Judiciary Committee- House

to run We have Representative Painter, House Bill 1006. seen painter, if you'll come to the end of the table. And There is an amendment. We need to pass the amendment out, so all the amendments being passed out, I think one of the things with the magic words I'm supposed to say is the chair sees a quorum, so the chair sees a quorum. I forget those magic words every couple of years. Once you have an opportunity to take a look and read the amendment. I'm going to give you a moment or two to look at the amendment, just look up at me so I know that everybody's had an opportunity to see it and then Hi, I believe everybody's had an opportunity to read the amendment representing painter you recognize to present your amendment to House Bill 1006. Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee it's a pleasure to be in front of you this morning as the first bill of the of the session of this committee. This amendment is simple, it's just emerging, adding the emergency clause to the bill, talking to the prosecuting attorney due to the fact that the caseload and everything else, he felt like we need to get this bill passed and get it signed pretty quick. I'll be glad to take any questions members, you've heard the explanation of the amendment. Are there any questions? Seeing their questions, what's the will of the committee? We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of adoption amendment, please say aye. Any opposed say no. I have it the amendment has been adopted. You're now recognized to present House Bill 1006 as amended. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Uh, this bill HB 1006, uh, is taking the 14th judicial district from a Tier B to a Tier A. So you might want to think what a tier, what is a tier B judicial district is. It's a part-time judicial district. We have 3 of those in the state and previous sessions, we have changed this body has changed those. The 14th district is just requesting to go from a tira B to a tier A going to full time. Um, 14th Judicial District covers Baxter, Marion, Boone, and Newton counties. The other two part time or the 9th in the 15th judicial district. Uh, this has a fiscal impact with the last year, there was a 6% match increase salary increase. This would increase from constitutional officers agency funding by $40,0796. So, uh, other than that, that's all this bill does. It's just taking a part-time judicial district to a full-time. Be glad to take any questions. Members, are there any questions? Seeing the questions, we have no one who has signed up. Um, for or against the bill, is there anyone in the audience, Mr. McMahon, you're good with it. Prosecuting attorneys are good with it. Anybody else seeing no further questions, you recognize to uh close for your bill. I appreciate you, Madam Chair, and the committee for allowing me to present this bill, and I would appreciate a good vote. Members represented, excuse me, representing painters, clothes for a bill. What is the will of the committee? As amended We have several motions to do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of uh passing the bill as amended, please say aye. Any opposed? No one who opposes the bill is passed as amended. Congratulations. Next, members will recognize represented Perrier for House Bill 1007. There is an amendment on that one that will be being passed out, so let's take a look at that and then we'll come back to it. members, the amendment has been passed out, uh, representing, would you like prayer, would you like to explain your amendment? The amendment simply adds co-sponsors. Remember if you've heard explanation amendment. Any questions? Seeing no questions. What's the will of the committee? Motion to adopt. We have a motion to adopt on the floor. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion to adopt, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The motion has been adopted. You are now recognized to present your bill as amended. All right, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, you youth shooting sports have continued to grow, thousands of very youth across the state participate in organizations such as 4H and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Uh, this bill creates liability protections for individuals who choose to open up their property for you shooting sports. The legislation uses similar language to our current equine competition law, so it's a proven language and also just basically the overall intent is to encourage more shooting opportunities for our youth. Members, you've heard the explanation of the bill from the bill's sponsors is there any questions? Representing Collins, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So why do you think this is necessary? I mean, we've got current law that would protect a non-negligent host and we're saying with this bill that if they are negligent or even grossly negligent, then they're immune from any kind of liability. So is there a problem that we're finding where the current law is not adequate. Uh No, no, there's not, not been an incident or not any challenge to the law. What we're, what we're trying to do is just simply give those individuals the peace of mind that we're, they're kind of