Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/18/1999 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 9 - DESTROY BRADY BILL RECORDS CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business would be HJR 9, "Urging the President of the United States and the Congress to act to ensure that federal agencies do not retain records relating to lawful purchase or ownership of firearms gathered through the Brady Handgun Bill instant check system." Number 013 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT explained that HJR 9 addresses the retention of records under the Brady bill, which he characterized as a difficult issue and a difficult compromise. One key element, from the perspective of gun owners and the National Rifle Association (NRA), was that none of the records generated by the Brady bill concerning lawful gun owners would be retained by the governor. There was no controversy over keeping records on people who were found to be illegally attempting to acquire firearms. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, "We've all agreed that that's where the focus should be, on keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them under law. In that compromise, that clear directive, (indisc.) stated in statute, the Brady bill, concerning the instant checks, says: 'If receipt of a firearm would not violate the sections of the bill, the system shall - not may - destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.'" REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he believes the statutory language to be clear. He was surprised to learn that the regulations enacted pursuant to that statute allowed the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and other government agencies to keep records on lawful gun owners for up to 18 months originally, and under the final regulations up to six months for audit purposes. Therefore, he had drafted this resolution, which requests that the public stop keeping these records on lawful gun owners but continue to do whatever is necessary on illegal gun owners, or persons attempting to acquire guns illegally. The resolution further asks Congress if they deem it necessary to clarify that language by inserting the word "immediately." Number 092 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of HJR 9 and read the following statement: The Alaska Outdoor Council is vitally interested in the safe and ethical exercise of the individual right to keep and bear arms and we strongly support HJR 9. We thank Representative Croft for introducing the measure, and his cosponsors for their strong bipartisan support. This is an issue that knows no party lines. Regulations mandating retention of data on lawful firearms purchases under the so-called Brady bill's instant check provisions are a cynical subversion of the clear meaning of that law. The law's provision mandating destruction of those records does not mean some Tuesday next week, or six months later. The purpose of the instant check is to determine if a firearms purchase is legal. Once that determination is made, there is no rationale under the law for retaining that record. The purpose of the law has been fulfilled when attempted illegal purchases are forestalled. As anyone who has worked in or with government knows, it's all too easy for bureaucrats to overlook or ignore statutory requirements and regulations. The six-month destruction deadline easily becomes no deadline, through neglect, or for an ulterior motive. Or it might be revised in a future regulation if there's no objection to the initial one, to one year, or five years, or permanent retention. There's not much good to be said about the Brady bill in my opinion, but at least it was agreed that it was not to be the first step in an all out gun registration system in the nation. We applaud the National Rifle Association's legal challenge to this foot in the door regulation. I wonder who decided there should be six-month data retention? It appears to fit right in with President Clinton's patronizing political campaign to demonize all gun owners. The Alaska Outdoor Council urges the legislature to promptly pass HJR 9. We also recommend that you transmit the resolution to every state legislature and every governor, in addition to the distribution outlined in the resolution. Number 154 BRIAN JUDY, Liaison for State and Local Affairs, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, testified via teleconference from Sacramento, California, in support of HJR 9. He said he was speaking on behalf of the 18,000-plus NRA members who live in Alaska. He echoed Mr. Bishop's comments regarding his appreciation to the cosponsors of HJR 9, who have signed on in an effort to influence Congress and the President to eliminate the National Instant Check System (NICS) record keeping, which has been unfairly and inappropriately imposed by the FBI. Mr. Judy read the following testimony to provide some background: In 1993, the NRA worked closely with Congress in drafting the law which created the National Instant Check System in an effort to ensure the privacy of firearm owners. In one of the provisions which was paramount importance to the NRA was the one requiring the destruction of records, it's Section 922 of Title 18. And this law requires that the instant check system, and I quote now, 'shall...destroy all records of the system with respect to the call and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.' There are two small things that are allowed to be maintained, that is the identifying number of the transaction and the transaction date. And the whole point of keeping that unique identification number and the date was so they would have an audit log. The legislative intent was clear that immediate destruction of the personal information pertaining to the perspective purchaser would be destroyed [noise - teleconference line]. This is further evidenced by another section of the law which went on to specify, ... 'No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States...; nor could they use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to a person prohibited ... from receiving a firearm.' Now, clearly, the only information which can be maintained by these systems, other than those unique identification numbers and the transaction dates, is information on the bad guys, information on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are illegally attempting to acquire firearms through this system. History has shown, over and over again, how firearm registration systems have led to firearm confiscation mandates. Law-abiding firearm owners clearly understand that the creation of a gun registration system is a major step toward the destruction of the Second Amendment. The NRA urges you to support HJR 9 sending a strong message to Washington, D.C. that federal bureaucrats are not, and should not act above the law, and that the integrity o the Second Amendment must be preserved. Number 225 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, appearing at Representative Croft's request, said that since the Brady law went into effect, with the exception of a couple of county sheriffs in the Lower 48, local and state chief law enforcement officers were responsible for doing Brady checks until a court decision by the supreme court in 1997. Mr. Smith did not believe there was a problem with law enforcement administrators in Alaska running a Brady check. He said law enforcement administrators got rid of all of the attendant paperwork. He informed the committee that prior to his current job, he conducted some audits for the Department of Public Safety on NICS compliance. MR. SMITH stated, "In the agencies that I checked, there certainly were no records relative to the Brady. When I had questioned a transaction, they said that's a Brady check." He acknowledged that there was no way to confirm whether a transaction had a legitimate Brady check or not. The state of Alaska and local law enforcement have always understood that information from Brady checks were to be destroyed immediately. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the sheriffs were the ones that sued and ultimately won the case to repeal. Number 250 MR. SMITH replied yes. He believed that a Montana sheriff and an Arizona sheriff refused to do the Brady checks. The supreme court ruled that local law enforcement was not obligated to do the checks. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the Department of Public Safety has pursued any of the convicted felons who have attempted to buy firearms. He noted that convicted felons are not allowed to purchase firearms. MR. SMITH was not familiar with any individual cases. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked whether it is illegal for a convicted felon to attempt to purchase a weapon, and whether troopers have been dispatched in such an instance. MR. SMITH confirmed that convicted felons are not authorized to purchase a weapon. He suspects charges could be filed if a convicted felon attempted to do so. Mr. Smith reiterated that he was unaware of a trooper, a member of the Anchorage Police Department or any other local officer being dispatched to any particular location. For a NICS check, it takes three days for a response. Therefore the individual may not receive the refusal right away. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN requested that Mr. Smith let him know if it is illegal for convicted felons to attempt to buy a weapon. He asked whether there has been a follow-up on those few illegal attempts. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what Mr. Smith would do with the records of someone who unlawfully attempted to purchase a firearm. He asked whether the records would be maintained? Number 295 MR. SMITH said there might be some potential for a criminal prosecution, in which case one would need the transaction to support the police report and any potential prosecution relative to that. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, "From the records then, have you had a number of those in Alaska in the last year?" MR. SMITH noted that there have been refusals. He indicated numbers are available for the entire five years because the Department of Public Safety keeps Brady statistics. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON implied the law is working to keep firearms out of the hands of some of the unlawful recipients. MR. SMITH agreed that the Brady checks have prevented people who were prohibited by law from buying weapons. He estimated that 50 to 100, or potentially more, people have been prevented from purchasing a weapon. Number 322 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to report HJR 9 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HJR 9 moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|