►
Description
House Criminal Justice Subcommittee - March 3, 2021 - House Hearing Room 2
A
D
E
F
E
A
I
do
have
a
visitor
here
from
the
district
miss
emily
hamby,
that's
sitting
in
the
audience
today
that
is
visiting
with
us.
So
if
you
would,
please
join
me
in
welcoming
her
this
morning,.
A
Moving
right
along,
we
are
going
to
skip
through
our
calendar
member
members.
We
have
many
bills
on
the
calendar
this
morning,
but
we're
going
to
start
out
with
item
number
15
on
your
calendar
number
15
house,
bill
786
by
leader
lamberth,
and
if
you
would
take
your
position
there
at
the
main
podium,
do
we
have
a
motion
or
a
second,
properly
motioned
in
second
later
lambeth
you
recognize
there
are
two
amendments.
Do
you
wish
to
proceed?
A
Looking
at
these
amendments?
Yes,.
H
H
H
This
expands
freedom
significantly
in
our
state
and
makes
it
clear
that,
if
you're
21
years
of
age
or
older
or
if
you're
18,
have
been
utterly
discharged
and
honorably
discharged
from
the
military
and
you're
lawfully
in
possession
of
a
gun
in
a
place
where
you're
lawfully
allowed
to
be,
then
there
will
be
no
criminal
penalties
against
you
again
lawful,
gun
owners
who
are
allowed
to
possess
their
gun
in
their
home,
their
business,
their
car,
their
bicycle.
H
H
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
would
be
either
exactly
as
the
current
carry
permit
allows.
It
would
be
for
handguns,
so
this
would
not
be
long
guns.
That
is
a
distinction.
There
are
a
couple
different
bills
on
this
subject
that
all,
in
my
opinion,
expand
freedom,
but
this
would
be
restricted
to
handguns,
okay,
but
open
or
concealed.
I
All
right
and
those
who
have
already
paid
the
money
for
the
the
the
conceal
and
that
wasn't
cheap,
do
we
do
do
they
get
a
refund.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
the
question.
In
fact,
we
are
not
doing
away
with
our
permit
system.
We
are
keeping
our
permit
system
in
place.
It's
very
important.
I
encourage
folks
to
get
a
permit.
I
encourage
them
to
go
through
that
licensing
process,
get
the
training
and
don't
stop
there.
I
mean
get
training
every
single
year.
H
I
have
joked
with
some
friends
of
mine
before
and
I
do
it
jokingly
and
kindly,
but
if
you
haven't
fired
your
firearm
in
a
year,
in
my
opinion,
this
is
my
opinion,
not
what
the
government
requires.
But
if
you
haven't
fired
your
firearm
in
the
last
year,
you
shouldn't
be
carrying
it.
You
should
be
going
out
every
single
year
and
and
learning
how
to
best
utilize,
that
firearm
for
your
own
protection
and
protection
of
others,
you
should
be
learning
about
backgrounds.
You
should
be
learning
about
threat
acquisition.
H
You
should
be
going
through
more
and
more
intense
training
how
to
safely
store
your
firearm.
We
want
folks
to
do
that.
The
the
thing
that
this
bill
does
it
takes
the
criminal
penalties
off
of
someone.
If
they
do
not
have
that
permit.
It
does
not
in
any
way
take
away
the
permit
or
take
away
the
need
and
and
the
desire
of
all
of
us
for
folks
to
get
intense
training
with
their
firearm.
I
Will
this?
What
will
the
state's
role
be
in
permitting
going
forward
and
what
benefits
will
the
the
the
citizen
get
from
seeking
the
permit,
such
as
insurance
premiums
recognize.
H
Mr
chairman,
so
the
benefits
having
a
permit
are
significant.
I
mean
there's
reciprocity
with
other
states,
so
you
know
constitutional
carry
when
we
hopefully
pass
it,
and
I
again
would
deeply
appreciate
the
support
of
this
committee
when
we
pass
it.
Hopefully
we'll
protect
individuals
that
are
within
tennessee
from
being
arrested
for
exercising
their
second
amendment
rights,
but
it
doesn't
affect
any
other
state
and
so
a
handgun
carry
permit.
You
need
that
for
reciprocity
with
other
states.
H
There
are
certain
sensitive
areas
that
are
currently
in
the
statute
that
we're
not
touching
any
of
those
things.
That's
a
bill
for
a
different
time
that
you
would
be
still
prohibited
from
going
into
unless
you
have
a
permit,
so
there
there
are
areas
in
the
statute
where
those
that
have
a
permit
may
have
the
a
little
bit
of
additional
ability
to
go
into
certain
areas
versus
those
that
do
not,
but
we
will
not
be
locking
people
up
in
jail
for
simply
not
having
a
permit.
I
mean
that
that's
what
the
current
statute
is.
I
All
right-
and
this
should
be
my
last
question,
but
you
know
you
always
spur
further
thoughts,
so
I
plan
for
this
to
be
my
last
question:
the
age
of
eligibility
or
where
you
qualified.
H
Now
it's
it's
18
if
you've
been
honorably
discharged
with
that
point
or
if
you
are
an
active
duty,
member
of
our
military
branches
and
that
just
kind
of
makes
sense-
I
mean
those,
you
know
if
you're
18
and
up
and
you
are
serving
this
country,
you
are
handling
firearms
of
a
much
greater
amount
of
that
a
much
greater
amount
of
skill
is
necessary
to
be
able
to
safely
utilize
than
a
simple
handgun.
I
mean
these
are
folks
that
are
expertly
trained.
I
All
right-
and
this
is
an
observation
and
not
a
question,
so
I'm
still
sticking
to
my
original
commitment,
the
the
medical
research
as
you're,
aware,
neurological
in
particular
suggests
that
I'm
not
going
to
put
it
fancy,
I'm
just
going
to
say
it
that
most
folks
don't
have
a
mature
brain
until
they're
25.
I
H
So
there
are
literally
thousands
and
thousands
of
young
men
that
stormed
the
beaches
of
normandy.
That
would
disagree
with
you
that
at
18
and
up
they
should
be
able
to
bleed
for
our
country
and
die
for
our
country
and
should
be
able
to
exercise
all
the
freedoms
of
our
country.
So
while
their
brain
may
not
be
as
mature
as
possible,
their
freedom
is
as
mature
and
should
be
protected.
A
Thank
you
next
on
our
list.
A
I
My
grandfather,
my
father,
my
all
my
uncles,
my
daughter,
is
currently
serving
so
I'm
not
making
reference
to
our
veterans
and
our
military
personnel.
What
I
was
making
reference
to
was
the
general
public
that
we
consider
raising
that
from
21
to
25..
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
H
Mr
chairman
and
representative
again
we're
friends:
we've
served
with
years.
I
thought
you
were
referring
to
the
18
year
old
veterans
and
active
duty
members
that
I
had
just
referenced,
which
was
why
I
referenced
the
population
that
I
did
so.
Thank
you
for
clarifying
that,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you.
Thank.
G
You,
mr
chairman,
and
the
sponsor,
actually
covered
what
I
was
going
to
ask
about,
but
I
think
it's
worth
repeating.
If
someone
is
traveling
outside
the
state
of
tennessee-
and
they
are
a
permit
holder
like
myself,
then
it
behooves
you
to
have
a
permit
and
go
through
the
training,
because
the
states
that
I
travel
through
have
reciprocity
with
the
state
of
tennessee.
If
you
do
not
intend
to
travel
outside
tennessee,
you
can
constitutionally
carry
a
handgun
in
the
state
of
tennessee
without
a
permit.
Is
that
correct?
A
B
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
leader,
lambert
for
bringing
this
bill.
I
fully
support
the
effort
I'd
like
to
get
the
language
a
little
closer
to
my
bill,
but
I
fully
support
making
progress
on
this
and
thank
you
for
bringing
in
thank
the
governor
for
taking
this
step
forward.
Thank
you.
So
much.
A
A
There
is
a
second
amendment
here,
mr
sponsor
motion's
been
called
question:
zero,
zero,
four,
zero,
eight
nine!
You
wish
to
proceed
with
this
amendment
as
well.
Yes,
sir,
mr
chairman,
okay,
you're
recognized
famous.
H
Chairman,
so
the
previous
amendment,
again
as
I
discussed,
wiped
out
all
the
criminal
penalties
against
lawful
gun
owners,
so
if
you're,
if
you're
a
lawful
gun
owner
based
on
that
previous
amendment,
again,
you
face
no
criminal
penalties.
Now
there
are
some
prohibitions
that
were
in
there
that
were
based
on
the
premise
that
everyone
would
have
a
permit,
and
so,
if,
if
we
wipe
those
out,
this
amendment
puts
back
in
certain
criminal
penalties
separate
from
the
constitutional,
carry
amendment
and
portion
of
this
bill.
It
puts
them
into
the
criminal
portion
of
this
bill.
H
And
again
I
would
remind
members
who
are
back
on
the
bill
and
I
may
reference
some
of
these.
There
are
significant
enhancements
and
increases
of
penalty
for
those
that
steal
firearms,
felons
in
possession
of
firearms,
those
that
commit
dangerous
crimes
with
firearms.
Those
are
on
the
bill.
This
amendment
will
add
in
a
be
misdemeanor
penalty,
for
anyone
who
has
been
convicted
of
stalking.
H
If
you're
convicted
of
stalking
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
carry
under
con
kerry,
it
would
be
a
be
misdemeanor
you're,
currently
not
allowed
to
get
a
carry
permit
if
you're
convicted
of
stalking,
if
you're
convicted
of
one
dui
within
five
years
or
two
within
10
years.
That
is
exactly
what
the
law
is.
Now
you
cannot
get
a
permit
if
you
are
convicted
of
duis.
H
Every
single
dui
is
a
literally
as
an
attempted.
Vehicular
homicide
don't
drive
drunk.
If
you
want
us
to
be
able
to
protect
your
liberties
here,
don't
drive
drunk
just
don't
do
it
so,
but
that's
preserving
what's
currently
in
the
law,
and
it
would
still
be
a
be
misdemeanor
if
you
are
a
convicted,
drunk
driver
or
intoxicated
driver,
and
you
carry
your
firearm
outside
of
your
your
vehicle,
home
business
and
everything
else.
