House Judiciary Committee
January 30, 2025
Representative Carol Dalby [00:00:00] We're pleased to have Chief Justice Karen Baker here this morning. And with that, Chief justice, I'll keep to my word. You're first up. And if you'll go to the end of the table and, Representative Moore, would you punch the button for the chief justice's microphone? And chief justice, we're glad to have you. And go ahead and have a seat. We're glad to have you, as is the custom of this committee, to always invite the chief justice to come and say a few words at the beginning of session. And with that, you are recognized to introduce yourself and make your remarks.
Chief Justice Karen Baker [00:00:39] Thank you. And thank you for the invitation to speak to House Judiciary. I wanted just to introduce myself to those of you, which I don't think that I've met a lot of of you, but looking forward to getting to know you. I just wanted to give a little bit of background about myself. I'm from Clinton. I came from Clinton and I still live there. So that's not much of a story. My background is that I was in private practice for eight years and then became the juvenile judge in the 20th District. And really a year and a half later became the circuit chancery, as they said at that time, judge for the 20th District. And I did that until 2000.
I was elected to the Court of Appeals and I spent ten 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 I was honored to be elected by the people to the chief justice and to be the first woman ever elected to the chief justice.
But we're off to a little bit of a rough start, you might have noticed in the press. But I think we're going to get that all worked out. And particularly we've got a little bit of a problem with our cases. We haven't been able to get any cases out since early December, partly or mainly because our new Justice Bronni has had to recuse on all our criminal cases. So we had to pull those cases. But he's anxious to go to work and I'm anxious for him to.
So I've talked to the Court of Appeals about some of their civil cases, and we're going to be able to get those working pretty soon, I think. So I look forward to answering any questions anybody has and happy to be here.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:03:24] I'm not sure if we have any questions. Members, are there any-- Representative Shepherd, you're recognized for a question. Chief, any time you ask a committee that has lawyers on it, you know you're going to get a question. Representative Shepherd you're recognized.
Representative Matthew Shepherd [00:03:37] Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Chief Justice, for being here. Thank you for your service to our state. So you touched on, I guess, kind of 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 alluded to that fact. And so, the question I would have is, we do, or at least I get asked, particularly as an attorney, I get ask a lot of times about, well, what's going on at Supreme Court? And you've alluded to the caseload issue. So I just am curious as to, as I get those questions, as I'm talking with other attorneys or my constituents, what should I tell them is going to be done in order to kind of get back on track? And so I would love to hear your answer to that. Thank you.
Chief Justice Karen Baker [00:04:26] Well, as I said, the problem is the cases, that we can't move forward with any criminal cases. And that's all we had scheduled. So Justice Bronni's recusal in the criminal cases, and not just original cases, but also our post-conviction cases, it's been difficult to schedule that. But I'm working with the clerk to bring some of the court of Appeals more difficult cases to our docket so that Justice Bronni can participate in those cases. And of course, we have civil cases as well that will be going forward.
There's a difference of opinion about whether I have the same authority the chief justices have always had 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 the area of contention. And if we can't work that out, we'll probably be litigating that issue because, I am, like I said, I'm unwilling to accept that I don't have the same power as every other chief justice to hire the executive director of the administrative Office of the Courts. They've all hired who they wanted. And I've got the history of that, Justice Hanna.
Well, during my time on the court, we've had two, JD Gingrich and now Marty Sullivan. And the expenses for the Administrative Office of the Courts have gone up markedly. And I've been going through budgets trying to figure out exactly where those increases are. So that's where we are at the moment. 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 right now without being able to hire the executive director.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:07:17] Thank you, Chief. Any other questions? Seeing 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 towards you all, as you well know, I'm going to put us into recess for about five minutes to give you the opportunity to personally introduce yourself to each of the members. So, members, with that, we're going to be in recess for just five minutes.
[00:07:47] [recess]
Representative Carol Dalby [00:12:54] But take a quick look at that once the amendment gets passed out. Then Representative Gramlich, you'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. Any opposed. The ayes have it. The amendment has been adopted. Representative Gramlich, you're recognized to present your bill as amended.
