or list every single felony within the law no it is not. So is it reasonable to think that you should have to list every single serious felony felony in this amendment. Now you should have to I I think that we no matter what law we write we have to rely on law enforcement and the prosecutors. To make a reasonable determination about right and wrong. And what's the law has been broken or what law hasn't been broken. Is it not criminal trespass to have a farm. At a post office. It is criminal trespass yes. What if somebody comes out of the post office threatening you. With the gun. Possibly shooting somebody next to you and you defend yourself. Well under current law you would have to stand your ground defense but under this law this amendment you would be able to use the same your ground offense if you were if you found yourself in that situation. I believe would you agree. Represent Pilkington that every question has been posed to you so far besides mine. That the existing law has the exact same questions could be asked to bid yes. Thank you thank you manager. Represented Ferguson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair represented property just want to ask you a question for clarification to be backing off represented Clowney was talking about criminal trespass and it would be sure I got the understanding correctly so that someone under this amendment if someone is is trust passing unintentionally. A the if they're doing it unintentionally they would be able to stand their ground ground under this amendment correct this. Of what one followed madam chair so if someone came. On my property. The front yard. At twelve midnight let's say and I asked him to leave and they decided not to leave but they unintentionally. Trespassing the intend to be there they are the. And when I come out and tell them to leave in order them to leave they have a right to stand their ground under this amendment that they would have a right to us to stand your ground in that situation you're not an aggressor and you're not threatening their life so they they will not be able to use this bill this amendment to to stand their ground against you. But if I come out of my front of excuse me madam chair just this one you're recognized. But if I come out of my front door. It's twelve midnight and I'm probably pretty angry and I come out of my front door in order for them to get off my property I'm on my property they own my property unintentionally. Then this amendment kind of gives them the right. To protect themselves because now I have charges out of my front do all my property saying get awful mentally and. Did you make in a disturbance you making noise you. And they did it unintentionally. Correct yes so in that scenario what you're saying is you're you leave your house to confront a trespasser coming out of my front for your county front porch and you are basically threatening them that if they don't leave your property that you will use violent force against them correct I'm telling them get off my property now I'm calling the police leave right now the turn and they decide that the unintentionally of our property they didn't didn't to be the maybe intend to go to my neighbor's house but they ended up on my property creating a disturbance in creating the way I'm I'm excited I'm upset yes and I come out on the front porch and I say this because this is happening I come from a my front door yelling and Screamin because it's twelve midnight. And you're on my property. Unintentionally yeah. And then they decide to stand their ground. On my property. So in this situation. What you're saying is they then feel that their life is threatened absolutely and then the date the and use the stand your ground defense to. To use deadly force against the me yeah unintentionally trespassing on my property yes they didn't intend to they are there now get. So what this amendment. If they are committed trespassing. with the intent of doing these things let's say I mean they're trespassing but it's it's completely innocent like you said they were trying to get your next our neighbor's house or something like that only if they felt that their life was in imminent danger and that they were going to die or someone else they were with was going to die they could use the stand your ground defense yes Sir okay thank you and you. Represent Scott you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair a Representative Pilkington has the new amendment made previous neutral parties changed her position on the bill if so has anyone else beyond the prosecutors who you mention were unclear where they are the shares or anybody else is there anybody else you can update us on no I I don't know any of the other outstanding groups what their position is on the amendment thank you. If they have it has been communicated to me. So represented Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I would like to make a motion at the appropriate time place. Represented Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair represented Pilkington have you ever seen definitions included in other bills presented. Yes. And so this is not really as abnormal as it's being made out to be right now now we had definitions the bills all the time to provide clarity and have you yet to hear any question scenario. Or issue that doesn't presently exist with the existing law. Correct. So to understand that that everything every question this Richmond hang on are you asking another question I do have another question getting thirty two the last answer okay. If. If all these existing scenarios that's been presented to you by our colleagues. They do in fact exist right now with the existing law that we have. Correct thank you thank you madam chair. Representative you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair represented building ten I'm looking at the law that we have right now and would you agree with me that it doesn't list quote arson theft burglary murder or rape. I don't have in front of me but I senior telling the truth okay follow up with your. You're recognized for Paula and so I think that some of the issue that you're running into especially among the attorneys in the bunch is that we're all familiar with principles of statutory construction in one of those principles of statutory construction tells us that when one or more things of a Class are expressly mentioned and other things of that class or not mentioned then we are told that we have to look at them separately and so in looking at the fact that you have listed arson theft burglary murder or rape. I then look at the various categories of