>> DON: GOOD EVENING.

FROM OUR STATEHOUSE STUDIO IN MONTGOMERY, I'M DON DAILEY.

THANKS FOR JOINING US.

TOPPING OUR BROADCAST TONIGHT, THE SENATE TODAY DEFEATED A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE SET UP A STATE LOTTERY AND ALLOWED FOR CASINOS AND SPORTS BETTING IN THE STATE.

THE VOTE WAS 19-13 AGAINST THE MEASURE, TWO VOTES SHY OF THE 21 NEEDED TO APPROVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

IT WAS SPONSORED BY SENATOR DEL MARSH OF ANNISTON, WHO SAID AFTER TODAY'S DEFEAT THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT HIS BILL UP FOR A VOTE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, WHEN HE SAID HE KNEW HE HAD THE SUPPORT HE NEEDED.

>> I MADE A ROOKIE MISTAKE.

AND I TOLD THREE OR FOUR MEMBERS OF THE BODY AS WAS SAID TODAY, YOU KNOW, I HAD SIX MORE VOTES THREE WEEKS AGO, I HAD THE SHEET.

AND FROM MEMBERS.

IN AN ATTEMPT TO SATISFY MEMBERS AND BE OPEN AND TALK, AS I SAID, NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.

EVERY WEEK THAT TICKED BY -- AND I WAS TRYING TO PLEASE THE GOVERNOR -- THE GOVERNOR WANTED SOME OF THE ENABLING LEGISLATION OUT.

AND I WARNED EVERY ONE, THE LONGER THAT IT WENT ON, THE RISK OF LOSING VOTES.

AND I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.

>> DON: THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE ON AND A LOT OF AMENDMENTS TO MARSH'S BILL TODAY, AND MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION CENTERED ON THE FINE PRINT OF THE ENABLING LEGISLATION.

MARSH SAID TODAY THAT SOMEONE ELSE MAY BRING A SIMPLE LOTTERY BILL LATER IN THE SESSION.

THE HOUSE TODAY PASSED A $2.4 BILLION GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR NON-EDUCATION STATE AGENCIES.

THE VOTE WAS 101-1 FOR THE LEGISLATION.

HOUSE GENERAL FUND CHAIRMAN STEVE CLOUSE OF OZARK SAID HE WAS VERY PLEASED WITH THE PLAN AS PASSED.

>> THIS YEAR, WE'VE GONE INTO THIS SESSION IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE WITH THE GENERAL FUND.

AND WE'RE ABLE TO PROBABLY COME WITH THE LARGEST GENERAL FUND BUDGET EVER NOW.

A 2% PAY RAISE FOR THE STATE EMPLOYEES AND A LOT OF INCREASES ACROSS THE BOARD FOR AGENCIES.

>> THE GENERAL FUND NOW MOVES TO THE SENATE.

THE $7.6 BILLION STATE EDUCATION BUDGET THAT WOULD, AMONG OTHER THINGS, GIVE TEACHERS AND EDUCATION EMPLOYEES A TWO PERCENT COST OF LIVING INCREASE, HAS NOT YET STARTED MOVING.

THE HOUSE TODAY ALSO PASSED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW STUDENT ATHLETES TO PROFIT FROM THEIR NAME, IMAGE, AND LIKENESS.

IT'S SPONSORED BY REPRESENTATIVE KYLE SOUTH OF FAYETTE, WHO HAS SAID WHO SAID HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE ALABAMA HAS PROCEDURES IN PLACE WHEN THE NCAA TAKES A FINAL VOTE ON THEIR OWN COMPENSATION RULES.

SOUTH DEBATED HIS BILL TODAY WITH, AMONG OTHERS, REPRESENTATIVE JUANDALYNN GIVAN OF BIRMINGHAM.

>> THIS BASICALLY SAYS THAT ONLY IN THE CASE OF MARKETING OR NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS FOR THEIR NAME, IMAGE, LIKENESS, AND NOT FOR THEIR PERFORMANCE ON THE BILL -- >> WELL, THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO -- THAT WAS WHAT WAS ALARMING TO ME.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO BECAUSE I KNEW THAT WAS -- >> YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT WOULD STILL BE ILLEGAL.