If
you've
had
a
judicial
commitment,
this
is
an
involuntary
commitment.
H
This
is
not
a
voluntary
commitment
where
someone
has
gone
in
and
gotten
help
on
their
own.
This
is
when
two
doctors
have
analyzed
someone's
background.
A
judge
has
had
an
opportunity
to
have
a
hearing
on
that
and
they
have
had
an
opportunity
for
council.
This
is
if
someone
has
been
mentally
committed
or
has
had
a
conservatorship
put
over
them
exactly
what
the
law
is.
Now
those
are
individuals
that
would
not
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
the
concari
bill
that
we've
just
passed.
H
And
finally,
we
reference
the
federal
code
that
says
if
it
is
illegal
for
you
to
possess
the
gun,
if
you're
a
convicted
drug
dealer,
if
you're
an
illegal
immigrant,
if
you
are
in
many
different
categories
that
are
currently
prohibited
for
you
to
even
possess
possess
a
gun
under
federal
law,
you
would
not
be
able
to
constitutionally
carry
here
in
this
state
under
those
four
categories.
We
are
adding
that
back
into
the
criminal
section
of
the
bill
and
it
makes
it
much
cleaner
than
the
original
version.
H
So
we
keep
those
individuals
make
it
very
clear
to
them
that
they
may
not
carry,
but
we
open
it
wide
open
for
all
other
lawful
gun
owners
that
have
not
been
convicted
of
crimes
or
adjudicated
mentally
defective.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
leader,
in
in
in
reading
this
about
the
mental
defective
adjudications.
The
police
officer,
as
we
heard
learned
from
testimony
last
week,
cannot
find
out.
Currently,
if
they've
been
adjudicated,
there
were
68
000.
I
believe
people
in
tennessee
who
were
adjudicated,
who
not
supposed
to
be
carrying
a
weapon,
so
I'm
joe
policeman
and
I
walk
up
to
an
individual,
have
no
idea
if
they
can
carry
or
not.
B
H
Yes,
sir,
and
thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
again,
this
is
not
new.
This
is
what's
in
the
current
code,
where
someone
is
prohibited
from
being
able
to
obtain
a
carry
permit.
Now,
what
we
are
doing
is
they're
we're
retaining
a
be
mr
b
misdemeanor
criminal
penalty
and
the
way
they
would
do.
It
is
the
exact
same
way
if
they
were
to
come
into
contact
with
that
individual
in
their
home,
their
business,
their
vehicle,
their
boat,
their
bicycle,
they
already
don't
have
access
to
that
system,
and
that
is
a
problem,
one
that
we
should
remedy.
H
I
mean
that
system
should
be
accessible
to
law
enforcement
on
individuals
and-
and
you
know
in
your
job
and
your
real
job
as
an
attorney
that
I
mean
that
we
don't
have
a
unified
court
system
here,
and
so
many
much
of
that
is
in
the
court
records
in,
say
a
specific
county
courthouse
somewhere.
H
That
really
does
need
to
be
compiled
on
individuals
that
have
been
again
adjudicated
mentally
defective,
involuntary
mental
commitments.
We
have
a
problem
there.
This
bill
doesn't
dive
into
that,
but
I
certainly
believe
that
we
should
because,
based
on
the
testimony
we
heard
last
week,
law
enforcement
comes
into
contact
most
of
the
time
from
the
testimony
we
heard
in
you
know,
with
folks
in
their
home
their
business
their
vehicle.
I
mean
a
lot
of
stops
are
made
out
there.
H
Very
few
stops
are
made
of
somebody
who's,
just
walking
down
the
street
that
happens
more
in
urban
areas
than
in
rural
areas,
but
it's
just
not
something
that
is
a
regular
occurrence
where
law
enforcement
are
stopping
individuals
that
are
just
walking
down
the
street.
So
what
we're
talking
about
with
this
bill
is
a
tiny
scintilla
of
interactions
with
law
enforcement
and
what
you're
referencing,
in
my
opinion,
is
a
much
larger
issue
that
we
really
should
address.
So
law
enforcement
should
have
access
to
that
system.
B
You
you
and
you
in
the
testimony
last
week
you
kept
referring
back
to
a
boat
in
the
house
in
the
boat
in
the
house.
If
they've
got
their
permit
and
are
legally
allowed
to
carry,
they
can
show
their
permit
right
then,
and
they
can
know
if
they've
been
adjudicated
or
if
they
should
not
have
a
permit.
That's
where
the
permit
comes
in
so
beautifully.
B
H
Yeah,
david
sherman:
no,
that's
the
problem
with
the
system.
Now
I
mean
it's
not
connected
together.
Well
enough,
I
I'm
loud
and
clear
going
to
say
an
officer
should
never
just
take
a
permit
on
face
value
that
that
permit
could
have
been
revoked
the
day
before
the
week
before
and
in
fact,
if,
if
it
was
revoked
just
the
week
before
because
of
someone's
mental
health
issue,
where
they've
been
adjudicated
for
a
committal,
then
the
officer
should
investigate.
H
If
there's
any
indication
that
they
believe
where
that
individual
is
having
mental
health
issues
or
they're
picking
up
any
kind
of
signs
that
they
might
have
been
adjudicated
mentally
defective.
They
should
investigate
that
further.
They
should
never
just
take
a
permit
and
even
run
it
through
the
system,
because
that
system
takes
time.
Somebody
could
have
been
convicted
of
a
felony
the
day
before,
and
it
takes
sometimes
weeks
or
even
months
for
that
to
get
into
the
system
and
for
that
permit
to
be
revoked.
H
That
officer
should
investigate
and
look
into
that
circumstance,
but
no,
sir,
a
permit
alone
on
its
face.
There's
not
somebody
out
there
running
out
there
literally
revoking
physical
permits.
They're
supposed
to
send
it
in,
but
at
the
same
time
we're
talking
about
folks
that
that
have
either
been
convicted
of
felonies
or
been
adjudicated
mentally
defective.
B
H
So
we
have
lifetime
permits
in
tennessee,
so
I
mean
that
that
was
part
of
the
discussion
we
had
in
discussing
lifetime
permits
is
that
someone
could
get
a
permit
when
they
are
perfectly
sane
or
when
they've
not
been
convicted
of
a
crime,
and
then
that
permit
is
good
until
revoked.
And
so
again
the
presence
of
a
mere
permit
should
never
be
prima
facie
evidence
that
that
individual
is
lawfully
in
possession
of
a
firearm.
They,
the
officer,
needs
to
do
their
job
and
investigate
that
circumstance
just
like
they
do.
B
H
As
long
as
it
was
properly
entered
into
the
system,
now,
not
every
not
every
clerk's
office
sends
it
in,
but
again
that
system
has
issues,
but
when
they
run
you
for
a
permit,
they
do
check
those
systems
and
if
the
information
was
accurate
in
there,
which,
from
what
we've
heard
is
not
always
true,
I
mean
that
that
system
obviously
has
some
holes
in
it.
We
need
to
address
that.
H
I
think,
but
no
again
just
getting
the
permit,
you
could
have
gotten
the
permit
when
you,
you
know,
were
22
years
old,
adjudicated
mentally
defective
or
have
an
issue
when
you're
42
years
old-
and
you
may
still
very
well-
have
that
permit
it's
just
the
permit
alone
is
not
evidence
of
anything
other
than
at
some
point.
You
were
able
to
get
a
permit.
It
is
not
evidence
that
you
are
lawfully
in
possession
of
a
weapon,
and
every
officer
should
investigate
each
incident
on
its
own
representative.
H
No
sir,
I
disagree.
There
are
definitely
holes
in
the
system,
even
in
the
permit
process,
where
someone
could.
That
is
the
problem
with
the
permit
system
and
with
the
way
that
mental
health
adjudications
are
entered
in
you're
not
supposed
to
get
a
permit,
but
you
absolutely
could
and
it.
I
cannot
tell
you
that
it
has
not
happened
where
someone
has
gotten
a
permit
in
that
circumstance.
So
no
sir,
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
my
profession
or
yours.
It
is
simply
a
factual
issue
that
is
inaccurate.
B
H
Again,
representative,
there's
no
way
now
just
checking
a
system
or
even
just
looking
at
the
permit
is
not
an
investigation.
That's
part
of
an
investigation,
but
no
I
mean
every
officer
is
at
risk
every
single
time
they're
coming
to
contact
with
someone
who
may
have
mental
health
issues,
or
you
know
every
time,
they're
investigating
a
crime
on
the
different
issues
that
are
there
and
they
should
do
their
job
fully.
B
But
the
the
permit
is
supposed
to
be
revoked
if
you're
domestic,
if
you're
arrested
for
domestic
or,
if
you're,
adjudicated,
incompetent,
correct.
H
B
H
Many
instances
it
is
not,
and
even
in
the
system,
if
it
is
revoked,
they
will
still
retain
the
physical
card
in
many
instances
they
are
supposed
to
send
it
in
again
supposed
to,
but
the
population
that
we're
talking
about
here
it
just
doesn't
always
happen
so
that
that
is
not
in
itself.
Proof
of
anything
there's
just
having
the
card.
H
It
would
not
not
it
would
not.
No,
I
mean
the
system
is
simply
not
that
good
and
not
real
time.
It
is.
It
is
one
brick
in
the
wall
of
determining
whether
or
not
that
person
and
in
most
instances,
that
probably
would
indicate
whether
or
not
that
permit
is
valid,
but
it's
simply
not
real
time
the
system's,
not
that
good.
Yet
it
should
be.
But
it's
not
like
the
moment
somebody
is,
is
adjudicated
mentally
effective
or
convicted
of
a
felony.
That
immediately
goes
in
the
system.
H
There's
lag
time,
there's
issues
there
and
again
it's
the
data
is
only
as
good
as
what's
being
entered
and
what
we
heard
from
our
law
enforcement
officers.
They
don't
have
access
to
all
those
systems.
The
state
has
access
to
most
of
them,
but
we
do
not
have
a
unified
court
system,
and
so
it's
simply
not
real
time
it
just.
I
cannot
push
back
hard
enough
on
this.
H
Never
ever
ever
should
an
officer
take
just
that
permit,
or
even
it
popping
up
in
the
system
as
evidence
that
an
individual
is
lawfully
within
their
right
to
have
that
firearm.
If
there's
any
other
evidence
where
they
feel
like
they
should
investigate
further,
they
should
because
that
system
is
far
from
perfect.
B
But
again,
theoretically,
and
supposed
to
they're
supposed
to
be
able
to
rely
upon
that
I
keep
hearing.
You
say
we
fall
through
the
cracks
and
that's
just
another
brick
and
that's
another
brick
in
the
wall
that
I
would
like
to
give
our
law
enforcement.
So
that's
the
reason
I'll
have
to
oppose
this.
Thank
you
all.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Let
me
be
clear:
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
I'm
a
lawyer's
daddy,
but
I'm
just
a
lawmaker,
so
I'm
not
going
to
engage
in
the
the
legal
tangles
that
you
and
beck
there
I'm
going
to
keep
it
simple,
because
you've
covered
actually
man
just
being
serious.
You've
covered
most
of
the
questions
I
was
going
to
ask,
so
I'm
going
to
just
make
two
statements
here:
I'll
make
one
of
them
twice.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
leader,
lambert.
I
wanted
to
bring
up
the
point
that
in
in
your
mind,
I
think
this
this
bill
is
called
constitutional.
Carries
that
correct.
H
Yes,
sir,
not
just
in
my
mind,
I
mean
it
is
constitutional.
Carry
I
mean
there
are
some
criminal
penalties
that
are
included
within
here,
that
enhance
penalties
on
again
convicted
felons
and
stalkers
and
everything
else,
but
the
portion
of
this
bill
that
was
in
the
previous
amendment
is
constitutional.
Carry
it
preserves
your
constitutional
rights.
B
H
Mr
and
thank
you
for
asking
that
question,
mr
vice
chairman,
I
mean
you
know.
The
second
amendment
preserves
your
right
to
bear
arms.
It's
an
individual
liberty.
It's
been
found
that
way
by
you
by
the
u.s
cons
by
the
us,
not
only
us
constitution
of
bill
of
rights,
but
by
the
u.s
supreme
court
and
dcv
heller.
H
I
mean
it
is
an
individual
right
to
bear
arms
that
shall
not
be
infringed
and,
if
you're
convicted
of
a
crime
or
declared
mentally
incompetent,
it
can
be
infringed
because
of
those
circumstances,
but
for
every
other,
law-abiding
citizen
out
there,
every
single
american
I
mean
your
right
to
bear
arms
shall
not
be
infringed,
and
that's
what
the
amendment
that
we
just
passed
a
second
ago.
Does
it.
It
prevents
any
infringement
on
your
right
to
bear
arms.
H
Please,
yes,
sir,
absolutely
I
mean
and
in
fact,
in
the
permit
system,
it
requires
you,
if
asked
by
an
officer
to
present
your
permit
and
basically
be
inspected
anytime.
You
want.
So
not
only
are
you
giving
up
your
second
amendment
rights
you're,
giving
up
your
fourth
amendment
rights
under
the
permit
process?
That's
simply
wrong!
I
mean
under
the
constitution
of
the
bill
of
rights,
you
have
a
right
to
be
free
from
government
encumbrance
in
your
life
and
both
the
second
and
fourth
amendments
say
you
shouldn't
have
to
do
that.
H
This
bill
resolves
that
and
by
the
way
it
prevents
you
from
being
thrown
in
jail
for
merely
exercising
your
second
amendment
right
when
you've
done
nothing
else
wrong.
Our
current
law,
unless
you
get
permission
from
the
state
and
pay
a
fee
and
go
to
a
class
by
the
way,
a
one-time
class.
That
hypothetically
is
supposed
to
be
good
for
the
rest
of
your
life
and
and
that's
laughable
for
anybody
that
deals
with
firearms.
I
mean
regular
training
is
what's
needed,
but
I
mean
under
our
current
permit
process.
H
C
One
more
question,
and
then
I'll
conclude,
maybe
it's
more
of
a
statement
than
is
a
question.
I
want
to
commend
you
for
bringing
this
legislation
to
help
us
to
gain
back.
Some
of
the
freedoms
that
we've
lost
is
certainly
that's
what
it
is.
It
was
never
required
for
a
permit,
and
all
this
talk
about
permit
is
unconstitutional.
I
wish
that
we
would
understand
it
that
way.
Thank
you
I'll
be
voting
for
this.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions,
representative
beck
I'll,
give
you
one
here:
okay,.
B
Just
real
real,
quick
permit,
less
caring
is,
is
not
to
to
restrict
someone
to
have
to
have
a
permit
to
carry
is
not
unconstitutional.
That
has
been
tried
over
and
over.
As
you're
very
aware,
very
well
aware,
representative
sexton
the
there
there
is
a
little
you.
I
B
Put
certain
temperaments
on
your
on
the
constitution,
such
as
I
can't
yell
fire
right
now
and
that's
not
violating
my
freedom
of
speech,
so
it's
been
tried
over
and
over
constitutional
carry
is
not
an
absolute
right
when
you're
talking
about
the
safety
and
welfare
of
our
police
and
other
citizens.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everybody
understood
that.
Thank
you.
C
That's
the
most
ridiculous
thing
I've
ever
heard
constitutional
carry
is
just
that
constitutional
carry.
Sometimes
the
courts
get
it
wrong,
but
our
forefathers
got
it
right
and
no
matter
how
much
you
say
it
or
how
you
say
it.
This
right
shall
not
be
infringed
upon.
It
was
given
to
us
by
our
forefathers
and
with
all
due
respect,
you're
an
attorney.
I'm
not,
and
I
don't
mean
that
to
be
to
disparage
you,
but
I
honestly
do
believe
it's
a
ridiculous
argument.
Thank
you.
H
Your
rights
can
be
curtailed,
but
we
can
also
grant
greater
rights
here
in
tennessee
than
are
granted
under
the
u.s
constitution,
and
we
are
choosing,
in
the
passage
of
this
bill,
to
grant
greater
rights,
and-
and
I
will
reference
that
back
in
the
70s-
there
were
certain
cities
that
that
thought.
It
was
a
good
idea
to
ban
firearms
in
their
cities
completely,
and
thankfully
our
u.s
supreme
court
struck
that
down
in
dcv
heller
and
found
that
you
have
an
individual
right
to
bear
arms.
H
It's
not
collect
it's
not
connected
to
the
militia
section
of
the
second
amendment.
That's
a
separate
clause.
It
is,
it
is
separate
from
your
individual
right
to
bear
arms,
and
so,
while
both
gentlemen
have
I
I
mean
have
stated
accurate
comments,
I
just
want
to
say
what
we
are
really
doing
here
is
choosing
to
grant
greater
rights
under
the
second
amendment
than
the
bare
minimum
that
is
required
under
the
u.s
and
federal
standard.
A
Thank
you,
members,
a
reminder.
We
are
on
amendment
number
two.
We
have
not
put
that
on
the
bill.
Yet
question
has
been
called
you.
You
want
to
speak
on
this
amendment
or
would
you
question
on
the
amendment?
A
C
Representative
russell,
thank
you
sponsor
for
bringing
this
amendment.
I
do
have
a
question.
Would
the
officer
if
they
suspect
a
person
carrying
a
weapon,
would
they
have
to
have
probable
cause
or
reasonable
suspicion
to
run
their
names.
A
Thank
you
question
on
the
amendment
has
been
called
members.
We're
now
voting
to
add
amendment
number
zero,
zero,
four,
zero,
eight
nine
on
to
house
bill,
786,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
those
opposed
no
the
eyes
prevail.
A
A
All
those
in
favor
say
aye.
Those
opposed
the
eyes
prevail.
We're
about
on
preview,
we're
now
voting
on
the
bill
786
as
amended.
All
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
786
to
full
criminal,
say
aye
aye.
Those
opposed
no
the
eyes
prevail
if
you
wish
to
be
recorded
as
a
no,
please
see
the
clerk
famous
chairman
members
of
the
committee.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
wanted
to
point
out
a
couple
of
procedural
items
number
one
being
that
representative
beck
did
declare
earlier
in
the
questioning
on
amendments
that
he
was
holding
his
question
for
the
the
bill
itself
and
mr
chairman.
In
essence,
when
we
don't
allow
questions
on
the
bill,
if
one
of
the
amendments
did
not
rewrite
the
bill,
then
we
have
not
had
debate
on
the
bill.
I
A
Thank
you
next
item.
On
our
calendar.
We
are
going
to
move
to
house
bill
18,
which
is
item
number
25.
A
E
You,
mr
chairman,
members
of
committee,
I'm
asking
for
a
roll
call
vote
on
this
bill.
This
is
house
bill,
18.,
it's
constitutional,
carry.
It
differs
from
786
an
aspect
that
it
only
outlaws
if
you're
legally
entitled
to
carry
it
as
a
tennessee
resident
or
in
the
state
you're
from
and
you're
18
years
old.
It
also
makes
a
distinction
between
a
handgun,
as
provided
in
786
and
house
bill
18
says
firearm.
So
that's
a
major
difference
between
the
two.
E
I
would
like
to
point
out
for
members
of
the
committee
when
the
second
amendment
was
passed,
individuals
were
allowed
to
carry
the
state-of-the-art
firepower
back
then,
and
it
was
adults
through
the
years
that
constitutional
right
has
been
eroded,
and
I
applaud
the
tennessee
general
assembly,
the
governor,
for
let's
take
a
stand.
Let's
correct
that
erosion
of
our
constitutional
rights
and
ask
for
a
vote
on
this.
Thank
you
available
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative
griffey,
so
the
difference
between
your
bill
exactly
and
representative
lambert's
bill
is
what
could
you
tell
me
in
cliff
notes.
E
B
B
We
also
heard
from
law
enforcement
how
this
would
endanger
our
our
law
enforcement,
our
police
and
and
police
chiefs.
Sheriffs
tbi
have
all
opposed
this
permit
less
carry.
E
Thank
you
much
very
much,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
representative
for
the
question.