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:13:39] Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman. 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.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:13:49] Yeah. Let's start with one. I think we don't have a lot of room down there at the table. How many do you have that you want?
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:13:56] If we can get maybe her and Nathan.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:14:00] That would be fine.
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:14:00] And they can answer questions if necessary.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:14:02] Sure.
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:14:02] Okay.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:14:05] Please identify yourself and identify the folks that you have there with you at the table.
Karen Pantello [00:14:18] Hello, my name is Karen Pantello. 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.
Nathan House [00:14:29] Good morning. My name is Nathan House. I'm the owner of Arkansas Armory. We're a federal firearms licensed dealer in Sherwood, Arkansas.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:14:35] Thank you. Thank you for being here today. You're recognized.
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:14:39] So House Bill 1067 is, really, it's an effort to end gun violence in our state. It can be used 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. 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 contract between you and the gun owner can hold it until you're ready to get your weapons back. And what could happen is, say, you get your weapon back and you did something, you hurt someone or hurt yourself, you, the FFL couldn't be held civilly liable for that. And so it's a protection to allow for Good Samaritan laws.
Another example is, I had a friend who's a teacher and had a son who was schizophrenic. This is 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 I'd be happy to answer any questions or you have a short comment.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:15:54] Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:15:56] Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill, Representative Gramlich. 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. When we are looking at, I guess I just kind of want your clarification, so looking at page two, the top two lines, immune from civil liability for any act or omission arising from a firearm hold agreement.
Can you talk to me a little bit about that arising from language? I guess my concern is if one of these people takes a weapon and stores it recklessly, negligently or something, right, 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?
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:16:51] That's a great question. Nathan, do you have a comment on it?
Nathan House [00:16:54] We're required to store firearms safely by ATF regulations and we would be doing that. Any federal firearms licensed dealer would be under those same requirements. And 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 we would be criminally liable for that.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:17:18] Under federal law.
Nathan House [00:17:19] Yes, ma'am.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:17:25] Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:17:28] Thank you. I think what Representative Clowney asked was sort of where my issues are. I mean, I support what you all are trying to do here. I mean, obviously, I think that these hold agreements in the times that you guys are doing them are really important. But this is a broadly written liability waiver.
And not only is there the issue of what are we talking about here, but the level of negligence or it 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 that might arise out of this. But I think about like shooting into the air.
That's not a 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 firearm holder agreement. If that bullet lands and kill somebody or injures somebody, are we granting immunity where we don't want to?
Nathan House [00:18:41] So I'm not going to say it couldn't happen out there. But I'm not aware of any federal firearms license dealer-- we all have inventory of our own firearms anyway. And I'm not aware of anything where we would have any reason to do anything other than to simply store a firearm at the behest of someone else's request. The main purpose here is that we are prohibited basically from being able to take firearms in and helping people right now.
Because if somebody were to hand me a firearm and then later want that back and then they do something with that firearm, meaning they take their own life or commit a homicide with it, federal firearms license dealers just have to be off the blame line for that. Because it's just like any other object. I mean, if I handed you something, a blender or a toaster or anything else and said, could you hold this for a minute, and then we turn around and hand it back to you at your request, and then you hurt yourself with it or somebody else, I don't see how that's the holder's fault in any way, shape or form. So I don't see us doing anything with the firearms while they're being stored other than to simply put them out of our way so that we can continue to operate our businesses.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:20:02] Follow up, please.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:20:04] You're recognized.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:20:05] And I understand that 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 is no negligence or recklessness, you don't have any liability. And so we're 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 tort, there's some sort of failure to meet what's expected of you. And I may be okay with what you're talking about with returning the weapon. I kind of understand that. It's anything outside of that. You know, I don't know the full scope of it. That's where my concerns are because, again, this is so broad. Are we going farther than maybe it would be helpful for the good purpose that you guys are working on?
Nathan House [00:21:09] Sure. And I'm not tied to any specific language. I think that's up for discussion other than this is language I understand has been in effect in states like Montana and Louisiana, other states that have been partnered with as this bill came into fruition. What I will just go back to pointing to is that it says any federal firearms licensee operating lawfully in the state. And so if I were to be discharging a firearm in the city limits of Sherwood, that would be an unlawful act. If I were to be using a firearm negligently or in the commission of another crime, then by the language of the law, I would not be immune from the civil liability associated with that.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:21:56] So your understanding is if you operate negligently, you're not immune?
