Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (39)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1504
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “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. |
|
SB298
Act 320
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB298 Rice TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE SETTING ASIDE OF A DE…”
|
TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE SETTING ASIDE OF A DECREE TO QUIET TITLE TO … | Rice | Notification that SB298 is now Act 320 |
|
HB1615
Act 677
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “anybody who didn't hear earlier, we will not be taking up House Bill 1615. So if you're here for House Bill 1615, feel free to leave…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1615 is now Act 677 |
|
HB1057
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1057 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION…”
|
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 … |
|
HB1178
Act 993
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1178 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRAC…”
|
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 |
|
HB1306
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES. 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CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL … | Furman | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1434
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Howard M. Beaty, Jr. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1434 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1551
Act 485
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1551 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRIMINAL ABORTION; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRIMINAL ABORTION; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF COERCED CRIMINAL … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1551 is now Act 485 |
|
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. |
|
HB1629
Act 368
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1629 Gazaway TO PERMIT A RETIRING PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO BE AWA…”
|
TO PERMIT A RETIRING PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO BE AWARDED HIS OR HER SERVICE FIREARM UPON … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1629 is now Act 368 |
|
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 |
|
HB1648
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. 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 … |
|
HB1676
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG AND CASTRATION, STERILIZATION, OR MUTILATION OF A MINOR. 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. |
|
HB1678
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS. 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 … |
|
HB1686
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1686 Childress TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CON…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS. | Childress | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1692
Act 678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
SB301
Act 322
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…e TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT. SB301 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THEFT OF PROPERTY; TO C…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THEFT OF PROPERTY; TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR THEFT … | Gilmore | Notification that SB301 is now Act 322 |
|
SB320
Act 518
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ED PENALTY FOR THEFT OF CARGO; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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 |
|
SB328
Act 361
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
HB1033
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IMES AGAINST MINORS. 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: “…DRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. 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. |
|
HB1148
Act 597
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIOUS Richardson MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. 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 |
|
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: “…INITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. Page 2 of 3 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: “…ROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION. 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: “AGENDA (Revised 3/10/25 @ 11:15 A.M.) Moved HB1473 to Deferred House Committee on Judiciary Tuesday, March 11,…”
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
SB300
Act 321
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB300 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT. | Gilmore | Notification that SB300 is now Act 321 |
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
didn't hear the announcement previously. Oops, I'm hearing
Speaker 2
0:16
somebody's phone. If we can get that silence, that'd be great. Um, for
anybody who didn't hear earlier, we will not be taking up House Bill 1615. So if you're here for House Bill 1615, feel free to leave unless you just want to stay and watch the committee. I'm anticipating that that bill will be put on special order either next Tuesday or next Thursday. And so just kind of let you know
how we're going to operate with that members we're going to do a little skipping around because I'm trying to watch who's in the room and with that we're going to move to Senate Bill 298, Senator Rice, Representative Richmond, if you'll come to the end of the table, members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 298. Once you get seated, gentlemen, if you'll introduce yourselves,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:14
you're recognized to present your bill. Representative Marcus Richmond, District 52. Good morning, Terry Rice State Central District
5. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. You're recognized to present Senate Bill 298, 1st
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:34
of all, let me just state how, as a former member of this committee, how pleased I am to see my very good friends. And to come back and spend a
little time with some of my favorite people. Before I present this particular bill again, we're all friends here. We'll always be friends. Anyway, let
Speaker 14
1:55
me, let me remind you first. Representative Richmond Flattery gets you nowhere in
this committee. But, but excellent try. It's always worth a try. Excellent try. Anyway,
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
2:08
we're gonna be talking about Senate Bill 298298. We're striking the language of what is called quite titles.
A quite title was usually used, and it's an 1899 law. It's been around a while and it was used for Situations where you possibly had an individual that was not mentally I think they used the word infancy in the original language and stuff, but not mentally acute. And what happened even with court action. Even with court action to be able to try to rectify this title companies will not insure
a, a quite title. The largest title company in Florida will not insure, even after the court has taken action on because of this language that we have that is being struck in this bill, they won't insure it and that they won't insure it, then you cannot get financing. And, and real estate, if you can't get financing, then, then basically everything, everything comes to a grinding halt. And so that's the issue. With this and that and, and it actually originated from an individual who's a retired
judge, attorney, and had a title company and kept running into these different kinds of problems with this. It's not something that's widespread, and I think a lot of states have already done away with it. I don't know specifically how many or who they are. But that's what I've heard. The, the title companies, we have no known opposition from them. Matter of fact, the ones that brought it to us, you don't think it's a good idea, and then it was kind of danced around a little bit here with some of the folks in Little Rock, no known opposition from any of the entire companies around here. Realtors, no known opposition
from any realtors and land commission office also supports this particular bill to do this. Uh. Let me see if there's anything I've missed here that we need to talk about. Anyway, if we repeal this 1899 law, then it allows for a clean, more efficient process. And, and we'll get rid of these obstacles that are preventing people from being able to, to acquire land, get the financing for that land and move forward. Uh. Senator Reich, do you have anything you'd like to add at this time?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
4:30
With a somebody in our area, although it can happen over the state where you get a clean, quiet title from the court. Uh, but because of this old 1899 2 paragraphs, it, it, they will not issue, companies will not issue title insurance. There was over 100 parcels of land sold that had been acquired by
uh, a couple that's deceased that represented Richmond and I both knew all our life, and When they're passing the estate sold this and that's where they ran into more problem of clouded titles or whatever else, even though they could get a court. Uh, quite title. He still couldn't get title insurance in as he said brought this to the Realtors Association, they checked with some larger title interest company here in Little Rock, and they said it is better that it
would be repealed and land commissioner, as he said, uh, office said they would, they, they are in support of it and would be glad to speak for it. Members, are
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
5:40
there any questions representing Springer you? You have a question? Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. What is this language being
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
5:46
replaced with is what language? Not being replaced with anything. It's just repealing
it. Again, in 1899, it's, if you look, it says any person it may
appear in there and it talks about the disability of infancy and, and talks about uh mental mental illness or intellectual disabilities. We, we have a much more robust. communication system now than we did in 1899. We have a much more robust judiciary than we had in 1899. At that time, I'm just thinking probably the local doctor could say whether you were competent or not or it
might be one person who's a judge in a town would have that. Now we've got a court system and all that that keeps people informed and this is just some old language that even if You can find The people on some of these clouded titles, you couldn't, you, you couldn't afford to have them deemed competent and incompetent or, or some of
those terms that they use in 1899. What I've been told. Representing Collins, you recognized for a question, Representative Springer, turn
your mic off if you don't mind. Thank you. Thank
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
7:02
you, uh, Madam Chair. So I'm looking at A and it says any person may appear within 3 years and set aside the decree if he or she shall offer to file a meritorious defense. Um, do y'all know within 3 years of what um what is that? And I, I
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
7:22
don't know, again, the court system now. Basically claims to my understanding that the quiet
title will fix this. It's what it does in other states, but because of this old language, it puts a cloud over it and that's the reason the title companies won't issue title insurance for it is because even though the court has said there's a clear quiet title on it. Court goes through protections for citizens too. Uh, but this, this is something in Arkansas that they won't issue title insurance for unless it's repealed. I Members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Richmond, you recognized clothes for the bill. Anyway, I'm
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
8:09
closed for the bill and I would appreciate a motion to pass. Members, what's the will of
the committee? We have a motion to pass. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. You guys have a good
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
8:30
day, Madam Chair, if I could just take a second. I do my
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
8:34
flattering after I, I, I spent 4 my 6 years in the house and this committee room and never intended to be on judiciary. What you do is extremely important, and I'm starting my 15th out of 17 years on judiciary, so come see us on the other end. Thank you. Thank you, appreciate that, Senator.
Members, let's go back to the top of our agenda, Representative Meeks. Let's take House Bill 1504. House Bill 1504. Representative Meeks, you're recognized to identify yourself and present your bill. All right, thank you, Madam Chair. That, that flattery stuff
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
9:17
seemed to work, so I might need to, to start with some of that, right?
Um, so let me give you the, the backstory on this uh bill. So, um, as your uh technology chair, I try to keep myself informed of what the latest technology is
doing and of course with the advent of AI that's become front and center over the last, uh, basically 2 to 3 years. And so uh, this summer, I had the opportunity to attend one of the largest AI conferences in the country. It was attended by over 5000 people from 79 different countries, a lot of federal agents were there and I was very pleased to report that there were several Arkansas vendors in the vendor hall, promoting products related to AI, so I was
very encouraged to see that um to my knowledge, though, I was the only state representative that was there, uh, and so, uh of the talks that I sat in was a talk by a gentleman from General Dynamics. They are one of the premier robot manufacturers in the country right now and and I've got a video I'm going to show you here in just a minute, but uh one of their chief concerns related to these robots
is that sooner or later someone's going to take them and weaponize them and use them against our citizens. Um, they have been working with the federal government to try to get Congress to act on this, but you all know what it's like to get Congress to act on anything. Uh, so in the meantime, they're hoping states will take action on this. So House Bill 1504 is modeled on model legislation, if you will, from Massachusetts, which is their uh home home state.
To try to put these protections in place for our citizens. So real quickly, let me show you this video because if you're not familiar, if you've not followed this space, um, over the last uh couple of years, you may be surprised at where we're at, so it's just about a 15, 22nd long video, so I'm gonna just hold it up here real quick. I hope everyone can see this
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
11:33
is real. This is a fully autonomous robot
that's uh working in a manufacturing facility. And you can see it's making decisions and uh placing the, you know, pulling the parts out and And this video is a couple of months old, by the way. Yeah. So you can see it ran
Speaker 41
11:47
into a problem. It solved the problem, placed the part where it was
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
12:08
supposed to go, uh. Our So I, I
fully expect in, in the next it definitely within the next 10 years, uh, for these to be commonplace throughout our society, our predecessors are gonna be, um, having to deal with these on um A much greater level. We've been, we, you know, we're trying to bring manufacturing back to our country, but how long is it going to be before all of our manufacturing jobs are replaced
by by robots like this. And so again, uh, taking that model legislation, uh, From Pull the bill up here real quick. All right. Uh, so taking that model legislation, what I did is I met with the Arkansas State Police to go over the language of the bill with them, had a, had a couple of meetings with it and got the bill kind of uh In an Arkansas format, if you will, um, I'm kind of nuance my words here that I don't know that they've taken an official
position on the bill, but they did, but they did say in our meetings that they supported what I'm trying, trying to get done here, OK, so uh the Arkansas State Police does support this initiative. Uh, once I did that, we got the bill where they're all good with it. I got the bill filed and after I got the got the bill filed, I realized we had made a, made a little bit of a mistake in that even though we got the state police took care of. I left local law enforcement out, so a lot of you have heard emails from local law enforcement raising concerns
about the bill and rightfully so because they were not properly addressed in the bill. I've met with the local sheriffs. We've got a couple of amendments done, so we got that taken. in place and so now to my knowledge, the local sheriffs are taking care of as well through the bill. So let's just real briefly go through what the what the bill does. Oh, and by the way, I also got contacted by the movie Picture Association because they want to make sure that they can make Movies with robots and battle bots evidently there's those
competitions in the states, so I had to get that taken care of. Uh, but long story short, what this bill does is it says it's unlawful for a person knowingly to manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device equipped or mounted with a weapon or an uncrewed aircraft equipped or modeled with a weapon, um. It says that if you do the, the, uh, you know, do mount a weapon on one of these things that there's a fine between 5000 and $25,000 that can be assessed. So
this allows law enforcement to stop the use of these uh weaponized robots before the robot acts. However, if the robot does act, then the person who programmed or sent that robot to Do whatever deed it does, then that person would then be responsible in our laws as if that person had done it itself, had done it themselves. So in other words, if a person, uh, there's like this little robot
dog that they have available that actually the Arkansas State Police is about to acquire if somebody were to put a bomb on one of these things and send it into a movie theater or church or uh whatever, um, then that person would then be charged as if they had taken the bomb in. Uh, if they put a weapon into the hand a gun into the hand of one of these robots and that robot into uh crowded movie theater, uh, and that robot murders 3 or 4 people, then they would be brought up on charges as if they had murdered the 3 or
4 people. If someone puts a Molotov cocktail on a drone. They don't like a bill that you've passed, and they dropped that Molotov cocktail on your house, uh, then same thing that they would be charged as if they had done it themselves. Um, so that is what the what the bill does, and I'll be happy to try to answer any questions. Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
16:12
Uh, good morning, uh, thanks for this. I, I, I have some,
uh, I guess I'll just start simple. I have uh. Some concerns about the potential of robotic devices that we are yet to understand, and I had a couple of people bring up to me the ideas that our concepts that they had been presented with, including the ability to doctor cattle, um, apparently they, which I'm not a cattle person, so but apparently they use guns
right now to shoot cattle with certain types of medications. and a variety of other things. They felt like that that direction using a drone for that purpose could provide a lot of great potential, uh, going forward. So I, I guess where I'm going with that, it seems like that there's this is a very emerging field that we have very little understanding about what's going to potentially happen over the next 10 years. So I'm wondering why you chosen
the bill to make the action of owning those types of devices, um, the primary element instead of just focusing on actions with with those particular items. So, um, yeah, so I very, very fair point and
Speaker 47
17:32
I have no I have no doubt that over time
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
17:37
that this might need to be modified as technology emerges and changes the idea here is to try to get ahead of it and try to get protections in place so that everyone understands that as these technologies become
available that putting a weapon in the hand of a robot is not going to be acceptable in the in the state, um, as far as, you know, like a, a, a, a use case like that that may be Something that needs to be looked at in the in the future, you know, it's kind of like when I was developing and developing the bill here, the idea of, you know, putting a carve out for battle bots that never, never occurred to me. Um, but by the same token, you know, I think we need to make it clear that, you know, putting a a weapon in the
hand of a robot is, you know, we're not going to tolerate that, uh, because the, the, the problem is if you don't do that. Then what you're saying is, is you cannot hold that person responsible until after the robot has done something nefarious. And we want to make sure that law enforcement has the tools that they need to stop the bad actors from using these things in a bad way. Does that make sense? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Scott Richardson
Unverified
18:54
I appreciate the kind of the walkthrough. I, I'm still at a
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
18:59
point where I guess I don't completely understand why you would feel that it's incredibly important to prevent potentially very lawful and and helpful actions by making it illegal on the front end to even have these devices or potentially explore the possibilities of lawful use. So I guess that's, that's where my sort of my rub is, OK, yeah,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
19:25
and, and, and I, and I, I guess you know that that may be a nuanced thing that we need to look at. I mean, I just trying to think through when we would, uh, you know, when, when we might be OK with, you know, someone putting a gun or a flamethrower on a, on a robot when that might be useful. I mean, now, now there are, you know, that the bill does allow um, For, uh, let me see here.
That and and this this might help answer some of this. um for um I'm gonna try to find
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
20:15
uh, you know, if, if a um defense industrial company, they can obtain a waiver from the attorney General's office. So if someone is uh working in that industry, um, a robotics
company that obtains a waiver from the Attorney General for the purpose of testing certain technologies. Um, so there are some exceptions that are that are allowed in that through the Attorney General's office, so that way there is some, you know, elected official. accountability for some of these things. I think him out chair. I'll get back in the queue.
You bet. Representing Collins, you're recognized for a question? Thank you, Madam Chair, and Representative
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
20:53
Meeks, we talked about this, but I wanna to um
again mention it and because I don't, I don't think anything has been changed in it and also just for the committee's benefit, raise it. So on page 2, I'm concerned about the interplay between BC and uh D. So, In A, you say it's unlawful for a person to manufacture, modify, sell or transfer or robot mounted with a weapon that, as far as I know, is new in, in law and so I have no issue there. But then B, it talks about how
it's unlawful for a person to knowingly use a robot to commit terrorist threatening and harassment, and both of those, as you know, and as we've discussed are already uh crimes and I think it is already unlawful for a person to use any instrument to commit those offenses. I don't think that this would be new and then I think it's confusing because you're Your penalty for committing anything under this section is a violation, but terrorists are threatening and harassment have
other penalties, and so I think you're gonna have an ambiguity where if you commit it with a armed robot, it's a violation, but if you commit it, period, it's a misdemeanor or a felony or whatever it is. Um, and so I just, I guess I'd like you to address that because I, I think that is gonna be confusing and then I, I will have a follow up. OK, um, yeah, I again, I'm definitely not
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
22:26
a lawyer. Don't pretend to be a lawyer. Technology is my, my, my
wheelhouse, so I will defer to your, you know, I definitely know you're, you're more knowledgeable on these items and so if that is a concern to the committee. I'm more than happy to pull the bill down and get that, get, you know, pull those out if you, you know, everyone's comfortable that that's already in law. um, I would just want to make sure that it's clearly understood because a person doing it and a doing it are two different things, right? And if a robot doing it would already be covered under current law, then
I'm OK pulling that out. But if there's any question mark. As to that point, then I would want to make sure I would want to leave it in. But, but, but, but again, I, I will defer to you if you, if you believe that that's already covered, then I'm happy getting that fixed. Well, in this
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
23:24
follow-up question, if I may, will kind of also get at that, um, because you have then E and E says that any person who knowingly uses or directs a robot to commit any
other offense shall be criminally liable for that offense as if they had personally committed the act, which I think is the law anyway, but even if it's not, that covers you and if you take this section, this subsection out of the section because this is making it a violation, which again is going to be an ambiguity. There's an underlying penalty that you should probably leave it at. But if you took that out, made it, it made that its own section so that. You have your belt and suspenders. I think it's already going to be the underlying
offense if you use a robot to do it, but this would definitely ensure that and then leave the violation to cover subsection A, arming a robot, if in fact that's what the committee wants to do, then I think that's a better structure, and that'll, that'll take you out of the world of ambiguity in two different penalties for the same offense. So, so take B
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
24:27
and C out. I would say take B and
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
24:30
C out all. Together and then make something separate so that it's not the
penalty for E is not the violation. Because I think that's a second kind of layer of ambiguity because that, if you're doing E, that really should be whatever the underlying offenses should be punished as if it's the underlying offense, right, right, and, and that's my intent to try to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
24:51
get done and so thanks. OK. So, uh, with the, with the chair's permission, I'll be
happy to take any other questions or concerns we're, we've got several people. Let's get all the questions out.
I think we're heading toward you pulling it down, but let's get
the questions out so that Uh, we can have any others address that you might need to address, representing more you
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
25:16
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Meeks, can you help me understand, is this pertaining specifically to autonomous robots, or is this directly controlled electronic equipment. So, uh, it's mostly going to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
25:28
be towards the autonomous if you go to the top, it says a robotic device means a mechanical device that
is capable of locomotion, navigation, or movement on the ground operates at a distance from its operator based on commands or in response to sensor data or combination, so it would be all of the above, I guess would be the best answer to your question. So
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
25:53
going back to what Representative Richardson kind of pointed at, um, I grew up with a family friend who was a quadriplegic that loved to deer hunt. And I see no mention of hunting in any capacity or using these
robots that are not autonomous, I'm speaking of, but that are controlled through electronic devices, um, based upon the commands of the operator um. It What do you have to say about potentially legal uses of robots or these electronic wheelchairs that can fire a weapon, uh, in a legal act such as deer hunting. Um, I don't know that I would say that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
26:33
a wheelchair was a robot. I wouldn't fall into that and I,
and I guess my, my other concern is if, you know, you know what I'm what I'm thinking robot, I'm thinking about these humanoid robots like we saw on the video, um, I don't know that that would qualify as hunting. Um, I'd be very concerned that, you know, we had those out in the field, you know, helping a hunter hunt because we humans have a have a moral code and, uh, you know, robots don't have that, so that would that would definitely be concerned about that. But again,
future generations, that might be something they, you know, who knows what the future holds. Betty, you for a
question We've all seen the movies, right?
Speaker 66
27:20
where this can lead. OK Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, and Meeks, I, I, I kind
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
27:26
of understand where you're coming from with the bill, but I've got several problems with it. Uh, one, you know, we already have the right to bear arms, so we, we have gun laws and we, we have a lot of them out there. Um, so
we've got right to bear arms, then we, we have all the regulations for drones that we have out there now and is there any concern, uh, that you're infringing upon the civil liberties of Arkansans with your bill. No, not
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
27:55
at all. No. because we're, we're not talking about you or me having a right to carry a weapon. We're talking about putting it in the hand of a of a robot, and Meeks not to be argumentative, but you said
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
28:13
in your bill, operator. So that when, when you put operator in there unless that thing's being controlled by an autonomous robot is being controlled by a human that you said would be held liable. For the actions that They call us the robot to or the harm they caused a robot to inflict. So I, I don't think you, you kind of confused me. You said autonomous, but then you mentioned and read operator, so there would be a human in control, correct. Um, so we got a problem with
that also 11 last area, um, in your bill, uh, with this being an evolving technology, uh, in all the the strict regulations that you're going to put in on robots and and these other um um uh uncrewed aircraft or drones, uh, how do you address the impact, uh, that's an emerging technology. How would you address in your bill the impact, the negative impact that this law could have on innovation and advancements in that technology. How would you address that in your bill? So that the bill has
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
29:18
carve outs for um uh weapons manufacturers, uh who have contracts with the Department of Defense and federal government. It also has uh where a company who may be in the, in that uh field, if you will, where they can get approval or waiver from the Attorney General's office to be able to manufacture, research, and, and so I, I think that should be covered because I don't want to
correct. I don't want to stifle innovation, right? What, what I'm trying to to prevent hopefully is a terrorist or other group, uh, you know, putting a weapon in the hand of
Chair
Unverified
30:01
one of these things and sending it into a school. just
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
30:06
11 follow up on that. Represent me because you made my point with my first question with your response to my second question. You covered defense contractors, you covered. Corporations, you covered
businesses that are in the manufacturer, but a lot of the advances in technology and the things that we're blessed with utilization today came from individuals that worked out of the home lab or a home shop to create that technology and so I ask you again, are you concerned that your bill would stifle innovation and infringe upon some of the civil liberties and rights that our Kansans have to, to develop that technology and work at home. Hm. Now we're not talking about the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
30:51
development of technology. We're talking about someone taking existing technology
and putting a weapon. And sending it to do things that we don't want
Chair
Unverified
31:00
it to do. Thank you, sir. Representing younger,
you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
31:09
Madam Chair. Representative Meeks, some of my colleagues have raised some questions that I had Representative Collins, and I'm not an attorney, but I think murder or assault by remote control, to use that term, is
probably already against the law, but I'm gonna have to check up on that. Representative Richson talked about, uh, agriculture uses either vaccinated cattle or maybe even just killing feral hawks. But My main concern is how is this any different than any other gun law. The the bad guys don't care about your gun law or your gun-free zone. If, if some bad actor out in the hills of Arkansas wants to put a gun on the drone. He's just going to do it, right.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
31:55
So here's where I think one of the primary differences you and I have a moral compass, even bad guys have a moral compass robots they may not have as as as this that that they still have a moral, a moral code, right? Robots don't have that. Um, and so that would, that would be the first part of my answer. Secondly, yes, you know, based upon what you know.
of Collins was saying, if, you know, you put a bomb on a drone and send it into a movie theater and it goes off and they find that you're the one that did it, you would be probably, you know, you'd be held responsible for that, but there's nothing right now in statute that if I put a bomb onto a uh drone or if I put a legally obtained weapon into the hand of a robot that would, uh, be, be right? So there's nothing, you
know, if I had one of these robots, I could put a weapon in its hand and that'd be totally legal. And law enforcement would not be able to stop it from going and doing. Bad things. And so that's what we're trying to do is we're trying to, you know, put some protections in place to prevent these things from being misused. Because the, you know, the damage that one human can do with these things. So I've seen videos of these, these things can run faster than we can. They can react faster than we can,
and uh if you followed the war in Ukraine. You've seen how the, you know, the innovation, drone technology has changed over there and how they're being used to deadly effect, you know, how long before that. Come here. Uh, now, yeah, yeah. We outlaw murder. It doesn't stop murder, right? But, uh, at least it puts Hopefully makes people think twice about doing it, and that's what I'm trying to do here. Representative Richardson, you still have a question.
You recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Scott Richardson
Unverified
34:05
Um, appreciate that. I, I, I absolutely appreciate what we're, what you're trying to accomplish here in regard
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
34:13
to ensuring that code um for leveraging any type of mechanical device whether controlled or autonomous to commit a crime should be the same as the individual, even an autonomous device has to get its marching orders, so to speak,
from an individual, so That individual should be held accountable for the actions of that device, so I absolutely appreciate that. Um, I'm wondering if with pulling down the bill, which is something you've indicated you have interest in if you would consider the the concerns that have been expressed around making just the ownership or creation of these devices as illegal if you would consider removing that as well. OK, all right. Members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, representative Meeks, are you, uh, asking the committee. To pull your bill down, yes, Madam
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
35:11
Chair, I'll go ahead and pull the pull the bill down. I'll take everything that we've heard from
our discussion, um, and, uh, going forward, I would encourage any members to to get with me offline and let's let's take a good bill and make it uh make it better for our citizens, and with that, I appreciate y'all's time this morning. Thank you, Representing Meeks without objection will allow representing Meeks to pull this
bill down. You've heard his request, members, you have uh questions or concerns. Or suggestions on his bill, please circle back to him at the very first opportunity. Members of the next bill that we were scheduled to hear is House Bill 1611, but Representative Gonzalez has indicated that, uh, he needs to do a little more work on that bill. So we're not going to hear that bill today, and we'll look at either hearing
it, uh, next Tuesday or next Thursday. He's gonna let me know on that. So if you're in the room for a House Bill 1611, we will not be hearing that today. Got you. All right, members. Let's turn to House Bill 1629 and represent Guway, you'll be
recognized, uh, go to the end of the table, identify yourself and you recognized to present House Bill 1629. House Bill 1629. Right.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
37:06
Morning, Madam Chair. Committee and State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. And here this morning to present House Bill 1629, which relates to permitting a retiring prosecuting attorney to keep his or her service weapon upon retirement. I have with me the president of the Arkansas prosecuting Attorneys Association who can help present this bill and so Madam Chair, with your permission, I would ask that Mr. Shu be recognized and help with the presentation. Certainly welcome, Mr. Xu to the
committee. If you'll identify yourself, you may present. My name is
Chair
Unverified
37:42
Daniel Shu. I'm the elected prosecuting attorney for the 12th Judicial District, Sebastian County. I'm also the legislative chairman for the APAA and the president of the APAA, um, and appreciate being able to speak here in in favor of this bill this morning. Um, Just a little bit of background, uh, Arkansas statute 1643 to 12 are are prosecuting attorneys are really kind of grand juries.
We have the ability to issue subpoenas for documents, uh, for persons. We can place those people under oath. This has been since the 1930s, uh, we are intimately involved with law enforcement, uh, in addition, many of us have a policy, as my office does. We draft the arrest warrants. We draft the search warrants and oftentimes on search warrants, we go with, uh, to provide legal counsel on the width and breadth of the search, and again, I have an
office policy if it's a business that there must be a deputy prosecuting attorney that goes with because those are slightly different thing to deal with about seizing things from a business, uh, pursuant to 212, 1212 through 15, uh, prosecuting attorneys are always notified of of deaths. And uh we go to scenes of homicides. I have a policy in my office that a deputy goes to those, but oftentimes it's just me that goes to those scenes,
uh, in addition, 1621 147, uh, the, the state legislature authorized us to carry firearms, uh, in 1215 205, the legislature authorized us to let retired prosecuting attorneys. Carry firearms and there's a process and procedure where we can do that for those that have retired already. Uh, what we are asking for in this bill is that those that are going to retire in the future. I have one in my office who has 26
years in, um, there are across the state are several that have deputy prosecutors or prosecuting attorneys themselves that may be retiring, um, and I'll just remind you, uh, 1215, 302, you authorized sheriffs and sheriff's deputies to be awarded and understand this, that this just, it's not a give me. This is under the right facts and circumstances it might be proper to award uh the weapon,
uh, 1227, 143, you authorize the Arkansas Department of Corrections to do this. Uh, 128, 214, you authorize Arkansas State Police. 1452, 112, uh, any law enforcement officer employed by a city of the 1st class, 2nd class, or an incorporated town may receive a firearm upon retirement. And lastly, um, 12, 9, 117, an employee, the division of law enforcement standards and training or a
state-funded law enforcement training academy may return their firearm upon retirement. Um, lastly, um, On September 13, 2011, James Ray Palmer entered the uh the Crawford County Courthouse intending to threaten or at least to threaten, but probably to kill a circuit judge, law enforcement reacted and he was shot and killed outside the courthouse. However, he had an earpiece and they were very
concerned that there may be another person involved with his homicidal attack. Uh, you can watch their YouTube. There are many videos of this, if you Google his name, James Ray Palmer or Crawford County uh shooting, and you'll see a deputy prosecutor. Uh, Scott Houston. Uh, he is one of the three people that entered that building to clear it. He's wearing his vest. He has his side arm. And uh that that deputy I later
was able to hire away from Crawford County in 2015 in Scott's worked for me for 10 years now. I understand, I understand fully that we do not take the risk. That the men and women of law enforcement take. I, I totally get that, but we do do have some, we do take some of those risks, and I ask you for the authority, the ability, and the proper circumstances to award a firearm to one of my deputies that's retiring or if there's a
prosecutor that retires that they might receive it again, it's not a gimme. It is in the right facts and circumstances to award it. I'll answer any questions.
Representative Tos you recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
42:34
you, Madam Chair, and appreciate your testimony at the end of the table. I've just got a couple of questions and you referenced several statutes that this legislative body has passed concerning the awarding of a firearm to those officers that retired from law enforcement and you just acknowledged and I
appreciated you doing that to prosecuting attorneys are basically not trained as law enforcement officers and even though they're part of the system and we appreciate that, but they, they, they've not been trained in the efficiency of that farms. I just want to make sure you understand that if we pass this bill, uh, you know, there's, there's state and federal law that requires that anyone even after they've retired, that has the ability or the authority to carry a firearm just such as myself and many
other retired law enforcement officers that we have to go through annual training even after we're retired, uh, is that something
you're saying that y'all will be doing and and. Just want to make sure we understand that. Yes, sir, I require everybody to have their
Chair
Unverified
43:37
concealed carry and to go out and qualify in order to carry the weapon. We had to when you gave us the authority to possess firearms, we had to create a weapons policy and we also had to create
a use of force policy and those of us that are responsible and do that, I think,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
44:00
follow the law. OK, and, and, and I understand you, you, you responded by saying a concealed carry, uh, what I'm talking about there's a state and federal laws I'm sure you're well familiar with that requires each retired law enforcement officer to Be proficient with their firearm on an annual basis from the agency that they retired from, not through the concealed carry.
Do you acknowledge, do you agree with that?
Chair
Unverified
44:26
Yes, sir, and it's required by the law that I review that. Yes,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
44:29
sir. Yes sir, and that's something you're saying that y'all are willing to do, is that correct? OK. Representing Collins, you recognized for her question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
44:40
Thank you, madam chair. So I guess I'm just wondering, is there anything in law that uh prohibits you from uh doing this now from, from getting a rewarding a firearm to a retiring deputy. Maybe not. Maybe we could do that.
Speaker 98
44:56
But I'd rather have it authorized just like these
Chair
Unverified
44:58
other law enforcement officers, it's kind of, I guess, an animal farm thing. We're all equal here, some of us more equal than others. I'd rather not be more equal than others. I'd rather it come through y'all and you authorize it. So I think
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
45:12
in a follow up, please. So I think I'm hearing you say that uh we don't need this and that this can be done currently. I, I don't want to put words in your mouth,
Speaker 99
45:21
I don't know. I don't know that I could just give a gift. In fact, if, if you
Chair
Unverified
45:26
boil this down to gravy, I can't, you know, those weapons are purchased with taxpayer dollars. I don't think I can just give it
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
45:36
away. So that we follow up again, please, so that might be, I, I'm just trying to get
at what we're doing, what, what we're changing with this, and if it's nothing, that's fine, but if the current prohibition is that you cannot give a gift as a public employee, that's fine. I just would like to know what it is we're doing here with this and so is that what you're saying
that that that there's an ethics rule or a taxpayer, uh. rule that would prohibit that. I, I just don't know what that would be. Yeah, I don't, I don't think you
Speaker 99
46:07
can just give away government property. OK Representative McCullo, you're recognized for a
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you,
Speaker 104
46:17
Mr. Xu for being here today. Uh, my question is just kind of informational when, um, when you're a prosecutor, can you tell me like what the policy
is as far as being issued a weapon and um is that done by request? Could, could everybody from Chief Deputy down to, um, all the way down the, the ranks request a weapon and be issued one and and I and I get it. There are certain people that Guns
Chair
Unverified
46:41
bother them. I, I don't require my people to do that. It should they they ask and I say, if you do, you've got to go through this step and this step. You've got to sign off. You got to sign a receipt that they got the weapon. They signed
a receipt when they, they leave me and they, I get the weapon back, but yeah, it's, it's, it's for everybody, but it's not, if, if you don't, if you want to opt out. I get it. You just, you don't, you don't like firearms, you don't want to carry a firearm. It's America. You good representing McCullough? OK. Any other
questions, members? Seeing no further questions other than Mr. Xu who signed up
in favor of this bill, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill, so representing Gasaway, you're
recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you, Madam
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
47:33
Chair, and I do just want to respond quickly to a couple of the concerns that we've heard. The way I understand this bill, it's a very simple bill. It just simply allows in recognition of and appreciation of his or her service to the state. That a prosecuting attorney or deputy prosecuting attorney upon retirement, which means they have to have been there for a while. may be awarded the firearm that they carried during his or her service. This doesn't address, you know, the training that they
have to do in order to carry it and it comes after the fact which as Representative Tos pointed out, we know exists, and we know that they would have to do. This is just simply about whether or not they can be awarded the firearm that they've carried, and this, this allows that so that it's not some improper uh gift of taxpayer of an item that's been paid for by taxpayer funds. I really think it's as simple as that, and Without I'm closed and make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion?
Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. And he opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations you have passed the bill. Representative Gasway, while we have you at the end of the table, you're ready to run House Bill 1630. It's cement the law concerning
Speaker 76
49:00
capital murder. This one has an impact assessment, so we'll get that passed out and then we'll take up the bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
49:12
Madam Chair, once again, with your permission, I have a Uh, witness here, Mr. Will Jones, prosecuting attorney for Pulaski County who is going to help present the bill. Welcome to the committee, Mr. Jones. Just have
a seat and we'll get to you here in a moment. Thank you.
All right, members, I think everybody's had an opportunity to look at
the impact from the Sentencing Commission, so Representing Gesway, you're recognized to identify yourself and present your bill.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
50:28
Thank you, Madam Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. In terms of the uh technical aspects of this bill. I think that it's fairly straightforward and pretty simple. Basically, there are certain predicate offenses that if they're committed, uh,
In the course of committing those offenses, if you kill someone, that allows a person to be charged with capital murder. We have a list of what those offenses are terrorism, rape, kidnapping. Vehicular piracy, robbery, aggravated robbery, residential burglary, commercial burglary, aggravated residential burglary, and then we currently have under the law a felony violation of the uniform Controlled Substances Act involving an actual delivery of a controlled substance. So in other words, in the course of a drug deal.
But right now the law says that that must be in the course of a felony level drug deal. And we know that Uh, there are some substances that are commonly dealt on the streets that uh maybe that substance is, uh, you know, pills of some nature that aren't, don't rise to the level of a felony. Of course you have substances like marijuana. That the simple possession of or even delivery of can be a misdemeanor. And so basically if we want to capture that activity
which is someone dies in the course of a drug deal, regardless of the substance that they're dealing. If you kill someone in the course of a drug deal. It should qualify as capital murder, and that's basically, uh, what this bill says, there is another section about, uh, in the, in the course or furtherance of, and it says the felony offense or the immediate flight. From the felony offense and of course, that would be stricken to be just a fence, the person
or accomplice causes the death of a person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. And so those are the technical changes that the bill makes and I'm sure Mr. Jones can expound upon that and give you some real world examples about Why this is an issue and why we need to make this change. So with that, Mr. Chair, I would ask that Mr. Jones be recognized. Absolutely you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the
Speaker 66
52:45
committee. We, uh, it may come as a surprise to a lot of
folks in this committee room that the most violent drug in Little Rock, I'll just say Little Rock especially is marijuana. We have more transactions involving marijuana and violence than any other drug. In fact, we started running a code. We have a new system now where we can track these things and so we started running the code a few months ago and we're, I got the list a while ago. We have 103 cases right now pending and with 40 of those being homicides. that involved people being killed over the sale of marijuana, and we've had another couple of cases where the actual
drug transaction included a misdemeanor amount of marijuana, so, so an amount less than 14 g, no less dangerous, no less violent, but we're not able to charge murder in that case because it was a misdemeanor drug transaction. So we just felt like With the amount of violence that we're seeing specifically around marijuana in our jurisdiction that we felt like any illegal drug transaction should be a predicate for capital murder. Members, any other questions? Representative Clowney.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
53:52
Thank you, Madam Chair. OK, I Just want to clarify something about this language because, um, it really took me, um, off guard when I first saw it because we know the felony murder rule exists, right, if you commit, or if somebody dies in the, in the course of a felony being committed, um, And that can obviously be a predicate for capital murder. It appeared at first sight that this was changing the felony murder rule to really a misdemeanor murder rule. But are you, is it your testimony that
this only applies to that the real only, the only real world change that this would be would be with respect to those drug offenses that you're talking about. In other words, if, if something were to happen, um, I'm concerned about an accomplice to say it. A small shoplifting, right? Would that now be a predicate for capital murder under your bill. When I first read it, I thought, yes, but now I think, no, this only applies to the drug offenses that you're talking about. That's correct. It would only be an illegal drug transaction, which, you know.
Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have an individual who signed up to speak against the bill, Mr. Rosenthwaite, if you'll come to
the end of the table. You'll identify yourself, you recognized to
Speaker 119
55:18
speak against the bill. Jeff Rosensweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Representative Clowney talked about the felony murder rule.
Speaker 120
55:27
The felony murder rule is been controversial in the law for centuries, and the reason it's been controversial is because there is no intent to kill. It is what is called the transferred intent that you're only intent to do anything what would be the so-called predicate felony or If this bill passes a predicate misdemeanor. You only intend to sell marijuana. Uh, this would make it a capital offense
when, when you're only intent was to be in a uh a misdemeanor drug
Speaker 121
56:08
transaction, and furthermore, furthermore, it uh That and that there is accomplished
Speaker 120
56:17
liability. You're a death eligible if you're accomplished is the person who, who causes the death, there's a reason there are only certain predicate felonies that
are listed on the felony felony murder, the ones that, you know, that are violent they are inherently dangerous, you know, vehicular piracy, kidnapping, rape, etc. etc. We don't felonize or felonize all sorts of other felonies. We know Capitol felony hot checks. We don't our antitrust violations, forgery, that type of thing, uh, the, if there is a gap in the law, I would suggest that Mr. Jones
apparently has noted, considering that the underlying predicate is going to be a misdemeanor. make it make it a first degree murder. 2nd degree murder, but keep the death penalty out of this when we're dealing with the misdemeanor. I had suggested that and right now because it does the current bill does not change first degree murder, uh, felony murder. This would actually, there is no lesser offense to this. And unless they
were to also amend the first degree murder statute. I was, I thought there was a commitment to, uh, amend it, but apparently not. Um, anyway, uh, but if If, if we're trying to capture this, this the problem that Mr. Jones has identified. Amend the first degree murder statute only or amend the second-degree murder statute. And that way you can charge the homicide, but without getting, without the uh Without the problem of making it
a death penalty offense. Thank you. Representing Collins, you recognized
for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
58:15
Chair. So I mean, I understand the controversy with felony murder rule. I understand why that might be objectionable and and some way, but given that we do have it and given that it is a capital murder for a felony drug deal, I guess, what is your opinion about what's the difference between a felony drug transaction and a misdemeanor
drug transaction that would make one make it appropriate to treat one as a capital murder
Speaker 120
58:47
and the other not. Well, because of the severity of what the predicate charge is the legislatures made a decision that certain uh certain drugs, a certain amount of marijuana, for instance, or certain other things should not be not be treated as felonies or you know, not as felonies. That's why they're, you know, why, that's why they are misdemeanors.
and uh and so it, it is uh It sets a terrible precedent to all of a sudden make make misdemeanors, the predicate for a capital prosecution. And it's it's, it's a policy, you know, it's a, it's a uh uh the the capital murder should be, uh, the predicate capital should be limited to those serious inherently dangerous felonies that are listed in, uh, in here and, and of course, your, your
drug deals are already there, you know, and that, but, uh, when you're talking about misdemeanor drug transactions, I, I think it creates a
Speaker 119
59:53
precedent that is a dangerous precedent going forward follow up. You're welcome and I hear that and that,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
59:59
you know, makes sense to me. On the other hand, I do want to ask, you know, you clarified that hot checks and other felonies are not uh grounds for felony murder because they're not inherently dangerous presumab.
But, but a misdemeanor drug transaction is, so why, I mean, again, I guess I I go back to the distinction that not all felonies are part of this, and the felonies that are part of this are inherently dangerous and not all misdemeanors are dangerous, but this particular type of misdemeanor drug transaction is, is it not? Well, you know, I mean,
Speaker 120
1:00:38
I mean, you know, anything can be, you know, can be dangerous, but I would point out, for instance,
we don't, we don't make capital murder out of, uh, let's say false imprisonment in the first degree, which is a lesser offense of kidnapping. We don't make a capital murder out of sexual assault, you know, the predicate sexual assault in the first degree or second degree. Um, we just, you know, as a society, there's there, we've decided that there are only that to have to have a situation where
someone is rendered death eligible, I mean, death penalty eligible, uh, without any intent to kill. That's the whole purpose of the felony murder. There is no intent to kill anyone,
Speaker 119
1:01:33
and that this should be this is reserved for the more serious, you know, for the, uh, most serious inherent inherent, you know, felonies, the when,
Speaker 120
1:01:47
you know, someone obviously if someone sets out to commit a robbery or sets out to commit a kidnapping or sets out to commit a, you know, act of terrorism they've made that specific intent to do that. And those are the, the, the most serious ones. And what we're talking about is making a predicate of something that there's been a legislative judgment is less serious. You know, as long as we're going to have misdemeanor drug transactions. Let's keep them out of the capital murder statute. I Representing Clowney, you're
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:02:18
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and just, you know,
there are a number of lawyers on this committee, but there are also a number of non-lawyers on this committee. So I just want to boil this down to its most basic. We are talking about crimes for which the only two choices of punishment are death penalty or life without parole. Is that correct? Follow up. So can you give an example of a misdemeanor drug transaction that if this bill passes, would be able to be used to
Convict somebody of capital murder, thereby, um, to death or to life in prison
Speaker 121
1:02:58
without parole. Well, I mean any if they agreed to meet the sell
Speaker 120
1:03:04
of you know, small bag of marijuana and somehow things got out of control and someone someone's uh associate, the other person with is this pulls out a gun. They argue about something and someone gets and someone gets shot and killed. This, this clerk, this
would, as I say, the statute, uh, talks about, uh, OK. Uh, in the course and furtherance of the felony or immediate fight therefrom, the person or an accomplice or an accomplish, so you
Speaker 122
1:03:33
don't have to be even the even the shooter. Well, OK, um, and I appreciate that. I think actually in
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:03:40
the language of the bill you do have to be the shooter, right? No, no, no, no, the
Speaker 119
1:03:45
person or accomplices. This is in the course
Speaker 120
1:03:48
and furtherance of the of the offense or an immediate felony or immediate flight
therefrom, the person or an accomplice. This is on page 2 of the bill. I mean this is the current law causes the death of a person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, which, by
Speaker 122
1:04:06
the way, is undefined in the law. You need a follow up?
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:04:14
Yeah, so can you just, sorry, thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Can you please just, just As plainly as possible describe An instance where somebody
Who, who does not intend to kill, who is committing what the Arkansas legislature has already deemed is not even serious enough to be felonious behavior, um, give an example of something that could lead somebody to be put
Speaker 120
1:04:40
the person is if if the conduct meets the criteria set forth in here, which is uh which is that uh let's say Mr. Jones and I go out and decide to we need to, you know, buy a bag of
marijuana and then, and then he uh gets into an argument with someone, decides to shoot them, then I am equally responsible under the statute. That's what the statute says, and that's What the capital murder uh person or the person or an accomplice. That's the finest and all sorts and all sorts of various accomplices have been put to death in the course of, you know, of a
Speaker 114
1:05:27
I have, I do have a specific example to answer that question exactly. I mean, this, if I may. So we had a situation outside of Booker T. Washington school at about
Speaker 66
1:05:37
3 o'clock when school was letting out. It was a misdemeanor drug transaction where the person who there was an argument over the out of the drugs and the person who was buying the drugs pulled out his gun first, and the shootout happened and they shot back and killed him and then there were about 30 or 40 shots. It's on video. It's horrific, running through a neighborhood, a residential neighborhood at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and
schools letting out with with bullets flying everywhere. We were not able to charge that person with killing him. Those two people were killing him. As a capital murder because it was a misdemeanor drug transaction. You recognize for one more. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:06:12
I'm not asking about the high end, right?
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:06:15
I'm not asking about the things that are the worst of the worst. Um, my concern here is that there's no bar. My concern is the low end. My concern is people who are engaged in on the street transaction, an accomplice messes up and kills
somebody. And now they, somebody who has set out to commit what is illegal, but what is not considered a very serious crime under Arkansas law is now subject to receive the death penalty. That's my concern. That's really what I'm trying to get at, but I will. you
want to try to address that somebody down at the end of the table because that would you agree maybe at the end of the question. I would say
Speaker 66
1:06:53
that the aggravating factors are the, the, the decision to seek the death penalty is a very intense um decision that unfortunately
I have to have those discussions with families almost on a weekly basis. I mean, we found more capital murders in our jurisdiction anything. We have over 230 homicides pending in Pulaski County right now. So we take those decisions very seriously. Um, and the situation that you're describing, I, I can't imagine a situation like that where we would be seeking the death penalty on that kind of case, and we, like I say, we have over well over 100 capital murders pending in our jurisdiction right now. And I think we still have one that I
had with Mr. Rosensweig, I think we have 3 cases where the death penalty is a part of that. So saying
Betty, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:07:42
Madam Chair. Um, my question is, um, we've heard from Mr. Rosensweig, Mr. Jones, would you like to respond and give a counterpoint to anything that we've heard from Mr. Rosenwa. I'd like to hear that. Well, I mean, I, I, hopefully I'm able to
Speaker 66
1:07:58
do that, but just, you know, describing, uh, the level of violence that we have
with misdemeanor offenses. I mean, the reality is if someone was selling 15 g of marijuana and someone's killed in that transaction, they could be charged with capital murder if they sell 14 g of marijuana, no less dangerous, no less deadly. Then they could not be charged with capital murder. That, that's it. I mean, it's some, the line has to be drawn somewhere and that's y'all obviously this is y'all's area and this is y'all's decision to make, but we just feel like if you're engaging in dangerous drug activity. Look, these are, these missed, a lot of these
misdemeanor drug transactions. They're both people are coming armed to them. I mean, that's just the reality. It is a dangerous activity. Like I said, we have over 40 right now pending in our jurisdiction that are marijuana. I'm not saying they're misdemeanors, obviously, because we couldn't file them, but um, It is a violent drug that may surprise most people, but I don't, I don't think the, the 14 g limit, um. Really solves the problem. Thank
Speaker 114
1:08:57
you. If I could point out that there is a
Speaker 120
1:09:00
and I mentioned it earlier, but let me just point
it out again. There's a drafting problem in this bill. The the cap capital felony murder, you know, 5 to 10, 101 with specific felonies. 102, uh, which is the first degree felony murder, says any felony. But if in the course of any felony, so, so if this bill were to pass in its current form unamended, there would be no
lesser offense because it have lesser offense has to be less serious and if the predicate is more serious, it is it would not it would not be a lesser offense and the jury would have no, no discretion that they would have in any other felony murder. Which they have because the jury, the Arkansas Supreme Court has said in the felony murder context, first degree felony murder is always a lesser
offense to the capital felony murder. This, this because of the drafting problem doesn't have that. I had, I had understood that that was going to, that was going to be fixed, but it apparently has not, and so this, this would this would give the jury less discretion. instead of the greater discretion. Representing Springer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe my
questions have been answered by the response
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:10:34
that we just heard. Thank you so much.
Representing colleges, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:10:44
you, Madam Chair. Um, I guess Representative Gassway, what's your response to that point about not amending 510 102 because as I look at it, it does reference felony and, and you did change that one section in the bill to from felony to offense to take care of a similar uh mismatch of language, but it seems
to me like this might need to be amended as well. I don't know if you agree.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:11:12
So I haven't looked at 510 102, uh, if that needs a corresponding amendment to make it. Uh congruent with this, then I'm happy to do that. I don't think that's an issue, OK. I, I mean, you may have to file
it as a separate bill and, and you and I can co-sponsor it. But
Speaker 119
1:11:35
It would just, in 102, it would need to say
Speaker 120
1:11:43
any felony or a missed or or any offense involving the Controlled Substances Act, but that would be in 102. And I would suggest rather than have a separate bill with all the problems that that would endanger, why don't we just uh get it amended, uh, in this, you know, in this bill. Representative Betty, you
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:12:03
recognized for a question. question for Mr. Rosensweig just to to make certain I hear what you're saying, um, basically, are you saying that you're just opposed to any new criminal accountability.
Am I opposed to criminal accountability?
Speaker 69
1:12:17
I mean, that's, that's kind of what I was
Speaker 122
1:12:20
hearing from your comment. Uh, no, I'm not opposed to criminal accountability if someone shoots someone, you know, and
Speaker 120
1:12:27
it's not justified in doing so, the question is not accountability. The question is, you know, we have as a society have different levels of accountability depending on the we don't depending on the nature of the offense, not every offense is treated the same. That's why we
have, you know, Y, A, B, C, D felonies and, you know, corresponding misdemeanors and the question and the question is what, you know, when, when the, uh, when the person's intent is only to commit a misdemeanor and there's no intent to kill whatever, um, are we going to make this a capital offense and, you know, and seek, uh, and seek the death penalty. Now Mr. Jones, you know, I know. known Mr. Jones for many years,
and, you know, he's, he is, uh, um, you know, he, he does a searching inquiry as to whether or not it's a death penalty appropriate. That is not necessarily true for some of his colleagues around the state. We're we're we're uh you know, legislating for the entire state, not just. Collins, I mean, Clowney, you're recognized for
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:13:38
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Rosen so, I'm trying to, um, just wrap my head around the technical issue that you noted.
Are you saying that if a person committed a rape. The way that it's written now, if a person committed a rape is the underlying offense that we're talking about. The jury would have the ability, would have more. Latitude to decide what to convict that person of than if a person committed the underlying offense was being accomplice to a misdemeanor drug transaction unless the
Speaker 122
1:14:13
bill is amended according to what I have. Members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representing Gasaway, you recognized clothes for your bill or you recognized to ask to pull it down to make an amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Um There's
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:14:44
a lot I could say in response to what Mr. Rosensweig
said, and I always appreciate his comments. But uh he did make a good point about and Representative Collins about the The first degree murder lesser and so I think it would be probably best to pull this down, make a couple of amendments, and then we'll bring it back. Without objection
will allow Representing Galway to pull his bill down to make amendments, um, I would anticipate your work on those fairly quickly and we'll pick you back up here in the next few days. Any
Speaker 141
1:15:21
objections? Seeing no objections will allow that to happen.
Thank you, Madam members, we're gonna go, we're going to turn to the Senate bills and then we'll come back to representing Gassway on your last bill, uh, representative. Betty I believe you're the house sponsor on Senate Bill 300. Are you ready to present that today? I like that fired up enthusiastic answer.
Uh, 300 has another OK, members, Senate Bill 300 has an impact assessment, so we're going to send that around to you.
I believe everyone has the impact
statement in front of them with that, uh, Representative Beatty, if you'll recognize yourself, you're recognized to present Senate
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:17:11
Bill 300. Representative Howard Beatty District 95, Madam Chair, I would request to have
my in committee legal counsel joined me at the Uh, at the end of the table, Representative Gasaway. Boati,
we have given representative Gasaway more honors this time around, it's probably against the
chair's better judgment, but I'll let him come on down. Well, Madam Chair,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:17:35
it's, it's in recognition of the work he's put in a lot of time on this bill, and he invested his time in in drafting and has insight into the intent and what we're trying to do with this bill, so I want him to join me at the table. No problem. Representing Gasway. When your time to speak, you just identify yourself
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:17:54
and we'll go from there. Go ahead. Madam Chair, members of the committee, basically this bill
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:18:01
aims to create the criminal offense of organized retail theft in the state of Arkansas. It outlines the specific actions that constitute organized retail theft, such as theft of consumer goods. Tampering with anti-s shoplifting devices, uh, remaining unlawfully inside a retail establishment after hours using technology to facilitate theft are using stolen vehicles in the commission of theft. The bill's needed to address and
combat the rising issue of organized retail theft. Where individuals work together that steal goods from retail establishments for resale or personal use. By creating this specific offense with associated penalties based on the value of the stolen goods, this bill seeks to deter and punish those engaged in organized retail theft. Members, are there
any questions? It Representing Springer, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:19:04
Where has this been a problem? I'm, I guess, can you tell us more about What areas of the state, any, any data
that you can share with us. I, I don't have the
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:19:15
exact data, but it's, it's all over the state. It's all over the country with retail theft and organized crime. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further
questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or
against the bill. Representative Betty, you recognize the clothes for your bill.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:19:35
Madam Chair, I expected um some, some good questions from the committee, um, so in closing, I would simply say that overall retail theft, not only affects the businesses, uh, it affects the consumers, but it has broader implications for uh everyone in Arkansas, uh, with the increased prices, uh, economic repercussions and all the costs associated with law enforcement and our judicial system, uh, with that, I'm, I'm closed. I offer motion. do pass and would appreciate a um
A good vote. Members, we have a motion to do 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. Ty's habit congratulations. You have passed your bill, representing more, you're ready to present Senate Bill 301. Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 301. And we have another impact assessment statement.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:20:40
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, uh, Representative Gazaway is down here to present this bill
with me, uh, due to his great hand in helping draft this legislation. This also has to deal with organized retail crime, um, specifically the theft of cargo, whether that's on a plane vessel or cargo truck. Um You know, for me, this is a constituent issue. I've got several truck brokers in my district, and one of them
reached out to me a few weeks ago and said that he had 3 trucks stolen within a week's span. And they valued the property at over a million dollars. Uh, this property, he is liable for. His company is liable for, and while this was out of state, this does take place here in the state of Arkansas. Um, I can say that this is not your typical shoplifting. This is not stealing, uh. Uh, vehicle out of subdivision
in order to steal cargo of this nature. It takes serious organization and takes some serious wherewithal and intent behind or It takes a lot of preparation and planning to get away with this type of theft. Um, It allows for an enhanced penalty of up to 10 years. And 6 That's essentially what this
bill does. It allows for enhanced penalty up to 10 years, open for
questions. Members, any questions? in college, you recognize for a question. Uh,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:22:22
thank you, Madam Chair, and I think that your point about the, I guess I maybe would like you to expand on your point about how it takes serious, uh, organization to do this because, you know, the bill we just heard, it's very clearly an organized criminal enterprise, and I think that's why those enhanced penalties made sense to
me because it really is a different animal and I could see how in some cases this would be an organized. surprise, but it does leave open that a person who steals a bag from an airport, uh, would phase an additional term of 10 years, which is, it's pretty stiff and so I think to me, we've left open the possibility that it may be a criminal enterprise and it may just be a person doing something. Can you help me
understand why we feel confident this is just going to include serious operators. Thank you for
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:23:22
the question, Representative Collins, and to your point, I, I don't know that it includes just someone stealing a bag at an airport. If you read that while it does use the term baggage that constitutes a commercial shipment of freight moving in commerce. And so, you know, we're clearly trying to target, you know, more serious criminal activity. I can tell you, you know, in terms of what we've
seen around the country and in some cases in Arkansas, we're talking about significant thefts of Cargo and just to give you an example, um, the average value of cargo theft in 2024 was $202,364. Um, it's estimated that company, you know, companies nationwide have lost nearly $455 million in 2024 due to cargo theft. It's a very specific type of crime
that's involving organized criminal highly organized criminal organizations, the cartels, and they're involved in and using sophisticated means to Take the cargo. From where it's being shipped initially. intercepted along the way or to, at the point of its destination and arrival, uh, you know, through fraud. Taking that cargo and this is not like a simple theft where we're just talking about a small
amount of money, again, the average, average incident of cargo theft was involved over $200,000. And so this was meant to run in conjunction with the other bill, and there's actually a 3rd bill involving gift card fraud, but the point is this is a package of bills from the Attorney General's office. Related to organized, organized retail crime and specifically organized retail theft, and this seeks to target that now we could have put it. in the organized retail theft
bill that we just heard, because much of this activity again is coming from highly organized criminal organizations. We chose not to do that because It was easier to target this type of conduct by using the existing theft statute that we had. And uh so we just simply made it an enhancement in our existing theft statute. And I'm not sure that fully answers your question, but um. Well, I appreciate it. I may have a follow
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:25:43
up, um, no, I mean, it, it, it does address
the question, although I, you know, in the other bill, and I, I understand that these are separate bills, but there's a dollar value, so you refer to these being high dollar value thefts. And the other one, at least there were these dollar value minimums here, it's any theft of
property, it could be, you know, a $10 something that's $10 right? I mean, unless it I'm
missing a dollar value elsewhere, and there is no organized requirement as far as
I can tell. Um And I, I do wonder, even on the point of the um the bag at the airport, our bags on an airplane going from place to place, not a commercial shipment of freight moving in commerce, um, I don't know. I, but even if you take the bag out of it, if the bag's not part of it, there would seem to be these kind of de minimis situations that would be pretty minor theft under current law that would given just a few
changes, not with the value of the. Um, cargo being stolen and not with any kind of organization lead to 10 years enhancement potentially. Uh, I guess, I guess that's the question. I mean, I think you
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:27:04
make some fair points. However, it is in our existing theft statute, which does have amounts, as you know. So we have misdemeanor value thefts. We have felony level thefts, DEC
and B, I think over 25,000 is a B felony theft, 50 to 25,000 is a sea felony theft, 1000 to 5000 is a, a deffelony theft and anything under 1000 is a misdemeanor theft. Those are, that's existing law. And so this you know, whatever the value of the cargo may be, it falls into the existing framework that we have in terms of Uh, values, but and to your point in terms of the sentence, it's up to a tenure enhancement, so it doesn't mean that someone's going to get an automatic 10 years.
I think that would likely depend on the severity of the conduct. Obviously, if you stole $200,000 worth, you may be looking at 10 years. If you stole a misdemeanor amount, you're probably not looking at nearly that much, so, as a matter of fact, I'm not sure it would apply to misdemeanors. I think it only would apply
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:28:07
to the felony, but nevertheless, one more file with you, I think that may be sort of what I'm getting at with the 10 years being added on as a fixed amount as opposed to uh an increase by say you were to increase it by some percentage.
of the underlying sentence. If you were to do that, it would track with, if it were a def felony, which is 0 to 6 years, it would be a smaller enhancement if it were an A felony 6 to 30 years, it could be a larger enhancement. This is just a block. This is a 10 year enhancement that's uh for those defellonies, 0 to 6 years, that's quite an enhancement, 10 years. So
that's a fair point. But if you look at
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:28:45
many other enhancements that we have in the law, take the firearms
enhancement, for example. That's a set number of years. Many of the other enhancements that we have, and so we looked at some of the other enhancements that we, that exist in the law, and there are a set term of years. In fact, the firearms enhancement, as I recall, is just an extra 10 years, and this is not, this is up to 10 years, so it does give a range. Uh, so that, you know, the, the uh finder of fact, the jury or the Judge the person doing the sentencing can Mete that out appropriately. Thank you.
Representing Springer, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:29:28
you, Madam Chair. Now that we know that these, these bills are coming from the Attorney general. Is there anyone here that can tell us more about uh what's been what's been happening to cause this to become legislation? Give us more details. I don't think I
see anyone here from the Attorney General's office. All right. Unless there's somebody hiding
behind a post. Uh, any other, any other questions, uh, Representative Springer? Thank you, Madam
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:30:00
Chair. Far up, can you all give any more information at the end of the table about.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:30:07
So yeah, here's an example. This is a. Uh, news story January 16, 2025. Sonola cartel targeting cargo trains in US. Uh, tracker or crate of Nike shoes leads to the arrest of 11 on charges of stealing goods from a moving railcar.
Uh, this happened in Texas, but nevertheless. It, you know, there's just a. Recent news story in the latest in a series of brazen thefts that have been on the rise in the past 2 years in a vast stretch of land between California and Arizona. Federal officials attribute the activity to associates of a transnational criminal organization based in Sonola, Mexico. And the point is there's been a rise in this type of activity among cartel organizations. Arkansas with all of our interstates is a is a state that's highly traversed with
cargo. We have, we have large commercial interest in trucking throughout the state. And so it kind of makes sense for us to target this activity here in Arkansas while I'm not sure that I can point you to any one, you know, particular incident that's happened in state. I'm sure there are. I'm just maybe not aware of them at the moment. Uh, there are reasons to do this and kind of get ahead of, ahead of it
because it is happening. Around the country, Representative Betty, you're recognized for a question. Well, want to comment than a question to
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:31:30
Representative Moore. Right now in the US, cargo theft is about a $30 billion impact on the US economy. And it's risen, I think, 71 and about 71% of those uh cargo thefts deal with road transports and and and and our, our shippers. So, um, and I think the number was about 46% increase. Over year to year. So, I'd go back to Representative Moore's comments
and I would ask him to to speak about the incident of the cargo theft and the issues in his district. As an example of why this bill is needed. So if you could, if you could go back and address that for Representative Springer and the rest of the committee to to understand the impact that it has in the areas that you live and with your, your constituents in your home home base. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Beatty. And I was gonna hold this
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:32:27
story for closing, but I'll go ahead and, and say it now,
um, I've got a constituent who owns a business in my district. He's been a truck broker for decades. It's what He's built his family's family around. And he had a cold storage truck that was granted this was out of state, but this does happen in Arkansas too. Um, he had a cold storage truck that had food in it. That truck went to a depot, was stolen by an organized retail crime outfit. And, and this company. They spend
Untold amounts of money on security. They have tracks, trackers in their vehicles, um, they have, uh, identification verification, uh, for their truck drivers. This Organized retail outfit. blew through every every single, um, Sorry I
lost my train of thought. Um, They overcame every obstacle.
And by the time they took this truck full of cold storage food. They took it to a cold storage warehouse, and by the time the cops showed up at that warehouse, it was already gone. The truck was still there. And Hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of food, gone like that. That is a type of criminal enterprises that this bill targets. Um, again, this is not shoplifting. This is serious theft of serious cargo. As Representative Gazaway mentioned, it usually averages
about $200,000 plus per load that's taken. So I hope that answers your question. Any other questions? Seeing no further
questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill, Representative Bo you recognized clothes for your bill.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:34:24
I think you've heard lots of testimony today, um, this is a serious issue, um, I appreciate Representative Gazaway to come and answer some of the finer points, uh, and help with this bill. He's had a large hand in
drafting with all these pieces of legislation and for that, I'm grateful. Um. This is a serious issue, and with that, I would appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass. Members, we have a
motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Members, we were gonna take up Senate Bill 328, but we're getting late in the day, so we're going to move Senate Bill 328 to Thursday.
And I'm going to ask that. My vice chair Take over the chair. To hear House Bill 1551. I have my chamber of commerce here and so I need to go and meet with them and so, so I'm gonna head, head that direction and representative Underwood will be. Recognizing Hang on, I know what you're doing. Are you good?
Representing Gasoway. Are you ready? You're good. We do
Speaker 159
1:35:48
have an amendment on here. OK, we've got your amendment you need
to review and sign, if that's what you're wanting to add to it. So let's get that
Unknown speaker
1:37:11
All right, we're going to be passing out the impact assessment and the amendment.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:39:00
Members, do each of you have a copy of the amendment and the impact assessment. I'll give you just a couple minutes to review this.
Her name Gasway, um, are you prepared to present your amendment to the bill? I am. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:39:37
Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. Members, what I would like to do, you have an amendment before you. This amendment essentially takes the place of the original bill that we have and so I would just like to adopt the amendment so that we can begin the discussion. So with that, I would make a motion to adopt the amendment. Members, we have a motion to
Speaker 163
1:39:56
adopt the amendment, any discussion on the motion, seeing none, all in favor, please say
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:40:03
aye. I'll post, I have it. Every representative guys away,
has been adopted, uh, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:40:09
Madam Chair, and with me here today I have Katherine Herring, who will, I would ask, would the chair's permission be allowed to also help present the bill, but I'll go through the uh the bill initially. Absolutely. When you get the opportunity, just recognize yourself
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:40:21
with the record and you're recognized as well. Hi, I'm Catherine Presley Herring. Thank you for
Speaker 166
1:40:28
having me today. Thank you for being here. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:40:38
So what House Bill 1551 proposes to do is create a new criminal offense of coerced criminal abortion by means of fraud. And you'll hear soon from Miss hearing about what essentially is a domestic abuse incident that occurred. Uh, where mishearing uh was without her knowledge, without her consent by means of fraud administered or given abortion inducing drugs that caused her to have an abortion against her
will and again without her knowledge or consent, a horrific case. And so after this happened, the state of Louisiana responded by passing a statute that's very similar to the one that you have before you. And in the original version of House Bill 1551, not with this amendment, which some of you may have reviewed that. Mirrored the language of the Louisiana bill that is currently law in Louisiana. I thought that after we reviewed it with some of our team, we thought that it could be tightened up a little bit and
some definitions added and things that would be helpful and so we've done that and that's what you'll see in the form of the amendment, but basically, again, what the bill does is it creates a new criminal offense. Entitled Coerced Criminal Abortion by means of fraud. I want to be clear that when we're talking about an abortion in this instance we're talking about a chemical abortion as already defined in Arkansas law in 2016, 2502. With regard, when we reference abortion inducing drugs, we mean
medicine, drugs or combination of drugs or chemicals or other substances used with the intent of causing an abortion. And without limitation, and we referenced some very specific substances which are A well known abortion inducing causing drugs. I thought that it would be helpful to state that abortion-inducing drugs does not include certain substances I anticipated there would be questions from the committee. And I think it's important to note that that does not include
abortion inducing drugs, drugs that may be known to increase the risk of miscarriage, but which are prescribed for other medical indications and for example, and we know these to be true, chemotherapeutic agents or diagnostic drugs, and it also does not include contraceptives, emergency contraceptives. Uh, or methotrexate when used to treat an ectopic pregnancy. So to be clear, we're not talking about those drugs and in those instances. And so in terms of the specific
language of the offense, a person would commit the offense of coerc criminal abortion by means of fraud. If he or she knowingly administers or gives an abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman without her knowledge or consent with the purpose to cause an abortion that would be a Class B felony if a person were to do such a thing, which carries 5 to 20 years in the Arkansas Department of Corrections and then subsection D makes it. clear that a prosecution under this section does not prevent a prosecution under another
section of law, if a person commits coerce criminal abortion by means of fraud and the use of an abortion inducing drug causes death or bodily injury to the pregnant woman or an unborn child. And so there may be other statutes that cover that conduct for which a person could be prosecuted that's already in existing law. This this bill would not prohibit them from being prosecuted for that. And so with that, um, With the chair's permission, I would ask that Ms. Herring be allowed to present her testimony. Yes, absolutely, go ahead.
Speaker 166
1:44:18
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Although I live in Texas now. I grew up in Shreveport, and my father had a medical office in Texarkana. It's great to be back in the beautiful state
Speaker 164
1:44:32
of Arkansas. Again, my name is Catherine Presley Herring, and I'm here to testify today as a
Speaker 166
1:44:37
survivor of domestic violence. I endured 7 assaults specifically aimed at forcibly aborting and killing the baby I was carrying. We are gathered here because we
know that state legislatures work tirelessly to protect their citizens. I'm a living example of state legislation failing to protect the very people it was intended to safeguard. My husband was the first man in Texas to ever be charged with felony assault to induce abortion through Senate Bill 8. When that legislation played out, however, there were loopholes where the charges were dropped. Ironically, the charge of assault to induce abortion got
canceled out by the charge of assault of a pregnant person. A terrible oversight that I hope to work with the Texas legislature to fix. As we know, the chemical abortion pills obtained by my husband were clearly not prescribed to him. He then poisoned 7 drinks with the dosage of his choosing. To briefly walk you through the assaults is important to discuss the first incident, the one and only time I consumed the poison. That morning my husband feigned
care and concern for my pregnancy, urging me to stay hydrated. He sweetly brought me breakfast in bed. It seemed odd in the context of him asking for a separation just weeks before. He'd been caught in a lie, pretending to work late, but when I arrived at his office, there was no one to be found. He was furious. I had checked on him. I was asking too many questions. My role had been established years before as the supportive stay at home mom for
our then 2 and 6 year old children. He was a busy trial attorney at the height of his career. I found out I was pregnant just one week after he asked to separate. It was a shocking surprise, but my husband agreed to attend marriage counseling, reassuring me that everything would be fine. When he brought me breakfast that fateful morning. I was hopeful. Maybe we could work things out. As I enjoyed my breakfast and talked with him, however, his
mood slowly turned from sweet to impatient. He urged me to drink faster, saying if I started each day with a full glass of water, it would be good for me. I started to feel uneasy. Why was he at the house so early when he was choosing not to live there anymore. He then started becoming visibly angry, demanding I drink faster, chug the water. At that moment I pulled the cup away and looked into it for the first time. It was not clear. It was cloudy.
My brain could not comprehend what I was looking at. I said, what is this? He immediately jumped up and grabbed the cup from my hands. He stumbled through some explanations suggesting maybe it was a dirty cup or the pipes were dirty. He immediately left the house, taking the cup with him. I tried to go back to sleep, tried to shake off the encounter, but the effects of the pills caught up with me approximately 30 minutes later. I started feeling extreme cramping.
I suddenly and urgently felt the need to go to the bathroom. I did not make it from my bed to the bathroom. The embarrassment of the associated Press reporting around the world months later that I had diarrhea in my pants is nothing compared to the level of sickness that created the malady. It happened not once but twice. I tried to get my body to calm down, but I continued to get
sick for hours. I wonder what I could have consumed. Was he trying to hurt me or the baby or both. During those frantic moments, I serendipitously remembered a news article I had seen describing the backlash Google was facing from banning abortion reversal pill ads. At the time I thought, what is an abortion reversal pill. But I
Speaker 164
1:48:51
had not stopped to read the article. That morning my maternal instincts kicked in, and I knew
Speaker 166
1:49:00
I needed to protect my baby. I began a Google search and called a pregnancy hotline number who connected me with a nurse. We talked through what had happened and what could have been in that cup. She explained that if my husband had spiked my drink with abortion pills, they would work by cutting off my hormone production. To counteract the drug I needed to take progesterone. She explained that this was an abortion reversal pill.
Miraculously I had been prescribed progesterone with a previous pregnancy and I had some in my medicine cabinet. I was able to take the necessary dose immediately. I continued to get sick throughout the day, however, and was soon bleeding. The pregnancy hotline nurse still in contact, urged me to go to the emergency room. Upon check-in, they ask for a urine sample. I walked out of the bathroom providing them with a sample that was black in color.
The nurses rushed to get a doctor. They believed I was going into kidney failure. I began antibiotics and an ultrasound was conducted. I have never been more relieved to see that tiny heartbeat. I remained in the hospital approximately 8 hours. I continued my progesterone dosage throughout the next day as the bleeding finally subsided. Sadly, the poisoning attempts were just beginning. The very next day my husband hid
more chemical abortion pill drugs and cranberry juice. I did not drink it, but instead collected it along with 5 subsequent drinks over the next few weeks. Drink number 7, the final drink was was made by my husband in our kitchen while standing under a hidden camera that had been installed by my private investigator. The Houston Police Department was able to confirm that it
contained misoprostol, a chemical abortion drug. I share my story today because no one should have abortion pills weaponized against them. My daughter Josephine is a alive today because I stopped drinking the drinks that the person whom I loved and trusted the most in the world, gave to me in a wicked act of deception. You may be curious to know the sentence that my now ex-husband received through a plea deal
with the Harris County District Attorney's office. For this crime, he received 180 days in jail. And 10 years of probation. Plato once said the worst form of injustice is pretend justice. The precedent set by my case has long term ramifications for society at large. We must ask ourselves, is this how we believe husbands should treat their wives. Should men be able to choose the
children they want and discard those they don't want. How much time and money should it take for women to protect themselves against domestic violence. As someone who is unknowingly and unwillingly ingested chemical abortion pills. I stand before you today asking for your protection for other young women. As I wrap up my final thoughts, I'd like to share that one of the biggest comforts that has come from this experience. Has it been the rallying cry of
people across the globe on our behalf. Men and women representing all walks of life, all political parties. Holocaust Survivor Elie Wiesel once stated, there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest. My beautiful family has been shattered by chemical abortion pill assaults. Nonetheless, I believe that what man intended for evil, God meant for good.
I will continue to fight for justice, for the safety of women, fellow victims of domestic violence and miraculous Josephine as she battles the long term effects of being poisoned by her father. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Herring, for your testimony and Representative Gaway, do you have any additional comments before we move to questions?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:53:26
I do not. Thank you. Representative Clowney, do you have a question? You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you. I'm
sorry I didn't hear your last name. Herring. Thank
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:53:39
you, Ms. Herring, for sharing your testimony, and I'm so sorry
to hear what you experienced. Representative Gasly, I don't mean to put you on the spot. I'm just sort of curious. What if something like this were to happen in the state of Arkansas today, I assume there's something on the books about drugging
people without their knowledge or consent. Can you walk through what the punishment would be
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:54:01
today versus if your bill passes. So the laws that you reference, uh, there are specific statutes for the date rape drug, and it has a specific chemical formula
to it, and I can't recall what it is at the moment. I don't have the what the punishment for doing that is, but I do know that there's a very specific statute for that. And you know, of course, we have, for example, introducing a controlled substance into the body of another, um, and that can be, as I recall with consent. And maybe without consent, that's a Class B felony 5 to 20 years, which is consistent with what the punishment is in this case. Um And I didn't review those
statutes specifically before today, I probably should have the date rape drug statute, for instance, um, but, uh, introducing a controlled substance into the body of another is a bee felony, which is again the same as this. Thank you. Are there any other questions from
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:54:57
the committee? Seeing no further questions, we do have two individuals signed up to speak for the bill. The first one is Tony Rose. If you'd like to go to the end of the table.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:55:14
Mr. Chair I make one point to Representative Clowney's point. I do think back to her question, I meant to say this also. Introduction of a controlled substance into the body of another. One of the reasons this doesn't specifically fit that is some of these substances that are abortion inducing aren't controlled. They're not a Schedule 12, etc. So you may ask the question, well, don't we already have a law for that? Well, that's why we have a specific statute, but I think for the date rape drug too, because I'm not sure that that was a controlled substance either, so.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:55:46
Uh Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, no problem. Tony Rose, if you wouldn't mind just identifying yourself to the record and who
Tony Rose
Unverified
1:56:07
you represent, and then you're recognized to proceed. Thank you very much. My name is Tony Rose. I'm with the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. And uh last year, Senator Mark Abraham from Louisiana introduced this bill.
And I thought, Surely this is a one-off situation. I mean, with all due respect to all my relatives in Louisiana, I just couldn't see this happening, but, um, he introduced a number of instances, he talked about Miss Herring's situation at length, and we adopted a bill very similar to this. And
the reason, uh, we considered it is because Apparently some states were simply not prepared to deal with the possibility of these drugs being introduced into um someone's drinks or food or, uh, uh, on purpose to kill a child. And while we do have some laws relevant to it. Um, I think the
180 days kind of demonstrates as an example, um, it's probably not appropriate punishment for a lifetime of suffering for your child, not to mention what you went through and could very possibly have died. And so some examples of this other than Ms. Herring's. Uh, incident is Louisiana mother and a New York doctor were indicted for alleged giving her
child abortion pill, drugs, and the doctor shipped these in Louisiana, which is illegal. Um, these people are facing charges. There is conflict between New York and Louisiana as to what the charges would be, um, but so we have that, that's still not resolved. We have, uh, a man charged in Massachusetts with doing the same thing, uh, giving medication to end a pregnancy.
Of a woman who was not married to, she miscarried. He's currently under indictment. So there are multiple examples of this happening, but in many cases, the states still haven't resolved the punishment for that. I don't think there anybody questions that should be punishment, but it's what, what should we do? So I think that this bill is important and we have
Our committee has introduced this to our 37 states that are members of the NACL and many of them are in the process of promoting and adopting this as well. So, um, we think this is a good bill and we hope to see it passed here in Arkansas, and I'm glad that, um, representative Gasaway is getting ahead of this in the state of Arkansas. So are you open to questions if there are any? Are there any questions from the committee?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:59:27
Seeing their questions, thank you for your testimony, and we do have one other individual signed up to speak for the bill. I'm going to apologize if I don't say it correctly. Is it Sharai? Sherry, can you pronounce your last name for me as well? Am I, if you wouldn't mind, uh, going to the to the table and identifying yourself. And
Speaker 180
1:59:49
then you're recognized. Thank you. I'm Doctor Sherry Amaya, board certified OBGYN
Speaker 181
1:59:52
and fellow of Aycog. Um, I will just be brief because I know we're
we're drawing on, but, um, just here to give um some medical comments about the drugs, um, there are numerous drugs readily available that could be used for coercive abortion by fraud. They are not controlled substances, um, they are, um, known to be, there's many other drugs that haven't been listed, but the three most common. Would be misoprosto, which is widely used in obstetrics off label. It's not FDA approved for, um, treating miscarriage or inducing labor, although we use
it for that every day, um, it's used to treat FDA approved for treatment of stomach ulcers, so people can get that, um, also, um, Uh, methotrexate is used for rheumatoid arthritis and treating certain cancers, and then there is mifepristone, also known as Mioprex, also known as RU 46, um, which is, uh, used for chemical abortions, but also for type 2 diabetes in individuals with high cortisol levels. So these are substances that people um can, to which
people can gain access and particularly mifepristine is accessible to anyone at any time online through the mail. Um, for the purpose of chemical abortion and I do believe we will see a rise in this type of assault, um, as chemical abortion becomes increasingly popular across the US, um, contrary to what we keep hearing, chemical abortion is not safe, as you've heard Catherine's testimony, it put her in kidney failure. Um, we keep hearing it's safer than
Tylenol. I am a fellow of ACOG, but contrary to what ACOG says, even in the first trimester, um, abortion. chemical abortion carries many potential harms, including the risk of hemorrhage and the risk of infection, and the fact is that one out of every 20 users will seek emergency medical care for heavy bleeding, um, so, and then the second trimester, the risk of harm rises exponentially as the woman labors and gives birth to her premature baby at home.
Um, and in the event of an unrecognized ectopic pregnancy, um, the complications of chemical abortion are truly life-threatening. I do think this is a good, good bill that protects a woman and the preborn baby in her room, and I urged the committee to vote in favor. And I'll be happy to take questions. Thank you. Are there any questions from
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:02:23
the committee? Senior questions, thank you for your testimony today, and we have nobody else signed up to speak for against the bill. Representative Gazaway, um, if
you're prepared to close for your bill, you're recognized.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:02:39
I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure that there's a lot that I can add to the powerful testimony of Ms. Herring. Um, I think this is a good law. I think there were some good points raised about uh other statutes that exist, but I would point out that those deal with controlled substances and many of the substances that are abortion inducing are off label. They're not controlled. And so some of our existing statutes
don't cover this. I hope that, you know, this would be a very rare instance, but there's evil in the world, and so with that, I'm closed for the bill. Make a motion to pass. You passed as amended.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:03:18
As amended. Thank you. uh, committee, we have a motion to do pass as submitted on the table. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. all opposed. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Committee, that's all we have on
our agenda today. I do want to go over some of the bills that we'll have for Thursday, and I'll go over this quickly. We have House Bill 1434. Houses 1057 houses 1178. House 1655. Hospital 1662. House Bill 1676. House Bill 1686. Senate Bill 313, Senate Bill 320. Senate Bill 328 and Senate Bill 329. Of course, that's tentative
and keep an eye for your text messages in case there's changes with that, we are adjourned.
Agenda
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.
HB1551 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRIMINAL ABORTION; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF COERCED CRIMINAL ABORTION BY MEANS OF FRAUD.
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.
HB1629 Gazaway TO PERMIT A RETIRING PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO BE AWARDED HIS OR HER SERVICE FIREARM UPON RETIREMENT.
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.
HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; AND TO ALLOW FOR INCOME TAX REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS.
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.
HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEER SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP.
HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT BOMB SQUAD TO MAKE ARRESTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB298 Rice TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE SETTING ASIDE OF A DECREE TO QUIET TITLE TO LAND TO ALLOW FOR FINALITY IN QUIET TITLE ACTIONS.
SB300 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT.
SB301 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THEFT OF PROPERTY; TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR THEFT OF CARGO; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989.
SB328 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Mar 11, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Speaker 2
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Speaker 14
Speaker 17
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 39
Speaker 41
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 47
Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 51
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 66
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 98
Speaker 99
Speaker 104
Speaker 76
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 119
Speaker 120
Speaker 121
Speaker 122
Speaker 10
Speaker 114
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 69
Speaker 141
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 163
Speaker 166
Speaker 164
Tony Rose
Unverified
Speaker 180
Speaker 181