►
Description
House Civil Justice Subcommittee - February 15, 2022 - House Hearing Room 2
A
A
A
We'll
take
care
of
item
seven
and
eight
number
seven
house
bill,
27
24
has
been
rolled
two
weeks
number
eight
hjr760
has
been
requested
to
be
rolled
three
weeks.
That
brings
us
to
house
bill
1884
by
representative
rudd.
We
got
a
motion.
Do
we
have
a
second
we've
got
a
motion
and
a
second
chairman,
rudd
you're
recognized.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
also
think
the
committee
worked
with
with
miss
fogerty
in
making
this
making
the
corrections
from
that
was
pointed
out
last
week,
so
build
is
doing
exactly
what
I
wanted
it
to
do.
Now
we
have
an
amendment.
A
A
A
A
And
committee,
do
we
have
any
questions
on
house
bill?
1884
questions
been
called
we're
voting
on
house
bill
1884,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
opposed
no
the
eyes
haven't
chairman
your
bill
goes
to
civil
justice.
Full
congratulations.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
committee
members.
This
will
be
the
shortest
bill
that
you
see
all
year.
It
adds
the
word
deeds
and
what
it
does
is
it
specifies
that,
in
addition
to
deeds
of
trust,
deeds
recorded
prior
to
state
lanes
for
taxes
or
fees
are
superior
to
the
state
lane.
A
A
A
A
Okay,
that
leaves
us
with
one
amendment
left
and
representative
garrett.
Do
you
want
to
go
with
your
amendment
of
13
462.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
this.
What
I
would
hope
would
be
a
friendly
amendment
for
the
chairman's
bill
to
recognize.
I
appreciate
her
bringing
this
legislation.
I
wholeheartedly
support
the
legislation,
but
what
this
legislation
is
doing
is
providing
a
contractor
who
contracts
the
department
of
children,
services
that
provides
foster
care,
which
we
wholeheartedly
need,
provides
them
with
limited
protections
on
the
gtla,
because
they're
actually
acting
as
a
state
contractor
and
a
problem
we've
been
running
into
for
folks
that
provide
this
service
to
the
state
as
they
can't
find
insurance.
D
In
fact,
one
of
the
folks
that
provides
this
service
to
the
state
had
36
bids.
Two
bids
came
back,
one
bid
said
no,
and
they
actually
had
one
person
to
go
with
for
liability
coverage
under
this,
and
it
was
they're
spending
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
on
insurance
premiums
and
they
have
zero
claims,
so
hopefully
we're
providing
a
need
to
these
folks
to
continue
this
care.
So
what
this
legislation
does
is
narrows
this
ability,
or
this
protection
just
to
the
department
of
safety.
D
E
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman,
and
you
know
I'm
in
general
support
of
this
effort.
What
concerns
me
is
the
possibility
of
you
know
a
an
accident
occurring
and
this
being
comes
into
court
and
the
judge
is
going
to
sit
there
and
argue
the
lawyer
is
going
to
argue
about
what
it
applies
to.
For
instance,
it
says
this
grant
of
limited
toward
exposure
shall
be
provided
only
when
the
non-governmental
independent
contractors
are
providing
by
contract
or
agreement
foster
care
continuation
continuum
services
to
children
in
the
department
of
custody.
E
So
I
can
foresee
a
situation
where
an
independent
contractor
is
transporting
children
to
a
doctor's
office,
counselors
carl
perkinson,
or
something
like
that.
What
if
an
accident
occurs
is-
and
it's
the
independent
contractor's
fault,
and
not
only
perhaps
the
kids
in
the
foster
care
services
that
are
inside
the
vehicle
are
injured.
There
could
be
a
third
party
who
has
property
damage
or
personal
injuries.
E
I
can
certainly
see
lawyers
for
the
independent
contractors
come
in
and
say,
look
we
were
providing
you
know
as
part
of
our
contract
services.
We
were
transporting
these
kids
back
and
forth.
Therefore,
you
know,
we've
got
limited
liability,
so
what
I
would
I
don't
want
to
hold
this
bill
up
here
today,
but
at
some
point
I
would
like
to
get
clarification
if
the
independent
contractor
is
actually
providing
what
I
describe
as
a
discretionary
function,
whether
it's
such
to
put
a
child
in
a
particular
location
or
something
that's
unique
to
the
child
care
services.