>> DON: WITH TODAY'S HOUSE PASSAGE, SOUTH'S BILL NOW MOVES TO THE SENATE.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON LEGISLATION THAT WOULD INCREASE THE PENALTIES FOR RIOTING.

IT'S LEGISLATION THAT CAME IN RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE THAT BROKE OUT DURING PROTESTS OVER THE POLICE KILLING OF GEORGE FLOYD IN MINNESOTA LAST YEAR.

THE MEASURE IS SPONSORED BY REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN TREADAWAY OF MORRIS, WHO IS A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER.

>> AFTER WORKING IN BIRMINGHAM FOR 31 YEARS AND WAS AT THE PROTEST, IT WAS ALARMING WHAT I SAW.

AND THIS BILL BRANCHES OFF FROM THESE CRIMES, FOR THE PEOPLE OUT THERE LOOTING, BREAKING INTO BUILDINGS OR ASSAULTING POLICE OFFICER OR ANY PUBLIC RESPONDER.

>> WE HAD A HEARING ON THE BILL AND GONE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE, AND MAY COME UP NEXT WEEK.

THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME WORK DONE NOT ONLY TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS IN THE BILL, BUT ALSO, TO MAYBE HAVE A GREATER CONVERSATION ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF IT.

>> DON: REPRESENTATIVE ENGLAND, WHO ALSO SERVES AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, CONTENDED THAT THE DEFINITION OF RIOT IN TREADAWAY'S BILL IS TOO BROAD AND SAYS THAT HE FELT THE LEGISLATION ALMOST WEAPONIZES LAW ENFORCEMENT TO SUPPRESS PROTECTED FREE SPEECH.

THE SENATE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE TODAY APPROVED A BILL THAT WOULD GIVE THE LEGISLATURE SOME OVERSIGHT OF EXECUTIVE CONTRACTS.

IT COMES IN THE WAKE OF SOME LAWMAKER CONCERNS OVER GOVERNOR KAY IVEY'S CURRENT PRIVATE LEASE PRISON CONSTRUCTION PLAN, ALTHOUGH THIS LEGISLATION WOULDN'T AFFECT THOSE LEASES.

SENATOR GREG ALBRITTON OF ATMORE OUTLINED HIS PLAN TODAY.

>> EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAW, THE GOVERNOR AND EXECUTIVE AGENCIES OF THE STATE MAY NOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT OR OTHER BONDING AGREEMENT THAT IMPOSES ON THE STATE A CONTRACTUAL PERIOD FOR 2 YEARS OR MORE FOR MAN $5 MILLION CONSIDERATION.

DON: THE $5 MILLION LIMIT FOR EXECUTIVE CONTRACTS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE REVIEW IS HALF OF THE $10 MILLION LIMIT THAT PASSED OUT OF THE HOUSE LAST WEEK.

ALBRITTON'S BILL NOW HEADS TO THE SENATE FLOOR.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> Don: NEXT UP ON THE BROADCAST, SENATOR LARRY STUTTS OF TUSCUMBIA IS IN THE STUDIO.

I'M GOING TO BEGIN WITH THE TOPIC DU JOUR, AND WITH LOTS OF PASSION OVER THE PARTICULAR ISSUE OF GAMBLING AND WHERE DO YOU FALL WITH THE GAMBLING EXPANSION.

>> I'M FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO GAMING.

AND FOR SEVERAL REASONS, THINK IT'S A DISPROPORTIONATE TAX ON THE POOR, PREYS ON PEOPLES' IGNORANCE, I'M NOT FUNDAMENTALLY FOR IT.

BUT I LISTENED HONESTLY AND INTENTLY TO WHAT THE BILL DOES.

I UNDERSTAND BILL DOESN'T APPROVE GAMBLING, ALLOWS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO APPROVE IT.

I CAN SEE THAT ARGUMENT.

AND ME PERSONALLY, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT.

BUT AS A SENATOR ALLOWING THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE TO VOTE FOR THAT, WHETHER THEY WANT TO DO IT IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA HAS MERIT.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF MOVING PARTS TO THE BILL.

AND WHETHER WE'RE SPECIFICALLY FOR OR AGAINST THIS BILL IS YET TO BE DETERMINED.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS TO BE ADDED ON TO THE BILL.

AND THERE WILL BE A LOT OF PRO AND CON DISCUSSIONS ON THE AMENDMENT AND WHAT THE FINAL BILL WILL LOOK LIKE IS YET TO BE DETERMINED.

>> Don: ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE WHO FEEL, IF THIS WAS JUST A LOTTERY BILL, IT MIGHT COULD GET YOUR SUPPORT?

>> I THINK SO.

AND THE APPROACH THAT I HAVE TAKEN WITH THE BILL, IF IT'S GOING TO PASS, I WANT TO SEE THE MONEY GOING FOR SOME WORTHWHILE PROJECTS AND BE WISELY USED IN THE STATE.

SO, THE SUGGESTIONS THAT I HAVE OFFERED TO SENATOR MARSH HAVE BEEN ABOUT WHERE SOME OF THE MONEY SHOULD BE DIRECTED.

AND IF WE'RE GOING TO RAISE THAT MUCH TAX MONEY, THINK WE NEED TO FIND SOMEWHERE TO DECREASE TAXES.

AND I HAVE SUGGESTED TO SENATOR MARSH, PART OF THE ENABLING TAXATION SHOULD BE DECREASE THE TAX ON GROCERIES BY AN EQUAL AMOUNT.

IF WE'RE GOING TO RAISE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WITH GAMBLING, LET'S FIND PLACES TO CUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF DOLLARS.

AND THINK THAT GROCERY TAX IS A GOOD PLACE TO START.

>> Don: BUT BECAUSE THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE GAMBLING EXPANSION BILL INVOLVING NOT ONLY A LOTTERY, CASINO AND SPORTS BETTING AND GAMING.

IT'S THE GAMING ISSUE THAT STICKS WITH YOU?

>> YEAH, IT'S THE WHOLE PACKAGE.

BUT THE GAMING, WIDE EXPANSION OF GAMING AS YOU WELL KNOW WITH THE BILL.

AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, THINK, THERE IS A LOT OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT TO, WE WANT A LOTTERY.

AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF VOTERS THAT WHEN AND IF THE BALLOT, KIND OF QUESTION, VOTING ON THE LOTTERY AND THIS IS NOT JUST A LOTTERY BUT A COMPREHENSIVE GAMING PACKAGE FOR THE STATE, AN AREA THAT WE HAVE NEVER VENTURED INTO BEFORE.

>> Don: SENATOR, LET'S MOVE ON TO OTHER HOT TOPICS.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA PASSED THE SENATE BUT YOU HAVE BEEN A TRADITIONAL OPPONENT OF THIS LEGISLATION.

YOU ARE A PHYSICIAN AND YOU HAVE SAID THAT PLACING THE TERM MEDICAL, IN FRONT OF MARIJUANA, DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT MARIJUANA IS, FUNDAMENTALLY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND I'VE SAID REPEATEDLY, THERE ARE NO OTHER LEGITIMATE MEDICATION THAT IS WE HAVE TO PUT AN ADJECTIVE IN FRONT OF TO MAKE THEM SOUND LEGITIMATE.

MARIJUANA IS MARIJUANA.

THERE MAY BE MEDICINAL PURPOSE FOR MARIJUANA.

BUT WE HAVE A TRIED AND TRUE PROCESS FOR MEDICATIONS GOING FROM RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TO CLINICAL TRIALS AND EVENTUALLY TO THE MARKET.

AND WE'RE BY-PASSING THAT ENTIRE SYSTEM.

WE HAVE TRIED AND TRUE PROCESS OF PRESCRIBING MEDICATIONS AND THEM BEING FILLED BY A PHARMACIST AND BEING PEND PENS HAD BY A PHARMACIST AND WE'RE BY-PASSING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WITH THE DRUG.

WE'RE GOING FROM DISPENSARIES TOTALLY OUTSIDE THE REALM OF PHARMACIES AND TOTALLY OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION OF FDA APPROVAL.

I THINK THAT'S A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

IF WE WANT TO LEGALIZE, MARIJUANA, JUST CALL IT LEGALIZING MARIJUANA BUT DON'T DO IT UNDER THE GUY'S OF, THIS IS MEDICINE, SO, IT MUST BE GOOD FOR YOU.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE AT ALL.

AND MY OTHER ARGUMENT FROM THE MEDICAL STANDPOINT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LIST OF DIAGNOSES THAT ONE COULD QUALIFY TO HAVE A CANNABIS CARD, YOU WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING SOMEBODY THAT COULD NOT QUALIFY FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE DIAGNOSES BECAUSE THEY ARE SO BROAD AND GENERAL.

BASICALLY, ANYBODY THAT WANTS A CANNABIS CARD CAN GET ONE.

AND THE OTHER REASON, ANOTHER REASON I'M OPPOSED TO IT, BESIDES MEDICAL ASPECT, BUT THE HUGE EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT.

WE'RE BASICALLY CREATING A WHOLE NEW GOVERNMENT OF GOVERNMENT, NEW AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT FOR MARIJUANA.

A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE CONTROL WHO GROWS IT, PROCESSES, AND DISPENSES IT.

AND THE POTENTIAL FOR CORRUPTION IN THAT PROCESS IS JUST ASTRONOMICAL.

JUST A VERY SMALL PANEL OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DECIDE WHO GETS A LICENSE TO GROW IT, AND WHO GETS A LICENSE TO SELL IT AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE STATE.

I THINK THAT'S JUST A TOTALLY WRONG APPROACH.

>> Don: BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHERE THIS GOES.

OKAY.

LET'S CLOSE TALKING ABOUT THE BILL THAT WOULD DO AWAY WITH THE STATE HEALTH OFFICER'S POSITION AND CREATE A HEALTH CABINET LEVEL JOB, APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR AND VETTED BY THE SENATE.

YOU ALSO EXPRESSED SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS LEGISLATION.

>> I HAVE.

AND ALABAMA'S PROCESS OF SELECTING A STATE HEALTH OFFICER IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE.

THERE'S A WIDE VARIETY OF WAYS THAT THE DEPARTMENTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND STATE HEALTH OFFICERS ARE SELECTED AND OPERATE NATIONWIDE.

AND ALABAMA'S IS UNIQUE.

BUT ALABAMA'S HAS ACTUALLY PIONEERED THE IDEA OF THE STATE HEALTH OFFICER BACK IN THE 1870'S WITH A CHOLERA PANDEMIC.

THE WHOLE IDEA OF HAVING A STATE HEALTH OFFICER CAME OUT OF THE CHOLERA PANDEMIC OF THE LATE 18 HUNDREDS.

SO, ALABAMA'S PROCESS OF HAVING THAT OFFICER IN PLACE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.

NOW, HERE, WHERE WE SIT TODAY, CAN THE PROCESS BE IMPROVED?

PROBABLY SO.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE TWEAKED.

MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD.

THINGS THAT COULD BE CHANGED.

BUT TO SCRAP THE ENTIRE SYSTEM THAT'S WORKED WELL FOR WELL OVER A HUNDRED YEARS, ON THE TAIL END OF A PANDEMIC, THINK, IS A MISTAKE.

WE NEED TO SLOW DOWN, LOOK AND SEE.

WERE THERE THINGS THAT WE DEALT WITH IN 2020 THAT WE COULD HAVE DEALT WITH BETTER.

DOCTOR HARRIS AND I HAVE NOT AGREED ON EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE.

BUT I CERTAINLY RESPECT HIS QUALIFICATIONS TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

HIS ABILITY TO MAKE THE DECISIONS.

AND YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, WHERE HE AND I MIGHT DISAGREE IS HOW ITS IMPACTED SOCIETY.

HE HAS A NARROW SCOPE OF HIS JOB, PUBLIC HEALTH.

HIS FOCUS SIMPLY IS ON CONTROLLING COVID FROM A STRICTLY DISEASE, VIRUS STANDPOINT OF CONTROLLING THAT.

AND MAYBE NOT ALL OF THE OTHER IMPLICATIONS.

SO, I RESPECT THE DECISIONS THAT HE HAS MADE.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SCRAP THE POSITION.

I DON'T THINK POLITICS OUGHT TO BE IN IT.

IT SHOULD BE A MEDICAL, PROFESSIONAL MAKING THOSE DECISIONS FROM AN OBJECTIVE STANDPOINT AND NOT WITH POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM THE GOVERNOR OR FROM SERVING AT THE PLEASURE OF THE GOVERNOR BUT SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.

>> Don: WE'LL SEE WHERE THIS GOES.

SENATOR LARRY STUTTS, FROM TUSCUMBIA.

A PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU ON THE SHOW.

>> YOU BET.

THANK YOU.

>> AND "CAPITOL JOURNAL" WILL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> NEXT UP ON THE BROADCAST, REPRESENTATIVE PRONCEY ROBERTSON IS BACK IN THE STUDIO WITH US.

>> GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE BILL SETTING UP LIFETIME CONCEAL CARRY IN THE STATE AND REMIND FOLKS WHAT YOUR PREMISE IS HERE.

>> WELL, FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS LEGISLATION, WORKING HARD WITH A WHOLE LOT OF ENTITIES INVOLVED IN IT.

AND MOST PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT LAW IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA.

I GUESS THE BIGGEST CHANGE FOR THE PUBLIC WOULD BE, IN THIS, ALLOWING YOU THE OPTION TO CARRY A LIFETIME OPTION.

NOW, OF COURSE, YOU CAN BUY, 1, 2, 3, OR 4 YEAR OPTION.

AND WE WANT TO ADD A LIFETIME OPTION TO THAT.

TO DO THAT, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT WE HAD TO CHANGE PROCEDURALLY, WORKING WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES TO CREATE BACK STOPS AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCES, THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE ARE LEGALLY TAKEN CARE OF ARE DONE SO AND DONE PROPERLY.

THAT'S BEEN COORDINATION EFFORT BETWEEN OF COURSE, THE SHERIFF'S, THE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION ALSO HAS AN ENTITY WORKING WITH ALEA, AS WELL AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LOT OF PRO GUN ACTIVISTS OUT THERE, EVERYBODY FROM THE NRA TO THE MORE LOCAL ENTITIES, LIKE, BAMA CARRY.

AND THERE ARE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT.

AS YOU KNOW, OUR FRIENDS IN WASHINGTON ARE LOOKING INTO DIFFERENT IDEAS AND CHANGES.

THOSE HAVE BROUGHT A LOT OF CONCERN TO PEOPLE.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, THIS BILL IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.

AND WE WANT IT TO BE SEEN AS A POSITIVE, TO MOVE US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO PROTECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

>> OBVIOUSLY, IT WOULD BE OPTIONAL, AS YOU POINTED OUT.

AS NEGOTIATING THIS, BEEN CHALLENGING AT ALL, GIVEN THE LEGISLATION THAT'S BEEN IN THE PIPELINE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, THAT DOES AWAY WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR SUCH A PERMIT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST, AS YOU SAID, A PERMITLESS CARRY TYPE SYSTEM.

AND LOTS OF PEOPLE REFER TO IT AS CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY I GUESS, SORT OF A SLANG TERM THERE, MORE OR LESS.

BUT AS EVERYBODY REFERS TO IT AS CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.

WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IS A SYSTEM WHERE YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PURCHASE A PERMIT AT ALL.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STATES, IT WENT TO THAT, UP TO 17, 18 STATES ACROSS THE NATION.

BUT AS YOU KNOW, MY LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH OUR RECORDKEEPING PROCESS IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA AND HOW WE ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN SOME IDEA OF WHO SHOULD BE PROHIBITED TO HAVE A FIREARM.

EVEN THOUGH, YES, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH FOLKS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT.

AND THAT RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

HAVING SAID THAT, THE COURTS ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT HAVE RULED MANY, MANY TIMES, EVEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AS WITH OUR OTHER AMENDMENTS, THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE VIOLATIONS OF LAW THAT ARE EXTREME ENOUGH THAT HAVE RESTRICTED PEOPLES' ABILITY TO POSSESS OR CARRY A FIREARM LEGALLY.

FELON, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND EVEN THOSE WITH EXTREME MENTAL DEFECTS.

SO, ONE THING THAT MY BILL DOES, I AS MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AND SHOULD NOT BE INFRINGED.

WE WANT TO GET THAT AS CLOSE TO AS THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO MAKE THEM A PROHIBITED INDIVIDUAL, BUT TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE TO EXERCISE THOSE RIGHTS.

>> Don: COULD YOUR LEGISLATION, AND THE LEGISLATION DEALING WITH PERMITLESS CARRY OR CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY, COULD THEY COEXIST WELL?

>> THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.

OF COURSE, THERE'S ELEMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT THAT GIVE ARGUMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

THE PRIMARY REASON, THE ONES WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND, DON'T GO PERMITLESS BECAUSE WHAT I MENTIONED.

IN STATE OF ALABAMA, WE'VE HISTORICALLY NOT DONE A GOOD JOB OF RECORDING WHO ARE PROHIBITED INDIVIDUALS.

I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT LIKE THIS, THERE'S A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND THOSE THAT ARE SEX OFFENDERS, WE HAVE A LAW THAT THEY REGISTER AND WHEN THOSE PEOPLE ARE CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW, SOMETHING THAT PUTS THEM ON THE REGISTRY.

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS CONTACT, THEN ON THE DRIVER'S LICENSE, HE GETS THE INDICATION THAT THE PERSON IS A SEX OFFENDER AND ARE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH.

BUT IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA, WE HAVE IT ALMOST BACKWARDS FOR FIREARMS.

IF YOU ARE NOT A SEX OFFENDER, THEN YOU ARE THE OPPOSITE OF THAT.

SO IT'S YOU NEED A PISTOL PERMIT TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE LAW ABIDING AND GO GET BACKGROUND CHECK EVERY YEAR TO SHOW YOU MAINTAINED THAT.

SO, I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY NOW THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY THOSE PROHIBITED FROM CARRYING A FIREARM SO IT'S NOT AS PERSON WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE A PERMIT OR NOT.

SO, THE CONCEPT BEHIND MY BILL IS NOT JUST TO CREATE A LIFETIME CARRY SO THAT AN INDIVIDUAL COMES IN, DOES A BACKGROUND CHECK ONE TIME.

ONE AND DONE, IF YOU WILL.

AND THOSE RECORDS WOULD BE MAINTAINED STILL BY THE SHERIFFS LOCALLY.

SO, WE'RE NOT PUTTING YOUR NAME AS A PISTOL PERMIT HOLDER IN ANY SORT OF STATEWIDE DATABASE, IT IS KEPT LOCALLY WITH THE SHERIFF.

WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, THE PIECE OF THE LIFETIME PERMIT MONEY, TO MOVE THAT TO ALEA TO MOVE IT AND CONTRACT AND BUILD A PROHIBITED PERSONS REGISTRY.

AND THEY CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THE COURT SYSTEM, MUNICIPAL, DISTRICT, CIRCUIT OR PROBATE JUDGE ISSUING AN ORDER OR CONVICTION THAT MAKES YOU PROHIBITED UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, THEN YOU WOULD BE ADDED TO THE PROHIBITED FIREARMS LIST.

THAT WAY, WHEN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT STOPS THE PERSON AND THEY ARE LISTED ON THE PROHIBITED FIREARMS LIST HE HAS A SIMPLE FLAG, JUST AS HE DOES FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER AND THEY ARE LIMITED THEN.

SO, UNLESS YOU ARE A PROHIBITED PERSON, A VIOLENT FELON, SOMEBODY WITH A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONVICTION, MENTAL DEFECT THAT'S BEEN DOCUMENTED BY THE COURTS AND IS THERE, THEN YOU HAVE NO CONCERNS WITH THE BILL ABOUT BEING ON A LIST JUST AS YOU HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT BEING PUT ON THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY IF YOU ARE NOT A SEX OFFENDER.

THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

ONE, CREATE THE RECORD-KEEPING SYSTEM FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

SO IT'S NOT AS IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO BE CONCENTRATING WHO HAS THE PERMIT BUT MORE ABOUT WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE A PERMIT.

SECONDLY, TO EASE THE BURDEN ON THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN WHO STILL NEEDS, EVEN IF WE GO PERMITLESS, YOU ARE GOING TO NEED A PERMIT FOR RECIPROCITY PURPOSES TO TRAVEL TO OTHER STATES.

SO, YOU ARE STILL GOING TO BUY A PERMIT.

AND THAT'S SOME OF THE ARGUMENT FOR GOING PERMITLESS.

THEY ARE CONTINUING TO SELL PERMITS, YOU JUST NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE.

UNDER THE SYSTEM, NOW, YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPTION, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE PERMITS, OKAY, THAT YOU PURCHASE IT, ONE AND DONE.

AND YOU SAY, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PERSON WHO BUYS A LIFETIME CARRY PERMIT, WHEN DOES HE GET CHECKED AGAIN.

IF HE IS CONVICT NATURAL DISASTER COURT, HE WOULD BE ADDED TO THE PROHIBITED LIST AND THE SHERIFF WOULD RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT HE CAN REVOKE THE LIFETIME PERMIT.

THERE'S A DOUBLE CHECK THERE, AND IT'S A MATTER OF THE SHERIFFS WORKING WITH ALEA AND ALEA WITH THEM.

AND IT'S GOING TO HELP THE COURT SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROHIBITED.

>> WE'RE OUT OF TIME.

BUT HAVE YOU GOTTEN GOOD FEEDBACK FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT.

>> WE'VE HAD A LOT OF WORK WITH IT TO BE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT.

SO WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH ALEA AND YES.

AND THIS MORNING, WE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION FROM THE SHERIFFS NOTIFICATION IS SUPPORTING THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

AND WITH THAT, WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM THE NRA, THEY HAVE ENDORSED IT.

WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE LOCAL GROUPS, TOO, TO BE SURE THEY DON'T HAVE MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE BILL DOES BUT GOOD INFORMATION THAT THIS IS A STEP, AT THE VERY LEAST IN A DIRECTION THAT'S PRODUCTIVE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PRODUCTIVE FOR THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO EXERCISE OUR LAW-ABIDING SECOND AMENDMENT GIVEN RIGHTS.

>> REPRESENTATIVE PRONCEY ROBERTSON, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> AND "CAPITOL JOURNAL" WILL BE RIGHT BACK!

>> DON: AND THAT'S CAPITOL JOURNAL FOR TONIGHT.

COMING UP TOMORROW NIGHT AT 10:30, WE'LL HAVE THE LATEST FROM THE STATEHOUSE, INCLUDING AN EXPECTED SENATE COMMITTEE VOTE ON A PROPOSED $7.6 BILLION EDUCATION BUDGET.

AND OUR GUESTS ARE SCHEDULED TO INCLUDE SENATOR GARLAN GUDGER OF CULLLMAN, WHO'LL DISCUSS HIS VOTING ‘NO' VOTE ON THE GAMBLING EXPANSION BILL AND ABOUT HIS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES TO ALLOW PATIENTS AT LEAST ONE VISITOR, WITH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS.

WE'RE ALSO SET TO TALK WITH THE NEW STATE SENATOR KIRK HATCHER OF MONTGOMERY ABOUT WINNING THE SEAT LAST WEEK AND GOING RIGHT TO WORK.

FOR ALL OF US AT CAPITOL JOURNAL, THANKS SO MUCH FOR WATCHING.

I'M DON DAILEY.