Today's Paper Latest stories Elections Most commented Obits Traffic Newsletters Weather Puzzles + Games
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
story.lead_photo.caption Eve Jorgensen (right), state chapter president with Moms Demand Action, answers a question Monday along with Joseph Giannetto, associate regional director with Everytown for Gun Safety, during a legislative committee meeting at the state Capitol in Little Rock. - Photo by Staton Breidenthal

Republicans in the Legislature appeared more amenable Monday to legislation allowing for the temporary judicial confiscation of guns than to raising the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic rifles, reflecting a similar openness to so-called red-flag laws as that of Gov. Asa Hutchinson.

Still, either one of the two gun-control proposals presented to the Legislature by Democrats is likely to face an uphill battle during the 2019 session, their sponsors said.

The pair of bills -- one raising the minimum age to purchase an "assault weapon" to 21, the other to create an "extreme risk" warrant that would allow a judge to order the confiscation of guns from someone deemed a threat to himself or others -- were presented to the legislative Joint Performance Review Committee on Monday. The committee, along with the governor's Arkansas School Safety Commission, is studying what policies to put in place to prevent school shootings.

In the first several months of work, each of the groups has focused attention on the idea of expanding the number of armed schoolteachers and staff members. Those proposals have been met with opposition from some gun-control advocates.

One such group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, raised objections in July after its members were shut out from speaking at an earlier hearing of the Joint Performance Review Committee. The co-chairman of that committee, state Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, said she had scheduled Monday's meeting to allow input from the group, as well as from the legislative sponsors of gun-control legislation, state Rep. Greg Leding, D-Fayetteville, and state Sen. Will Bond, D-Little Rock.

The state chapter president of Moms Demand Action, Eve Jorgensen, said the group had grown from a chapter in central Arkansas two years ago to a dozen chapters and nearly 1,000 members today. Seven chapters have opened, she said, since the shooting in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine's Day that killed 17 students and staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Referring to a panicked situation at last month's Salt Bowl at War Memorial Stadium in Little Rock, where unfounded reports of gunshots sent the crowd of thousands fleeing, Jorgensen said the members of her group oppose arming people outside of law enforcement authorities to intervene in such situations.

"More guns in that situation would not have been helpful," she said. "More guns could have made it a lot worse."

Everytown for Gun Safety, the parent group for Moms Demand Action, supports both red-flag laws and higher age requirements for gun purchases, according to its website. About 20 members of the group attended Monday's meeting.

The red-flag legislation, as it has been referred to in other states, was one of five laws examined by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in its investigation last month into Arkansas' high rate of gun violence, which ranks seventh-worst in the nation with 16 deaths per 100,000 people.

The report examined laws that other states have passed to deter all forms of gun deaths -- not just school shootings, but other homicides and suicides.

Several days after the report was published, Hutchinson said at a news conference with reporters that he was "open" to supporting a red-flag law during the general session starting in January, if it was "accompanied by due process."

Leding, the legislation's House sponsor, told the committee Monday that he had been working on a draft of the bill since the Parkland school shooting in February.

In the aftermath of that shooting, Florida passed red-flag legislation that was signed into law by Republican Gov. Rick Scott. Leding said his proposal is not model legislation but is based on a nearly 2-decade-old law in Connecticut.

The legislation drafted by Leding and Bond would require that two law enforcement officers investigate a threat and take the matter to a judge, who has to determine that grounds exist to confiscate someone's weapons while considering whether the person has threatened to harm himself or others. Within three weekdays, a follow-up hearing must be held to determine if the threat still exists.

"These are drafts, and we're willing to work with anybody," Leding said. "Republican governors across the country are signing [red-flag bills] into law."

Still, Republicans on the committee seemed skeptical.

"Is there any way to do this that is less likely to take away rights?" asked state Sen. Alan Clark, R-Lonsdale. "Have you got it as narrow as you can make it?"

State Sen. Terry Rice, R-Waldron, suggested the focus should be on "Hollywood, TV, movie gun violence," while state Rep. Brandt Smith, R-Jonesboro, suggested that laws aiming to stop mass shooters would only make them "better at flouting the law."

State Sen. Trent Garner, R-El Dorado, said gun-control activists used "faulty logic" by focusing on deterring gun ownership, instead of arming people, such as teachers, to stop shootings.

"It only addresses 'if,' it doesn't address 'when,'" Garner said.

Others, including Senate President Pro Tempore-elect Jim Hendren, R-Sulphur Springs, sought to figure out what is allowable under current state law if police suspect someone of planning an attack.

Bond, a lawyer and co-sponsor of the red-flag bill, said that in some cases, the law may allow for jailing on criminal charges or even commitment to a mental hospital, but it does not give the judge the ability to take away someone's weapons barring a conviction.

Hendren, whose uncle is the governor, said there was an openness to the legislation in the Senate.

"A lot of us are having to get educated on the issue," Hendren said. "There's a willingness to have it explained to us."

The second proposal by Bond and Leding, to raise the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle, received much less discussion toward the end of the three-hour hearing.

"What is the purpose of it?" asked state Rep. Bob Ballinger, R-Hindsville, noting that the law could be skirted by teenagers who buy deadly non-semi-automatic weapons.