E
I
don't
have
a
problem,
giving
them
limited
liability
because
they
are
kind
of
performing
a
function
of
the
state.
But
if
you
know
the
state
also
performs
ordinary
everyday
functions
as
well,
so
if
somebody's
injured
in
a
car,
I
don't
think
it's
fair
to
all
the
other
citizens
of
the
state
of
tennessee
or
even
to
the
children
that
are
in
this
foster
care
situation
to
have
their
damages
limited.
E
We,
I
can
foresee
a
situation
where
a
child
becomes
severely
injured
or
burned,
and
you
know
requires
millions
of
dollars
of
medical
care
and
treatment
down
the
road,
and
this
could
potentially,
I
think
as
written.
I
just
think
we
ought
to
try
to
correct
this
language
or
tighten
it
up
so
that
that
situation
is
addressed,
and
I
just
defer
to
the
sponsor
for
any
comments.
But
that's
my
that's
my
concern.
So
thank
you
very
much
chairman.
Thank
you
for
the
sponsor
for
this
bill.
D
I
think
that
we've
limited
the
scope
to
this,
because
the
bill
several
years
ago
got
rid
of
the
statute
limitations
for
any
sexual
type
issues
with
these
kids
in
custody.
So
this
is
where
this
is
going
to
apply
on
whether
it's
going
to
apply
in
the
realm
of
representative
griffey's
concern.
So
because
there's
there's
no
statute
now,
which
grant
is
a
good
thing,
but
there's
also
a
very
difficult
thing
to
ensure
around
that
for
the
time
frame
of
going
back
forever
right.
So
that's
the
issue
that
we're
that
we're
finding.
D
So
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
have
that
particular
issue
that
represent
griffey
has
has
indicated
one
thing
I
said:
the
department
of
safety.
I
believe
this
is
the
department
of
children's
services,
so
I
want
to
make
clear
that
it's
not
contracts,
the
department
of
safety
is
department
of
children's
services.
So
with
that
I'll
be
glad
to
take
you
further
questions.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
appreciate
the
intent
of
this
bill
and
these
organizations
and
these
independent
contractors
provide
vital
services.
My
question
is:
is
this
you?
You
just
said
we're
trying
to
address
the
issue,
I
think
with
the
insurers.
F
They
didn't
want
to
ensure
these
contractors,
because
in
your
terms
of
the
issue
of
going
back
forever-
and
we
opened
that
up
with
that
law
unintentionally
a
couple
years
ago,
I
think
we're
trying
to
clean
up.
So
my
question
is
the
way
the
insurance
companies
work
in
that
trouble
with
insurance
companies.
Why
aren't
we
codifying
a
statute
of
limitations
specifically
for
these
contractors,
rather
than
a
torque
cap,
because
the
it's
that
length
of
time
and
perpetuity
of
filing
a
claim
that
seems
to
be
the
problem?
F
So
I
I
appreciate
that
my
concern
is
we're
not
solving
the
problem
for
insurance
companies
that
these
contractors
are
facing,
because
insurance
companies
want
to
have
and
give
policies
back
to
based
on
predictability
and
time
limit
of
exposure.
As
you
know,
so
they
want
to
be
able
to
close
their
books.
F
You
know
and
not
have
to
worry
about
something
coming
back
10
years
later,
rather
than
I
mean
because,
right
now,
with
this
legislation,
you
could
have
a
15
year
old
claim
but
torque
capped,
but
that's
opening
up
that
insurance
company
for
still
an
unlimited
amount
of
time.
That
seems
to
be
the
problem
we're
seeking
to
address,
but
we're
not
closing
that
time
frame
for
them
for
this
limited
purpose.
F
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
would
welcome
any
more
potential
legislation
down
the
road,
but
the
fear
that
this
legislation,
if
this
is
not
passed,
is
that
we're
not
going
to
have
contractors
to
provide
this
service
to
the
state,
which
is
vitally
important
for
this
particular
area.
To
make
sure
we
have
folks
that
can
take
care
of
our
children
that
are
in
in
the
state's
custody.
So
our
fear
is
that,
while
insurance
is
very,
very
expensive
down
the
road
for
any
contractor,
that's
in
this
business.
D
We
only
have
one
right
now
that,
provided
that
such
insurance,
the
fear,
is
we're
not
going
to
have
any,
and
so
our
hope
is,
with
this
step,
we're
improving
the
process
and
again
I'd
welcome
any
legislation
further
to
cap,
that
particular
tort
issue
for
a
statute
down
the
road,
but
I
don't
believe
that
addresses
it
here.
One
thing
that
I
failed
to
mention
is
that
the
department
of
children's
services
obviously
supports
this
legislation
and
there's
one
sentence
that
we
hope
to
correct
on
its
way
to
full.
D
If
this
committee
passes
it
out
today-
and
I
want
to
read
that,
since
the
reason
why
this
is
not
included
today,
is
that
we
did
not
want
to
file
an
untimely
amendment,
but
when
I
get
to
full
or
with
with
the
chairman's
assistance,
the
the
sentence
that
will
be
changed
with
another
amendment,
is
this
and
it
further,
I
hope,
addresses
some
of
the
representative
griffy's
concerns
to
further
narrow
how
the
this
legislation
be
applied.
D
That
sentence
is
in
civil
actions
or
claims
filed
by
the
children
and
families
who
are
intended
or
actual
recipients
of
the
foster
care
continuing
services.
The
reason
why
that
sentence
is
important
is
that
it
further
narrows
the
applicability
of
this
particular
legislation,
and
it
also
doesn't
prevent
the
children,
the
department
of
children's
services
to
sue
a
contractor
in
the
event,
something
like
that
happens,
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
is
further
clarified.
So
I
just
want
the
committee
to
understand
that
we
do
further
intend
to
amend
this
as
it
passes
out.
D
B
Thank
you,
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
a
little
concerned
that
we're
so
worried
about
actuary
tables
for
insurers
and
we're
talking
about
capping
and
making
statute
limitations
that
would
initially
not
allow
victims,
restitution
and
regress
further
down
the
road,
and
I
understand
what
we're
doing
here
and
I
support
your
bill,
but
I'm
concerned
by
some
of
the
comments
from
members
of
this
committee
that
we
would
limit
a
victim
of
abuse,
any
compensation
in
the
future
to
clean
up
something
for
insurers.
B
D
I
appreciate
those
comments
and
I
certainly
don't
want
to
put
any
insurance
company
before
any
type
of
victims,
but
the
fact
is
is
that
we've
got
to
have
these
contractors
that
provide
these
needed
services
and
find
ways
to
do
that,
and
I
hope
that
we
understand
that
how
important
those
contractors
are
that
we
have
to
take
care
of
these
children
that
are
in
the
state's
custody.
So
I
hope
we
can
continue
to
serve
that
and
I
think
this
legislation
would
certainly
help
that
goal.
So
thank
you
all
very
much.
A
B
You,
mr
chairman,
and
I
want
to
take
the
whip
garrett
with
me
on
all
my
bills,
so
that
I
can
just
stand
here
and
learn
more
about
it.
So
thank
you
very
much.
The
amendment
made
the
bill.
A
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members
section
501
c
19
of
the
internal
revenue
code
refers
to
tax-exempt
organizations
that
specifically
benefit
veterans
of
the
united
states
armed
forces.
That
means
a
501c
19.
Non-Profit
organizations
must
focus
solely
on
making
life
better
for
veterans
and
current
members
of
the
army
marine
corps,
air
force,
navy
space
force
and
coast
guard.
A
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill
representative
moon,
I'm
definitely
in
support
of
the
bill.
I
was
doing
a
little
little
homework
a
lot
of
homework
and
under
and
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
clear,
because
so
under
the
the
law
right
now
and-
and
maybe
actually
can
we
go
on
a
session
with
legal
on
this,
because
this
may
be
a
question
for
legal.
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
thank
you,
mr
and
so
under
under
the
law.
Right
now,
the
nonprofit
organizations,
their
directors
and
trustees
are
immune
from
or
there's
a
there's
a
limited
tort
on
those
individuals
that
run
the
nonprofit
organizations.
Am
I
correct
with
that
legal
moves
forward.
B
Michelle
fogerty
legal
services
tca4858601
provides
the
directors,
trustees
and
members
of
the
governing
bodies
of
non-profit
cooperatives,
corporations,
clubs,
associations
and
organizations
are
immune
from
suit
arising
from
the
conduct
of
the
affairs
of
such
cooperatives,
corporations
or
clubs.
