Summary — HB 1947
Note on source materials and jurisdiction
- The materials provided for “HB 1947” are inconsistent: the bill header references establishing a “Missouri Gaming Bureau,” but the substantive text is an Arkansas amendment to the drug‑paraphernalia statute (Ark. Code § 5‑64‑443(a)). An unrelated Illinois appropriation text (a $2 FY26 appropriation) also appears. The procedural history likewise mixes entries from multiple jurisdictions.
- This summary focuses on the substantive statute text included in the packet (the Arkansas amendment to possession of drug paraphernalia). If you intended the Missouri or Illinois bill, please provide the correct text or jurisdiction so I can summarize that instead.
Purpose and intent
- The Arkansas statutory amendment seeks to revise penalties for the offense of possessing drug paraphernalia. The primary intent is to create tiered, escalating penalties for repeat offenses and to impose enhanced penalties tied to certain controlled substances (methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, cocaine).
Key provisions (as reflected in the supplied Arkansas text)
- Amends Arkansas Code § 5‑64‑443(a) (possession of drug paraphernalia).
- General rule: A person who possesses drug paraphernalia with intent to use it to introduce a controlled substance into the body, or to store/contain/weigh/conceal a controlled substance, is subject to criminal penalties upon conviction.
- Tiered penalty structure by offense count (within a 10‑year lookback period):
- First offense: unclassified misdemeanor — imprisonment 24 hours to 1 year; fine $150 to $1,000.
- Second offense (within 10 years): unclassified misdemeanor — imprisonment 7 days to 1 year; fine $400 to $3,000.
- Third offense (within 10 years): unclassified misdemeanor — imprisonment 90 days to 1 year; fine $900 to $5,000.
- Fourth or subsequent offense (within 10 years): unclassified felony — imprisonment 1 to 6 years; fine $900 to $5,000.
- Enhanced treatment for certain substances: The text indicates special consideration when the controlled substance involved is methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, or cocaine (the draft language is partial/fragmented). It appears the bill aims to treat paraphernalia connected to those substances more severely and to tie felony exposure to prior convictions; the provided draft is not fully coherent on the exact triggering elements for a Class D felony.
Who would be affected
- Individuals possessing drug paraphernalia in Arkansas — especially repeat offenders and those whose paraphernalia is associated with methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, or cocaine.
- Law enforcement and prosecutors — additional tracking of prior paraphernalia convictions within a 10‑year window and seeking enhanced charges for repeat offenders.
- Courts and corrections — potential increase in misdemeanor jail time and felony convictions leading to longer prison terms for repeat offenders.
- Defense and public‑defender resources could be affected if caseloads or severity increase.
Procedural / timeline notes (from supplied materials)
- Jurisdiction and procedural entries are mixed. Items included: prefiled Jan 17, 2025; multiple readings and committee referrals; an entry stating the bill “Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment” (2025‑05‑05). Other entries appear to reflect different bills in other states (Illinois and Illinois sponsor listings).
- Because of conflicting procedural entries, the actual current status is unclear. Verify the bill number and state to determine the accurate legislative history.
Practical impact and considerations
- If enacted as drafted, the bill would substantially raise penalties for repeat possession of paraphernalia and could result in felony convictions for recidivists, increasing incarceration and fines.
- The statute relies on prior conviction records within a 10‑year window; implementation would require reliable record checks and prosecutorial charging decisions.
- The draft language around certain substances is incomplete/ambiguous in the materials provided; that ambiguity would need resolving to understand felony‑enhancement triggers.
Recommendation
- Confirm the intended jurisdiction (Arkansas vs. Missouri vs. Illinois) and provide the complete, official bill text for the correct HB 1947. With a clean version, I can produce a definitive summary and a clause‑by‑clause impact analysis.
