Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/16/2003 08:15 AM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 102 - CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS LEGAL Number 2179 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons." Number 2164 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that HB 102 would change the concealed carry law to adopt the Vermont style of concealed carry law, which generally repeals the criminal prohibitions. He pointed out that the committee packet should include a document entitled, "How HB 102 Will Affect Alaska's Concealed Carry Laws," which compares the differences between current Alaska law and Alaska law as amended under proposed HB 102. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT informed the committee that as he and Representative Stoltze wrestled with the issues surrounding reciprocity, the more frustrating and unnecessary Alaska's permitting law seemed. Under the current law, a fisherman who carries a large knife under his/her coat when in town would be carrying a concealed deadly weapon, which is illegal. However, the law includes an exception when one is engaged in recreational activities and thus it would be acceptable for a fisherman to carry a concealed knife on his/her boat. Under current law, permit holders of a concealed deadly weapon have the obligation, when stopped by an officer, to inform the officer that he/she is carrying a concealed weapon. If the office so desires, the permit holder has the obligation to allow that officer to secure the weapon during the conversation. However, the obligation to inform and hand over the concealed weapon is placed only on permit holders. Therefore, if one is out hunting and stopped by an officer, that individual technically has no obligation to inform the officer of [the concealed weapon]. There is a similar exemption if one is on his/her own property. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT directed attention to page 2 of the document entitled, "How HB 102 Will Affect Alaska's Concealed Carry Laws" in which the following question is posed: "Can I legally carry a sheath knife under my coat?" Under current law, one wouldn't be able to carry a sheath knife under his/her coat, whereas under HB 102, one would be able to carry a sheath knife in such a manner. Moreover, under the current law, those carrying a sheath knife wouldn't be legally obligated to inform police officers, but under HB 102, they would be required to inform police officers that they are carrying a concealed weapon. This situation, he said, led him to want to place the constitutional right to carry [a concealed weapon] in a more rational system. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT emphasized that great care has been taken in an attempt to not change the underlying gun law at all. Therefore, HB 102 doesn't make it legal to carry a gun anywhere in which doing so is currently prohibited. The legislation simply erases the distinction between having a permit and not having a permit. CHAIR McGUIRE offered that if something is legalized, it can then be regulated. She surmised that those committing heinous crimes with guns are doing so with guns that aren't registered. Therefore, any restriction placed on individuals who have decided to register could be categorized as onerous. Number 1850 BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle Association of America (NRA), began by noting support for HB 102. He said that law-abiding citizens shouldn't have to obtain permission to provide a means of self- protection. Article I, Section 19, of the Alaska State Constitution provides for the individual's right to keep and bear arms. However, Alaska's current concealed weapon permit law essentially places a price on Alaskans' right to keep and bear arms and their natural right to provide a means of self- protection. MR. JUDY noted that currently, Alaskans don't need to obtain permission to carry arms either loaded or unloaded openly, or concealed when engaged in lawful outdoor activities. If an Alaskan covers the firearm or isn't dressed in a manner that is compatible with open carry or the individual is engaged in any other activity other than a lawful outdoor activity, then one must obtain a concealed weapon permit. He said that it really makes no sense to have to pay a fee, deal with the bureaucracy, be fingerprinted, get the permission of the government, and be included on a list of law-abiding gun owners simply to dress in a certain manner or to carry in a manner different than when carrying openly. MR. JUDY returned to the notion that [HB 102 proposes] a Vermont style of carrying. Currently, Vermont is the only state that doesn't require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Vermont's crime rate is extraordinarily low and ranks either 48th or 49th in all categories of violent crime. The same situation exists in Montana where one only needs a permit to carry if carrying within city limits. Therefore, in 99.8 percent of the state one doesn't need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Again, Montana is much like Vermont with regard to the lack of incidents of misadventure in the areas outside the city limits. Therefore, he opined, the states with this type of law are working. Also, as pointed out earlier, law-abiding citizens in Alaska are the only ones obtaining permits. Allowing these folks to carry without a permit isn't going to change the fact that these individuals are law-abiding. Criminals currently carry concealed firearms without permits and will continue to do so. Number 1729 MR. JUDY predicted that the opposition to HB 102 would fall into two general categories. First, there would be individuals who are concerned that allowing people to carry without obtaining a permit will generate problems. This argument was voiced back in 1994 when the original concealed permit law was considered. He asserted that an analysis of Alaskan crime statistics illustrates that violent crime was increasing in the early '90s, but the year after Alaska's concealed weapon permit was adopted, violent crime decreased and has continued to do so since. Therefore, he opined, this proposed legislation would continue the trend of decreasing violent crime. MR. JUDY said that the other general concern is with regard to training. Under existing law an applicant has to go through a mandatory training course. He reiterated that it makes no sense to restrict this one method of carrying a weapon because any law-abiding citizen can carry openly, loaded or unloaded, anywhere in the state without going through training. He pointed out that of the 43 states that issue permits to law- abiding citizens, there are a wide range of requirements in the area of training. For example, Washington has no training requirement. He asserted that the empirical evidence from all of the states that [issue permits] illustrates the same thing: law-abiding citizens who are carrying firearms, regardless of their level of training, aren't causing problems. He relayed, however, that although the NRA supports training, the NRA believes that it shouldn't be required. He concluded by asking for the committee's support of HB 102. CHAIR McGUIRE asked why [the NRA doesn't support] a training requirement, which would result in having better trained gun owners. MR. JUDY, in response, simply reiterated that the NRA believes that the training for firearm owners should be voluntary, and that there is a broad array of training requirements among the states. Concealed weapon permit holders are operating as safely and responsibly in the states requiring no training as in those states requiring extensive training, he posited, again asseting that empirical evidence shows that law-abiding firearm owners take responsible steps. Number 1521 CHAIR McGUIRE said that she didn't disagree with all of Mr. Judy's comments, although lawmakers do place requirements in statute to ask people to act smarter than they might otherwise act. Such is done in a lot of other areas. She remarked that one might say that [training] laws are written for the minority who aren't smart enough or aware enough to voluntarily obtain training. She raised the issue of Vermont's crime rate. MR. JUDY said that it varies. For total violent crime, Vermont ranks 49th out of the 50 states. However, the District of Columbia, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, ranks number 1 in violent crime. Vermont ranks 48th in murders, 47th in robbery, and 48th in aggravated assault. Alaska falls in the middle to the low end. Mr. Judy highlighted that Vermont, from which Alaska is modeling its legislation, isn't experiencing any crime problem in relation to firearms or otherwise. Therefore, he suggested, Alaska's experience would be similar to that of Vermont if [HB 102 were implemented]. CHAIR McGUIRE offered her belief that Mr. Judy is saying that concern [with regard to weapon permits] is merely a perception. She pondered whether a law on the books actually has any impact as far as behavior is concerned. She also pondered whether the passage of HB 102 would send the message that everyone can carry the weapon of their choice or, instead, will people take it to mean that the same laws in existence now would continue with the exception that obtaining a permit through the government wouldn't be required. CHAIR MCGUIRE relayed her belief that [requiring permits] doesn't addresses folks who follow rules. She questioned what impact this legislation would have on [those who aren't informed or don't follow the rules]. And although crime statistics are important, she said, she believes it's dangerous to make assumptions that Alaskan citizens are like Vermont citizens and that concealed carry permit requirements have anything to do with a state's rate of crime. She informed the committee that she has long been a proponent of concealed carry [laws] and she supports Representative Stoltze's legislation; however, HB 102 is a major difference. Number 1207 MR. JUDY commented that laws are passed and those who tend to comply with laws are the law-abiding citizens. He echoed his earlier statement that law-abiding citizens follow the law and obtain permits, while criminals ignore the law and carry [concealed weapons] without permits. Mr. Judy said that he didn't believe that with [passage of HB 102], more people would carry [concealed weapons]. Based on an individual's circumstances, people determine whether it's necessary for them to carry firearms. With passage of HB 102, he predicted that the only change will be that those who wish to carry won't have to pay a large fee and go through the bureaucracy to exercise that right. Furthermore, he predicted, the "bad guys" are still going to be carrying. Moreover, HB 102 doesn't change the underlying law in that one must still be 21 to carry a concealed weapon and one can't carry in areas where it's currently illegal to do so. Therefore, HB 102 simply removes the [bureaucratic] burden from those law-abiding citizens, he opined. CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to why the concept in HB 102 isn't applied to driver's licenses as well. She inquired as to why the government tests drivers and issues a card that has now evolved into more of an identification card. MR. JUDY answered that keeping and bearing arms is a right, and defending one's self is a natural right, whereas driving a car is a privilege. Furthermore, every time one gets inside a car and turns the key, that individual is operating the vehicle. However, probably 99.9 percent of the time when one exercises his/her fundamental right to keep and bear arms and one's natural right to defend himself or herself, that firearm won't have to be used even though it's being worn. Mr. Judy said that the mere fact that criminals know law-abiding citizens have firearms and have the ability to defend themselves would deter crime. There is a major difference between driving and using a firearm for self-defense, he opined. CHAIR McGUIRE turned to the area of vocational rights and background checks. She said that she continues to come up against the notion that those who have committed a felony and aren't 21 years of age should know that they can't carry a weapon. However, she pointed out, there are a number of felons who should know that they shouldn't be operating a state- licensed childcare facility, for example, but they still come in and swear that they aren't a felon when in fact they are. More specifically, those who commit a felony in the areas of child abuse or molestation certainly can't be a childcare provider, so why do these individuals apply [to be childcare providers], she asked. The same situation applies for concealed weapons as well, she opined Number 0873 MR. JUDY offered his belief that right know, there are about 17,000-18,000 permit holders and the number of denials is remarkably low, with only about 17 permits denied each year. He said that he didn't believe that there is a tremendous number of convicted felons who are trying to obtain permits. He pointed out that under state law, a convicted felon is prohibited from owning and possessing a firearm. Therefore, a convicted felon can't even take the first step to carry a firearm, either openly or concealed. Mr. Judy said that he didn't see the [childcare worker] analogy as pertinent nor did he believe there would be a problem should HB 102 become law. CHAIR McGUIRE explained that her line of questioning was meant to point out that there is a role for the government, although determining that role is often very difficult. She stated: We could just set up a stack of statutes and say, "Here's the rules folks," ... and everybody just ought to know it. "Let's not even put in artificial permits and licenses and background things ..., you should just know it." And yet we don't do that. We don't do it for a reason. CHAIR McGUIRE relayed her belief that there is a precedent, in certain areas, for requiring the government to come in and send a message. She emphasized her belief that it's a constitutional right [to carry and bear arms], but noted that she also believes there is a place for governmental guidelines regarding this issue. Number 0634 REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he, too, was on the fence with this legislation. He remarked that the statistics would be more persuasive to him if they showed him that after the changes in the laws in Washington, D.C., and Vermont, that those changes caused the state to either become a more a dangerous place or a safer place. He surmised that Washington, D.C., was a dangerous place before and thus it developed a very restrictive gun ownership role. He also surmised that Vermont has historically been a very safe place and thus it developed a very unrestrictive gun role. Representative Gara opined that the aforementioned probably explains the statistics, rather than the laws themselves making the areas safer or more dangerous. REPRESENTATIVE GARA turned to Chair McGuire's point and agreed that if [currently law] merely regulated good NRA members, then it wouldn't be necessary. The question is what to do about those folks who aren't that bright and who just don't think things through. He asked, "Are we going to start missing people who would otherwise not think about taking a gun safety course or [who would] not be responsible enough to take a gun safety course?" MR. JUDY reiterated his earlier opinion that there is no difference between states with no training requirement [and those with a training requirement]. For example, Washington has approximately 250,000 licensed permit holders who haven't been required to take a safety course, and there is no problem with permit holders in Washington. With regard to whether the laws of Vermont and Washington, D.C., have an impact on the crime rates, Mr. Judy said he thought Representative Gara raises a good point. He acknowledged that there are probably a lot of demographic differences between Vermont and Washington, D.C., which probably impact the crime rate. MR. JUDY reiterated his assertion that in the early '90s, Alaska's violent crime rate was on a steep increase and the year after the concealed weapon permit law took affect, the [rate of violent crimes] made a steep decrease. When law-abiding citizens had a means of protection, crime dropped, he opined, adding that he believes such will continue with the passage of HB 102. REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to the document entitled, "How HB 120 Will Affect Alaska's Concealed Carry Laws". He referred to the question pertaining to whether an individual could carry a sheath knife under his/her coat under current law versus HB 102. He inquired as to the circumstances under which a sheath knife could be carried under HB 102 but not under existing law. Number 0266 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that AS 11.61.220 generally says that people are prohibited from carrying a concealed deadly weapon. The definition of a deadly weapon includes what one would expect, but excludes an ordinary pocketknife or defense weapon such as mace. Therefore, a knife that couldn't be characterized as an ordinary pocketknife would be a deadly weapon and couldn't be carried concealed anywhere. In further response, Representative Croft explained that [under HB 102, a sheath knife] would generally be allowed, and any place in which it is currently illegal to have a deadly weapon at all, remains so. Representative Croft specified that [HB 102] isn't changing the entire gun or deadly weapon law, rather the distinction for carrying concealed is being eliminated. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT turned to the driver's license analogy and said that [the legislature] has chosen two different paths on guns versus driving. With regard to driving, it's being done all the time and thus a certain proficiency is required. With gun ownership, there are a lot of disqualifications and that isn't changed by HB 102. Therefore, by federal law, one can't possess a firearm, concealed or openly, if that individual has been convicted of a [felony] crime, is a fugitive from justice, or is a user of a controlled substance. When one obtains a driver's license, that individual isn't asked whether he/she is a user of a controlled substance or has been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces. Therefore, there is the desire to know whether someone is allowed to carry a gun and certain categories of people are prevented from doing so. "The qualification for continuing to exercise your right is the way we view it," he said. TAPE 03-41, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR McGUIRE interjected to say that she was sure that Representative Croft didn't mean to say that the one or two minutes one is firing a gun is any less important than the time spent driving a car everyday. In those few minutes in which an individual is in a situation of defending oneself or using a firearm it's imperative and just as important to know what one is doing. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that he has a concealed carry permit and the level of accuracy required isn't very high. Of Alaska's 18,000 [concealed carry permits], only about 17 are revoked. He said that it's not so much shooting like in the movies as it is the judgment about when to shoot. Again, it returns to the fundamental distinction of trusting people with the right [to carry a concealed weapon] and continuing to disqualify those who have proven that they can't "handle it" through the prohibitions on possession. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he wasn't making a causative argument between concealed carry laws, HB 102, and crime rates. However, if Vermont can [do this], Alaska can as well, particularly when one views Alaska's geographic situation of Canada on one side and water on the other. In such a geographic situation, Representative Croft predicted that there will be a lot less difficulty in Alaska with people driving through the state. Representative Croft said this is a matter of whether one believes there should continue to be a dramatic distinction between openly carried weapons or concealed weapons. If one thought that Alaskans should have a permit before carrying at all, then [HB 102] would be a major change in [his] view. Number 0316 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt CSHB 102, 23-LS0515\I, Luckhaupt, 4/2/03, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version I was before the committee. CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to Representative Gruenberg, confirmed that Version I was the version that passed out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee. [The House State Affairs Standing Committee inadvertently reported out Version D, however, although the committee intended to report out Version I. Subsequently, the House State Affairs Standing Committee reported out a corrected CS, Version I, on 4/22/03.] REPRESENTATIVE HOLM directed attention to page 1, proposed AS 11.61.220(a)(1)(B). This provision requires that a person has to request permission of the resident to bring a concealed weapon into the residence. Therefore, Representative Holm surmised, residency supercedes the right to protect one's self. If one has the right to protect himself/herself, then why, he asked, would one have to request permission of anyone who happens to be a resident of an apartment. Representative Holm posed a situation in which a father wants to access the property because his children live there with his ex-wife. In such a situation, Representative Holm inquired as to when an individual loses his right to protect himself, under the guise of having to request permission to express his right. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered that subparagraph (B) on page 1 was included because it's a current restriction on permit holders. Therefore, this legislation doesn't change any of the substantive requirements on what people with concealed carry [permits] have to do or not do. Whether or not to keep this language is up to the committee, he said. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM suggested that current law refers to the owner of the property, while [Version I] refers to a resident of the property. Representative Holm relayed that it has been proposed to him that a right is something that no one can take away while a privilege is something that someone gives. Therefore, the right to protect oneself is different than the right to pack a gun. "So, if you have a right to protect yourself, that's different than a right to pack a gun, and so they aren't exactly rights; you have a right to protect yourself, but you don't have a right to have a gun on yourself in certain circumstances," he stressed. CHAIR McGUIRE asked why the change from owner to resident was made. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that it wasn't an intentional distinction. He noted that he wanted to mirror the current law as much as possible. Number 0690 The committee took an at-ease from 10:05 a.m. to 10:07 a.m. CHAIR McGUIRE relayed that during the brief at-ease Representative Croft confirmed that the language mirrors what is currently in law. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM pondered when the right is changed from the person's right [to carry a concealed weapon], to the resident's right of self-protection. He inquired as to how this provision is enforced. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that permit holders look for buildings that are posted, but also know, as a general requirement, that in places where people live, permit holders have an additional obligation to inform the resident that they are carrying [a concealed weapon]. Representative Croft relayed that the idea is that [a permit holder should inform] the person who lives in the residence, not the person with technical title of ownership. This was a tremendous issue for the domestic violence community and some Senators during the original concealed carry legislation. CHAIR McGUIRE, after noting that HB 102 would be held over to Wednesday, April 23, 2003, explained that she is trying to say that if the notion that [the right to bear arms] is a constitutional right and those who commit crimes aren't law- abiding citizens, then why place this false construct between concealed carry and open carry and why include exceptions. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that current restrictions pertain to possession, and therefore [HB 102] only eliminates the distinction between concealed carry and open carry. However, there has been the restriction that one can't carry concealed or open in certain areas, such as a federal building. Representative Croft said that he believes eliminating the distinction is important, although specifying which people shouldn't have guns and which places individuals shouldn't be able to carry guns, concealed or not, continues to make sense. Number 0977 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS interjected to say that the true test is with regard to when to use the weapon. [HB 102 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|