Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
02/10/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB319 | |
| HB316 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 319 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 319 - FIREARMS
1:08:54 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to firearms."
1:09:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
characterized HB 319 as another opportunity to reaffirm the
Second Amendment rights of Alaska's citizens, adding that it
cleans up some sections of statute pertaining to concealed
handgun permits. Specifically, [Section 1] clarifies that when
a concealed handgun permit expires or a permit holder leaves the
state, the holder doesn't need to surrender the permit; [Section
2] provides that an expired concealed handgun permit may be
displayed as long as the permit holder doesn't represent it as
being valid; [Section 1] requires that the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) send permit holders a letter, at least 90 days
before their permit expires, notifying them that their permit is
about to expire; and [Section 3] requires the chief law
enforcement officer in a jurisdiction to execute, within 30
days, the federal firearms forms required for the transfer of
certain types of firearms. A copy of those forms is included in
members' packets, and the forms, in part, require the chief law
enforcement officer to certify that he/she has no information
that the transferee of the firearm will use the firearm for
other than lawful purposes, and no information that the receipt
or possession of the firearm by the transferee would place
him/her in violation of state or local law. He offered his
belief, however, that some law enforcement officers who don't
approve of firearms transfers simply refuse to fill out their
portion of these forms. In conclusion, he characterized HB
319's proposed changes as important to Alaska's law-abiding
citizens, and asked for the committee's favorable consideration
of the bill.
1:18:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether Section 3 would allow a
chief law enforcement officer to refuse to sign the federal
firearms forms if he/she does have reason to believe that the
transferee would use the firearm unlawfully.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER relayed that that would be the case.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether the title warranted
narrowing.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated that it did not.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there is a typographical
error in the law enforcement certification section of the
aforementioned federal firearms forms.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER acknowledged that point.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how proposed AS 18.65.725(e),
which requires the DPS to provide notice that a person's permit
is going to expire, would be effectuated, what the cost would
be, and whether permit holders would have a duty to keep the DPS
informed of any address changes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said that permit holders already have a
statutory duty to inform the DPS of address changes, and
surmised that all which could be asked of the DPS is to send the
notification to the permit holder's last known address; and that
the fiscal note provided by the DPS outlines approximately $900
in yearly ongoing costs and approximately [$37,000] in one-time
computer programming costs.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response to a question, explained that
the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF) requires the aforementioned federal firearms forms to
include the law enforcement certification section, but a chief
law enforcement officer is under no obligation to fill it out,
and Section 3 of HB 319 is intended to ensure that he/she does
do so. In response to another question, he said that when a
chief law enforcement officer refuses to certify that he/she has
no information that the transferee of the firearm will use the
firearm for other than lawful purposes, and no information that
the receipt or possession of the firearm by the transferee would
place him/her in violation of state or local law, then the
transferee has no legal recourse and cannot take possession of
the firearm in question. He characterized such refusals as
interfering with people's Second Amendment rights. He mentioned
that currently, the Anchorage Police Department (APD) conducts
extensive background checks on transferees before the chief law
enforcement officer fills out the certification section.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed favor with addressing this
issue, characterizing it as a serious problem.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned whether such refusals would be
in violation of [the Second Amendment].
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER declined to venture a response.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that such
refusals would be in violation of the Civil Rights Act and
therefore actionable. In response to a question, he indicated
that he supports Section 3. He then, again, questioned how
proposed AS 18.65.725(e) would be effectuated.
1:37:32 PM
DAVID SCHADE, Director, Division of Statewide Services,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), explained that as outlined in
the DPS's fiscal note, the DPS intends to automate the
notification process such that the database would systematically
identify permits expiring within 90 days, and then generate,
print, and save notices of expiration; those notices would then
be mailed to permittees. In response to further questions, he
said that the DPS would send the notices to the addresses on
file, that permittees are required to notify the DPS of address
changes, and that the DPS would send the notices but would have
no way of knowing whether the permittees actually received them.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO - noting that the language of proposed
18.65.725(e) says in part, "The department shall provide a
permittee with notice" - surmised that Mr. Schade's comment
indicates that the department, under certain circumstances,
would be unable to comply with the proposed statute.
MR. SCHADE acknowledged that that could potentially be the case.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that perhaps that language should
be changed such that the department would only be required to
send the notice of expiration.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Section 3 would create
compliance problems for the DPS.
1:41:16 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), indicated that it would not.
1:42:47 PM
AUDIE HOLLOWAY, Colonel, Director, Central Office, Division of
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
concurred, adding that it would be an exception if the DPS were
unable to meet the proposed 30-day deadline.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether any police chiefs have
expressed concern [about Section 3].
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he has not heard any such concerns
expressed. He mentioned that the turnaround time for the APD
has generally been between 4-10 days, and that he does not
believe that the bill would put any undue burden on law
enforcement.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 319.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Hawker whether he
would be interested in narrowing the title.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated that he would not.
1:46:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to delete the term, "provide a permittee with" from
page 1, line 4, and insert the term, "mail a".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected, and suggested that instead
the language being inserted should read, "mail the permittee a".
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he would be amenable to such
a change to Conceptual Amendment 1. [Although no motion was
stated, Conceptual Amendment 1 was treated as having been so
amended.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended,
was adopted.
1:47:31 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26-
LS1273\E.1, Luckhaupt, 2/4/10, which read:
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "a new section"
Insert "new sections"
Page 2, following line 16:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec. 18.65.820. Checks on firearms while firearm
secured by peace officer during certain contacts. A
peace officer may not conduct a check of the serial
number of a firearm being legally carried by a person
when the firearm has been secured by the peace officer
under the authority of AS 11.61.220(a)(1)(A)(ii)."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that Amendment 2 addresses concerns
expressed to him regarding a situation in which a person is
stopped by a law enforcement officer who then takes the person's
firearm away to check the serial numbers on it. He asked the
DPS to explain why Amendment 2 is not necessary.
LIEUTENANT DIAL attempted to reassure the committee that as a
routine practice, DPS personnel are not seizing or retaining the
firearms of Alaskans who are otherwise committing only minor
offenses or who are engaged in lawful outdoor activities. He
offered his understanding that the statute pertaining to the
crime of misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree gives
law enforcement officers the authority to seize a firearm during
contact or to ask the person to secure the firearm. At the time
of contact, it's a judgment call that the law enforcement
officer has to make regarding which approach to take. He
recounted that on rare occasion, he himself choose to seize the
firearm because he felt that the actions of the individual
indicated that it would be better for that firearm to be in the
possession of law enforcement. For example, if he were to stop
someone who'd reportedly appeared to be casing a neighborhood,
he would want to take the person's firearm and check its serial
number because, in many cases, it could link the person to a
burglary, and sometimes multiple burglaries are solved in this
fashion. He noted also that it is not uncommon for law
enforcement to take possession of firearms that turn out to have
been stolen in the Lower 48.
LIEUTENANT DIAL characterized checking the serial numbers of
firearms as somewhat low on the intrusiveness scale, since, if a
serial number doesn't match anything on the database, the number
is not then linked to either a firearm or a person in the
database. He indicated a willingness to research the policy
issue raised by Amendment 2 further, to perhaps provide that law
enforcement officers use discretion in situations where there is
no other outside indicator suggesting that the person is
involved in illegal activity, but he would like to retain the
authority to seize a firearm and check its serial number because
that allows law enforcement officers to solve a number of crimes
every year.
LIEUTENANT DIAL, in response to comments and a question, said
that as a routine policy, DPS personnel are not taking the
firearms of those they stop; instead, law enforcement officers
have become somewhat immune to the fact that most people have
firearms. He added that he has never met a trooper that doesn't
support the Second Amendment 100 percent. He acknowledged,
though, that because academy graduates are currently coming into
the field with a higher level of officer safety in mind, perhaps
training issues with regard to making judgment calls at routine
stops could be addressed.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked that the DPS's policy on this issue be
clarified in writing and provided to the committee.
LIEUTENANT DIAL agreed to do so.
CHAIR RAMRAS then withdrew Amendment 2.
1:55:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 319, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
319(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB316 HJUD Hearing Request.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 02 HB316 Sectional v. A.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 03 HB316 Bill v. A.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 04 HB316-LAW-CRIM-01-28-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 05 HB316-DOA-OPA-02-01-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 06 HB316-DOA-PDA-02-01-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 07 HB316 Innocence Project Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 08 Alaska Innocents Project COMMITTEELETTER (2).pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 09 RBROWN INNOCENCE PROJECT TESTIMONY.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 10 DNA Word Matrix revised6.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 01 HB319 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| 02 HB319 Bill v A.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| 03 HB319 Sectional.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| 04 HB319-LAW-CRIM-02-04-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| 05 HB319 Background.pdf |
HJUD 2/10/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |