Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/26/1994 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 480 - DRIVER LICENSE/HANDGUN PERMIT SYSTEM CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 480 for discussion. Number 671 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS, prime sponsor, addressed HB 480. He stated the Brady Bill, which passed in November 1993 sets up a background check that identifies felons and persons adjudicated mentally incompetent. The Brady Bill also mandates a five-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun, unless the purchase has been preapproved. He stated HB 480 requires the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to issue driver's licenses and identification cards with a magnetic strip encoded with criminal information for felons or those adjudicated mentally ill. He noted only the police and gun dealers would be able to retrieve a person's status. A special card reader would show a green light indicating approval or a red light indicating a restriction. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS stated upon becoming a prohibited person, a person's license would be seized by the trial court. When eligible to obtain a new driver's license, they would pay additional fees to cover the records check and encoding of the required information on the new license. He believed once the system was in place, city police would be relieved from having to perform a complete record check every time a citizen wanted to purchase a gun. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS stated there is confusion as to how the Brady Bill is to be enforced. He expressed concern that the background check system the Brady Bill sets up, could easily lead to gun owner registration. The records and background checks are required to be destroyed; however, there are no penalties established to punish officials who violate this law. Therefore, there is no guarantee that officials will not disregard the law. TAPE 94-38, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS continued. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS noted New York City has enforced a gun ban, whereby the firearms of honest citizens on the list, have been confiscated. He emphasized once registration laws are in place, officials could easily enforce a ban because they know where the guns are. Number 036 CHAIRMAN VEZEY suggested, rather than using a magnetic code strip, using a red dot in the left-hand corner of the driver's license. The seal of the State of Alaska could be changed to red instead of black if they are ineligible to own a handgun. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS responded magnetic code strip information would be available only when presented to a gun dealer or a police officer. A red mark would be available to everyone. Number 061 CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the intent was to circumvent the Brady Bill. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS agreed. Number 069 CHAIRMAN VEZEY suggested everyone could have a red seal, unless they wanted to indicate they were eligible to own a handgun. They could then request a black seal. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS stated CHAIRMAN VEZEY's suggestion could work from that point of view. Number 079 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS clarified CHAIRMAN VEZEY suggested a visible dot would mean a person was eligible to own a handgun, not that they necessarily do. CHAIRMAN VEZEY suggested a variation, whereby a black dot could be used that was either sensitive or nonsensitive to ultra-violet light. He did not believe a red dot indication for those who are not eligible to own a handgun would be an undue invasion of privacy. Number 107 BERT MAUPIN, via Anchorage teleconference, inquired about HB 480. He commented some individuals do not have driver's licenses. He felt the red dot example might work. He mentioned the use of fingerprint records and firearm training courses, and asked if the committee had any information on the status. Number 136 CHAIRMAN VEZEY referred MR. MAUPIN to HB 351 for fingerprinting requirements. He believed HB 351 also requires certification of competency in the use of firearms. He clarified the intent of HB 480 is to circumvent the Brady Bill requirement that people must register and go through a background check. Number 155 MR. MAUPIN inquired about nonviolent felons in HB 351. CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated due to time restraints he wanted to limit testimony to HB 480. Current law on the ownership of concealable weapons is a convicted felon cannot own a concealable weapon until that felon has been restored his full civil rights. CHAIRMAN VEZEY moved to the Bethel teleconference site. Number 176 VERN KEEZER, Sr., UNITED WE STAND AMERICA, opposed HB 480. He commented HB 480 is not fiscally responsible. He noted the Gun Control Act of 1968 covers most of the provisions in HB 480, except for the magnetic strip. The Brady Bill did not meet the NRA requirement for background checks. He would like an instant check, not a five-day waiting period. Arizona has filed suit against the federal government because they believe the Brady Bill is so vague. He urged Governor Hickel to also file suit. Number 229 CHAIRMAN VEZEY moved to the Fairbanks teleconference site. LADD MCBRIDE stated he opposed HB 480. He commented "handguns" was not defined and he believed felons were prohibited from owning any firearm. He noted HB 480 specifically states "handguns" several times. He connected HB 480 to HJR 62, which urges Congress to reevaluate imposing unfunded mandates on state and local governments. He stated HB 480 does not mention its potential cost or maintenance. He classified HB 480 as an unfunded mandate. Number 265 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if MR. MCBRIDE was opposed to only the magnetic strip, or opposed to any kind of identification for those ineligible to own a concealable weapon. Number 268 MR. MCBRIDE answered a person not eligible to buy or conceal a firearm should be identified, but law abiding citizens should not be involved because of the additional cost and invasion of privacy. Number 281 CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified he would not be opposed to a convicted felon, without his civil rights restored, having a red dot on the left side of his driver's license. Number 283 MR. MCBRIDE responded the magnetic strip would not always be apparent to casual observers. Number 293 CHAIRMAN VEZEY moved to the Glennallen teleconference site. Number 294 PAUL WIER stated he objected to the magnetic strip, however, the red dot would be alright if it was only given to felons. Number 310 CHAIRMAN VEZEY moved to the Tok teleconference site. Number 314 BRUCE MCLAUGHLIN commented he believed most criminals would not try to legally purchase handguns if they know they will not pass the background check. He mentioned if the Brady Bill were to phase out, HB 480 would create unnecessary restrictions on gun purchasers in Alaska. He stated the current five-day waiting period would cause only a minor inconvenience. He believed the use of "felon" in HB 480 did not in all cases constitute reasonable grounds for denial of a weapon purchase. Number 329 CHAIRMAN VEZEY pointed out the Brady Bill assumes criminals purchase their guns through dealers; therefore it imposes a tremendous inconvenience for law abiding citizens. The intent of the magnetic strip in HB 480 is not to retrieve information on law abiding citizens, rather it is the identification of felons. He agreed with MR. MCLAUGHLIN that felons do not usually buy the guns from stores, they steal them. CHAIRMAN VEZEY moved to the Soldotna teleconference site. Number 349 ROBERT WISEMAN reminded the committee that the Brady Bill requires that every state be in compliance with the national records check system in four years. Therefore, Alaska would have to attend to this requirement. He was not sure the red dot would comply. He emphasized it is very important for the 1994 session to send a clear message to Washington D.C., that Alaskans feel strongly about their right to own firearms and they support Senator Ted Stevens. He believed legislation passed should also have a zero budget effect. After the implementation, the program should be paid for by its users. Number 412 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS responded MR. WISEMAN had the right idea as to his intent. He referred to MR. MCLAUGHLIN who stated law responsibility of law enforcement officers. He cited the Brady Bill, "(7) A chief law enforcement officer or other person responsible for providing criminal history background information pursuant to this subsection shall not be liable in an action at law or damages ...(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a handgun." He clarified this statement meant any official who locally denies law abiding citizens their right to buy a handgun, can do so with impunity. Under federal law there would be no recourse for the individual. Number 430 CHAIRMAN VEZEY believed the Brady Bill was a federal law against public officials giving them the authority to deny individuals their right to own firearms. Number 431 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS agreed. Number 435 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS inquired about the fiscal note expected from the Department of Public Safety (DPS). He noted he only had the Department of Law zero fiscal note in his packet. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS commented the correct DPS fiscal note must not have arrived yet. Number 450 CHAIRMAN VEZEY offered to wait for the DPS fiscal note to arrive. Number 455 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS stated it would be proper to hold HB 480 in committee until the fiscal note arrived. He was, however, not opposed to moving it. Number 460 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated HB 480 would be held in committee and brought back up under bills previously heard next week. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN VEZEY, having no more business before the committee, adjourned the meeting at 9:28 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|