Nathan House [00:22:02] I would not be immune if I was not operating lawfully.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:22:06] Civil and criminal law both. Is that how you interpret that lawfully?
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:22:11] I mean, I would say, yes, you're correct.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:22:15] Can you point those lines out? I see committee members are trying to find those lines where it says that.
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:22:22] Line One. It says a federal firearm license operating lawfully in the state is immune from civil liability. So the second you do something unlawful, then you lose your civil liability. Or I guess, yeah, you are no longer immune from civil liability.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:22:36] Okay, I'll step out. Thanks.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:22:39] Representative Brown, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Matt Brown [00:22:42] Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Gramlich, the gist of your bill is that if I'm suicidal and I need to get rid of my gun because I'm afraid I'm going to I 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, I want 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?
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:23:16] Yes.
Representative Matt Brown [00:23:17] Follow up, Madam Chair?
Representative Carol Dalby [00:23:19] You're recognized for a follow up.
Representative Matt Brown [00:23:20] The issues about liability, that's taken care of by Section two of your bill, which simply says that so long as the firearms dealer-- well, let me back up. This isn't unlimited blanket liability if I do something other than hold the gun, as examined 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.
And so the concerns raised were taken care of by Section two, which says again, 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 a safe like I'm supposed to. Is that right?
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:24:01] Yes.
Representative Matt Brown [00:24:01] Okay. Thank you.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:24:04] Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:24:09] Thank you, Madam Chair. So Representative Gramlich, I'm reading this and I appreciate the comments and questions that we have from our colleagues on this. And I wonder about page two, lines, I guess, four and five. It appears to me, based on the language of that particular section, that the immunity only applies, is limited by that last statement associated with, after the termination of the 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 holder agreement. Is that the intent of the bill is to provide protection for the FFL after the termination?
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:25:04] I would agree with that. Yes. The goal for me is, again, if I've held your weapons 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.
Representative Scott Richardson [00:25:18] Right. And that would be at the conclusion of the contract with that individual. Okay. Thank you very much.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:25:26] Representative Moore, you're recognized for a question. You're good. Representative Gonzales, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Justin Gonzales [00:25:31] Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Representative Collins' concerns may be answered-- you all can correct me if I'm wrong-- on page two, lines six through nine: the immunity from civil liability under subdivision B1 of the section does not apply to an act arising from firearm holder agreement if the act was a result of otherwise unlawful conduct. That kind of addresses the civil liability, right, of someone who was in this hold agreement, who agreed to hold the firearm. If they did something otherwise unlawful, they're not immune from civil liability.
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:26:07] I would agree with that. If you do something unlawful, then you no longer have your immunity. Nathan, would you agree?
Nathan House [00:26:14] I agree.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:26:17] Representative Gazaway, you're recognized for a question. You're good. Okay. Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:26:24] Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Representative Gonzales. I think that that point is important and helps ease some of my concerns. But I do just want to be very 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. 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, Representative Gramlich, that this bill exactly lines up with your intent. And I don't know how to turn that into a question, but just-- don't you think?
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:27:15] Yeah, I understand. And I guess the point again, yes, they may have civil liability coverage due to language in here, but if they do something unlawful during that time, they lose it. So, they wouldn't be held civilly liable for anything if they did everything right in the first place, which they should.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:27:35] Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:27:38] 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?
Nathan House [00:27:50] As of now, they do not with our business for sure. We've been asked by people, hey, can you store our guns, we've got to have a family member that needs them out of the house right now. And we cannot, by the advice of our attorneys and insurance, because of that.
Representative Andrew Collins [00:28:05] But you might even 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 liability. 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?
Nathan House [00:28:26] That's correct. We would legally be allowed to store a firearm, but we will not help people in that situation currently because of the risk to our business and livelihood.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:28:37] Representative McCullough, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Tippi McCullough [00:28:40] Thank you, Madam Chair. 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.
Nathan House [00:29:00] Yes, ma'am. The language in the bill would seem to be pretty broad and allow us to make whatever agreement we wanted to, whether it be with the individual or with a family or on some condition, like they'd be voluntarily treated in a hospital or by a doctor or get a release, or if the courts needed to be involved in order to release that. It could be very broad. But ultimately, by agreement, when that person wants to get their property back.
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:29:27] And I would add something as well. There's an organization called the Armory Project that comes in and helps FFLs build those contracts out, does a lot of the education component for these FFLs who want to get into this kind of program.
Representative Tippi McCullough [00:29:40] Okay. That information is helpful. Follow up, please. Thank you. So, I mean, I know we can't throw out and cherry pick every example in the world there is. 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 whoever they're in the agreement with? And then what determines when the person that's under that order that has the order of protection against them, what determines when that person can get the gun back?
Nathan House [00:30:18] So if we were to take those firearms into our inventory, we have to log those into our acquisition and disposition logs. In order to be able to re-dispose of that firearm back to that 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 check. And so the person acquiring the firearms would have to complete that form and then a NICS check would take place in order for that to go back to them.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:30:58] Representative Moore, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Jeremiah Moore [00:31:01] Thank you, Madam Chair. 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 is like?
Nathan House [00:31:21] Just briefly, we have to have secure methods so a locked store, An alarm system. In addition, many federal firearms licensees have safes that they put firearms and things like that in, although that is not required. So locked facilities, alarmed facilities.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:31:38] Representative Gonzales, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Justin Gonzales [00:31:41] Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Representative Moore kind of hit on my question a little bit, but as someone who holds a federal firearms license, are you held to a higher standard of law when it comes to storing these things, taking care of them? This is specifically written for, like, I can't give these to my neighbor and have a hold agreement. It has to be a licensed firearm dealer, correct? So are you held to a higher standard than just any other individual?
Nathan House [00:32:11] Yes, sir. In addition to the secure storage requirements that we have by ATF, they have to go into a log that is in our possession. That 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.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:32:32] Representative Unger, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Steve Unger [00:32:35] Thank you, Representative Gramlich, I really appreciate this Bill. And it really mirrors other legislation going on in other states, particularly advocated by veterans groups, that veterans can turn this in. And I just, would you agree that this is very similar?
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:32:53] Absolutely.
Karen Pantello [00:32:57] I do.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:32:58] Could you identify yourself?
Karen Pantello [00:33:00] I'm sorry. I'm Karen Pantello. I'm the chairman of the board of directors. My husband, Dean Pantello, was a veteran. And he, I think, would really benefit from passing of this law because he died by suicide. And at the time, he was the owner of Dallas Gun Safety and really advocated for safe storage and for gun safety. I don't think he would have ever stored his firearms at a family member's house or he would have been concerned about having his firearms confiscated.
The benefit of going to someone like Nathan, who is a registered firearm dealer, is that he would have stored them safely. We would have made sure that they were-- really, he would have had the confidence of knowing that they were taken care of and that they were safe and that they wouldn't be confiscated. So it does give opportunities for veterans and first responders to be able to have this opportunity.
I do a lot of training, and I'm a bereavement counselor. And the veterans and first responders are really struggling right now. So I do think that there are definitely benefits to this. And the Veterans Association has definitely advocated for safe storage and it has saved lives. But I think that this would just add to that and provide another option to getting these firearms out of homes.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:34:58] Members, any other questions? Representative Tosh? Oh, okay. You're waving. Representative Tosh, I'm just glad you have a friend. So you better wave at all of them you can. I'm here for you. Any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Gramlich, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:35:27] Thank you so much. Thank you, Committee. I appreciate a good vote. And Tosh, you have at least three friends in this room.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:35:34] Members, Representative Gramlich is closed for his bill. What's the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to do passes as amended. Motion to do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Clowney is recognized for discussion.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:35:49] Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all of you for coming. I just wanted to say out loud that 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 just say on the record that I hope nobody takes our questions as personal. Our job is to make sure that your very good intent is matched by the language. Gun violence prevention is and always has been super important to me. It is probably why I'm in office. So thank you very, very much for your hard work on this.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:36:19] 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 ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill as amended.
Representative Zack Gramlich [00:36:32] Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, committee members.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:36:34] Let's turn our attention to House Bill 1007. Representative Puryear, you're recognized. Members, you will recall last week, I believe it was last week, that Representative Puryear was here. There was an amendment to that bill which we have already adopted, which is the first amendment. Now we have the second amendment to the bill being passed out. So we're going to have that passed out here, take a few moments and then Representative Puryear I'll recognize you to explain your second amendment. I believe your first amendment was adding co-sponsors.
Representative Chad Puryear [00:37:12] Yes, ma'am.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:37:13] This is a second amendment that's a little more substantive. And so I'm going to let people take a look at this and then I'll recognize you to present your second amendment. Okay, members, you have the second amendment to House bill 1007 before you. Representative, you're recognized to briefly explain your amendment.
Representative Chad Puryear [00:38:23] Representative Chad Puryear, 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 it had a focus on nonprofit organizations, define shooting sport, and then make sure we tailored this to our youth.
This amendment specifically names both the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission and the Arkansas 4H and adds the clarifying language that helps address the three concerns we discussed previously. And since the amendment is basically the substance of what we're going to discuss next, I would, with the committee's permission, I would like to invite representatives from the Game & Fish and the 4H to the table.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:39:05] Well, hang on just a minute. First, I need to adopt. I have a motion to adopt your amendment. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of adopting the amendment, please say aye. The ayes 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 those people to be at the end of the table with you.
Representative Chad Puryear [00:39:27] Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:39:32] Gentlemen, once you have a minute to sit down, if you'll identify yourself for the record, who you're with, and then we will recognize Representative Puryear to continue with this bill.
Spencer Griffith [00:39:42] Madam Chair, thanks for having us. My name is Spencer Griffith, and I'm deputy director of Arkansas Game & Fish Commission. And I'm over the recreational shooting sports division as well as licensing and education.
Jessie Bocksnick [00:39:52] I'm Jessie Bocksnick. I'm with the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, the Arkansas 4H Office. I am the outdoor skills instructor for the university, which also runs the 4H shooting sports program.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:40:04] Representative Puryear, you're recognized.
Representative Chad Puryear [00:40:05] I just wanted to bring these guys to the table if we have program 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. We can kind of, I guess, the best thing to do would be opening up to questions at this point.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:40:25] Why don't you just-- because we've all slept since last week. So briefly describe, we're familiar because we asked you lots of questions, but briefly describe your bill and why these different organizations have been brought into it. And then I think we'll be good to go.
Representative Chad Puryear [00:40:42] So what we're trying to do with House Bill 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 Game & Fish and to promote more property owners to allow, open up their property for these ranges and for these various events. Again, I appreciate the-- can you guys hear me? I feel like I'm talking sideways here.
So I appreciate the committee's feedback on the issues we had. So kind of getting back to the intent of the bill is basically to open up more opportunities for the youth shooting sports. And 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 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.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:41:48] Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we do have one individual who signed up to speak for the bill. Mr. Everson, would you like to come forward to speak for the bill? Are you good? You're good. Okay, great. We have no one else who is signed up to speak for against the bill. Representative Puryear, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Chad Puryear [00:42:12] Guys, I'm really expecting some questions. I'm kind of disappointed here. I've got a list of paper and all that. But no, the overall goal of this bill is simply to encourage more landowners to open up their properties and provide that peace of mind granted with some liability protections. And I appreciate the previous feedback of this committee. And with that, I'd appreciate a good vote.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:42:33] Members, Representative Puryear has closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? I have a motion to do pass as amended. And remember, the first amendment has been adopted. This is the Second 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 ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill.
Members, 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 spoken or texted with Senator Wallace and 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 the deferred list.
Representative Tosh, are you still amending your bill? Can we schedule it maybe next Thursday? Or would you want to drop to deferred till you get it amended? Okay. Tentatively, 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. I don't believe we have any other business. House is set to come into session at 11:00. So with that, we are adjourned.
