Senate Convenes
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HCR1005
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HCR1005 Bentley Rapert TO PROCLAIM RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY.”
|
TO PROCLAIM RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY. | Bentley | Approved by the Governor |
|
SB24
Act 250
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB24 B. Ballinger CONCERNING THE DEFENSE OF A PERSON WITH THE US…”
|
CONCERNING THE DEFENSE OF A PERSON WITH THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL … | B. Ballinger | Notification that SB24 is now Act 250 |
|
SB1
Act 3
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…asures of the regular session of the 93rd General Assembly, Senate Bill 1, now Act 3. Sincerely, Asa Hutchison, Governor.”
|
AN ACT FOR THE EXPENSES FOR THE ARKANSAS SENATE OF THE NINETY-THIRD GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATION … | Senate Efficiency | Notification that SB1 is now Act 3 |
|
SB32
Act 158
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ill your committee on city, county, local to whom was first Senate Bill 32 by Senator English recommend do pass? Calendar. Will your c…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN PERMIT HOLDERS TO DELIVER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DIRECTLY TO A CONSUMER. | J. English | Notification that SB32 is now Act 158 |
|
SB66
Act 133
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…Will your Committee on Engrossed Bills to whom was deferred Senate Bill 66 by Senator English prepare the engrossed copy with the orig…”
|
TO ALLOW THE TUITION-FREE BENEFIT FOR SOLDIERS AND AIRMEN OF THE ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD TO … | J. English | Notification that SB66 is now Act 133 |
|
SB76
Act 68
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ill your committee on city, county, local to whom was first Senate Bill 76 by Senator”
|
TO ESTABLISH AN EXCURSION TRAIN PERMIT; AND TO AUTHORIZE AN EXCURSION TRAIN PERMIT HOLDER TO … | L. Eads | Notification that SB76 is now Act 68 |
|
SB78
Act 135
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…n. Will your committee on engrossed bills to whom was first Senate Bill 78 by Senator Hill compare the engrossed copy with the origina…”
|
TO ESTABLISH ARKANSAS OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING OF UNIFORMED SERVICE MEMBERS, VETERANS, AND SPOUSES ACT OF 2021; … | Hill | Notification that SB78 is now Act 135 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Speaker 1
0:30
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to regret that he's not here, but we have great opportunities. Under
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:15
order, clerk, please call the roll.
Ballinger, Beckham, Bledsoe,
Speaker 8
1:22
Caldwell, Chesterfield, Clark, Davis, Dismaine, Eads, Elliott, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Ingram, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, Letting, Pitch, Rapert, Rice, Sample, Stebafield,
Sturge, Sullivan, Teague, Tucker, Wallace. I want to mention that Senator Flowers is
Speaker 9
2:02
joining us remotely. Thank you. Oh, okay. The voice of God
Speaker 15
2:15
come down and lead us in prayer. Everyone, please stand, including those in the gallery.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:28
Senator Gilmore. Join me in prayer, members. Heavenly Father, Lord, we thank you for who you are and for the way you lead and guide each of us, Lord. We thank you for the many blessings you bestow on us and bestow on the state. We pray for your continued blessings, Lord, as we go forward. And Lord, your word tells us that if we acknowledge you in all our ways, that you will direct our steps. We claim that. We ask for that. We ask for wisdom. And we ask for your continued guidance, Lord. We thank you for all those present today, Lord,
and for everyone that they represent in this state. And we thank you for allowing us to do the people's work. And for what you allow us to do, Lord, we thank
Speaker 20
3:15
Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Chair
Unverified
3:31
Any announcements before we start? Senator Letting. Senator Letting is recognized.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
3:39
Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I just decided I needed some help this week, so I brought my co-chiefs of staff with me. My wife, Emily, and daughter, Ava Clare, should be up in the
West Gallery. I can't see if they are, but if they
Speaker 30
3:55
are, thank you. Any other announcements? Senator Chesterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
4:01
Just a point of personal privilege. Mr. Chesterfield and I had our COVID-19 vaccine today. It is at Freeway Medical Center by the University of Arkansas School of Medical Sciences. Please, if you're eligible at this time, please make an appointment. There were
Speaker 35
4:23
tomorrow. Amen. All right. Anybody else? Senator English.
Senator Jane English
Unverified
4:37
i just like a little uh personal thing i think most of us in the if you read the newspaper this morning of the 25 000 national guard troops that are in washington dc for the inauguration one of the things that was in there that was really interesting was a one of the band one of the troops is a band instructor for a middle school. And while he's standing around waiting, he's
giving classes on Zoom to his band, his band class. I think so many times many of us forget that these National Guard troops are deployed instantly whenever they're needed, but they also have jobs other places. They're school teachers, they work for IBM, they're policemen, they're firemen, whatever. But sometimes we fail to realize that those people have another life besides the National Guard. So I commend them all for their active duty that they're doing this week.
Speaker 43
5:45
Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Any other announcements? Senator T, please come
Speaker 20
6:06
on down to the well. that long distance is
Speaker 45
6:13
a deterrent thank you Mr. President members I just was surprised to learn that Senator Chesterfield
is over 70 was able to get her shot that was worth the walk
Speaker 48
6:33
wasn't it Senator any other announcements Any items at the desk, Madam Secretary? Yes, sir. Dear Mr. President, this is to inform you that on January 14, 2021, I approve the following measures of the regular session of the 93rd General Assembly, Senate Bill 1, now Act 3. Sincerely, Asa Hutchison, Governor.
Follett. Will your Committee on Engrossed Bills to whom was deferred Senate Bill 66 by Senator English prepare the engrossed copy with the original and find the same correctly engrossed? Education. Will your committee on engrossed bills to whom was first Senate Bill 78 by Senator Hill compare the engrossed copy with the original and find the same correctly engrossed? State agencies. Will your committee on city, county, local to whom was first Senate Bill 32 by Senator English recommend do pass? Calendar. Will your committee on city, county, local to whom was first Senate Bill 76 by Senator
Eads recommend do pass? Calendar. Senator Rayford, as
Speaker 9
7:30
we move into the morning hour, House Concurrent Resolution 1005. Senator Rayford. House Concurrent Resolution 1005. Senator Rayford. To
Speaker 48
7:40
proclaim Religious Freedom Day. Thank you. Members, this has already been passed
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
7:49
by the House, and it was done in the form of a concurrent resolution,
which would require action on our part. Hopefully you've been able to read that. The enacting part of it is simply that the House of Representatives proclaims January the 14th, which has already passed, as Religious Freedom Day to honor the anniversary of the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and affirm that religious freedom is a fundamental human right. We've done this sort of thing in the past before, so I would be happy to entertain a good vote, be happy to entertain any questions if you have a question on
the resolution. Anyone wish to be recognized?
Speaker 57
8:26
Seeing none, is the senator closed? Closed. Thank you. All those
Speaker 9
8:30
in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Concurrent resolution is adopted. Turn to the House. We'll move on
Speaker 43
8:38
to the business agenda. Senator Ballinger, SB 24. Senator Ballinger. Senate Bill 24 by Senator Ballinger concerning the defense
Speaker 48
8:46
of a person with the use of physical force or deadly physical force. thank you mr president i think most of y'all have
Speaker 63
8:59
been inundated with information about this bill
Speaker 64
9:03
um a lot of you have heard for two years essentially about this i'm going to leave time to answer any questions um first what i want to do is kind of to answer some things basically what this bill doesn't do this is not a license to kill this does not give you the ability to shoot first and answer questions later. This is the same policy that is in place in a majority of other states. 36 other states either have it by code just like this. Over 26 of them have a code like this. The other ones do it by virtue of jury instructions or court opinions
where a person doesn't have a duty to retreat. If they're where they're supposed to be legally, if they're not committing any crimes, then they have the right to defend themselves without having the obligation to retreat. I'm happy to answer any questions, but honestly, you know, I'm not going to stand up here and perform for the TV cameras. If other people feel like they need to, that's between you and your constituencies, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Senator Elliott.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
10:07
Thank you. Senator Ballinger, you know, we disagree on this bill. Excuse me one second, Senator Elliott. Is that better? Yeah,
Speaker 68
10:14
we're just having a hard... Some of it's
Chair
Unverified
10:19
my ears, but some of it's just these screens. So if you could speak loudly into the mic, that'd be awesome. I'm so sorry. How's that? I can hear you.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
10:30
I'm just acknowledging, of course, that you and I have a different view about this bill. And one thing I always want to do when I have a disagreement with anybody is try to be understanding
and see things from their point of view. So if you would help me understand the compelling reason for this bill, because so far, I have to admit, it has escaped me. Sure. No, I'm happy to. So within our
Speaker 64
10:53
code, we have language that's ambiguous, that basically says that a person has a duty to retreat if they can retreat safely before they can use self-defense. And so what, now, most prosecutors are, in fact, I had a prosecutor who came, spoke against the bill two years ago. This time, and I'll go ahead and say this, prosecutors are neutral, police chiefs are neutral, sheriffs are neutral on it.
But two years ago, he came and spoke against me and said, I never even take into consideration whether a person could retreat. And that's because what he's doing is implementing the best policy, like that's best practices. The problem with that is that's not the law. Law says you have the duty to retreat. And so it gives a tool for either nefarious prosecutors, which I think there are very few of them, or negligent prosecutors to get it wrong. And we as a legislative body, it's our job when we see something that's ambiguous or a problem within the law to address it. And that's all I'm doing is saying, just like the majority of the other jurisdictions, we should not require people to retreat before they can exercise their self-defense.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
11:54
And so that is the only reason for it. So now if I understood that correctly, you started out by saying the reason is prosecutors. so um i i think generally uh i don't know i may be overselling your worth here i don't know but i i've assumed and observed many times you have a pretty good working relationship with prosecutors this is the only way to
Speaker 76
12:18
address what a prosecutor said well and not really
Speaker 73
12:21
so this is the problem is not prosecutors actually the problem problem is the legislature we've we've put a
Speaker 64
12:27
we've put a code in place that is that's ambiguous and that i think is bad policy but for the most part the prosecutors are executing it in the right way right there they are in spite of our our failure to make sure we have the best policy on the books they are implementing the best policy for the most part um so but i don't believe that's really their job their job is to implement the law and so if we see something and we are going to have like represent elliot we are we are friends i'm sorry senator elliot we're friends and so i i you
know i think highly of you and i know we're going to have a difference of opinion on this issue so you know you people are elected from their district with a certain perspective and so people vote their district um but for me my district said they don't want to have an obligation to retreat before they can use self-defense
Speaker 9
13:20
and so that's why we're carrying If I could interrupt for just a second, when you get through asking a question or speaking, if you turn your mic off, I
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
13:29
think that's the source of the buzz. Sorry about that. Please continue. I just had one last question, because based on everything you said, if you could demonstrate to me what the compelling reason is in practice that we need to do this, I would appreciate that.