You
know
those
same
arguments
were
raised
in
all
other
18
states
for
people
that
oppose
constitutional,
carry
and
guess
what,
in
none
of
those
states
have
the
legislature
sought
to
revisit
and
withdraw
the
laws
that
they'd
already
passed?
I
submit
to
you
that
more
people
that
are
law,
abiding
that
have
firearms
or
the
ability
to
carry
firearms
will
deter
crime.
E
B
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Yes,
I'd
be
happy
to
it
was.
If
we
pass
permanence
carry
it
will
certainly
make
those
who
choose
to
carry
and
not
get
a
permit
more
safe.
They
will
have
the
ability
to
defend
their
lives
against
somebody
if
they're
filling
up
in
gas
and
somebody
pulls
up
and
tries
to
rob
them
or
carjack
them,
or
something
like
that.
I
see
that
every
week
it
seems
like
there's
a
new
case
in
memphis
or
nashville.
That's
going
on.
E
I
don't
feel
like
it's
appropriate
for
the
general
assembly
to
hamstring,
law-abiding
citizens
who
want
to
protect
themselves
and
their
lives,
so
they
can
make
it
home
to
their
children
and
their
family
continue
with
their
jobs
without
being
able
to
defend
their
life.
If
somebody
pulls
up
and
has
a
gun,
because
I
can
guarantee
you,
the
people
will
violate
the
gun
laws
already
they're
doing
it
and
that's
why
we
have
so
many
gun
violence
in
in
our
metropolitan
areas.
B
Would
it
surprise
you
to
know
that
the
highest
per
capita
firearm
fatalities
are
in
mississippi,
which
also
has
unpyramided
carry?
Do
you
think
it's
doesn't
look
like
it's
making
the
citizens
of
the
great
state
of
mississippi
any
safer.
E
Well,
I
don't
think
that's
really
a
fair
and
accurate
argument,
you're
saying
just
because
there's
more
gun
crime
going
on
there
that
constitution
carried
down
there
hasn't
made
them
safer.
I
I
don't
see
that
as
a
a
logical
argument,
you
could
have
both
existing
at
the
same
time,
you
have
a
lot
more
killings
and
shootings
in
chicago
illinois.
They
have
some
of
the
most
restrictive
gun
crimes
on
there,
you're
trying
to
conflate
two
separate
statistical
facts,
and
I
don't
think
that
they
logistically
statistically
support
each
other
representative.
B
E
A
Thank
you,
representative
hardaway
was
next
on
the
list.
I
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
a
couple
of
questions,
sir,
as
your
bill
progresses
and
as
lambert's
bill
progresses,
will
they
at
some
point
merge
or
is
it
one
or
the
other
or
both
you
cited
some
differences,
so
I
don't
see
how
the
both
of
them
can
become
law
without
being
in
conflict.
E
I
Right,
let
me
let
me
get
back
to
being
serious.
Is
yours
considered
to
be
pure
constitutional,
carry
versus
lambert's
being
permitted
scary?
Is
there
a
distinction
there.
E
A
Representative
hardaway,
if
you
will
excuse
me,
you
referenced
representative
lamberth
in
your
last
comment,
give
him
an
opportunity
to
respond
if
he
wishes
pass.
Okay,
never
send
it
far
away.
I
E
I
I've
got
a
serious
issue
in
shelby
county
with
criminal
gangs.
I
don't
see
how
this
makes
the
community
safer.
Hearing
the
the
exchange
between.
I
Suspicion,
probable
cause
when
everybody's
walking
around
with
a
weapon
in
every
circumstance,
except
those
that
are
prohibited,
so
I
I
just
don't
see
how
it
makes
the
community
safer.
I'm
sure
the
criminals
are
are
probably
waiting
to
walk
around
with
a
weapon
because
they
can't
be
challenged
unless
there's
probable,
cause
or
or
suspicion.
Can
you
respond
to
that.
E
We
shouldn't
impose
a
violation
of
law-abiding
citizens
of
their
constitutional
rights
to
try
to
address
a
illegal
use,
possession
of
firearm
situation.
E
I
Well,
I
certainly
appreciate
your
defense
of
the
second
and
fourth
amendments
rights.
I
disagree
with
your
overall
bill,
but
I
thank
you
for
that
and
I
still
feel
like
it
puts
my
community
and
the
rest
of
the
great
state
of
tennessee
in
peril,
so
I'm
gonna
have
to
vote
against
your
bill.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
E
Thank
you
representative,
in
fact,
could
just
foster.
I
would
certainly
join
any
effort,
for
we
can
make
a
public
campaign
in
all
of
our
communities
to
try
to
make
them
safer,
get
people
good,
paying
jobs,
turn
away
from
the
culture
of
violence
and
drugs.
That
and
drugs
are
probably
generate
most
of
the
firearm
violence
in
our
communities.
I
think,
if
you
ask
most
da's,
that's
what
it
relates
to,
because
people
you
can't
use
law
enforcement
to
solve
a
dispute.
If
someone
didn't
pay
you
for
your
drug,
so
what
do
you?
Do?
E
You
pull
out
a
gun
and
you
try
to
shoot
and
self-help
your
way
out
of
the
situations,
and
we
need
that
we
need
a
public
campaign
and
effort
in
all
of
our
communities
to
try
to
turn
away
from
the
drugs
and
the
violence
and
I'll
support
any
bill.
That
will
do
that.
Thank
you,
representative
appreciate
you.
C
E
That's
reference
another
part
of
the
tennessee
code
and
the
18
usc
federal
code,
18
ufc,
922
g.
This
is
a
number
of
provisions.
You
can't
be
convicted,
failing
illegal
alien,
mental,
defective
drug
abusers.
There's
a
number
of
specific
provisions
spelled
out
in
federal
code
and
we
have
additional
state
law
provisions
on
some
of
those.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
bill
is
just
another
form,
very
little
difference
from
the
one
that
leader
lambert
has
that
correct.
You've
explained
that
difference
just
want
to
say
thank
you
for
standing
up
for
our
second
amendment
rights
and
for
securing
our
freedoms
that
we
are
losing
on
a
regular
basis.
So
I
appreciate
you
and
both
you
and
leader,
lambert
and
your
bravery
and
taking
on
this
monumental
task,
and
I
applaud
you
for
that.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
I
will
take
an
opportunity
to
ask
a
question
here
that
I
would
have
asked
the
sponsor
of
the
previous
bill.
The
same
question:
how
does
your
bill
line
up
with
article
1
section
26
of
our
state's
constitution,.
E
A
C
A
Seeing
no
other
further
questions,
any
objection
to
calling
the
question
question
has
been
called
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill.
18,
I'm
sorry,
a
roll
call
vote
has
been
requested
earlier
by
the
sponsor.
Madam
clerk.
Please
take
the
row.
B
A
B
G
E
G
A
A
A
You
are
recognized.
There
is
an
amendment
representative,
russell
zero,
zero,
zero.
Four
one!
Three
seven!
Do
you
wish
to
proceed
with
that
amendment?
Yes,
chairman?
Okay,
you
have
a
motion
and
second
on
the
amendment
go
ahead.
Please.
C
Thanks,
chairman
and
committee,
the
amendment
makes
the
bill
what
house
bill
1047
with
amendment
attached
does.
Is
it
requires
that,
after
conviction
of
certain
crimes
that
historically
targets
women
and
children,
100
percent
of
the
imposed
sentence
must
be
served?
Sentences
cannot
be
reduced
by
credits,
however,
credits
can
be
used
for
the
purpose
of
increased
privileges,
reduced
security,
classifications
or,
for
any
other
purposes,
other
than
reduction
of
the
sentence
imposed
by
the
court
plain
and
simple.
If
you
do
the
crime,
you
do
100
of
the
time
no
possibility
of
parole
or
probation.
C
For
example,
if
an
individual
is
convicted
of
rape,
the
average
sentence
is
7.05
years
and
the
average
incarceration
is
only
4.64
years.
If
an
individual
is
convicted
of
sexual
battery.
The
average
sentence
is
3.26
years,
however,
they're
only
on
average
incarcerated
2.41
years.
If
an
individual
is
convicted
of
child
abuse,
neglect
or
endangerment
of
a
child
under
6
years
old,
the
average
sentence
is
2.09
years.
However,
they
only
serve
0.76
years.
This
is
a
broken
system
that
this
legislation
is
going
to
fix.
However,
what
this
bill
does
not
do.
C
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative,
russell.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
carrying
this
for
the
speaker,
and
I
want
to
thank
our
speaker
for
the
bold
leadership
here
on
putting
forth
a
piece
of
legislation,
and
we
talk
about
criminal
justice
reform
all
the
time
and
really
what
that
is,
is
setting
our
penalties
on
different
crimes
and
sitting.
You
know
what
what
what
the
punishment
should
be
at
an
appropriate
level.
H
Most
of
these
crimes
in
this
amendment
historically
have
been
committed
against
women
and
children
and
for
all
of
us,
hopefully
in
a
bipartisan
way,
to
be
able
to
stand
up
and
say
once
you've
availed
yourself
of
the
entire
criminal
justice
system
and
you've
been
convicted
of
these
type
of
heinous
crimes.
You
you
should
not
be
eligible
for
parole.
Now.
I
think
everybody's
heard
me
talk
at
length
about
going
in
and
redoing
our
entire
sentencing
code.
H
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
want
to
echo
a
lot
of
that
to
the
sponsor.
We
talk
a
lot
about
who
we're
mad
at
versus,
who
we're
afraid
of,
and
these
are
people
we
are
absolutely
afraid
of.
These
are
some
of
the
worst
criminals
in
our
society
and
I
think
truth
and
sentencing
is
very,
very
appropriate
for
these
folks.
So
I
want
to
commend
you.
J
I
was
honored
to
sign
on
to
this
bill
as
soon
as
the
amendment
was
available,
and
I
saw
what
this
was
all
about,
but
these
are
the
worst
of
the
worst,
and
that
is
exactly
why
we've
got
to
reform
our
system
so
that
we've
got
enough
beds
for
all
the
bad
guys,
and
these
are
the
bad
guys.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
bringing
this
bill
and
I'm
honored
to
be
a
co-sponsor.
E
A
Thank
you
any
any
objection
to
calling
in
question
on
the
amendment
we'll
be
adding
amendment
number
zero,
zero.
Four
one.
Three,
seven
on
the
house
bill,
1047,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
those
opposed,
no,
the
eyes
have
it.
We
are
now
on
house
bill
1047.
As
amended
question
has
been
called
on
the
bill.
A
A
F
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
to
the
member
for
withdrawing.
What
is
the
enforcement
mechanism
for
those
agencies
that
don't
abide
by
the
30-day
rule.
F
Thank
you,
chairman
members
of
the
committee.
This
piece
of
legislation
doesn't
specifically
address
the
enforcement
mechanism.
This
is
simply
placing
in
statute
that
there
is
a
requirement
of
right
now.
It
says
60
days.
This
piece
of
legislation
will
lower
that
threshold
to
30
days
in
which
law
enforcement
agencies
submit
sexual
evidence
for
crimes
to
the
state,
tbi
crime
lab
and
members
of.
As
you
will
remember
several
years
ago,
we
had
a
substantial
problem
with
backlog
of
evidence.
F
This
this
bill
is
a
piece
of
legislation
to
help
remedy
that,
and
I'm
thankful
for
all
the
input
from
law
enforcement
to
take
this
burden
on
themselves.
This.
This
will
increase
some
of
their
times
and
their
trips
and
presenting
this
evidence.
But
this
is
something
that
they
decided
to
do
very
willingly
and
we're
cooperating
with
this
reduction
in
requirement.
I
And
I
thank
you
for
the
legislation.
I
would
caution
that
as
we
move
forward,
we've
got
to
be
conscious
that
if
this
is
going
to
mean
anything,
two
things
that
one
we've
got
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
enforcement
mechanisms
got
to
be
able
to
hold
these
agencies
accountable.
I
The
second
is
that
we've
got
to
make
sure
that
we
properly
fund
tbi,
so
they
can
get
the
job
done.
So
I'm
supporting
a
bill
and
I'll
ask
that
you
and
my
colleagues
consider
those
two
issues.
F
C
F
Thank
you
chairman,
no
sir,
not
not,
it
does
not.
H
Thank
you
chairman,
and,
to
that
last
comment
I
I
do
want
you
to
put
on
the
record
that
there
is
never
to
be
any
finding
by
any
court
that
there
was
a
legislative
intent
to
affect
the
evidence
that
would
come
in
just
because
somebody
were
to
send
in
this
type
of
evidence
of
a
horrendous
crime
on
day
31
I
mean
that
should
still
be
admissible.
H
F
E
Speaker,
I
just
want
to
thank
leader
lambert
for
those
comments.
This
is
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
indicate
to
law
enforcement.
We
want
this
evidence
in
the
lab
and
process
within
30
days,
if
at
all
possible,
there's
no
intent
that
this
evidence
should
ever
be
excluded
if
it
doesn't
make
it
by
those
timelines.
So
thank
you.
I
just
want
to
put
that
on
the
record.
Thank
you.
A
F
A
Sir,
if
you
would,
I
believe
that
is
going
to
be
item.
Number
nine!
That's
on
our
calendar.
I
was
looking
for
that.
Thank
you.
Item
number
nine
house
bill
1343
by
chairman
ogles
you're
recognized.
F
Thank
you,
chairman
members
of
committee.
This
piece
of
legislation
addresses
a
problem
that
we've
had
in
the
state
for
many
years,
and
I
want
to
compliment
the
representative
for
summoner
counter,
as
well
as
the
representative
from
shelby
county
on
working
on
this
legislation
in
the
past
and
as
well
as
the
rest
of
this
committee.
F
Right
now
in
the
state
tennessee,
it
is
illegal
to
smuggle
in
a
cell
phone
into
a
penal
institution
while
somebody's
incarcerated.
However,
once
that
cell
phone
makes
it
through
that
net
we've
cast
to
actually
possess
a
cell
phone
inside
a
prison
is
not
an
offense
and
what
we've?
What
we
saw
is
the
reason
that
is
is,
unfortunately,
a
lot
of
these
cell
phones
make
it
through,
and
the
fiscal
note
on
changing
that
in
the
past
has
been
substantial
to
the
point
of
an
excess
of
north
of
20
million
dollars.
F
F
The
second
time
a
cell
phone
is
found
in
a
cell
or
in
possession
on
a
person
incarcerated
that
fine
will
hit
the
maximum
amount,
which
is
three
thousand
dollars,
and
we
hope
this
puts
some
teeth
in
the
fact
that
these
are
not
to
be
permissible
inside
the
penal
institutions,
and
we
can
help
remedy
a
problem
we
have
in
the
state.
Thank
you,
chairman
I'll,
take
any
questions.
I
Yes,
sir,
and
I
thank
the
sponsor
for
the
bill.
The
genesis
of
this
discussion
came
about
from
a
constituent
the
family
who
had
lost
his
son
in
a
murder,
and
the
murderer
was
calling
and
posting
on
social
media
to
intimidate
to
harass,
to
mock
the
family,
about
the
murder
of
their
son.
So
I
thank
the
the
sponsor
and
consider
me
a
strong
yes
and
a
strong
co-prime
on
this.
C
Thank
you,
chairman
and
just
to
add,
I
had
heard
from
one
of
our
the
officers
in
that
work
inside
the
prison.
His
story
was
he
would
he
had
the
weekends
off
and
was
a
divorce
father,
so
he
had
his
children
on
the
weekends
when
he
would
come
back
on
monday,
the
prisoners
told
him
everywhere
he
had
been
with
his
children,
and
that
was
only
because
they
had
phones
that
they
could
get
people
from
the
outside
following
those
correctional
officers
and
then
intimidating
them
inside
the
prison.
With
that
knowledge,
so.
H
Famous
chairman
and
representative,
I
actually
had
spoken
to
the
individual
that
had
this
bill.
Previously,
I
didn't
know
it
had
been
transferred
over.
So
we've
not
had
an
opportunity
to
talk
about
this,
but
I
do
support
the
legislation.
I
would
like
to
talk
to
you
between
sub
and
full.
I've
carried
bills
like
this
in
the
past,
and
thank
you
for
referencing
that
and
even
though
they
had
a
fiscal
note,
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
some
actual
punishments,
a
fine
only
for
somebody
already
incarcerated.
H
I
want
to
make
sure
we
get
with
tdoc
and
make
sure
that
that
is
going
to
in
some
way
negatively
affect
them
within
the
prison.
If
it's
just
a
fine
only-
and
I
know
why
it's
a
fine-
only
that's
to
avoid
a
large
fiscal
note,
but
we
looked
at
several
different
options
before
even
some
misdemeanor
penalties.
So
I
applaud
your
effort.
I
supported
100.
H
I
supported
passing
this
committee,
but
it
sounds
like
there's
large
support
to
put
some
penalties
in
there,
but
if
you
wouldn't
mind
at
least
let's
get
together
and
talk
about
what
some
of
those
penalties
could
be
so
that
we
make
sure
tdoc's
got
the
tools
they
need,
and
this
may
do
it.
I
I
just
hadn't
had
a
chance
to
look
into
that.
Yet
thank
you
and
it's
a
good
bill.
F
Thank
you
chairman.
I
appreciate
that
and,
and
as
you
all
will
know,
sometimes
legislation
and
legislative
attempt
gets
held
up,
sometimes
because
of
fiscal
notes,
so
this
legislation
was
written
in
a
way
to
be
sure.
This
is
something
we
can
remedy
and
remedy
immediately,
and
it
would
not
be
restrained
because
of
a
huge
fiscal
burden.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
try
to
keep
it
out
of
that
black
hole.
Let
me
add
this:
we
were
able
to
document
instances
where
individuals
in
prison
as
representative
moody
referenced
before
are
still
carrying
on
their
criminal
enterprise,
while
in
prison
thanks
to
their
access
to
the
outside
world
and
to
their
minions
by
cell
phone.
I
We're
also
able
to
document
where
prison
escapes
have
been
aided
by
cell
phones
within
the
prison,
and
we
have
lost
the
life
of
a
a
prison
guard
documented
where
the
actual
escape
was
organized
with
the
aid
of
a
cell
phone
inside
the
prison.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
that
on
the
record
and
mr
sponsor
I'm
with
you
on
this
and
thank
you.
Lita
lambert.
F
Thank
you,
chairman
members
of
committee
and
and
this
legislation
doesn't
address
another
issue
that
we
also
have
a
problem
with
in
the
state
of
tennessee.
It's
that
those
smuggled
in
cell
phones
are
in
fact
burner
phones
that
are
not
registered
to
anyone
and
if
there's
a
mechanism
in
this
state,
that's
proliferating
crime.
It's
burner,
phones
that
have
no
identification
whatsoever,
which
sim
car
sim
cards
can
be
changed
within
30
seconds
and
law
enforcement
has
next
to
no
chance
to
track
them.
C
Russell,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
sponsor
for
bringing
this
bill
in
2009.
I
was
had
the
opportunity
to
go
to
the
tbi
academy
and
believe
it
or
not.
I
actually
passed
it,
but
so,
while
I
was
there,
we
had
a
couple
of
the
tdoc
internal
affairs
people
that
was
graduating
also,
and
that's
where
I
learned
about
these
phones
and
the
prisons
and
it's
going
to
save
lives,
and
I
appreciate
the
been
able
to
hopefully
co-sponsor
this
bill.
Will
you
and
thank
you
for
bringing
it.
A
A
Members,
we're
now
on
item
number
three
house
bill
578
by
chairman
reagan,
a
motion
in
a
second
chairman.
There
is
an
amendment
entitled
zero
zero.
Four
one.
D
Mr
chair,
before
we
consider
the
amendment
yes,
sir,
are
you
recognized
I'm
going
to
announce
my
attention
to
roll
a
bill
to
discuss
that
amendment
with
some
of
the
members
of
this
committee
before
I
do
that,
I
want
to
make
a
few
comments
and
then
I'll
roll
it
a
week.
Okay,
please.
The
first
comment
is
for
those
of
you
that
were
not
on
this
committee
last
year.
