Across the world and one of the things people talk about North Carolina being a leader and issues and they talk about every state should have something like the innocent inquiry commission that is neutral and independent that's not advisory nature I was appointment to the commission in January of 2013 as an alternate commissioner for victims advocacy so I'm truly at the heart of what I do a victims advocate first and foremost. Last week Eric Holder gave me Ronald Cartney the first ever Courage Award for DOJ acknowledged that those that are harmed by wrongful conviction are all victims and so I was very concerned about the changes that were being made to the innocent inquiry commission and so I think now this point today I can actually say and then support of bill 678 as it's now written but should there be any changes I would not stand and support because I do believe that at the crops the neutrality and independency of this commission is central and [xx] to take an alt to editorial position which in justice kind of split and treating justice is really what we're all about in the innocent thing for commission so I appreciate your time this morning I do sing your support of Senate Bill 678 as it's now written without changes and any further amendment that's going forward. Thank you. Can I ask you one question? Sure I overheard someone say that there's a movie being made about your novel? Yes And the move is going to be soon, Representative Hard is interested in starring in it For the director is over here so [xx] after you can go see her. Thank you Thank you very much. Anyone else? If not do I have a motion? look for a favorable report lenient and favorable to the original Enrolled to a committee sir, you heard the motion all in favor let it be known by saying aye Aye Oppose no, ayes have it. Thank you all very much for getting this done. Our next bill is House Bill 664 Safer Community, has the PCS Representative McNeil moved to have the PCS reports on this term. All of in favor let them say aye Aye Oppose no, aye have it. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. It's a very simple Bill which means of course it's going to be very controversial. company police are private police force, which means they are people that have basic law enforcement training. They are sworn the same way that city police are. They are hired to patrol private property to give additional levels of security beyond that which the local municipal police are able to provide. This bill is a permissive bill, and I want to hit this hard, this is permissive. This will allow cities under circumstances in which the cities agree, to extend the jurisdiction of these company police officers around the specific piece of private property that they are hired to protect. It will allow county commissions with the permission of the sheriff to extend jurisdiction in unincorporated area. Now in both cases I want to make it clear this is not forcing citizen counties to do anything and it does respect the constitutional office of sheriff, who is the only law enforcement officer in a county that is actually defined by the constitution. But the intent here is in those areas where there're additional problems. It would be possible for cities to contract with these private forces to extend their jurisdiction and provide additional security in those areas where everyone agrees it is needed. I showed this to several people to get it vetted, sent it to Chiefs of Police and the Sheriff's Association. I did get an email back from my Chiefs and they said they had concerns, but it is permissive and so in cities where police are operating correctly I don't know that this would come up. Representative McNeil looked at it. He said it's permissive, he didn't have any problem with it and not only did he not object
to it, he even agreed to come sponsor it. So I'll take any questions Mr. Chair. Right now, if a company police officer that will have fully party on a property say American headquarters in downtown trolley that that person is protecting say a college police force or a hospital police force will have full police powers on the property. The moment they step on the sidewalk they're now without authority and are just the same as anyone else it has been said that they would have the same rights as private citizens to intervene in violent crimes, but I would be concerned they would be held to a higher standard of liability due to their training, but would not be closed with any additional authority beyond that what you or I would have and so we'd have situations where crimes could be on progress with the site of someone who could intervene and prove in it they would be powerless to act. The police force may not be able to respond as quickly as an officer once said to me, when seconds count, we are there in minutes. Yes, Representative Brownly, as we all know our law enforcement community is kind of under a microscope right now. What kind of training does the traffic police all do? What standard of training are they involved in? They take the same training as a city police officer would. I understand that faith when the orleans in the live estate regarding this bill and also have time to do it if you. Good morning, I'm Roy Taylor. I'm the president of the North Carolina Company Police Association. I've been in law enforcement for 38 years, the Chief of Police for 20 years and Federal State Local Agencies including here in North Carolina's Mini School Chief and States Chief, and I want to explain why we're looking for this ability to have extra jurisdiction there are hospitals in the state that have private police department's, we don't have authority on public roads, the statute 74 E which actually gives these authority doesn't allow us to have any control on the public roads around our properties. So when the life flight helicopter comes in they have to wait for municipal law enforcement or sheriff's department to come and block those roads off. So what we're really looking for is just the ability to take care of the situation that impact our communities that we were contracted to protect and not impede on the law enforcement agencies that and that mere sparsity or county so we are not looking to have extra jurisdiction and authority a lot of people think we want to ride ticket on roadways and that just not what the case is, we just want to be able to protect our communities have been, generals and hiring us, because they felt like they needed a little extra care, so what we're looking for is just that ability but again it's permissive as the representative said. So each community that we are contracted with will have to go to their local legislative body and ask for that authority be granted and then it will be heard out locally. So, this way we thought it was better, right now under 74G your campus police on private campuses, they already have that authority given a car launched to every one of them in the state. But company police which are identical do not have that same authority. We're constricted to the property only. And our worry with the stepping off our property is that we've been told that if we go off our property and try intervene, if say you were being robbed on the side-walk, we do not have authority there and we're not even allowed as a private citizen to intervene because we're wearing a uniform and we're carrying a weapon. So we feel even further constricted and people are upset because they see a uniformed police officer who's not able to do anything and likewise, if there is a traffic crash and we'll stand and watch it happen. We can't go out in the street and direct traffic around the crash or administer First Aid because again we don't have authority to do so and are accepting a lot of liability if we do, one of my police department chooses and western Carolina and cashiers and Southfire I have 39 hormones of associations that contract with my agency over 1200 homes we have over 40, 000 people come through there in the summertime. Again the shares office does accounting great job but there is only one deputy in the entire south center in the county and we in that paneling are majority of calls and even back at the shares office but we can't enter in to mutual agreements or really have authority to do that based on the current statute. So I ask your consideration and
I'm happy to discuss with anybody at length if we can move this along, but thank you for your time. Questions? Yes, sir. Thank you Mr. Chair what does the joint payments of this bill contemplates the bill seems to make sense to me but I just want to make sure that the UNESCO body of the county could terminate that agreement and [xx] here for some reason they wan't to take away that jurisdiction I wan't certainly they would be locked in to that an incident might happen where the council or commission want in the jurisdiction [xx] I don't have any objection to amendment even now on the floor but I think that the agreement that the city or the county would sign with the agency would be drafted by the County or City Attorney. Now proved by them, it would give them, I would expect them to put that right in there with the ability. Follow up? Okay Super [xx] Are there any other people in the audience who would like to [xx] Hey Mr Chairman? I`m Fred Douglas I represent the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police which opposes this bill. This notion has come up in previous sessions we've always been an opposition to it.company police provides viable service on the property that they protect they also in a lot of places have cooperative relationships with the local police and sheriff they work very well. However jurisdiction the absolute jurisdictional line of company police have always been the property line everyone understands that, citizens understand it, company police understand it, and the local war enforcement understand it. Company police are like regular police they get [xx] in several ways they do receive the same basic training as city police officers. However, any additional training may be different, the supervision of company police up to the company, that is, the company police for profit organisation the supervision of city Police is under the management of the city and the police chief. One of the most important difference between the company police and city police or sherrifs deputies that are so important to the public, in the accountability. If a citizen is mistreated by a police officer or a deputy they know who to call, they called the police chief, they called the mayor, they called the sheriff, all these people are elected officials that are accountable to the public. If that citizen has a problem with company police. All I can do is try to penetrate the company bureaucracy in leadership and complain to the President of the company. Imagine a situation outside [xx], if the company police respond to some emergency off the property, you have a mixture of city police, company police, different uniform is different accountability trying to interact in the same environment. As to the permissive quality of the bill. It is permissive, however, are you'll wind up with a patch work across the state, in different counties and cities of jurisdiction. We think this will be confusing to the public to company police officers who may be transferred from one county to another county by the company and confusing to local law enforcement, as jurisdictional lines are different in different cities and different counties. The bill allows the county commissioner of a particular county to agree with company police to extend jurisdiction of company police to allow the jurisdition of the county, that doesn't mean an incorporated area of the county. It means the jurisdiction of the county. Deputies of course have jurisdiction within municipalities as well as without so if a county agrees to this, and the cities in the county don't, you might have a [xx] county agreeing a company police can go anywhere in the county and the city of Charlotte did not agree to it. This creates all sorts of problems, we think, and questions that deserve his considerations. I'm authorized to say that North Carolina Sheriff's Association opposes the bill. Cities in counties did not request this bill, law enforcement did not request this bill. The only interest in this bill
is from the company police. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Baget from anyone? Thank you, sir. Anybody else who wants to speak about at this bill, under publish. Representative McBill I wanted just like to make a comment about everything that's been said and that having being a retired deputy sherriff, 32 years in the sherriff's office Representative [xx] did bring this bill to me and I did look at it. Now, I am concerned that It's not the same bill that I signed on to, it's, there has been an addition added to it, I think it wrote 879 in the part of it, but still, it's still basically a permissive bill law force agencies in my whole time of being a deputy sherrif have ended in a mutual aid agreement, an agreement with other agencies. If an agency wants to allow one of their laws officers to another county, there's usually a [xx] for her some kind of, and that spells out all the, ifs, what, when, wheres and hows also supervises and everything. This is a permissive deal, I hate to go against my friends and sheriff's assosiation and I don't really feel like I'm going that maybe it's just the difference of opinion but it is a permissive deal, if the police chiefs, if the sherrifs, if the counties don't want to do it, there's nothing in this bill that forces them to do it I just simply said no so, I don't really see a problem with the bill, I support it Representative Bolger [xx] if we allow companies to leave and to enter [xx] on the roads and [xx], [xx] come over with the requirement in their vehicle to be properly identified I mean in the state how can you believe on it or if we're connecting [xx] area I mean my concern is if they [xx] the rule are is somewhere on the road [xx]. How would an individual know that without looking in the rear mirror and seeing the word company police on the car not seeing their county sheriff [xx] city so you'd probably know that this is someone who can legitimately [xx]. There's not in this bill representative I'm not sure there is in the general statutes. There is [xx] that's included in other, that's already in general statute. Follow up? Are they required? Is there a contract to work with the sheriff's with the city police [xx] are identified that they're working in that zone I believe it's the way we do instructor in community dated Representative Paul Thank you Mr Chairman I can ask his question to one of the bill sponsors or for staff anyone would know and there been a state worth study or anything from deliberating in municipalities or County Commissioners Association indicating a statewide need for additional police support. Representative Paul, I'm not aware of the state wide study. I would say that the genesis of this was neither with company police nor with municipalities but was with individuals. There are areas where crime is more of a problem, people would like additional ability for their protection other than just concealed carry. It was written as permissive so that cities could decide to do it if they wanted to but there's no requirement that they do it if companies request if county request the city chooses not to that's not an appealable decision on the part of the County Police.
The issue was raised on County Jurisdiction but it's also within this bill that the Sheriff must give his approval. So a County Sheriff in Mecklenburg County that chooses not to give his permission as per the hands of County Commission and they cannot overrule him this is the PCS but this does not incorporate part of Representative Jordan's bill. What it does do, is Representative Jordan's bill passes it ammends Representative Jordan's bill to conform with restrictions within this bill on jurisdiction and permissiveness. Follow up? Just a comment Mr. Chairman and it seems some good intent went into this bill but certainly it seems that who would have to be utilizing this, and supervising this, and being responsible for coordinating it are not in support of it. I'm also concerned that having more, not necessarily coordinated clearly identified law enforcement involved who may show up at the scene of some problem, may in the end it'll end up endanger themselves even more and all the public with no proper level of coordination and so I'm very concerned that let the issue be addressed in the bill as it is. Representative Robinson Alright. Yes, Representative [xx] What is the scope[sp?] of the County Police Officer now? He has the power of the [xx] police officer on the property theft he is hired to protect and Follow up What supervison is he employed by, is there a local supervisor or, exactly how is he supervised? I think that would be like have the police officers supervised. Even when the time Mathew's had two officers, there was only one on duty and, so they weren't effectively supervised the department like [xx], you have a very high command structure so it would vary. I don't think there's a single answer to your question sir. Representative [xx] Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I've got some concerns about this bill, coming from, I've worked in Virginia for about 28 years or so and we had an on going problem up there in the in the Sherlock's Bill area, with a lot of folks who were playing police and I don't mean that with any disrespect anybody in any agency but a private agency. But they were pulling people over, there were a couple of instances they sounded extreme but young girls alone were pulled over only to find out that this was not a police officer and a couple of this things, incidents, more than a couple, resulted in death. And I really feel like, at least as far as I'm concerned that, I have to differ to the professionals and the professionals are obviously the Sheriffs Association and the Police Chiefs Association. If they are high crime areas, this is something that both the Police Department and the Sheriff's department should be addressing, and it should be handled, if they need more help we need to hire more officers but you know I just the coordination of Representative Cord said coordinating who does what and when seems to be problematic to me, and so, I will not be supporting this bill. Thank you Mr. Chair committee often times we're criticized during general assembly for being too restrictive and too controlling of the subdivision of the government counties and municipalities . Here we have an exact opposite of that. We're giving a tool to municipalities and counties to use, if they choose. We're not and they use it we're not requiring that they use this too. We're giving them a tool and a testimony on one gentleman I heard that there cases situation's above the state for this would be very useful they would actually increase the security of the residents of that locality you know there's cities and counties that might choose not to do it I think it's a good bill I think a good thought went into it and Mr Chair it's appropriate time I'd like to make a motion [xx] I'd like to make one last take. You know, there're all kinds of situations they've cut all across this great state. In Randolph County, we have on a lake Randolph lake and when they decided to open up they decided to be
on a couple of police and that is the way they went about her and her officers to patrol the lake and the buffer around the lake OK. Now instead of entering into a mutilate agreement with those company police we sort of managed the empty sheriff's there are a lot of different ways to skin this calf, OK we could have entered into an agreement with them just like what we're talking about a mutual head agreement [xx] Men is empties, so these are great people they are doing a though job. That's how we solved it in Randolph County and the idea is a little more little intensive to do it that way is a usual mean of the [xx] Police Officers, but it solve the problem in Randolph County because as those officer were patroling the lake, which a lot of remote areas they can handle situations with their authority and so I don't really see them although hope law out this bill is promising if they don't want to do it don't get it. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I think this again the different view points expressed on the Bill the folks will be the experts at the local level have indicated they don't feel this necessary or needed but certainly it doesn't seem to have a referral after this committee in what appears to be a local government matter, I would make a recommendation that it be referred to local government should it pass out at this committee. Yes Mr. Chair I recommend that we give a favorable recommendation to the PCs from pass bill 564, unfavorable to the original you've heard the motion. Any further discussions or debate? Note all those in favor of the bill, please raise your hands. All opposed. Motion does not carry, thank you. The Men Firearms Law pass bill 562 Representative Hardster[sp?] moves that we have before us the PCS. All in favor of that motion let it be known by saying aye "aye" oppose no. The ayes have it Thank you Mr. Chairman, [xx] committee and members of the public as well. I thank you for the opportunity to present this film and your committee this morning, I'm going to have staff go through the specific sections of the bill, this morning for you all but, before I do, I wanted to say a few kind of top-line points about this piece of legislation. As you know this is a PCS and it looks a little bit different than the original out 562, I was checking something about that. Proves problematic or I was taking points that I thought we really did want to have stake holders away and ended along the process even before we file the bill what we all is that we took some of the other fire arm legislation, provisions for it and put them into the PPS himself. He'll fix them familiar language from other bills that are inside one of the points that I did want to make was what we've done in this is kind of you know the next step in what we bid three years ago in [xx] 937 and that was really bringing kind of a two sides of this issue together and what you'll see as Staff will show you is that comprehensive overhaul on our next background check, that's going to take place over four years and we've got a lot of input from a lot of different folks on how to do that but really making sure that our background checks are strong and appropriate that we are getting the correct information doing so in a timely manner and then we also have on the other side of that really making sure that we are protecting the second amendment rights of our law abiding citizens. There are a handful of [xx] find sections things where, things may be already in the law but they're not been followed. We want to make sure that the law is been followed. Technical point as Staff will show you but we do think that we have a good comprehensive piece of legislation that really does answer the concerns of making sure that we have the appropriate back ground check etc. and also making sure that we're doing what is necessary to protect the [xx] of the right for a law abiding citizen. So I will turn it over to Staff to take us through take us through the PCS. I think Representative Martin has an amendment. You want at this time. If we can go through [xx] first that would be great OK
Thank you Mr chair, I'm just going to run through each section briefly and then if there are more questions about details on having to answer those. Section one of the Bill amends the statutes, that prohibits, concealed carrier weapons and in that statute there most of the exceptions to that requirement it is, amendment in existing exception for district attorneys and ADAs that currently prohibits carrying with a report room it will remove that prohibiting language and allow them to carry in the same manner that Judges and Clerks are allowed to carry actions 8 and 9 add, certain department of public states the employees who've been designated by The Secretary of This Department an authorized security concealed and non administrative law judges the second part section one just adds to another list of exceptions that kind of coordinates with the first ones, the department of public state employees and the administrative law judge. Section two of the bill. You've been acted in all that allows person I can still carry permits is you have a handgun in their loft to be here for on educational property. These will amend that statute to do two things well three things actually. One it would allow the requirement now currently says the vehicle has to stay locked. This would add language that would allow people to get in and out of the vehicle so long as the gun stays in the vehicle. It would also make it clear that you can carry [xx] on your person if you're sitting in the vehicle, as opposed to it having to be in a compartment in the vehicle so long as you stay in the vehicle and if you are getting to turn your person in, and you're getting ready to get out of the vehicle of you can take it off your person and put it in the compartment even if it means momentarily it is exposed so that's the bulk of what that does. It also has some language on lines 36 and 37 that prohibits schools from from saying otherwise. Prohibit schools from saying you can't have a concealed hand gun in your locked vehicle inside. Section 3 of the bill would add an affirmance to the defence to a charge of possession of a hand gun on educational property, if the person was authorized to have a hand gun in a locked vehicle because they had a concealed carry permit, and they removed the handgun from the vehicle in response to a threatening situation in which deadly force was justified to defend in self or others pursuant to the fact that you have you set forth what the requirement for that are. Section four relates to hand guns at the state fair and this will authorize the commission of the agriculture to prohibit the carrying of firearms on the state fair grounds, only during the state fair, not necessarily the rest of the time. And it would allow the commisioner of agriculture to determine what is appropriate for that if they cannot prohibit law enforcmet officers and they can't prohibit anyone from having a hanger from that. Section five of the bill deals with the Shooting Range Protection Act, under recurrent law shooting ranges that were established prior to I'm sorry I should have. September 1, 1994, I believe is the correct date if they were established actually three years prior to September 1, 1994, then they're only subject to the noise that were in effect at the time their shooting range was created. Any shooting range that does not subject to that act does receive protection from subsequent purchases of land near them from liability suits but they do not receive protection form complying with any additional ordinances that may be adopted by the city or county or jurisdiction in which they are located. This section of the bill provide to any shooting range that same protection and say that, basically if you comply with the ordinances that are ineffect at the time when shooting range is created. If there are subsequent ordinances adopted you do not have to modify your shooting range to comply with those additional ordinances. So long as there is no substantial change in the use of your shooting range. So if you go from a short you've just been [xx] to get from short range with handguns only, to a long range with riffles and stuff and that is a substantial change and your shoot would be subject to whatever laws apply. But if you, if your range stays the same, you don't have to comply with additional ordinances that are adopted after
the establishment of the range. So in section one 1997 that was the date, I apologize. Section Six of the bill, this is a technical change that ensures that the firms rights restoration circuit that you passed a couple of years ago, that any restoration that occurs under that will be recognized by federal law I won't get too much into the details but there's a federal page that basically says if we provide any exception whatsoever that we have treated felons in a different manner and therefore they don't recognize that, well because we put in our statutes specifically that they can't have machine guns, that's considered an exception. Removing that language does not allow felons to have machine guns, the average citizen is prohibited from having machine guns unless they meet certain federal requirements but when this statute was adopted that was apparently put in there just to be really clear, and apparently it's causing some problems with federal interpretation of the statute and the questions to whether or not they would recognize our restoration. So this is just a cleanup for that. Section seven would do two related things. One, there is the statute in section seven is the statute that provides who can who must be denied a permit for a concealed hand gun. In subsection A as you'll see on page four there's a list of misdemeanors that if you have a one of those misdemeanors prohibits you, and prohibits you permanently from getting a concealed hang gun permit. Section remove some of the those misdemeanors from that list. The majority of the ones that were removed are plus three misdemeanors which are modified to punishment two years ago it used to be passsage and it also used and then italso made of the remaining count against you for three years except for the [xx] which Federal Law requires they have to count against you. Section eight relate to the sons and the property owner are all authorized to prohibit concealed carrying of handguns to a property. This is establishing some actual specific sigh requirements as to size and type and how large they have to be see them where they have to be located. And the additional sections in Section 8 are just fixing cross references to other statues that refer back to an existing statue. So the bill for that is section 8A. Section 9 will authorized the use of as a director for hunting for short riffles. Section 10 would reduce the offence of carrying a concealed handgun on private poster property from a class one misdemeanor to an infraction. Section 11 there's a couple of different things, the first portion of it modifys some of the requirement and recordings to NICs. I will just point out so it doesn't look like it's so new. In Section 11, subsection D the beginning of that new subsection A is current law we're just moving from another rotation and then the are different or new laws, but basically it's just making clear what has to be reported to Nick[sp?] within 48 hours to try to ensure that Nick[sp?] gets some more information about people being charged with crimes and being found mentally in-cognitive[sp?] or involuntarily committed. The other thing that this section does is it requires [xx] permit applications and concealed hand-gun permit applications to be provided electronically by the set sheriff it prohibits the sheriff from requesting additional information for concealed handgun permit applications unless specifically authorized by the state and it does some [xx] additional fingerprint requirements for law enforcements for certain offenses then these fingerprints can then be then reported out to Nick[sp?] and mixing the national information. The National Instinct[sp?] Criminal Background Tech System, issues fire arms purchases. Section 12 the bill would expand there's a statute regarding state wide uniformity of firm regulation general that exists and this would add the probation that medical governments could not obviously could not regulate the taxation of manufacture, transportation of firearms, and also on page 12 end
