City, County & Local Affairs Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (12)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1591
Act 455
· 6 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1591 J. Moore TO COMBINE THE OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLEC…”
|
TO COMBINE THE OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR IN ARKANSAS COUNTY. | J. Moore | Notification that HB1591 is now Act 455 |
|
SB399
· 5 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB399 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; A…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1590
Act 454
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…if you would please sign in. Our first up on the agenda is HB 1590, and Senator Stubblefield is going to be presenting. So if…”
|
TO COMBINE THE OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR IN WOODRUFF COUNTY. | J. Moore | Notification that HB1590 is now Act 454 |
|
HB1555
Act 995
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…L AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS. HB1555 Painter TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR FILLING A VACAN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR FILLING A VACANCY IN A MUNICIPAL OFFICE. | Painter | Notification that HB1555 is now Act 995 |
|
HB1686
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ING ADVERTISING BY A MICROBREWERY- RESTAURANT PRIVATE CLUB. HB1686 Childress TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CON…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS. | Childress | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB448
Act 579
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB448 J. Petty TO AUTHORIZE THE FINANCING OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IM…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE FINANCING OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS, BUILDING RESILIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, AND … | J. Petty | Notification that SB448 is now Act 579 |
|
SB505
Act 595
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB505 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING; AND TO REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR CHANGES … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB505 is now Act 595 |
|
HB1618
Act 523
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SILIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, AND WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS. HB1618 Hawk TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ELECTION, APPOINTMENT,…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ELECTION, APPOINTMENT, AND CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY. | Hawk | Notification that HB1618 is now Act 523 |
|
HB1645
Act 601
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION, APPOINTMENT, AND CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY. HB1645 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ADVERTISING BY A MICROB…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ADVERTISING BY A MICROBREWERY-RESTAURANT PRIVATE CLUB. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1645 is now Act 601 |
|
SB10
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. EMERGENCY. SB10 B. King TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTERS ACT OF 2023; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTERS ACT OF 2023; AND TO REGULATE THE IMPACT ON … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB60
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THAT CONVEYS REAL PROPERTY OR AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY. SB60 Hill TO PROHIBIT A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS FROM BEING…”
|
TO PROHIBIT A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS FROM BEING LOCATED WITHIN A THIRTY-MILE RADIUS OF … | Hill | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB69
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…N CERTAIN INSTANCES. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB69 A. Clark CONCERNING THE RECORDATION AND FILING OF A DEED OR…”
|
CONCERNING THE RECORDATION AND FILING OF A DEED OR OTHER INSTRUMENT THAT CONVEYS REAL PROPERTY … | A. Clark | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
Chair sees a quorum. Just as a reminder, those who are wishing to speak for or against the bill, if you would please sign in. Our first up on the agenda is HB 1590, and Senator Stubblefield is going to be presenting. So if you would, Senator Stubblefield, you know
the routine. could you turn on your mic 1590 is like a lot of these bills
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
0:42
where we've combined sheriffs and collectors or separated them this bill Fifty-nine is an act to combine the offices of treasurer and tax collector in Woodruff County. That's all it does. And they do these things for efficiency and you know, the sheriff's got more duties than he can do. Sometimes that's treasuring. But that's the reason they combine these offices. That's what the bill does. I would appreciate a good vote.
Any members of the committee have any questions? If not, anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this bill? If not, I would entertain a motion. Motion by Senator English, second by Senator Wallace. All those in favor would let it be known by I. Any opposed? Congratulations. Next up is HB 1591.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:45
All right. House Bill 1591, same type of bill that's
enacted to combine the offices of treasurer, tax collector, and Arkansas County. All right. Any questions
of the committee? Anyone in the audience
wish to speak for or against the bill? If not, Chair would entertain a motion. Motion by Senator English. Second. second by Senator Stubblefield. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations.
Your bill passes. Next is SB 399. All right. SB
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:30
here today. This is a, I know it's going to be a little controversial bill, but it came about as a result of
it. I followed the ATF organization for years and years, along with the FBI and other federal law enforcement. But this one particular organization, the ATF, is, well,
I'll get into it in a minute. I want to explain to most of the committee members here, because I asked a Supreme Court judge the other day if he knew anything about the Anti-Commandeering Act. And he said, no, I never heard of it. So, I want to explain to you first and define what the
Anti-Commandeering Act is. So, I forgot we have an amendment, and so
we would need to take action on the amendment first. We have a motion by Senator Rice. Do we have a second? It's by Senator Stubblefield.
All those in favor of adopting the amendment as presented, let it be known by aye. All
Speaker 26
3:35
right. Any opposed? All right. The amendment has passed.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
3:39
All right. Thank you. The question was asked back when our founders wrote
the Constitution. How do we hold the federal government in check? How do we stop it from exercising powers that were never delegated to the federal government? And the Anti-Commandeering Act does that. And let me tell you just a little bit of how it started.
It was James Madison that come up with the Anti-Commandeering Act in Federalist 46. In his blueprint for resisting federal power, Madison offered a number of action, but he said the best of all is the Anti-Commandeering Act was an action that does not let you cooperate. We cannot keep federal authorities from coming into the state, but that does not mean we have to cooperate with those federal authorities. And that's a good definition of the Tenth Amendment because the Tenth Amendment is we are a sovereign state.
The federal government does not control the state. Anti-commandeering has a long Supreme Court doctrine. There's four or five Supreme Court cases. I'm just going to read you one, which really is the hitch pin of the Anti-Commandeering Act. And it's Prince v. United States in 1997. It served, like I said, as the glue for the Anti-Commandeering Act.
That issue was a provision of the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of a background check program. Sheriff Jay Prince and Richard Mack sued, arguing that these provisions were unconstitutional and forced them to administer a federal program. Justice Anton Scalia agreed, writing in a majority opinion, it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate,
albeit only temporarily, in the administration of federally enacted regulatory schemes. Citing the New York case, the court majority cleared that this provision of the Brady Gunn Bill was unconstitutional, further expanding the reach of the anti-commandeering doctrine. So this is a doctrine that has been around a long time, since the 1800s, and states use it. They use it a lot of times when it comes to federal overreach of powers that were never delegated
to the federal government by the Constitution.
If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I have some witnesses to come up. Yes, sir, if
you would call them. If you want me to go
ahead and come up. When you get to the table, would you use the microphone and introduce yourself and who you're
Speaker 41
6:50
with? Hi, I'm Leah Heron, I reside in Rogers, I'm on the board with gun owners of Arkansas.
But more importantly, I'm a citizen of this state, I am a firearms instructor, and I'm a gun enthusiast. I have several guns in my home, and knowing what happened to Mr. Malinowski, that could happen to me. I believe that this act is very important to protect citizens in Arkansas from these unwarranted, unnecessary actions such as we witnessed with Brian Malinowski. There was absolutely no reason to burst into his home before daylight with cameras off
looking for evidence. He wasn't charged with the crime. They were looking for evidence, and that could happen to any of us. So I believe that in order to protect the citizens of Arkansas, this is a crucial bit of legislation that I think would protect us all, and I would appreciate your support
Speaker 44
7:56
for this bill. Thank you. And by the way, yesterday was
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
8:01
the anniversary of Brian Malinowski's death.
That happened a year ago yesterday. And I'll get into the details of that just a little later. I want to
give you the... I'm sorry, before, would it be okay to ask if
any of the committee members have any questions of this witness? Yes. Sure. Any questions? Okay. Thank
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
8:25
you. I want to give you the general observations of a 27-year veteran of the FBI. And let me tell you just a little bit about his background.
He was a career public servant, 27-year public servant, naval officer, FBI agent, inspector general executive, U.S. Navy from 1988 to 1994, nuclear engineering officer. He was assigned to submarines, but reassigned to surface warfare officer due to Cold War victory. In 1990, the U.S. Naval Research Intelligence Officer, from 1994 to 2003, Federal Bureau of Investigations, 1995 to 2015, he investigated drugs, organized crimes, cyber crimes.
He was a supervisor and field executive for DOE, and he investigated, supervised, and served as program managing director of 100 investigation, including criminal, cyber crimes, counterterrorism. This guy graduated from the FBI Academy in 1995 with degrees in numerous cyber counterintelligence, cyber investigation, ILEA, International Law Enforcement.
A inspector in place did over 100 search warrants. This is his, let me read to his general observation of what happened that morning when Brian Malowski was killed. The
early timing of the search was unnecessary. And by the way, committee, I want
you to know that I looked up search warrants. And under search warrants, government search warrants, they advise those search warrants to be used during daylight hours.
But they said in an emergency, which this was not an emergency, but in an emergency, they can do them between 6 and 10. Well, we know now that daylight saving time at 6 o'clock, it's still dark. So
they're still issuing a search warrant. This was not an arrest warrant. This
was a search warrant. I made it a point last week and this week to stop by and talk to as many Little Rock police officers who were coerced into working with the ATF on this Malinowski search warrant
case, and I talked to each one of them individually, and I asked them. They were all aware of this case. They knew it a lot. They knew everything that I know, and I asked them, do you think that case was handled properly? Every single
one of them said no. Every single Little Rock police officer said no. This wasn't the hierarchy. These were the men and women that work out in the field. The
early timing of the search was unnecessary.
The knock-and-announcement was a forcible entry was unnecessary. The ATF reinterpreted the statute of criminal, the subject productive to the subject who was a productive law-abiding citizen. This reinterpretation was the result of an executive decision to ignore the clear will of the U.S. Congress. Congress had repeatedly chosen not to provide greater specificity to the statute.
I wouldn't give anything if Ryan Malinowski had survived and could be sitting here with me today to explain. And here's the thing, and you're going to hear this
from the people who are going to be testifying later. They're going to say this guy was a bad, bad dude. He was a criminal. Let's just say he was. Let's say he had broken some crimes. He would still be alive today.
he would still be alive, though he might even be in jail. He would still have a family. He would still have a life. But he's not. He's killed. And I want to tell you about how that happened. Let me tell you
a little bit about the ATF, first of all. Have you ever heard about the ATF entrapping mentally disabled teenagers, and coercing them into getting neck tattoos?
That's right. That's what they did. The ATF opened up a fake head shop that it used for what else? Entrapment. In this case, a 19-year-old mentally disabled drug addict was manipulated by agents into getting the logo for a shield business tattooed on his neck. This was allegedly to keep him from finding out that he was unwittingly informing for the government a defense so stupid that the federal judge repeatedly pointed and asked the ATF to explain how suggesting that someone else get a neck tattoo was a method of preventing agents from blowing their cover.
The ATF was ordered by Judge to pay for the removal of the tattoo, but this was apparently not only the example the ATF used when they were picking out law IQ informants. Now let's jump to Ruby Ridge. Dave, you remember those days when Ruby Ridge and Waco happened. I was alive. I remember every detail when Randy Weaver had moved to Idaho because he didn't want to live in the city, and he took his family.
He was approached, and he had had some neighbors, Aryan neighbors, move in. He was approached by the ATF to be a snitch, and to go over and be a snitch, and he refused. So they threatened him with prosecution because he had a shotgun that was just a little too short. They had cut the barrel off and it was a little too short.
The court date got all screwed up and messed up. He didn't show up for the court date. So they went to Ruby Ridge. They shot his son in the back. They shot a dog and they shot his wife while she was holding their baby through the wall, through the door. And Mr. Weaver was arrested and taken. And you know what the judge charged him with?
Failure to appear because of that initial charge. That's all he was charged with. He lost his entire family. And then we go to Waco. I will never forget this because it's sitting in Washington for days. It lasted for 51 days. when David Koresh, who would travel frequently from the compound to town where the ATF could have picked him up at any point and arrested him. And more than likely, his followers would have obeyed what he said.
But no, they didn't arrest him. They waited until he got in the compound, and they used flash grenades. A fire was started, 81 people were shot or burned to death in Waco. That was under the direction of Janet
Reno, who was the Attorney General then, and President
Clinton. You all remember that. That was all ATF. One of the more horrid things that I've learned about the ATF was when they baited a group of Hmong refugees
who were supposed to be communists and they gave them weapons and they turned out to be old men. I
mean, they weren't even young soldiers. When they saw the deteriorating health throughout the case, it was like imagine
your father, your grandfather having to go and defend himself against something like this that they were talked into. This is a
story the New York Times uncovered.
This operation in February, this was just a few years ago. At the time, it first looked like a few bad apples in the office of the ATF. However, what the Times found was that there was a nationwide operation based out of Bristol, Virginia office. Anytime an agent wanted money for the operation, they didn't go through the office channels of power. They simply called the Bristol office, which had tons of money, thanks to the partnership with cigarette wholesalers.
Unsurprisingly, the slush fund was not only spent on investigative expenses. Two informants were paid a whopping $6 million each out of this fund. It's pretty good work if you can get one of those jobs. One agent, a particular, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on real estate, electronics, donations to his church, and children's sports teams. Other purchases, including a $21,000 NASCAR suite and a trip to Las Vegas.
This was a slush fund that they had worked out with a tobacco company. And they were taking this money. And the last time I heard that you do not mix private and public funds together, that is a big no-no. And yes, that's exactly what they were doing. Finally, let me talk just a second about the harassment of gun show buyers and sellers.
Starting in May of 2004 and ending, as far as we know, on August 5th, the ATF worked with local police in Richmond, Virginia, to harass, intimidate, otherwise legal gun buyers. People at eight different gun shows were approached by officers and discouraged from buying guns. Gun salesmen were targeted, interrogated, and accused of doing business without a license. Buyers were detained without charge, had their homes visited by ATF agents, all for exercising a constitutionally protected right.
An ATF letter demanded the appearance of buyers from a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania gun show, demanding to see their papers for purchases and arresting those who refused to comply. All of this was just to lead up to the Operation Gunrunner, better known as Fast and Furious, and official policy of allowing certain illegal weapon purchase to go through between 2006-2011,
and it led to the deaths of Border Patrol agents, some of the weapons in question were even used in the terrorist attack. You're going to hear testimony from them that's going to portray Mr. Malinowski as selling to felons. In a gun show, if you're a lobbyist, you're not required to run a background check on any individual that buys a gun. Brian Malinowski was a coin collector.
He was a collector of other things. And his dad left him his gun collection. And since I've been a kid, I've been to sale barns where they set up tables and people would put their guns on those tables and they would trade them and sell them. I've seen this all my life. But Mr. Malinowski's father, when he gave him the gun, he immediately became a target of these.
All right, the ATF had a bad reputation long before the events of
Ruby Ridge and Waco. They were subject to congressional hearings in the late 70s and 80s because their methods by securing a case were considered overzealous, evidence that the hearings were presented by American citizens who had been charged, experts who had closely studied the Bureau and internal officials from the Bureau.
The Senate subcommittee investigating declared, based upon these hearings, it is apparent that ATF enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearm laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible. The ATF was considered especially harmful because they often targeted people who not only didn't know they were doing anything wrong, but had absolutely no malicious intent at all.
Their efforts focused on gun collectors rather than stopping street crime. Indeed, the same investigation found that 75% of all ATF prosecutions were targeted at the people who had no knowledge that they were breaking any law and no intent to do anything criminal.
Whenever the officers came to Brian Malinowski's house on March of 19th, in their policy book, and I read their policy book, they're supposed to be wearing body cameras. No one in the neighborhood testified they heard any sirens or anything, but they're supposed to be wearing body cameras, and yet the first thing they do is tape over Mr. Malinowski's security camera.
And the reasoning was, according to the state police investigation, in case anything went wrong. Now, what could possibly go wrong when you knock somebody's door in in Arkansas at 6 o'clock in the morning? 99% of us sitting in this room
Speaker 67
23:33
would do exactly what Ron Malinowski did. We would reach for our weapon to protect our family.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
23:47
he wasn't given that chance. And by the way, when he did finally show up, and it talks about a reasonable amount of time. How long does it take you to get ready to make yourself presentable, to go to the front door when you hear? And the next thing you hear is a loud banging that knocked your door in. And they're going to tell you that he shot at their feet. He was trying to get them out of his house. If he would have wanted to kill them, he would have shot a lot higher than their feet.
He was shot in the head, his wife standing next to him. His brains and skull matter were all over the wall. They grabbed Mr. Malinowski. They took her to a car in her night robe, in her nightgown, put her in a police car for hours. When she asked to go to the restroom, they would not allow her to go, even at the neighbor's house. And finally, when they did take her on the way to the police station, they stopped at a fire station and paraded her in front of a group of firemen
and took the wife, Ms. Boninowski, to a bathroom
while a female officer kept the stall door open watching her. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you something. This is just, all of this is wrong. This is wrong. When these men, when these officers, and I'm a big proponent of law officers, have been all my life.
But when you break into somebody's house like they did and shoot
a man without any due process, there were a dozen different ways they could have served this search warrant. A dozen. He worked at the airport. He was head of the Little Rock Airport. All they had to do was take the search warrant, put it in his hands, take him back to his house, get his computer, get his cell phones,
and Ryan Malinowski would be alive today. He was never given that opportunity. So I'm asking you today to look at this very carefully because we have a new president now, and he's making some big changes, especially concerning the ATF and the FBI with Cash Patel. But I think it will send a strong signal to the citizens of Arkansas that we're here to protect them.
Because what happened to Ryan Malinowski could happen to you, Senator Petty, or you, Senator Hester. It could happen to any of us. No accountability. So I'm asking you to listen to the rest of this testimony, and hopefully you'll understand what this thing is all about.
We're ready to take questions. I'm sorry, just a
clarification. Were you going to have this witness help you with that, or did
you want to have questions at this point and then let him help you with the presentation?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
27:06
Well, if we could both, Mr. Epperson is a little more knowledgeable about a lot of this than I am, so I'll let him answer
the questions. Okay, so he's here to assist with questions. Okay. Are there any questions of the committee? You're recognized, sorry.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
27:36
Mr. Stokefeet, you mentioned in reference, I don't know exactly how you said it, talking about somebody might have called Mr. Malinkowski or
they may have called Terry Rice a criminal. If I've not been convicted, am I a criminal? No. So any assumption they would have had that there was criminality, I have not heard of anything in his background that did that?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
28:09
Well, the FBI just testified that he was a productive citizen. He had no criminal background. Okay. No charges
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
28:20
against him. That was my question. Yeah. Mr. Harrison,
because I know you have some information, I think, Can you tell us, because this was a joint raid with local law enforcement,
does any Arkansas law enforcement you're aware of or been able to find out derive any funding from ATF? Before you answer that, I
was going to ask him to introduce himself. I don't think that happened. Yeah, please do. I'm Gary Harrison.
Speaker 86
29:02
I'm with Gowers of Arkansas. And in response to Senator Rice's question, we sent out some... Could you turn on
Speaker 86
29:20
it to you. It's got a cord. In response
Speaker 92
29:24
to Senator Rice's question, we sent out FRAs across the
Speaker 95
29:32
state Okay, thank you. A dual payment system for overtime and things of
Speaker 96
29:38
that nature, and it ranges, varies, give or take, around $20,000 that they are paid.
Speaker 95
29:48
We can't serve two masters. The Bible says that. And that is a huge concern of these municipal officers being employed by the ATF. But a lot of those FOIAs, we didn't get back. They never were answered. We didn't pursue them because we had the information that we needed to justify and testimony that, in fact, it was happening.
Speaker 96
30:20
But the concerning part of that is with the lack of information that's being put out by the ATF, and I'm sure it's out of concern for a civil lawsuit, we're not aware of an actual ATF officer being in the entry team on that. It was all municipal or county officers that went in. So it gives the appearance, which I cannot substantiate this,
but it gives the appearance that the federal ATF is using the local officers to do their dirty work. And that is very concerning
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
31:06
when that happens. Just to clarify, and Senator
Stubblefield said this if he wants to chime in too, there were many other options that could have been done. Again, it's not just one case. This can happen anywhere.
From previous inquiries and some testimony given in a meeting of legislators, it was set up. In fact, there's some video on it that there was a raid schedule like two weeks before this. And they found out Mr. Malankowski was out of town. I think I heard Washington, D.C. on airport business.
And they stood down and didn't do it. That would have been a perfect time for somebody that's never been charged, but yet they've got a search warrant for his house. His wife may have been home, but they could have gone ahead and go in. Is that your recollection of some of
Speaker 96
32:13
the testimony we'd heard about? From the information available, that is correct. Now, I can somewhat understand that they were warning Malinowski to get his cell phone. I can understand that.
And we can always armchair and second-guess the actions that happened, and I've been there, and I understand that in my law enforcement career. But this was so, I mean, anybody can see the outrageousness
Speaker 95
32:46
of their planned action. And it gives the appearance that the planning of the operation was to produce a probable result.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
32:59
I'll go back and echo what Senator Stubblefield said. I've tried to be an LER supporter all my life.
I've got a tough job, but when we see things like this happen, and again, my enhanced concern is that local law enforcement were drawn into this, One, if they're taking money, you
said it, you can't serve two masters.
You took their money, you've got to do the business. And they go to a deal pre-dawn, bust in a door, first tape the doorbell camera, bust in and go through the deal. Senator Stubblefield did well on it. This is a great concern to anybody in Arkansas, but yet I've talked to people on my side, west side of the state, that's never heard about this.
It's just almost like it's been covered up, and it's not something to be covered up. I met with Mrs. Malinkowski and talked to her and heard a little more of it, and it's very concerning that this can happen in this day and time, and nothing's been done about it. Do you know of anybody that's
Speaker 96
34:31
answered to any of this? Senator Rice, the only information that we've got is just talking, trying to reach consensus for this bill.
And I'm not aware of any action that's being taken. I've worked with
Speaker 95
34:46
several agencies that are in this room trying to reach consensus for this bill. And because we are pro-law enforcement, I'm pro-law enforcement on the federal side, but it is a huge concern when actions like this happen with, and
Speaker 96
35:08
fortunately for law enforcement, it was obviously Mr. Malinowski was the target of,
he was not trained. Anybody trained is not going to have their wife with them and behind them when there's an entry into that point. The last thing, and I'm over the hill, my health and everything else, but I can rest assured that a couple of those officers would not have left that scene
Speaker 95
35:37
if it would have been my daughter. And I do not want to live with that for the rest of my life.
It's a dangerous operation for the officers. It's dangerous for the people. And anybody in their right mind is going to respond to a crashing of the door with a firearm, regardless if anybody can yell at law enforcement. And there was no need for it at 6 o'clock. There was nothing in that house, it wasn't drugs, that could be flushed down the commode. And in my past, I've even crawled under homes and cut the sewer pipes and put trash bags over them and collected evidence. Well, it wasn't drugs.
So why the rush? Are you afraid you're going to wipe the computer clean? Well, at least give him a minute or two. But this is very concerning that this would happen, and the ATF has had a history of inconsistencies and lack of leadership going back to the 1970s that has been pointed out in the inspector general's and the GAO office.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
36:48
Mr. Chair, that's all. I've got this time. I
just will say that, you know, I take it very serious that a bill like this is even necessary to run. But I've just come to the conclusion that we've just stated the seriousness. Thank you. All right. Are there any others, members, that
would like to ask any questions? I would like to have a claim, Mr. Chairman. Turn your mic on.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
37:18
It's not hard to understand that the Little Rock Police
Department, and I'm not blaming them because they were coerced in this by alphabet agency that basically described by the—and they don't even get along with the FBI or the DEA. You can ask any FBI agent or DEA. They barely—they don't even want to be associated with ATF because of their background. But
they helped a federal agency execute a warrant in a questionable investigation.
And the alleged violation is so leveled, processed crime, that it is vaguely defined, and it's almost impossible to prosecute.
The target was a person with no criminal history. He had no criminal history. And now he's dead. And like I said before, that could happen
Speaker 48
38:09
to anyone sitting in this room. Mr. Epperson, you have a follow-up on that?
Speaker 94
38:22
Yes, sir, if I may. I anticipate some of the opposing testimony,
Speaker 95
38:28
we'll talk about he's selling guns to felons. How would he know that they were felons? He doesn't have access to the system. I don't know what the number is, but the number from the other side says around 20 handguns. And Mr. Malinowski got the death sentence for selling 20 handguns.
What about the 400 and some on the two operations going into Mexico and the 2,000, there's two different operations. One had over 2,000 guns, one had almost 500 that were shipped to cartels and criminal elements, and one of those firearms was used to kill Agent Brian Terry. So, I just want to put that in perspective. Who is really the criminal in this case? Thanks,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
39:28
sir. Thank you. Well, Mr. Chairman, there's an old
saying that says, who's watching the guardians? And sometimes I wonder who's watching the guardians for us because, like Mr. Epperson said, out of those 2,000 weapons that were put in a place where the cartels had access to them, they also found 150 civilians killed and traced those numbers back to those guns that were put there by the ATF.
This is outrageous in a country like this. We'll
take further questions. Any further questions from
the members of the committee? If not, then I believe there are some signed up to speak for the remaining speaking four. All right. Mr. McMahon, if you would, and I'm going to—we gave a—actually, what I'd like to do, Senator Stubblehill, before you leave, just—I meant to do this a minute ago.
I didn't make myself a note. I know you've been a supporter of our local law enforcement, our state law. This—and I know you've met with them and discussed with them, but they may not have had the benefit of the amendment that we introduced this morning. And would you mind just kind of, because it's a fairly large one, would you
mind just kind of covering the high points of what your amendment did?
Senator Stubbeffield, would you turn your mic on? You and I
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
41:29
are guilty on that all the time. Well, my paper's covering it up, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. On page one, this deletes line 11 through 14 and substitutes the following for enforcement of federal firearms regulations, rules, executive orders, treaties, and administrative orders and for other purposes. It deletes the subtitle and substitutes the following,
to create the Anti-ATF Commandeering Act and to prohibit the provisions of the material aid and support and enforcement of federal firearms regulations, rules, executive orders, treaties, and executive orders. Page two, it deletes lines four and five and substitutes the following, assistance or material aid for enforcing federal firearms regulations, rifles, rules, executive orders, treaties, or administrative orders,
deletes lines, also deletes lines 34 through 36, substitutes the following, provides material aid and support for enforcing any federal regulation, rule, executive order, treaty, or administrative orders regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. Page 3, deletes lines 2 through 7, and substitutes the following. Enforce or attempt to enforce any federal regulation, rule, executive order, treaty, or administrative order
regarding firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. Refer to the United States government a violation of federal regulation, rule of executive order, treaty, or administrative order regarding firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. Page three, the section does not delete lines 12 through 13. The section does not prevent law enforcement from accepting aid or using information obtained from the United States government.
Agencies to enforce state laws. It is not a violation of this section for the state or a political subdivision of the state to provide material aid or support to federal officials that are not in pursuit of a suspect when there is a demonstrable criminal nexus with another state or country and the suspect is either not a citizen of this state or not present in this state.
And number two, for federal prosecution of a felony offense against a person, when the prosecution includes a weapons violation similar to a felony offense under Section 573.101, includes if the weapon violation is merely auxiliary to
the prosecution or a Class A or Class B
felony offense substantially similar to the felony offense under Code 564-101, 564-1303.
When the prosecution includes a weapons violation, if the weapons violation is merely an auxiliary to the prosecution, This section does not apply to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission or employees of the Arkansas State
Game and Fish Commission. Okay, thank you. I just didn't know
who may or may not have, and I knew there was some changes and you'd been
meeting, so I wanted to make that available. So, Mr. McMahon, you are here to speak against?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Introduce yourself, and you may proceed. Bob McMahon, I'm representing the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association. and I'm also the director of the
Speaker 133
45:34
Arkansas Prosecutor Coordinator's Office, which is a state agency. We appreciate the opportunity to address our opposition to SB 399. We don't usually appear in this committee, so we may be new to some of you here. But again, as I said, I represent all the prosecuting attorneys in the association, and we are, as a whole, opposed to Senate Bill 399. Before I get into specific comments about why we have that opposition,
I'm also authorized today to speak for the Attorney General's Office. they could not be here. General Griffin, I communicated with his office yesterday and was asked to let you all know that they have opposition to this bill as well for the same reasons that I'm getting ready to talk about. I have another elected prosecutor with me here today, Chris Walton, and we're going to try to divide our presentation here a
little bit. I don't know if you want him at the table with me at the same time or you'd like to divide us up. Sure, he can come to the table at this point. Is his presentation, you said divide and conquer? Yes, sir. We'll divide it up a little
bit. I don't think we have anything that's the same. We'll let both of you guys do it instead of the for and against alternating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And a quick reference of the
Speaker 133
46:41
amendment. I know that's a change a little bit. I don't see that that amendment is going to change our opposition to the bill at all. And Chris, I don't know if you've had a chance to look at that, But basically, our opposition with regard to this bill is it pretty much prohibits, and I'm going to speak on the basis of prosecuting attorneys. I'm going to focus on that. I have plenty of law enforcement colleagues I know that are going to cover the law enforcement
stuff. But again, our opposition and the AG's opposition would be that it would prohibit us from working with the federal government and the United States Attorney's Office on prosecuting a handful of cases. The way it's written, it really doesn't, I know it deals with firearms and accessories and ammunition and things of that nature. However, it isn't just working with the ATF that that would affect. You know, we also work with the DEA, the FBI, Homeland Security, and a host of other federal agencies with regard to that. I mean, it may be a drug case.
It may be a gang case. It could be a human trafficking case. All those, as we all know, involve firearms in many situations. So we believe that that would prohibit us from working with that. The bill talks about no aid or support from us as a prosecutor. It also talks about not allowing to enforce things or assist in the enforcement or refer things to the federal government or to agencies. And now I'd like to give a couple of real examples of how that affects prosecuting attorneys. Back in 2019, Project Guardian Initiative was created by the Department of Justice.
Again, that was started in 2019. And the goal there was to reduce gun violence and enforce federal firearm laws throughout the country. They emphasized using all technologies available to law enforcement and to prosecutors to help us do that. In that initiative, there were five different principles of implementation. I won't read you all five of those. I just want to focus on one so that you can see where I'm coming from here. One of the principles of implementation was to allow federal prosecutors and law enforcement to coordinate with state law enforcement and state prosecuting attorneys to consider potential federal prosecution.
That would be defendants arrested with firearms, using a firearm in crimes of violence, drug trafficking cases, things of that nature, all specified in the initiative. So how that actually worked out here in the state of Arkansas, let me say one other thing. The success of that initiative depends in large part on the state and local officials, both prosecutors and my law enforcement colleagues, to share ballistic evidence, ballistic information, firearm recovery data, all those things that are used to help us prosecute cases.
You may remember when Cody Highland, our former U.S. attorney, was involved. He was very, very involved in this initiative. He actually deputized about a dozen of our deputy prosecuting attorneys throughout the state to assist his office as special assistant U.S. attorneys to handle these type of gun cases that were so prevalent in the state of Arkansas. And at the time, and you all have done a great job of making some of our laws tougher on those violent criminals that use firearms, but we still rely on our communication and working with the federal government.
There are many situations where they have a better option for us, so we would work with them to make that decision. A few years after Mr. Hyland did that, the Trump administration and the Department of Justice gave the state of Arkansas an additional position toward the end of President Trump's first term in office. And that additional position, one of the catch-alls and the requirements in that position was that it had to be run through a state agency. And so my state agency had an employee funded by the federal government that you all approved all the appropriation and the position for
to, again, assist the federal government as a state agency, state employee. That individual was placed in my office and successfully helped prosecute, along with the other individuals Mr. Hyland deputized, serious gun cases in the state of Arkansas. Both those programs were successful. The deputizing of our deputies as U.S. attorneys and the specific person that was put in my office to do that. This bill would prohibit both of those things from helping. Both of those were a success. They made a significant difference in the prosecution of gun crimes and individuals that were committing violent crimes in our community.
For those reasons, we opposed the
Speaker 134
50:56
bill. it would infringe in our ability to do those things. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be
happy to answer any questions. Any questions for this speaker, this
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
51:08
witness? Okay. Bob. Mike. It's on. Okay. I'm sorry. Bob, right after the Malinowski case, a number of AGs joined
together against the ATF. AG Griffin was one of them.
So you said that he's against it now, and yet he joined in a case against their activity?
Speaker 133
51:32
Senator, I can't speak. I'm not disputing that. I believe you are correct that he did join in that activity. I don't have any personal knowledge of his involvement in that joining. I just know for this particular piece of legislation, because of the reasons I articulated, I'm authorized to say they are opposed for those specific reasons. I don't know if that necessarily is a contradiction to being involved with what you're talking about with the ATF.
Unfortunately, I would be guessing if I tried to do that, and I don't want to be in the position to
Speaker 134
52:02
guess for the Attorney General. I know he could speak on that himself or have
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
52:07
a member of his staff. They're just not here today. Well, I'm
not guessing because I read this from the AGs. I get his emails. He joined in with AGs all over the state because of this one case of
ATF. And the way they carried it out. So he was really part of this. And by the way, President Trump, during his first presidential term, he cut the budget of ATF.
Is that not correct? I don't know for sure. I'm not disputing that
at all. He cut the budget of
ATF. And that's one of the reasons some of these slush fund funds were set up. is because President Trump saw that this group was out of control and he started cutting the budgets. And then they went to Bristol, Virginia and set up with one of the large tobacco companies and creating this fund where they could draw from it and nobody even knew about it.
That's a history. You can find that just about anywhere, even
online. Okay. All right. Any other questions, members? Senator Rice, you're recognized. Thank
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
53:21
you. Bob, I don't know. I'm just asking. I don't know if you call it a preamble. What is a statement that prosecutors take as regarding service to the citizens of Arkansas?
Speaker 134
53:36
Can you give me a basic idea? Or oath of office? Oath of office, yes. Yes, sir. When prosecutors sworn in, many deputy prosecuting attorneys, similar to the United States attorneys, they swear to uphold the Constitution of the state
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
53:52
of Arkansas and of the United States. Okay. Do you think that the Constitution was filed in this one particular case? I'm not talking about all the others. I'm talking about
Speaker 133
54:01
in the Malinowski case. Senator, I know there are people here today that have more experience and involvement with the Malinowski case. From my perspective, the only role the prosecuting attorneys had in this particular case
was to review the case file and make a decision on whether the officers acted appropriately pursuant to the warrant and whether they had the authority to be there and enter the residence. And I believe the prosecuting attorney here in town made that decision. He had the necessary information to know whether we like it or we agree with whatever happened. And he had a warrant signed by a judge, and they properly followed what was in the warrant
Speaker 150
54:32
and followed the procedures that were allowed to them under and under. And my reason for asking what the statement
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
54:40
is, is who speaks for the citizens of Arkansas that this could happen to, and who speaks for Brian Malinkowski?
So one person, one prosecutor, made determination. Again, I remember what Senator Stubblefield talked about. There was more people signed on and concerned at the time, but it's all quieted down. Who speaks for the citizens of Arkansas? Senator,
Speaker 150
55:02
I believe that we all do. I mean, but the prosecuting
Speaker 133
55:07
attorneys, the oath that they take and the job that they have to do, it's to exercise that discretion every day. And again, I just want to point out, that discretion was exercised on the validity of
the warrant and whether the procedures were followed. So that's the only decision the prosecuting attorney made in this particular case. I'm not, you know, anything else that happened, any kind of a civil issue that are out there, anything like that, that's not going
Speaker 134
55:31
to involve the prosecuting attorney. Chris, I don't know, as an elected, you may want to add to that, but I think I'm
correct on how that would work. I'm sorry, before you speak, would you introduce yourself and who
Speaker 154
55:44
you're with? Thank you. Chris Walton, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Saline County.
Speaker 155
55:50
And we frequently review incidents to see if there would be any criminal charges that any officer would face. I do not know
Speaker 154
55:59
about that particular case, other than what I've heard from individuals that are sitting out here. But that's what we review when we review those type of cases. Okay,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
56:09
thank you. And I'll follow up when I'm through
is just with my question. That's the reason I'm asking questions for the citizens of Arkansas who affected me.
They've got concerns what can happen to
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
56:29
you. Senator Stuckfield, do you have a follow-up question? Yes. Well, it's a question in a statement. I held a
committee meeting this past summer, and we talked to the FBI agents. We talked to some other individuals about the Malinowski case, and when it came to the city of Little Rock, they sent their attorney and pleaded the fifth. They answered no questions, no questions, and there were a lot of unanswered questions
because I read the police report from the Arkansas State Police. There were still some unanswered questions about this case. So why would the city of Little Rock not participate in answering questions to a committee to find out the details of just what happened, that they were a part of that raid? Okay. Any other questions from the committee?
Would you have prepared remarks you'd like to
Speaker 155
57:28
present? I would, and thank you. A couple of things. We want to use as prosecutors whatever resources we can to keep bad guys off the streets of Arkansas. That's
Speaker 162
57:45
what we want to do. And what I am concerned about is that this bill will limit our opportunities to put bad guys in jail by prohibiting us from working with federal authorities when we have done so successfully in the past.
Whether it was the power ultra lounge shooting here in Little Rock, whether it was a murderer who had a witness recant and the gun charges were allowed to stick and able to put that person in custody for a period of time. or whether we have had a violent person that was out on bond and found with a gun later.
That is only federal charges that allowed us to put that person in jail and got a six-year sentence, federal sentence, because there was a law that the feds have that the state doesn't that allowed us to keep that person locked up. We are choosy when we work with the feds. Sometimes we fight the feds. That happens. But to cut us off, to completely prohibit us from working with the feds would really take a great tool from our kit that I think would be ill-advised.
And I will say one final thing. The only thing, there are reasons to be scared sometimes of the federal government. Absolutely. But us not working with them at all, us not knowing what they're doing, to me, that is the scariest thing that could happen. If we don't have the ability to talk to them and work with them and we don't know what they're doing, that's the scariest thing.
And that would be what I would have to say. So follow up on that statement, just a question. Are there situations where they come in, you're willing to work with them, but they don't notify you
they're working in the state, or are they required to notify you
Speaker 154
59:58
any time they come in? There are times where I feel like there has been a federal operation that we don't know,
Speaker 164
1:00:06
and we do. I do not like that, but that has happened.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:00:10
All right. Thank you. Senator Stuboff. Well, I would just say that this bill does not prevent ATF from coming into the state. There's nothing in this bill that would prevent ATF from
coming in and doing something that they see as wrong in the state. This bill simply says that we don't have to go along with it. We don't have to be their carriers in this. And, you know, the ATF, it's not just the people that they're a unique group.
They've had 400, from what I discovered, the complaints about the ATF are not by any means limited to civilians. As an example, ATF received 400 employee complaints within one year. That is an astounding number of complaints for an organization that only has 5,000 employees. What's more, internal agents who complain are often subject to punitive measures within the agency,
meaning that what resources aren't being spent on entrapping citizens and being used to persecute what slam opposition to corruption exists within the government. So how much of their time and money are they using for locking up bad guys? All right. Would you like to respond to that? Well, briefly, if I
understood what the senator is correct. I
Speaker 153
1:01:39
mean, it doesn't just say that we shouldn't work with the feds. It says we cannot work with the feds, and that's a big distinction in my opinion.
Speaker 162
1:01:47
And if we can't work with them, we don't know what they're doing. And that is a problem. And again, going back, we use them to get cases and prosecute bad
Speaker 154
1:02:00
individuals when their law helps us out. And it can make my community safer. All right. Senator
Speaker 67
1:02:07
Stouffield. Well, you know, I just don't understand this, because if they know something that Bob and
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:02:14
the others don't know, they can inform them.
We have state police. We have Little Rock Police Department. We have police departments all across the state. If the ATF knows something, there's nothing in this bill that would prevent them from telling them and let them handle it. Okay. Instead of allowing a rogue agency to come in here and kill our innocent citizens, which we are sworn to uphold. You know, we took an oath, too, to protect the Constitution against all enemies, including foreign and domestic.
All right. Any other questions of the committee?
If not, thank you for your testimony. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I believe we have one signed up to speak for, remaining, signed up to speak for the bill. Jessica B. Is Jessica Jessica? Jessica, if you would be seated and turn the mic on and introduce yourself and who you're with.
Jessica Rhee
Unverified
1:03:23
My name is Jessica Rhee, or E.
Speaker 177
1:03:27
Rhee? Yes, sir. Okay, sorry. I can't read. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you in support of the anti-ATF commandeering act. I'm here to show my support from a few different perspectives. First and foremost, and most importantly, as a wife and a mother, secondly, I'm a firearms instructor with a passion for training women. My husband and I both have solid interest in firearms and keep a moderate collection for our own interest and for my students.
There are some nights after all of my mom duties are done for the day, my kids are tucked in bed and I've laid down, that I find myself considering the possibility of the ATF unexpectedly coming through my door at 6 a.m., unannounced, possibly in plain clothing and weapons trained on myself or my husband. Well, you haven't committed any crimes, and what are you afraid of, you might ask. And you would be correct, I haven't, and neither has my husband. But Mr. Malinowski was targeted, and a raid was conducted merely for the suspicion of selling a few firearms.
We have enough facts now to know that what the ATF did to Mr. and Ms. Malinowski was entirely unnecessary. I live in a country where I have the right to due process should I be accused of a crime, but that right was taken from Mr. Malinowski for acting in the exact manner any Arkansan would with no prior criminal history should someone enter their home at 6 a.m. unannounced and uninvited. Who is to say that myself or my husband won't be targeted for something the ATF might be suspicious of?
I feel the need to reiterate that this bill doesn't prevent the ATF from enforcing laws. Mr. Malinowski wasn't targeted for breaking laws, and if he was, there would have been an arrest warrant. And that wasn't the case. He was targeted for breaking regulations. Does my husband, who works hard to provide for his family, deserve to die at the hands of the people that take an oath to protect us? for simply protecting his own family from what he believes, at the time, to be a threat in our own home. What is the protocol for a raid if there are children in the home?
Would it have been handled any differently than the Malinowski raid? Would they come in my home and endanger my children, or would they choose to exercise other avenues of serving a warrant to ensure the safety of my children? I teach my students, as an instructor, that they can use lethal force should an armed attacker come through their threshold and they are in fear for their life. I am now conflicted on how to teach them, should I start telling them to first check the intruders' clothing for the ATF insignia before engaging?
I need to make it very clear that my testimony today is in no way intended to be anti-law enforcement. In fact, I had the honor of watching my dad serve our community as a police officer for 20 years. For 20 years, I prayed he would return home after each shift, and I believe it is the duty of the leadership in the department to do their due diligence in ensuring the safety of their officers and making sure they return home to their families. Whoever sent the orders to those officers, and in this case it would have been the ATF,
I don't believe that they took their safety into consideration. They sent the orders, had the local law enforcement do their dirty work, and they put those officers in danger by doing so. My dad spent the second half of his career investigating, interrogating, and arresting some of the most vile predators you can imagine. Predators that you and I would likely have a difficult time maintaining our composure around. But he did so without ever violating their rights, and that alone tells me it can be done, it should be done, and when it isn't,
we need to have the ability to hold
Speaker 161
1:07:22
those responsible accountable. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Lee. Any questions from the committee? If not, thank you for your testimony. Okay, so next up is Stacey Rhodes, I believe. Now, we've had a lot of latitude in the discussion, the purpose and the motivation behind this bill
and the unfortunate situation with Mr. Malinowski, I would like to remind the witnesses to keep it on the bill and keep it focused on that since he does not have representation here other than the motivation behind the bill. So if you would, introduce yourself, and you're free
Speaker 189
1:08:08
to begin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Major Stacey Rhodes. I oversee the Criminal Investigation Division of the Arkansas State Police.
I've been with the state police for, just celebrated
Speaker 191
1:08:22
my 27th anniversary with the state police. Prior to that, I was in the United States Marine Corps. I'm here representing the state police to share our opposition to this bill for a variety of reasons. First, let me say that there is nothing more important to us at the state police than the protection of our Second Amendment rights, and in no way here are we trying to diminish that.
As I said in the audience, I heard Senator Stubblefield reference several cases involving ATF investigations that did not fare well for citizens, But I have some personal experiences that I would like to share with the committee on some investigations that we handled within the state police that I can say without a doubt that would not have been successful without the aid of our ATF partners.
One such investigation that I was involved with was the bombing of Dr. Trent Pierce that happened in West Memphis. Dr. Pierce was the head of the medical board who oversees medical licensings for doctors, and one morning he walked out to his car, removed a tire that was leaned up against his car, and a grenade exploded on his car. Through that investigation that we assisted the ATF with,
They were able to determine that a doctor in Russellville was likely responsible. We at the state police didn't have the resources to be able to backtrack a lot of the evidence collected in that case, and, you know, ATF were able to determine where the grenades came for and make an arrest of the doctor there in Russellville. Other cases, they mentioned Cody Highland and his ability to help us with our interstate shootings that occurred back in 2019.
We were being overrun with gang violence and shootings on the interstate. And without access to the national integrated ballistics information system, we would not be able to connect weapons to gang members and to other homicides. You know, in Little Rock, so far, we've had 17 homicides just in Little Rock this year. But I could sit here and I could name countless other investigations of tractor-trailer thefts involving a cargo of rifles that were stolen that the ATF helped us track down to other state venues.
Right now, across the state, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of weapons in the hands of some bad actors. There is no doubt about that. And our ability to help find those and confiscate those
Speaker 189
1:11:40
from bad actors, we rely heavily on the ATF to help us
Speaker 188
1:11:48
do that. The other thing that we noticed in reading
Speaker 191
1:11:54
this bill is in regard to domestic violence perpetrators.
As it stands now, I'm not aware of any law in the state of Arkansas that would prohibit someone convicted of domestic violence being prohibited from having a firearm. And we heavily rely on that federal oversight. So when someone is convicted of domestic violence, that they not be
Speaker 189
1:12:24
allowed to possess firearms. And the other thing, and I know that
Speaker 191
1:12:33
Mr. McMahon mentioned was with respect to discretion.
Right now we have the discretion if we don't want to include the ATF. We certainly don't have to, but there are certainly going to be times over the course of however many years that we may need to rely on them and we don't want that discretion stripped away, you know, because right now we have the ability to, if they come to us and say, hey, we're working on this case, we'd like to help you with this case, we have the discretion to, you know, just to frankly say no. I'll tell you about some violence down in West Helena where we simply don't get the
jury convictions because the jury pool in West Helena just doesn't have the same impact that a federal jury would get on a lot of those gun charges that we are seeing in folks like West Helena and West Memphis and some of our more violent parts of the state. So that kind of
Speaker 189
1:13:35
wraps up everything that I intended to talk to today, and I would entertain any questions.
Members, you've heard the testimony. Do we have any questions? Senator Stubblefield? Yes, ma'am. I would
Speaker 194
1:13:49
like to ask you. Yes, sir. How many no-knock warrants
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:13:53
were issued last year in the country? I don't believe there shouldn't have been any. There shouldn't have been
Speaker 189
1:14:03
any? There shouldn't have been any. I'm not aware. I know that we in the state police have
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:14:07
not did—we don't do no-knock warrants. Do you keep up with any statistics on no-knock warrants of how many innocent people have been killed? No, sir.
Okay. Is it against federal law to sell marijuana? Yes. How many arrests
do you make selling marijuana? I mean, do you deal in any of that? In selling marijuana? In arresting people who are transporting or carrying marijuana? Yes, sir,
Speaker 191
1:14:36
we do. Okay, how many of those do you do?
Speaker 189
1:14:39
So our interstate criminal patrol, just within the last six months, I know of at least 2,000 pounds that we got off the interstate.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:14:46
Well, I pulled this up last night and it said 99% of all the marijuana arrests are state, not federal. Okay. And it's against federal
law, and yet we're doing all the arrests. Would you agree
Speaker 198
1:15:03
to that? I'm not going to contest it. Okay. All
right. Senator Ross, did you have a
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:15:15
question? Thank you for being here and I appreciate state police and the work you do and you named
some cases there that are, I feel probably very justified. I remember the doctor that was injured over there, I got to meet him. I happened to be over at the Medical Association or something and met him after that. serious things. If the state police, which were not involved in the case we were talking about, I don't want to get all back on that, how can something go from so needed and so
justified in these violent things you're talking about to somebody that has never been convicted, may be
suspicioned, but doesn't have an arrest warrant, how
can it go that wrong? Was state police just smart enough to
Speaker 189
1:16:21
don't want to confuse the difference between an investigation and a tactical approach to a home.
And I think that the ATF was in the middle of an investigation, which happens at the state police, we don't always have enough information or enough evidence to support an arrest warrant, but we do have enough to support a search warrant. And so to say that we were smart enough to stay out of it, you know, obviously we weren't invited. We currently don't have any task force members as part of the ATF, but I do know that in terms of the ATF, we know most of the things that we can
Speaker 191
1:17:03
handle in-house but we certainly know when we need to ask for help from those federal agencies when it goes
Speaker 189
1:17:11
outside of what I would call our level of expertise and ATF do more than just firearms I can talk to you about you know a teacher's vehicle that had a you know pipe bomb put on it in Adkins that her boyfriend put on there you know we we employed the assistance of ATF to help us understand how that mechanism worked so that we could secure a conviction on
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:17:36
that as well. I just hope you continue to use what I call common sense and knowing not
Speaker 189
1:17:45
to go over the line. And that's what we use. We like to think that we do use common sense and have the ability. We just want to be able to continue to have the ability to use them when necessary. Not always. We're not always going to call them we're not always going to let them know what our business is but when it goes outside the scope of what we what we can do we
have to be able to reach out to somebody and say can you
come help us with this thank you for
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:18:27
being here yes sir all right any other questions of this witness. I have one more. Was the enforcement of federal law being investigated, was
it consistent with congressional consent? Sir, I don't know the answer to that. Okay. Well, its definition is unconstitutionally vague. The subject matter is more political
and criminal. That came from, ATF did not have any sufficient evidence to charge much less convict Brian Malinowski for violation of this regulation. You know, I can just say that that
Speaker 188
1:18:58
wasn't the scope of our investigation. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank
you. Any other questions from the committee? If not, thank you,
Ms. Rose. Thank you. Next, to speak against it, David Ewing, I believe.
So, if you both would, it looks like it's going to be a tag team.
If you both would, introduce yourselves so we don't
Speaker 216
1:19:29
have to back up and do that again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is David Ewing. I'm Chief of Police at Russellville
Speaker 218
1:19:38
and also the President of the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police. I'm Gary Sipes, the director of the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police. I'll start. I'm here to advise you guys, senators, that the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police,
all the chiefs across the Arkansas, which consists of over 300 chiefs, are adamantly opposed to this for obvious reasons. And this is kind of difficult to set here because I have all the respect in the world for Senator Stubblefield, but this is so important, this bill is so important that we need to be here to testify and try to reason our beliefs on this. It's really going to affect law enforcement. You heard the major discuss how it's going to affect them.
It's going to affect the locals as well. As a police officer at North Rock PD, I went through the ranks. I started as a kid of 18 years old. I was assigned to be undercover for several years, and during that period, I was assigned to the DEA task force. During that time, I heard someone say something about ATF paying the municipality. Well, they do. They do pay part of the salary of the task force officer.
And they had, at that time, they were low in personnel, and that helped them, and it helped us, because we had the resources, we had the tools. And we're all in the business of fighting crime to make society better, to protect our citizens. I just want to say that this is not going to affect ATF, and I know this is the main purpose, But it's going to affect all of the federal agencies as it's written.
Nobody's mentioned the marshal service, and I mention it because I have a son that works for the marshal. They make so many arrests that the locals can't make because they have the tools to reach out across the United States. And you can read in the papers here in the news about the U.S. Marshals making an arrest here and there. I mean, you've got other testimony coming up, so I'm not going to say anything else.
But I hope we have to set my respect for the senator aside because of this, and I hope you guys can do the
same. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions of this witness? from
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:22:27
the committee. How many farm laws and regulations are on the books at the state
and federal level? There is a multitude. How many? I have no idea. 20,000. 20,000.
And many of them contradict each other. So it's really a matter of how you interpret those laws by some of these federal law enforcement agencies. They interpret them one way, You may interpret them different, and the citizens may interpret them totally different because
they all contradict each other, and they're written with a lot of room for interpretation. It was just last
year that President Biden gave a speech right after Ryan Malinowski
was killed about closing the loopholes at these gun shows. People in Fort Smith, where we have the old Fort Days gun show, people in Conway, were scared to death. Because that's what their president had got to be said. We've got to close the loopholes. These guys have been doing this for, they have no criminal intent. They're not trying to sell to some other country. They're simply doing what they've been doing for the last hundred years. They trade and they sell antique firearms.
And yet we have 20,000 laws at the state and federal level, and nobody knows exactly what they mean. Nobody. Because I've asked congressmen about this, and they don't know. It depends on who you're asking how they interpret
Thank you, Senator Stouffield. Any questions, follow-up? If not, then, Mr. Ewing, if you would?
Speaker 216
1:24:19
Yes, just from the perspective of the Chiefs Association, we are against this. And, you know, most of the agencies in Arkansas are not your larger agencies like, you know, Central Arkansas has or Northwest has. A lot of them have limited resources. I mean, you heard Major Rhodes with the state police talk about the limited resources they have. You know, even things get outside their scope. Well, you can imagine for a painfully mid-sized agencies or small rural agencies in the state, sometimes we do depend on our federal law enforcement partners to help us deal with the crime in our area.
You know, even in Russellville, you know, we, a couple years ago, and we didn't really deal much with the federal government law enforcement until about 2017, 2018, and when we started sharing information with them, and we actually had an operation into the dirt that we worked with our federal partners and U.S. attorneys on, that we got rid of about 60 to 70 of our worst criminals in our area that we there's no way we could have done that on our own not even with the states out you know that was very difficult for an agency our size
and we saw our crime rates go down tremendously for a couple years after that and you know i think you heard major road talk about other cases that just happened to be in the area we were from and you know i think for those agencies you know you're the way the law is written it's just the Bill that, you know, it's before us, you know, we need to have that access, that discretion to contact our federal law enforcement partners to handle the issues we have in our communities so we can best address them when it's outside of our resources to do so.
All right. Any questions? I believe Senator Rice has a question. He
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:26:10
one of you. Gary, do your officers take funding from ATF? We have in the past. We don't currently. You have in the past? We had what they call task force officers in the past. Are you familiar with how many firearms does an individual have to sell before he's required to have a dealer?
I don't have an answer for that, Senator, no. Do you arrest anybody
Speaker 226
1:26:37
for selling firearms? Not to the best of
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:26:40
my knowledge unless it's under state law violations. So that's not
in y'all's purview. No, sir. But yet when ATF came to Little Rock, supposedly with that determination of
their own, determining this individual that we've been discussing should have been a dealer
rather than just an individual selling firearms when it's an undetermined amount
of pieces. They use local law enforcement. If they'd been in your city, they probably would have used you. Well, that would have been my discretion whether to participate or not. They're in. They're in. I appreciate you saying that, and I hope you would have determined what the
law was of what the Constitution says before you agree to do it.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:27:34
Thank you all for being here. Senator Stubblefield. Yeah, I hate to contradict my good friends at the law, unfortunately. But
just last week I heard that crime was up in Northwest Arkansas. Crime was actually up in Northwest Arkansas. So that's, and let me ask you a question. What happens if the new director who appointed himself,
Cash Patel, does away with the ATF?
Speaker 230
1:28:06
What are you going to do then? Well, we have other law enforcement partners we depend on. I mean, they can enforce federal
Speaker 216
1:28:14
firearms. So they could handle it? I believe they're federal officers. They can enforce any federal laws on the books. Okay. They would have
Speaker 218
1:28:20
to be trained, of course, in the job that ATF does. I mean, they'd have to be trained. All right. Any other questions of the committee?
Senator Hester? I want to see how many more people are there to testify on this bill? There are three more, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Jones. How many are for? How many are against? All against. Thank you. And
I'm going to remind the witnesses to keep the testimony on the bill, and there's been a lot of stories that probably are from different organizations are going to be the
same types of stories against it. And so I'm going to remind you to kind of keep it specifically to the bill. So with that, thank
you for your testimony. Thank you. Appreciate it. Next is Michael Gibbons, if I've got that right. If you would, recognize yourself and who
you're with and proceed with your testimony. My name is Michael Gibbons. I'm the
Speaker 237
1:29:37
vice president of the Arkansas State Fraternal Order of Police.
First, Mr. Chairman, vice chairman, members of the committee, thank you for
Michael Gibbons
Unverified
1:29:45
allowing me to speak here today. Again, my name is Michael Gibbons. I'm the vice president of the Arkansas Fraternal Order of Police, the representative body of over 3,500 men and women blue who proudly serve the state of Arkansas. I also serve as the president of the North Little Rock Fraternal Police, where I'm a proud member of the North Little Rock Police Department. I've been with North Little Rock for 31 years. The last 26 years of my service, I've been assigned to the Homicide Division. In the last 15 years, I've also served simultaneously
as a task force officer to the ATF out of Little Rock. I come for you today to speak against Senate Bill 399, the Anti-ATF Commendeering Act. There are many reasons why we're against the passage of the Act, but for the sake of time, I'll cover just some of the major issues. But by eliminating the ability for law enforcement to work with ATF on foreign-related crimes by both enforcement and material aid, this bill will have lasting effects on local law enforcement that will carry on for decades.
To cover some of the points, one I want to speak about the National Integrated Ballistic Network, the NIBIN system. If you're not familiar with NIBIN, NIBIN is a system that is utilized by law enforcement across the country to basically connect crimes together. When expended shell casings are recovered from crime scenes such as robberies, homicides, violent crimes, those casings are entered by the local agency into NIBIN, which is owned and operated by the ATF. What that machine does is it basically takes the fingerprint of those shell casings
and it compares it to all of the shell casings that have been submitted to the Niven system and it links crimes. I can count thousands of cases over the past decade that local authorities have been able to connect together, Little Rock, North Rock, Plaski County and so on, to each other's cases. What that does for us is if I have a homicide in North Little Rock and I have no information, but that is tied to a case that happened in Little Rock the week before, We can now reach out to our counterparts to find out what leads they have.
And that just keeps trickling down. That provides tons of information to us and has assisted us in many ways to solve cases. Again, that is owned and operated by the Department of Justice, ATF. I'll also add in that Senator Bozeman has had a liaison ATF officer in his office for over a decade now. And he has been a strong supporter of the NIBIN system and the NIBIN machines and has helped us get those extra ones here in the state, especially a new one up towards northwest Arkansas.
But again, we lose Act 399 will cause us not to have the ability to utilize the NIBIN system. Firearms such as machine guns, I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with Glock switches and not drop-in auto-seers. These are small little mechanisms that come for less than $150 or can be made for five cents in your home with a 3D printer. Those little mechanisms make a semi-automatic pistol shoot as a machine gun. That puts over 100 rounds in less than 10 seconds downrange.
Arkansas, especially in the central Arkansas area, has seen over a 300% increase in the use of these weapons. Arkansas does have a machine gun law on the books. except the punishment for it so far to the county circuit courts have pretty much been probation. Whereas we take those cases federal with our joint federal partners in the federal system, who is sending a very strong message that these type of guns in the hands of illegal individuals will not be allowed and are starting the minimum sentence at two years.
And that's for somebody with no criminal record. Arkansas law also does not address the simple possession of the switches themselves. The switches, again, on the market are sold between $250 and $1,000 apiece, and an individual stopped by local law enforcement on the side of the road that's in possession, say, of a dozen of these has no jurisdiction and cannot charge that as a machine gun. We have to partner with the ATF, who has that ability, because under federal law, that mechanism is considered a machine gun and has statutory regulations on it. That allows us to prosecute individuals who are using these guns in violent crimes.
Again, Act 399 will prevent us from joining our partnerships with the federal agencies to
Speaker 241
1:34:03
do that. It was touched on earlier a little bit about bombings and arsons and incendiary
Michael Gibbons
Unverified
1:34:09
devices such as pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails. Under federal law, these types of devices are classified as firearms. By refusing local law enforcement's ability to share information with ATF, we cannot use the ATF to help investigate those. The problem comes is the Arkansas State Crime Lab does not identify black bombs and Molotov cocktails as explosives.
That's not in their preview. It requires the ATF to do that. ATF is the leading investigating federal entity with the federal government as ordered by the Department of Justice on these type of cases. To give you an example of how that affects us here, if you go back to 2020 during the riots that rocked the state of Arkansas, especially here in the capital city, Little Rock, North Rock, and Arkansas State Police vehicles were targeted and were bombed by protesters, specifically certain leaders that I'm sure many of you are familiar with.
Without the ATF, Little Rock, North Rock, the state of police, and the citizens of Arkansas would have received no justice against those individuals who caused almost a million dollars
in damage to police equipment. Firearm possession by
violent criminals. Much too often, in many cases, law enforcement investigations involving possession, trafficking, and use of firearms by violent criminals that the state cannot properly deal with. Due to the great partnership we have with the ATF, we're allowed to put those violent criminals in federal custody.
I know we want to keep it short, just to give you a quick example. If two individuals are meeting to sell large amounts of quantities of drugs, they both possess firearms. One ends up getting shot and killed. I've had several cases like that where the state cannot prosecute because you cannot determine who is the instigator in the incident. We take those cases federal to the ATF or even the FBI DA and file it as possession of a farm in front of a drug crime, which carries mandatory federal sentences. In the state, those murders would have never been prosecuted if it wasn't for our joint partnerships with the ATF.
The ATF has routinely responded to active scenes, such as officer-involved shootings, when an officer was shot. Shootings are an active shooter situation at schools, hospitals, shopping malls, and even escaped prisoners. Their involvement and ability to assist in these situations is critical. Senate Bill 399 will no longer allow Arkansas law enforcement to provide information to ATF personnel who are there to insist and further the investigation. And I understand that there is an exception to the bill that allows for cooperation to assist in, quote, helping individuals escape a serious imminent risk of life-threatening injury.
However, who decides when that amendment risk is over? Do I, as a local law enforcement officer, stand losing my career and being fined under this statute? Because we didn't deem that the emergency was over at the time, say, someone else does. Therefore, when I release information to ATF personnel to assist in the capture or assist in the investigation of a violent criminal who just shot up a school, am I going to be held accountable because I declared when the emergency was over?
Again, Bill 399 severely cripples Arkansas law enforcement. Senate Bill 399 will also prohibit probation parole to prisons and the jails from providing extremely important information to assist law enforcement and the ATF in their activity. By its wording, it also bars law enforcement working with ATF from attaining or sharing information from ACIC. If an ATF agent is on the side of the road wanting to run a warrant on an individual who I have capital murder warrants on, by statute, that information cannot be released to the ATF if that person has a warrant, and they will be released.
Again, Act 399, Bill 399, does law enforcement no good. The bill
Speaker 237
1:38:05
also recently conflicts with Senate Bill 426, which was proposed this week and endorsed by the governor to
Michael Gibbons
Unverified
1:38:11
demand local law enforcement will cooperate with ICE. It's odd to see a bill saying we will cooperate with this HC and not cooperate with another. And to add on to that, if ICE comes across an individual who has a firearm, they pull in the ATF.
so does the DEA, so does the FBI, so does the U.S. Attorney's Office. Why? Because ATF is the one who can advise who manufactures a firearm and that it affected interstate nexus, and that's what gives it jurisdiction. By Act 399, we can no longer provide information to ATF or ICE or DEA or FBI on a local investigation if the ATF is involved. Again, hampering our partnership with the FUDs. I hear a lot of testimony over basically this bill is being proposed in protest of the
Malinowski case. Full disclosure, I am one of the task officers that was involved in that shooting. I'm also the agent task force officer who first opened that case. This was not a federal case. This was a case that was initiated out of North O'Rock based on information received from an FFL who felt it was not right that an individual was commonly selling guns without a license when they have to pay the taxes, when they have to do the right thing.
This case did not, again, not initiate with ATF. It was a North O'Rock case. ATF started receiving information a couple weeks after we did about what was going on. There are emails between myself and the chief of police of North Rock that can verify this. So I'm not sure where anybody's getting that this originated ATF and this was ATF coming into the state. I can tell you as a task force officer for 15 years, I have never been ordered or directed to do anything by the ATF
that is in direct violation of my oath of office, of my rules and regulations I must follow with North Rock. Matter of fact, ATF at every briefing quickly points out, if anything that we're talking about is in direct violation of your department, let's discuss it. They will not put you in a position to do it. I can opt in or I can opt out of any operation. It was mentioned earlier about receiving the policy of the ATF and Department of Justice on buying cameras. To clarify that, there is a
policy in place. That policy was put in place in anticipation of getting cameras. There again, there are emails, if anyone ever goes down that path, to look where those cameras were being rolled out. ATF in the Rock was set to get them in the first year part of 2027. You are rolling out 4,000 body cameras across the country. They can't be done at once. Those policies are put in place before the cameras are put out so everybody knows the rules and we can
begin training. This is standard in law enforcement in general. My department puts policies and regulations
Speaker 237
1:41:22
out ahead of anything changing so people can become familiar with it. Can we get back on the bill a little more specifically? Yes, sir.
Michael Gibbons
Unverified
1:41:31
Based on those facts, again, on behalf of the 3,500 men and women that I proudly represent, we are speaking against Bill 399. Can you stand for any questions? Thank
Speaker 245
1:41:41
you. First, we have Senator Rice. Thanks for being here, Mr. Gibbons.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:41:48
Yes, sir. Thank you. You're well prepared, and I would call you gun-ho. Nothing wrong with that. What you do in the
light of work is dangerous and does protect citizens. But I've got
a couple of questions, and I'm going to go back to the case that has brought this bill. A prominent citizen who, best of my recollection, made over a quarter million dollars a
year for his job, did a good job, worked his way out, had a routine most days.
I'm guessing he left his house, I don't know,
but 7 a.m. maybe. I bet he left his house within a few minutes at the same time every day to get
out to the airport to work. Why, when somebody's not been charged, you're just looking for evidence, why would somebody in law enforcement not take
a common sense option to walk up to him while he's walking out to his car to get in
and say, we need to go back in your house, I've got a warrant to
go in there? Why did this have to all come about? Did somebody not have common sense? And a man is dead, and his wife is a widow, and it's not the first time it's happened, and I don't want to see law enforcement in Arkansas happen. Why did this happen? You're saying you were there on the task force. Why did it happen?
Speaker 237
1:43:25
Senator, I think the only person that can answer that question is Brian Malinowski himself. He chose
Michael Gibbons
Unverified
1:43:31
to pick up that gun and fire upon law enforcement officers who were doing their legal duties and following the law. So I think only Mr. Malinowski can answer that question. In regards to the steps we took, this is not a one-minute decision on how we're going to execute a search warrant, how we're going to carry it out, or the things we're going to do. There's discussion for weeks leading up to it. There is what's called pre-surveillance.
We can't just take, we take Mr. Malinowski and his family into
Speaker 241
1:44:00
account on when and how we're going to do certain things. But we also have to take into account patterns of life. Mr. Malinowski did not leave to work at
Michael Gibbons
Unverified
1:44:10
7 a.m. He was not your standard person. He was far from the standard person. And I think that when all the facts of this case come out that people see that. It's shocking that people make so many judgments without having all the facts. And I get it. I mean, it is alarming. And I understand that.
Speaker 241
1:44:29
A gentleman was killed. An agent was shot. Three of us were almost, or four of us were almost killed at the same time by Mr. Malinowski. So I think you can only ask Mr. Malinowski, who
Michael Gibbons
Unverified
1:44:44
was performing criminal acts, proud of this. That's what led law enforcement there. It wasn't ATF targeting, even North Rock
Speaker 241
1:44:49
targeting. It was the public who were to protect, who reached out to us saying, this isn't right. We want this investigated. You don't always have an arrest warrant or someone, you don't have all the facts during investigation.
That's why it's called an investigation. And sometimes execution of search warrants is what helps produce more evidence over something we have. You have to have a good amount of probable cause until you get to obtain the search warrant. On a local level, search warrants are obtained, arrest warrants are obtained daily. On the federal level, not so much. There are lots of hurdles to jump on a federal level to get a search warrant. There's a lot of people involved. A lot of people review it. Not counting at the end of the day, a federal judge deems if we have got enough facts to enter someone's home.
In this case, and I believe, and I'm sorry, I can't remember the name. I believe it was Ms. Reed had testified. What's to protect her and her children and family from this? Well, there's a lot of things. Ms. Reed's not out breaking the law. Number two, we look at the fact, are there kids present in the home? We look at anyone that's present. We look at animals. That's the number one thing we look at. What's the pattern of life? Who's in the house? Who's likely, you know, if something was to go wrong, we have contingency plans, who would be affected?
Then we go outside the house and we look at the houses immediately in the area. We look at when people are leaving to go to work, when kids are getting out on and off a bus. We're looking at when people are out jogging, exercising. We look at a laundry list of things to do everything we can to protect everyone involved. I
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:46:33
will just go back to my statement, and I believe it more now after listening to you than before. I believe you are a gun-ho. I
believe you're overly gun-ho. And I know what you do is dangerous.
But what happened and what can
happen again is dangerous to citizens. With the amount of information you had, and I hope it comes out, but there were other options. And what you've said here, I believe, and I've gotten out of your statement, you weren't willing to listen to those options. You weren't willing to take in consideration there's other ways to do this. And you keep saying, only one that can answer that is Brian Malinkowski.
he can't answer that the man's dead he's been dead a year and the only reason he shot at you is because you busted in his door and didn't even give him time to get to the door and in this city if somebody comes busting in my door I'd be firing too because it's a more dangerous city than the little place I live in and I hate to have to be this way against law enforcement but You've seared in my mind that you need somebody with a more rational thought on this.
I'm sorry, but that's what I have gotten out of this conversation. Senator Rice, I mean, I apologize. I'm
sorry. He was making a statement and didn't have a question. So we've got a few others that have some questions, if you
don't mind. Senator Wallace, do you still have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. You
Speaker 239
1:48:11
used the term FFL, and I was not familiar with that term. Federal Farm Licensee.
All right. Senator Stubblefield, you had a question?
Okay. All right. Any other questions of the committee? If not, thank you for your testimony. Thank you, sir. Thank you
for your time. Next up is Philip Miller, if I've got that
Speaker 256
1:48:37
right. Mr. Chair, I'm Philip Miller, the sheriff of White County. Out of respect for time, law enforcement's partnership, we see that.
Speaker 258
1:48:42
Our partnership is the most in this field. I weigh my opportunity.
All right. Thank you. Last on the list is a Shane Jones, if I've got that right.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like my time. All right. Thank you. I'm sure the committee appreciates
that. So with that, you are open to close. Thank
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:49:07
you, Mr. Chairman. You know, by the way, let me say this about law enforcement. Not all sheriffs were against
this bill because they called me and said we support the bill. So there are sheriffs in Arkansas that do support this bill. But it all boils down to this.
And Senator Rice hit the nail on the head. There were dozens of ways to initiate a search warrant without killing an individual. They could have stopped him just down the road. They had a tracker on his car. They could have stopped him, took him back, got his computer, his phone, got everything they needed without killing an individual.
That's what it boils down to. When an HC has that kind of control, then we're all in. There's none of us safe. None of us safe where they can do that. Because, like I said, 99.9% of the individuals in Arkansas sleep with a weapon. And if somebody busts their door down, the first thing you do, Senator Wallace, you're going to pick up your weapon. I
know you. Because we believe in protecting our families.
And then the way Mr. Malinowski was treated by sitting her in a
police car for hours in her nightgown and not letting her use the restroom, this is just, it's just bizarre. So I move, make a motion when you do pass. As
Speaker 137
1:50:46
amended. As amended. All right. We heard a motion. Do we have a second?
All right. Discussion. I'd like to say on behalf of myself and I think probably all the committee that we support law enforcement and irregardless of how the vote ends up, we support law enforcement. But a lot of the, well, I will say all of the bills that are introduced down here are a direct result of a problem or problems. And they're all introduced to address an issue that we see for our citizens.
And so, this is an unfortunate situation. And I just want you guys, all the witnesses and all the associations to know that we do support you. This is a result of that. So, with that said, any other discussion? Please
let your voice be known loud enough for the chair to hear. So all those in favor, let it be known by I. All those opposed? No. Your bill fails.
Mr. Chair, I know you're going to be gathering to come up here, but I think there's a couple other bills that are here
with presenters. I don't think they're going to be too lengthy. So if the rest of the committee, before we lose the quorum, if we could hang around for a few more minutes on a couple of, I think, smaller bills.
Chair
Unverified
1:52:58
you go ahead representative children do you have a short bill you want to
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:53:02
go ahead and recognize yourself yes sir paul children state representative district 83 and with permission from the chair i would like
to ask lieutenant dacus with the arkansas state please to join me at the table. Okay. It'll be House Bill 1686. House Bill 1686.
Speaker 275
1:53:32
Ma'am, if you'll identify yourself, who you're with, and your name.
Speaker 211
1:53:36
My name is Tiffany Dykus. I'm a lieutenant assigned to the regulatory division
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:53:47
of the state police. Okay, you were recognized. Thank you, Chairman Stubberfield and committee members. House bill 1686, all it's doing is taking concealed handgun license electronic. Doing away with the paper form and making them all electronic. This is a bill for the Arkansas State Police and as a society we're moving
towards a digital world as it is. This bill passed the House unanimously, and I'm here today, and I'm going to let Lieutenant Dykus just tell you a little bit about a few things the bill does, savings for taxpayers and for the Arkansas State Police. So with your permission, I'll let her explain some savings there. Okay, you're right,
Speaker 280
1:54:23
you're right. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, Mr. Chairman. We were just looking for ways to streamline the process for the public and to find some cost savings because it's very expensive to print and to mail these licenses out.
Since fiscal year 2021, we had spent approximately $105,000 just mailing licenses. The electronic license would save us that money. We could change our current system and just modify it to allow us to do this. We had a cost estimate of approximately $5,000 to do that, But recent conversations to keep us in compliance with our permanent Brady status indicate that we may have to spend just a little bit more money on that.
We're not sure how much, but that would help preserve the use of the CHCL in its electronic form as an alternative to a background check for our CHCL holders. But again, it would be significant cost savings. It would stream on the process and get licenses to our applicants much quicker than mailing them out
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:55:25
after we print them. Have you made accommodations for those who don't use electronic? You know, there's older people that. Yes,
Speaker 280
1:55:34
sir. We have, that's one of the things we're discussing with the ATF as far as will they accept it
because they don't accept photographs of things as an actual license. So we're talking to them about actually this will be provided in a PDF in the current format that we want to present this in. And the applicant would receive a link to download the PDF, and they could hold it in an electronic file on their phone or their iPad or whatever. Or if they don't have those devices, they could print it out and have a paper copy. So that way they would still have a copy of the license, because it wouldn't be a photograph of the license. It would be a paper printout of the actual license.
So we're trying to work through that right now with the ATF
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:56:15
to make it acceptable. Okay, thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Any other
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:56:21
questions, Senator Ross? Thank you. Along the lines, Central Tulsa was talking about, what I find so much in state government, different agencies that I
talk to, state government is looking forward to seeing what other states are doing and they're getting cost savings. It's not just state, it can be city and county governments do it. It's good ideas, but everybody doesn't switch at one time.
And I've got an 80-year-old barber, 83-year-old barber, that they were going to have make do computer tests. He doesn't do computer. He's still 83 and cutting hair. And they passed a bill yesterday. I didn't know about it, but they've got
an exemption where they get grandfathering anybody an 80-year-old. I guess that's because I was fussing at that agency quite a bit. So you've got to accommodate people that are still out here, and you're saying you don't have an accommodation yet, correct?
Speaker 211
1:57:18
We're working with the ATF to make sure what we come up with will be accepted as a Brady alternative. Yes,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:57:23
sir. What's accepted to the citizens, and I've got several emails here from that said we don't want this. Have you talked to any of them? Yes, sir. I've had
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:57:32
several issues with it also. What can I tell them that you
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:57:36
told them? Do what, sir? What can I tell them that you've told them that would satisfy them? My constituents
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:57:41
that have called, I explained to them that they could go to a county library, print it off, or they could even go to the state police headquarters.
I'm sure they would accommodate them there. And everybody I've talked to has
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:57:52
been satisfied with it. I'm a 120-mile round trip for some of my constituents, a state police headquarter. Maybe there's
a Troop K or a Troop D in your area. That's what I'm talking about. Okay. Right now, can they
Speaker 286
1:58:06
get them through the mail? Right now, they can get
Speaker 211
1:58:09
them through the mail, but not with the electronic process. This may be something we can work out when we promulgate
Speaker 280
1:58:15
rules for this, for exceptions to that for people who don't have access or something like that.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:58:21
I'm looking at a number of people that's being left out here for this discussion. Yes, sir. Are there any questions
in the House committee? I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to watch a video. I watch a lot of your videos. I'm a proponent of our videos because at midnight I can tell what a bill is. I just didn't get on this one in time. Yes, sir.
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:58:43
It passed out of state agencies unanimously out of the house. Nobody's
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:58:47
asking questions for these people left out out here that I'm... No, sir. We didn't have them outside.
Thank you. Senator Petty, you're right now. Following up on the same line of questioning. So I'm kind of old school,
but I do the digital thing, too. But I carry a wallet, and we've all fumbled through the glove compartment trying to find our registration and proof of insurance and that kind of thing. But we also now have digital. And so, as Senator Rice said, we're transitioning. Can we have a commitment, and I'm not asking you necessarily, but I'd like to have some form of comfort to know that if somebody wants the old school card to put in their wallet, when you promulgate your rules, we can ask for that.
Because I do believe there's a lot, and I wouldn't think it would be 105,000, it may be 1,000, or, you know, there's, I just think it's a good idea. I like it, but I do believe there are those that are, you know, not in the digital age, and they're never going to get in the digital age. And so if we could have some sort of comfort to know that we're going to have some, you know, rural promulgation that will allow that, I think I'm comfortable with it. Yes, sir. I'm not
Speaker 211
2:00:06
authorized to make that commitment, but I can tell you that our intent is certainly not to leave anyone out.
Speaker 280
2:00:11
We're just trying to make this a more efficient process for the citizens who wish to have a CHCL.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:00:22
Any other questions from committee? Anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none,
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
2:00:36
you are recognized closely, brother. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to, I use my hunting license, it comes in a digital format, but I print it off and
have it in my wallet just in case I'm in the woods and I can't get access. So I do keep it, and I will probably, if this passes, I will probably do the same thing as a concealed handgun permit holder. I would print it off and have a safety valve with me at all times, but that's just me personally. But with that, I think it's a good bill, and I think the state police is committed to protecting citizens and doing what they can to accommodate the one-offs or two-offs that fall into this. With that, I close for my bill. Okay. All right. We have a motion.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:01:14
We have a discussion, Senator Wallace. I have to be against this bill, and I understand what you're trying to do. I appreciate it. There's folks even younger than me that have asked me and have told me they want their card and they want their card bill to them. There's no getting around that. There's still people left in this older generation that I'm a part of that are not comfortable.
And some don't even know how to do what you're talking about. Any other discussion? All
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:01:54
right. We have a motion. Motion to pass. We have a motion to pass. Is there a second? We have a second. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. All opposed?
No. Motion, your bill fails. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Senator Petty, are
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:02:39
you a... I have a prepared one. Senator Petty? I have one. He has a really quick one. You've got a short one,
Speaker 298
2:02:44
bro. Okay. House Bill 1555, and I have an amendment. All right. Senator Hester, do you want to explain the amendment?
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:02:48
Yeah. What the amendment does, it says, should the city council choose to go with the route of filling the mayor vacancy instead of going to an election, they can't pick a member of the city council. Basically, that's what the amendment is. It's eliminating someone that's
a member of that governing body from
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:03:19
being a potential candidate. Okay. All right, if you want to explain the bill. We need this amendment. We have a motion. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Second. Any discussion?
Chair
Unverified
2:03:35
All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? All right, the
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:03:40
amendment's been adopted. You're recognized. So members, what this bill says, if there's a mayor vacancy for any reason, the city council can elect to have a special election, or they can elect within their body
to fill that position for the amount of time left on that term and accept for somebody that other than with amongst their own body, should they choose to go that way. And we know elections are expensive and sometimes in a poor time, and
we just let the elected body decide what's appropriate for their city. I'm happy to answer any questions. All right. Any question? Anyone in
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:04:19
the audience wish to speak for or against?
Chair
Unverified
2:04:24
Seeing none, you recognize closed, Senator Esther. I'm closed with a motion do pass. All right. We have a motion do pass. We have a second. As amended. As amended. All
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:04:35
those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Bill passes. All right,
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:04:57
to me, we have another amendment to hand out.
Chair
Unverified
2:05:15
Senator Petty, you recognize you explained the amendment.
Thank you, sir. We worked with the counties and with the collectors to get language that helped us modernize this act that was passed back in 2014 or '15, we have agreement with them and the counties
and the collectors, and this amendment incorporates their, they being the county and the collector's language into the original bill. And so I would appreciate a consideration
Speaker 268
2:06:16
and approval of these amendments, or this amendment. All right.
All right, so again, this bill is attempting to modernize, I'll call
it, a bill or an act that has been in place since 2014 or 15 around commercial property improvements, commercial property assessment improvements. And so, again, we worked closely with the Bankers Association in the original bill to ensure that they were okay with the program and incorporated their language in the original bill.
We also worked, again, with the Association of Counties and the existing PACE districts that exist from the original act. And we incorporated their changes and proposed changes in there. Again, we worked with the Association of Counties and the collectors. And so we were, in 14 or 15, we were one of the 12, we were one of the first to have this financing. And since then, many states have done this. Forty-two states, as a matter of fact, have enacted similar programs.
And Texas and Oklahoma both have incorporated these changes or acts with this. And since that time, they've made about $900 million in investments. And so what I would like to do, since she has waited here patiently for three days, Ms. Gabby Gilbo from Nuveen is here. She works in the industry and just give her very, very brief comments about this and the impact that it could have for Arkansas.
Speaker 312
2:08:06
Gabby, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. As Senator Penney mentioned, Arkansas was one of the first adopters of this program over a decade ago. We've seen that this program has evolved over the last decade to include industry best practices. And this statute or this legislation that we're running would help modernize the Arkansas program to bring it in line with the 42 other states that have had almost $10 billion in private investment in their communities. This relies fully on private financing.
There's no public dollars used in this program and no risk to local communities. I'm happy to answer any questions about the program or the amendment that we are. proposing today. All
right. Any questions from committee? Seeing none. I am closed, Mr. Chair, and I would make a motion that we do
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:08:59
pass as amended. All right. We have a motion. Wait a minute. We have someone in the
audience speak for the bill. Adam? Adam worked with us on the
Association of Countieside and with the collectors. So since he waited patiently and worked diligently, we'll let him speak real quick
Speaker 316
2:09:20
as well. I'll be very, very brief, and you're not going to get that from a lawyer very often. My name is Adam Vogelman. I'm the Pulaski County Civil Attorney. I've worked in Pace in Pulaski County for the last decade, and the counties, the collectors, are good with the amendments, and Pulaski County is in full support. All right. Thank you. Okay,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:09:43
thank We have a motion do pass.
As amended. As amended. We have a second and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Your bill carries.
Speaker 137
2:09:53
Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. There's another another bill. Senator Brown's across the
Speaker 320
2:10:03
line. He would come over here and run his bill. He wants to run it. You mean now? Now. Well, there's a lesson for you. If there's somebody else, they can go with him. I don't think there's... Yeah, I don't think there's anyone else.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:10:17
We'll wait on him if
Speaker 92
2:10:51
him... I'll just walk with him in the tracks. You're out of the text. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 330
2:11:12
Okay? Good. Good. Okay, right? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Very good. You're studying, right? Yeah. Yeah. No. Is that your use? Hey. Excuse me. Yeah. Okay, exactly. Thank you. Oh, perfect. Here you are. Yeah. That's James. I'll let you speak, sir. Perfect.
Speaker 338
2:13:12
just say it's a step that the executive
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:13:25
to torpedo just fuck with me
Speaker 320
2:13:37
are you going to ask so Well, I pulled
Speaker 265
2:13:55
Oh, okay. Mr. Bryant, you want to go ahead and introduce
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:14:03
yourself for the record? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Joshua Bryant, State Senate, District 32. With permission
of the chair, I'd like to bring up a couple of members to help me out with this
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:14:15
testimony. All right. And after they do, you can explain the amendment. Yes, I
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:14:21
have an amendment. It should be already passed out.
The amendment just adds a section at the advice of the engineer. so we can read it just to make sure that there is an appeal process for the body of
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:14:38
the bill. All right, we have a motion to adopt the amendment in a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Speaker 127
2:14:45
All opposed? All right, your amendment's been adopted. You're recognized.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:14:51
Present the bill. Thank you, members. Thank you, committee. Senate Bill 505 was actually brought on behalf of the Municipal League and their Garver Engineering.
I will say that most of the stuff that we discussed, we want to move in the same direction. We just might agree that we want to get there differently. I saw this bill and the struggles and the time it takes to where a city adopts a new land use map and you want to comply. There's just a lot of administrative steps to get to the end product. this bill will do, and I'll be glad to let them expand on it, is allow, again, a less
administrative process to get to the final goal, which is putting a shovel in the ground. So I'll let you. I'll
Speaker 344
2:15:35
let James explain more of the details of the bill, but I just want to make sure that you know from the Municipal League standpoint, we understand, oh, I'm sorry, John Wilkerson with the Arkansas Municipal League. We've heard a lot about development issues. We've heard a lot about the affordable housing issues, and we want to be part of the solution. And as we're going through this session, which we knew was going to be focused on this, at least to some degree. We have been in conversations internally for a while. And when James brought this idea, much to the, just like Senator Bryant said, we're looking for ways that we can speed up
the process. And this bill, it's permissive. It allows the city to do this if they choose to. And I think it gives us some time to figure out, does this work? How we can make it better? How we can speed up the processes? Because we're very much interested in helping with the issues that are facing, not just with the entire state of Arkansas when it comes to housing and development. So I'll let James explain exactly what the bill does. But, again, we want to be part of the solution, and we appreciate Senator Brown's willingness to work with us
Speaker 345
2:16:33
and try this one out. Yes, James Walden, president of the Arkansas Chapter of the American Planning Association.
Normally when someone is changing the zoning on their property, they have to go through a gauntlet of that. They file an application. That application gets reviewed by staff. They have to notify all the adjoining property owners. there's a public hearing, you have to go to the planning commission. At that time, it might go, it might not go. And then after that, it goes to city council. And so this is a process that at its best can take 30 days, at its worst, four to six months. What this is intended to deal with
are those circumstances where the city has already identified that we think this property should be developed in this way. We've expressed it as policy in our land use plan, and there's alignment. And so it simply makes those, it's permissive to allow cities to change their ordinance to allow it to where if there's alignment between the plan and the property owners making that request, that it can be an administrative action to change the zoning for that particular property. And so it's something that helps streamline the process,
help reduce delay, and get us closer to getting shovels in the ground and development. zoning reform is is a really big issue right now housing supply is a really big issue right now and certainly i think there's a lot of discussion that we need to have on this that this is this is a start and this is modest we need to have a much bigger discussion about that that particular issue senator wallace you have a
Speaker 73
2:18:09
question and i apologize because i missed just
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:18:14
the first start of this. One, is there anybody opposed to this? And two, I have almost all small towns. My largest
town's 13,000 people. Are small towns okay with this? It's entirely permissive, so it doesn't mandate anything
Speaker 344
2:18:32
on any side of the city or town. And I think from what we're looking at, as far as opposition, we had some issues with, that's the reason the amendment's in there now, is to clean up that issue about the appeal process to make sure that it's
following the same track of appeal. But as far as opposition, no. As far as small towns, again, it's permissive, and we will make sure that we train folks on how to handle this. So it does not mandate anything. It's just a modest idea to get out there and get started. So no, our city should not have a problem. All right. Senator Petty,
you recognize the question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unless you were not in this room, then you know kind of how I, you don't
know how I feel about the zoning reforms, and I'm just glad to hear that we have some consensus around
starting the zoning reforms, which, again, contributes to this housing affordability, and I appreciate your testimony today, and I am fully supportive of
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:19:29
this. All right. Any other members have questions? And something, just maybe as a member still presenting, and maybe these gentlemen can in clarity. This doesn't mean, because the concern would be you're just automatically, if the new land use plan says it's C1 and inside C1 is a car lot, it doesn't mean automatically defaults
to you're going to get that car lot. It just says you came and the rezone process that you would have to go through to get to the point where you can ask to put a car lot in there is shortened, but you're still going to have to ask and get approval and have public debate about a car lot in that spot. So I think this is a great medium. I'm actually going through this process right now in one of our local cities. I have passed that process, and this would have obviously expedited that process for them, and that mayor was very supportive of this action.
Chair
Unverified
2:20:23
All right. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, Senator Bryant, you're recognized. I'm closed. Committee, I'd make a motion
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:20:32
to pass. All right. We have a motion to pass. We have a second. In discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, your bill passes. Many I'll see you in about two weeks.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
HB1590 J. Moore TO COMBINE THE OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR IN WOODRUFF COUNTY.
HB1591 J. Moore TO COMBINE THE OFFICES OF TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR IN ARKANSAS COUNTY.
SB399 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.
HB1555 Painter TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR FILLING A VACANCY IN A MUNICIPAL OFFICE.
SB448 J. Petty TO AUTHORIZE THE FINANCING OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS, BUILDING RESILIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, AND WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS.
HB1686 Childress TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS.
SB505 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL PLANNING; AND TO REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR CHANGES TO THE ZONING OR DISTRICT DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
INSTRUMENT THAT CONVEYS REAL PROPERTY OR AN INTEREST IN REAL
PROPERTY.
WITHIN A THIRTY-MILE RADIUS OF A MILITARY FACILITY; AND TO DECLARE AN
EMERGENCY.
THE IMPACT ON WATER USAGE AND THE ELECTRIC GRID BY BLOCKCHAIN NETWORKS AND DIGITAL ASSET MINING.
ADJOURNED
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — CITY, COUNTY & LOCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Mar 20, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Jim Petty Chair
Unverified
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 26
Speaker 41
Speaker 44
Speaker 67
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 88
Speaker 91
Speaker 92
Speaker 95
Speaker 96
Speaker 48
Speaker 94
Speaker 133
Speaker 134
Speaker 150
Speaker 154
Speaker 155
Speaker 158
Speaker 162
Speaker 164
Speaker 153
Jessica Rhee
Unverified
Speaker 177
Speaker 161
Speaker 189
Speaker 191
Speaker 188
Speaker 194
Speaker 198
Speaker 203
Speaker 216
Speaker 218
Speaker 166
Speaker 223
Speaker 226
Speaker 230
Speaker 237
Michael Gibbons
Unverified
Speaker 241
Speaker 245
Speaker 239
Speaker 256
Speaker 258
Speaker 137
Speaker 122
Chair
Unverified
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
Speaker 275
Speaker 211
Speaker 280
Speaker 286
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 298
Speaker 268
Speaker 312
Speaker 316
Speaker 320
Speaker 321
Speaker 330
Speaker 123
Speaker 328
Speaker 334
Speaker 338
Speaker 329
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 90
Speaker 265
Speaker 127
Speaker 344
Speaker 345
Speaker 73