Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (39)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1686
· 6 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “your time. Members were going to skip down to House Bill 1686 representative Childress you're welcome to come to the end…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS. | Childress | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB328
Act 361
· 6 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…S. SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989. SB328 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST M…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS. | Irvin | Notification that SB328 is now Act 361 |
|
HB1178
Act 993
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…ON OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON. HB1178 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A M…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW … | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1178 is now Act 993 |
|
HB1434
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…agenda, Representative Hudson, you're recognized to present House Bill 1434.”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1057
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT IS EQUIPPED OR MOUNTED WITH A WEAPON. HB1057 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREAR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT … | R. Scott Richardson | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1148
Act 597
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS C…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT … | Vaught | Notification that HB1148 is now Act 597 |
|
HB1504
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE. HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING,…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1609
Act 366
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…aty, Jr. CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1609 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR RECRUITING TRAFFICKED … | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1609 is now Act 366 |
|
HB1611
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1611 Gonzales TO CREATE THE GAME FOWL FARM REGISTRATION AND PRES…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1615
Act 677
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1615 is now Act 677 |
|
HB1630
Act 599
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1630 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAPITAL MURDER; AND TO…”
|
TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER, MURDER … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1630 is now Act 599 |
|
HB1662
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1663
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMO…”
|
TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1664
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS…”
|
TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED … | K. Brown | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INC…”
|
TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE … | Long | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1692
Act 678
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS. HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1692 is now Act 678 |
|
HB1729
Act 679
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROV…”
|
TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A … | R. Burkes | Notification that HB1729 is now Act 679 |
|
SB313
Act 733
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TRE…”
|
CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY … | Irvin | Notification that SB313 is now Act 733 |
|
SB320
Act 518
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES. SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989. SB328 Ir…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989. | Irvin | Notification that SB320 is now Act 518 |
|
SB393
Act 362
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/12/25 @ 8:40 AM) Added SB393 House Committee on Judiciary Thursday, March 13, 2025 10:00…”
|
TO AMEND THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1997. | D. Wallace | Notification that SB393 is now Act 362 |
|
HB1033
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TRATION ACT OF 1997. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CR…”
|
TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER … | McCullough | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1136
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIOUS Richardson MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT … | Achor | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1141
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT. HB1141 R. Scott TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE A…”
|
TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1306
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLAC…”
|
CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL … | Furman | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1430
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ON WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST. HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1431
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE … | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1433
Act 828
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION. Page 2 of 3 HB1433 K. Moore TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUTING OR SERVING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION … | K. Moore | Notification that HB1433 is now Act 828 |
|
HB1473
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1481
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE. HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHI…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1511
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1511 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | Beaty Jr. | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1518
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…D THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SUBPOENA POWER. HB1518 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CREATING, DISTRIBUTING, P…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CREATING, DISTRIBUTING, POSSESSING, OR VIEWING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-GENERATED MATTER DEPICTING SEXUALLY … | S. Meeks | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1529
Act 827
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TTER DEPICTING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT INVOLVING A CHILD. HB1529 S. Meeks AN ACT CONCERNING DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL OF A SE…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1529 is now Act 827 |
|
HB1535
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…L AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS. HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVIC…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1553
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IOLENCE OR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AS THE VICTIM. HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBU…”
|
TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1648
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…R SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP. HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1655
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…FENSE OF UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL. HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1668
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1668 Bentley TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AUTHORIZE A CIVIL ACTION FOR SOCIAL … | Bentley | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1676
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…S UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1866
Act 908
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “OK. Madam Chair, what House Bill 1866 House Bill 1686 does, it makes concealed handgun license, a…”
|
TO CREATE ELI'S LAW; AND TO REQUIRE EACH PUBLIC SCHOOL TO INSTALL AN AUDIO RECORDING … | Brooks | Notification that HB1866 is now Act 908 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
0:19
District 18, um, as all good things happen in the Senate, they polished it up a little bit and added to the sex trafficking bill, the detention facility, forestry camp, training schools, or other facilities operating primarily for the detention of children who are determined to be by a court to be delinquent. So protecting more kids that are at risk with that, I'd appreciate a good vote. And no, I can't read that
any faster. I'm surprised, um, members, you've heard the explanation of, of the Senate amendment. Any
questions? Seeing their questions was the will of the committee. Motion to concur in the senate amendment,
any discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? I have it. Congratulations, you have passed. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you for
your time. Members were going to skip down to House Bill 1686 representative Childress you're welcome to come to the end of
the table, identify yourself and you're recognized to present
House Bill 1686. Thank you, Madam Chair and
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:25
committee members, uh, with permission, I would like to ask Lieutenant Dycus with the Arkansas State Police to join me. Certainly. If you'll identify
yourself, both of you, please, for the record and you're red. I am Paul Childers, state representative, District 83.
Speaker 15
1:52
Tiffany Dias, I'm a lieutenant assigned to the regulatory division
Speaker 14
1:56
of the state police. Represent children she recognized.
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
1:59
OK. Madam Chair, what House Bill 1866 House Bill 1686 does, it makes concealed handgun license, all electronic. Uh, this is part of some legislation for the Arkansas State Police and they had got with me and Representative Pierce, and we had looked at it and worked on it, and I'm the one presenting it today. Um, we as a society is moving toward a digital world
and all House Bill 1686 does is it deletes language dealing with paper copies, and it replaces it with the language dealing with the electronic copies. This bill can potentially save taxpayers up to about $42,000 that the state police can use for something else. And there's also be some postage savings that'll go with that. Uh, we don't have an exact number on it yet, but that we get some savings there. Uh, the state police supports this bill. Me as a concealed handgun permit holder, I support this bill. Uh, I know when a police officer stops somebody with a concealed
weapon, they know from their driver's license if they have one. so my dad For example, he's not a computer guy, so I've talked to him about it. So I will print him a copy off because his phone's a flip phone. I'll print a copy off for for him to keep in his possession to have with him at all times. And I would refer to Lieutenant Dike to kind of explain the state police's plan with that and anything she wants to add. Good morning,
Speaker 15
3:22
Madam Chairman. I thank you for letting me be
here. Um, we are hoping to align this with the electronic DL that has been approved recently, and this would just streamline processes, the licenses would be issued earlier, and it would make it a little more convenient for constituents. It'll save us a significant amount of money in postage since fiscal year 21, um, CHCL and PI have both the private investigator licensing have both spent a combination of $171,000 on postage. of which was spent mailing licenses, um. there will be a one-time cost
for us to modify our CHCL system. It'll be a $5000 cost. We have the money already, and that's all that will be needed and there's no recurring costs to make this change. Remember you've
heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions by the committee representing Clowney. You're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
4:15
this is not in this bill. So if you don't have an answer, I understand, but I'm just curious because I know that you can use your concealed carry license for identification purposes for other things like voting. Um, I'm assuming that the electronic copy of the
license will be good for things like voting, just as good as the paper
Speaker 15
4:33
copy would have been. We think it will be. There's nothing in the law that would prohibit that if that's the way it's issued
by us, then it should be accepted. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Representative Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
4:46
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, just, uh, support the idea of what you're doing here and I just want to make sure I understand section one, how that works. So it talks about um a process currently in law where if a law enforcement officer
makes an arrest, they confiscate the license and then they hold the license until the determination of the charge is finalized, and it looks like that's being struck and replaced with a notification. Is that any substantive change to, are they gonna effectively It's confiscating the license. How does that work now and
how will it work after this passes if it passes? Well, while they, while they're supposed
Speaker 15
5:23
to do that, most of the time we don't receive the licenses back. We usually get a phone call or something else, and then we
will um get documentation proving that the person's been arrested and charged with something that is a disqualifying offense, and then we can go ahead and do the suspension or revocation based on the paperwork that we get, so we can still cancel the license even if it's not returned to us, and in this case, as soon as they notified us it would be canceled as well, so the ACIC system that cancels it would be what law enforcement would look to to determine the validity of the license anyway, so it'll still work the same way. Just we'll do away with actually having to have the plastic copy. OK, thank you.
Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill representing children or recognized clothes for your bill. Thank
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
6:14
you, Madam Chair. Um, I feel like it's a good bill. It's just aligning with the electronic driver's license is coming forward, and I would appreciate a due pass. Members, we have a
due pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the DuPass? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. And he opposed say no. I have it
congratulations. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. Members going back to the top of our agenda, Representative Hudson, you're recognized to present House Bill 1434.
All right, members were passing out an amendment, the First Amendment was adopted earlier. In the previous discussion on this bill back on
February 25th, and so we have a 2nd Amendment that That we need to take up. Madam Chair, with your permission, could I
Speaker 32
7:22
have Judge Moore please join me down here? Yes.
Representative Hudson, you recognize to explain your amendment. Uh, thank you, Madam
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
8:03
Chair, uh, colleagues today, uh, and just by way of background, you'll remember that we presented an amendment when we first presented this bill before, but we pulled it down. So we've got that amendment and then we've got the second one today, um, the amendment that I'm presenting today, the Second Amendment, is the result of several conversations, um, I had and Judge Moore had with several of the stakeholders who came in and, uh, provided some, some information and context.
to their concerns about the bill, um, we took the definition away from the domestic Abuse Act and use the definition from that, but pulled it out so there was no confusion that the domestic Abuse Act was somehow crossing over into this, um, there was agreement that we liked what that definition did, but that there was some uh cause of confusion by by referring back to the Domestic Abuse Act, so we pulled that out, um, the other.
thing we did, um, going through this is we changed some of the references to what would um trigger. Or what considerations the judge would use in determining whether or not when you're in the rebuttable presumption, um, the, uh, the, the, the parent who has been, um, found to have been abusive according to the definition, um, in what cases
they would be able to regain um some visitation rights and so we cleaned up that language a little bit. One thing that we did do, um, Going into Section 4 Um, I tried to figure out the best way to deal with some concerns about the child's physical, mental or emotional health, um. And ultimately, I decided that we had to use the existing definition in, um, In the the existing law. Um, and so we've refer back to the
definition in existing law, which is in section B1A7, um, which talks speaks specifically to the situation when a parent who is not granted sole primary or joint custody of the child is entitled to reasonable parenting time unless the court finds at a hearing that parenting time between the parent and the child would seriously endanger the physical, mental or emotional health, um. I had tried to see if there was some way I could pull back from that, but I do think because of
the need to be consistent with the existing language, we had to just refer back to that, but that at least ties it in to the existing language and and what we already have, uh, in statute. So with that, I'm happy to answer questions about the amendment and would request a motion to pass of the amendment. Uh, representing Gasway, you're recognized for a question on the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Of
course, Representative Hudson, you and I had a discussion about this.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
11:06
And when I look at the amendment, one of the things that we talked about was Uh, the concern on page 2 line 12, evidence that having custody of the child will not endanger the physical, mental or emotional health of the child, and I think as we discussed, the more concerning parts of that phrase were the the mental and emotional health because. Very subjective, emotional health. What exactly does that
mean? But what your amendment does that I see. Is it deletes physical. Page 2, line 12 delete physical and what we talked about was that it would be we would keep physical and delete mental and emotional. So I, when I
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
11:51
first read the amendment, I thought it did the same thing, but if you look at it, it goes from line
12 and then refers to line 13. And so it deletes physical and then it also deletes, um, mental and emotional in the next line.
Now, this is what we're talking about now. It, yeah, deletes physical, mental and emotional in the next line, and then refers it back to the definition that is existing in the code. I see. All right, I'll, I'll keep. OK, but no, I had, I had the.
I thought the same thing. And it does, and, and Representative Gassway, it does refer back to B187, um, which is in your existing code,
um, But it goes back, it reverts back to the existing, uh, framework for how we do this. And, and that language states, and that language does have, um, Hold on, let me get to it.
This is B1A7. It says a parent who is not granted sole primary or joint custody of his or her
child is entitled to reasonable parenting child with the child, parenting time, sorry, with the child unless the court finds after a hearing that the parenting time between the parent and child would seriously endanger the physical, mental or emotional health. So it reverts back and the reason I had to do that representative Gasway after we talked, is that I looked in the existing language refers to that. And
so, I, I felt that I had to be consistent with what the existing language. has All right, I That's fine.
That's all. All right. Members, any other questions? You've heard an exclamation on the amendment, uh, representative Hudson, are you making a motion to adopt Amendment number 2. Yes, I would make a motion to adopt Amendment number 2. Members, we have a motion to adopt Amendment number 2 on the table. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion all in favor of the adoption, please say yes. I mean, I, all opposed say no. I have it, you know, you're recognized to present your bill as amended.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
14:14
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, as we talked about before, part of the impetus for this bill came from the Coalition Against Domestic Violence and with input from the judicial council and Judge Moore can speak to that. Um, what we have discovered after a couple of years of using the new, uh, joint custody, uh, presumption is that the judges have requested a bit more guidance on how to deal with some of these situations to determine, um, how it should work in order to make sure that parents are given the type of parenting
time that they need, um, even sometimes in situations where one of the parents is You know, going through something or, or engaging in in behavior that is concerning. So this gives judges a framework by which they can make sure that those children are protected, um, and that there's some accountability, um, in order to keep those kids safe. I would remind, uh, the committee, and we talked about this a little bit last time, that Arkansas ranks highest in childhood trauma in the entire country. Um, we've got a, we've 60% of children here have experienced
at least one adverse childhood childhood experience or an ACE, um, the national average is only 45%. Um, so we have kids who are, who are suffering some significant trauma, um, what we are aiming to do with this is to try to reduce that trauma for children, um, and to try to improve, um, their childhood, of course, but also to try to improve relations between two divorcing parents. Um, and I'll let Judge Moore chime in with sort of the judicial perspective on this. Certainly and thank you, Madam
Uh Amy
Unverified
15:48
Chairman. Uh, my name is uh Amy Moore. I'm a circuit judge for the 6 judicial district, which encompasses Pulaski and Perry Counties and my caseload consists entirely of domestic and probate cases. And so I hear, uh, custody cases, and I hear domestic violence cases. Uh, my docket every year I have about 500 to 600 trials and hearings and in, uh, a given year, I am, well, let me just say in the time that the joint custody law has been in effect. I've had 3
cases where, um, joint custody was requested and there was domestic violence involved, and so this is a pretty small percentage of of what in my experience, I'm seeing, um, I will say too, I mean, for whatever this is worth, I'm a co-parent, uh, who shares fifty-fifty custody with, uh, the dad of of my three kids and I very much believe in joint custody, but with regard to domestic violence, the situations where this presumption is is going to apply and where this guidance is
really going to help me out as a judge, is figuring out a path forward that's going to reduce, um, additional harm. I mean, these are cases where I'm seeing photographs of, of broken. facial bones, where I'm seeing black eyes where I am, um, there have been threats to kill people. There have been, I mean, these are very, very serious cases where, where I am seeing this happen, um, and we need the tools, uh, to, to be able to to find a path forward. The law already provides that there is a
presumption against placing custody with a parent who is engaged in domestic violence. This gives me the ability to, to design a path forward so that we can. Um, create a way for a parent who has already been found to engage in a pattern of domestic abuse and has failed to rebut the presumption that custody is not in the child's best interest. This is going to provide a path for those folks to be able to get visitation with their child so that they can re-establish
that relationship, but do it in a way that is safe and is not going to further traumatize these children. And I'm happy to
answer any questions. Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one other than Judge Stone who signed up, uh, to speak for or against the bill,
Representative Hudson, you recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, um, and, and thank you committee for the
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
18:16
opportunity to come back and this bill. Um, it has been, uh, you know, quite a,
a, a group effort, I think, to try to get this in shape. I appreciate all the input that I received, um, and all of the discussions that we had in order to try to get it to this point, um. You know, I think that we are moving towards trying to just create a framework so that we can keep kids safe. I know that everyone in here has an interest in that, and with that, I would move to pass as amended, um, and ask for a good vote. Members, we have
a motion to do pass as amended on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion Representative Eubanks, you're recognized for
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
18:53
discussion. Yes, I I'd like to speak in favor of this bill. I've lived this nightmare. Uh, my daughter lived in a state that had a bill similar to this. And I would have preferred that the mental and emotional health of the child had remained in the
Speaker 55
19:11
bill, so I will be voting for this bill. Members, any other discussion? Seeing no
further discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say
no. The eyes have it congratulations, you have passed your bill. Members, I've seen Senator Ervin enter the room, so we're going to jump down to Senate Bill 328.
Senate Bill 328, Senator Ervin, you're recognized. Members, we do have an impact assessment on this one, so we're going to pass that out. Can I get a copy of the bill? a
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
20:13
demand. Hang on just a moment while we get the impact statement.
All right, Senator Irving, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 328. Thank you, Madam
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
21:06
Chair. Thank you members of the committee. Senate Bill 328 is one of the bills that we worked with, um, with, uh, our, um, our judges on particularly our juvenile judges, and I want to give a lot of credit to our Supreme Court justice Rhonda Wood as well for working with us on this bill. Um, and it's really about, uh, making sure that we define child to be consistent with other
areas of where we're defining child, and that is under the age of 18, not. 17. Um, this is, uh, also very important about the ability, uh, for, uh, these images, um, the result, the reason why we have this bill before us is because there was a case that, that, uh, because of based on appeal of 11 images got thrown out and a sexual predator walked, um, because this was not a clearly
defined issue before the court. And so what this bill seeks, To do is make sure that this is a clearly defined, um, issue before the court, so we can avoid, uh, letting any of these sexual predators, uh, really, uh, go, go free because of, because of the way that this was determined. So, I think that it's important that a jury of 12 make the decision, um, about these images and uh, and I think
what you have here in the bill, uh, will reflect and make that change for clarification that was needed because of the court case. Um, so those are really the two items, uh, that you have before you in this bill, um, I think that Madam Chair may be able to, she's my co-sponsor, but be able to more clearly, uh, articulate that 11 provision. of the bill on page 2, lines 7 and 8. But I'm happy to answer any questions. Again, very happy
that the judges worked with me on this with us on this bill to make these really, really important, uh, changes. And the last thing I would say is that when these children have been victims of these types of crimes. They become re-traumatized, oftentimes, uh, during the court proceedings and hearings when their images are put forward. And so we need to make sure that the I think rules around those images are very clearly defined
to prevent any further re-traumatization of these children. And so, that's really the impetus behind the bill, and happy to, uh, take any questions. Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we have
no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Ervin, you recognize the close for the bill. I closed. I appreciate a good vote.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
23:55
Thank you. Senator Urban is closed for bill. What
are the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion?
Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed say no. I have it. Congratulations, you have passed the bill. Thank you.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
24:59
All right, members, we're going to turn Back to the top of our agenda and we're going to
take up. Uh, Representative Richardson had asked to take out an order he'd like to hear House Bill 11781. Some members if you'll go to
Representative Richardson, you're recognized to identify yourself and to present House Bill 1178. So members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1178. Thank you, Madam Chair,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
26:07
members of the committee, I am Scott Richardson, District 13. Um, so wanted to present this bill to you first, uh, just to sort of get it out of the way. It's mostly a just a technical correction kind of bill, fairly straightforward. The challenge that we're trying to solve with this bill is that very small
towns that generally don't have a policing force, don't have a way to enforce their city ordinances, um, so a lot of our mayors are trying to make an attempt to clean up their environments, to enforce the city ordinances, whether it be loose dogs or or uh yards that are out of control or, you know, property that's fallen into disrepair, whatever it happens to be, but they have no mechanism by which they can do that. So, um, through this bill we're allowing them to partner with the district court, assume
the of course the the cost associated with that, um, but then being able to hire their own prosecuting attorney and then prosecute those particular instances and then the money flow back to them unless this bill is passed, they could do all of the above, partnering with the district court and the other pieces, but there's no mechanism to transfer those funds for any of those fines back to the cities. So,
Scott Richardson
Unverified
27:26
um, with that, I'm happy to try to answer any questions.
Representing Collins, she recognized for
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
27:37
her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So it looks to me like you're talking about um putting the city attorney on a
commission effectively for fines on ordinance violations. Is this right? So on commission I mean no, it's
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
27:53
just they're they're, they have the ability to hire their own prosecuting attorney because often, oftentimes these cities don't have a prosecuting
attorney. They may partner with the district court's part of prosecuting attorney and a lot of cities have done that, so we don't want to change their
Scott Richardson
Unverified
28:11
ability to do that. All we're doing is saying that they can partner with that one, or they
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
28:18
could hire their own attorney to prosecute these. This is House Bill 1178, right? Right. It says municipal attorney, I guess maybe I don't think of that as a prosecuting attorney, city attorney. OK, yeah. So, um, I guess I just would direct you
to page 2 and maybe you can explain that for me, line 7 through 12, um, it says that an attorney contracted for legal representation. to represent the city in these proceedings shall be compensated in an amount not to exceed 50% of the sums collected by the court. um, so I guess what I'm talking about here is I don't want there to be a situation where they're out there finding violations and they get rewarded by getting increased compensation because it's effectively a commission. It
seems to me like that would result in more ordinance violations because that would result in more pay for these attorneys and my, am I missing that or misunderstanding that?
I'm sorry, I'm struggling finding where you're where you're looking 7 through 12.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
29:55
found it re-ask your question. Sure, so as I read this, I, I wonder, do you think that there could be a situation where the municipal attorney is motivated to find ordinance violations and get Fines out of these because that's how they get paid in a commission system, it encourages more action, whatever that action is, because that's how you get paid if you're selling insurance, you sell more insurance, so you get paid more.
Here you find more ordinance violations, you get paid more. I don't want there to be a situation where we're using government and the government's enforcement ability to find more ordinance violations, so they're out there effectively working on commission, and that would lead to more violations
being found than there otherwise would be. What do you
Scott Richardson
Unverified
30:42
think about that? I appreciate the question. Obviously the the city attorney wouldn't be the person writing tickets for city ordinances, so they
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
30:50
wouldn't be driving their own. driving the
the ordinances through, they would simply be prosecuting in the event that an ordinance was written. Ordinance violation,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
31:03
excuse me, was written. Follow up please. Certainly, well, yeah, I'd be, you know, as we know in all prosecutorial situations, there's prosecutorial discretion, and we don't have our criminal prosecutors working on commission, obviously, because if we did that and they were paid every time for every year of jail, they put someone behind bars that would encourage them to seek more sentences or
take more cases, whatever the case is here, there is, you know, even on a much smaller scale, I still see incentive for them to uh pursue more and higher fines because that's how they're going to get paid and I, I. If there is any discretion that they have here and you refer to them as prosecuting these. It seems like they would have discretion. I worry about the incentive to collect, effectively collect more fines so they're paying themselves.
Scott Richardson
Unverified
32:00
I the best answer I can give you for that is these
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
32:05
are very small towns with Um, a, a very low number of incidences. The idea here is to make sure that the money's being returned to the city to remediate those challenges is a reasonable amount and so to restrict or to ensure that they do get those monies back
Scott Richardson
Unverified
32:23
to the cities. We put a cap on how much they would be paying their attorneys.
OK, thank you. Any other questions, members? Oh, I'm sorry, Gassway,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
32:42
you recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I share the same concerns that Representative
Collins. Mentioned, you know, as a prosecuting attorney. Who's paid by the state, not I as a prosecuting attorney, but just prosecuting attorneys in general who are paid by the state aren't compensated per case based on how much fine the
exact from the defendant, and I would agree with Representative Collins that it seems that there would create this incentive under this fee schedule, if you will, or pay plan. For the prosecuting the prosecuting attorney for the local jurisdiction to exact the most fines possible out of those people who appear in court and while you make a good point that they don't write the tickets, they do have large degree of control over what happens once the person shows up in court, whether they're convicted, if
they pay a fine, how much fine they recommend. And so to me, it just poses a real conflict of interest to allow the prosecuting attorney's pay and this case, to essentially be based on the fines that are collected and you know, if you'd like to address that more specifically, I'd like to hear that. Thank you. Well, I
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
33:54
don't really have an answer for that. No one presented that question to me before, so I'm happy to make that adjustment to the bill, and and move that to something that's more favorable to the
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
34:06
committee, not a problem with that, so Betty, you're recognized for a question. Representative Richardson, I didn't have a question until your comment in response to Representative Collins's question, where you said part of maybe the um the purpose or reason behind this bill was to limit the comp and the amount of compensation for the attorney at the city level that they would employ. But I, I, I questioned and maybe you can clarify that for me
because again on page 2, it says the city of 2nd class incorporated chooses to have an office may contract with an attorney for legal representation, and I would just assume that the salary or payment for that attorney would be included in that contract and be something that they were in control of already. So therefore, why would you need to set a cap on the amount of pay that they can
Scott Richardson
Unverified
35:04
compensate that attorney. Quickie and easy answers, this bill has gone through several modifications through this
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
35:12
process, as I recall, um, there were some concerns with the prosecuting attorneys on how this would be. Outlined and specifically in conjunction with prosecuting attorneys that are um already employed, I should say as a prosecuting attorney for the district court, but that the city wanted to contract with them as well and sort of establishing those guidelines associated with it because at
the end of the day, the purpose of this bill is to get the fees that portion of the fees that are going to be collected from. Infraction to flow through to the city for that remediation purpose, right? The key here is trying to get that money back to the city so they can take care of what they need to take care of. So I guess that's sort of how that came about and that restriction is lie that The concern with the the restriction I absolutely see that and so I'm good with that. I think we can make that
modification and make uh make everybody happy with that bill. So just
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
36:15
to follow up that, I, I just wanted a little more clarification on that because I, I understood at the beginning the, the purpose of the legislation,
what you said, and, but it kind of contradicted that with to set a cap on the compensation to thank you for that clarification. You bet. Members, any other questions? Represent Gasway, you're recognized for a question.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and this isn't so much a question just as something
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
36:36
you might think about it. It appears that you're going to pull this down, take it back.
I understand it appears the code refers to municipal attorneys, but we probably Need to look at getting away from that. We don't have municipal courts anymore. We don't have municipal judges. We have district courts. We have district judges. We don't have municipal attorneys. And in this case, you know, you're kind of referring to attorneys that are contracted to provide legal counsel or representation. Uh, so I just, you might want to be mindful of that as you go forward about whether or not we should be referring to these as municipal attorneys. And then
Um One other point I would just point out that Many attorneys who are contracted to represent a city don't just handle the district court, but they also advised the city on legal matters attend the city council meetings and do other things. And so just be mindful of that when you're working on this, so that's all. the anger you're recognized for a question.
Are you good? OK. Members, any other questions? Representative Richardson, are
you asking to withdraw this bill from consideration today. Absolutely with the
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
37:49
committee's permission. I'd love to pull it down and do
Speaker 92
37:51
a little more work and see if we can't get it right. Seeing no objections by the committee
will allow you to withdraw your bill today. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you committee. Or St.
Richardson while you're at the end of the table, we're going to move back one bill to House Bill 1057.
Members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1057. Represented Richard Senior recognized to identify yourself and
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
38:26
present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you committee. Again, I'm Scott Richardson, District 13. So, um, after how easy that last bill was, I expect no less from this one, this one is actually a little bit of a heavy ask, and I get that. This is, this is of course the nonviolent felony firearm.
protection, restoration Act that you that that this committee's seen before and we've managed to get a working version to the House floor before. Um, this version is a little bit different. I've worked with a number of groups trying to get this bill in a form that would be the best compromise, and so it's, it's had to take on a number of different challenges and changes along the way.
I will tell you that uh in in researching for this bill, there are currently 28 states that have laws that allow these types of nonviolent felonies to have their firearms, um, and that in those states. Those 28 states, they do not require any any action by the governor for those restoration. Now in this bill, we do not Um
Restrict the governor's pardon capability that stays intact as it is. We simply go past that 3 years, um, to, to a 10 year curing period. Um, to allow for, um, Uh This individual who has committed this crime to prove to the state that they have no more ill will, no more challenges, and that they're on the right path, and then at that point
they can petition the court where they were issued that particular, uh, nonviolent felony to um restore that right. Um. In this, in, in the working with this bill. I went to um all of our uh stakeholders and I told them very clearly that I'm looking at what I consider to be felonies that should have never really lost their gun rights in the first place. These are
things like I like to bring up examples like hot checks, but also this covers things like forgery or computer fraud, um, injury to a levy, um, is a felony. apparently and then possession of a controlled substance under certain circumstances, but I wanted to make sure that we didn't have any issues with Um, any of these particular um crimes that might be considered um violent or could be connected
with violence. I received several requests to add to this list. They included stuff like abuse to adults. Residential burglary, which I felt like was what didn't include originally because I felt like that was probably a nonviolent, but speaking with stakeholders, they felt like the oftentimes those get pled down and so you end up with something less than what was originally uh or something less than what the original crime was, and so they felt like that needed to be included and several others. I won't go through all of them, but we tried to make a
comprehensive list, and I've I've told all the stakeholders in this that tell me uh tell me a uh a violent or a crime, a felony that you feel like deserves to be on this list, and we'll put it on the list, um, and this is the list that I was given, so it's uh as it is. Um, I'll tell you that our bordering states, um, All have, I should say, a number of our boarding states, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas all have these types of provisions that
require no interaction or very little interaction, um, where gun rights are either automatically restored. Some of these states, you may have a suspense of gun protection rights for a very short period of time during your sentencing, you're completing that, but as soon as you've paid your debt to society. Your
Scott Richardson
Unverified
42:43
gun rights protections are restored, um. As I said before, um, we wanted to make sure that we've given
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
42:59