of that section would add an actual, allow a person being [xx] against the Local Government who violates the Section adapting a regulation of violation law. Section 13 of the Bill would prohibit health care providers from applications in a written questionnaire whether they have power arms and it would also prohibit them from sharing information that they provided orally about patients regarding power arms unless the patient has managed adjudicated incompetence because of illness. It will provide a $250 fund for a non local violation in the $500 fund for local violation. Section 14 will require a share to issue denial and hunger on apartment application within 49 days and section 15 would amend the statue that relates to where local governments can regulate concealed carry pursuant to concealed carry permit, to add the same provision mentioned a minute ago, that allows a person to bring an action for the declaratory an injunction relief against the local government for violation of the statute. Representative martin I believe you have an amendment. Yes sir Mr. Chairman my amendment deals with divisional on page two line 36 and 37 which prohibits schools from making decisions about what comes on their property, so this amendment will destroy out those [xx] to make that provision [xx] Thank you someone may want to speak on that. Thank you Mr. Chair. My name is Tom West, I'm General Counsel of North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities, we represent the 36 private colleges in Universities in North Carolina and we are strongly in support of Representative Martin amendment as you may know private property owners are still able to post their property of the statute that makes it illegal to have a weapon on, makes it a felony to have a weapon on school property, has an exception in it if is in the trunk is not a felony if it is in the trunk, but that does not obligate the private property ability to post their property, the two owns it Representative Martin amendment would strike make it clear that private property still would have that right and colleges feel very strongly that they should as private property on this bill to retain their right. Thank you. Thank you for that comment, also thank you Representative Martin for bringing this up for discussion. I would ask for members to oppose the amendment We have already established that schools and universities can have this. Basically what we're doing is we're protecting the second amendment right so concealed permit holders, these are law abiding citizens, and their is a restriction that is very narrow allowing git to keep it in a locked compartment of their vehicle and so we would ask you keep the law the way that it is and oppose the amendment. Thank you. Representative Steinburg Yes sir. I got a couple of questions that may be you mean to the amendment, does this bill I guess be addressed to you, does this bill allow a concealed carry holder to scene of immediate danger, let's just say there's something going out of the campus. Go back to the car, retrieve his weapon and then return to the scene the Maylay whatever is going on? Let me take you to this the specific section there is and on page two section three line 38 to 43 it provides for an affirmative defense, to [xx] section if there is if a threatening situation, if there is use of deadly force take themselves their others and then it does take for an affirmitive defense to remove the weapon form the vehicle. Well, follow up. Follow up. When I receive my concealed carrier weapon training I want to be sure instructed me to leave the danger, get away for the danger. And is there a portion of the concealed training the bills with an active shooter scenario because I know the campus police they have that training Some of what you're asking I think maybe
a little bit outside the scope of specifically of what this is saying, I'm going to go specifically to the section if you're in the middle of a treating situation it says here that it provides an affirmative defense from moving away from the vehicle, but that is a no exception Hopefully, day in and day out of [xx] is going on to a campus, they're either dropping someone off, picking someone up, they're getting out pull themselves in leaving the weapon in for their protection on the right human from that facility and it's going to be remaining in the car in the locked vehicle but it's only this is kind of like a logistical issue is that we have these weapons for our protection and our self defense and if we leave it so that you can that weapon in your car for your protection and self defense but don't take it out. If you're in a threatening situation that's what this section means to protect. If I might make one comment I had a number of telephone calls form presents of private universities about not warning former campus including white forest, high point, and I believe [xx] is there any more discussion regarding the amendment, if not all in favor of the amendment let it be known by saying 'I', 'I'. Opposed 'no' 'No'. The I's have it. Questions regarding the bill, Representative [xx] I have some questions [xx] right here section 1A of the bill allow a [xx] carrier [xx] courtroom and I'm just wondering what the reasoning behind that was in that everybody was starting to [xx] getting into the court house [xx] Chair, well a few reasons this has brought to our attention by some [xx] the people that are in district attorney's, that are in this situation it puts it in line with judges and courts who are already permitted to do that so we want to make sure that we have the same ability to do that I'll consider is the District Attorney I would say no it would be no. If the [xx] in the district and Wade county said to her assistant you're not allowed to take guns in I do not believe them. Representative McNeil I have got a couple of questions I know in the original bill it's self to prohibit [xx] to commit in the PCS is the only change to the [xx] for the permitting system in the state now is that they have to be done electronically. Is that origin still They repeal to see your point, they repeal to fasten the permit process form the original process bill without a doubt. But yes in that language see if I can take you to it. Section 11, thank you where the such application must be provided by the share of electronically the share of issue Yes please, I think we're concerned that we give the sheriff enough time to be able to do that electronically so but anyway because some of them might set up the news, some of them might not. And then I also have a follow up correction on section 14 of the 90 days to issue a seal I know unless the process has changed, when the sheriff's office takes the original application and all there, based on that information to the state year of investigation and then they have to wait for the state year of investigation to actually send the cards back, which is the I guess what you would to say and then once the sheriff's office gets it, they call the conceal person that has applied and they come out and then they get to a car. So I was just wondering if there's any leeway in here, if the [xx] beyond gets behind and they can't get that card back in 90 days. If there's any consideration to that. I think that the purpose behind this section specifically was because, it was not because of that issue, I think it was the opposite of that issue that they were not turning these things around in an appropriate
amount of time even when they had the ability to do so. So I think the concern is left on the side the extreme of what you're talking about than on the other end will be extreme. Just want to [xx] that concern that you're holding the sheriffs to a [xx] if the [xx] don't give the cards back to them on time so. [xx] Mr. Chair there's always be a requirement that they have to make sure the for 45 days that will stick with all the items including the meno health history this exactly they'd have to make a file determination for 90 days we're closed when I've gotten in the record because apparently the issue some of the men are taking forever so Yes, just a question. Does the bill create any immunity for State facial in soup and damages that would result from an incident? I don't believe so, no I'm wondering, would you be available to an amendment which will reduce the [xx] claim from 1 million Dollars to zero? I think we could talk about that offline but if the responses are sure it might if we're going to be forward with the bill of committee and I certainly hope that we do that we can certainly talk about that for Representative Jackson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I had a question [xx] it's a share that to [xx] believe that the department has been committed in California [xx]? Well, he wouldn't be forced to grant it but he couldn't deny it unless there was a stated reason to deny it. Could you be more specific? [xx] There is what was being in a statute in the bill and I can't remember it [xx] 14 and 415.12 have a [xx] to look at it, just trying to find it, that the [xx] they cannot deny it the chair issued an assignment and is qualified in the following criteria, they have to be 21 if they can't suffer from a physical mailing format that puts them in safe handling of a handgun, they have to complete the approved firearms training class and they can't be disqualified in subsection B, and in subsection B is they're allowed to possess permissions in state federal law and not under indictment, propelling they had not been convicted of a felony unless the crimes is one of the accepted practices they're not a fugitive from justice, they're not an outlaw addicted to marijuana, or depression the president they are not currently approve as as quarter in term of and, they have not been discharged from the armed forces other than ARGO, they have not been found guilty of certain misdemeanors. they don't have a clear of judgment when you think the system disqualified them they're not free on bond for something intending that would prohibit them eating and they had not been convicted as an entire driving denounce one of those if that was the only possible thing if they didn't feel they could leave the frontier for denying without that record and yes they would have there's a statues that requires that and if they find out that there's a criteria for what it should be denied that they have to be voted so if they din't get that record and three weeks later and it did prove that shows into the market Representative Mark the question that page 13 of the bill, line 35 the way I read this division, it would restrict the ability of a doctor to have a questionnaire to his or her patient and the question, I guess my question is why are we getting in between the relationship between a doctor and her patient? Representative George Cleveland a Herford[sp?]