This
is
the
exact
same
bill
that
we
passed
out
of
this
committee
last
year.
D
D
This
bill
would
apply
to
males
and
females
alike,
and
so
with
that
explanation
and
hopefully
setting
the
grounds
for
the
discussion
of
the
amendment
that
was
going
to
be
proposed,
I
will
ask
this
bill
to
be
rolled
one
week,
knowing
that
we
only
have
two
before
it
goes
to
the
last
calendar.
I'm
assuming
that
my
colleagues
will
understand
the
provision
that
I
just
talked
about
when
we
discuss
that
amendment.
However,
if
anybody
has
a
question
before
I
step
down,
I'm
glad
to
take
it.
I
Yes,
sir,
I
I'm
probably
the
only
one
that
doesn't
understand
the
issue
when
you
say
that
you're
trying
to
make
sure
that
the
penalties
don't
discriminate
between
male
and
female.
D
It
is
already
a
class
d
felony
under
3913
110
for
female
genital
mutilation.
Okay,
this
bill
is
addressing
a
therapy
with
hormones
and
potentially
with
surgery
as
well
on
genitalia,
but
it
is
also
addressing
males
as
well
as
females
and
the.
In
fact,
the
penalty
that
I've
been
requested
in
this
bill
is
lower
than
a
class
d
felony.
D
So
my
I'm
a
bit
concerned
that
the
physicians
are
objecting
to
having
it
lowered,
but
nonetheless,
I'm
willing
to
discuss
this
with
the
the
individuals
who
were
interested
in
the
amendment.
D
D
To
address
the
potential
amendment,
yes,
sir,
thank
you
without
objection,.
A
H
Of
legislation,
this
legislation
is
supported
by
mothers
against
drunk
driving
and
anheuser-busch.
It
is
related
to
social
hosting
chairman
curcio,
and
I
worked
on
this
a
little
bit
last
year,
but
kova
derailed.
F
A
A
K
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
committee.
Most
people
on
this
committee
are
going
to
be
familiar
with
this.
This
is
a
bill
that
was
brought
last
year.
It
passed
out
and
didn't
get
taken
up
by
the
senate
as
a
lot
of
other
bills,
as
we've
heard
today.
This
is
dealing
with
minor
children.
12
years
old
and
under
the
bill
is
called
evelyn's
bill.
This
is
from
my
county.
In
sullivan
county,
we
had
an
incident
a
little
15
month.
K
Old
girl,
evelyn
boswell
was
murdered
by
her
parents
and
they
did
everything
they
could
to
give
our
local
law
enforcement
and
tbi
the
runaround.
They
were
told
that
she
was
with
the
grandmother
in
north
carolina.
They
were
told
that
they
she
was
with
friends,
traveling
and
on
vacation,
and
all
this
time
the
little
girl
had
already
been
passed
and
it
was
devastating
to
my
community
and
we
really
felt
like
our
hands
was
tied.
There
was
nothing
we
could
do.
They
were
trying
to
interview
the
parents
and
nothing
ever
ever
was
truthful.
K
Nothing
ever
came
out,
so
we
we
went
with
the
local
law
enforcement,
the
sheriff's
agencies,
the
association,
and
we
said:
what
can
we
do
to
help
you
guys,
because
we
never
want
another
community
to
experience
this
again,
and
so
we
come
up
with
evelyn's
law
and,
basically,
what
it
does
is.
It
requires
a
parent
or
a
guardian
to
report
a
child
if
they
have
been
missing
24
hours.
K
K
They
could
serve
up
to
eleven
twenty
nine
in
jail
and
it
would
be
considered
a
class,
a
misdemeanor
if
that
child
is
fell,
found
with
serious
body
harm
or
death,
then
that
moves
up
to
a
class
c
felony,
with
a
possibility
of
15
years
in
jail
and
a
10
000
dollar.
Fine.
There
was
some
questions
on
this
dealing
with.
How
do
we
get
around
the
fact
of
self-incrimination
and
at
that
time
judge
carter
was
serving
on
this
judge
carter.
K
Helped
us
put
the
information
in
there
to
take
care
of
that
and,
with
that
said,
I'll
stand
for
questions.
D
May
have
answered
this
and
thank
you
chairman
crawford
for
bringing
this
piece
of
legislation.
I
do
remember
this
incident.
It
was
terrible,
it
was
atrocious
and
it
should
never
have
happened
and
I
don't
ever
want
it
to
happen
again.
I
know
that's
your
intent
and
purpose
of
this.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
this
legislation
first
off.
Does
this
apply
to
any
minor
18
and
under
or
is
it
a
certain
age
you
may?
I
should
probably
already
need
to
know
this,
but
I
should
have
known
this,
but.
K
Yeah.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
to
answer
your
question.
As
was
stated
with
chairman
zachary,
who
was
just
up
here,
we
used
the
word
minor
simply
because
that
means
12
years
old
or
okay.
A
A
D
Yes,
the
amendment
I'm
going
with
is
four
two
two
one:
okay,.
D
Thank
you.
The
amendment
is
the
only
way
that
it
differs
from
the
original
bill
is
that
I
have
added
a
severability
clause
on
in
the
event
that
it's
basically
belt
and
suspenders.
If
something
gets
struck
down
in
the
bill,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
rest
of
the
bill
stays
intact.
Okay,.
A
D
Thank
you.
881
is
designed
to
help
protect
the
right
to
peacefully
protest
by
tennesseans
by
cutting
down
on
bad
actors
that
may
that
may
escalate
an
otherwise
peaceful
protest
into
a
riot.
This
bill
is
based
on
a
psychological
phenomenon
called
social
contagion.
Theory.
D
Social
contagion
theory
is
when
you
have
a
group
of
individuals
and
one
individual
acts
out
or
takes
an
action,
it
can
become
contagious
within
that
group
of
individuals.
So,
for
instance,
if
you
have
a
group
that
is
peacefully
protesting
and
somebody
decides
to
throw
a
rock
or
charge
a
building,
it
can
become
contagious
within
that
group
and
escalate
to
a
riot
which
could
cause
otherwise
peaceful
protesters
with
good
intentions,
ending
up
with
a
charge
for
rioting.
D
The
bill
addresses
this
issue
by
enhancing
the
charges
for
someone
who
has
been
paid
to
riot
or
who
has
come
in
from
out
of
state
with
the
intent
to
commit
a
criminal
offense.
The
penalties
in
the
bill
are
classy
felony,
with
a
mandatory
minimum
of
40
days
of
incarceration
or
60
days.
If
more
than
one
of
these,
these
acts
have
been
and
the
bill
have
been
committed.
I
Mr
chairman,
come
back
to
me
after
back,
please.
A
Okay,
representative
beck.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
chairman
terry.
I
was
I
was
reading
your
bill
and
and
and
listening
to
your
explanation
in
the
bill.
It
says
with
the
intent
someone
from
out
of
state
with
the
intent
or
participating
in
a
riot.
B
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
a
great
question
intent
to
commit
a
criminal,
offense
and,
and
so
what
that
would
be
is
again
it
would
be
up
to
the
d.a
or
whoever's
going
to
prosecute
this
to
determine
how
they
wanted
to
know
that
they
had
had
that
intent,
but,
for
instance,
if
somebody
came
across
state
lines
and
brought
bats
or
bricks
or
something
with
them
to
participate
in
that,
that
would
be
potential
intent.
But
again
it
would
be
up
to
the
d.a
to
determine
their
intent
for
that
representative.
B
You
in
your
explanation,
you,
you
use
the
example
of
somebody
throwing
a
rock
during
a
peaceful
protest
to
rile
up
the
protesters,
and
I
just
you
know.
I
just
think
that-
and
I
understand
there's
already
criminal
laws
concerning
vandalism,
and
so
I'm
I'm
missing
why
we
would
need
to
escalate
the
penalties.
D
Okay,
again
for
if
you're
paid
right
to
riot
or
if
you
have
come
in
with
criminal
intent
that
escalates
this,
the
purpose
is,
you
have
otherwise
peaceful
protesters
that
are
out
there
and
if
somebody
has
an
intent
to
basically
escalate
that
to
a
riot
they've
they've
got
intent
or
they
were
paid
to
do
so.
D
Otherwise,
peaceful
protesters
now
could
get
caught
up
in
that,
and
then
they
could
be
charged
with
pro
with
rioting.
And
what
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
to
ensure
that
we
don't
have
these
bad
actors
that
are
getting
otherwise
peaceful
protesters
and
infringing
on
their
rights
and
and
getting
them
caught
up
in
a
charge
that
they
don't
need.
B
And
I
agree
with
you
on
that
premise,
that
if,
if
we
have
peaceful
protesters-
and
we
have
agitators
or
people
paid
to
come
in
and
incite,
is
what
what
you're
saying?
Basically,
that
would
not
be
the
situation
that
we
would
want
in
our
great
state.
I
think
we're
going
to
have
where
I
have
a
problem
with
it
is
I
don't?
The
proof
is
just
about
going
to
be
impossible
to
me.
I
don't.
I
don't
see
how
it's
going
to
play
out
that
we're
going
to
now
if
you're
right.
B
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
morning
to
the
sponsor
you
addressed
some
of
my
questions
already,
plus
intent
that
difficult
for
me
to
get
past
that,
if
you're
coming
in
to
participate
in
a
peaceful
protest
and
it
turns
into
a
riot,
but
your
intent
was
to
participate
in
a
peaceful
protest.
I
I
I've,
I'm
pretty
sure
that
I
know
the
answer,
but
in
two
a
b
and
c
any
one
of
those
those
don't
have
to
be
in
combination.
That
could
be
the
travel
with
intent
to
commit
the
criminal,
offense
or
exchange
for
compensation
or
there's
an
injury
or
property
damage.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
sponsor.
I
I
want
to
commend
you
for
for
grabbing
on
to
a
subject.
That's
been
important
to
tennesseans
for
a
long
time,
and
in
fact
I
I
went
back
and
I
looked
at
a
special
address
that
being
a
dixon
county
boy,
I'm
a
frank,
clement
fan
and
frank
clement
addressed
this
general
assembly
in
1957
when
there
was
a
lot
of
upheaval
going
on
and
it's
interesting.
He
actually
identified
this
problem
then
and
asked
the
legislature
to
think
about
this
issue.
J
He
says
I'm
not
so
concerned
with
what
extremists
on
isaac's
side
think
about
what
I
shall
say
here
today,
nor
those
out
of
staters
who
come
into
our
midst,
stirring
up
trouble
and
strife
where
none
existed
in
order
to
further
their
own
gains.
I
shall
not
attempt
to
please
them.
J
He
goes
on
and
talks
about
how
every
great
nation
that's
been
built
up
over.
You
know
the
past.
You
know
millennia
has
always
typically
fallen
from
internal
strife
and
from
internal
terrorism
and
things
of
that
nature,
and
so
he
asked
the
legislature
then
in
1957
to
look
at
this
issue,
and
so
I'm
sorry,
it's
taken
us
this
long,
but
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
bill
and
I'm
proud
to
support
it.
Thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
sponsor
for
bringing
this
bill
and
I'm
happy
to
support
it
and
co-sign
on
to
it.
Regarding
the
questions
of
intent,
I
think
we
have
some
excellent
criminal
investigators
and
prosecutors
and
sheriff's
officials
that
they
can
look
at
social
media
posts.
Phone
records
text
messages
they
can
find
out
intent.
An
intent
always
becomes
a
question
of
for
a
jury
to
determine
so
we
don't
want
to
get
the
innocent,
but
we
certainly
want
to
punish
those
that
are
guilty.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
it.
A
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
In
2019,
the
general
assembly
passed
a
bill
requiring
all
offenders
who
committed
aggravated
rape
of
a
child
to
be
sentenced
to
life
without
the
possibility
of
parole.
This
bill
would
change
the
sentences
for
offenders
who
committed
the
crime
as
a
juvenile
and
have
been
transferred
to
an
adult
court
to
be
sentenced
as
a
range.
Three
offender
offenders
who
were
adults
at
the
time
of
the
crime
will
still
receive
life
without
the
possibility
of
parole.
A
I
H
Sure
that's
a
moment
of
personal
privilege.
You
know
we
can't
have
everyone
here
at
the
capitol
every
day
that
we
always
would
like.
We
are
open.
We
do
have
visitors
today,
but
I
just
wanted
to
give
a
shout
out
to
one
of
my
constituents:
that's
watching
back
home,
daryl
rogers
he's
a
friend
of
mine
from
high
school
and
there
were
several
bills.
H
A
L
You,
mr
chairman,
this
bill
just
places
the
word
farm
under
protection
of
critical
infrastructure
back
home
we've
had
several
instances
where
we've
had
farms
just
totally
vandalized
we've
had
pivots
the
wire's
been
pulled
off
of
pivots
they'll
back
a
truck
up
to
them,
cut
the
wire
and
start
pulling
the
pivot
wire
off
and
then
they'll
take
them
back
home
burn
the
plastic
off
of
them.
Take
it
to
a
scrap
yard
for
whatever
kind
of
whatever
they
need.
L
The
money
for
they've
got
instances
where
a
tractor's
been
sitting
in
the
fields
and
they'll
go,
take
wire,
metal
shavings
and
fill
the
hydraulic
reservoirs
up.
We've
had
instances
where
cotton
bales
have
been
sitting
out
in
the
field
already
harvested
and
they'll
go
and
burn
them.
I
had
an
instance
where
a
guy
had
these
rollers
that
rolled
cotton
and
they
have
the
looks
like
big
bells
of
hay
and
they'll
go
out
with
a
razor
blade
and
just
cut
the
the
protective
coat
on
them.
L
It's
it's
becoming
a
problem
even
more
and
more,
but
personally,
I've
had
a.
I
had
a
trailer
truck
burnt
about
eight
years
ago,
just
sitting
there
minding
his
own
business
one
night
and
got
up
the
next
morning
and
someone
burnt
the
truck
to
the
ground.
So
this
is
this
is
an
occurrence.
That's
happened
in
my
my
home
or
my
parts
of
the
part
of
the
state
pretty
often,
and
I'm
sure,
representative
moody
you've
had
some
of
the
same
issues
with
that
I'd
appreciate
your
support.
C
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
representative,
bringing
this
bill.
You
and
I
talked
about
this
bill
and
I
was
reminded
of
incidents.
That's
happened
in
my
district
recently,
most
recently,
not
that
many
months
ago.
I
guess
it
was
harvest
season.
G
One
of
the
farmers
in
my
district
had
his
almost
his
entire
crop
destroyed
because
a
couple
of
hoodlums
in
there
they
looked
to
be
in
their
early
20s
decided.
It
was
a
great
place
to
do
donuts
in
their
four-wheelers
and
he
happened
to
catch
them
in
the
act
and
they
in
return
accosted
him.
He
was
hurt,
seriously
hurt,
and
but
he
had
no
retribution,
he
had
no
recourse.
So
this
is
a
good
bill.
We
need
to
protect
our
farmers
because,
if
you,
if
you
eat
today,
thank
a
farmer.
J
J
If
we're
not
careful,
I
think
you
know,
if
you
destroy
a
hundred
thousand
dollar
combine
you
you
you're,
going
to
be
way
worse
off
than
if
we
charge
you
under
critical
infrastructure.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
actually
get
ourselves
in
a
posture
where
we're
being
softer
on
these
criminals
than
than
we
otherwise
should
be,
and
actually
we
were
talking
about
this
kind
of
offline
up
here.
C
C
If
the
value
of
the
vandalism
is
more,
then
it
would,
it
could
be
higher,
so
yeah.
The
punishment
for
a
violation
of
this
section
can
in
no
event
be
less
than
a
class
e
felony,
but
it
can
be
higher
based
upon
the
value
of
what
was
vandalized,
but
to
answer
your
question
yet
prosecutors
would
have
the
discretion
to
charge.
However,
they
see
fit
under
whichever.
A
A
F
C
E
Believe
their
life
was
in
danger,
they
can
claim.
E
C
E
J
You,
mr
chairman,
I'll,
be
brief.
I
just
want
to
thank
you
again.
I
know
you've
been
around
the
barn
on
this.
We
had
a
summer
study,
it's
an
excellent
bill
and
I
I
hope
you
don't
get
slowed
down
this
time.
So
congratulations
thank.
A
A
Members
we
will
go
back
to
item
number
11
house
bill
924
by
chairman
wright.
It
has
been
rolled
two
weeks.
A
Moving
on
to
item
number
12
house
bill,
545
by
chairman
dixie,
has
been
been
rolled
one
week.
H
Thank
my
chamber,
members
of
the
committee.
This
bill
came
to
me
from
several
members
of
a
judicial
community
that
had
a
case
that
occurred
where
a
woman
facilitated
the
rape
of
her
own
child
by
literally
giving
her
child
to
a
sex
offender
for
a
period
of
months
over
a
summer.
I
knew
exactly
what
was
going
on.
Not
only
did
nothing
to
prevent
it
from
occurring,
but
actively
facilitated
that
horrendous
crime
against
this
child
when
convicted
of
facilitation
or
rape
of
a
child.
H
That
woman,
I
will
not
call
her
a
mother-
is
eligible
for
parole
at
30
percent
and
the
rapist
is
not,
and
there
is
no
reason
that
I
think
in
the
criminal
code
that
the
person
that
facilitated
that
rape
should
be
eligible
for
parole.
We
can't
affect
the
crime
that
already
happened.
I
mean
there's
nothing.
We
can
go
back
in
time
and
change
that
sentence,
but
we
can
keep
it
from
ever
happening
again.
This
would
also
put
a
person
of
that
type
on
the
sex
offender
registry
again
going
forward.
It
will
not
occas.
H
A
Thank
you
sponsor
any
questions
for
the
sponsor,
seeing
none
any
objection
to
calling
the
question
questions
been
called
we're
now
voting
on
house
bill
430
to
go
on
the
full
criminal,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye
those
opposed.
No,
they
always
have
it
moves
on
the
full
committee.
Thank
you
famous.
A
H
Famous
chairman
of
members
of
the
committee,
this
bill
merely
goes
back
into
the
juvenile
justice
reform
act
we
had
from
several
years
ago.
It
allows
for
some
flexibility
by
our
local
juvenile
court
judges.
There
are
a
couple
different
bills
on
this
this
year.
This
one
is
a
much
more
minor
tweak
to
the
code.
I
think
chairman
curcio
has
a
much
larger
attempt
at
this.
H
Unfortunately,
when
we
pass
the
juvenile
justice
reform
act,
we've
seen
that
many
of
these
children
are
being
transferred
to
adult
court,
because
we've
taken
away
the
judge's
ability
to
have
some
detention
and
probation
there
in
the
juvenile
court
system,
the
preference-
and
I
think
the
best
policy
would
be
for
that
child
to
be
monitored
in
the
juvenile
court
system,
unless
absolutely
necessary
to
transfer
them
to
adult
court.
That's
basically
the
bill.
A
H
H
Norris
has
brought
to
my
attention
many
different
times
that
if
you
kill
someone
with
a
gun,
then
you
obviously
are
not
legible
parole
until
deep
into
your
sentence.
But
if
you
use
a
car-
and
you
are
intoxicated
and
you
kill
someone
they're
just
as
dead
as
the
other
crime,
but
you
were
eligible
for
parole
at
30
percent.
H
This
is
an
issue
that
is
extremely
important.
I
will
not
spend
an
enormous
amount
of
time
on
the
committee
today
unless
there
are
a
lot
of
questions,
but
it's
a
very
simple
bill,
but
it
is
extremely
important
because
I
have
sat
in
parole
hearings
with
many
many
families
and
begged
the
parole
board
to
leave
the
person
in
that
killed
their
loved
one
and
the
only
reason
we
were
there
is
because
we,
as
the
legislature
had
allowed
those
murderers
to
be
eligible
for
parole
at
30
percent.
H
H
She
will
never
have
kids,
she
will
never
have
graduated
high
school
because
of
a
drunk
driver,
because
some
guys
were
headed
to
mardi
gras
and
decided
to
like
start
drinking
early
as
if
they
had
any
importance
in
this
world
whatsoever
compared
to
her
life.
So
I
grew
up
in
a
family.
That
knows
what
it's
like
to
be
shattered
for
generations,
because
somebody
has
stolen
from
you
because
of
somebody
else's
selfish
decision
to
get
intoxicated
and
get
behind
the
wheel
of
a
3
000
pound
bullet
hurtling
down
the
road.
A
H
Members,
thank
you
chairman
and
again
to
my
parents.
I
don't
share
that
story
often,
but
thank
you
all
for
listening
to
my
story
this
morning.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
bill
came
to
me
from
the
threat
assessment
team
on
school
violence
in
bradley
county.
This
team
was
appointed
one
of
the
first
actions
taken
by
our
sheriff
sheriff
steve
lawson
two
years
ago,
and
he
put
together
this
team
and
it's
very,
very
active
and
it
focuses
on
school
violence.
G
It's
interesting
that
multiple
states
have
enacted
legislation
that
specifically
addresses
school
violence
and,
of
course,
we
all
want
to
keep
our
students
and
our
schools
safe,
and
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
simply
to
create
a
the
ability
for
the
courts
to
hold
a
a
student
who
makes
a
credible
threat
of
school
violence
against
the
school
and
his
cl
his
or
her
classmates.
G
It
creates
the
ability
for
the
court
to
hold
this
person
over
for
psychological
evaluation
so
that
the
court
can
determine
if
the
student
is
a
credible
threat
to
himself,
as
well
as
to
others.
Currently,
there
is
no
code,
I'm
told
by
my
d.a,
under
which
they
can
actually
hold
this
child,
and
so
that
is
the
reason
for
this
bill,
and
I
would
ask
for
a
positive
vote.
A
Question
has
been
called
without
objection.
We're
now
voting
on
house
bill
534
to
send
the
full
criminal.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye
times
opposed.
No
the
eyes
prevail.
You
move
on
the
full
criminal.
Thank
you,
members.
We're
going
to
go
out
order
here
and
skip
down
to
item
number
24
on
your
calendar
item
number
24
by
chairman
farmer
house
bill
1128.,
emotion
in
a
second
chairman.
You
recognized
thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee
members,
and.
D
What
this
is
back
in
2019
secretary
of
state's
office
came
to
me
and
asked
me
to
carry
what
was
named
the
safe
at
home,
the
safe
at
home
bill,
and
what
it
does
is
provides
folks
that
are
have
been
victims
of
domestic
violence,
stalking,
human
trafficking
and
sexual
offenses
to
have
their
addresses
basically
masks.
So
that
way,
they're
the
the
folks
that
have
have
done
that
to
them
and
caused
that
all
that
pain
and
suffering
can't
find
them.
D
So
the
this
program
has
been
working
so
well
that
now
what
we're
doing
is
we're
coming
back
and
we're
asking
to
expand
that
to
not
only
apply
to
their
spouses
and
themselves,
but
also
to
maybe
their
an
elderly
parent,
a
new
spouse,
a
child,
a
caregiver
or
something
like
that
that
resides
with
them
as
well.
So
they
can't
be
tracked
that
way.
So
that's
what
this
bill
does
and
that's
what
I'm
asking
this
committee
to
pass.
A
A
Members
we're
back
on
house
bill
number
216,
which
is
item
number
20
on
your
calendar
motion
in
a
second
chairman
curcio.
There
is
an
amendment
to
this
zero
zero.
Four,
two
one
five.
Do
you
wish
to
proceed
to
that
amendment?
Yes,.
J
Members,
thank
you,
committee.
I
will
try
to
be
brief.
I
know
we're
fixed
for
time,
but
this
is
a
large
enough
change
that
I,
I
think
it
warrants
some
explanation.
So
you
know
a
lot.
J
A
lot
of
us,
I
know,
haven't
been
kicking
around
the
general
assembly
for
as
long
as
as
as
some
of
the
others
that
leader
lamborth
mentioned
earlier
that
that
we've
we
passed
the
jjra,
the
juvenile
justice
reform
act
of
2018
a
couple
of
years
ago,
and
and
actually
at
that
time
he
was
the
chairman
of
this
committee-
and
I
was
his
vice
chair
and
and
so
the
two
of
us,
along
with
chairman
zachary
at
that
time,
worked
really
hard
with
the
haslam
administration
to
get
the
jjra
across
the
finish
line.
J
That
the
jjra
generally
moved
our
state
in
the
right
direction
towards
reforming
tennessee's
juvenile
justice
system.
However,
I
simultaneously
believe
that
not
all
theories
we
implemented
in
the
jjra
work
in
practice.
I
discovered
last
year
that
I'm
not
alone
in
this
belief.
The
tennessee
council
of
juvenile
and
family
court
judges
our
state's
boots
on
the
ground
dealing
with
the
application
of
the
jjra
on
a
day-to-day
basis.
J
And
while
those
of
us
here
in
the
general
assembly
amended
that
statute
two
years
ago
to
allow
for
a
48-hour
hold
period
of
detention
while
the
child's
not
in
school?
Other
juvenile
judges
are
far
too
often
sitting.
Excuse
me,
other
juveniles
are
far
too
often
sitting
in
custody
awaiting
placement.
Only
to
have
the
clock
run
out
on
the
judge's
ability
to
hold
them,
and
then
they
are
released.
Having
not
received
the
services
they
needed
in
the
first
place.
J
This
has
inadvertently
created
a
no
man's
land
of
not
really
detention
and
not
really
placement
and
certainly
no
treatment,
while
children
become
further
victims
of
a
system
that
has
failed
too
many
already.
We
have
to
look
no
further
than
governor
bill.
Lee's
criminal
justice
implementation
task
force
to
find
experts
our
own
experts,
by
the
way
saying
that
if
you
take
a
low
level
offender
and
give
them
a
high
level
of
supervision,
you
are
creating
the
chances
that
that
individual
has
of
having
a
safe
excuse
me
you're,
reducing
the
chances
that
they'll
have
a
successful
re-entry.
J
While
the
six-month
limit
was
designed
to
prevent
it
has
actually
exacerbated
the
problem
it
was
trying
to
prevent
the
child
is
held
for
placement.
The
clock
runs
out
before
a
bed
can
be
found,
and
then
we
send
them
home
worse
than
we
found
them
while
I'm.
What
I'm
proposing
today
is
to
remove
these
limitations
on
judicial
discretion,
allowing
judges
to
require
dispositional
options
as
long
as
they
are
in
the
best
interest
of
the
child.
J
Moreover,
later
this
year,
I
suspect,
we'll
have
a
great
many
bills
presented
this
committee,
designed
to
preserve
or
restore
judicial
discretion
where
it
is
under
fire
has
been
restricted.
This
issue
should
be
no
different:
let's
grant
our
judges
the
discretion
they
need
and
make
sure
every
action
that
we
take
is
in
the
best
interest
of
that
child.
So
sorry
for
the
lengthy
explanation,
but
it's
such
a
large
change
that
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
got
those
statements
on
the
record.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
B
J
Thank
you
for
the
question
so
again
again,
the
main
emphasis
for
the
bill
is
to
to
do
things
that
are
in
the
best
interest
of
the
child,
but
since
we
are
removing
that
six
month
cap,
I
think
the
the
theory
is
that
some
some
of
these
kids
will
be
retained
longer
than
that.
J
B
H
Thank
mr
chairman,
I
I
would
ask
that
fiscal
review
take
a
deeper
look
at
this
because
again
this
is
just
from
anecdotal
evidence
from
seeing
what
happens
in
courtrooms
like
actually
what
is
occurring
with
these
children
and
the
chairman's
trying
to
resolve.
I
don't
know
what
type
of
savings
we
will
have
on
the
children
that
were
not
transferred
to
adult
court.
I
mean
there
are
children
because
of
this
bill
that
will
not
go
to
prison.
That
will
not
be
on
state
probation.
That
will
not.
H
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
on
the
the
amendment
rewrites
the
bill
in
the
the
caption
text.
It
cites
that
it
removes
the
requirement
that
a
court
review
the
case
of
each
delinquent
child
placed
in
the
department's
custody
at
least
every
six
months.
Is
that
in
your
bill
or
the
does
the
amendment
take
that
out.
I
Is
there
a
requirement
for
the
court
to
review
the
case
of
the
delinquent
child
at
a
minimum
of
every
six
months.
J
Oh,
thank
you.
I
think
I
think
that
bit
is
removed
because
we
are
removing
the
six-month
cap.
So
I
think
at
that
that
six-month
cap
would
trigger
the
review
so
since
we're
removing
that
that's
why
it
states
that,
but
that's
that's
not
really.
The
intent
of
the
bill,
the
the
again
we're
just
saying:
let's
remove
the
cap,
but
allow
the
judge
to
act
in
the
best
interest
of
the
child,
whether
they
need
to
keep
them
two
hours,
two
weeks
or
two
months.
J
I
A
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
members.
I
renew
my
motion.
Question
question
has
been
called
any
objection.
Seeing
none
we're
now
voting
on
house
bill.
216
is
amended.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye.
Those
opposed,
no,
the
eyes
prevailed,
moves
on
to
full
full
criminal.
Thank
you
members.
We
are.
We
are
out
of
time
for
today.
11
o'clock
is
our
stop
time.
I
apologize
for
those
that
have
been
waiting
anxiously
all
morning,
but
you
can
be
with
us
again
next
week
at
9
00
a.m.
A
G
A
C
H
Then,
mr
chairman,
I
was
not
objecting
a
previous
question
or
voting.
I
was
merely
going
to
state.
We
had
already
handled
this.
You
know.
Obviously
any
member
can
make
this
motion
at
any
time,
but
the
bill
had
been
debated
and
voted
upon,
and
I
think
we
have
another
bill.
That's
on
a
very
similar
topic,
so
that
was
the
only
point
I
was
going
to
make
on
it.
J
A
E
A
A
So
we're
now
voting
on
reconsidering
bringing
this
bill
373
back
to
committee,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
those
opposed
no
the
eyes
prevail.
It
will
be
brought
back
before
this
committee
members.
All
bills
that
were
left
on
the
calendar
for
today
will
be
rolled
until
next
week's
calendar
next
wednesday.