That
immunity
does
not
apply
if
the
conduct
amounts
to
willful
wanton
or
gross
negligence,
and
then
there
is
a
list
of
the
501c
organizations
that
that
statute
applies
to
thank.
H
You
thank
you
and
this,
so
we
make
sure
that
we're
covering
everything
that
you
want
to
cover,
mr
representative,
moon,
so
but
but
in
in
my
research.
What
I've
found
is
that
that
limited
liability
does
not
include.
B
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
with
that
representative
moon,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
your
bill
is
encompassing
all
of
you
know
those
entities
and
their
value
valuable
in
their
property
to
whatever
they
own.
You
know
inside
of
this
legislation,
so
that
it's
covered
and
without
without
there
being
an
opportunity
for
a
loophole
where
someone,
if
they
are
acting
in
the
in
the
in
the
acts
of
their
service.
H
G
A
A
I
Mr
chairman
and
thank
you,
members
of
the
committee,
this
bill
house,
bill
h,
2330,
is
for
all
tennessee
gun
owners
who
have
taken
the
extra
effort
to
obtain
the
enhanced
gun
permit
that
have
taken
the
eight
hour
in
training
course
to
get
the
enhanced
permit.
I
The
bill
is
very
simple:
it
changes
the
eight
year
term
of
the
enhanced
permit
to
a
lifetime
permit
and
that's
exactly
what
it
does
nothing
more,
nothing
less.
So
I'm
certainly
here
to
answer
questions,
but
if
I
could
ask
the
chairman,
I've
got
a
guest
here,
a
friend
of
mine,
from
coffee
county
who
would
like
to
talk
about
this
legislation.
A
J
Mr
chairman,
members
of
committee,
thank
you.
My
name
is
richard
brooks
resident
of
coffey
county,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
for
me
to
speak.
I
am
a
military
veteran
former
law
enforcement
officer
served
our
nation
and
our
my
communities
most
of
my
adult
life.
Currently
I
own
a
templar
shooting
sports
indoor
range
and
gun
store,
and
we
specialize
in
home
and
self-defense
training,
including
providing
the
handgun
permit
course,
which
I've
taught
for
about
11
or
12
years.
Now
I
asked
representative
bricken
to
sponsor
this
legislation
to
make
the
tennessee
and
gun
permit
a
lifetime
permit.
J
Currently
we
have
two
different
permits:
a
permit-less
carry
law
that
is
not
quite
constitutional.
Carry
given
the
restriction
of
the
law
where
tennesseans
can
carry
there.
Is
legislation
proposed
to
change
that
current
law
has
caused
vast
decline
in
tennesseans
to
seek
training
on
the
use
of
their
firearms?
J
We
have
seen
this
decline
statewide,
and
it
is
it's
quite
concerning
the
people
should
be
encouraged
to
seek
training
from
qualified
professionals
not
encouraged
to
carry
out
carry
without
ever
having
touched
a
firearm.
Current
fees
for
the
permits
are
a
hundred
dollars
for
eight
years
and
300
for
the
lifetime.
J
This
fee
is
a
tax
on
the
rights
of
the
people.
It
costs
the
state
68
to
issue
a
permit,
whether
enhanced
or
concealed.
Only
a
change
to
the
current
fee
should
be
included
in
the
bill
to
something
reasonable,
75
to
100,
to
cover
the
cost
of
background
check
and
administrative
costs
to
the
state.
When
a
person
takes
the
time
and
invests
their
money
into
obtaining
an
enhanced
handgun
permit
they're
not
required
to
take
the
class
again
to
renew
their
permit,
or
even
if
it's
less
than
eight
years
expired
to
to
get
it
renewed.
J
J
I
had
heard
some
rumor
of
of
a
possible
bill.
I
have
not
seen
any
factual
bills
put
in
yet
that
would
issue
a
new
gun
under
a
voucher
to
attend.
The
enhanced
permit
course,
which
I
think
is
a
great
idea,
and
so
maybe
that's
another
idea
for
for
somebody
to
sponsor
a
bill
of
that
sort.
It's
it's
an
idea
where
the
stake
and
I
also
have
an
idea
where
the
state
can
get
the
funding
for
this.
Currently,
every
background
check
done
in
in
tennessee
costs
the
dealers
ten
dollars.
J
That
fee
goes
to
the
tbi
ticks
unit
and
again
another
tax
and
infringement.
As
of
yesterday
evening,
there's
been
about
62
000
background
checks
done
in
tennessee.
That
was
off
my
my
records.
That's
about
620
000
in
the
first
six
weeks
of
the
year
averaging
roughly
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
per
week.
That
goes
to
ticks
and
tbi
and
to
employ
people
for
something
that's
free
through
the
atf
and
fbi
national
instant
check
system.
J
A
Brooks
you're,
thank
you.
Three
minutes
are
up,
but
we're
going
to
open
it
up
for
questions
representative
griffey.
E
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
brooks
for
your
military
service
and
your
law
enforcement
service,
and
I
just
wanted
to
comment.
I
think
it
tennessee
has
shown
leadership
in
recognizing
that
probably
the
the
biggest
factor
that
can
stop
a
horrible
crime
from
continuing
or
other
people
to
get
hurt
or
injured
is
to
have
responsible
citizens
with
the
ability
to
defend
themselves
and
others.
Yes,
sir,
and
I
certainly
encourage
any
and
every
tennessean
that
intends
to
go
carrying
a
firearm
that
they
need
to
get
training
to
do
so.
E
That's
just
it's
almost
foolish.
You
really
ought
to
get
training,
but
I
certainly
will
advocate
to
the
very
end
that
every
tennessean
has
the
right
to
carry
a
firearm
to
protect
themselves
consistent
with
the
second
amendment.
So
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
this
position
I'll
be
supporting
this
bill.
Thank
you.
Thank
mr
chairman.
H
Right
right
right,
but
thank
you
for
your
service
and
and
thank
you
for
your
testimony.
You
know
there
there
is
money
available
in
last
year's
budget
for
gun
safety
classes.
Yes,
sir,
and
so
I
encourage
everyone
to
take
advantage
of
that.
I've
always
said
you
know
and
I'm
a
pro-gun
marine
right.
You
know
not
to
the
nra
level
program
right.
You
know
common
sense
program
right
and
I
heard
a
couple
of
hisses
out
there
right,
but
you
know
I
think
it.
H
I
think-
and
I
expressed
this
on
the
house
floor
when
we
passed
permit
less,
carry
which
I
didn't
vote
for
for
the
record,
but
but
I
think
a
lot
of
our
people
are
going
to
get
caught
up
in
permit.
Let's
carry
because
of
ignorance.
Yes,
sir
right,
you
know,
because
of
not
understanding
the
law
of
when
you
can
brandish
that
weapon,
you
know
which
is
automatic,
aggravated
assault.
H
If
you
do
it
at
the
wrong
time,
you
put
it
out,
that's
a
felony
at
the
same
after
you
know,
you
know
shooting
at
someone
for
breaking
into
your
shed.
You
know.
That's!
That's!
That's
attempted
murder!
That's
right!
Right!
H
Killing
someone
that
was
breaking
into
your
shed:
that's
murder,
that's
murder,
and,
and
so
these
classes
that
that
you're
talking
about
they
they
offer
that
education,
so
that
you
are
aware
of
the
law
when
I,
when
I
went
to
get
my
permit
years
ago,
so
my
daughter
is
17
now
so
my
second
time
actually
because
my
first
one
expired
by
accident,
but
I
took
my
daughter
who
was
11
at
the
time,
took
her
with
me
to
the
class
and
she
took
the
test
and
everything.
H
Of
course
she
wasn't
old
enough
to
she
passed
right.
She
wasn't
right.
She
wasn't
old
enough
to
get
her
permit
right,
but
and
then
I
I
walked
her.
I
took
her
to
the
range
and
started
her
with
a
32
and
then
a
nine
and
then
to
see
40
that
police
carry
you
know
and
let
her
feel
and
understand.
You
know
what
it
is
that
we're
dealing
with.
I
don't
have
any
issues
with
with
gun
safety
in
my
household
now
period.
H
You
know
I
have
no
worries
about
my
child,
picking
up
a
gun
playing
with
a
gun.
You
know,
and
and
and-
and
you
know,
injuring
herself
or
or
anyone
else
in
my
household,
because
she
has
been
educated
early
on
that's
right
and
I
encourage
every
single
family
in
tennessee:
amen,
go
to
a
gun
safety
class.
Take
your
children
with
you
and
and
make
sure
that
that
your
household
understands
that
permit
less
care.
H
Yes,
it's
permit
less
carry,
but
it
doesn't
mean
permit
less,
carry
that's
right
right,
and
so
you
know
so
that
we
can
educate
our
our
our
populist
in
this
regard.
Last
thing,
I
I
think
is
important.
I
think
we
should
start
pushing
pushing
gun
safety
class,
encouraging
incentivizing
unsafety
classes.
One
of
the
things
I
hate
more
than
anything
is
is
to
see
these
gun
buyback
programs
where
they
go
and
give
you
a
gas
card
or
or
grocery
card.
H
In
exchange
for
your
gun,
we
should
be
using
those
gas
cards
and
grocery
cards
in
exchange
for
gun
safety.
Completion.
That's
right,
so
that
so
that
we're
not
having
these
situations
where
people
are
are
brandishing
or
shooting
someone
out
of
ignorance
of
the
law,
and
so
I
applaud
you,
I'm
with
you,
I'm
with
this
legislation.
100,
so
thank
you,
representative,.
A
K
Yeah
elizabeth
stroker
legislative
director
assistant
general
counsel
for
the
department
of
safety
I
met
with
representative
bricken
yesterday
and
just
we
had
a
few
minor
issues
with
the
bill
just
kind
of
how
it's
drafted
and
clarity
sake.
We
there's
one
section.
I
believe
it's
in
section
four,
the
last
part
of
the
bill
where
it
says
the
department
may
change
a
fee
for
reissuance,
I'm
assuming
that
meant
to
be
charged.
So
would
like
that
clarified.
K
If
that
means,
we
could
charge
a
fee
for
the
reissuance
if
anyone
were
to
come
in
and
trade
in
their
current
eight
year
license
and
then
our
second
question
was
it
says:
well,
it
says
we
can
change
a
fee,
but
I'm
guessing
that
meant
charge
a
fee
and
what
could
that
fee
be
because
that
would
really
kind
of
dictate
what
our
operating
costs
would
be.
K
Currently,
if
you
want
a
lifetime,
permit,
it's
300
and
this
bill
doesn't
change
that
and
then
also
if
you
were
upgrading
from
an
enhanced
currently
to
a
lifetime,
it's
200,
and
so
we
would
just
like
some
clarity
on
what
that
fee
should
be,
or
if
we
set
that
fee.
We
obviously
never
like
to
just
assume
what
a
fee
should
be,
and
so
that
was
kind
of
our
big
question
there
as
well
we're
fine
with
the
intent
of
the
bill.
K
It's
just
getting
that
clarification
and
then
also
making
sure
that
it's
clear
it's
my
understanding
that
then
there
would
only
be
one
permit,
which
is
which
is
fine.
It's
the
lifetime
doesn't
require
anyone
to
renew
or
anything
like
that.
But
that
means
that
it's
there's
only
one
option
and
it
is
then
300,
and
so
you
wouldn't
have
that
option
for
the
eight
year,
which
is
only
a
hundred
and
then
with
fifteen
dollar
renewals
at
every
eight
years,
which
is
sometimes
more
cost
effective
for
people.
F
K
As
far
as
purpose,
I
believe
that
that's
just
how
the
law
was
created,
the
lifetime
wasn't
an
option.
I
don't
believe
it
was
just
the
option
for
the
eight
year,
which
I
think
it
was
even
less
than
eight
years
at
one
point,
but
the
eight
year,
that's
just
what
the
permit
was
that's
whenever
it
was
set
that
that
be
renewed,
and
that
was
just
another
option
outside
of
the
lifetime,
but
they
effectively
do
the
same
thing.
K
If
you
get
a
lifetime,
it's
just
checked
your
background
is
checked
every
four
years
and
you
don't
have
to
do
the
renewal
option.
So
it's
really
more
of
a
if
somebody
wanted
to
do
eight
years
for
cost
reasons
or
if
they
just
wanted
something
they
could
renew
on
a
regular
basis.
So
just
an
option.
Representative
clemens
thank.
K
No,
sir,
sorry,
sorry,
no
sir,
the
if
well
from
my
the
past
six
years,
I've
been
here,
I
can't
speak
for
when
the
bill
was
put
into
place
back
in
the
90s,
but
there's
no
requirement
for
retraining
or
refresher
training
with
the
renewal.
You
just
simply
submit
an
application
to
renew
the
only
time
you
would
have
to
do.
Training
again,
as
representative
parkinson
said,
is,
if
you
let
it
expire
more
than
the
full
renewal
cycle.
So
remember.
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
are
you
comfortable
with
the
language
of
this
legislation?
Aside
from
that
which
you
already
mentioned
with
regards
to
the
department's
duty
to
periodically
check
individuals,
criminal
history,
are
you
comfortable
with
that?
That's
going
to
adequately
ensure
public
safety,
ms
stroker.
K
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
as
someone
who's
taken
the
eight-hour
class,
I
would
like
to
reiterate
my
colleague
in
front
of
me
his
comments
about
the
value
of
the
eight
hour
handgun
safety
class,
and
that
you
should
take
to
get
a
permit
in
the
state
of
tennessee.
So
thank
you
for
your
testimony
and
thank
you
sponsor.
A
Anyone
else
for
miss
stroker,
so
I
have
a
question.
It
seems
to
me
that
the
big
thing
of
the
safety
is
this
simplifies
things
it
brings
it
down
to
one
license.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,
sir?
That's
accurate,
okay,
thank
you
and
then,
without
seeing
anybody
else
on
the
list,
we'll
go
back
in
session,
hear
from
the
sponsor.
Thank
you,
mr
stroker.
A
And
open
just
one
sec,
representative,
parkerson
you're,
recognized.
H
H
Individual
wants
to
continue
the
eight
year
eight
year,
renewal
process
will
that
still
be
available
to
them
at
all.
Chairman.
I
I
H
A
I
No
sir,
before
I'm
going
to
ask
for
this
committee
to
ask,
I
was
planning
on
rolling
this
bill
one
week
to
get
back
with
safety,
to
clarify
a
couple
of
technical
issues
on
this
bill
and
bring
it
back
next
week.
So
I,
like
I,
plan
on
rolling
it
and
clarifying
some
of
the
fee
issues
and
a
couple
of
wording
changes.
So
that
is
my
plan
and.
F
A
Okay,
without
objection
we'll
roll
one
week
thank
y'all.
Thank
you,
members
and
chairman
curcio
you're
recognized
thank.
C
You,
mr
chairman,
and
I
just
wanted
to
welcome-
we've,
got
some
guests
here
from
leadership
gibson
and
youth
leadership
gibson.
So
I
know
curtis
hawford,
who
represents
gibson
county,
is
not
on
this
committee,
but
I
wanted
to
make
them
welcome.
So
if
you
could,
please
welcome
these
folks.
A
H
A
H
I
got
zero
one.
Three,
three,
seven.
A
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
members.
This
amendment
actually
addresses
all
of
the
concerns
that
my
colleagues
had
represent,
jared
and,
and
some
of
the
others
had
in
regards
to
making
sure
that
it
was
that
is
narrow
to
the
service
that
they're
offering
at
that
time,
making
sure
that
the
nonprofit
organizations
are
registered
with
the
secretary
of
state
and,
let
me
make
sure,
I'm
not
leaving
anything
out
was
there.
What
let
me
hang
on
a
second.
H
Oh
and
the
you
know
limited
to
you
know,
I
think
there
was
some
language
we
removed
that
limit
not
limited
to
language.
That
was
the
three
things
that
that
represent
jared
had
requested
yeah.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
Okay,
do
we
have
any
questions
on
the
amendment
and
chairman
curcio
thank.
C
You,
mr
chairman,
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
at
the
some
of
the
concerns
we
had
last
week
was
just
making
this
overly
broad,
so
limiting
just
to
providing
food,
providing
housing,
providing
shelter
right,
and
you
know
removing
that,
but
not
limited
to
so
just
delineating
that
I
think
it
helps
me
immensely.
So
I
appreciate
you
working
on
it.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
chairman
parks.
Thank
you
very
much
for
for
doing
this,
and
it's
always
great
to
work
with
you,
and
I
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
to
to
narrow
the
focus
just
a
couple
of
questions
just
so.
We
know
for
the
record
what
this
legislation
is
doing.
If
everybody
ever
wants
to
take
a
look,
I
appreciate
you
dividing
out
the
three
services,
that's
clear
under
section
a2,
providing
food,
providing
housing
or
providing
shelter
from
adverse
weather.