County is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman. We're not getting in between a doctor and a patient's relationship, whether a patient owns weapons, likes weapons, dislikes weapons or anything in that nature has nothing to do with a medical decision or medical relationship between a doctor and his patients. Unless it's a psychiatrist maybe, if he's laying on a couch then maybe there's a problem but a medical doctor I've been asked that question and my response is it's none of your damn business. I don't see, while I know why it's being done but there is no medical relationship between the ownership of guns and a patient relationship [xx] No but Representative Martin Thank you Mr. Chair [xx] clear reading of what the bill says, that we are in fact restrained what questions a doctor can ask their patient and I don't know why we want to insert state government there when any sort of patient could follow the [xx] [xx] If I may, this is a problem that has cropped up, and I'm surprised you have not gotten any email. so many constituents concerning it I've got many other's have also now come back to what I said before there is no medical reason for a doctor who is treating you for ingrown toe nails, to know whether you have weapons when you're home or not Representative Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chair and I do want to follow on that question because there's a read that says the health care provider, and I guess I want to know that does mean in a middle health care provider who just have to only be a doctor who's providing preschool treatment because if they're seen, if someone is counselling you, for suicide depression etcetra settlers, they may want to have a legitimate reason into discussion in treatment to know whether or not you can do [xx] yourself, the world is so I would wonder healthcare providers is there a definition is there. Mr. Chair if you look votes at line 23 because 34 define childcare provider it does online 32 through psychiatry and psychology, there is an exception for both a written questionnaire for a share and verbal if the patient have been on duty to send the question but could ask without the juridification in competency it was prohibit the calendars in that policy from aspirin follow up. Thank you Mr chair and I would certainly hope that as we look at this more again, should this be a move that be addressed as people who are subject to taking certain drugs now, they're on the market, where they have a side effect of potential suicidal tendencies, as well as people were getting therapy having that question asked for the safety of themselves as well as their family members, that certainly seems that that should not be prohibited in those types of situations. One or two goes on to another section of the bill, and it comes back to the arming of our court personnel in this instance, and I think that's another question of having more people in the court room who have weapons who may or may not be trained on close board and come back with the weapons may not be physical able to protect the weapon and ensure no one takes from them and then we have a court room full of people with kids of bale we seem to be bringing guns to what's going to be a massive gun fight should one get loose so I think we are going the wrong way on that section of the bill, I certainly proposebringing more guns into the court room the people who made me wail but are not properly trained to use nor protect those weapon and end up creating more danger for those folks who were in the courtroom and in the court house. Representative Jack, We're going to vote in a few minutes. Questions to the staff, going back to [xx] friend desired a [xx] part of the doctor's act [xx] a 15-year-old kid by how much he admired, [xx] how famous they were for their antics and what happened that day unless the child says I'm going to do that [xx] the doctor [xx] The statute only prohibit s a written questionnaire.
It does not prohibit anyone form asking anything verbally. It does govern confidentiality of anything that attain but it doesn't prohibit from asking his protestant of a written questioning or any other written for questioning so there's no provision again of protosy asking verbally is in this issue they just can't have everybody a blanket uniform questionnaire then that's a reaching question to ask. Follow up. But if they did give a written questionnaire that would be something they'll be subject to finance. Finance disciplinary action [xx]. Representative Martin representative Jack at a point going too verbally I think under current laws receive a threat to others [xx] to law enforcement agencies but the way I read this do we still allow them to make philosophers for them to at the pace to but they'll be prohibited question about firearms the home of possession so that they can disclose the persons disclosing the fact that that person I want to be sure the doctor can ask orally anything he wants he just can't do it. It's can't do it questionnaire. Representative Buck. For motion to but the boys have like to respond and start correcting the judges or right now they're required to have put it somewhere [xx] now is the time. Thank you Mr. Chair, I think that this bill is going to work with the other about primary personal bill [xx] law abiding citizens in North Carolina [xx] and would make the most in [xx] be proposed committee substitute [xx] 562 [xx] Rolled into a committee substitute. You've heard the motion, all in favor of the motion, raise your hand all opposed, and the bill carries. Thank you very much. We have one more bill, one more bill, Restoring Proper Justice Act. and that PCS, Representative Robinson moves that we have the PCS before us. All in favor let it be known by saying aye. Representative Burke will take over this. Alright we have [xx] Representative [xx] speak on your bill. Before I do I want to let Staff go with the bill, it's not a very long bill. It's not so complicated. Section one of this clarifies that [xx] [xx] profession other than [xx] to further demand [xx] a medical profession other than a profession would specifically demand to be a physician system, neuro-practitioner, or emergency technician paramedic, traditional [xx] section two of the bill would be to inform the change section three and four we clarify that the execution further [xx] anyone form the public wishing to speak on this bill to the committee? [xx] Okay? Alright further discussion representative Paul.
Thank you Mr speaker or Mr. Chairman to ask a question of the sponsor or staff and. Go ahead I notice that we are taking the doctor out of the business saying people with lesser qualification will be allowed to satisfsy our requirement and was curious to know how are these people less qualification is going to be able to replace the doctor's expertise and experience in this type situation. I don't a procedure I can answer, I don't think a procedure is that difficult, which is to give someone an injection in pain yea, I think that. If you go to a [xx] you'll find someone taking blood other than a doctor, and there will be a doctor to renounce the person, they had asked of the execution takes place, but that's the reason, it's really administration act by inserting a needle into a vein. Representative [xx] Yes sir Mr. Chairman thank you. I also have some concerns about this bill as it relates to [xx] not being we read in the paper from time to time for the states who were still present using capital punishment of botched, botched euthanasia if you want to call it that and this is kind of troubling to me. This is something that really disturbs me deeply and I have had a lot of calls about this. I mean I don't treat anybody's life lightly not even the convict, the person who's been committed to the crime, who is been sentenced to death. I think the way that that is to be handled needs to be with dignity and respect and I believe that we need to take every single precaution to ensure that it is, and by removing a doctor which is the way this has been done forever by removing a doctor to me just seems to be pushing the envelope just just a little bit increasing the risk a little bit, I am not going to be able to support this Representative Dunsfold. This state has had capital punishment for many years we haven't had an execution the mistakes of 2007 and the reason for that is because of probations in the law other states have decided that they had capital and also those people who want to run a bill to abolish capital punishment can do so but at this time we have it and this a way for us to carry out what the law already is wish we can not carry out now, Representative Paul. Thank you Mr chairman and I do we want to make we address and I guess that the purpose of this bill I guess the purpose is to reached our state executions and one of the questions that I'm concerned about we're changing the rule making procedure this allows for folks to be above certainly since the last execution the state had. Masses of execution as well as those drugs and compound that are used have changed, and again going back to Representative Stanbuck's [xx] comment, we've seen over and over problems where especially if we're taking the doctor out of the whole situation out of the rule making process, and out of the execution procedure, we've seen over and over cases where even with doctors present, it's been difficult to make sure because of the drug compounds and other things that aren't fully known to make sure the executions happen in a painless manner for the person who is being executed as laws in our constitution would require and I'm very concerned that now by laws is changing the rule making procedure and the question of all these jurors up here, as far as they are effect, if they are effect in this how that changes the process and then at the end of the day there's no safeguards to ensure that we get the proper
tools and that the procedure is proper as regards the public and we take the doctors out of the process. So I'm concerned that we're not really going forward as far as having execution invested kind of the bill but we might be going forward creating more litigation for the state and more problems for the staff and all the folks who have been in this situations of seeing these box in execution except for now they're going to be seen here in North Carolina. Can I respond? First all I've been informed that it was not the doctors. The doctors were not negative, were not the problem. In other box, execution it was the fact that they used medicine or whatever drug they had incorrectly secondly as far as the rule making processes is concerned the statute mentioned that, I don't think yes if you could respond. I wanted [xx] to confirm whether [xx] and right now [xx] [xx] provision of the [xx] who I believe if they are currently exempt from [xx]. The other questions according to the bill. Representative [xx] Yes Mr. Chairman, my final question, we've talked about and I do think that as we go back and first of all just as a notice, we go back and examine some of the batch executions in other states, part of the problem was with medical personnel not being able to properly administer the drug the compounds, the other part of the problem being the drills and compounds didn't work as intended for a lot of different reasons we are still concerned about what's happening here in North Carolina and what's going to happen with this effort to resume, it may be that we need to have the public more involved in this because the question really is, do we have a drug compound that the public will feel confident about, since we're executing people in their name it does work effectively and do we have the procedures in place to make sure that happens and based on what these other states have done, it seems the answer to that now, that question right now is no we don't have that and we're taking away safe guards it appears and it would be in place to help with that procedure. Is there such a compound that North Carolina has now identified and is able to administer? Somebody from the department here, can answer that question. We can get to an answer on that representative Paul. I know, from my understanding the issues that have come up concerning some of what Representative Steinberg said it's not the issue of the medical provider, it's been the fact that they're kind of difficult trying to finding some of the drugs obtaining them through the drugs being disclosed as worth being used an obviously some of these companies not wanting their names, I use for those purposes so they had a stock they're using drugs that were probably older than we're not in the condition that they should have that's when that issues wanted some of those executions had nothing to do with the medical provider it was simply he fact that they were not able to a new version and the drugs they were trying to use with the drugs not being able to disclose where they're coming from the provider of those and some of these probation that could be put in place it would help to make sure that to give the most definition of private proper staffing in so they can perform the execution that's proper starting to read after known practitioner and I'm wondering protect this paramedic, they have the same legal authority to I think the stock has to prescribe the drug, but as far as the medicine the drug can be done by this other people. Follow up. Follow up. Position they're not president to monitor I was just
wondering if something happens in the middle of the I know that the MP and the PA would have the same ability as the doctor to would a paramedic have the same I believe the paramedic would have some responsibility as the emergency medical technician but I'm no further comments from committee members, we have a motion. Who will give the bill that they will report committee substitute in favor to the original that we give the house bill 774 unfavorable to the original those in favor will say aye, aye those oppose no, no the aye's clearly have do have it the bill pass, this committee we could meet again tomorrow at our usual time Alright I'm going to declare a quorum I believe we've got enough here to start with six people so we go ahead and start if you got a pager or cell phone if you would please turn it off or mute it or whatever, we want to first recognize our pages, pages where are you we just have one today. We have another one [xx]. OK alright well we have Castity[sp?] mostly from Hyde county and her sponsors John Freilely, Cascity[sp?] we thank you for your service, and if Catinum[sp?] come back in soon we will recognize our sergeant in arms today are Barry Moore, and Cory Brison. today in house pensions and retierment we have two bills, first bill is house bill 205 Representative you recognized Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee, representative and I are pleased to be hear to present you our house bill 205, this received a unanimous support and our judiciary committee are glad to have a hearing this committee before hopefully it goes to the floor very very simple places the mandatory retirement agent for justice magistrate from 72 to 75 and also them to serve until the end calendar year in which they turned 75. One of the things that we've seen is that we have a lot of that we are forcing off the bench abitrarily and this increases the mandatory retirement age three years, there are some states that don't have a limit, some states that have a limited 75 et cetera, so we're kind of moving the boat forward on this, again we feel that there are season individuals that have a lot to offer to our justice system, who were not able to participate simply because they reach a certain age, not because they're not competent to do so, et cetera, so with that we'll certainly take any questions or if Representative [xx] has any [xx]? Alright representative Mitchel[sp?] is recognized. Why have you got an age, [xx] why don't you [xx] I mean I'm serious about that Because we think that's the only way we can get it passed. [xx] you raised a really good question and that's why I mentioned there are a lot of states that don't have an age and we feel like this is the first step kind of moving it forward and increasing that age button and you raise a good point just don't have any age at all and I'd like to be an actor senator. You want a motion. You want to make a motion into appropriate time. Alright, well, we just need a, I guess to see if there's any other questions or comments from any other committee Representative Hurley. Well I just want to say we just did 72, I think last year we made it to the end of the year and I'm glad to see you have
any news end of the year for [xx] and just a concern, I know as we age, we do sometimes have to get them some insurance stuff on and, and I don't know this would, make a difference in someone who might be getting dementia, and be younger I don't know it just maybe something that will be able to help that person understand that he probably shouldn't be a judge, or he shouldn't be a that happened but, the more we get the more opportunities we have to be, have problems, numerous problems. Thank you. How about Grabs[sp?] representative [xx] wants to respond to that? I think you're right. I think we've had it at 72 for many many years. and fortunately times have change, the life expectancy increase they're reading all the where the 60's and 40's you know that's a, but I do thank people our age living longer, I think people are working longer as for me and much bigger difference in court I'd rather have a 73 year old judge and a 28 year old judge Adding to that also you know, raise a raiser concerned about what when we really have an issue with competence there are to those some, but I'll give some more details this difficult question came up into our judiciary committee but they're we have away of handling that situation which ever, you know however old the judge is, it's a 48 and they have early on settlement charge, that there are ways of handling that situation I don't know, stuff to win and that if there's anything else but we do have a safe package for that. If it concerns elder we keep adding years. Are there any other questions or comments from the committee. Okay Representative Bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman I just want to know, this does not mean that our Judge could not retire probably after that, is that correct? We don't have to reach the date before [xx]. Yes that's correct, but just allowed them in fact at the end of you know what it says, we don't know how many people would want to serve past that but we do know that the're some and that they're competent but no requirements just will allow them serve for years longer. Any other questions or comments form the committee? If not I'm going to make one. I want to point out on this bill that we, there's been a lot of talk about judges but this bill also includes magistrates so I want you to consider that when you're voting so and that fact hasn't been mentioned and I would just have to say I hate to go against the bill sponsors and everything like that but I personally think it's not a good idea, to increase the retirement age to 75, either for the magistrates or for the judges, but there again to that's my opinion are there any other comments? Yes sir. At one time I might have bought it's not a good idea these ages the older I get, the younger being [xx] so I'm thinking I don't get the 75, and I think I'm 72, and I'm still got some good years in me I hope I will but, so can you get to the aided class? Still kicking pretty good Representative [xx] I hope when I'm that age I'm somewhere else. But anyway any other comments from the committee alright. Seeing that Representative Marshaw you're recognized for your motion. Yes I'd just like to say maybe legislative [xx] You hear the motion, all in favor of the motion say aye, all opposed say no, no. Alright, the ayes have it, the bill passes. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you members. This is a great committee, I love it. Alright, we also see on your agenda that we have house bill 666 I'd hate to be the Representative that drew that number of it anyway. It's all now Representative Sain and before we start as a chairman I'm going to exercise my prerogative and I'm going to give these a referral if it's reported down here referral to insurance. so Representative Sain. Thank you Mr. Chair I also have representative [xx] who's
sponsored the bill with me, thank you. We did have the unfortunate lack of drawing, the number house bill 666, though it does deal with cancer and quite frankly it's representing from the devil it's probably Kansas so it might be appropriate. As there are no simple bills I won't insult you by saying that, but house bill 666 amends the workers compensation act to provide that any conditional impairment of health caused by any of the following of cancers will be deemed occupational disease of firefighters. The cervical and tesno recto testicular brain none hot [xx] Multiple myeloma and muscle ineoma and all cavity cancer. Simply put this type of law's been in place in 20 other states in these other states this makes up less than 1% of all workmen's claims, and quite frankly fire fighters. Fire fighters are 50% more likely than anyone to contract these types of cancer. Think of being in a house fire with all the toxins and chemicals women are putting in their homes, and being exposed to those. Even you may have protective equipment, you're still exposed to those off gases and everything else, and so, unfortunately as we have seen, fire fighters are more likely to be impacted by these cancers. So, this would allow changes to our Urban's Camp Act, firefighter other occupational diseases prior to a [xx] for illness and deaths that are casually related to inherited dangerous fire fighting activities the crimes are key terms disability and fire fighter for years in this section and prior to the fire fighters presume, eligible for compensation for occupational diseases, if won, the firefighter underwent a physical examination when beginning with that unit of local government and the physical did not share the evidence of an occupational disease and the fire fighter has completed at least five years of service and to or two physical examination was required prior to entering services of the time of [xx] the firefighter has completed at least five years of continuous service immediately proceeding January 1st 2015, it does establish a burden over both of the local government requiring it to prove by proponent to confident evidence under any such condition was caused by other means we clarify the new provisions that they've brought to firefighters to local government [xx] I stand any questions Mr Chairman? Representative Brian so are you first? Thank you Mr. Chairman I live my bill sponsors and if you could go look on this I'd actually a core sponsor on this bill so particularly evil that day when I started to cross watcher but as I walked into this door a little bit further I became to become a little more worry of the legislation Sir I just want to believe that we've the general assembly to rehab the capacity to create some presumption assumptions of social regarding occupation of the occupational diseases. I understand in the United State the percentage of work compensation is particularly low, but I do thank particularly the President for opening the doors for the others towards the board claiming the same produce, and I just don't think that we as the general assembly actually have the capacity to do this so, I appreciate it and this suddenly it is a good Bill in terms of the feel good aspects of it but I just don't think I can support it at it's present. Representative Sign recognize to respond. Thank you Representative Brown, I hope you feel better but I really do like the jacket, and I say it's quite impressive sir it's not quite as much as mine, but it is mine. I will tell you that, I mean, you kind of hit the nail on the head, this is happening in 20 other states, we're talking about basically a fraction of claims. Anything that we do lands the possibility of somebody else coming before us, correct? However this I think is a clear case of an occupational hazard really do appreciate the men and women that put their lives on the line and quite frankly this helps, this looks after their families, it's a dangerous dangerous game if they play and they do it each and every day and I think we owe to them to do to provide at least some type of protection to them and their families but I respectfully disagree with you but I appreciate your commentary. Representative Mitchel. Yeah I got a couple of questions, one I'm looking at the types of cancerS here are these types of cancer expressed anywhere else in the statutes of occupational disease? Staff is recognized to answer that question. Representative Mitchel, I am definately not a workers content firm. Pension, not so bad but non workers fond. What I did find in
a quick look of the statutes in this section that it is amending, you'll notice I'm mentioned in the summary on general stature 97- 5313 currently that says any disease other than hearing loss which is in another subdivision which is proven to be due to cause of and traditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to a particular trade, occupation or employment but excluding all ordinary diseases of life do which the general public is equally exposed outside of employment are included so I could not find a place and have other people on the audience that are more familiar with workers [xx] but I could not find a place where at least an associate, a particular disease and an occupation [xx follow up. Yes, the reason is because I'm [xx] this is a particular disease affects iron workers, ship workers, ship [xx] workers, and a number of architecs and I guess am having a problem and if you [xx] whether or not you're going to be restricted or whether you're going to actually [xx] I don't know, and that's my problem and I don't have I mean no there are other things I mean. You're recognized. It's just that I'm concerned that if we do this, then everybody else is going to come in to make sure that their workers are covered particularly in these particular areas. Alright, Representative Herley. Thank you Mr. Chair, do we need an x-ray or no with the? It doesn't affect any retirement system. Someone can request one. I'll just come back. Let's go back, we don't need an x-ray on that because it's not a pension bill you could request a physical note or someone can request a physical note on it. and, I don't know, I know there're pages like beige and orange with our people people you know they can't realise what you did until later is there any sometime a barbie or something done decided that these were a lot of requirement we're having these things. How did they come about the? Representative Sam. Well if you don't mind we are supposed to I don't if he's prepared to comment on that but if can stand up if that's okay with you Yeah if you'd state your name from the record and then Representative Hurley if you don't mind restating your question for him? I just wondered if there are records or surveys or something to show that maybe they've got these diseases, they've probably been exposed to that kind of nature. Yes ma'am Jason join us professional firefighters from North Carolina specific diseases were polled, there are some specific problems with fire fighters getting these cancers and much higher rate. Every disease that has covered here occurs 30%. So, the fire fighter you're 30% more likely to get this disease than anyone else. That is the lowest threshold, multiple myeloma actual 2.5 two times a year [xx] terms more likely to get other fire fighters, these number came from the Nurse National Institute as well as the CDC, there's been about 8 separate studies done but, sighting National and CDC being the two into these that have done research with no skin in the game, if that makes any sense, the reason that we've narrowed these cancer in most states and there is only 7 states left that have no form of this, we're one of those. Most states cover heart long hypertension all sorts of things, that our fire fighters leave that can be embellished. Its often believed you cant get cancer and then we want to take care of the sickest fire fighters in their families. This came on Greens brother was a fire fighter who died. He was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. He spent eight months fighting his church family, his family, his entire community all faught with him and in the process his wife all their money helping him to fight this cancer. He died, unfortunately while he was fighting off from Oklahoma he didn't have the opportunity to come to the industrial commission and say to them, "Hey, look I think this came from fire fighting.
The bill gives you a good deed of battle there, so if the person is doing something that, can cause it cancelled, they are done and it can be reverted very easily but we just want to protect this very, very small group of fire fighters that are getting the worst of the worst of this cancers if there's any further questions we may comment on that. Do you ever follow our present devaluing, any other questions of this gentleman or I understand first of all in current law without this bill what would a firefighter have to show if he or she was to get one of these cancers to qualify for workers compound. What's the group needed now to pay this came from work place not from a random on the member of the population and one percent of the population gets these, why do you have to establish that? Is that question for the gentleman, has it? Okay either staff or the gentleman recognised would you mind to have the answer? So the way the question came to us was, State your name please. James Ed Joner. The way it came to us was that, while some of these incidents are covered. If the fire fighter brakes his leg in a house fire, that's obviously covered. This is a que to perfect but it's hard for him to point in one incident and that becomes the problem he's trying to we're now making this broader case we're acting with the leader of final language as we move forward to get them comfortable with any of the concerns they might have but that's the bigger the thing is for eight months he didn't have enough time in those eight months to go deep through fire records from 20 years ago where he was fighting a fire that had bad thing in it, the state for the industrial commission easily build about this and say for instance myself they ca rebound me very quickly I was a smoker, he is a smoker he is likely to got this from news what this does is it say the firefighter clearly hasn't done anything to make himself remodel, it's shift finding prove to the state in this specific cases for this specific fire fighters which I believe would be a very small number in the long run it would be good effort to take care of their, folks to take care of us when they've those tickets. Follow up so many times, evidence something happens that we're how would you, when you have the gasp? Evidence that I would involve putting out like 10 buyer, these hydro chemical so what I was saying is that the fires we fight today are not the fires that we used to fight, California past section 17 which was fire return in front of all the 12 second threshold the since California is one of the biggest state everyone went to that which means [xx] every time we fight a house fire we are dealing with house mass situation, we believed for a long time exposure research this is a long term exposure to those chemicals, supporting to a specific intent, is the problem and that's why this Bill is before you today Follow up How does 5 years determine, or if you're 4 years, and you get one of these? There's no presumption that 5, you all have was that selected I know you have to draw a line somewhere but how did you arrive at [xx] Representative Sain Thank you and thank you for the question Representative Blast, first I'm really proud of are recreated in any other number we had picked except for, giving some lack of service to the fire service and to citizens, you've been there a while. And we have some affection there's exposure during that length of time as Mr. Jordan had [xx] that long time exposure is pretty the more likely cause of these cancers, so short on the fire service for someone like me who's just a volunteer that's not there, than on a couple of house fires that [xx] on a blue moon, probably it's not as likely so that's the reasoning five years that as a [xx] that's the number we picked Representative Micheal I've still got, I've got a problem with the [xx] code these cancers can be caused by things