Because I haven't been able to discern that, nor have you said what the compelling reason is. in practice that our present law has failed us? How has it failed us? And my
Speaker 64
13:54
answer would be, we have within our code a requirement to retreat if a person can retreat safely. That's in the code. The failure is the fact that we have put forth a bad policy and we've not addressed it yet. And so the failure really isn't, frankly, it's time that we caught up with all the surrounding states, with even California and Illinois
that don't have a duty to retreat, that we provide to our citizens something that is
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
14:23
provided in the majority of the jurisdictions. Any other questions? I have a question,
Mr. Lieutenant Governor. Senator Flowers, please proceed with your question. Thank you. Senator Ballinger, you say that the language in
the code is ambiguous language.
and it's antiquated. Now I'm struck by that. This law was enacted in 1947. That's 74 years ago. Now in 74 years, there has never been, to my knowledge, and tell me if you know,
A case that was overturned because of ambiguous language in this statute. So I'm not
Speaker 64
15:31
sure. So the question is whether or not they're I mean, ambiguous language is what the courts
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
15:40
And in this on this statute, has it ever been argued in 74 years?
Speaker 64
15:48
Yes. And I don't need to point out a case. I mean,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
15:52
it's 74 years. OK. And so if it has, then obviously the court sustained the language of the statute. Would you agree? Yes. Yes. So the court
has said it's not ambiguous language. So why would you make a statement like that and suggest to us that
in 74 years, all of a sudden, a law written back in 1947 has now become ambiguous in your mind and not the court's?
Speaker 92
16:28
I'd be happy to answer your question. So the language has been referred to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
16:36
Has the statute been overturned? No. Senator Flowers, if you'll just let him answer when he's done, you
Chair
Unverified
16:41
can ask a new question. And to the extent you want to argue against, you can speak, oppose the bill in a minute. Let's try to be as civil
Speaker 64
16:52
as possible. You know, I understand that a person who wants to make it where self-defense is more difficult
and that a person is slowed down before they have the ability to use self-defense. That's what this bill does, or that's what the law does. What our bill does is say, look, if you're in a place where you legally have the right to be, that you are not in the midst of committing a crime, you no longer have the duty to retreat. So the subjective language of if you can retreat safely, that is being taken out, And it's saying that if you are legally right, you have the ability to do it. And frankly, like I said, you know, there are going to be people who have disagreements about this on policy.
That's one thing that makes us great. Like, that we have, we come here, we have the clash of ideas, we get together and we talk about it like we've been doing for two years with this legislation. And you may fall on the other side of this, and I get it. I understand that. But as for me, I'm going to listen to my constituents, and frankly what I think is a large majority of Arkansans who say if you're where you're legally allowed to be and you're not committing a crime, you should not have to run away before you can use self-defense. And that's what all this bill does.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
18:02
And I appreciate a good vote. Senator Flowers, do you have any additional
Chair
Unverified
18:09
questions? Well, he didn't answer that. Senator has left the well, so we're going to move on to Senator speaking for her again. Senator Chesterfield would like to speak against and is recognized. And Senator Flowers, I know we've got you remotely. If you at some point want to speak against, just let us know. I would like to, so you can put me in the list. You will be the next available slot against.
And then Senator Elliott. Senator Chesterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
18:38
and gentlemen of the chamber, I'm not sure how people are voting on this bill. I, for one, am voting no. I don't think we ought to make it easier to kill. I don't believe that Arkansas needs to have another Trayvon Martin type case where somebody is minding his or her own business and somebody assumes that that person suddenly becomes a threat to them. They don't have to retreat. As a matter of fact, we can follow after you and kill. We've got over 4,000 people dead in this
state, and here we are dealing with even more opportunity to kill. Sometimes we need to stop and think before we shoot people. One of the reasons my grandmother implored me to stop carrying my gun was because she felt that my temper was such that I might shoot first and ask questions later. I'm feeling that right now about this bill. So I would be remiss if I did not say
that I think this state does not need this bill. Nobody has been killed because they had to think twice before they kill somebody. And so I would ask that you think twice. Think twice, please, two or three times before you allow death to become easier. Thank you very much.