Irvin, the chairman of the committee, said the panel's next meeting will focus on issues related to mental health. She said she opposed red-flag legislation.

A Section on 09/11/2018

Print Headline: State panel takes up gun-control proposals

Sponsor Content

Comments

You must be signed in to post comments
  • JIMBOB47
    September 11, 2018 at 5:03 a.m.

    Chicago has some of the most strict laws in the country.... hmmm, doesn't work for them either. These 'laws' are nothing but 'feel good' measures for politicians and anti-gun groups and do nothing to deter the nut cases and/or genuine bad guys. It's a 'society' thing... not a 'legal' thing. Find another solution

  • RBear
    September 11, 2018 at 6:15 a.m.

    Jimbo you are incorrect on your statement about Chicago gun laws. That's a false flag thrown by gun advocates that has been disproven MANY times. It's really pathetic that gun advocates can't seem to put forth factual information and continue to throw out misinformation.
    ...
    With regards to red-flag laws, it seems gun advocates oppose them also. Then we get the "find another solution" statement from Jimbo who offers none himself. In other words, gun advocates will not come to the table with meaningful solutions other than more guns and in more places. That's not a solution. That's just contributing to the problem.

  • JMort69
    September 11, 2018 at 7:29 a.m.

    No matter how you feel about this issue, the fact that, in the last meeting, the opponents were treated horribly by Sen. Trent Garner is reprehensible. He stated that he didn't care if the opponents got to speak since they weren't "his people". Who does he think he is? Do our soldiers die so only certain groups have the right of free speech? Garner has shown his volatility in more than one situation. Is he fit to serve? And, as for Ballinger, since his shrieking, arm-waving diatribe at the NWA Political Animals Club, what little credibility he had is gone. The fact is, these guys are owned by the gun lobby, and by many other lobbies in our state. They jump when these money men say frog. Let's show Mr. Garner that no citizen has any more or fewer rights in our country than any other citizen. One would think that, as a member of our legislature, he might understand that. But, money is all that matters to the crooks in this legislature, as they have shown over and over. Just another reason to VOTE THEM OUT, VOTE THEM OUT!!

  • savinglives
    September 11, 2018 at 7:46 a.m.

    It is not, and never truly was about "gun control". It is all about "people" control and this is one more government step toward a police state. It starts as seizing guns of someone "likely" to harm themselves or others. Whose interpretation is that? Is it someone with the authority to order this who has a grudge against you? Is it police that believe they should have more power? Just exactly who is it that determines this? And you can bet once this is instituted and we lay down for it that there will be a "next" and a "next" - each successfully stronger to eliminate the guns from the general population. This is the goal and if they have to sneak it in and small act at a time they will. Wake up, folks. The goal here is to take away more rights; and this is a big one. Disarm the public, have total control.

  • abb
    September 11, 2018 at 7:49 a.m.

    We should call this law "Spurned lovers revenge law". Do you really want mentally ill judges like Griffin deciding who is dangerous and who isn't? There are over 25,000 gun laws on the books. Start enforcing them!

    I challenge all of you anti-gun types to go down to a gun store and ask for the denied stack of 4473s. Then cross reference them with ACIC. You'll find THOUSANDS of years in federal prison in the half dozen gunstores in Little Rock alone, but the Dist Atty and ATF don't want to prosecute.

  • RBear
    September 11, 2018 at 7:59 a.m.

    Another bit of misinformation from abb. There are NOT 25,000 gun laws on the books, but that doesn't stop her misinformation campaign to distort the issue. I think she has THS - Trump Hyperbole Syndrome.

  • GOHOGS19
    September 11, 2018 at 8:02 a.m.

    RBEAR are you really saying Chicago doesn't have a gun problem or very strict gun control laws? If so you are delusional.

  • abb
    September 11, 2018 at 8:05 a.m.

    Rbear, between Conlaw, federal law, state law, county, city, twsp ordnances, on top of all the administrative and tax laws and regulations, there were over 22,000 gun laws in 2008 when Obama took office. Hell, there might be 30,000 now. Enforce them! We don't need any new gun laws.

    "Formerly we suffered from crime, now we suffer from laws"---Tacitus, the Annals of Rome.

  • LR1955
    September 11, 2018 at 8:36 a.m.

    I’m a long time firearms owner and I’m fine with some of the “feel good” changes that have been tossed out there. Raise purchasing all guns & ammo to 21, do background checks at gun shows or stop the shows, take them away from spouse beaters, take them away from crazy people, I’d even register mine.
    And crack down on all criminals, new or repeat offenders, if in possession of a fire arm during the criminal act. Take the worse ones to trial w/ good evidence and no deals.

  • StrayGoose70
    September 11, 2018 at 8:43 a.m.

    Well, it's interesting to see that the far-left radical organization, Moms Demand Action, is supporting not only these infringements on the 2nd Amendment, but also supporting Clarke Tucker. Keep that in mind as you vote in November. Also, there are sufficient laws already on the Arkansas books to address individual situations involving persons who might be affected by a "red flag" law; therefore, such "red flag" laws insidious infringements on Constitutional rights.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT