House Judiciary

Jan. 19, 2023

Jump to section below


Rep Dalby: House Judiciary will now come to order. The chair sees a quorum. Members, we have several things, and we may have a little bit of downtime while we wait for members to get over here to run their bills. But I see Representative Mayberry is here. So we’re going to take her bill up first because she’s here. So members, if you’ll pull up House Bill 1098, House Bill 1098. Representative Mayberry, you’re recognized to come to the table, introduce yourself, and any guests you may have with you at the end of the table, and then you may proceed to present House Bill 1098.


HB 1098 Allows newborn safety boxes at some volunteer fire departments

Rep Mayberry: Thank you, members. I’m State Rep. Julie Mayberry, and before we get into the bill, I do have an amendment to be done here. And this amendment is very simple. All it’s doing is adding Representative Duffield as a co-sponsor on this bill.


Rep Dalby: Members, the amendment is being passed out to you. As soon as everyone has a copy of the amendment– members, I believe everyone has a copy of the amendment. Are there any questions in regard to the amendment? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion? Do I have a motion to adopt the amendment? [silence] I have a motion to adopt the amendment.


Rep Mayberry: I was going to say I was so nervous.


Rep Dalby: It’s a tough committee, so hang on.


Rep Mayberry: Oh, wow.


Rep Dalby: Members, we do have a motion to adopt the amendment to add a co-sponsor. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed?  Ayes have it. Your amendment has been adopted. We will now recognize you to present House Bill 1098 as adopted. Good luck.


Rep Mayberry: Thank you. Oh, hopefully, it’ll go a little smoother. First of all, I want to make sure that you all are aware of Safe Haven Baby Boxes. This was legislation that was passed in 2019. And you may not know what a Safe Haven Baby Box is, but in the state right now, we do have 11 fire departments that have a safe box to allow a woman who has just had a baby within the last 30 days to surrender her baby anonymously. No blame, no shame. For whatever reason that mom feels that she can not care for that child, and she, in a loving way, is giving the baby over for someone else to love and care for. And they are boxes that have security. They’re boxes that are air-conditioned, heated. And when the mother places that baby in this box, an alarm does sound to let authorities know that there is a baby there. In the state of Arkansas since 2019, we have saved three babies this way. Benton, which you will hear their story in just a minute, they were the first baby box in the state of Arkansas and the first to receive a baby. Conway and also Maumelle. When I went to my local fire departments and started talking to them about having a baby box because I believe this is something that my community would very much support and would want, I realized that my volunteer fire departments, even though they have paid staff, the majority of the time there were a few little shifts like two hours on the weekend for this amount of time and about two hours here that weren’t covered 24/7.


Rep Mayberry: And because of that, even though they have paramedics stationed at that fire department, and even though there is EMS across the street from another one, they were not able to have a baby box. And I went, We need to do something about that because we need more of these around the state. And so I went to Arkansas Right to Life. I have Rose Mimms here who will also give her testimony in a second. And we reached out to Monica Kelsey, who is with Safe Haven Baby Box. They do this in many states around. I asked, What are some security measures that we can do? Are any other states allowing this? And she said, “Yes, in Indiana, as a matter of fact, we are allowing that and with these parameters to make sure that it’s safe and that there’s no harm to the baby. And as a matter of fact, in Indiana, two babies have been surrendered at one of these volunteer fire departments and the response has been in less than five minutes. And beautiful stories have come out of that. So just so you are aware, there is a dual alert system. When the device is opened, immediately, it sends a signal to emergency medical services. So 911 knows right away to dispatch someone. There’s a surveillance system that has video surveillance 24 hours a day, and two firefighters are responsible for monitoring that for 24 hours constantly. The fire department must prove that they can respond to the infant within at least four minutes. And it also must be located within 1 mile of EMS.


Rep Mayberry: So I did get a question from a member here that was asking, what about this really rural fire department, they hardly ever have volunteers, they’re in the middle of nowhere. Is that safe? And I said, “Well, they wouldn’t qualify under this.” So it doesn’t mean that every volunteer fire department suddenly can have this. We want to make sure that the babies are safe and they must meet other stringent regulations. I do want to say where the other baby boxes are in the state right now. So we have two in Benton, two in Rogers, one in Springdale, Jonesboro, Conway, Maumelle, Fort Smith, El Dorado, and Nashville. And I’m going to let Rose Mimms take it over from here.