Speaker 15
19:58
Thank you, Senator Chesterfield. Anyone wish to speak in favor of the bill? Seeing none
Chair
Unverified
20:04
against the bill will be Senator Flowers. Senator Flowers, you are now recognized
to speak against the bill. Thank you,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
20:14
Governor. I'm going to be brief. Most people remember uh 2019 session in the viral video and and my uh some people call it a tirade some people call it a rant in the media but it was my uh deep feeling that I expressed about this bill and the harm it
would do to Black people, Black boys, Black girls, Black men, Black women. We are in a time now where I don't think anybody has not heard in their discussion lately the term white supremacist and their target of Black people. I'm not going to go too much into that. You know how I feel. And I think there's data
that supports a bill such as this. In the instances when it's invoked by whites that have killed blacks, they often have the benefit of the stand your ground. But vice versa, not. But I'd like to speak about the motivation of the bill in terms of why now? Just like Senator Chesterfield just said, we're living in a pandemic. We're coming up on 12 months
of it pretty soon. And people are dying. We have crisis in our cities that obviously invoke the emotion of fear that would bring people to the point that they would consider having to kill someone. They're fearful of something, some behavior, which is what this bill speaks to, behavior. Now, Senator Ballinger said the other day in committee, and I agreed
with him, I told him I agreed with when he says our job as legislators is to find the best policy, the good and better policies. I just don't think, and I'll ask you all to to consider before you support a bill such as this, is this the best policy to deal with behavior of persons that it's left to the one who uses the deadly force to form a belief
based on their perception of that person that they use the deadly force against. We're talking about people, and people now particularly have behaviors that are kind of askew because of all of the, I don't know, turmoil, pandemic, uh uproar in the election and process politics people are are stretched to the limit
and so mental health has become an issue not to even mention those persons with disabilities that act out in behaviors that are not really intended to be threatening to the point where they seriously can follow through and use deadly force. People's behavior as perceived by one or another is different.
And when you have a weapon with you and because of your unfamiliarness with the person's behavior, you really don't understand what is intended, you actually end up killing someone. And I think that we could do better in terms of finding a policy to deal with these types of situations, behaviors that speak to getting help for people, mental health treatment for people, education for people.
There are a lot of things that we can consider besides dealing with a statute that has been the law in Arkansas since 1947, 74 years ago. Now, Senator Ballinger says the language, he says this today, the language is ambiguous. Now, ambiguous, all of a sudden, after 74 years, ambiguous means that there is an unclear or inexact, because a choice between alternatives has not been made, or open to more than one interpretation, having a double meaning.
Our law today, under 52606 and 52607, doesn't have a double meaning. It's based on what a person's reasonable belief is, but it's also acting responsibly, you know, so that if you can get away successfully and avoid using deadly force, then you do that. It doesn't say you have to retreat from your house.
It doesn't say that you have to retreat when you meet somebody in the public now. And you have an idea that they are posing a serious physical injury
to you. That's our law right now. And if our statute had
been deemed ambiguous, we wouldn't have it. It would have been ruled unconstitution, no, because of its ambiguity.
Our statute in 74 years has never been determined to be unconstitutional. And it gives all of our citizens the right to defend themselves when they can't successfully retreat in a public situation. And at home, you don't have a duty to retreat. And the people of Arkansas have been, I think, just revved up since this bill or the Stand Your Ground bill was filed in 2019.
I had people calling me, talking about they ought to be able to protect themselves. You've always been able to protect yourselves. That's what it is today. So I'm asking you all for, to consider
Speaker 9
28:06
a no vote. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Flowers. Senator Clark wishes
Speaker 43
28:10
to speak in favor of the bill, followed by Senator Elliott in opposition.
Senator Clark is recognized. It's not
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
28:31
necessarily necessary to speak for the bill, but I think there's some things that need to be set straight. We've talked about retreat, race, not here, but a lot have been talked about Florida and lawfully present.
many prosecutors across the country in their rulings on retreat or when they decide to prosecute or not prosecute rule that you have to turn your back on your assailant this changes that that's important you should never have to turn your back on an assailant as we've talked about race I want to be very unambiguous. According to FBI crime statistics from 2019, 89% of black victims of homicide
are killed by blacks. 80% of white victims of homicide are killed by whites. Twice as many whites are killed by blacks as blacks are killed by whites. There are not a lot of people out, a lot of white people out trying to kill black people. And that is certainly not what this bill is about. Those who have emailed and called, et cetera, and most of them believe
this have brought up Florida, Florida, Florida, because Florida in 2005 was the first to pass stand your ground laws. But what they have told you and others over and over is that Florida's crime has increased greatly. I was very surprised when I pulled up the crime statistics for Florida from 2005 to 2019 and found that Florida's crime, this is not ambiguous at all, Florida's crime rate
is down 46 percent from 2005 to 2019. Now, I am not saying that that's because of stand-your-ground laws. I'm just saying that's what happened. They are saying crime is up because of standing-your-ground laws, and I'm telling you, crime's not up. But if the other was because of standing-your-ground laws, supposedly it was up because of that, then maybe it's down because of that. Violent crime, that includes burglaries that are down. Florida's population is up 20%
in that period of time. Their burglaries are down 30,000 a year. Their violent assaults are down 30,000 a year. Violent crime's down 36% in Florida from 2005 to 2019. Florida's crime rate in 2005 was 2% higher than ours, a little bit more than 2% higher than Arkansas's. It is now over 30% lower, 36% lower than Arkansas's as of 2019.
others have brought up that they don't like lawfully present in the bill I can't tell you that I'm fond of it but I'll tell you this it's in Florida's law and many other states law and it's in order to have the support of the prosecutors and others had to be there I'll be happy to run a bill to change it later Those that, including some very important gun rights people here in Arkansas and nationally, this moves gun rights forward.
We hardly ever get perfection. Do not let perfect be the enemy of good. It's a good bill. We need
Speaker 15
32:25
to pass it. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Clark. Senator Elliott to speak against. And while Senator
Chair
Unverified
32:31
Elliott is coming to the well, Senator Flowers? Yes. Yes, I am. Under the rules that were adopted recently, you'll have to
Speaker 9
32:41
turn on your camera. I know you've got it off now.
You have to turn on your camera when we go to the voting to participate. Are you tracking that? Okay, I'll do
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
32:54
that. I don't have to have it on right now, do I? You do not. You do not. Apparently,
Chair
Unverified
33:00
under the rules, while you participate in the proceedings, you need to have it on. So when we go to
a vote, you'll need to have it on. Thank you for that. Senator Elliott's recognized.
Speaker 31
33:13
Thank you. Thank you, Governor. this in
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
33:17
so many ways feel as if this is so such a foregone conclusion
that it seems I'm going to emphasize seems that nobody many people are not even paying attention to it like why bother and so for me this is about much more than seems and feeling I cannot discount the seams and feeling. I think it's really interesting that the first three people to speak against this bill
have something very much in common that often is dismissed. Often. That's what it feels like. that you can just be dismissed. What you say, what you feel, what your life experiences have been just don't matter. That's what this feels like. Let me tell you now what it is like.
If you had taken the time to do something more, and I don't mean just you, I mean people in general. so many times we will say I didn't know it was that bad or I didn't know about that until it happens to you you know people do that I didn't know that, I didn't know to care about this until it happened to my son or happened to my mother so personalized to the point that
I wonder sometimes how we can make laws for all people when we keep waiting for something to happen to us, people we care. Because chances are, it's not going to happen to you. So you have the good fortune of just going along and seeing things purely through your eyes. Not mine, not Senator Chesterfield's, not Senator Flowers. and I will not be I won't have my my thoughts and what I have to say be
diminished because I happen to be a black person. Race in this matter is no small thing. I had a woman call me last night about this bill. She desperately thought I could come up here and just make this, just kill the bill. Just kill the bill. And I explained to her, no, I can't. I need 17 other people to agree with me that Arkansas does not have a problem.
I need 17 other people to decide to walk with me and make my experience in this life matter because I have seen and known up too closely what stand your ground looks like as described in this bill before we even had this law. Do not think stand your ground is something that was just invented. We are just now putting those words in the law.
My life experiences have taught me this all my life. And if that seems foreign to you, I get it. Because I am forced to see things through your eyes. Because I'm the minority. I have to see things through your eyes. I wish you would reciprocate that. And just take the very fact that we don't have a single instance of a problem
that suggests to us that we need this bill. I do have instances where I know we don't need the bill because stand your ground is all too common without the bill, y'all. It is. I had an email from a person last night who said that somebody had broken into their home and she was afraid her family was there and her she and her husband and family
and suddenly nothing happened nobody was hurt she had her weapon but because of that experience where nobody was hurt nothing bad happened except for that person and breaking into their home, and that was bad, no question about it. But she was emailing me to ask me to vote for this bill for that reason, that last night, somebody broke into her home. But the law, as the law is right now, protected her.
As it is right now. And she has the impression, somehow, that she was not protected, yet nothing happened, and that she needs this bill for the same thing to happen That happened last night. We're confusing people with this bill. What the law says right now is that you don't have to retreat. I don't care how many times people come up in here and tell you, you don't have to retreat unless you have complete.
The word complete is important here, not just safety. Unless you know you can do so in complete safety. Complete safety. nobody's going to prosecute you for defending yourself. Are you dwelling? So I want to just give
you just a few statistics here. And if anybody wants to know the source, I'll share with you when I sit down. We talk about Florida.
And we've talked a lot about why it got started in Florida and can't find a reason. But it got started. But what's happened since then, when white shooters kill black victims, resulting in homicide, the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable 11 times more frequently when the shooter is black and the victim is white. And in almost all these cases of Stand Your Ground, it's been a white person with a gun and a black person at the other end of that gun.
I am not telling you always because that's not the case. But I'm telling you the facts show that somebody who looks like me has a real reason to be concerned. But I don't need these numbers because I've lived it. And I hope you don't. I hope you don't dismiss my life experiences because you feel something that you think ought to be true in this state.
Speaker 121
40:32
The stand-the-ground law was associated with a 45% increase in
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
40:40
firearm homicide rates among white residents and 23% increase among black residents. The point of this is both those numbers are way too high. We shouldn't have to deal with numbers like this.
And the stats go on and on about how it is common knowledge in Florida. We can say Florida, Florida, Florida, or we want to. Florida
Speaker 116
41:10
did not have a compelling reason to pass this law. They did. The other
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
41:17
states that followed Florida, and I have looked research upside down, they had no more reason to
pass their laws. For the most part, I think two states maybe had something that was different. they had no more reason to pass their laws
other than what we're doing right now is because they wanted to and they could. They wanted to and they could. So I'll end this with just asking you to just try to get outside of yourself. I know it might not matter. I get that. And I know in so many ways we've had it drilled into us that has taken away somebody's freedom
that they've had since 1974 and nothing has happened to it. Nothing has happened to it. It's still here. You don't have to retreat. Is it about you or is it about most people in this state? Are you going to wait until it happens to you before you care about me and everybody else who looks like me and everybody else who looks like you as well.
Because surely you cannot be satisfied with the way things are. Surely you understand the divisions we're living with, with racism in this state. And it doesn't have to even be racism. Because under this new law, You can just say, well, I was afraid for my life.