felonies we have we have six categories of felony assault and all of these different examples come from different categories some of them are in similar categories some of them are not so what are we looking at to determine what is going to be considered serious for example a Class Y. felony like rape or arson is kidnapping kidnapping is not in your list so are we to assume that we are excluding kidnapping from a serious felony of burglary is not the same level of a felony is rape or arson or kidnapping are we to assume that other class Y. felonies are not considered serious for purposes of this amendment but that these other felonies which may be Class A. B. C. or some uncategorized felony should be given a higher level of importance other than some of these that are considered so serious that we and we have sentences of forty years or life. So are we are we picking and choosing what's considered a serious felony for purposes of your definition. We you know we left the serious felony such as as part of the reason because we want to we want to specify certain ones that were brought up during the discussion so when we're talking about okay we do create lawfully present which ones are we concerned about the mess we did these yes they're different classes a felony once again. I believe that we can leave those up to the court to make those determinations follow up one last one. Recognized for one more follow up and I appreciate that in our courts are very good at it sorting through some of these factual questions but my understanding was that the need for this new statute press B. twenty four was to simplify and right now under the existing statute the only requirement for a potential defendant to take advantage of it is that they are not able to retreat in complete safety and now it appears from just this definition that they have to stop and not worry about retreat but now they have to wonder whether or not they're committing a certain type of felony or whether this felonies considered serious or any number of other things just from this amendment so do you still believe that this amendment helps to simplify the statute yes thank you okay. Representing flowers recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair person feel content of I remained. Confused and I'm I'm not a lawyer just like most Arkansas and I know you're not either and earlier I asked you about the definition of lawfully present under this Amendment. And I'm I've looked at it since you answered and I just see that lawfully present does not prohibit the commission of misdemeanor stalking or misdemeanor domestic violence which in my mind puts women in peril because obviously that means that someone could be committing those misdemeanors and then be able to if they get shot because that woman is protecting herself. Especially if she dies and she's not there to relay her story then that person could very well use this law based upon my reading but again I'm not a lawyer so I just want to I guess ask you a simpler question based on Representative for consensus sample pics I want to make sure that I heard this correctly. Based on his question to you I just wanna make sure is it under this law that someone. Could come on my property in the middle of the night. And they think they're not no they're all my property. That I could come to my door with a weapon particularly as a single woman and I'm scared. I could come to my door with my weapon and say Hey who's there get off my property they could start not hear me and see me. With my weapon and turn around and shoot me and then they would get to you stand your ground under this amendment it did I hear that correctly. If they were lawfully present thank. And I'd like to circle back on appointment about stocking. incriminate you know what I'm trying to think the scenario that you're talking like you brought this point up three times. If someone is stalking someone and a then a tax a person there's no way that they can use the stand your ground offense because in that they are committing a crime and are the aggressor in some weird scenario where someone is stalking someone else and then they find themselves in a situation where they need to defend themselves against an aggressor which I think is what the is the point you're trying to make it's it's let's say a man is talking his girlfriend she pulls out a gun on him and tells him to stop stocking and and then he used to stand your ground bills there and. That I am dead a he cannot use the standard ground offense and scenario like that thank you. Madam chair. Yes. For a follow up no no ma'am. I'm asking you at some point will will we hear from other prosecutors Association of a listed to speak because I'd be interested in knowing there is a perhaps that sheriffs association's position I'm no representatives of Scott just asks whether or not the sponsor New England since he said he didn't know I think it's important for us to know what their thoughts are about this amendment. Represent flowers we treat an amendment just like we treat a regular bill in just a moment when the committee is had an opportunity to ask questions on the amendment then I will then go through the list of people who signed up to speak for against to see if they're speaking for or against the amendment and we'll go through those individuals thank you so much. Members are there any other questions committee representing Pilkington. Seeing no further questions we do have a number of people who have signed up now some of these people may not have signed up to speak for against the amendment so. You don't have to come forward to speak. On the amendment if you're wanting to speak on the bill at some point in time this is for the amendment so I'm going to go through here and if you wish to speak for against the amendment when I call your name come forward to identify yourself and then you'll have a moment to speak for against the amendment the first individual I have you signed up to speak against and it just says against it doesn't say the amendments will be very clear is James Russell. Mr Russell are you here to speak against the amendment. Mr Russell in the rumors yep of the whole way. I'm sorry with the second hearing. Yes the bill all right then we will come back I'll make that notation and we'll come back. The next individual. Have to speak for is Dallas green go are or are you here to speak for. For the amendment. Okay if you come forward state your name and who you're with and then you may speak and in the interest of time without of. Objection from the Committee I'm going to limit comments to three minutes apiece because we have a number and so I'm doing that if there's no objection is there any objection from the Committee. Okay with that then the screen you'll have three minutes to state your position for the amendment okay. Thank you you have to push that button and right in front of you on. When it turns red is often what we think that you're on now okay I'm confused. I'm Dallas green and with again Anders of Arkansas. We always supported the idea that all or cans and have an absolute right to defend themselves or any person from a deadly threat or violence felony I'm here today to announce that we are in support of the city minute this amendment first Senate bill twenty four as many were are where we work against it because we were concerned greatly with the wording lawfully present we believe that our creator grants us the right to defend our lives without regard to our location And that justification for using deadly force should only rest upon number one what are reasonably in fear for my life and number two what's the force use reasonably and proportionately. We do not believe that the location the forces use should in any way be relevant to someone's ability to stand their ground or defend their lives from a deadly attack gun numbers of Arkansas absolutely rejects the idea that our ability to defend our lives should depend upon the ability to purchase a permit or that those who purchase a permit have a right to standard ground but others do not because they don't have the permit and they and they face a homicide charge even if the force was used with reasonable and otherwise in was otherwise justified the wording for SP twenty four did not take into account that Arkansas is a constitutional carry state with no permit required to carry a concealed weapon and for that reason gun owners of Arkansas. We opposed Senate bill twenty four. But now we've worked out with Representative Pilkington we spoke with him and this amendment we're happy with and we are pleased with him and glad that he heard our concerns and worked with us for solutions. While we believe all our Kansans have a god given right to defend themselves we do not want any criminals using the wording stand your ground to commit murder after carefully consultation after careful consultation with Representative Pilkington and other lawmakers we believe that the definition of lawfully present estimated in the amendment to Senate bill twenty four will protect our Kansans right to self defense just as importantly we believe it protects those with a concealed handgun carry license permit and that was without equally giving all our Kansans equality before the law and self defense situations we asked the committee to pass Senate bill twenty four as amended. Thank you so very much members are this spring would you take any questions if there are any. How will you. Represent the flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you. I want to preface my question by letting you know that I am a concealed Kerry license holder and a gun owner. And I don't believe that anyone who is In support of this law believes the question about to ask you. But I'm about to ask you this question because I think there's a lot of interpretation about things that happened in other states and obviously the big. You know case that is always before as is the Trayvon Martin murder and just now it's struck me as you said we don't want anyone to use this law to commit murder. I believe that's what happened in that case which is why I'm so fueled. In my vehemence against this bill and against these laws. And I'm wondering what your thoughts are do you think that Zimmerman used. This law to get away with murder. I think that even though it is a stand your ground bill it is is a bill in another state and I just don't feel comfortable thank and what he thinks. I'm not I mean I am familiar with the case but I'm not familiar enough to thank what Zimmerman thought in what was going through his mind at that time. Thank you miscreant thank you. The next individual I have who has signed up to speak against the bill would be Nathan Smith from the Arkansas prosecutors association Mr Smith are you here to speak on the amendment. But please come forward and then identify yourself for the record. As you're coming portal remind you were at a three minute per person limit at this point. My name is Nathan Smith from the prosecuting attorney been County on the present of the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association we are neutral on the originally filed Senate bill twenty four I speak today to oppose this amendment first I would say that is relates to this amendment we supported the inclusion of the lawfully present language in the initial bill because we believe that stand your ground if it's passed should only benefit law abiding or Kansans it's not complicated to obey the law it's not too much for citizens to expect that before someone engages in violent conduct their their bang all the laws of the U. pass and so lawfully present does that. Now I've heard it said today that. One of the goals here is to bring clarity I think that this amendments that represented Pilkington and a proposed today will do the opposite of that and it seems to be undermining the restrictions that the legislature is placed on prohibited places so I would argue this if in fact that is the goal we're gonna have two problems one is going to be we're gonna have conflicting laws where we're gonna have of this particular law that would to potentially give some sort of a loophole there of not having to abide by those restrictions but the other thing I would say if there is a real need to address prohibited place restrictions in the state of Arkansas the legislature is free to do that I I would just encourage you to file a bill on those specific restrictions have that debate don't use this bill as the vehicle to do that so I think the passage of this amendment if it did pass will result in confusion over how the law is applied statewide it will inevitably have just for treatment across the state because it's going to depend on how prosecutors interpret. The law and so again we're opposed to this we think the wording is vague again the the problems with serious felonies that already has already been raised and so I think if the goal is to create clarity this amendment will got the ability to do that and again one of the things that I do want to point out I think it's important to be said today as it relates to what what do you do if right what if you find yourself in one of these gray areas Arkansas already has a a jury instruction the choice of evils right so