adequate time for an individual to validate their willingness to comply with the laws of the state, um, so that's the, the 10 year curing period, um, once that happens, uh, the they can make the petition. The court has 15 days to honor the petition and either grant or reject it based on the requirements and then the court is asked to update the Arkansas crime information. center also within 15 days. This came out of a concern of how do
they, how do we prove that this person is has that if an officer's making a stop, they see the felony. This person has a gun with him at the time. What's the, what's the protocol? So we want to make sure we're updating um our system, but in addition to that, the individual's going to receive a letter from the court stating that restoration based on that uh felony. So these are the conditions it gives us. Two options. I know there was a little bit of concern expressed about, you know, impractical, what was this going to look like
maybe a district judge doesn't get district court doesn't get the ACIC updated. Well, if they don't update the ACIC, but they do. Um, send the letter. The individual would have still have the letter, so we give two different options. They may not have the letter on them in the event of a traffic stop or something, but they definitely could have that available if it went to court and produced that and make it available. So that's uh that's the Um, that's the basis of the bill and my attempt to make this
Speaker 92
44:34
better, um, so I'm happy to try to answer questions and to field any of those at this time. Clanna,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
44:42
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Richardson, doesn't this put us in direct conflict with federal law. In other
words, doesn't federal law prohibit a felon from possessing a firearm, and if so, whether we like it or not, federal laws are supreme over state laws
Scott Richardson
Unverified
44:55
in this in this scenario. Can you answer that? I can. We have a number of those kinds of circumstances when it
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
45:01
comes to gun laws that we are already in violation of
federal law, but at the end of the day we're we're doing what we feel like is the right for our citizens. I'll give you an example. We recently had to address the concerns around a person driving through a school zone might have a firearm in their vehicle. Yet in federal statute just being within, I think it's 1000 ft, you, you're committing a felony, whereas here in Arkansas, that's not, that's not a concern, so this is, this is about within the state. It is, it has no bearing outside the state, and this is
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
45:37
associated with state prosecuted felonies. But, you reckon it. Do you not think that that introduces some uncertainty for law enf f or ce ment agencies. I mean, you know, if you're, if you're talking about which law they're enforcing when and who is enforcing two completely different sets of laws on firearms and sort of have you spoken
Speaker 81
45:54
with law enforcement agencies? Where are they on this? I've
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
45:57
spoken to a number of law agencies I set for, um, I guess an hour and hour and 15 minutes, maybe an hour and a half with the Arkansas State Police made every single change they asked for as well. That
really wasn't a point of conversation. They were more concerned with the flow. Associated with it um I sat with uh and have talked with the sheriff's Association and others about it, um, and that never came up as a concern now it did come up as a concern that maybe ACIC doesn't get updated, which is the source for them to look it up if an officer is out making some sort of interaction with a citizen if AIC doesn't get uh get updated. I, I can't
really speak to the accuracy. Of the courts when it comes to getting these things updated and I can't really say that they will or they won't, but this seems to be the right mechanism by which we can say, OK, we're good with you in Arkansas and you've done what you need to do and therefore we're going to update our systems um and and allow for that. I will tell you that this in no way allows an individual to purchase a firearm that has to go through the standard
background check of a of the FBI for, for instance, it just, it doesn't allow that, so we're not talking about um trying to address that in that in that particular circumstance. So they won't be able to necessarily purchase a firearm through having go through the background, but they would be able to possess it. Representative Beatty,
Scott Richardson
Unverified
47:27
you recognized for a question? I'll come back to
you, Representative Clowney if I cut you off. I'm sorry.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
47:40
Represent Richmond, uh, could, could you educate
us on what ways right now firearms, firearm rights could be restored in the state. I think there are several different ways, but Did you educate me on right now if you're convicted
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
47:52
of a felony, how you have
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
47:55
your firearms rights restored. Well, as I understand it, essentially you have to go through the governor's office to do this, and it's interesting you bring that up. Um, I was actually talking with a fellow representative House member last night who relayed to me that
they had spent a lot of time trying to go through this process to get an individual that they felt was very worthy of, of restoration of gun rights. And so they had attempted, they were working on it, they were working on it, they were working on it and and that that the process hadn't been completed and there's no indication of when that process might be completed at the end of the day, we, we have to realize that Sometimes we get a lot of work and the restoration of a gun
right may not be at the top of the governor's list to get completed in a particular time frame. This just gives us an alternative method, a way that that um an individual who has proven to society that they are no longer a threat and most likely we're never a threat, but they've proven that they're willing to do what it takes to be a good citizen. It gives them an incentive for that 10 years. period to make sure that they try to do what's right in our in our society and keep their
selves where they need to be and at the end of the day, um, that gives them an
option to be able to restore those gun rights.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
49:25
To recognize for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative, just for clarification, I'm reading over the bill and I'm sure you've got a great explanation
for this, but I guess I'm missing something, but on page 2, I know you in your testimony, you referenced uh uh what I would call, I guess my terminology to
be a cleansing period for 10 years and you stated that twice, but as I review your bill on page two, it refers to 8 years, but however, if you're going into the bill on page 5, it does. revert back and say the 10 years, so I'm either misreading that or uh I just, I just need some clarification, uh, if you'll find it on page 2. Uh, let
me see the line you see what I'm talking about
35 3 35 toward the bottom. Yeah, occurs more than 8 years ago. Yes, sir, but, but you go to pay page 5 and it's, and you testified that 10 years, which is it it is 10 years for this bill.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
50:31
It is 8 years for the governor, um, the governor has the right after 8 years. This is specifically if you look on line 29 referencing. in the D, it says the governor may restore without granting a
pardon the right of a convicted felon to our own possess ship, receive, transport a firearm on the mediation recommendation of law enforcement. It goes on to say under these circumstances 1 and 2 did not involve the use of a weapon and occurred more than 8 years ago. So that's for the governors. Release. So the governor still has the ability without even granting a pardon which they could grant a pardon to still restore gun rights in this circumstance, but it has to be at least 8 years ago in our bill, we're going 2 more years
for this purpose, 2 more years to the
Scott Richardson
Unverified
51:22
10 year period. Governor still maintains that right. We're not changing any of that through this bill and
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
51:31
wouldn't want to address that in this bill. One last question, just make sure the charges that you've listed and those that would qualify for the restoration of their gun rights. But Is that do we know, are these the charges that they were
originally charged with or is it something that's been reduced from the original charge? What, how do you, how do you, how's that going to be factored in to the decision that's made. I
Scott Richardson
Unverified
52:00
appreciate the question, and that that was, that's my concern as well. Oftentimes, Never having gone through this, but oftentimes it's my understanding
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
52:07
that you could play down from this crime to that crime, which is one of the reasons that I wanted to engage law enforcement to talk about, hey, this
Scott Richardson
Unverified
52:16
is, this is, these things oftentimes happen and so
what is it? What kind of um What kind
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
52:23
of crime would it be potential that they may have started with something that didn't a violent event, but then pled down, which is one of the reasons that we added residential burglary and other pieces to make sure that we're covering those types of events that oftentimes would include or could include or could have involved some sort of violence, but it got led down, so that was the reason for covering those pieces. OK. Representative Shepherd, you
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
52:50
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Richardson, uh, as I look at the bill, I guess you enumerate the uh the felonies that are not eligible for utilizing this process and I'm just curious, I guess some of my concern is. Do we know that we've covered everything, who helped you to develop that list, and I'm just wondering like relatively speaking, are there more felonies than what are listed.
I guess, would it be easier to identify who you want to provide it to then to say who's not included because I'm concerned that by saying who's not included, we may inadvertently include people who we otherwise would not want them to to avail themselves of that. I, I appreciate that
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
53:39
question. It was a concern of mine as well, and I'll tell you when we started this list, it had just the ones we wanted to exclude, um, I, I was, uh, there were a number of concerns that that
List did not also coincide with what in statute we already name as violent, um, which is where we ended up with um the addition of any serious felony on page 3, any serious felony that's listed in statute on 11 and then uh 13 and then we added the list so that we, we include all, all those issues that are already currently. listed in statute so that if
those lists change over time, which is the concern again is if we add something to those that's a violent felony later. How do we make sure that it's covered within this bill, and that was the that was the um easiest way. We also have the other side of things, which is if we have a nonviolent felony that is included elsewhere that's created it wouldn't necessarily get added to a list if we had just a list of the ones that we wanted to exclude, so or excuse me,
include, so it's, it's both sides, but by doing listing out any serious felony involving violence as defined in Arkansas statute, uh, 5-4-501 and 5-4-501, D2. We've covered all of those that would be listed and any time that the code is updated and things are added to it, then we've already been covered in this one as well, so that was the approach. Members, any other
questions? Representative Pierce, you're recognized for a question. Yeah,
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
55:28
my question goes back to the ACIC. Have we thought about NCIC because typically on our officers, that has, that's, that's the national crimeformation Center. And so going back to your point with driving by a school, it's legal here. It's not legal federally. You're, you're correct, but at the same time on ACIC NCIC. There's gonna be There's gonna be information that that person has his gun rights back in the state of Arkansas, but nationally, they do not. Am I correct by saying
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
56:00
that you would be correct. So from a national perspective we have no ability to change the federal law here in the state, obviously, so updating the NCIC. is not something that we can do based on the reality that that that that felony would qualify in theirs as a, as a, as a um as a loss of the protection of the state for their firearm rights. This is strictly in state. It has nothing to do with outside the state. You step outside the
state border, all bets are off at that stage. But again, we're we already know that in a number of states around us, and I mentioned those. earlier, Tennessee, Texas, um, uh, Mississippi, uh, we already know that in those states for sure they have automatic restoration, but there's a total of 28 states throughout the throughout the US that have that require no governor action whatsoever for them to restore have have their gun rights restored and and when going
through this list, I was very specific. Anything that any of our law enforcement district attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, any of those that had a concern that this might involve some sort of violence. Let's get it off the list. Let's, let's not, let's not put it
Speaker 78
57:16
there. Follow up. You're recognized. My, my point is there's
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
57:24
record, there's no record with somebody if I drive by school, there's
no way to have proof that I'm a felon in possession of a firearm.
And, but, or I'm driving within 1000 ft, let me say that, and see the firearm in the vehicle or wherever it's at. But on this, you're going to be even whether it's you're in-state or out of state, even to your in-state officers, you're, you're Federal gun rights are not being expunged like they would be in ACIC. Am I correct by saying that and how that opposite it's It, it's two different things in two different places, I guess is what I'm saying. How do we fix that and cure that for the officer in the field to know.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
58:05
It's right or wrong for that person to have a firearm. It's it, I, I can't tell you how the other states are handling it. My, my direction for this bill is only in state, right? And so that's the reason we're using the ACIC. It's only in state and within the borders of Arkansas. So if an officer in the field looks at ACIC and that person has that restoration. in their gut. If it's not there, they have, they have uh they have action to take, so um. That's, that's the end result,
but at the end of the day, um, I, I think that we all know that systems are flawed and they don't always get updated regardless of that. If an individual truly wants to get the national database updated. They have to go through the process of getting it expunged and restoration of those rights.
Thank members, any other questions? Representing Tas, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
58:59
you, Madam Chair. One last question, Representative. I just want to be sure on the uh 10 year uh whatever cleansing period during that 10 years.
How clean do you have to be? Is it just felonies or misdemeanors? I'm just, uh, what, what's the, what's the bar at that level?
Scott Richardson
Unverified
59:17
The the bar at that level is, is just additional felonies. So the
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
59:23
individual has a misdemeanor during that time frame that That wouldn't count against them for that cleansing period, but it looked but given the look that I just received from you, that may be something we need to include. So um I, I, I would love to hear if you have concerns around certain types of misdemeanors that would qualify,
um, as a, as a violent event that should disqualify them from receiving their gun rights back because they, the intent of this bill is to make sure we're only dealing with nonviolent individuals who have remained true to their word, they've completed all of their sentencing, and they've done what they had to do, and now they're, they're ready to resume a normal life in Arkansas. OK, thank you. I
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:00:06
didn't mean to give you a mean look. I apologize for that.
It wasn't mean, it was just concerned, so. members any other questions representing Clowney, did you need to get back in the queue? OK. Any other questions, members? We do have someone who signed
up to speak against the bill. Captain Bradley land, I'm sorry. You'll
identify yourself. You're recognized to speak against the bill. Sure
Speaker 110
1:00:46
Morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm Captain Brad Lamb with the Arkansas State Police. Uh First of all, I'd like to thank, uh, Representative Richmond for meeting with us and making some changes to this bill. We, we certainly appreciate that. But overall, the state police still opposes this bill for a couple of reasons, um, while the bill is amended addresses some of the logistical concerns puts more responsibility back on individuals seeking restoration of their ability to possess a firearm and placing it back on the circuit court, leaves it
open to some consistency issues. Uh, circuit judges across the state are all unique, um. It seems to open the door to some inconsistent application or interpretation. Uh, On principle, there's already exists a route for felons to seek restoration, uh, their ability to regain the ability to possess a firearm through the governor, whether that's pardon or the governor restoring their, their farm rights, so, uh, that would be the two reasons that the state police
are supposed to Captain, uh, if there are any questions, would you entertain those questions? Representing Unger, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
1:01:57
Captain, um, I hate to muddy the waters this way. Would there be any difference. Uh, let's just say we took carrying a concealed weapon on the person of the vehicle. Let's just say we took that out of the equation. And we allowed only like long guns.
Properly stored in the vehicle during hunting season to go to and from the hunting site or two and to and from the firearms Club for target practice. Is there any way to discern within the law. Uh, to allow people just simply to go hunting and not packing heat all the time. If they're a convicted felon, I don't know of a way for
Speaker 112
1:02:41
that. If that's what you're asking. Yes. No, you don't ask questions.
Members, any other questions to the captain. Thank you, Catherine. We appreciate you coming. We appreciate your service to our state, seeing no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill representative Richardson. You recognized the clothes for your bill or to pull your bill down to make, I'm sorry, to represent, I'm sorry, Gary, did you want to speak? OK, if you'll come to the table, I apologize. I missed you. If you'll identify yourself for the record, then you're recognized to speak them. Yes, I'm Gary Sys. I'm with the Arkansas Association of Chiefs
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:03:24
of Police, and I apologize for not signing the list. I was uh talking with Representative Richardson about the bill outside and failed to get it signed. The chiefs are opposed to this bill. We, I did get an opportunity to talk to representative Richardson about it. He did make some changes and we do appreciate that. It's just really, I think. Representative Clowney in Shepherd both brought up very valid points. Um
A big concern is the law enforcement officer on the street when he stops a car. And he The gap or light or the guy doesn't have his letter. It was failed to be deleted or added in ACIC and then the officers placed in the predicament where he's going to have to make an arrest. And you, as you know, anything go wrong on the traffic stop, individual has a bad day and we've seen it so many times
the guy or girl goes for the gun and and then it causes a situation on the street. So for that reason we are opposed um I know representative Richardson has a reason for wanting to do this and, and I hate that I'm up here opposing every, the only time you see me is when I'm opposing something. But we are when the law enforcement is for second chances and, and so I mean I am too, but there's got to be uh in
I like what the representative here said under about giving individuals rights to go hunting. You know, I, I don't know what uh how I would feel if I couldn't have taken my three sons hunting. I think it changed their lives and I think it's a great opportunity to do something with her kids, but for law enforcement, we have to oppose this. Represent Tasha
recognized for her question. Thank you,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:05:26
Madam Chair. Chief, I appreciate your comments, but I
think at some point I just asked you a question. We have to find a balance. I understand about law enforcement, uh, and you know that probably well as anybody in this room, but I also understand that like you said yourself, you know, you know, we're talking about 10 years and if they've been uh went through that period of time and they've went through that cleansing period and come out the other. side and they've been able to uh you know, they should probably
maybe should deserve a second chance. So how do we balance that? How do we balance that individual's rights to be able to, like you said, take your, take your kids or your grandkids, honey. I'm trying to find an answer to that, both from the side of the law enforcement and from the side that, uh, you know, those rights are gone for those individuals to do that, and I agree with you. I can't even imagine if I had not been allowed to take my kids and my grandkids, honey, and you're
right, those are valuable lessons that you learned, so as a law enforcement officer to another one,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:06:38
how do we balance that? Well, currently, I mean, and we have a process and it's to go through the governor's office right now and also he uh Representative Richardson did put back in that the chief law enforcement officer of the county or or whatever has the opportunity to write letters and as a police chief I did write letters for individuals, but I
did have the opportunity to check to see, you know, how they're, they're, if they had a criminal record. Um, and, and I'm glad that that was put back in there because we would be more opposed if it hadn't been added, but uh We like and I know that that the process probably backlogged, but you know, circuit judge. Their backlogged too, so I don't, I'm not sure that that's going to speed up the process or not. And it's just
It's concern because again, The proper follow-up is not done. And I agree. I mean, we need to come up with something, maybe what Representative Shepherd said let's, let's have a list of folks that can receive their guns back rather than One
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:07:52
last question you said a while ago that you had met with Representative Richardson with the concerns from the chief of police association and did, did he meet
those concerns in In his draft of this bill, the one we're hearing today, did he meet those concerns? I'm
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:08:13
just curious. Yeah, the one concern that we had was the chief or the CEO of the the agency and the jurisdiction, he did add that back, but at times when a bill It comes to a point where there's no way to fix it. Uh, I, I did not know about a meeting, a sit-down meeting. I wasn't or
the chief's as far as I know, weren't invited to
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:08:40
a sitdown. OK, but we've worked a lot together. It's good to see you at dinner table. Appreciate your input on this.
Thank you. Thank you, sir. you. Thank you. I see no other questions. Thank you,
Chief. Representative Richardson, you've heard the concerns and the questions of the committee. Would you like to pull your bill down and tighten it up a little bit. I think there are some definite concerns about possibility to cleaning down of some violent offenses that get,
get pled down, we might want to figure out how to do that. I don't think there's anybody on this committee, no matter what side of the aisle you sit on that wants to keep somebody from who's not committed a violent, I mean, not committed a violent. I don't think there's anybody that's opposed to folks getting their gun rights back. We are a hunting state, that kind of thing, but it seems like that there are a number of issues that were brought up today, maybe for the first time after people had a chance to start
hearing questions, uh, that might be good for you to break down. I've had some folks ask me about how much is this going to cost, you know, is there anything, uh, is that being addressed, uh, I think one of the concerns that somebody because as chair, I often get texts from people as I sit here or the concerns is, uh, on the judicial side of it, you've got a 15 day limit. Chief sites just mentioned that
in closing, uh, is that really a realistic time? Will there be somebody who gets through that crack because you've got a circuit court that can't get that, get to it in 15 days, those kinds of things he just brought that up, so I appreciated him, um, mentioning that, but with those, I, I think, uh, you heard Representative Tosh, and I think I saw lots of people nodding their heads. We want to figure this out, but not quite sure yet. This is the way, and I'm not telling you what to do, but would you like to consider that.
If you don't want to consider it, I will certainly take a motion. I'll do, I always
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:10:46
will do that, so I, I appreciate that, Madam Chair, and I, I, I definitely think it's a good plan to bring it down. I do also want to um stipulate that, like for instance the 15 days, the 15 days was a compromise with the ASP, so it's kind of one of those things where we're going to, we, I'm happy to work with everyone and get a bill that works that we can all agree on
and that provides the desired outcome, so I would love to pull
this down if the committee's amenable. I see no objections from the committee, uh, we'll
allow you to withdraw your bill. I would suggest that uh Particularly you meet with representative Pierce. He's got a lot of background in this area representative Shepherd brought up some representative Tosh all folks that I think that you can draw upon, you might also visit with the judicial council, knowing, knowing that end of it,
uh, those kinds of things. So I think the committee would appreciate it. I think the committee wants to get behind something, but let's make it a bill that we can get behind to do what we want and that we don't. Unintentionally Absolutely cause harm.
So I appreciate you considering all that and appreciate you listening to all the questions today. Absolutely, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Members
We have time and we're going to get, we're gonna keep plowing through. So, uh, I'd like
to turn to House Bill 1692 representative Brown. You're recognized to go to the end of the table. This is House Bill 1692. You'll identify yourself, you're recognized to present
your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Brown, District 55, can I please
have Captain Morgan of the State Police join me at the table. Go ahead and you may identify yourself and and have the captain to identify himself, and y'all are recognized. Again,
Speaker 127
1:13:09
Matt Brown District 55. Captain Dustin Morgan, regulatory division, state police. Colleagues, 1692 is the uh
Speaker 129
1:13:18
another bill from the state police package for this session. Uh, this bill actually does quite a bit of things, um. So I'll just start. So sections 1 through 5, section 8, and sections 11 through 12 are all kind of the same thing. These are what I would consider to be technical corrections. They are removing the term moral turpitude from the several different licensing provisions with regards to polygraph examiners, uh, PIs, things of that nature. Um, in 2019, the General Assembly passed Arkansas
Code annotated 173102 on recommendation from the red tape Reduction Group, and this law provides that A licensing entity shall not as a basis upon which to issue a license or deny a license, use vague terms such as moral turpitude or good character. So this is just a cleanup section to bring us in compliance with the statute. The problem with moral turpitude is it probably meant something a long time ago, uh, but I think it's one of those terms of the law where it's kind of like it can mean anything you want it to be. And so we're just trying to bring clarity to those sections.
Um, section 6 is the first which I would consider a substantive part of this bill. This means 174103, which regards the uh uh licensing of, well, the fact that a person who installs the security system does not have to be licensed as a PI. Um, however, if you are a technician and install security systems for a security company, you do have to pass a background check and so this clarifies that if you have an offense that pops up in your background check that would have disqualified you from getting a license. It also disqualifies you from being able to be an unlicensed technician
to install these. So it just kind of brings some congruity of those two. parts of the code Section 7 addresses an inconsistency. This regards commission security officers like a private security guard that's licensed to carry a gun. Um The, uh, in code right now, there's a requirement for refresher, or excuse me, a commission renewal, you have to renew your commission every 2 years and you have to be retrained. The state police have rule 1013, which requires a refresher training every year. So you get the renewal every 2 years and then in between, you have to do a refresher. This
simply brings the code into congruence with that rule that clarifies between the renewals you have that refresher every year, which I think is a good thing. Um. Section 9 is the other substantive change to the uh I think the other big substantive change to this bill. This provides that when you apply to become a commissioned. security officer, you know, being able to carry a weapon or whatever, uh, under current law, the, um, there's a procedure whereby when you make that application to the state police, they run your background checks,
they look at you. It meets that, that threshold, OK, you've been approved, then it has to go to local law enforcement and they have a period of time that they could then object to your application, it's 30 days, and then if they object, it goes back to the state police to make the final determination. What we have found in practice is that the vast, vast majority of the time there's never any objection because once you get through that first level screening, you don't have criminal background and there's never an objection to the extent there have been a handful of objections over the years. These have been because local law enforcement is flagging something that's already on that background check and has already
been looked at and not been a disqualifying event. So this just cleans that up by removing that process. The state police's goal in doing so is that this kind of creates a bureaucratic hurdle that is unnecessarily delaying these licenses another 30 days. I think this step probably made a lot of sense back in the 70s when this was originally passed, but today with ACIC and CIC, I mean, they already know everything about you when they were in the background check and whether or not you're going to qualify or not for the begin. And then finally the other substantive change to the law, and this is similar to the bill that Representative Childers did
just a few minutes ago is Section 10. This would permit the state police or give them the option instead of issuing the hard cards to a PI they could issue electronic credentials. Um, it's estimated that since 2021, uh, they have had to spend about $200,000 on these hard cards, both the machines to print them and then postage cost to mail them out. This would allow, they give them the option to be able to switch to electronic and save that money, um, and it would also, um, mean that uh when someone is hired, they get trained, they
pass the test, they can be instantly licensed versus having to wait another week or 10 days for their license to be printed and then mailed out through the snail mail and um with that I'd
be glad to take any questions. Members, are there any questions? Representing
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:17:43
Tasha recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Quick question. Someone's applying for and I was trying to find it here and you may, if someone is applying for a Security license and you do a
background check and at the same time, they're also applying for a private investigator's license. And that would also require a background check that you just referred to, isn't that correct? Isn't that correct? Yes, sir, that's correct. So you'd have to have two separate background checks basically for applying for both those positions at the same time. Do you pay one background fee check or the application or you charged twice. They have to pay 2. So even though they're doing them at the same time.
You have to pay two separate,
Speaker 130
1:18:32
you got to pay for each. Yeah, yes, sir. And, and that's not a, that's not a state police rule. That's in accordance with the FBI. Uh Each background check is run under a different authority. So uh, why there's times where we would certainly I like to use one background check to cover both were prohibited from doing that. OK, all right. Members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, we have no one else has signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Brown, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:19:06
you, Madam Chair. I'm closed to the bill, and I make a motion
to do pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion?
Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any post say no. I have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Members were down to, I think our last bill today, which is Senate Bill 393, Representative Gasaway, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 393. You need a copy of the bill. Do we
have? we didn't print it off. touch on. And we don't have a copy, but if
Representing against where you recognize if you'll recognize yourself, you'll recognized to proceed. Thank
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:20:31
you, Madam Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. Senate Bill 393 is. A bill that came to us, I say came to us, it came to Senator Wallace through A constituent of his, a deputy prosecuting attorney in Mississippi County, who had prosecuted a case involving, uh, as I recall, someone who had a previous sex offense in their
history. Uh But for some reason was not required to register under the laws that we have and then committed a second sex offense. And so the prosecutor was prosecuting them and thought there's no, it's unbelievable that this person should not be required to register as a sex offender and so he asked that this bill be brought, it's cited as Megan's law.
And essentially all it does is it says, uh, at the time of the offense. Uh, the person was more than 24 years of age and the victim. Of the offense was less than 15 years of age. And if that's the case, we're amending the sex offender registry requirements so that They're required, as I recall, to register for life. A lifetime registration. That's what the bill does.
members, are there any, are there any questions? Seeing their questions, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for the bill. Thank you,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:22:07
Madam Chair. I'm closed for the bill. Make a motion to pass.
Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table any discussion of the motion.
All in favor of the motion, please say aye. And opposed say no. The eyes have it congratulations, you have passed the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
I think we've have worked through our agenda for today. I believe we have. So let me announce what I have down for Tuesday. March 18th. We
never, we never quit in this committee representing Beatty. We will go to the very,
very end. Uh, I have down House Bill 1611. House Bill 1668. Senate Bill 320.
Senate Bill 313. Senate Bill 314. Senate Bill 302. Senate Bill 375.
I am anticipating that House Bill 1611. And House Bill. 1668. may take some time. I'm guessing those may take some time. I did not put them on special order, but they may take
a little time and so that's why we've got these Senate bills that have already come through. There are a number of you, I think there are some house bills that have just recently got filed, we'll start taking those up on Thursday. Representing gas waves or something we need to bring up on yours, so I was
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:23:54
just checking about 16:30. That was we heard it the other day, but we had an amendment and I believe that amendment's
been prepared. I don't know if it was brought over to committee today. I'm not necessarily asking for
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:24:08
it to be today. I had put it down for next Thursday. I knew you were amending,
but I hadn't gotten notice. Let's see here. It is not, it, it has not gotten here. If I tell you
what, representing Gasway since we had a kind of a full hearing or talked about it a lot the other day. You can get your amendment here on Tuesday. Uh, well, we'll move you on House Bill
1630. We'll put it on Tuesday the 18th if you can get your amendment here Thank you
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:24:38
Madam. That would be helpful and my witness can't be here Thursday, but
he can be here Tuesday. Well, I knew that that was being amended so I hadn't any notice. so if you can get that here, so members add House Bill 1630. I do want to tell you on um How a Senate Bill 320, which is to amend the juvenile code of 1989. That's a recodification that bills about 4 or 500 pages long. We were ready to run it,
but the director of BLR indicated to me that as busy as they are, somehow that bill didn't get all the way through all
their checks and balances over there and so there will be a significant amendment that I'm just going to present in committee does
not change any substance. This bill is not changing any substantive law. It's recodifying, and they didn't catch all of the revisions as to the numbers of the code, so just be aware that
there may be a 200 page amendment to a 500-page bill, but that's all they're doing is that. So I just want you to be aware of that. I think that takes care of everything. I'm trying to keep y'all as informed as possible. We do have a lot of bills that got filed on this yesterday, but we'll, as you well know, returning members will, will get through in one way or the other. I appreciate the good questions. Representative Richardson has left the room, but I do appreciate his consideration in pulling those down, I think everybody feels much more comfortable to get those worked
on and uh thank you as always for uh working hard in this committee with that. a great weekend, we are
Agenda
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
HB1609 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR RECRUITING TRAFFICKED PERSONS FROM CERTAIN PLACES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1434 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.
HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR AN UNCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT IS EQUIPPED OR MOUNTED WITH A WEAPON.
HB1057 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON.
HB1178 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SUMS COLLECTED BY DISTRICT COURTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES.
HB1611 Gonzales TO CREATE THE GAME FOWL FARM REGISTRATION AND PRESERVATION ACT; TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING; TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION.
HB1630 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAPITAL MURDER; AND TO INCLUDE A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER.
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ACT OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY.
HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT.
HB1668 Bentley TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AUTHORIZE A CIVIL ACTION FOR SOCIAL TRANSITIONING AND CASTRATION, STERILIZATION, OR MUTILATION OF A MINOR.
HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.
HB1686 Childress TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS.
HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES.
SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989.
SB328 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS.
HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.
HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.
SB393 D. Wallace TO AMEND THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1997.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Mar 13, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Representative Paul Childress
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 14
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 32
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Uh Amy
Unverified
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 55
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 79
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 92
Speaker 81
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
Speaker 78
Speaker 110
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 112
Speaker 127
Speaker 129
Speaker 130
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified