Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/23/2003 01:10 PM 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 0059 CHAIR MCGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons." [In packets was CSHB 102(STA), Version 23-LS0515\Q, the corrected version of what was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.] Number 0123 MAE ALICE HOPKINS testified on her own behalf. She expressed concern about the portion of HB 102 that was described by Representative Croft as relating to Vermont's laws and that allows a person who meets current requirements for a concealed- weapon permit to carry a concealed weapon without the permit. She asked about the process for determining that the person actually meets the current requirements. For example, will it be done by a registration of an intent to carry [a concealed weapon]? Or will it come up when the person carrying a weapon is approached by a law enforcement official? She further asked whether this portion of the bill increases responsibility for law enforcement, whether law enforcement [agencies and personnel] would have access to the names of those who carry concealed weapons without a permit, or whether it will be assumed that anyone may be carrying a concealed weapon. MS. HOPKINS told members that as a permit holder, she knows the importance of citizens' knowledge of the laws for concealed carrying of a deadly weapon, including restrictions. Most important, however, is knowledge and skill to handle the firearm. She asked who will check to ensure that carriers of firearms have a good understanding of the laws and know their firearms. Emphasizing that it is a community concern, Ms. Hopkins said she didn't see it addressed in the bill. Number 0284 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 102, replied that there would be no list kept by government. He added: I'm a permit holder as well. I thought much of the information was useful. But right now somebody does not have to take any test, and the government keeps no list of people who own guns. ... The distinction that we're addressing here is between ... "concealed" or not. And no, ... I wouldn't be in favor of the government having that list, necessarily. We do think that in a number of areas we've helped law enforcement by extending more broadly the requirement that you tell [law enforcement about a concealed weapon]. ... The express reason for the bill, really, is to not have some of these requirements. MS. HOPKINS observed that people may be overconfident and mistakenly believe they understand what is needed for them to carry [a concealed weapon], as well as everything there is to know about the firearm. Number 0459 JOHN L. SMALLWOOD testified on his own behalf, noting that he also is a permit holder. He offered his understanding that laws currently in effect protect most citizens, and that a person isn't allowed to have a firearm in possession at home or elsewhere unless "qualified and not prohibited by federal or state law." Referring to an "instant-check" system in place for police officers relating to people who already have permits, he suggested it might be a good idea with respect to safety. Doing away with the permitting system as Vermont has done would be within the constitution, he said, but some people might think it isn't good enough. He referred to a bill passed by Senator Robin Taylor the previous year with regard to reciprocity with other states. MR. SMALLWOOD indicated training is his only concern about the bill. He said he likes the idea, if a person is going to carry a concealed weapon and be among fellow citizens, that some kind of training be required, as well as good knowledge of laws on concealed weapons and self-defense. He also expressed concern about allowing people who don't have training to come into the state [with a concealed weapon]. As for the permit, however, Mr. Smallwood said he didn't care one way or the other, since he believes Alaska's constitution includes the "right to carry a concealed weapon for legitimate purposes." REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Brian Judy, who'd testified at the previous hearing, to state the most significant parts of current handgun-training courses that wouldn't be required if this bill passes, especially safety aspects. He said the big concern is that some segment of the population that currently is required to take safety courses won't take them; he recalled debate about how many people wouldn't do so. Number 0738 BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle Association of America (NRA), replied that he and the NRA assert that the training courses really don't add much to the "safety situation" in Alaska. He said empirical evidence from many states, whether they have no training requirements or significant ones, is the same: that there aren't any training-related problems. He observed that in Alaska, a person doesn't need a permit or training to carry a weapon openly; however, someone who dons a coat to cover a firearm must take the training and "go through all the other bureaucratic hoops." He suggested that there is no problem in Alaska with people "carrying" openly or carrying concealed while engaged in an outdoor activity, which is another exemption from the permitting requirement. He concluded that nothing indicates a problem now with people who don't go through a mandatory training course, and said he doesn't think that would change. MR. JUDY, in further response to Representative Gara, offered his belief that the existing courses go over state laws and handling of firearms, including loading and unloading. Under existing law, there also is a competency requirement that he characterized as fairly minimal. Number 0910 ROD CHRISTOPHER, Owner, Peninsula Weapons Academy, informed members that Peninsula Weapons Academy is a firearms school in Soldotna. A weapons inspector for more than 20 years, he reported that he has done inspections for law enforcement, the military, and the private sector. People come into his CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] classes who never have held a gun before; these are mostly females - but a few males - who want to carry for protection. The personal protection course is a basic handgun course that addresses handling, safety, ammunition, loading and unloading the gun, and so forth; it allows participants to shoot the weapon and develop a knowledge of how it feels. Emphasizing the importance of learning the laws, he expressed concern about turning people loose on the street who lack "weapons knowledge," including safe handling, and who don't know when or when not to use deadly force. He indicated those are taught in his classes, and told the committee that he believes it is a grave mistake to turn people loose on the street without training. CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Christopher whether he'd be supportive of requirements for training, familiarity with state laws, and competency for people who carry weapons openly as well. MR. CHRISTOPHER said he believes that it's common sense to have all those things when carrying a weapon. Furthermore, he added, "If you get into a gunfight, God forbid, and you do use deadly force and you do kill somebody, that 'concealed carry' permit is used as an affirmative defense for you in court." CHAIR McGUIRE remarked, "We're about to change all that in our other bill." Returning to HB 102, she asked why those requirements should be in place for people who carry concealed weapons, since they're not required for those who carry weapons openly. MR. CHRISTOPHER replied, "I can't answer that question, because I don't know why we don't. I think we should." REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether Mr. Christopher has had students who believed they could shoot at somebody in instances when it is illegal. MR. CHRISTOPHER said yes, in almost every class he's taught. He explained, "They are not aware of the acronym JAM, which is jeopardy, ability, and means. They think if somebody breaks into your house, you can automatically shoot them. And that's not true. And this is what I'm trying to prevent." CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether anyone else wished to testify. Hearing no response, she then closed public testimony. Number 1170 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt CSHB 102(STA) as the work draft. There being no objection, CSHB 102(STA) was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Representative Croft what level of burden he believes is imposed on the public by the current permit requirement, and why he believes it is unjustified. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that the burden of attending the course and training is "medium," but can result in a significant time delay for people who feel threatened and want to carry a concealed weapon. He said he'd rather leave it up to the individual. Acknowledging that there are reasonable people on both sides of the issue, he said he believes it comes down to a "a fundamental ideological ... definition on who do you trust." He noted that some people, including legislators, believe [training] ought to be a general requirement of gun ownership, and that the government should keep a list of owners as well. "I just fundamentally come down on the opposite side of the equation," he added. CHAIR McGUIRE said she doesn't know, but suspects there was some case law, for instance, that said although a person has a Second Amendment right to carry a weapon, the right to conceal it isn't absolute; the state has a [duty of] public protection "and so forth," and, thus, there will be qualifiers a state can place upon it. She asked to hear about any discussion that had taken place. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that he didn't know of any cases on whether carrying a concealed weapon is a fundamental constitutional right, and was fairly certain there hadn't been any cases since Alaska changed its constitution in 1996 to clarify that Alaska's [right to keep and bear arms - with no reference to concealment] - is an individual right. He said there is an ongoing question under the Second Amendment as to whether [the right to keep and bear arms] is a "militia- governmental right or individually held." Offering to look again, he surmised that there is so little case law on this because of a continuing question under federal law as to whether "it's even an enforceable right." He added, "Some courts hold that it is; some don't. It's the very reason we clarified ours to be an individual right. Number 1386 CHAIR McGUIRE asked what the rationale was when the Alaska legislature decided there would be no requirement for training and so on when a person carries a weapon openly, but that there would be limitations for carrying a concealed weapon. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he didn't know; he offered to look. He offered his opinion that it hasn't been questioned over time or thought through as rigorously as it should have been. REPRESENTATIVE GARA informed members that he didn't think he'd be able to vote for this bill, in contrast to the handgun bill with regard to reciprocity just voted on, on the House floor, that day. He explained that Mr. Judy and Representative Croft make a good point about the lack of statistics showing that this bill would make Alaska a more dangerous place. After weighing that heavily, however, Representative Gara said he sides with the view espoused by Mr. Christopher [with regard to the need for training] - that some people think they may use a gun [legally] in circumstances when it isn't true, and that some people benefit from a gun-safety course. He indicated those are the reasons for his discomfort with the bill. CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that it would be nice to know why the policy exists to begin with; she noted that she still had unanswered questions. In support of the bill, however, she said she hadn't been able to put her finger on statistical evidence that says someone who carries a concealed weapon is more likely to perpetuate violence or be a risk. Saying it has been an interesting philosophical debate, she compared it with philosophies about whether there is a need to [read manuals, know the law, and get training] to obtain a driver's license; she noted, however, that driving is a privilege, whereas there is a constitutional right to bear arms. She thanked participants. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report [CSHB 102(STA)] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 102(STA) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|