other than being a fire fighter whereas it could be a firefighter and the cause of any of these could be smoking firefighters smoke and I guess I'm just, when you start putting a disease with an occupation I think you're going to be running into trouble because any one of those occupations is going to be coming here and say well my occupation is subject to pneumonia, my occupation is subject to as you can see it means the way we are doing it right now, it can be an occupational disease can be shown under what was that's how it happened, I don't think there's any question about that if that individual comes in and says, "20 years I've worked as a firefighter, and I did" has it is duty firefighting like fighting chemical fires and we know that certain chemicals have [xx] in them, and that to me is a way they can prove they can prove that, what happened to the [xx] of justice? Representative [xx] someone wants to respond I just like to make a comment on, I'm a first responder as well and when you get into a house fire, you don't have inspector there to go on and inspect it, to see whether that it's the best-est and where they can abate the house before you go in I think this is about the only profession I know that walks in to every unknown potential chemical reaction without having an inspection beforehand, and I just don't think there is another profession and I agree with you to agree but aslo the, men and women of this profession are just walking into the unkown we still have a lot of homes in my particular area that has the best decidings, the best is inside and we don't wait to go in and see if anybody is in the house, to see if it's or has his permission, so I just think it's a different profession, I think it's a different occupation and these men and women they don't go in and. Can I ask one question follow up, senator Paul you talk about walking into an [xx] when do you put answer to this, that's the point next you really susceptible to a disease [xx] I want to ask a question now in and I had to part of this my expertise is in law enforcement realistically the most part breathing devices when they go into fires or is just ganged up so it is required so the fire fighters to, I would but before we, It's a standard that they have breathing equipment so they're not really the exposure is a little less because of the standard for breathing equipment OK but before we go any further I would like to ask is there anyone in the audience that is wants to speak against the bill, I see some people from the league and different representatives out there, if you would like to speak against the bill come forward. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm Tim Brailely[sp?] I'm Executive Director of the State Farm Association, we have a membership of about 53, 000 firefighters many of whom who will be covered by this legislation. I've been in the fire service 41 years and as Representative said when we started out wearing air sacks in the 80s we thought that took care things as far as lung cancer issues, where studies are showig now many of these Cancerous, or caused by skin popping we were in [xx] for example round our neck, that gets hot and sweaty and what the sponge picks up every particular of every piece of smoke that goes to Presidential hose bar, cancers that we obtain I know that a lot of in the nect area and te hood area we last to take
time Representative [xx] said that firefighters are protecting the community and when they get there, they really don't have the opportunity to measure the effects or the conduction may be found in this house, sucks our association, although not all our members will be covered by this. Many of them serve in our royal active routinely we'd push. Thank you, but I ask to present one here to speaker guest, you are recognized Thank you, I'm Rose Bonigh Williams, I'm director of government affairs for the North North Carolina legal municipalities I hate to speak against this bill Representative Sain, Representative Bows, the line does have concerns and we appreciate representative Sain for establishing fire fighter to work with us and talk about this, a lot of cities self insured, this costs on them buy from the outside. The insurance issues are availability, accessibility, our companies can be willing to sell it if the cost is going to be prohibited right now as Representative Blast was talking about we're under the provision, we're under the workers current law that if you argue with the firefighters before the industrial commission that this is it's an, occupational disease, before again telling you to prove that, going through your medical records or looking at what you have that is an occupation disease more than likely from your occupation than regular life or what the proper words were in the statute, change that burden of proof to the employers, the issue is the burden of proof switch and then the number of diseases and that's what we've been looking at, but we are committed to try to continue look at this and this if there is something we can do and work out and we'll certainly will give that our [xx] we're gathering data from around the country, it frankly need to go through. Okay any questions? Yes sir Who is your question related to? Related all right Were to pass [xx] firefighters over a fire year service contracting one of these diseases that happen as a result of the job, how would you go about preventing that pressumption, maybe [xx] simply the fact that fire fighter with a smoker would that be enough to revamp the presumption? It's got to be by preponderance of the evidence happen [xx] Thank you, and if may? You may respond. Rose formally for the league, and then going back 12 years to my common actual private practice doing workers The burden it would be then on the employer to show that, by the preponderance of the evidence, know that it was by other means, and then out of it there's a picture level you can point to? It'd be making your case to the industrial commission that he was a smoker, he had element's in his records from before that showed whatever it would be, it would be just like any other legal case. And I think the bill here it's saying, let's for firefighters, move that on and take it to a presumption, does that? Then ask you a question, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions to the committee or anyone else out there who wanted to speak against the bill? We've had plenty of force, okay. I as one sincerely hope that wherever this bill goes you can reach a reasonable solution, I don't think that this bill is it but I represent you Hurley did you want to be recognized for a motion? Anyone else? Alright your recognized. And I know we have to go to insurance. I have already involved the insurance I [xx] have the report of House Bill 666 and referred it to insurance Refer subject to cross over. I would refer it to staff, I would think that it is subject to cross over since it doesn't have a state of appropriation but how to furnish that. Due to the numbers believe that it would be subject to cross over? Okay, it is subject to cross over. I don't think the referal to insurances, really that time sensitive still got two values within your, please within your, general calendar from November. I think it's starting to bend the rules. It does that.
It currently does not have a serial referral so the request to send it since [xx]. It started out in rules and it was, I don't think it had any in here I think it was just re-referred to this community and as the chairman I exersice my prerogative to give it a referral to any what I think they would probably be more experts in the field of work as compensation. Anyway, you've heard the motion that we give it a favor report with a referal to insurance. All in favor say I. I all oppose no. No. It appears the chair of the no's have it, the no's do have it, the bill fails. Okay. For a motion. Representative Brown is representing for motion How we voted on the prevailing side I would like to make a motion to reconsider and potentially take a little bit of work in the next few days and see if we can figure this out. Okay. Representative Brown, make some motion. Is there any Comment From the committee on his motion? Do you need him to restate his motion? Yes please. I will vote on the prevailing side, I would like to make a motion for reconsideration, please Everybody representing Brown's motion is that, he voted no, which was a prevailing [xx] he is now requesting the committee to reconsider, okay. Does anyone have a comment, or like to debate representative Brown's motion? Alright. Seeing no debates, all those in favor of representative's Brown's motion say, aye. Aye. all those oppose say no, no but in the opinion of the chair the aye's have it for a motion, Alright representative Brown you are recognized for a motion, I would like to make a motion that we sent house bill 60 with out prejudice to insurance OK does everyone understand representative Brown's motion, is that a request to the rules committee to reassign it their how does that work? he's already made, This committee has already voted to refer it representative Brown and staff can correct me or someone can correct me if I'm wrong, basically the only thing his motion does is [xx] insurance but it adds without prejudice [xx] Hey the bill is back before the committee and he's made another motion on the bill. Motion on the bill requested? To referred to refer to insurance without prejudice. So the only change, as I understand it, is that, it adds the words without prejudice in it and I would ask the staff to explain to the committee exactly what the difference is? When you refer a bill without prejudice, it means that you're not giving a favourable report or unfavourable report, you are making no determination The rule chair will the one who decides whether or not it gets referred to insurance. that's currently not on bill to be clear That's just a recommendation on this committee actually on me and if poses motion it would be a recommendation of the committee, does everyone understand the motion? [xx] I do now I want make sure I get this right, so we just voted the hit us again in this committee, that's what we did, yes, We first voted the bill down then we voted to hear it again and now we are voting for it to go some place else without prejudice but we won't hear it again, but we get to hear it again No that's your own insurance, OK and then the floor, any other debate on Representative Brown's last motion? OK anybody need
the motion repeated OK their is no further debate on representative Brown's motion all in favor of Representative Brown's last motion say aye, Aye! All oppose no, no, in opinion of the chair the aye's have it, this bill is referred to insurance without prejudice, Thank you Mr. Chairman. We adjourn