Mr. Speaker: Regarding the 'guns in church' issue: I understand, in AR, our culture is "pro-gun". While I am not "anti-gun" (in fact, own several which are kept in my home) it is difficult for me to understand how ANY of our elected officials, much less a majority, could look me in the eye and say that they think the world will be a better, safer place if larger numbers of people are armed as they go about their daily business, especially in a place like church. Can you do that? Don

Thanks for the question, Don. No, I'm not saying the world will now be safer if the bill that passed the House yesterday becomes law. We have concealed-carry laws now. Under current law, people with permits can carry a weapon anywhere not proscribed by state law. I think the bill passed because members had constitutional concerns about the state telling the church what they can and can't do. Churches can opt out of the law by posting a sign on the door.

Thank you, sir, for the courteous reply. I must say, however, that I'm apalled to think that we would have Churches in AR who WOULD choose to allow people to come in carrying firearms. Wouldn't the elected officials just be 'passing the buck', and making ministers and congregations take on this emotional issue? What kind of religion would support that? Personally, of course, I think it's worse than inappropriate to have people going around carrying guns in parks, churches, shopping malls, etc. I understand that's what the law says now but, instead of making it EASIER, wouldn't a thoughtful, responsible elected official vote to REDUCE the number of people walking around with concealed weapons? Going back to my original point: Isn't it true that the world WOULD be a better place, and safer too, without those guns? Why not take the "high road"? Thanks again, for your willingness to listen. Don

First, let me apologize to everyone for not posting throughout the day as I intended. It turns out this was one of the worst days to do anything "extracurricular." Thsi is the first chance I've had to do something I want to do (as opposed to thigns I have to do!)

You do raise very good points. The law allows any church to exclude otherwise lawful concealed-carry permit holders simply by posting a sign. A no vote wouldn't reduce the number of people carrying guns. It is entirely permissive. If a church wants to opt out, it is easy to do so. Thanks for your quesion.

Honorable Robbie Wills,

First of all I want to take the time to thank you and our local NPR for participating in this channel of communication. Now on to my questions.

How do you explain the recent votes on cell phone restrictions, particularly texting? What data drives the legislation? What warrents this additional legislation? We already had laws against reckless driving and inattentiveness. What makes those laws inadequate? Like all activities that can interfer with driving (i.e. eating, puting on make-up, reading maps, folding maps, tuning the radio, changing CDs, using GPS navigation system, putting in DVDs for passengers in the back seat, etc) texting is done by many people with varying degrees of effect on driving. Some can do the actions above with little or no observed effect on driving, while others demonstrate obvious impairment to driveing? What makes you single out texting over these other activities? Is there data that suggests that texting is causing accidents while other similiarly distracting activites are not a threat?

Again thanks for your time!

Carl Frank
Traskwood, AR

To me it was simple. We just voted to invest $28 million in a trauma system to treat traumatic injuries. I believe we should do everything we can to prevent trauma in the first place. Yes, data was presented in committee indicating that driving while texting causes many accidents. Distracted driving of any kind is dangerous, but texting is one of the most distracting activities and is on the rise.

I understand in principle. I agree that texting is on the rise. Because cell phone use and use of personal communication devises is on the rise. However, it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the increasing number of texting population is able to text without incident. I could understand toughening existing legistation for reckless or neglegiant driving. Your logic on cell phones seems to have some flaws. You could say that the number of auto accidents is on the rise as the number of people with autos increase. That would be a true statement. But the number of people who did not have accidents would also be on the rise and I would not be in favor of restricting automobile useage.

It terms of texting being one of the most distracting activities, can you direct me to the study that supports this claim?

In terms of your linking this bill to the trauma center, I would argue that you are being somewhat inconsistant. I believe that Arkansas does not require helmets to be used by motorcyclists (I could be mistaken), and your vote to support guns in our churches clearly illustrate that you are singleing out one perceived threat and enabling another perceived threat.

I fear that in this case a minority of the population who may be poor texters are making this decision.

In closing, I readily will admit that I am a user of text messaging. At times I even do this while driving. What troubles me the most is not that it will restrict an action that I do engage in, but that it restricts one that I engage in and I am careful when I do it. I hope you will do due diligence and address all of the other distractions.

Carl Frank
Traskwood, AR

Dear Mr. Speaker,
I was dismayed by your "no" vote on the eminent domain bill that was in the House Agricultural Committee. Those of us who are landowners in the Fayetteville Shale region are having our land systematically destroyed by the gas companies. It is a travesty that those who own the surface rights and pay property taxes have fewer rights than those who own the mineral rights (and pay no taxes). Between pipelines, noisy gas compressors, drilling 24 hrs per day, and other disturbances, life has become unbearable for many of us. The question I have is: when will the legislature begin to protect its citizens and elevate our rights above that of the fossil fuel industry?
Matt

Please don't be dismayed. Many times a bill is presented purporting to fix a problem, when in actuality it woudl create more problems than it fixes. I voted no because I had many constituents contact me asking me to do so and there is ongoing litigation to establish the extent of a gas company's power of eminent domain. But, the practical effect of the bill would be to allow one landowner to prevent all other landowners in the section from enjoying the benefit of their mineral interests. It is similar to a landowner denying a landlocked neighbor access to a highway. There has to be a way to protect everyone's interests through legislation. I applaud the goal of the bill, but think it needs work before I can support it.

Mr. Speaker,

I recently graduated from UCA. I qualified for the Arkansas Academic Challenge scholarship academically but not financially (my parents made just over the lowest amount). I now have about $14,000 in school loan debt. Is there anything with the new lottery that will help me pay for these loans?

Thanks,
Travis

Unfortunately, no. The lottery proceeds will only pay for scholarships in the future. I wish we'd had it when I was in college too!

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for taking time to answer a few questions for the public. My question concerns partisan politics at the Capitol.

You have stated many times you do not favor partisan politics. You even went on your blog to apologize for appearing to be partisan after getting upset at your Republican colleagues for voting against the cigarette tax. I am glad you have stated you feel this way, but it does lead me into what I feel are important questions.

1) Rep. Harrelson posted on his blog Under the Dome today that there would be lottery meetings this afternoon. Have any Republicans been invited to those meetings? Have you asked any Republicans for their input on how the lottery should go?

2) I looked at your lottery draft summary. The commission is a good idea, but in its current state, is it not a partisan commission? It looks like the next speaker and pro-temp will also be Democrats, so does it not seem a little partisan to keep it in the fashion it’s currently in?

Thank you for your time and I hope you can once again prove the Capitol isn’t as partisan as it appears this session.

- Sue

Thanks for the questions.

(1) Yes. We've had many, many meetings on the lottery. Today's session won't be the first or last. I've asked for input from every legislator, Republican, Democrat and Green. Sen. Sharon Trusty and Rep. Rick Green have been assisting me closely.

(2) It is a non-partisan commission, just like every other commission in state government. I won't be checking party affiliation when I make my appointments. I want the best people on the commission. I don't care what party, if any, they affiliate with.

Why allow the people who will be running the lottery to accept gifts up to $100 in value? We should have the Wal-Mart rule throughout state government - not so much as a cup of coffee. That was my personal policy when I was a state employee working with state money in grants. I never wanted my integrity to be questioned.

We've fixed that already. It is now $0.00. The old language in the bill cam word for word from the Georgia Lottery statute, the one many held out as the "ideal" lottery statute.

I heard on the radio the other day that Arkansas is moving to a three-year vaccination schedule for pets. How is the current status of the legislation?
Thanks

Not sure, but I think it is a good idea and it will pass.

Representative Wills,

Thank you for taking our questions.

I'd like to echo the question from Carl from Traskwood. Obviously texting while driving is dangerous. So are many other perfectly legal things, including everything Carl listed plus trying to feed & discipline children, program a radio, and my favorite, LIGHTING THINGS ON FIRE (I'm talking, of course, about smoking while driving). It's when the driving itself can be characterized as reckless or inattentive that the already adequate laws kick in.

With the approximately 700 bills the Legislature is facing right now, why is something for which there are already laws being given so much attention?

Thanks.

There was a high-profile case in a member's home district where a vehicle fatality occurred becasue the driver at fault, by his own admission, caused the accident because he had been texting. Many bills originate because of a real life event, rather than a theoretical problem.

My question is similar to Travis's question regarding the lottery. My daughter has $12,000 in loans after graduating from UCA. I want this lottery money to go to everyone, not just the lower income. She did not get any scholarship money since we were $5,000 over the AR ACS as Travis was, she made one point below on her ACT that enables you to get a scholarship at UCA and other places; even though she was an Honor Student during her entire high school years and graduated on the Dean's list and completed her degree in 4 years. She tried every scholarship and was declined on either us making too much money or her not being a minority. She even went into the Sciences and was declined for those scholarships. I work full time and my husband works full time with overtime and we saved the maximum in ED IRAs since she was an infant even though we are blue collar workers. It seems the middle class always loses out and we have to work extra hard when others get money handed to them. She worked through high school and college to pay her expenses while others were able to study when she worked. Now she is trying to get a master's but doesn't know if she can afford it even though she has a full time job and we have to save for our other children because we learned from experience that we will not get any help. ARe you going to make sure this lottery money is available for everyone in the state?

Yes, absolutely! Your family is exactly the type of family we want to help with the influx of lottery revenue. We propose to do two things: (1) broaden the existing scholarship programs by adjusting the income limits for needs-based scholarships and (2) create new scholarships for those not currently served by our scholarship offerings. Please stay tuned to robbiewills.com for details.