Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
04/11/2016 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB174 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 174-REG. OF FIREARMS/KNIVES BY UNIV. OF AK
12:05:02 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the only order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 174(FIN), "An Act relating to the
regulation of firearms and knives by the University of Alaska;
and providing for an effective date."
12:05:07 PM
SENATOR PETE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, explained the
intention behind the CS for SB 174(FIN), which is to address a
constitutional conflict between the University of Alaska (UA)
and the people of Alaska; and he pointed out that the university
is a subdivision of the state. In 2003 the ability for Alaskans
to carry a concealed weapon was adopted; however, the university
doesn't recognize that right and has implemented a policy
restricting that freedom. Red signs designating the university
as a gun-free zone are posted throughout the campus. These red
signs are what is relied upon to ensure campus safety, he said,
and conjectured on why this is not sufficient. The issue is
constitutional and the prohibition represents overreach on the
part of the university. He recalled the recent campus shootings
in San Bernardino, California, [12/2/15] and said that it was
the impetus to revisit the UA policy, along with other attacks
across the nation that have also occurred in locales designated
as gun-free zones. The state statute aligns with the Second
Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution], he underscored, which
doesn't allow the university to make a prohibition for bearing
of arms on campus.
12:14:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for justification of the $450,000
fiscal note.
SENATOR KELLY said it will be used primarily for a study to
include a security analysis, and for determining further safety
measures to supplant the ineffective red signs.
12:16:36 PM
JOE BYRNES, Staff, Senator Pete Kelly, Alaska State Legislature,
referred to the fiscal note to state that the figure is a
reduction from the initial $1.3 million fiscal note, based on
legislative models implemented in Idaho and Utah.
12:18:16 PM
MR. BYRNES provided the sectional analysis, of the CS for SB
174(FIN) paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1
It is the findings and intent of the legislature that
the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected
under Art. 1, Sec. 19 of the Alaska Constitution, that
the University Of Alaska Board Of Regents may not
abridge that right, and the legislature reserves to
the state the authority to regulate firearms.
Section 2
Amends AS 14.40 (The University of Alaska and the
Community Colleges statutes) affirming the authority
to regulate firearms and knives is reserved to the
state, the Board of Regents may not regulate firearms
and knives except
1. In a manner identical to state law
2. In student dormitories or other shared living
quarters
The Board of Regents may adopt and enforce policies
regulating the open carry of firearms, restricting the
discharge, and prohibiting the possession in
restricted access areas.
If the Board of Regents adopt regulation of the
carrying of handguns in dormitories, the policies must
require that the handgun is either carried on the
person or secured in an owner provided lockbox at all
times. Persons living in dormitories must declare to
the University their intention to keep a weapon in
their dormitory rooms. The University may privately
collect and store (for not more than a year) that
information. The University may use that information
when making housing decisions for students who
expressed they don't want to share a dormitory room
with a person who possesses a firearm.
The University is prohibited from creating a database
or registry of persons who possess firearms on campus,
requiring written permission before a person may
possess a firearm on campus, or adopt implied consent
policies regarding restricted possession on campus.
The University is immune from civil liability for
policies enforced under this section.
Section 3
The bill takes effect August 1, 2016
12:21:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether there are other public
spaces or public buildings where the state disallows public
carry of firearms.
MR. BYRNES said the state weapons misconduct statute stipulates
five prohibited spaces and the only public building where
firearms are not allowed are court houses.
12:21:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ questioned whether weapons are allowed
in the state Capitol building.
MR. BYRNES responded that adopted policy bans firearms in the
Capitol, but no law prohibits the presence of weapons. Anyone
found in possession of a firearm, while in the Capitol complex,
is in violation of policy but not law.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked how firearm storage will occur in
the residence halls.
MR. BYRNES answered that the bill defines metal lock boxes for
dormitories, and all campuses have centralized weapons storage
available.
12:24:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said having a weapon in the Capitol is a
violation of policy, and asked whether the university has a
similar policy; which this bill is seeking to override.
MR. BYRNES responded that if a person were to bring a weapon
onto a campus it would be similar to bringing one into the
Capitol, and violate an existing policy but not a specific law.
12:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked what are the five prohibited areas
named in the weapons misconduct statute.
MR. BYRNES answered: a bar, any K-12 institution or daycare
facility, domestic violence shelters, court houses, and inside
another person's home without their express consent.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired about bringing a firearm onto a
military base.
MR. BYRNES pointed out that all military bases are under the
purview of federal law.
12:29:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ noted the presence of childcare centers
that are on most campuses.
MR. BYRNES explained that the presence of children on campus is
similar to other areas where children frequent but which is an
area not considered specific to the care of those children.
However, a designated campus daycare facility would be a firearm
prohibited area, as specified under statute.
12:31:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked about the consequences for
improper handling of a firearm on campus, or for leaving it
unattended.
MR. BYRNES said that the expectation is for the university to
draft policy and regulation for campus protocol.
12:33:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ queried whether policy would include
provisions to allow for gun-free dormitories as a means for
catering to students who would prefer that type of arrangement.
MR. BYRNES explained that the students who desire to carry a
firearm would register/declare its presence to university
officials. If someone objects to sharing a space with someone
who maintains a weapon, alternate arrangements may be made;
however, the privacy of those who carry will be protected and
may not allow for segregation.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ expressed concern for a student not
necessarily knowing whether their assigned dormitory roommate is
in possession of a firearm.
12:35:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the CS page 2,
[lines 9 and] 10, which read as follows:
(c) The Board of Regents may adopt and enforce
policies
(1) regulating the carrying of openly carried
firearms;
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for the intent of this subsection
and paragraph and whether it is meant to allow concealed versus
openly carried firearms.
MR. BYRNES explained that the university may adopt and enforce
policies regulating the open carry of firearms, but may not
prohibit the action.
12:36:53 PM
CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony.
12:37:34 PM
MICHAEL HOSTINA, General Council, University of Alaska Fairbanks
(UAF), suggested unintended consequences that may result from SB
174 including the governance of long guns, as the bill only
appears to address handguns. He said thousands of students and
staff are on campus and some may have mental or other troubling
issues. In those specific situations, the Board of Regents
would like to be able to regulate firearms. The bill requires
the university to establish storage areas, which may prove
costly. The state has imposed regulation of firearms for
specific purposes, he noted, and added that the Board of Regents
would appreciate being able to review any amendments proposed.
12:43:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ directed attention to the CS, page 2,
lines [16]-20, which read as follows:
(3) prohibiting the possession of firearms or knives
in the restricted ... in university-designated rooms
during adjudication of staff or student disciplinary
issues and disputes;
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ pointed out that this language appears to
address some of Mr. Hostina's concerns.
12:44:57 PM
GEORGE PIERCE stated opposition to the CS for SB 174(FIN) and
said if guns aren't allowed in the Capitol why should young
people be allowed to carry on campus. The bill is backed by
members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) he
pointed out, and opined, it's trying to fix something that isn't
broken. The students and faculty members have stated
opposition, and he suggested the members listen to the
collective voices.
12:47:35 PM
MIKE COONS, stated support for the CS for SB 174(FIN),
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
I have testified in the Senate hearings for SB 174 and
have, like the Senators endured the fear, the flat out
lies of the anti-gun talking points as well as the
foreign students/facility and Alaskan facility that
threaten to leave if this passes. As Senator Kelly
said to the later, don't let the door hit them in the
… on the way out!
What really gets me, is the audacity that some preface
their testimony that they hunt, they own guns but they
oppose the armed citizen on campus because they don't
trust their fellow gun owners! They use the "I hunt,
or target shoot" as a ruse. The 2nd Amendment and
Article 1 section 19 is not about hunting, target
shooting or collecting, it about our fundamental
freedom against any form of tyrants, be that an out
of control government or a criminal bent on serious
harm or death to me or others.
Thus, any whom call in with this ruse, I am calling
out as a flat out liar or an elitist like Rosie
O'Donnell who thinks only they can own a firearm but
not the rest of us lowly peasants. What they don't
understand, nor will they admit is that we whom stand
for our God given rights as recognized by our founding
fathers, shall prevail!
12:49:11 PM
GREG STODDARD, stated support for the CS for SB 174(FIN),
stating that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and
Article 1, Section 19 of the state constitution are being
disregarded by the universities policy. He reported that he
works on campus and was ignored by the Board of Regents' policy
makers, when he approached them with questions regarding
firearms. He opined:
No law or policy prevents acts of terror by armed
aggressors. Current laws already provide the avenue
of accountability for those who would abuse the rights
of others. SB 174 provides for generous regulatory
policy making [in order] to address ... concerns.
12:51:15 PM
REGINA HOCK, Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF),
stated opposition to the CS for SB 174(FIN), and said campus
firearm regulations should reflect other restricted areas such
as courtrooms, K-12 schools, party conventions, military bases,
and the Capitol. The university is a place of learning and
exploring, which can lead to controversies and heated exchanges
as part of the learning process. These arguments need to be
conducted in a safe setting to allow for full expression, and
this bill, if passed, would remove that sense of safety.
Faculty members often cause major distress to students via
assignment of a low grade, failing a course, or termination of
status. In a large class it is not unusual for students to be
frustrated by the grades they receive, and in some cases
psychological and anger issues are evident. Further, students
may arrive in class while under the influence of alcohol or
drugs, or in an angry state of mind. She said she is dismayed
and scared by the possibility of such students bringing weapons
to her class or office; more frightened than for the possible
occurrence of a rare, mass shooting. An impulse reaction by a
student due to mental issues, alcohol, and anger is frightening.
Freedom of speech will be compromised if there is fear of
offending someone, and that fear will adversely affect the
climate of teaching and learning at the university. The vast
majority of faculty, college presidents, Board of Regents,
campus police, unions, and staff council do not want this bill.
She urged the committee to heed the majority voice of those who
will be directly affected, and not pass SB 174.
12:53:15 PM
SIMON FILHOL, Student, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF),
stated opposition to the CS for SB 174(FIN), and said the campus
is an open area for debate and discussion, where anyone's
beliefs and values can be expressed and challenged, as a
necessary part of the academic process. Allowing firearms
implies a hierarchy between those who carry guns and those who
don't; restricting some people's freedom to express their
opinion. He said that, as a student coming from out of state,
his decision to enroll would have been different had he known
firearms would be present in a classroom. Others may decide to
not attend, should this legislation prevail, he opined, and
urged members not to support SB 174.
12:54:57 PM
JEFFREY BENOWITZ, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF),
testified on the CS for SB 174(FIN), paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, and said:
Humans are really bad at risk assessment. They're
scared of sharks, lightening, and snakes, where bees
lead to far more death. Humans are also bad on safety
assessment. The UA regents has banned marijuana on
campus for safety reasons. The UA regents has banned
tobacco on campus for safety reasons. Almost all
sexual assaults on campus involve alcohol, yet the UA
regents allow alcohol on campus. ... I suggest an
amendment to SB 174 that bans the presence of alcohol
in campus buildings when guns are present. ...
Excess drinking and guns do not mix well. Please
amend SB 174 so that it bans the presence of alcohol
in campus buildings when guns are present. University
of Alaska students will make the right choice when
given the option: will choose firearm possession
which is a right, over alcohol which is a permission.
12:56:40 PM
ROSS MULLINS stated opposition to the CS for SB 174(FIN), and
said:
I have four children who have attended college, and if
I had known of a legal firearms carry on any college
campus they wished to attend, I would have prevented
that from happening. I think this bill is insanity
and I don't think your judgement on this is a
responsible one if this bill were to continue through
the process. I think Senator Kelly and his
ideological framework is flawed. The constitution,
which ... relegated firearms to armed militias, is not
being properly construed. If you see fit to keep
promoting this bill, I would be very distressed.
12:58:31 PM
CARL KANCIR stated support for the CS for SB 174(FIN), and said
the point of a concealed weapon is so that no one knows you are
carrying. Thus, a roommate would not know. However, if it is
required that someone register their concealed weapon on campus,
it changes the picture. He conjectured that a terrorist
planning to shoot-up the campus could access the registration
information and initially target anyone with a concealed weapon.
A nine shot revolver can be emptied in three seconds, and the
response time for campus police is between one and two minutes.
In 60-120 seconds, the number of shots that could be fired would
put many lives in jeopardy. I'm not in favor of anyone knowing
whether someone is carrying a concealed weapon or not. The
chances of someone responding with a firearm to a bad grade or
due to a disagreement is perhaps more rare than a terrorist
coming onto campus, he opined.
1:00:53 PM
CALLIE CONNERTON, Student Body President, University of Alaska
Southeast (UAS), stated opposition to the CS for SB 174(FIN),
paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
I am a student at the University of Alaska Southeast
and serve as the Student Government President here in
Juneau and as the Statewide Coalition of Student
Leaders Vice-Chair.
There are two big reasons that I'm here before you
opposing SB 174. First, a campus is no place for
guns, and second, contrary to what you've been told,
this bill does have fiscal impact and Alaska's
students can't afford it. Major stakeholders - from
students, the university president and Board of
Regents to school faculty - oppose this dangerous and
expensive legislation.
Let me explain why a Campus is no place for guns.
Colleges and universities are relatively safe from gun
violence - but campus life has other risk factors that
makes the presence of guns dangerous. What are those
risk factors?
- Alcohol and Drugs: Alcohol leads to impaired
judgment about whether to shoot a gun, as well as
impaired aim when firing. And a Columbia University
study found that half of U.S. college students binge
drink or abuse illegal or prescription drugs.
- Suicide: College students are at elevated risk of
firearm suicide: The firearm suicide rate of 18 to 21
year-olds is nine times higher than the firearm
suicide rate of people 17 and under. And suicide
attempts with guns are far more successful than other
suicide attempts. Here in Alaska, we have huge
problems with Seasonal Affective Disorder, which also
leads to depression in our students.
- Gun Homicide: People age 18-20 represent 4.4
percent of the total U.S. population but commit 17
percent of all gun homicides.
- Some students might be responsible gun owners,
however, there are often situations where they are in
close proximity with students who don't know have
knowledge of responsible gun handling or think of guns
as a toy. We don't want students to have easy access
to a gun if they will not be responsible.
- There is also no concealed carried permit that is
required in this bill, with would allow someone to be
able to carry without proper knowledge as long as they
have not done anything in the past warranting them to
no pass a background check.
My final point is that students will end up paying for
guns on campus and with the budget crunch we're under,
it's irresponsible to pass a bill that will cost
students money.
When the gun lobby went to Idaho and told them to pass
a guns on campus bill they said it wouldn't cost
anything, but they were wrong. It cost 3.7 million
dollars. I have the article right here and I'm happy
to give you copies. Not only did it cost 3.7 million
dollars for their few colleges and universities to
comply, but it was paid for on the backs of students
because the state was in the middle of a budget crunch
and they wouldn't allocate money to the increased
security costs. I can't afford to pay for this
legislation and neither can my fellow students.
I respectfully ask you to vote no on SB 174.
1:03:40 PM
LORA VESS, PhD, Professor, University of Alaska Southeast (UAS),
stated opposition to the CS for SB 174(FIN), paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am a resident of Juneau. I am also an Assistant
Professor of Sociology at the University of Alaska
Southeast. I am a faculty member strongly opposed to
Senate Bill 174. I submit this as a reflection of my
personal values and experiences rather than as a
representative of UAS, but I know that many faculty,
staff, and students share this position.
First, this is an unfunded mandate in a time of
budgetary shortfalls. According to the Idaho
Statesman, Idaho is looking at an additional cost of
$3.7 million for required metal detectors, employee
training, and additional staff for five campuses after
its campus carry law went into effect. The Houston
Chronicle reported that the Texas law is estimated to
cost up to $47 million over six years for the
University of Houston and University of Texas systems
to update security, build gun lockers, and prepare
campus police.
On a personal level, I am not anti-gun ownership or
use. I grew up in a small Virginia community and
recognize their value for hunting and protection. I
attended Virginia Tech for my undergraduate degree. I
had friends and former professors who were on campus
the day of the shootings and I worried anxiously until
news of their safety emerged. I was also a resident
advisor while at Virginia Tech and I lived and worked
in West Ambler Johnston, in the actual dorm room where
two people were killed. I have also been mugged,
unarmed, at gunpoint. However, even in light of these
experiences, I strongly believe that institutions of
higher education are not the appropriate setting to
wage a battle over rights to possess firearms. Many of
my students are struggling to find their adult
identity and develop a sense of self. This does not
need to be complicated by adding another potentially
explosive variable into their transition from
adolescence to adulthood.
As a professor, I care deeply about my students and
creating and protecting a safe learning environment.
On the best of days on campus, my students are
engaged, invigorated, and a joy to be around. However,
they don't always have the best of days. Some of them
are coping with depression, anxiety, and drug and
alcohol problems. The National Institute of Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism reports that about 4 out of 5
college students drink alcohol, with about half of
those engaging in binge drinking. On Thursday,
February 18th, I provided oral testimony during the
Senate Education Committee public hearing in
opposition to Senate Bill 174. Almost every person
providing testimony in opposition to SB 174 at the
hearing referenced their grave concerns regarding the
emotional and mental health of Alaskan university
students and the correlated increase in risks were
firearms to become more readily accessible. Some of
those supporting the bill expressed the opinion that
college students are adults and should be treated as
such. However, the brains of adolescents are still
developing (and continue to do so through one's early-
to-mid-twenties). Many adolescents and young adults do
not have the emotional maturity and psychological
development needed for responsible firearm use,
especially in high-density settings. Young adults have
high rates of depression and anxiety. Certain mental
health problems - such as schizophrenia or bi-polar
disorder - have early adult-onset and may emerge
during the college years. As you are certainly aware,
Alaska suicide rates are among the highest in the
nation with suicide as the second leading cause of
death for U.S. college students. Greater access to
firearms will likely increase that rate and certainly
not diminish it.
At the hearing, several citizens and committee members
expressed concern about sexual assault and rape on
campus. The Committee is right to be concerned: 1 in 5
women (and 1 in 16 men) are targets of attempted or
completed sexual assault while they are college
students. However, the vast majority of assaults are
not taking place in dark corridors or in parking lots
leaving night class. In 90 percent of reported cases,
the victim knew her or his attacker. Moreover, 89
percent of assaults occur when the survivor is
incapacitated due to alcohol. We have a serious
problem with sexual assault and intimate partner
violence in Alaska, but our solutions lie with greater
education, respect for women, and preventative
measures. Arming women on campus will not protect them
from sexual violence, especially when it is equally
likely that their assailants may be armed.
My concern is that the legislative response with this
bill is not reflective of any systematic understanding
of the roots of violence on university campuses.
Instead, I am concerned that this bill is
ideologically driven with a narrow conceptualization
of freedom and liberty that has nothing to do the
operations and needs of Alaska's universities, or of
the safety of the thousands of students, faculty,
staff, visitors, and minors who are on Alaskan
campuses on any given day.
Supporters create hypothetical scenarios where an
armed vigilante emerges as victorious in the face of
danger, but they refuse to consider non-storybook
endings to that fictional scenario. Even for those
experienced gun owners, what experience do they have
with mental illness, what knowledge do they have of
campus security or the university of environment, what
skill do they have in aiming for a gunmen in a
classroom of chaos or cafeteria full of visiting,
confused, and screaming school children? How will they
respond to partiers fueled with alcohol acting in
unpredictable ways with their own guns in hand? This
bill presumes that those with concealed carry permits
are trained and psychologically able to respond to
active shooters in a calm, safe manner. If an active
shooter situation arises on campus, I trust the police
to respond to the situation. I am greatly concerned
that with more firearms on campus, injuries and
causality rates could quickly escalate as innocent
people are caught in the crossfire.
This bill introduces unknown dangers to university
staff and faculty (risks, I might add that legislators
are protected from). Professors regularly teach
difficult and sensitive topics that some students find
challenging and are not always able to process in a
calm manner. It is the job of a professor to evaluate
students and this places them in a vulnerable
position. I cannot think of a day where I did not
cover a sensitive or controversial topic in the class.
As a sociologist, I teach about and encourage critical
thinking related to human behavior and society. In
this role, my students learn about sexual harassment
and violence. In my classrooms, I regularly
"discipline" my students for a range of activities-
from talking while others are speaking to playing on
their phones. While I am not a therapist, I counsel
students on practical educational advice such as
developing good study habits and applying to graduate
school applications-to more personal matters, such as
coping with loss or experiences with sexism.
Certain members of the legislature seems to think
there is no reason that universities should have the
right to restrict or deny concealed carry on campuses.
I find that absolutely baffling given the unique
cultural and educational climate of the UA system as
described in the breadth of testimony from those of us
who work, teach, learn, and visit University of Alaska
campuses on a regular basis.
I strongly urge the legislature to reject SB 174.
1:06:09 PM
ARLENE RONDA stated opposition to the CS for SB 174(FIN), and
stressed the importance for the committee to vote no on this
bill. The trained security personnel should be the only ones
authorized to have guns on campus, she opined.
1:06:51 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Liaison, National Rifle Association (NRA), stated
support for the CS for SB 174(FIN), and said self-defense is a
fundamental right. The bill will erase the arbitrary lines that
currently prohibit a person from choosing a means of self-
protection, and end gun-free zones on Alaska's campuses. Gun-
free school zones have proven to be a public policy failure, if
not a public policy disaster, he opined. Mass killings occur in
designated gun-free zones, which are only respected by law
abiding citizens. A gun-free zone creates an area where only
the potential victims are gun-free. Eight states currently
allow guns as a means of self-protection on college campuses and
the catastrophic predictions have not come to fruition. The
concern for concealed guns is an irrational fear that some
people hold, and they would like to suppress the ability of
others to make the choice to carry a firearm. The bill
restricts open carry, and the age in Alaska to carry a concealed
firearm is 21. Thus, the dorm issue is irrelevant as few over
the age of 21 live in dormitories. The bill also restricts guns
from specific campus areas of concern, as previously cited. The
financial issues are overblown, he opined, and denied that the
students in Idaho footed the bill. Finally, he said, consider
the financial impact if a tragedy were to occur on a UA campus.
After the [Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia; shooting on April 16, 2007] tragedy, the
university was found liable and ordered to pay $11 million in
victim restitution.
1:11:14 PM
RUSSELL KELL testified on the CS for SB 174(FIN), noting that no
law prohibits the carrying of concealed handguns at UA, however,
the campus policy imposes that restriction; a lesson to students
that it's alright to ignore constitutional rights. People may
not feel safe, but the question is whether or not they are
actually safe, he opined. Finally, he suggested that UA
admissions could provide more scrutiny of who is being admitted.
1:12:42 PM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
1:12:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked what impact the law might have on
the university risk management insurance rates.
MR. JUDY deferred.
1:14:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cited his longtime membership in the
National Rifle Association (NRA), as well as being a legislative
yes vote on the statute enacting concealed carry without a
permit. However, he opined, the Board of Regents' ability to
set campus policy should be respected, and said he could not
support the bill.
1:15:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report the committee (CS) for SB
174(FIN), Version 29-LS1306\G, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
1:16:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected for discussion, and asked
whether the fiscal note would require adoption.
CHAIR KELLER said the fiscal note will be attached with passage
of the bill.
1:17:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the university requested a bill
version that would require the issuance of permits to students
carrying firearms on campus, which would insure appropriate
training was in place, and make this legislation supportable.
1:18:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND maintained her objection.
1:18:50 PM
CHAIR KELLER called for a vote, but upon determining there was
further committee comment, ruled the vote as void.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ expressed an inability to vote yea or
nay, due to the lack of a response to her previously stated
question, which could represent a determining factor.
CHAIR KELLER called for a vote.
1:19:55 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Keller, Talerico,
Vazquez and Colver voted in favor of reporting the CS for SB
174(FIN) from committee. Representatives Seaton, Drummond, and
Spohnholz voted against it. Therefore, CSSB 174(FIN) was
reported out of the House Education Standing Committee by a vote
of 4-3.