on the fence of opening up their ranges to students, but worry about the litigation that comes and as we all know, we live in a very You know Um, you know, lot, lot of, uh, a lot of folks are just kind of afraid of getting sued anymore. Follow up, please. You recognize. Well, I understand that, and I guess the flip side of that might be that um Litigation serves a purpose, and one of the purposes is that the threat of litigation if you are negligent encourages people to not be negligent and so they exercise reasonable care when they're hosting these events, and if we take this risk of of litigation away, are we making it less likely that people will exercise reasonable care and undertake, you know, safe precautions, things we want them to do. The second thing is if somebody is injured. Heaven forbid it one of these things and someone was negligent or grossly negligent, this takes away their ability to get any recourse, so they suffer an injury and they are Too bad, basically is what we're saying. So what about those two considerations, both how the host behaves and how there's no recourse for the person who's injured. Well, I think, I feel like on the how the host would behave, I mean, these are people that spend thousands of dollars to get nothing in return for it. They're literally donating their time, land and, you know, finances to get these kids out there. So they're going to have the, they're gonna do the best they can to have kids be in a safe environment, so I think we're, you know, that part of the bill. issues addressed and as far as the Second part of it, I mean, you, you are right there, but that kind of goes with the first part. If they're going to the, the, these are good players. This isn't a for-profit type situation. So we got good players, they're going to have the best interest of the participants in mind. So I feel like those concerns can be addressed that way. Thank you. Representative Tosh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you answered my question. These, uh, these facilities, there's no compensation to them. They're doing this because they just want to help these kids. Is that correct? Yes, yes, sir. I, and I know you probably don't have an exact number on this, but obviously, there's a reason for this to get these kids off the internet and give them something else to do and to give them an activity that uh uh other than like I said, being on the internet, but what do you think the impact would be. Uh, to these people that provide these facilities and open this up to these young people. What do you think it'd be if they knew they would possibility of facing litigation and do you think that they would still be as willingly to provide these facilities to them. Um, no, no, sir. I mean, one good example is when I was an ag teacher in uh Jasper, we opened up a range and then, you know, I've sold the property, you know, 12 years ago, so you know that the new owners that aren't from there and know the kids are not as apt to open that up, but I feel like with something like this, they may give them that little piece of mind that would let that range open back up for the kids. Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Perrier, you've talked a lot about this applying to not for profit events for youth. Where in the bill does it say that this only applies to nonprofits. Mm Well, I may have went down a rabbit hole of talking about nonprofit on the intent of the bill. But I still So Can, I'm trying to think of an example of a for-profit shooting range that this would have liability for that doesn't already have their own standing liability. Well, but, so because this isn't limited, it now applies to for-profit shooting ranges if they hold an event at their shooting range. It is not limited to you. It is not limited to nonprofits. Um, it doesn't say anything about whether or not these events are required to carry insurance. So that would mean for example, if there is a youth shooting event and one kid turned and was pretending to shoot a gun at another kid just thought it was an Unloaded weapon and shot that kid and hurt them, that may be negligent on behalf of the, of the person who put on this event, but those parents have no recourse. So That would be, are you saying in that situation, the event holder would be the ones that were negligent. Because of how the How would, uh trying to, I'm trying to understand your question, so if another kid had an accident that how would that go back to being negligent on if there was an argument that there was a failure to supervise, say there are 2 5-year-olds with guns. OK. But what I'm saying with that hypothetical is that there's nothing in here that limits us to nonprofit events. This is nothing that limits it to You know, just some guy trying to do something nice for the kids. This applies as evenly to for-profit gun ranges for profit events and it leaves participants with no recourse unless the issue is willful and wanton, which essentially would mean unless somebody the, the purveyor of the event came out and decided to just start shooting at the participants. So is that the intent of this bill? Well, the overall intent of the bill is just to open up more opportunities for used to have a place to