Rep Dalby: I tell you what, just a second, Representative Mayberry. Let me see, are there any questions for Representative Mayberry on this part? All right, seeing no questions, Ms. Mimms, you’re recognized.


Mimms: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And committee members, good morning. Yeah, I just want to make one correction to something Julie said. There are 11 boxes in Arkansas. 10 are at fire departments, and there’s one at a hospital down at Crossett. So the Safe Haven law allows for the safe surrender of an infant in Arkansas 30 days or younger in a law enforcement agency, a hospital, or in 2019, we added fire departments. And the sponsor of the bill at that time was Senator Cecil Bledsoe. And she was very adamant that it be manned fire departments. But then, as Julie said, we started hearing about some of the volunteer fire departments around our state that do have the EMS station really close by. And so she was really interested in expanding the law to allow for a strict requirement that the EMS services were right there at a volunteer fire department to allow for the expansion of fire departments in our state. Like Julie said, there has been three safe surrenders. Those babies were healthy babies whose moms could not parent them for whatever reason, wanted that anonymous way to deliver her infant safely. And that baby at Benton was eight months after the dedication of that box. So it’s so important. And these children are now with forever families. So we want to add more boxes around our state. And we are getting more boxes as Julie mentioned. But this is a good bill. And we appreciate Representative Mayberry bringing this to you, and we expect or appreciate a good vote. Thank you.


Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions? Representative Richmond, you’re recognized for a question.


Rep Richmond: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just Julie, if you would remind me, how do we pay for this?


Rep Mayberry: So it’s privately fundraised, and you can hear from Benton how they did it. It’s been done differently in each area, but often there’s a group of people who volunteer to fundraise to raise the money that’s required to have the installation of this safe baby box. And there is an upkeep on it as well. It’s a small fee.


Rep Richmond: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Rep Dalby: Members any other questions? Representative Richmond, you’re recognized for a question?


Rep J Richardson: Thank you, Madam Chair. [laughter]


Rep Dalby: I mean, you look so much alike. Forgive me.


Rep J Richardson: I know. We’ve gotten that since I’ve been here, I think.


Rep Dalby: It was an honest mistake. I apologize, Representative Richardson.


Rep J Richardson: So actually, Representative Richmond brings up a case. So beside who funds it, what does it cost? So how much would a group or whatever have to raise? And any idea on what the ongoing cost associated with that would be?


Rep Mayberry: Yeah, I can tell you that I don’t know the exact cost right this second because it has increased, only because everything has increased.


Mimms: I think the initial cost, going on information that I got recently, is about $15,000. But there are ongoing costs due to the testing, but our firemen that are here today will be able to tell you what it costs in a bit. And they were the very first box. Everything has gone up. So that has gone up also.


Rep J Richardson: Thank you.


Rep Mayberry: And I do want to say there’s no requirement that they have this. This is voluntary. It’s the community saying that we want to do this. And I do want to bring attention to one other part because I don’t want anyone to say, “Well, you never mentioned that that was in the bill.” So one other thing that was really important to Monica Kelsey from Safe Haven Baby Boxes was the realization that in Arkansas, we have law that if a mom is in the hospital, and she delivers a baby and she knows right away that she does not want this baby, she can not anonymously surrender that baby right there at the birth in the hospital. But she could walk out with the baby out of the hospital, turn around and walk back in and surrender the baby, which seems kind of crazy. Why are we going to allow someone to surrender a baby, but they have to walk out of the hospital? That just seems kind of crazy. And if they walk out of the hospital, they may not return, and if this is a baby that they don’t want, who knows what environment that child might be in. And she very much, even though she appreciates and supports and advocates for these Safe Haven Baby Boxes, she knows that the very best way to care for this child is to get them in the hands of medical professionals as quickly as possible. So this law would allow someone at birth to surrender their baby there in the hospital without having to walk out the door.


Rep Dalby: Representative Berry, you’re recognized for a question.


Rep S Berry: Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Mayberry, you may have answered, but, when we locate a new box, who’s responsible for notifying 911 and the proper people?


Rep Mayberry: The fire department. I mean, there is an alarm on the Safe Haven Baby Box that immediately goes to 911.


Rep S Berry: Fire department is to notify whomever?


Rep Mayberry: There is coordination. I’ll let the folks who’ve been there done that kind of explain some of that if you don’t mind because they would know more the specifics of how it was done there in Benton and how it would be done and carried out.


Rep S Berry: Thank you.


Rep Dalby: Members, any other questions at this time? Seeing no other questions, we do have some individuals who have signed up. Mr. Bill Ford, if you’d like to come to the table. And once you came to the table, if you’ll identify yourself for the record, then you may begin to make your statement. Thank you.


Ford: Good morning. Thank you Madam Chairperson. My name is Bill Ford. I’m a retired chief, Benton Fire Department. I’m now retired approximately 18 months ago. And we were the first department to have a baby box. It started after the bill was passed in 2019. We inquired about the box and low and behold, Rose Mimms aggravated me to the point that I had to put one in, so it was a good thing. So anyway, it all has come off with no problems whatsoever. As she stated, eight months after it was installed, we did receive our first child. Far as like Representative Berry asked, how is EMS notified, it’s all through an alarm system. It’s automated. The call goes to the 911 center. A call would also go to me the chief. I would get a call. It would go to the on-duty battalion chief. It would go to the assistant chief. So it’s a redundant system on how all parties were notified. So it’s a fail-safe system, no doubt.


Rep Dalby: Mr. Ford, would you entertain any questions if we have any?


Ford: I will.


Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions to this witness? Seeing no questions, thank you for coming today, Mr. Ford. We also have Mr. Evans. Russell Evans, come forward to speak for the bill. Mr. Evans, once you get to the end of the table, just state your name and you may begin.


Evans: Yes, Ma’am, Russell Evans, I’m the current chief of the Benton Fire Department. I don’t have much more than what Chief Ford spoke of. I will tell you that there is a three-pronged approach to that alarm system. It notifies when the door is opened. It has a light beam inside of that baby box, so it notifies when something enters the box and it has a pressure plate inside the bassinet. So it notifies. All three of those individually is an alarm sent to our dispatch system. As Chief Ford said, it does notify several people at the fire department, but also as another form of redundancy at that same time, it dispatches our ambulance service and our police department. So on the rear of our facilities, we have manual keypads so that any of those personnel can enter the building if, by chance, our personnel are out on a fire or EMS run.


Rep Dalby: Mr. Evans, will you entertain questions?


Evans: Yes, ma’am.


Rep Dalby: Representative Hudson, you’re recognized for a question.


Rep Hudson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just real quick. Representative Mayberry had referenced some ongoing upkeep and maintenance obligations. Could you explain sort of what that looks like and about how much it costs?


Evans BFD: Certainly. That is a stand-alone cellular monitoring service. So it has to be separate and independent of the building’s alarm system. So there is a fee monthly for that. Ours is currently $38 a month for that monitoring fee. Safe Haven Baby Box has what I would call more like an administrative fee yearly. And that fee is actually dependent upon when you sign that contract. So what it would be currently for a new box, I do not know. I will tell you that ours is $200 a year and that is for professional services and inspections through Safe Haven.


Rep Dalby: Members, any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Evans, for being here. Representative Mayberry, you’re recognized to close for your bill.


Rep Mayberry: Members, I’m going to make it simple. I would appreciate a good vote.


Rep Dalby: Members, Representative Mayberry is closed for the bill. Do I have a motion? We have a motion do pass.


BLR Staff: As amended.


Rep Dalby: As amended. Is that correct?


Rep Mayberry: That’s correct.


Rep Dalby: Okay. We have a motion do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations, you have passed your bill as amended.


Rep Mayberry: Thank you. Thank you, members.


HB 1088 Threatening a judicial officer or juror (definitions)

Rep Dalby: Members, let’s turn to House Bill 1088. House Bill 1088. Representative Duffield, my understanding that you’ll be presenting this bill on behalf of Representative Berry, so you’re recognized to come to the table and to present House Bill 1088.


Rep Duffield: Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Berry could not be here today due to some obligations in some other committees. So he asked me to run this bill for him. It’s House Bill–


Rep Dalby: Oops. Hold up.


Rep Duffield: Yes, Ma’am.


Rep Dalby: We have an impact statement, so we need to get that impact statement. I’m sorry, I apologize.


Rep Duffield: Yes, Ma’am.


Rep Dalby: Just hang on just a second.  It’s a sentencing impact statement that will be coming to you. We’ll give the members– I forgot and I apologize– give the members a chance to read the impact statement. Members who are new to this committee, we often have impact assessment statements by the Sentencing Commission as well as fiscal impact statements. So if you’ll just take a moment to familiarize yourself with that and then Representative Duffield, I’ll give you the nod to start in. Members, if you’ve had an opportunity to read it, well just kind of look up here so I can gauge if everybody’s good with it. Okay. All right. Now, with that little pause in the action, Representative Duffield, you’re recognized to present House Bill 1088 on behalf of Representative Berry.


Rep Duffield: Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1088 is adding some definitions, and it says an act to amend the definitions used in relation to the offensive threatening a judicial official or juror and for other purposes. And if you look down at section one, originally, it stated ‘immediate family’ means the spouse or child of a judicial official or juror. What this does will add the word ‘parent’ to further add protection to the parent. And then if you look down at section 2c, this bill will add prosecuting attorney or deputy prosecuting attorney. And that is the only changes to this bill, the added definitions, to add some further protection to keep people from being harassed in these situations.


Rep Dalby: Members, do we have any questions for Representative Duffield? Seeing no questions, we do have a couple of folks who have signed up. We have Greg Parrish who signed up to speak against the bill, Mr. Parrish. You may. Mr. Parrish, Mr. Rosenzweig, if you just each identify yourself and you’ll be recognized to speak against the bill.


Rosenzweig: I’m Jeff Rosenzweig, the Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and of course, Greg Parrish is the director of the Public Defender Commission. The definitions as currently, involve judicial officers are, of course, judges and administrative law judges, people like that. This bill would add people who are representing party litigants instead of decision-makers. And it is going to run a significant possibility of a lot of mischief. They did not have– the proposal before you does not have the law in it to which it pertains. That law has some serious constitutional issues, talks about directly or indirectly making a threat, and it talks about property, but doesn’t define property. Is there intangible property as well as real property? There’s almost never a prosecution under this. But what this would do is run the risk of chilling conversations, sometimes heated, between prosecutors, deputy prosecutors, defense lawyers, that type of thing, particularly when you’re dealing with something as amorphous as indirect threats. If someone mutters something, “Oh, if that guy doesn’t do something, I’m going to pop them in the nose.” That’s a felony under this law even if no one ever has any intent to do anything. It’s one thing to protect judges and jurors. That’s appropriate because they are the decision-makers, but to add it to one side of the, shall we say, the person in the trenches where you’re just naturally going to have disputes, which will sometimes get heated, and to make any such statement, even made not to anyone in particular but just sort of muttered, a felony or give someone the leverage to charge a felony is going to be a significant problem. I don’t think we need it. I think the terroristic threatening laws already deal with this. So I don’t think we need to add prosecutors or deputy prosecutors to this particular legislation.


Parrish: Greg Parrish, Arkansas Public Defender Commission. I won’t belabor what Mr. Rosenzweig said, but I can tell you in 30-plus years of defense work and prosecution work, this is an adversarial system. And it’s never uncommon for us to have words, both ways. We can be best of friends at a social gathering, but tomorrow we’re in court. And we’re battling. These are high-stress cases, and I hate to think that if this law had been in effect for 30 years, the number of times I could have probably been charged for some of the things I’ve said in the heat of negotiations or battle. Thank you.


Rep Dalby: Members, are there any questions? Representative Richmond, you’re recognized for a question.


Rep Richmond: Thank you, Madam Chair. What you’re saying seems like it’s some pretty serious consequences if this particular bill passes and becomes law. But so does that mean– because in front of us we have, the Arkansas Sentencing Commission has given this impact letter. In the very last line on this, it says, “For this reason, the projected impact of the proposed bill is minimum.” And are they misleading us with this particular letter?


Rosenzweig: Well, I haven’t seen the letter, but I can tell you this. In previous sessions, I’ve regarded their estimates with some skepticism. The problem is you’ve got two issues. You’ve got the actual people who are charged, but you also have the chilling effect that you’re going to have. Prosecutor tells Mr. Parrish or someone, “I hear you said so and so about me. And if you raise this point, I’m going to– we can think about charging you.” You run into all sorts of potential for mischief that you simply don’t need to have. And because it has some, frankly, some First Amendment consequences and chilling of speech is a consequence under the First Amendment as well.


Rep Richmond: Follow up, Madam Chair?


Rep Dalby: You’re recognized.


Rep Richmond: Do you have a problem with parents being added to the language?


Rosenzweig: With regard to the parents of judges or jurors? No, I don’t have a problem with that because they are– I can see the possibility of mischief there. But judges and jurors are entitled to special protection under the law. I can’t in court go up to a judge or juror and talk with them and get into a dispute with them. But I can and am expected to do so with the prosecutor or a deputy prosecutor.


Rep Richmond: All right, thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Rep Dalby: Members, any other questions? Seeing no other questions, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Duffield, you’re recognized to close for the bill.


Rep Duffield: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. I appreciate it. Do pass.


Rep Dalby: Are you making a motion for do pass?


Rep Duffield: Yes, ma’am.


Rep Dalby: Members, we have a motion to do pass on the floor. Is there any discussion of the motion to do pass? Seeing no discussion. All in favor of the motion, say aye. All opposed, say no. The no’s have it. The bill has failed. 


HB 1004 Adding full addresses to Sex Offender Registry

Okay, members, let’s move to House Bill 1004. House Bill 1004, Representative Ray. Representative Ray has an amendment that is being passed out at this time.


Rep Ray: Madam Chair, I also have a couple of guests that I’d like to invite to–


Rep Dalby: Let’s hang on just a second. I want to get this amendment passed out. Let’s just hang on. Just a second.


Rep S Berry: Madam Chair, I have your– Mr. Ray, I have your amendment. Like our last bill that we discussed, do you have a financial impact study?


Rep Dalby: Has a fiscal impact study been done, Representative Ray?


Rep Ray: No, Madam Chair. There’s not.


Rep S Berry: Okay. Well, in your Sentencing Commission, have they prepared a report for you?


Rep Ray: No, but this bill doesn’t deal with criminal punishment. The sex offender registry is a civil measure.


Rep Dalby: Representative Ray, in this committee, they can always ask for one whether or not, in the presenter’s opinion, whether it’s entitled to or not. But my question to Representative Berry, are you asking for a fiscal impact statement?


Rep S Berry: Well, I think that’d be necessary, would it not?


Rep Dalby: Okay. And are you also asking for a Sentencing Commission report?


Rep S Berry: That’s right.


Rep Dalby: Okay, Members.


Rep S Berry: That would be necessary also.


Rep Dalby: Since we have a member who is requesting a fiscal impact statement and a Sentencing Commission report, let’s see, do I have somebody from the Sentencing Commission here? There you are. Back there, you’ve heard the request. Okay, with that, Representative Ray, we’re going to have to put your bill off until we get those two reports. Miss Brown will notify DFA to get that report. And we have the Sentencing Commission. And those should come back fairly quickly. We should have them certainly by the end of next week. Since we have that, we’re going to have to defer your– not defer, not put it on deferred, but we’ll put it off. And as soon as I’m notified that we have those two reports, we’ll hear your bill.


Rep Ray: Okay, thank you.


HB 1123 Allows people who voluntarily sought mental treatment to get concealed carry back

Rep Dalby: Members, I think I saw Representative Vaught. There you are. Representative Vaught has entered the room, so members let’s turn to House Bill 1123, and House Bill 1123 has an amendment. I believe Representative Vaught, you signed your amendment, haven’t you?


Rep Vaught: Yes, ma’am.


Rep Dalby: Okay.


Rep Vaught: 1123.


Rep Dalby: Yes, House Bill 1123. The amendment is being passed around. All right, I believe all the members have the amendment. You’re recognized to present your amendment to House Bill 1123.


Rep Vaught: Thank you, Madam Chair. So the amendment is just deleting line 13 and substituting the following, the circuit court shall grant the petition if. So we’re just putting back in the language that was in the previous bill in statute, that I had actually inadvertently changed how–


Rep Dalby: A shifting of the burden.


Rep Vaught: The burden. That’s the word I’m looking for. Thank you, Madam Chair. Shifting of the burden, and I didn’t mean to shift the burden.


Rep Dalby: Members you’ve heard the explanation of the amendment. Are there any questions of Representative Vaught to the amendment? Seeing no questions, do I have a motion to adopt the amendment? I have a motion to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor to adopt the amendment, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The amendment has been adopted. You’re now recognized to present your bill as amended.


Rep Vaught: Thank you, committee. And thank you, Madam Chair. So this has already been in place for veterans in the state of Arkansas. After three years, they could apply to get back their personal gun rights for concealed carry. And this right here is just making it where everybody can enjoy that same procedure. And it works for veterans, so I think it should work for everybody. And this is only if they voluntarily put themselves into a mental facility.


Rep Dalby: Members, you’ve heard the explanation. Are there any questions? Representative Clowney, you’re recognized for a question.


Rep Clowney: Thank you, Madam Chair. The bill, I’m fine. I’m trying to reconcile this amendment language. And I want to make sure that it says what we want it to say. Because it feels like it’s now– and I’m probably just misreading this. But if we go to page 3 and look at line 13. “The circuit court shall grant the petition if the circuit court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is likely to act in a manner that is dangerous to public safety.” Do you see what I mean? There’s a negative that’s missing there. If we’re going to make that amendment, you have to put that not back in.


Rep Vaught: Yes.


Rep Clowney: I believe.


Rep Vaught: Yeah, good catch. That is why unless was there. I tell you what. And I took out the ‘unless’ because that’s what I was guided to do.


Rep Dalby: Yes. I tell you what, members, you’re the last bill. Let’s take a 10, 15-minute recess, and let’s get BLR to come over with that amendment then it restores the original language, which I think is what you are wanting to do is restore the original language.


Rep Vaught: Yes, yes.


Rep Dalby: So let’s just take 15 minutes. It won’t take them long to get it over here, and then we’ll get back on track with your bill and apologize for any inconvenience.


Rep Vaught: Thank you, Madam Chair.


Rep Dalby: Members, we’re going to be in recess for 15 minutes or so until we get that a amendment over here.



Rep Dalby: Members, let’s kind of start gathering up. Members, let’s start gathering up. All right, members. Let’s start taking our seats. The amendment has been sent to us. And we’ll back this sucker up and start all over again. But fortunately we have the time to do it today. Before we go back on camera, if anything, I think the most crucial thing we do in this committee, we want to get it right because we do impact every citizen in this state at some level. And so, and I appreciate Representative Vaught’s patience with that, but I would rather us take a recess and get it caught today as to opposed to having her have to come back again since we have her captured. All right. Now we’re going to go back on. House Judiciary is now back in session. Members, where we left off before we took the recess, we are on Representative Vaught’s bill, House Bill 1123, and she had presented an amendment. We had voted on that amendment. Now we have, let’s call this a substitute amendment, which I think will clarify and get us back on track. And so Representative Vaught, everybody has in front of them the amendment, and let’s run that amendment.


Rep Vaught: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to personally thank Representative Clowney for catching that little mistake there so we could get it fixed in this committee and I appreciate Madam Chair gaveling out just for a few minutes and allowing us to get the amendment over here so we can go ahead and move forward with this bill. So this amendment will fix that spot on page 3, line 15 and 17 where we put back in the word ‘not.’


Rep Dalby: All right, members. You’ve heard the explanation of the amendment. Are there any questions? Do I have a motion to adopt the amendment? I have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on that. Seeing no discussion, all in favor of adopting the amendment, please say aye. The amendment has been adopted. Representative Vaught, we’ll start all over again. You are now recognized to present your bill as amended.


Rep Vaught: Thank you, Madam Chair. So again, this procedure has already been working for veterans and all we’re doing now is saying everybody will have that same right to be able to go back and seek their concealed carry gun rights. And with that, I would appreciate a good vote from y’all.


Rep Dalby: Members, do we have any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Vaught, you’re recognized to close for your bill.


Rep Vaught: I’m closed. I appreciate a good vote.


Rep Dalby: Members, Representative Vaught has closed for her bill. I have a motion on the floor of motion do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, do pass is amended. All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. You have passed your bill as amended.


Rep Vaught: Thank you, committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Rep Dalby: Members of the committee, I have nothing else that anyone has come to me today saying that they’re ready to run. I have not heard from anybody. In regard to those, watch your text messages. I apologize to Representative Milligan. He got left off the text message list and so y’all be nice to him today. He’s feeling left out, and I apologize, Representative Milligan. Watch your text messages. Soon as I know that we have something ready to go, I’ll let you know. Otherwise, kind of just watch the calendar, get yourself brushed up on some things. Folks may walk in here and we may just have some that pop up on Tuesday. We got out an hour early. I thought it might have taken us a little longer. I think it probably would have taken us longer had some things not gone as they had gone. But with that, you have an hour before we have to be back in session. I appreciate your hard work today. Thank you all for being so diligent. If at any time you have any questions of Representative Berry or me, please do not hesitate to contact us. And with that, we are adjourned.