But you know who is almost always the person afraid who's shooting this gun? It is a white person facing a black
person. You can figure out what those odds would be. I ask you not to put Arkansas in this position. Sometimes it's good to join other states. This is not one of them. and we're going to talk about unity. Why don't we start right here and vote no? Thank you. Senator, anyone
Speaker 15
43:38
wish to speak for? Anyone wish to speak against? Senator Letting and then Senator Clark. Tucker. Clark Tucker. Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I will be brief. Senator
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
43:55
Ballinger and I were just saying, we know what the votes are today. But I wanted to quickly talk about one group that hasn't been mentioned. I guess Senator Flowers did briefly touch on it, but that's Arkansans with disabilities. I had a mother in my district. She wrote to me over the
weekend to share the concerns that she and her husband have for their 12-year-old son. She wrote to many of you. She pointed out the tragic accident in 2006 that happened in Springdale, where I was living at the time when Joseph Aaron Hamley, a man with cerebral palsy, was mistaken for an escaped conflict by law enforcement, and a law enforcement officer misinterpreted some of his physical actions and as a result shot and killed him. It was a tragic accident and one that could have hopefully been avoided. The mother who wrote to me pointed out that Americans with disabilities across the country account for at least a third of the people
that law enforcement officers accidentally kill each year, and these are people who are trained. She also pointed out that no other group in the country faces a higher rate of violent crime victimization than Americans with disabilities. And so by passing this law, this is just one more concern that we're going to be placing on her family and all the families in Arkansas with loved ones who have disabilities. So I'd ask you to
vote no. We know where the votes are. I just wanted to speak that
Speaker 127
45:10
piece. Thank you. Do you want in favor? Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
45:21
Senator Tucker's recognizing. Thank you, Governor, and I want to start by also thanking Senator Ballinger for giving me an opportunity to come to the floor so early in my Senate tenure. I do appreciate that. Senator Ballinger and I have a relationship that goes back several years, and I hope you know how much I respect you. Now, I'll be brief. I think there's two points that I think need to be included for the record. I'll just start by saying what I think, I absolutely believe that we need strong self-defense laws in Arkansas, and I believe that's what we have. I would summarize our existing law as saying you can use deadly force to defend yourself, but only when
it's necessary. And this proposed change will take it to you can use self-defense even when it's not necessary. And I think that's a bad direction. My two points, first one that has been mentioned by several folks, and that is race. And I don't dispute any of the facts that Senator Clark raised. I don't think there's any question, however, that these types of laws have a disparate impact on ethnic minorities, especially black Americans. And there's no secret about the history in our country
of the disparate impact of various laws on black Americans. And I do not put that history on this body by any means, and I want to be clear about that. But I do think at the same time that we're responsible for our own actions. And knowing that history, we should move in a different direction where we say that the lives of black Americans matter as much in our law as in society as everyone else's. And I think it's important for the record. I think Senator Elliott has a valid point for someone who looks like me to say
that in addition to Senators Elliott and Chesterfield and Flowers. The second point I want to make is that I know various organizations have taken positions on this bill. I do not view this bill as a gun rights bill. Firearm is only mentioned in this bill by saying you still have a duty to retreat if you are committing felony in possession of a firearm. Nowhere else is firearm mentioned. This does not change the rights of anybody to own a firearm. It has not changed the right of anybody to legally possess a firearm in any location. This law makes it more legal to
kill people with a gun or by other deadly means. That's what it does. And it's not a hypothetical. If we pass this law, I believe, and the statistics show, people will die as a result. Now, some of those killings may be fully justified. My guess is that some of the killings also would be where someone was doing something wrong, but instead of being killed, they could have been caught, paid their debt to society, and moved on with their lives. I also believe that in some circumstances, someone who's completely innocent will be shot and killed as a result of this law,
but the bottom line is, whatever the circumstances are, more people will die in a real and non-hypothetical way if we pass this law. I believe it's justifiable in the name of self-defense, but again, only when it's necessary. And as I said, that's what I believe this law provides. That's why I encourage you to please vote against this bill. Thank
Chair
Unverified
48:24
you. Thank you, Senator. Senator Raypert in favor? Senator Raypert's recognized.
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
48:33
Members, I'm proudly a co-sponsor of the bill, and I actually wasn't going to say
anything until after sitting here and listening to point after point. And what I want to rise to say is that I'm voting for this bill so that especially vulnerable people in our state, especially all of our daughters, our wives, and our spouses, regardless of their color, have an opportunity to defend themselves against aggressors.
I will agree with some of my colleagues that have gone up here and spoke against it. I don't want to see anybody die. I don't want to see anybody killed in our state. But I absolutely want to make sure everybody understands that I do object to the notion that voting for this bill is somehow racist. It's not. We are voting for every single person, black, brown, white, whatever your color, to be able to defend yourself.
Chair
Unverified
49:37
And I think that point needs to be made. Speak against Senator Hendren. Anyone want to speak against? Senator Hendren,
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
49:53
speak against. Senator Hendren is recognized. Well, like everybody, you start with, I wasn't going to say anything, but people keep saying stuff and that makes you have to respond. So I feel like there's a couple of points I want to make. The first one is, this morning I was watching the news and I saw an interview with the commander
of the National Guard that Senator English was talking about, the 25,000 troops that have been sent up there to keep our leaders safe. an incredible expense, an incredible mobilization, and a lot of good people up there, as Senator English said, leaving their families and their jobs on short notice to go do an important job. But the question that they asked the general was, are your people trained and prepared for the situations that they might encounter? And specifically, what are the rules of engagement
with regard to using deadly force? And I thought his answer was so interesting. His answer was every one of our military police, and I have seen this to be true in my career, are trained in tactics of de-escalation. That is the goal. We don't want to kill somebody if we don't have to. And that's what our law says right now. Right now, there is no reason that anybody, white, black, female, young, old, should have to be a victim of
violence. You have an absolute right to self-defense. And with regard to the comment that you have to turn your back on your accuser, no you don't. That's not complete safety. If somebody is threatening you and turning your back to them is dangerous, you have the right to self-defense. And the other point that I'll make, and again I for some reason decided to be on Judiciary Committee this year and I got to hear the debate and I got to hear some of the facts and figures that we've had thrown around here. The most important fact that figure that I saw today was
the first three people to come speak against this bill were African-American mothers. And I guess I would just ask all of us to notice one thing is, and we talked about this when we separated Martin Luther King and Robert E. Lee. One of the points that I said was, we don't have the same life experiences that they do. We haven't had to fear for our kids being mistakenly thought to be a threat and gunned down. In Gravette, Arkansas, believe me, my boys got into a lot of trouble,
but I was not worried about that. But I'm going to tell you, that's a real concern that people who don't look like me have. And this bill affects them differently, and they look at it differently than we do. So again, it'd be one thing if we were asking people to put their lives at risk. I use the example in Judiciary Committee of a reporter who felt threatened on the steps of the Capitol and absolutely had a clear path to escape. Under the law now, basically,
they're required to escape before they pull out their gun and start shooting. After the law changes, no requirement. No requirement for de-escalation. No state policy towards de-escalation. The statistics that I have read are clear. There will be more homicides. Some of them justified, some of them preventable. I just don't see why that's necessary. When the prosecutors tell us it's not necessary, the police tell us it's not necessary, there's
Speaker 57
53:22
not a problem. I don't understand why we're doing it. Appreciate it. No doubt.
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
53:36
Senator Garner in favor. Anyone after that against? I think we've got about everybody. Thank you, Mr. President. In 2007, I just got back from Afghanistan, me and some of my buddies went out to a bar or restaurant to hang out. One guy was a linebacker, 250 pounds.
guy was about 290, my roommate, who played Arena League football as a lineman. Another guy was a Green Beret, just like I was. Leaving the restaurant, we moved to our car, and I was already in the vehicle, and I heard my buddy's voice, trembling. Hey man, everything's okay. I stepped out of the vehicle, and I saw two African-American men pointing a gun
at my friend. One of the men had a gun. The other one was behind him. In that moment, I decided I'd try to help my friend. I pulled out a $20 bill and said, Hey, man, it's all good. Take the money. When he reached for that $20 bill, I slammed a car door on his arm, and I think I broke it. At the same time, I went and spirited him
like you're doing football and picked him up. All of a sudden, I just remember a loud noise. Don't remember the details of it. Don't remember exactly what happened. Didn't know what happened. but I saw the gun he had hit the ground. Me and him both went for it at the same time. He picked it up first and turned around and took off running. Me and my aggressive Green Beret
just got back from Afghanistan away. He took off after him. My buddy grabbed me and pulled me back. and he said, Trent, calm down. I said, brother, I got to get him. He said, Trent, calm down. You've been shot. It was the first time I realized that the moisture on my back wasn't sweat from the fight. It was blood running down, soaking my shirt.
Luckily, I survived that. If you're going to get shot, I got shot the best way possible, in and out, clean. But you wonder why we need a bill like this. First, let me say, I mentioned they were African American. In that moment, I didn't care what their color was. I didn't think about that. I don't care what the color is now. I cared about protecting me and my friends. You say, why do we need this law? Here's a scenario I want you to think of.
If I had picked that gun up first, what do you think I would have done to him? I'd have shot him in the back as he ran away. Now, could I have got away safely? I didn't know I was shot. I've already told you that. My mens rea was, as I didn't even realize there was a deadly situation. I didn't see another gun. The person who attacked me was running away. I'd have been on the 5 o'clock news as someone who killed an unarmed man running away.
This is the ultimate point I want you to make to think of. People like to talk these statistics and these studies and these reports when they're dealing with this. I want to tell you what you don't think of. That life or death situation when somebody's standing there in front of you, you don't think about can I run or retreat. creed. You don't think about what is the current law or code section. You don't think about case laws or prosecutors. You think about what am I going to do in this moment to make it home to my
family. This bill makes it easier and safer for you, no matter your color, no matter your race, no matter your creed, to do that. That's why I'm supporting
Speaker 9
57:57
this bill. Any senator opposed? Any in favor? Is senators ready to close? Senator Ballinger for the close.
Speaker 64
58:12
Senator Ballinger. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I really, in my mind, I thought, you know, I'm going to try to keep it as brief as possible, but the reality is all of y'all have people you represent back home, and for whatever reason, you know, a lot of people need to have their voices heard, and so I understand. Just want to address a couple things. Trayvon Martin wasn't stand your ground. It was never brought up. Trayvon Martin, in that case, the person who, I forgot the guy's name, who shot Trayvon Martin was on his back at the time. Now, self-defense was used as a defense,
but it wasn't stand your ground used as a defense. Statistics I mean, you know, there are three types of lies, right? You know, lies damned lies and statistics. That's what Mark Twain said. And you can use them to teach whatever you want. And so, but one thing that is true and the reason why you keep hearing people talk about Florida is they've done a really good job of collecting information. And the majority of the times that stand your ground, the no duty to retreat, is used as a defense it's actually, proportionally it's more minorities than it is white people.
It's more people of color that use it. And successfully, it's actually proportionally used more successfully by people of color than it is by other people. So you could say that there is a disparate impact or there is discrepancy in how it impacts. You could say it helps minority people more. I think that what you actually have is a law that's neutral, right? It's not racist. It's just a neutral law that we say we're going to provide more rights to people. And when that happens, you know, it lifts everybody
up. And I think that's fundamentally the difference here, and then I'll quit, I'll close, is I have a mentality where I want to put that trust in the citizen. I want to empower the citizen. I believe that most citizens don't want to kill somebody else, and they want to de-escalate. And I believe that they will. I believe this bill won't change that. This law will not change that. you know if it is good policy for the for the lady who called um senator elliott if it's good policy that she has the ability to stand your ground in her house which today it is if you're
home you can i don't want to confuse that if you're home you have the ability you have no duty to retreat in your home that's already been taken out it's called the castle doctrine arksel has castle you have no duty retreat in your home make sure everybody knows that but if that's good policy in your home why shouldn't it be everywhere else where you have a right to be any other person where your person is, where your children are, where somebody that you love is. Why can't you have that same right there that we have in our home? And I think we can. And I think we'll see that there will be no new dead people who will be killed by this. What you'll see is people who
will feel more confident in their defense and their self-defense in taking care of themselves. And
Speaker 9
1:00:58
I appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Senator. Senator's close. I want to thank everybody for the civility of the discussion. Senator Flowers, if you're there, if you would please turn on your Video camera for the vote, thank you. Madam
Speaker 144
1:01:13
Secretary, please call the roll. We have a pair at the desk. Senator Irving, yes. Senator Letting, no.
Ballinger? Aye. Beckham? Aye. Bledsoe? Aye. Caldwell? Caldwell? Chesterfield? Clark, Davis, Dismang, Eads, Elliott, English, Flippo, Flowers, Garner, Gilmore, Hammer, Hendron,
Speaker 144
1:02:10
Ingram? No. Irvin? Voted yes. Blake Johnson? Aye. Mark Johnson? Aye. Letting. Votes no. Pitch. Aye. Rapert. Aye. Rice. Aye. Sample. Aye. Stubbeville. Aye.
Sturge. Aye. Sullivan. Aye. Teague. Aye. Tucker.
Speaker 15
1:02:41
Aye. Wallace. Aye. Anyone wish to vote who
Speaker 9
1:02:46
did not vote? Anyone wish to change their vote? Seeing none, cast up the
Speaker 12
1:02:57
can turn the... 27 yays, 7 nays, the bill is passed.
Chair
Unverified
1:03:04
Transmit to the House. Thank you, Senator Flowers. Any announcements? Senator
Speaker 43
1:03:21
Hammer. Senator Hamer, then Senator Sample. Senator Hamer is recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. I
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:03:28
want to remind everybody that joint retirement will meet Monday morning at 8.30. Please remember that the filing deadline for retirement bills is January 28th.
If you have a retirement bill, it has to be filed by January 28th. Thank you.
Speaker 43
1:03:43
Senator Sample, it doesn't matter. Senator Hendren. Insurance and Commerce was 2 o'clock
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
1:03:48
or when we adjourned, whichever is latest. So it looks like it's when we adjourned. So we'll meet briefly for an organizational meeting at 171. Senator Sample. Senate
Speaker 154
1:03:59
Revenue and Tax will meet in the morning at 9.30. Senator Bledsoe.
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
1:04:08
Public Health meets tomorrow at 2 o'clock or after adjournment. Thank you, Mr. President.
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
1:04:17
Members, we do not have state agencies this afternoon, but they have kept urging me. I know this is so important, but we have a picture that they want of us on Thursday. So please, if you're on the committee, be there so we can get it done. Thank
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:04:36
you. Senator Irvin. Thank you. Education will meet tomorrow at two o'clock or upon adjournment.
Speaker 15
1:04:41
Any other announcements? Any other announcements? Senate is adjourned until 1 o'clock tomorrow, 1300, subject to the clearing of the desk.
Agenda
Call to Order
Roll Call
Prayer
Pledge of Allegiance
Announcements
HCR1005 Bentley Rapert TO PROCLAIM RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY.
SB24 B. Ballinger CONCERNING THE DEFENSE OF A PERSON WITH THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE.
Announcements
Adjourn
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 9
Speaker 12
Speaker 15
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 20
Chair
Unverified
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 30
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 35
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 43
Speaker 45
Speaker 48
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
Speaker 57
Speaker 63
Speaker 64
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 68
Speaker 76
Speaker 73
Speaker 90
Speaker 92
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 31
Speaker 121
Speaker 116
Speaker 127
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Senator Jim Hendren
Unverified
Senator Trent Garner
Unverified
Speaker 144
Speaker 150
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 154
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified