Judiciary Committee- House

Chief Justice Karen Baker here, uh, this morning and with that, uh, Chief Justice, I'll keep to my word, your first step, and if you'll go to the end of the table and uh Representing more, would you punch the button for the Chief Justice's microphone and Chief Justice, we're glad to have you. Go ahead and have a seat, um, we're glad to have you as is the custom of this committee, uh, to always invite the Chief Justice to come and say a few words at the beginning of session, and with that, you are recognized uh to introduce yourself and make your remarks. Thank you and thank you for the invitation to speak to House Judiciary. I wanted, um, Just to introduce myself to those of you which um I don't think that I've met a lot of you, but looking forward to getting to know you. I just wanted to give a little bit of background about myself. I am from Clinton, um, and I came from Clinton and I still live there. Uh, so that, that's not much of a story. Um, my background is that I was in private practice for 8 years and then became the juvenile judge in the 20th district and 2 years are really a year and a half later became the circuit chancery, they said at that time, Judge, uh, for the 20th district, and I did that until 2000 I was elected to the Court of Appeals. And I spent 10 years at the court of appeals, and then I was elected to the Supreme Court in 2010 and I've spent the rest of my career there, so this is my 15th year on the Supreme Court, and my first is the Chief Justice, and um I was Uh, honored to be elected by the people to the Chief Justice spot and to be the first woman ever elected to the Chief Justice, but, so, um, we're, we're off to a little bit of a rough start. Uh, you might have noticed in the press, but I think we're going to get that all worked out and particularly, um, we've got a little bit of a problem, uh, with our cases, we haven't been. unable to get any cases out since early December. Um Hartley or mainly because our new Justice Bronie has had to recuse on all our criminal cases so we had to pull those cases, but uh he's anxious to go to work and I'm anxious for him too. So, um, I've talked to the Court of Appeals about some of their civil cases, and we're going to be able to to get those working pretty soon, I think. So, um, look forward to. answering any questions, anybody has, and happy to be here. I'm not sure if we have any questions. Members, are there any uh representative Shepherd, you're recognized for a question. Chief, anytime you ask a committee that has lawyers on it, you know, you're going to get a question, so Representative Shepherd, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you, Chief Justice, for being here. Thank you for your service to our state. So you, you touched on, uh, I guess kind of the the elephant in the room that there has been a lot written and a lot talked about with regard to the Supreme Court, and you've, you've alluded to that fact. And so, uh, you know, the question I would have is we do, or at least I get asked, particularly as an attorney, I get asked a lot of, a lot of times about, well, what's going on at the Supreme Court? What's, what is, and you've alluded to the, to the caseload issue. So I just am curious as to uh as I get those questions as I'm talking with other attorney. are my constituents, what should I tell them is going to be done in order to kind of get back on track. Uh, and so I, I'd love to hear your answer to that. Thank you. Well, as I said, um, the problem is the cases that we can't um Move forward with any criminal cases and that's all we had scheduled, so, uh, with Justice Browne's recusal, um, and in the criminal cases and not just case original cases, but also our post-conviction cases, it's been difficult to schedule that, but I'm working with the clerk to bring up, um, some of the Court of Appeals more difficult cases. our dockets so that we can, uh, Justice Browney can participate in those cases, and of course we have civil cases as well that will be going forward, um. There's a difference of opinion about whether uh I have the same authority that Chief Justices have always had and uh in Arkansas and I am unwilling to accept that I don't have the same authority to hire the administrative office of the courts executive director, which is, um, Uh, the area of contention. And if we can't work that out, we'll probably be uh litigating that issue because I am, like I said, unwilling to accept that I don't have the same power as every other Chief Justice to direct. To hire the executive director of the administrative office of the courts, um. They've all hired who they wanted and uh I've got the history of that, uh, Justice Hannah, well, During my time on the court, we've had two JD Gingrich and now Marty Sullivan and The um Expenses for the administrative office of the courts have gone up. market like and I've been going through budgets trying to figure out exactly where those increases are, but So, um, That's where we are at the moment. It's, it's difficult to supervise and the statutes and the Constitution make clear that it's my duty to see to the administration of justice, and it's difficult to do that, uh, right now without being able to hire the executive director. Thank you, Chief. Any other questions? See no further questions, Chief Justice, we really appreciate you being here this morning. And since you've not had the opportunity to meet very many people on this committee, and this is a committee that often our work comes to y'all as you well know, uh, I'm going to put us into recess for about 5 minutes to give you the opportunity to, uh, personally introduce yourself to each of the members. So members with that were going to be in recess for just 5 minutes. She just Jeremi we met earlier, uh. great grandfather was the grandfather was in turning my father's. Yeah. That's probably a hurry today. I didn't recognize that. Yes Uh. Just about the don't feel a sha I don't think. deleting maybe co-sponsors, but take a quick look at that. What the amendment gets passed out, then, um, representing Graham, she'll be recognized to present your amendment. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of adopting the amendment, please say aye. And he opposed I have it, the amendment has been adopted representing grams you're recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, my name is Zack Gramlich. I'm here today to present House Bill 1067 and with your permission, I'd like to invite a few people to the table. Uh, yeah, let's, let's start with one. I think we don't have a lot of room down there at the end of the table. How many do you have that you wanna I can get maybe her and Nathan. Is Nathan still in here? OK, OK. That, that would be fine if necessary. Sure. OK. Um, so please identify identify yourself and identify the folks that you have there with you at the table. Hello, my name is Karen Pentello. I'm the chairman of the board of directors for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and I swam here from Hot Springs this morning. Good morning. My name is Nathan House. I'm the owner of Arkansas Armory. We're a federal firearms licensed dealer in Sherwood, Arkansas. Thank you, thank you for being here today. You're recognized. Thank you. So House Bill 1067 is a really it's an effort in gun violence in our state. Um, it, it can be used in a few different ways. Ultimately what it does is it prevents or eliminates the civil liability to an FFL holder who is trying to store someone's weapons as a good Samaritan. An example, a couple of examples where you might use something like this is say you're an individual in crisis, you have weapons in your home, and you're at real risk of suicide. You may need a place to take those weapons who can store them for you in a safe way, and by doing this, a FFL can store your weapon and private contracts between you and the gun gun owner can hold it until you're ready to get your weapons back and what could happen is, say you did get your weapon back and you did something, you hurt someone or hurt yourself, um, you, the FFL couldn't be held civilly liable for that. So it's a protection to allow for good Samaritan loss. Another example is I had a friend who's a teacher, the son who's schizophrenic. This 20-30 years ago, they didn't have anything like this, so she had to sell all of her weapons. And she was an avid hunter. That's something she liked to do, and she couldn't do that anymore because if she had a gun in the home, she was at real risk with her son, so, um, I'd be happy to answer any questions or if you'll have a short comment. Represent Clanner, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill, um, Representative Graham, like, uh, this I think is going to hopefully serve a very important purpose if we can make sure that we're keeping these folks safe. I have a question about the breadth of the immunity here though, um, when we are looking at, um, I guess I just kind of want your clarification. So looking at page 2, that the top two lines, um, immune from civil liability for any act or omission arising from a firearm hold agreement. Um, Can you talk to me a little bit about the length that arising from language, I guess my concern is if one of these people takes takes a weapon and stores it, you know, recklessly negligently or something, right? It doesn't store it at all, throws it in a box underneath the counter. And that weapon is then used to do harm. Are they immune from civil liability in that instance as well, or does it have to be directly related to the hold agreement. It's a great question, Nathan. Do you have a comment on that? We, we're required to store firearms safely by ATF regulations and would be doing that in any federal firearms license deal would be under the same requirements and um I don't know how there would be any civil liability associated with that. I mean, clearly if we were to do something illegal with a firearm while it was in our possession, then, then we would be criminally liable for that. Under federal law, yes, ma'am. Representing Collins, she recognized her question. Thank you. I think you know what Representative Clowney has asked was sort of where my issues are. I mean, you're I support what y'all are trying to do here. I mean, obviously, I think that these whole agreements in the times that you guys are doing them are really important, but this is a um broadly written liability waiver and not only is there the issue of what are we talking about here, but the, the level of um negligence or actually goes up to recklessness. You could be acting recklessly and still be immune and so I mean, I don't know what the things are that you guys might be doing with the, that might arise out of this, but I think about like shooting into the air. That's not criminal law violation necessarily, but it is potentially would give rise to civil liability. It's reckless, and you could say it might arise from a farm holding agreement. If that bullet lands and kills somebody or, you know, injure somebody. Are we granting immunity where we don't want to. So I, I'm I'm not gonna say it couldn't happen out there, but, but I'm, I'm not aware of any federal firearms license dealer, you know, we all have inventory of our own firearms anyway. I, I, and I'm not aware of anything where we would have any, uh, Reason to to do anything other than to simply store a firearm, at, at the behest of someone else's request. Uh, the, the, the main purpose here is that we are prohibited basically from being able to take firearms in and helping people right now because if, if I were to, if somebody were to hand me a firearm, and, and then later want that back. And then they do something with that firearm, meaning they, they take their own life or Or commit a homicide with it, weed farms licensed dealers just have to be off the blame line for that because it, it's just like any other object. I mean, if I, if I handed you something, a blender or a toaster or anything else. I said, you hold this for a minute. And then we turn around and, and headed back to you at your request, and then you hurt yourself with it or somebody else that I don't see how that's the the holder's fault in any way, shape or form. So I, I don't, I don't see us doing anything with the firearms, while they're being stored. Other than just simply put them out of our way so that we can continue to operate our businesses. Follow up, please. You recognize. And I understand that, you know, the firearm dealers are not expecting or thinking that they're going to be doing anything wrong here, but in fact, that's what immunity is. It's only in a situation where you do something wrong, you are protected under civil law because right now if there's no negligence or recklessness, you don't have any liability. And so we are only talking about a situation where you have a duty of care and you fail to meet that duty of care. And so that's exactly what We're talking about is where there is some sort of uh Tort, you know, there's some sort of uh failure to, to meet what's expected of you and And I may be OK with what you're talking about with returning the weapon that, that I kind of understand that it's anything outside of that, I don't know the full scope of it. That's where my concerns are, because again this is so broad. Are we going further than maybe would be helpful for the, the good purpose that you guys are working on. Sure, I, and I'm not tied to any specific language. I think that's, that's up, up for discussion other than this is language that I understand has been in effect. In, in states like Montana and Louisiana, other states that have been partnered with as this bill came to to uh into fruition. What I will just go back to pointing to is that it says any federal firm's licensee operating lawfully in in the state. And so if, if I were to be discharging a firearm in the city limits of Sherwood, that would be an unlawful act, if, if I were to be, uh, you know, using a firearm negligently or, or in the commission. of another crime, then, then the by the language of the law, I, I would not be immune from the civil liability associated with that. So your understanding is if you operate negligently, you're not immune. I would not be immune if I was not operating lawfully. Civil and criminal law both? Is that how you interpret that lawfully. I mean, I would, I I would say yes, like you're correct, and can you point those lines out? I see committee members are trying to find those lines where it it says is the one. It says a federal firearm license operating lawfully in the state is immune from civil liability. So if the second you do something unlawful, then you lose your civil liability. Or I guess, yeah, you were no longer immune from civil liability. OK, I'll, I'll step out. Thanks. Brown, you recognize her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Gramli. The gist of your bill is, is that if I'm suicidal and I need to get rid of my guns because I'm afraid I'm gonna hurt myself. And I take it to my local firearms dealer and say, please store these guns to keep them away from me. And they do that. If I come back a month later and say, hey, I'm all better now with my guns back and you give them to me because it is my property, correct? And you have no right to keep it if I want it back. This bill just simply says if I go and shoot someone they can't sue the dealer, saying you should have known better than to give them their guns back. Is that the gist of your bill? Yes. Can I follow up, Madam Chair. You recognize the issues about liability that's taken care of by Section 2 of your bill, which simply says that so long as the, as the firearms dealer, well, well, let me back up. This is an unlimited blanket liability if I do something other than hold the gun as example by the, by the language in section one here where it says that as it applies from the arising from the firearm hold agreement, i.e., the agreement to hold my gun on my behalf, right? And so the, the, the concerns raised were taken care of by section 2, which says, again, if I am, uh, does not apply if I do something that was unlawful conduct, such as I'm violating federal law or regulations regarding the storage of firearms. Like if I'm storing them in a cardboard box in my shop instead of storing them in. safe like I'm supposed to, is that right? Yes. OK, thank you. Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, uh, Representative Grimes, I, I'm reading this and I, I appreciate the the comments and questions that we have from our colleagues on this, and I, I wonder about uh page 2 lines I guess 4 and 5. It appears to me based on the language of that particular section that the um immunity only applies in this is limited by that last statement associated with After the termination of the fire uh firearm hold agreement that the immunity isn't associated with while it's in storage, but yet it's only after the termination of the firearm hold agreement. Is that the intent of the bill is to provide protection for the the FFL after the termination. Yeah, I would agree with that. Yes, the, the goal for me is again, once if I held your weapon Lawfully. And then I give them back to you and something happens, that something happens. I cannot be held civilly liable as an FFL holder because I was trying to help you, right? and that that would be at the conclusion of the of the contract with that individual. OK, thank you very much. Representing Moore, you're recognized for a question. You're good representing Gonzalez, you're recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I think Representative Collins' concerns may be answered. Y'all can correct me if I'm wrong on page 2 lines 6 through 9, the immunity from civil liability under subdivision B one of the section does not apply to an act arising from a firearm hold agreement if the Act was a result of otherwise unlawful conduct. That that that kind of addresses the civil liability right of someone who was in this whole agreement who agreed to hold the firearm if they did something otherwise unlawful, they're not immune from civil liability. I would agree with that if, if you do something unlawful, then you no longer have your immunity. Nathan, would you add that. Represent getaway, you're recognized for a question. You're good? Oh OK. Representing Clowney, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Gonzalez. I think that that, um, point is important and helps ease some of my concerns, but I do just want to be very, um, clear on the language. So what Representative Richardson just says is that this only applies after the return. That is not what the bill says. The bill says including after the return of the firearm, um, but it doesn't only apply. It also does apply. The immunity does apply while the firearm is in. The possession the entire time the firearm is in the possession of the FFL. So I just wanted to make sure, um, Representative Graham like that um that this bill exactly lines up with your intent, um, and I don't know how to turn that into a question, but um just don't you think, yeah. Uh, yeah, I, I understand, and I guess the point the point again, yes, and they may have civil liability coverage due to language in here, but if they do something unlawful during that time, they lose it. So You know, they, they wouldn't be held civilly liable for anything if they did everything right in the first place, which they should. Representing Collins, she recognized for her question. Thank you. Well, that was actually one thing I wanted to say, but I guess the bigger picture is like these agreements can and do happen now, right? As of now, they do not with, with our business for sure. We, we've been asked by people, hey, can you store our guns? We've got a, a, a, a, a, a family member that that needs them out of the house right now and and we cannot but uh at the advice of our attorneys and insurance because of that. But you might choose not to, but you can, right? I mean, you just choose not to because you don't want to face the risk of liability, which I understand nobody wants to face the risk of viability and sometimes people do different things because of that, but it doesn't mean that you can't do it. It's just that you want to be immune from any possible liability for it, right? That's correct. We would legally be allowed to store a firearm, but we will not help people in that situation currently because they're of the risk to our business and livelihood. OK, thanks. McCullough, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I also appreciate the altruistic examples that you guys have given and everything. I want to back up just a little bit and ask one question. When this agreement is made between the two, what determines that? Is that between them, how long it is, when it's terminated, those types of things? Yes, ma'am. The, the language in the bill would seem to be pretty broad and allow us to, to make whatever agreement we wanted to, whether it be with the individual or with the family or on some condition like they be voluntarily treated in a hospital or a doctor or get a release or if, uh, the, the, the courts needed to be involved in order to, to release that. It, it could be very broad, but ultimately by agreement of when that person wants to get their property back. And I would add something as well. There's a, there's an organization called the Armory. project that comes in and helps FFLs, um, build those contracts out, does a lot of the education component for these FFLs who want to get into this kind of program, OK, that, that information is helpful. Follow up, please. Um, thank you. Uh, so, I mean, we're, we've been throwing, I know we can't throw out and cherry pick every example in the world there is, but, but suppose there's a person that's under an order of protection and it's illegal for this person to have a firearm federally at that time. Can that person hand that gun over to To whoever they're in the agreement with, and then what determines when the person that's under the order that, that has the order of protection against them. What determines when that person can get The gun back. but So If we were to take those firearms into our inventory. Uh, we have to log those into our acquisition and disposition logs in order to be able to redispose of that firearm back to the person, they have to be able to pass a federal background check in order to do that. That's accomplished by first completing an ATF form 4473, which is a record of a sale or a disposition of the firearm, followed by a, a check. And so the, the, the, the person reacquiring the firearms would have to complete that for. and then a next check would take place in order for that to to to go back to them. Representing Moore, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, there's been some concern about the liability or the safety of the firearms while they're in your possession. Could you explain to the committee kind of what state or federal regulations regarding the safety of the safe storage of these firearms, uh, is like. Just briefly, uh, we, we have to have secure methods, so you know, a locked storefront, an alarmed system. In addition, you know, many federal firms licensees have safes that they they put firearms and things like that in, although that is not required. So lock facilities, alarmed facilities. Representing Gonzalez, she recognized her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, uh, Representative Moore kind of hit on my question a little bit, but as a, uh, As someone who holds a federal firearms license or you held to a higher standard of law when it comes to storing these things, taking care of them, how. You know, I mean, this is specifically written for, like, I can't give these to my neighbor and have a whole agreement. It has to be a licensed firearm dealer, correct? So are you held to higher standard than just any other individual. Yes sir, in addition to the secure storage requirements that we have by by ATF. There's, uh, you know, they have to go into a log that is in our in our possession that the inventory has to be kept. We're subject to inspection by ATF. To make sure that they're there and that they're being held in a safe condition. Yes, sir. Representing younger, you recognized for a question. Thank you. Uh, Representative Grahamlich, I, I really appreciate this bill, and uh it really mirrors other legislation going on in other states, particularly advocated by veterans groups that veterans can turn this in. I've just, uh, would you agree that this is very similar. Um, absolutely. come on the VA and stuff. I do, um, my, my identify yourself, I'm sorry, Karen Pinello on the um I'm the chairman of the board of directors. My, uh, my husband Dean Pantello was a veteran and um and he um. I think would really benefit from this, um, from passing this law because um he died by suicide, um, and at the time he was the owner of Dallas Gun Safety and really advocated for safe storage and for for gun safety. I don't think he would have ever um stored his firearms at um at a family member's house or um or He would have been concerned about having his um his firearms confiscated. The benefit of going to someone like Nathan who, um, you know, is a, a registered firearm dealer is that he would have stored them safely. We would have made sure that um that they were that they were, um, Really He would have had the confidence of knowing that they were taking care of and that they were safe. And um that they wouldn't be confiscated. So, um, it does give opportunities for veterans and and first responders to um to be able to have this opportunity, um, I do a lot of training and um I'm a I'm a um bereavement counselor and um the veterans and first responders are really struggling right now, so I do think that there is definitely benefits to this and you know the Veterans Association has definitely, um, advocated for safe storage, and it has saved lives, but I think that this would just add to that and um and you know provide another option um to getting these firearms out of homes. Members, any other questions? Representing Tosh, are you, oh, OK, you're waving. Tasha, I'm just glad you have a friend, so. So you better wave at all of them you can. I'm here for you, Representative. Uh, any other questions? Saying no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill representing Graham you recognized to close for your bill. Thank you so much. Thank you, committee. I appreciate a good vote and Tosh, you have at least 3 friends in this room, so. members represented Greenwich's closed for his bill. What's the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to pass there as amended motion to do pass is amended. Is there any discussion on the motion, representing Clowney, you recognized for discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all of you for coming. I just wanted to say out loud that, you know, We all, I think, on this committee are really, really grateful that you brought this and are thankful for what it is you're trying to do. I wanted to say on the record that I hope nobody takes our questions as personal. Our job is to make sure that you're very good intent is matched by the language. Gun violence prevention is and always has been super important to me. It's probably why I'm in office. So thank you very, very much for your hard work on this. members any other discussion? Seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion to do pass as amended, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill as amended. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you. Members, let's turn our attention to House Bill 1007, Representative Perrier, you're recognized. Members, you will recall. Last week, I believe it was last week that we represent Perrier was here. There was an amendment to that bill which we have already adopted, which is the First Amendment. Now we have the 2nd Amendment. To the bill. Being passed out, so we're gonna have that passed out here, take a few moments and then you prayer I'll recognize you to explain your 2nd Amendment. I believe your First Amendment was adding co-sponsors. This is the 2nd Amendment that's a little more substantive. And so going to let people take a look at this and then I'll recognize you too present your second amendment. OK, members, you have the 2nd Amendment to House Bill 1007 before you uh representative for you, you recognized to briefly explain your amendment. Representative Chad Perrier, District 25. I apologize for the length of the amendment, but when this bill was last presented, the committee had the following concerns. We wanted to ensure That had a focus on nonprofit organizations define the shooting sports and then make sure we tailored this to our use. Um, this amendment specifically names both the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and the Arkansas 4H and adds the clarifying language that helps address the three concerns we discussed previously, um, and since the amendment is basically the substance of, of what we're going to discuss next. I would like uh with the committee's permission, I would like to invite representatives from the Gaming fish and the 4H to the table. Well, hang on just a minute. First I need to uh adopt your motion. I have a motion to adopt your amendment, any discussion on that motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor. adopting the amendment, please say aye. The amendment, uh, I have it, the amendment has been adopted. Now I can recognize you now again to bring those who want to come forward and I'll allow you to bring, bring those people to be at the end of the table with you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I Gentlemen, once you have a minute to sit down and you'll identify yourself for the record and who you're with, and then we'll recognize representing prayer to continue with this bill, Mr. Chair, thanks for having us. My name is Spencer Griffith, and I'm deputy director of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, and I'm over the recreational shooting sports division as well as licensing and education. I'm Jesse Boxnick, the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, uh, Arkansas 4H office. I am the outdoor skills instructor for university, uh, which also runs the 48 Shooting sports program. Representing Prayer you recognized. Just wanted to bring these guys to the table if we have programs specific questions and since the amendment specifically names them, I feel it'd be best to hear that directly from the representative instead of myself. Um, we can, um, kind of I guess the best thing to do would be opening up to questions at this point. Um, why don't you just, just because we've all slept since last week, briefly describe we're, we're familiar because we ask you lots of questions, but briefly describe your bill and why these uh different organizations have been brought into it, and then I think we'll be good to go. So what we're trying to do with Bill, um 1107 is we're trying to grant some liability protections to individuals that open up their property for these organizations such as 4H and the Gaming. fish Um, to, you know, promote more, promote more property owners to allow, open up their property for these ranges and for these various events. Um You know, what we, you know, and again, I appreciate the, can you guys hear me? I feel like I'm talking sideways here. So I appreciate the committee's um feedback, you know, on the issues we had, so Um, kind of Getting back to the intent of the bill is basically open up more opportunities for the youth shooting sports and the, the big issues we had, I feel like was addressed in the amendment. And I apologize for jumping into that because we did have some members gone last time, but the overall intent is to is to grant the liability protections to property owners to encourage more property owners to allow these organizations to come out and utilize their property. And with that I would be open to questions members you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions? Seeing their questions, we do have one individual who signed up to speak for the bill, Mr. Epperson, would you like to come forward to speak for the bill? Are you good? You're good. OK, great. Uh, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill, representing Per recognized close for your bill, guys. I'm really expecting some questions. I'm kind of, kind of disappointed here. I've got a list of paper and all that, but now the uh the overall goal of this bill is simply encourage more landowners to open up their properties and uh provide that peace of mind granted with some liability protections and you know I appreciate the previous feedback of this committee, and with that, I'd appreciate a good vote, members representative Perrier has clothes for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? I have a motion to do pass as amended. We're adopting, remember the First Amendment's been adopted now since the 2nd Amendment. Is there any discussion on the bill as amended. Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Members were going, we're going to have to move. I had told you that we would hear Senate Bill 13 today. We're running out of time. I have, uh, spoken or texted with Senator Wallace, and he, he is running out of time also, so we're going to move Senate Bill 13 to Tuesday, we will have Senate Bill 15 on Tuesday. So we have Senate bill 13 and Senate Bill 15 for Tuesday. And other housekeeping we're going to be dropping House Bill 1057. House Bill 1141. House Bill 1178 and House Bill 1219 to deferred list. Represent Tosh, are you still amending your bill? I just about got it ready. So we should be good in the next, uh, Can we schedule it maybe next Thursday? Or would you want to drop to deferred till you get him in, OK, yeah, give me about another week. I'll OK. And, uh, let's, let's look at next Thursday. If not for sure about the following Tuesday. Attentively members. We will hear House Bill 1049 next Thursday and we will hear. House Bill 1263 and House Bill 1282 next Thursday. So right now all we have for Tuesday is Senate Bill 13, Senate Bill 15. Uh, I don't believe we have any other business. The house is set to, um, a uh to come into session at 11 o'clock. So with that, we are adjourned.