shoot and if This bill does do what you're saying in that event to some of these private ranges, then I, I would still consider that as a good part of this bill, even though we're probably going to disagree on that end of it. But if it gives those private ranges that extra little bit of incentive to get some of these youths out there, then I would still say that would be the intent of the bill and that would be something we would want with these kids in the state of Arkansas. Probably not answering your, I'm, I'm not a lawyer enough to answer your question, so I'm doing my best. Gassway, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Perrier, are you aware of any other states that do this? I am not as far as the liability protection I've not done the research on that. I just didn't know that the youth shooting sports have grown. You know, across the South and probably into the Northeast as well. But I, I don't know. I'm, I'm not, I haven't researched other states. I mean, it's a big thing here in Arkansas, so I'm just kind of focused on what's going on and what's good for Arkansas. Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Represented, I appreciate you bringing this bill. Excuse my voice. I'm dealing with what everybody else is probably dealing with right now, this time of year. So a couple of questions you you referencedequans and the equine sports, and I've had an opportunity to participate in those sports in the past and I, I know that I've gone to a number of arenas, um, that are for-profit businesses to participate in the sports, and yet I, I still live under the liability associated with that sport. and my responsibility. If my horse acts up and throws a fit and kicks another rider or a a person who's not participating just happens to be a spectator, and then that liability lies with me. I guess my question is, is the language of your bill still in line with that. It's still the liability of the individual who acted poorly, um, and, and not necessarily just where the event is occurring that you're trying to protect the the landowner or the event venue owner because inherently there can be some danger associated with sporting events. Yes, and, and that may and Representative Hudson that may been how I should have probably answered your question. That's, that's why we use the uh current equine competition law because it's the, the language uh in my mind it's a very similar event, although different venue, so to speak, whereas you have those chances of something. happen at a rodeo. You know, that are, you know, across the board, um, but back to your question, yes, the uh the intent is there and we are using the exact, I mean just as much as we could to write the bill the same language for the equine sponsor law. Thank you for that. Me, let me remind you, don't Don't punch your microphone to get our attention. If you'll just kind of give us a little thumbs up or a little sign. We'll catch it that way, but more microphones on or we're getting feedback, so just try to catch our attention, we'll watch for you, uh, Representative Springer, you're recognized for a question. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I wanted to follow up on uh Representative Hudson's points that she made, there's an emphasis that you made on youth opportunities who are in your bill does that, is that specifically outlined in your bill that this is an opportunity for you to have more opportunities and training so that they could, you know, be able to, well, I think in um So you want me to show you where it says youth shooting sports in the bill. Um, I think in the way that is pardon me, I'm sorry that it's gonna provide more opportunities for them to provide more so, so how it will provide more opportunities for you shooting sports is we have a lot of landowners and property owners out there that usually would would be willing to open up their pro would be more willing to open up their property for these kids to build a range or they build a range or just, you know, if it's something as simple as trap shooting, just a good open hay field with everything. set up You know Would, would be, it's not, you know, some of this doesn't require a whole lot of um infrastructure to build some of it does, but this bill would give that peace of mind to these property owners and it would. I mean, there, I, I, I am very confident that we would see an increase in shooting range opportunities for our youth if we pass this bill. Now what numbers that would be? I don't know, it may be 10 ranges Northwest Arkansas, it may be 100, but it'll at least be a few that'll give another kid a chance to shoot in an area where they may not have those opportunities. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So do you have any kind of statistics that show that there are some people that want to have these opportunities provided for you getting your statistics from. Well, as my, I don't have statistics. My statistics is just me as a property owner that did do this for kids and opened up and built a range. You know, I did it and I'm not gonna lie there is a little bit at the back of my head that there might be, you know, you know, something could happen, folks could see you. I mean, we live in a world where that happens every day, every minute, every second, um, so I don't have a statistic saying that this will open that up, but just as my personal experience and my neighbor has a shooting range and I've got some other folks that are looking into opening this up for folks, so that's the, the statistics I'm using are just knowing that if we do this there will be at least 3 more ranges. in my district and there probably would have been in the past, so I don't, I don't have an actual statistic other than that. Represent Clanner, you recognize her question. Reverend Springer, turn your mic off if you don't mind. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Perrier, I know before committee I mentioned that I didn't have any issues with this bill, and I apologize in advance. I hate to ambush without warning, but my colleagues have brought up some really good points, so I just want to follow up and maybe get some clarification. Um, I see exactly what it is that you're trying to do, and I see why you're trying to do it. I agree with it. Uh, but I do, I am concerned about some of the language, so I guess I have two questions. The first is, is there a definition anywhere of shooting sports event because my concern is this, as you know, Representative Hudson notes, this applies now to for-profit shooting ranges what is the threshold for, um, when a for-profit shooting range would be immune, um, in other words, if there are two people there, there's nothing in here that requires us to be sort of an organized shooting event. I don't see a definition what keeps this from applying just broadly to anybody who shows up at a shooting range to shoot. Yeah, yeah, I think, I think. That's probably a valid point, but again, we go back to the equine competition law, and there's no, there's nothing in that language that says what's a rodeo? Is it a bull riding event? Is it a calf tying event, I think we just in in this situation we used, you know, a law that has worked in the past with Relevant success. I don't hear a whole lot about folks getting sued in the rodeo sector on this stuff. Um, so, That that's why we use the language we used. I mean, granted, there's probably, I think anytime we sit here, there's probably a better way to sort all that out, but I'm here. That's I used the one that worked in the past, to use the one that worked for years. I'm sitting here and we got the bill and Um, you know, I, I wished everybody loved it, but we've got a few that don't, so we're, we're doing the best we can. I think the intents there and I think it is the language we're using is proven language. For, for that sector which is can be transferred pretty sim pretty simply over to this sector as well, I do believe. Thank you. Um, I appreciate that. I think that we do need to recognize there are inherent differences between horses and guns. One is a weapon that is created to harm, right? I would probably say horses are way more dangerous than guns, but that OK. Well, I don't have the statistics in front of me to argue with you, but, um, but, but my, my second question has to do with the youth component of this. Um, would you be, and I guess just maybe clarify on your, on your previous answer, um, We've got lots of time, right? This is the first day we're really hearing bills in committee. You made a couple references in your answer. It's like maybe it's not as good as it could be. Um, it seems like there are lots of fixes that we could make to this that would, uh, ease a lot of our concerns. I guess my question is, would you be willing to to tighten up the language and make it um More clearly a response to exactly the problem you're trying to solve rather than granting broad immunity to any operator of a shooting range. Basically, I think unlimited unless their behavior is well further wanton. Well, I, I'm not trying to be unreasonable with this, but we filed this on the first day of bill filing. Um, I've heard nothing, no, no pushback from any organization, um, game, game of fish is good with this, uh, these 4H guys are good with this. Um I feel like I would probably like to go ahead and try to pass this bill as it is in this committee and then take my chances on the floor just because of an early pre we we filed this early and I haven't heard any pushback other than actually, you guys, I've spoke more now and I've spoke all last session right here out of the gate, so, um, representative, I, I can't remember if you've appeared before this committee. This committee is a questioning committee. Anybody who comes, we love to right down in there because we know that any of the bills that come out of this committee, you know, affect. A lot of different things and so that's why you're getting these questions, uh, and it's not unusual for this committee to say, would you pull it down? It doesn't mean they're necessarily against it, but they, there might be a little tightening because we know that sometimes there are uh uh challenges. Um, throughout the court system on, on what's coming through this committee and so we're trying to get it right and I think, I think that's what everybody, so don't, don't feel offended that that we're asking a lot or anything like that. Represent Clanny, have you, is that all the questions you had? I didn't mean to interrupt, uh, Representative Pierce. You're recognized for a question. I don't know if this is the proper time. Madam Chair, but uh could we postpone action and table this, is that a possibility? It is a possibility. We can table it, uh, we can ask, there's, there's a couple of things we can take the actual action to table, um, and then we'll have to, we'll give him time to work on it and we can bring it back, or he can voluntarily with the committees, uh, approval, just pull it down and work on it, uh, either way. So if you want to make a motion to table, you can, you can do that. It's proper time be the proper time. Make a motion to postpone action and table. So you're making a motion to table this bill at this particular time? Is that your motion? Members, you've heard them, there's a motion on the table represent Pierce, would you like to explain your motion or The motion is I see, I'm non-debatable. It's non-debatable. It's, uh, it will take a majority of the quorum, and we do have a quorum here, so it'll take the majority of us, I, I apologize. I'm a little rusty on some of the stuff, but I have a good fellow sitting next to me who's poking me saying, no, you don't, you don't do anything. So we do have a motion to table House Bill 1007. Any, no discussion, all in favor of the motion to table, please say aye. Any opposed? The nose habit, so we're not going to table it this time, Representing Pierce, do you have a question? No, madam Chair, I'm good, thank you. Representing more, Jeremiah Moore, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just gonna go back to the liability question at hand, um, does section B or section 2 paragraph B. sorry, excuse me, section one. Number 2, paragraph B that provides the shooting equipment and fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of a participant to engage safely, etc. Does this not solve some of the uh gross negligence portion of your bill. I would, I would think so, but um again I wasn't as um I, I would think so, but again, I'm not an attorney to interpret that. Thank you. Represent Gasway, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, Representative Perry, I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I, I do have to wonder, have there been any incidents in the state that you're aware of where there have been, uh, operators such as, such as what you're trying to address in this bill that had been successfully sued and problems like that. Uh, not, not that I'm aware of, and that, you know, we again when we filed this bill the first day, the news folks caught me and they, that was the question they had and that it's not the, the filing of this bill is not a You know, a reaction to, to a, you know, negligent act that happened or anything like that, so, um, I don't have any statistics like that. I'm, I'm sure accidents have happened. I just noted that any that's been noteworthy for this legislation. You're recognized for a follow up. OK. And so what you're asking us to do is to grant these operators immunity. And you, you're specifically referenced youth activities, although that's not mentioned in the bill specifically. But don't you think we would want the safest events possible when we're having youth shooting guns, and if we remove liability, And give them immunity. That doesn't Kind of inspire confidence in the safety, does it? Well, I think, I think it goes back to The the folks that are doing this are, are not, they're doing this to. You know, get kids out there shooting. They're not going to put something, set something up that's unsafe. If that makes any sense. There's not a. Intent there. I mean, they're they're going to do the best they can. They're doing it so the kids can have a place to shoot. And enjoy that so they're not going to You know, be coerced or have any reason to have anything other than the best they could do with it. So. I guess that's not answering your question correctly, but um. I, I don't know what um We You know, we're, we're using a, and, and I, I promise you guys, I'm, I'm feeling the vibe here and I've got a lot of empty chairs, so I kind of know where I'm standing on this, but uh, But I, you know, the idea of us using a, the current law, is it, I feel like that venue would transfer over to this venue. On that, on kind of the, on the liability side of it. You know, host, hosting the event and and all that, um. Representing Gasway, you're recognized for another follow up. Thank you, Madam Chair, and this will be my last question, but I guess the ultimate question that I have is, how is Granting immunity. Going to improve safety. Well, the I, I don't see. I mean, you, you got me on that one, so. It, it's not um You know, the intent of the bill is to is to do what we're doing. You know, is to open up ranges, but I do agree with that, but I don't see how that is going to um Uh, you know, I, I don't know how to answer your question, to be honest with you, sir. Saint Crawford, you're recognized for a question. I just have a motion at the right time. Hang on, I think Representative Tosh has something representing Tas she recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative, I, I, you can tell there's a lot of concerns, especially when it comes to groups that are non, uh, you know, that are actually doing this for a profit. I think most of us on this committee. We understand and agree with you that if it's a nonprofit organizations that are doing something to help the youth. We could engage or get more involved, but I think that's one of the biggest concerns. I really believe that to be an easy fix in this. Bill for you if you would um But we need that language to be correct and I agree with everything that's been said, passing a bill out of here that opens us up to any firing range where, you know, people are paying to be there and it's a profit uh type of situation. I don't think that needs to apply in this bill. So I think uh my suggestion would be if you would consider pulling it down, getting that, getting that part of the language corrected, then bring it back to this committee. I think you'll be OK with it. OK. Representative, uh, per your, would you like to pull your bill down to work on that language? Yeah, I'm good with that. OK, uh, members represent pure prayer is requesting to pull this bill down without opposition. The committee will allow that. And I tell you what, just so people here understand how we operate in this. Once he gets his language like he wants, you might visit with some of the attorneys. We're not all bad. Visit with us, um. And visit with represent Captain Tosh, as I often referred to him. He's uh that and let's, let's get this bill. I think everybody agrees that shooting sports are important in Arkansas. Youth shooting sports. My son was on the youth shooting sports team in high school, uh, and so it's a, it's a sport that's we're fond of in our household, but let's get it right and so we appreciate you bringing it. It's a great uh opportunity for us to hear it, to hear the concern. and if you will let me know when you're ready to run it again. We'll bring it right back up. And I'll speak to the attorneys and get back with you guys. Well, or anybody else on the committee, we a lot of this committee's been here for a long time. We understand the different liabilities, but we appreciate you bringing it. Thank you for pulling it down so we can get it right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Members, I have heard from the Chief Justice this morning. She just texted and apologizes that she could not be here. Um, her schedule didn't know, something came up in her schedule and she has said, um, If there's another time on the agenda she would like to come, and I have certainly texted her back, no problem, just let us know. So, you know, it may be. It may be thirsty, it may be on down the road, but when I, if if the Chief Justice can come, as we often have always had the Chief Justice to come to our committee at the very first of the session, we'll give her that opportunity to do that, so I wanted to make that announcement, uh, members, we have, um, I want to run through our agenda. So that also people who come to this committee know where the committee is on different things as to when we're going to hear things, um. I have been talking to several different people as to what they're ready to run, Richardson has indicated to me he's ready to run House Bill 1071 that will run on Thursday. House Bill 10. 71 For Thursday Then, uh, representing Gramlich, who's not a member of the committee, but I've talked to him. He will be ready to run house Bill 1067 on Thursday. House Bill 1067 on Thursday, just for, um, if any of you are keeping up, House Bill 1168, Representative Johnson has asked that that be placed on deferred, so House Bill 1168 is going to the deferred list. Representing votes not quite ready to run hers yet. Representative Richardson has 2 bills he has indicated to me that are being amended. Those are House bills 1141. And House Bill 1057 representative Tosh is working on amendments for House Bill 1049. And um. Repsing McCullough and I have not visited on her bill, but it was just filed on yesterday, so we're not ready to hear that. I think that brings us, I have not heard from representing McIlroy. I will be talking to him and I'll be talking to representative Acer. Those 2 may or may not hit for Thursday but as is my practice, I will text you and let you know. So is everybody clear as to where we are on our agenda, and I want the people out in the audience to know we don't start at the top in this committee and work our way down. We try to have them ready to go, the Tuesday or Thursday or Thursday before Tuesday. So right now, Tuesday we will have those two bills that I announced if there are anything else, I will let you know. I know of nothing else. We do have our picture set for this Thursday. So put your best bib and tucker on and show up about 10 minutes early, which may be the hardest thing that represented Gazaway does all session is show up early. But we're, we're banking on him. If you're not here, if you haven't learned anything, we start on time. If you're not here, you will miss the picture and you want to be there with our bright smiling faces. So put that on your calendar, picture will be Thursday committee picture Thursday. I know of no other announcements. We're good. So with that, thank you for your hard work this morning. We are adjourned.