D
That
is
your
intent
of
the
only
services
that
that
particular
charity
wants
to
provide
that
they
are
otherwise
immune
from
simple
negligence,
not
immune
from
everything
right
just
from
simple
negligence,
they're
immune,
absolutely,
sir,
yes,
sir,
and
if
they
have
conduct
that
goes
beyond
that
which
we,
which
you
list
gross
negligence,
willful
or
intentional
conduct,
they
are
still
liable.
If
that
actions,
even
though
they
are
providing
these
three
particular
services,
they're,
not
immune
from
those
actions
at
those
levels,
correct,
absolutely
correct.
H
D
H
E
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
representative
perkinson,
for
bringing
this.
I
just
wanted
to
comment.
What
I
like
about
this
bill
and
chairman
garrett
is
that
it
limits
what
the
liability
relates
to
as
far
as
food,
housing
or
shelter.
I
don't
think
that
liability
would
be
protected
to
the
entity.
If
say
they
were
driving
down
the
interstate
40
and
transporting
people
from
one
location
to
the
other,
and
they
caused
a
wreck
or
something
like
that.
E
This
is
directly
related
to
the
core
function
and
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
point
out
and
seek
in
the
earlier
legislation,
and
I
would
encourage,
I
would
certainly
feel
more
comfortable
voting
for
something.
If
we,
if
we're
limiting
to
the
core
function
of
what
the
entity
is
supposed
to
be
provided
not
just
a
general
driving
around
or
something
because
I
I
knowing
lawyers,
they
will
try
to
argue
what
they
can
to
get
to
protect
their
clients.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
professor
parker.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
and
representative
garrett.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
this
indulgence
and
richard.
Thank
you
for
those
words,
and
I
and
this
isn't
necessarily
directed
to
representative
parsons,
but
I
think
we've
got
to
be
mindful
and
careful
since
the
coveted
liability
bills
have
been
placed
we're
providing
immunity.
If
you,
you
know,
do
certain
things
right
at
that
time,
it
was
if
you
follow
the
cdc
guidelines,
etc.
The
only
thing
that
I
want
to,
I
guess
publicly
state
is
that
it
makes
me
very
nervous
when
we
give
entities
other
actors,
immunity
under
the
law.
D
D
We
need
to
make
sure
we
have
some
strict
scrutiny
so
to
speak
when
we're
providing
certain
entities
with
with
immunity
from
their
own
actions,
so
that
just
kind
of
I
agree
that
makes
me
a
little
nervous
when
we
have
bills
like
this,
that
we're
creating
a
lot
of
immunity
for
folks
that
fall
below
the
regular
course
of
business
right
so
anyway,
thank
you
for
that
indulgence,
chairman.
Thank
you
for
the
bill.
A
Thank
you,
representative
garrett,
representative
parkerson.
You
have
anything
else
before
we
put
the
amendment
on
the
bill.
Okay,
we
are
voting
to
put
amendment
13375
on
the
bill.
All
those
favors
signify
by
saying
aye
all
right
opposed.
No,
the
amendment
goes
on
the
bill.
Representative
parkerson.
You
are
recognized
on
house
bill
1765
as
amended.
Thank.
H
You
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
amendment
makes
the
bill,
but
I
also
want
to
say
this:
if
it's
okay,
mr
chairman,
you
know
I've
been
here
12
years
now,
and
this
is
when
I
first
got
here.
This
is
how
the
committee
system
used
to
work.
You
know
where
the
entire
committee
would
have
input
and
make
a
bill
the
best
bill
that
it
could.
It
could
be
honestly
and
it's
good
to
see
us
operating
in
that
you
know
in
that.
H
B
Thank
you
chairman.
After
that
comment,
I
was
going
to
have
a
motion
to
roll
this
to
the
heel
of
the
fallen
calendar,
but
thank
you
for
your
comments
and
thank
you
sponsor.
That's
a
good
piece
of
legislation.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
sir.
A
A
L
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee
members.
What
this
bill
did
originally
was
extend
the
covet
liability
that
we
had
passed
for
businesses
one
year.
What
my
amendment
does
is
reduces
that
to
six
months.
So,
as
chairman
curcio
said
earlier,
his
bill
may
be
the
shortest
and
most
concise
bill,
but
this
does
exactly
what
it
says.
It
just
reduces
the
covid
liability
because
it's
set
to
sunset
in
july,
so
this
would
extend
it
from
july
until
january
of
23.