Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/25/1996 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 419 - DISPOSAL OF FIREARMS BY PUBLIC AGENCIES Number 0500 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was HB 419. CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Pete Kott, sponsor of HB 419. Number 0514 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT stated the Department of Administration used to sell excess service revolvers, confiscated firearms, and ammunition. In 1995 the policy changed so that only hunting rifles and shotguns were sold at public auctions and handguns were destroyed. However, due to public pressure, the policy changed so that weapons would be sold to a federally licensed firearms dealer at which point a contractual agreement would be made to sell the weapons to a police department or law enforcement agency. HB 419, he said, was similar to the existing policy except it allowed the dealer to sell the weapons to the public and not just law enforcement agencies. A background check would be required due to the Brady Bill on anyone that purchased a weapon. The bill would prevent the Administration from oscillating back and forth and returning to the previous policy of destroying weapons. He asserted it was a substantial loss of revenue ranging from $14,000 to $150,000 or according to the 1994 number of weapons disposed of that represented 25 percent of the division's disposal budget. In conclusion, he commented the opportunity should be retained to sell weapons to the public. Number 0731 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred the committee members to Section 1 and questioned why it restricted the municipalities. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied there was not a specific reason for restricting municipalities and questioned if the section even applied to municipalities as it read. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded AS 12.36.030(b) dealt with law enforcement agencies in general. In Anchorage, he cited, it would affect how the Anchorage Police Department dealt with weapons. He stated, he was not sure if it was the intent to restrict the municipalities. Number 0800 CHAIR JAMES said she had a problem with the confiscation of assets in general. She alleged an asset should be converted to cash as opposed to retaining it. She asked Representative Porter to further explain his concern regarding the restrictions of municipalities. Number 0840 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would like to see in general the state government interfere less with the city government just as he would like to see the federal government interfere less with the state government. He stated as a member of a municipal assembly it was always frustrating when the ability to make certain decisions were circumvented by the state. Representative Porter further cited he knew of many city politicians that would disagree with the state. He lastly commented it was a giant step backwards for communities that had already addressed the issue. Number 0912 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied he was not sure how HB 419 would change a municipal policy. Number 0925 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated a municipality wanted the ability to make the policy. HB 419 allowed the destruction of unsafe and unserviceable weapons whereby the Anchorage municipality, for example, had a policy that sold sought after weapons such as collector items. The provision was a result of years of negotiations. He lastly said, "Saturday Night Specials" did not return to the streets and it was a city concern. Number 0980 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied the intent of HB 419 was not to allow "Saturday Night Specials" to return to the street, but required the municipalities to sell usable weapons to a licensed federal arms dealer who would in return sell to the general public. Number 1000 CHAIR JAMES suggested eliminating language that addressed the municipalities. Number 1015 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he would not object to Chair James' suggestion. Number 1020 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Representative Kott to reiterate the differences between the current policy and HB 419. Number 1040 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied the existing policy at one point last year stated serviceable excess weapons with value were sold to the public. In the fall, the policy changed so that some weapons were destroyed. However, due to public pressure, the policy now stated excess weapons were sold to a licensed federal firearms dealer who in turn sold them to law enforcement agencies. HB 419 extended the policy to allow weapons to be sold to the general public. In conclusion, he said, the public safety was protected because a background check was needed to purchase a weapon from a dealer. Number 1169 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if a state employee would be responsible for the background check. Number 1192 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the state's responsibility ended upon disposal of the weapons to the licensed dealer. The dealer would then be responsible for ensuring the purchaser met the prerequisites under federal law. Number 1215 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated under HB 419 the weapons would be sold to a dealer and not directly to the public. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said she was correct. Number 1230 CHAIR JAMES stated she agreed with the bill because it gave the people an option. If you limited the buyers, she alleged, you limited the value. She further stated historical weapons should be sold for their value rather than given to a museum. Number 1270 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said as co-sponsor of HB 419 he felt it was a responsible way to dispose of excess firearms. The bill required the weapons to be sold to a licensed firearms dealer who was required to follow federal guidelines. In conclusion, he asserted, the background check would be enforced. CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Dugan Petty, Director, Division of General Services, Department of Administration. DUGAN PETTY, Director, Division of General Services, Department of Administration, stated the fiscal note for HB 419 would increase receipts by 10.4 thousand and of that $3,944 would go directly to the general fund. The bill as written did not direct where the funds went and because the property was not classified as surplus the money would go to the general fund. The remaining $6,432 was based on an assumption. He said he would be happy to answer any questions regarding the fiscal note. HB 419 required the department to sell handguns to the general public which was not consistent with the current policy. The current policy required a number of reviews to determine if a firearm was serviceable and safe, and unsafe firearms were destroyed. The remaining would be recirculated to other state agencies if there was a need. He further said collectible firearms and antiques would be made available for display, and the department was considering making them available for gun safety programs. The policy, however, did not make these firearms available to the public. The weapons were sold to a licensed dealer in compliance with federal guidelines. Number 1470 CHAIR JAMES said the current policy suggested the general public did not have a need for these weapons which posed a basic philosophy difference. She asserted forfeited private property should be converted to cash. She did not have a problem with the state using the cash to offset expenses. However, she did not want the state to retain the piece of property. In conclusion, she explained, if there was a forfeiture it should be sold for the cash. Number 1535 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the assumption was based on the State Trooper's revenue. Number 1545 MR. PETTY replied the assumption was based on an historical average of firearms in the surplus property program. Therefore, that would include the Department of Corrections, for example, and not just the Department of Public Safety. Number 1570 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how much money would stay with the municipalities if the committee adopted to delete Section 1. Number 1584 MR. PETTY replied the assumptions were generated from state agencies and not municipalities. Number 1590 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated this was state firearms and not municipalities. MR. PETTY replied that was correct. Number 1600 MR. PETTY responded to Chair James' comments regarding forfeited property. He said HB 419 still allowed an agency discretion to retain unclaimed and owner unknown property. Number 1630 CHAIR JAMES said she understood and did not agree with the principle. Number 1640 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS questioned how the state obtained these weapons. Number 1650 MR. PETTY replied there were a number of way. He cited, surplus state property, firearms seized in an arrest and not claimed but used as evidence, firearms seized in an arrest and not claimed and not used as evidence, firearms seized by the court, and firearms seized in a controlled substance arrest. CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier, Gretchen Pence, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Safety. Number 1715 GRETCHEN PENCE, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, said it was the position of the Administration that confiscated and surplus weapons should not be sold to the public. The state was not in the business of selling firearms, she asserted. In response to the public, when the state announced it would destroy some firearms, the policy was modified. The current policy, therefore, stated the weapons would be sold to a licensed firearms dealer who would in turn sell them to law enforcement agencies only. The weapons before being sold were reviewed and those deemed unsafe or unlawful would be destroyed. The weapons unclaimed would be held by the department, and every attempt would be made to determine the rightful owner. Rifles, and shotguns would be sold to a licensed firearms dealer who would in turn sell them to the public. Antiques, curios and collectibles would be pulled and donated to museums for public display. The Department of Public Safety and all state law enforcement agencies would have an opportunity to review the list of firearms to determine if any could be used for their purposes. Other state agencies would also be able to review the list. Finally, the remaining firearms would be available to a licensed firearms dealer who contractually agreed to resell to a law enforcement officer or agency. In conclusion, she reiterated, the policy of the Administration was not to be sell weapons to the public. CHAIR JAMES called on the next testifier via teleconference in Delta Junction, Bernard Goodno. Number 1840 BERNARD GOODNO said the Governor reported last week weapons would be sold to federal firearms dealers who in turn would sell to law enforcement agencies only. He alleged, this was a "back door" gun control policy and violated his rights. He asked who decided the safety of a weapon. He cited a "Saturday Night Special" was a gun control buzz word. He suggested the Governor and the Department of Public Safety resign if they could not uphold their oath of office, and asked them to stop violating his constitutional rights. Number 1900 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to delete Section 1 from HB 419. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected. CHAIR JAMES called for a discussion regarding the motion. Number 1919 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded Section 1 was the provision that placed the state onto the municipalities, and they should be allowed to make their own decisions. He further stated many municipalities had already established policies that were functioning fine. Number 1942 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked what the deletion of Section 1 did to the intent of HB 419. CHAIR JAMES deferred the question to Representative Porter. Number 1950 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it would have no affect at all in terms of the betrothment of firearms by the state. The fiscal note addressed possession of weapons by the state but did not address the acquisition of weapons by first class municipalities such as Anchorage. The disposal method varied for each of the municipalities based on the needs of the individual city. He concluded, therefore, it should be left up to the cities and not "big brother." Number 2000 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, if by deleting Section 1, would it allow local jurisdiction to permit "Saturday Night Specials," for example, to return to the public. Number 2018 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER answered yes, and so would HB 419. Number 2023 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered how deleting Section 1 would affect local jurisdiction. Number 2040 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded it did not change a thing. If the municipalities were mandated, they would not be able to preclude "Saturday Night Specials" unless they were unsafe or unserviceable. He said he suspected that did not mean subjectively but objectively. In other words, if the gun worked it would be deemed safe and serviceable. Number 2044 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented he was concerned some municipalities would be more lenient than others except when required by federal law. He further questioned if municipalities would want to dispose of weapons differently; and would the same restrictions apply or was there a variation. Number 2081 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied a municipality was bound by the same federal guidelines. A municipality could not sell weapons to a felon, for example. However, they could make the decision on what weapons and in what manner they wanted to return the weapons to the public. The current policy placed variations on selling restrictions. A city could also place variations. However, if HB 419 was law, the cities would be bound by it. Number 2118 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again asked if there was the possibility a local jurisdiction would be more lenient towards the disposal of weapons. Number 2140 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Representataive Green to further explain his question. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied more lenient toward the disposal of weapons. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Representative Green to provide an example of his concerns. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if a municipality would be more or less restrictive, if a weapon was sold to a gun dealer and subsequently sold to the public. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied a municipality in the example cited by Representative Green would be more lenient because HB 419 as written stated a dealer could only sell a weapon to a law enforcement officer or agency. Number 2153 CHAIR JAMES corrected Representative Porter's previous statement. She said HB 419 allowed the dealer to sell to the public and not to a law enforcement office or agency. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER accepted the correction. Number 2157 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated by deleting Section 1 it took away the dictation and control of the municipalities. Furthermore, a municipality could implement any policy through an ordinance. Number 2170 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Kott to reponed as sponsor of HB 419. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with the merit of the discussion. He asserted his intention was not to restrict municipalities. The emphasis was rather at the state level. Representative Kott further stated municipalities in their right mind could make a determination as to what weapons to sell to the public. He agreed it could be decentralized to that level. He was not so sure if deleting Section 1 was the answer and suggested a conceptual amendment that deleted municipalities from the bill. Section 4 would need to be changed as well, he said. Number 2223 CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Porter to make a motion for a conceptual amendment. Number 2224 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that Representative Kott remove the requirement of the municipalities in HB 419 and do whatever was needed to achieve that purpose. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was an objection. Number 2240 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN removed his objection to delete Section 1. He further stated Representative Porter was the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee in line with the next committee of referral for HB 419. He said he agreed with the conceptual amendment. CHAIR JAMES, hearing no objection to the conceptual amendment, it was so ordered. Number 2283 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if there were other policies related to the disposal of property such as automobiles. Number 2290 MR. PETTY replied there were a series of unclaimed property statutes referenced in HB 419. He stated firearms and property were treated the same if confiscated in an arrest and used as evidence. Number 2325 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved HB 419 move from the committee with conceptual amendments, fiscal notes and individual recommendations to the next committee of referral. There was an objection, so a roll call vote was taken. RepresentativesJames, Ogan, Green, Ivan, Porter, and Willis voted in favor of moving the bill. Representative Robinson voted against moving the bill. So HB 419 moved from the House State Affairs Committee. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked to explain her objection. She stated the current policy was good and did not believe a change was warranted. CHAIR JAMES replied policies changed over night.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|