if if the person is ever in a situation where they feel like other in one of those gray areas they always can argue before a jury listen my choice was die or break the law in again the the point of the amendment is not whether or not you can defend yourself you can always defend yourself in the State of Arkansas the point is do you have to follow the law in order to do that so for those reasons were opposed to this amendment and I'll be happy to take questions if you happen. Represented Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair over here on the side Mr. S. H. comments but the I'm a little confused Iran had all that extra book learning that the that the lawyers get in the law school and everything so we probably need to break this down a little more. The confusion that putting a definition. On the on the word lawful actually defining that work. The confusion that that's going to calls to the general public I didn't get that because the word lawful. Did just any Arkansas in out there can mean a lot of different things. An attempt to actually define it would seem to be an effort. To be able to bring more clarity to those people who may be just engineers and accountants and not. Well that are accustomed to the different type of language that is used in our laws and things and so could you please clarify just a little bit more how including the definition of the term lawful is actually going to create more confusion. Instead of less sure well I think it's it's and how it's defined as proscar I know what lawfully present means right it means you're not breaking the law you're not present in a way that would be unlawful you're not committing a violation York's or criminal code I think it's it's defined here the problem is that you and it's already been been raised you list certain crimes right that you call serious felonies are so we have enumerated violent families and things like that but serious felonies here that seems to be a little bit a little bit by a but the problem is if you list certain ones or other is excluded from the list so that that's in the way I think it makes it less clear I think lawful if you say lawfully present as the original amendment I think every prosecutor knows that interpret that in every Arkansas and with would have the same obligation understand bang laws lawfully present as any other law that you pass but when you only list certain crimes and not others there's an implicit confusion there over are only some crimes prohibited and not others and why would that be. So that issue follow up manager you're recognized for a follow up so but just using the word lawful excludes all of the different crimes serious felonies and whatever else that when you just use the word lawful you're not including any those. in there why is it that people would be less confused. But not having some idea about if you are doing this work you're doing that or your present in this particular place we're talking about average people not the prosecuting attorneys in the whole purpose of this bill in this amendment is the give them a better understanding and also to be able to go into a court room when they've had to make a quick. Decision that usually happens within seconds. And they don't have the benefit of a prosecuting attorneys twenty twenty hindsight the guests to and analyze that decision over days weeks sometimes months maybe even years. So please clarify that how. Having no words is more clear to the Arkansas Public. I understand you guys understand it but I represent more than just you guys. Well again I think the debit what is in the definition is key right so what's in the definition you've you've listed here or at least the the amendment has listed see if I get this right. of also but arson theft burglary murder rape or other serious felony so the problem is in the definition so bought by saying that these are the crimes that don't allow you to be lawfully present are you then excluding other crimes are you for example excluding aggravated assault terroristic threatening in any any other number of crimes and so I don't think by saying and our cans and needs to be lawfully present in order to benefit from the stand your ground law we're really asking that that much in terms of understanding I think it's it's more of an issue to expect them to be able distinguish between the certain crimes and any other crime that's already on the books so for example a person to look at and say well Hey you didn't include aggravated assault it is is is that to be excluded from the list so that's what I mean by that I think that's how it creates less clarity. All right thank you Sir. The represented Ferguson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair Mr Smith Smith Smith pastor of if you were here earlier I gave the scenario of based on this amendment about criminal trespassing and was piggybacking off of question that was asked by a Representative of the of county. Of each I gave this scenario because two scenario I was much younger my hair wasn't as great as it is now healthy young man family man with two kids and someone was trespassing on my property. S. the leave and they refused the lady open the door but eventually the police did calm but I guess my question is this. If they are unintentionally trespassing on my property I come out of my front door S. the lease they decide to turn and stand and not move if they considered me being dangerous they under this amendment. They stand their ground and with that be something that the prosecutor would have to determine if the. The individual shot may. Yes Sir I I I certainly think it's something the prosecutor would have to determine I think that that's again why we're we're opposed to Sir on my deputies decided coming just now we're we're opposed to the amendment because again I think that the lawfully present as was initially proposed for the bill lot lawfully mom just legal your your its legal you're not committing it into any sort of crime again this specify certain types of crime so in your scenario of someone didn't know that they were criminally trespassing but but yet they were not there on your your property in an altercation bill that's really would obviously be fact determinative but it would be an issue that prosecutors would would have to work three to determine how that how that worked out. Thank you manager. Represented Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. Mr Smith under current Arkansas law is it lawful for somebody to have a gun stay inside a courtroom no ma'am. Under this amendment would it be lawful what a person be considered lawfully present if they use that gun inside of a courtroom. The in any scenario under this amendment okay so certainly would create confusion ADD because you're gonna have competing laws right you're gonna have obviously a law that says you there prohibited places which courthouse is as well as this saying If you're not committing one of the specific crimes then you would be lawfully present so certainly there would be a dispute as as to whether someone was lawfully able to do that thank you. Represented flowers you're recognized for a question. I thank you madam chair and I guess to piggyback off the previous two questions are asked the sponsor gave it a question about two specific. Classes I guess of misdemeanor criminal activity and I'm asking because I am as I read this amendment. It specifically speaks to missions from the definition of what lawfully present means prohibiting trespassing criminal trespass on an unincorporated areas and then some serious felonies and it gives examples. By not indicating. That. There are there are missed at the any misdemeanors are specifically prohibited. I guess to Representative Clarion purposes questions would. Misdemeanor domestic violence a misdemeanor stalking B.. Lawfully present. Under this amendment. Well again I think that's where this idea a disputed interpretation is gonna is gonna come in I'm not I'm not here to argue that that would obviously be the case but my point is lawfully present period equals legal right right I know what that means lawfully present defined in an enumerated way could be interpreted it to mean only these things right and and most of the time when things are listed in enumerated fashion that that is what it means it means it's it's these things now of course here it says an and other serious felonies but again you would have a dispute there are confusion right I think it's necessary. Thank you. Members I see no other questions of this witness Mister Smith thank you for coming to the thank you. Next on the list we have Julie current. This current. If you're here to speak for against the amendment now's the time if it's for the bill. The the part of the bill and not the amendment okay. Lisa Kern. Are you here to speak for coming to speak against the amendment or the bill. Okay. Thank represent Collins could you tell me hi I'm far enough away I couldn't understand could you. One. Okay thank you welcome back to you do. Lynsey Hawthorne. Are you here to speak against the amendment. Are the bill. Okay we'll build thank you Rachel Luckett thank you're signed up to speak against are you speaking against the amendment are you speaking against the bill. Okay thank you. Evelyn Moorehead are you here to speak against the amendment the Bill. The Bill okay thank you. Sorry Gordillo Seri I'm sorry. I'm sorry Syria five was built with on this production and. Okay are you here to speak against the amendment the Bill. Against the bill okay I'll come back to you. Dr Smith. Thank you again for the okay thank you. And I'm sorry it looks like it's Hill but I can't read the first name then he'll. Mr hill maybe I've got it wrong. Against the bill okay Mister hall make that notation I'm sorry. A we think this may be. Alright John Sir it from Salander Smith College. Not to speak at all okay we'll make that notation. Then we have. Dr Evans. Against the bill. A. Port to. We have that twice okay you were here to speak against the bill. Leave Austin hassle. Review of the bill with the okay thank you Ryan foster. The Bill yes the bill Tamera Bates. Okay thank you and then we have Scott Hamilton for informational purposes. Against the bill so we have no other members to it I mean no other individuals have signed up you want to speak against amendment correct this one make sure I have everybody. Okay without that completes our witness list represented Pilkington are you ready to close for your amendment. Just want to say I appreciate all the questions I think Dallas green of the gunners of Arkansas brought up many good points one of which that I forgot to even address my opening comments was the fact that we are constitutional carry state and I think that need to be taken in consideration when work for thinking about this amendment because that is a very important component we are one of I believe it's eighteen constitutional statements that the growing trend so I think you're gonna see more legislative legislation like this in the future and with that I ask for a good vote on the on the amendment thank you. Members represented Pilkington has closed on the amendment represented Crawford I'll recognize you for a motion. Thank you madam chair I move for a do pass on the amendment has written place a a motion to adopt the amendment yes members we have a motion to adopt the amendment on the floor is there any discussion. All in favor of adoption the amendment say aye. All opposed say no. The notice habit. Local I. see one hand I have two hands for a roll call. Listen if you will roll call. Member we have several or I'm a couple of freshman for a roll call you'll need to you're either yes or no are your silence that's how we do a roll call. Representative Shepherd. Representative Shepherd. Representative Ferguson. Representative Ferguson votes No Representative flowers. No Representative flowers those No Representative me Nicks. The Representative next votes No Representative Richmond. Representative Richmond vote CS. Represented Cavenaugh. Represented Cavenaugh votes yes. Representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway vote CS Representative Barry. Representative berry votes no. Representative Crawford. Representative Crawford votes yes. Representative Scott. Representative Scott Baltz no. Representative slate. So. Representative slate votes no. Representative Clowney. Representative Clowney votes no. Representative Cooper. Representative Cooper vote CS Representative Richardson. Representative Richardson votes no. Represented Collins. Representative Collins votes no. Representative McCullough. Representative McCullough votes no. Representative Hudson. Representative Hudson votes no. Representative under would. Representative under would votes yes representatives Smith. Representative Smith OCS. The Amendment has failed there were eleven no seven yes. Representing Pilkington you're now are recognized to present or back to Senate bill. Twenty four if you have anything you want to add to Senate bill twenty four of. No chairwoman it's the exact same bill we heard. Last time I was here because they method failed. There's no changes to it so I just. just ask that we passed Senate bill. Twenty four thank you. Represented rich when you're recognized. Thank you madam chair I'd like to make a motion to limit debate two seven minutes each side I think we've heard just about everything that needs to be heard. Members we have before us of motion by Representative Richmond that we limit debate two seven minutes for seven minutes against the time to close and close do you want to include the the time for any questions in to close on those. It includes the time for questions as well okay a determined not to make myself very clear I'm sorry represented Richmond seven minutes for each side for and against that represented Pilkington I'm assuming would be for and so he do you want his time to count against the seven minutes. No it does not have consent you that that makes it quick members we have a motion on the floor we're fine thank you represented Crawford we have a motion for the limited debate seven minutes each side excluding the closing by Representative so Kington any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The motion carries will limit the debate to seven minutes to each side now for those who have signed up let me explain what we have just done the. We have. What we count real quick. We have fifteen individuals who have signed up to speak against the bill we have no one who is. Signed up to speak for the bill other than when we had this green who spoke for the amendment earlier so. We have fifteen individuals you have seven minutes so that's not a lot of of time. A that. So with that caviar I don't know that if any of you want to yield your time to someone else. But just because the censure only going to have a better time enough to say your name in that you're against the bill and maybe a couple of sentences but I want you just to be aware of that so that you're not short changing someone that stay on the list. So I will start with the top of the list and we'll go from there and if you want to yield your time that's fine also. So we'll start with Mister Russell you indicated you were here to speak for the bill you wish to come forward. Mister Russell you were still against the bill I assume is that correct Mr Russell is against the bill and he's shielding his time to another individual Julie current. This current. Miss current is has signed up to speak against the bill and she is shielding her time. Lisa Kern who is signed up to speak against the bill. Okay ms ms Lisa Kern is against the bill and shielding her times Lindsey hall for. Miss Hawthorne is signed up to speak to get against the bill but she is shielding her time Rachel Luckett. You may come forward missed like it. When you get to the table please state your name and if you represent an organization please let us know that and if you press the button it seems a little odd but when it's read then it's ready just to talk and you're you're recognized. Good afternoon my name is Rachel Luckett. I am representing the justice now coalition and the city of pine bluff office but the mayor surely in Washington madam chair with these this letter down Baptist shortly read is also in the envelope for each of representatives and Committee. Hang on just one moment. Let me ask a quick question. A is this the letter and I'm going to inquire of the members of the committee I received this letter by email. It's a justice now coalition it was dated February the eighteenth. did other members get it. Okay let's pass the sense of the. Madam chair. Okay. You're going on just a minute I will get the the paper in front of the members and I apologize members I felt like that maybe you could receive the email like I did and so I was not passing it out if that was the case so hang on just a moment so everybody will have to. Moments to look over the documents that are being passed up and I'll come back to you. Members have you had a moment to look at this if you're kind of. Give me a. A sign electrician like I did. My four year old Sunday school class good though. All right miss what can I believe that everyone's had an opportunity to at least quickly look at the at the documents and you may begin speaking okay thank you just want to state that the second letter will be read by Evan Moorhead now read this from the city of Tampa office of mayor surely in Washington dated German twenty second twenty twenty one opposition to Senate bill twenty four dear honorable Representative pending before the the Arkansas house of representatives is Senate bill twenty four a stand your ground bill that effectively removes the duty to retreat where there is a perception of intimate imminent danger current laws in particular deceptive biz provision where a failing is being committed and the castle doctrine for situations in once a residence provide adequate defenses for innocent persons responding to twenty Vance our laws adequately protect where a life is in imminent danger research shows that the stand your ground laws result in increased a firearm related homicides yes B. twenty four removes the duty to access whether a life is truly an imminent danger opponents justifiably claim that such laws or a license to kill for these and other reasons I as mayor of the city of pine bluff stand in in stand in her state join other leaders in the state in opposing SB twenty four as the recon jet to the health welfare in the best interest of the citizens we represent I ask that you please vote against SB twenty four sincerely surely embossed surely in Washington here I'd love Arkansas. Thank you thank you Mister that are there any questions. Thank you Miss look at for coming today. Next on the list I have miss Pattillo. I believe she was outside. This particular as you're coming. Forward I just want to remind you that we are under a time limit and we're now five minutes left for the against side so if you please state your name who you're with briefly state your position. Thank you. A turn a push the button right there when it turns red you're good to go can you hear me the thank you so much ma'am once again my name is at eight forty you I work at a Arkansas United at that the pre director and I can last time to testify against that the Bill. And the reason for that **** explain before obviously a date the border of triple marking but also the case of money Celtics on there and I just want to reiterate that right I she was at her home at talking about trust by the right she was at his home she was having that restrict their order a against her estranged husband and he came back to look for her right and she couldn't use that law to protect herself against her strange husband and that's why is really concerning a living in Florida four point that all fourteen years and now moving and establishing myself here working in Arkansas I just to see these these bill so that matching for park community and in particular for the African American community so that's why I'm against this bill. Thank you members are there any questions of this witness. Thank you Mr hello FOR coming thank you so much. Yes we have doctor Smith. You're recognized good afternoon I'm doctor charity Smith from simple plan estimates college. I'm here today to speak against the bill I brought along with me two of my students male students who are in the audience who chose not to speak but I stand here today to speak for them. Stand your ground is a bill that will endanger far too many lives the researchers said that in the United States a hundred and fifty people are killed as a result of this law in other states who already passed it. I urge you to take some time take a look at the young people the lives that you will impact many of them in the heat of the moment will not be able to articulate The Amendment many of them will not be able to articulate the fine nuances that you set out in this bill we already have the right to self defense please we urge you. On the behalf of students and families around the state retreat. We teach our students in college when they're in education programs to teach young kids to retreat from a fight so that no one is hurt if we can keep the standard to retreat we can save lives I urge you to vote against this bill. Are there any questions. I see no questions thank you doctor Smith. Members of the audience we have about two and a half minutes left for this particular portion of Mr hole you wish to speak against this bill. But that is already push social state your name yes yes thank you the phone Speaker moneys Ben hall I live here in North Little Rock the term whole life other than five years I was in the navy of that I'm a lawyer the son of LRPD retired LRPD this is a bad bills by law we don't need it all you have to do is look at the fact that they've had two years to roll someone out and say we need this bill that would change I haven't done it it's gonna be day it's gonna be unenforceable. What we the members signed here but it's still it's just not gonna work there's no way. To apply this in a fair manner in a in a in a way. That makes any sense that anyone can rely on it we have strong self defense laws we don't need to take the step is the this is a chance to do. Just to take our foot off the gas pedal and just take a chance to go in the right way into de escalate the way things saw. Are there any questions of this witness saying none thank you Mister hall. Dr Evans. Do you wish to come forward and speak. And I'll advise you we have a minute forty seconds. My name is doctor stared Evans and I'm the CEO of Arkansas support network we are community based disability service providers supporting close to five hundred individuals with disabilities across Arkansas with more than eight hundred direct support professionals I encourage you to remember weeks ago the the many people that came and spoke to you on behalf of the disability community both for those individuals vote for this work force and vote no against this bill. Thank you. Mr leave hassle also. Come forward. My name is les hassle of the very thing on if you go to the Middle my kids go the middle one it's on and I think that'll be a lot easier my apologies. My name is Li Fassel be very brief I'm just constituent I live in Little Rock been Arkansas my whole life and not knowing anything about the law doesn't matter the point is your job is to protect the citizens of Arkansas. Enacting this bill does not protect anyone there's no one that has been convicted or has died because stand your ground has not been enforced there are plenty of instances that we seen across the country where people have died because of standard ground laws there is no need for this bill please vote no. Ryan foster. Ryan foster. I'm sorry I couldn't hear I know we still have the you can. Fifty second we have fifty seconds but Mr foster we have you and miss Bates and I will allow each of you to have a minute apiece which will give both of you the opportunity. Okay if you're yielding your time then I will go to Tamera Bates. How you doing on Tamara bakes in some of the brief we always here just a few weeks ago talking about the stand your ground bill and just last night a situation occurred while I was driving right by to capital I was will driving in a car two young men wear out on these limebike scooters in the middle of the road and if I would have stop I would have hit this young man induction of this guy had actually show his gun on the side so just imagine if nobody was you know was able to see. I probably could hit this member also by me probably could hit this man he probably could distortion just for no reason your own sense so all I'm asking you all is to really late just. Don't allow this bill to pass not just because you know you all want this bill to pass because you have some people behind you for this bill to pass you got things going on but like your parts you all are here to protect us and represent as late don't allow this bill to pay this. So I'm just asking Our Lady go back to around say whatever you all need to do but this bill cannot pass like it is a danger is bill. Okay thank you this state is any questions in this kind of disrespectful to the job who also people who came in I'm not speaking for me I'm speaking some people who have came there you and your time because of thank you almost seven minutes easily some people just coming from work just trying to you know state their opinions these are your close constituency I hate this place I'm not mistaken I'm I'm just hang on miss Bates goes on to say. We are not keeping anyone from speaking but you have to understand I believe we were here three hours the last time and so. Thank you misstates. Mr Hamilton Scott Hamilton I have failed to call your name and you have listed informational you have it listed for or against the bill but just informational. I'm sorry. The seven minutes was born against but nothing of all time for information. I am going to I will I will afford you the opportunity of three minutes because there was not a for or against but just informational purposes only okay thank you I appreciate it on yes got Hamilton I'm here for myself a lifelong retention Google story Back in November twenty three twenty twelve there was a couple that attended their son's wedding had a great time they were traveling home stopped to get some snacks at a gas station wife or fiance when in a determines that this car and the card he parked next to had some loud music yes the occupants to turning music now we got to little bit argument. The gentleman handled the situation where he felt it was appropriate fiance came back they got a car with the whole tale. Order pizza headline had a nice time. They saw a news story that concern them and they said let's leave this whole telling go back to a home. Joe hall. When I got home the police we waiting for these folks. Well the reason was. That the police were at this. Residents with the way the German designed to handle the loud music with the fire ten rounds into a car on a fourteen eight years. Killing one. The gentleman seem to think that he had the right to do so because in this particular state Florida there is a stand your ground law. And so he felt that the music was offensive then like what these kids that to him so he went into his glove box put a nine millimeter and shall ten rounds. The card killing the seventeen year old high school student. It invoke stand your ground was shot. When ultimately he was sentenced to sixty years to life without parole. The standard ground and work out very well for. But the bigger issue here we talked about the amendments and all the things that were being dealt with over the last few weeks months and couple years here with the standard rail. And the outcome is not necessarily what I think a lot of the proponents or we're looking for so I I suggest that you take a look at it because the problem we have here is that the way the bills are written the way to bills are applied and we saw there's a lot of confusion and rightfully so because this is a tough one to try to make clarity out of. But it it what does the potentially gives. Person I have a right to. DO something mindset and I think we need to really think about what the objective here and what the outcomes are I think from a legal perspective and I'm civil all. Is that you really need to think about what we're trying to do here so I'm given information today I have facts thirty two percent of a gun homicide rates of increase in standard ground states forty five percent increase with adolescents. Seventy nine percent of cases so that the thing that could have retreated. And what is really interesting is that the largest negative impact on homicides in neighborhoods that initially had. Low incidence so again I urge those that are supportive of this bill to think about how it's written in making sure whatever the outcome that you're truly looking Fort Smith thank you thank you Mr Hamilton. The first Representative content. You're recognized again to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair. Yes the night. One is to remember is correlation is not causation and so a lot of times you hear the statistics I just want to think about that when when you do think about the data you know one of the other things that I was asked to was have you ever heard a case where someone should have been able to you stand your ground they did send your ground and then someone through duty to retreat at them and never brought example we can find a case you can find a case what kind of case the nineteen ninety eight state of Arkansas for something and that was a situation in which a gentleman's that is ground after actually having a previous encounter with someone else in which he did fully and use deadly force and then they threw the book at him so there actually has been cases in Arkansas or someone's done it. just barely nineteen ninety eight is ancient history for most of us but you know I ask that we. We worked really hard on this to get this passed it's been over two years that we've been trying to work and get this done and and and I understand it's it's not perfect I don't think I've ever passed around a single bill that is perfect inside US for those in the committee you know did not let perfect be the enemy of the good. and I think that's what we should all think about right before you vote this is a good bill this expands our ability to defend ourselves in situations in which we have a right to standard ground thank you heard last time I presented here we're moving the needle very very small amounts we're just basically putting into practice what we're already doing and that's what the prosecutor said. Why something so small so Harding controversial because it overtly political that's the reality but political passion does not account for fact and the fact is that doing this will help us decrees are violent crime rates which we've seen another stand your ground states and while Arkansas is actually forty seven percent higher than the national average when it comes up on the crime so with that I ask forget that. Represent the Smith you're recognized. S.. I move for a do pass thank you representing Smith has moved for a do pass on the bill Senate bill twenty four is there any discussion on the motion. Saying no discussion all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The eyes have it motion carries. Call call the roll. Representan Shepherd. Representative Shepherd. Representative Ferguson. Representative Ferguson votes No Representative flowers. Representative flowers votes No Representative Nicks. Representative next votes No Representative Richmond. Represented Richmond votes yes Representative Cavenaugh. Representative Kevin all those CS Representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway votes yes Representative Barry. Representative berry votes yes Representative Crawford. Yes. Representative Crawford votes yes Representative Scott. Representative Scott votes no Representative slate. Representative slate votes yes represented Clowney. The Representative Clowney votes No Representative Cooper. Representative Cooper votes yes. Representative Richard St. The Representative Richardson votes No Representative Collins. Representative Collins votes No Representative McCullough. Representative McCullough votes No Representative Hudson. Representative Hudson votes No Representative under would. Representative under would votes yes Representative Smith. Representative Smith both. Representative Dalby yes. Representatives all the votes yes. Senate bill twenty four of his past the vote count being. Ten. Ten yes nine no one not voting. Members come Thursday we have a number of bills. And what we call those out so you'll be prepared and get ready for a. We've got to ramp up what we're doing so on Thursday the twenty fifth we will hear house bill two and sixty two. House Bill twelve seventy six. House Bill fourteen seventeen house bill one zero zero four and if others are added I will let you know we are adjourned.