Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/13/2000 08:10 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 294-CONCEALED HANDGUNS Number 2662 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 294(JUD), "An Act relating to the possession of concealed handguns and to concealed handgun permits." JIM POUND, Acting Staff to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alaska State Legislature, presented the sponsor statement for CSSB 294(JUD). He told members that [Alaska's concealed handgun law] has been one of the most successful "concealed carry" programs in the United States. That success is based on the original intent of the legislation to allow only knowledgeable, law-abiding citizens to obtain state permits to carry concealed handguns. However, there are several recurring problems with implementation and management of the state's program. He believes the bill will improve and streamline the process to obtain and renew a concealed handgun permit. Number 2630 MR. POUND informed the committee that the bill will eliminate some cumbersome and unnecessary language written into the statute in that applicants will no longer be required to have a sworn application and permit holders will be allowed to submit their renewal applications up to 60 days, rather than 30 days, after expiration. It will also give the agency more time to complete the renewal process before the expiration date; a new photograph will be required every ten years, instead of every five (the same as for a state driver's license); and new thumbprints will no longer be required during the renewal process because prints never change. MR. POUND noted that the bill also makes changes to some of the training and education statutes, streamlining the process and making reciprocity with other states more attainable. The applicant will be required to provide evidence of completion of a handgun or firearms safety course, but the bill eliminates the more subjective requirement by eliminating the specific statutory definition of "competence," which is causing problems with reciprocity and/or recognition with other states. He added that Alaska State Troopers now will be authorized by statute to help teach handgun courses, which may generate additional revenue. Mr. Pound pointed out that CSSB 294(JUD) makes the statute apply equally to all citizens statewide and clarifies the standards for recognition of permits from other states. Number 2518 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noticed that CSSB 294(JUD) drops the language on page 1, line 14, and page 2, lines 1 and 2, where it says "and the possession did not occur in a municipality or established village in which the possession of concealed handguns is prohibited under." He asked whether that drops the provision of law that allows a municipality to prohibit concealed handguns. MR. POUND replied in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN surmised that the language was dropped in order to comply with the uniform application principle in the constitution. MR. POUND answered again in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that another part of CSSB 294(JUD) is "successful completion of a handgun course" rather than "competence with handguns." Himself a permit holder, he recalled that the most helpful thing to him in the permitting process was the videos about situations regarding when and when not to shoot, and when it is appropriate to use deadly force. He asked if that kind of training is still going to be required in the course. He voiced his understanding that the bill would not require that a person re-qualify with a handgun. Number 2408 MR. POUND replied that as he understands it, the basic course itself will be maintained but the actual shooting portion may not be maintained. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned that, frankly, he thinks it is a God-given right to be able to defend oneself against a perpetrator of a crime who is bent on harming another person or that person's family. He indicated it would be nice if people could shoot straight, and it is probably in their self-interest to do that, but not everybody is going to be a handgun expert. He emphasized that having the right to defend oneself on the street should be prevalent over how well a person can handle the gun; a person ought to be able to brandish the weapon and hopefully dissuade someone from causing harm. Anyway, he added, in an assault situation a person usually is close enough to be effective with a weapon. He called the bill great legislation. He then asked for help in understanding reciprocity with other states. Number 2318 MR. POUND replied that now Alaska's only reciprocity agreement is with Texas because the laws are very similar; by changing some of this legislation, Alaska will be able to have reciprocity with some other states as well; which states Alaska will deal with depends upon negotiations down the line. Number 2297 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked about Vermont, where everybody can carry concealed [firearms] and they do not need a permit. He suggested it is kind of like Sweden where people are almost expected to carry concealed [firearms]. He asked if Alaska has reciprocity with Vermont or whether a citizen from somewhere else carry [firearms] in Vermont. MR. POUND answered that he is not sure what the laws are in Vermont, but he would imagine they are probably written in such a way that a U.S. citizen visiting in Vermont can carry a concealed weapon. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he takes a different tack and he also carries a concealed weapon. He explained that he took the handgun training course simply to find out whether it was going to be a rubber stamp, or whether it was really going to be a requirement that a person know how and when to use the gun. He was very impressed with the legal aspect, which was a full portion of the course. He indicated that repeating the course probably should be required upon renewal because some people forget. He recalled that a young lady in his class had a .32 [caliber handgun]; she did not know how to load it or unload it, and she could not hit the target, but the trainer did teach her how to aim. Representative Green suggested that it is imperative to keep the proficiency test in the requirements in order to get a permit because he is terrified to think that someone can get a concealed carry [gun permit] and not know how to shoot. Number 2189 MR. POUND indicated his belief that the proficiency requirement is one of the primary glitches in the reciprocity aspect of SB 294. He mentioned that most states with concealed carry [laws] do not require proficiency. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated that it is a big mistake. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that CSSB 294(JUD) says that it drops competence [requirements] with handguns, but it does say "successful completion of a handgun course." He asked if the Department of Public Safety (DPS) has regulatory authority to write what that phrase means, which he assumes they can. Number 2149 MR. POUND replied in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN surmised, on Representative Green's point, that DPS could write regulations saying that part of the criteria of "successful completion of a handgun course" is that the person be able to hit what he/she is shooting at. MR. POUND answered that the regulation process could certainly handle that criteria. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if, by writing the statute with the phrase "successful completion of a handgun course", it makes it easier for reciprocity. He recognized that competency and being able to hit the target could be required by regulation. MR. POUND replied in the affirmative. Number 2107 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said understood that under CSSB 294(JUD), Alaska State Troopers will now be authorized or may be authorized by statute to help teach handgun courses, which can generate additional revenue. He asked whether this revenue would be tagged program receipt money or is a designated fund. He also asked whether this is on [troopers'] own time or would be overtime, and inquired as to when this would happen. MR. POUND answered that he is not really familiar with that part or how that portion is going to be set up. He suspects that it would be done through the regulation process, he added, because CSSB 294(JUD) does not specifically address how it is going to be accomplished. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY inquired if discussions were held with DPS prior to that little clause being put into the bill. MR. POUND replied that as far as he understands, there were prior discussions. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked where the National Rifle Association (NRA) stands on this issue. Number 2044 MR. POUND answered that the NRA is very much in support of SB 294. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked whether Mr. Pound could get a statement from the NRA. MR. POUND replied in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said he thought it would be good to attach the statement to SB 294. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that driver's license permits could really be streamlined if proficiency were not required. He asked Mr. Pound if the Senator had thought about doing something similar. MR. POUND answered that such streamlining is not on the agenda. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked which communities have actually forbidden concealed weapons. MR. POUND replied that he is not sure, but he thinks some of the smaller communities have forbidden concealed weapons. Number 1992 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA mentioned that there is a section in CSSB 294(JUD) about renewals and asked how renewals work right now. She indicated that a permit holder can keep using an expired permit if the renewal process has been delayed due to circumstances not under the control of the applicant. MR. POUND answered that presently the renewal is almost the same as the initial process: the person has to have a sworn application, provide a new photograph and thumbprint, and pay the fee. He informed the committee that CSSB 294(JUD) eliminates some of the steps: an individual will not have to get a new photograph or thumbprint but just has to pay the fee. He added that the original statute says that if a person's handgun license expired today and he/she was caught tomorrow carrying a concealed weapon, that individual would be in trouble. Number 1936 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she cannot think of another example where a renewal works this way. She inquired if the person could wait until the last minute and still be timely in submitting a renewal. She added that then the department would not have enough time to process the renewal quickly enough. She asked if the person could still use the expired license. MR. POUND replied that if the person's license was expiring, they now would have a 60-day window to still be legal to carry a concealed weapon until the departmental [paper]work comes back. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if he could think of an example where something like that is allowed right now. MR. POUND answered that he could not think of an example. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated his understanding that the law said a person could not apply sooner than 60 days before the expiration date. He explained that he had applied shortly after that, and had received his permit after his other one had expired, so there was a week or two when he did not have a license. He explained that the law said that if a person had the renewal receipt in his/her possession, the police would honor the receipt because there were so many people applying that the department was backlogged. Number 1848 MR. POUND commented that most people had applied for their initial permits immediately after the law was passed, and the permits all expire at the same time. Therefore, there was a rush on the department in that area. CHAIR JAMES agreed that it is a good idea to have a little bit of a cushion of 60 days for renewal, and it is appropriate to have an extension. PORTIA PARKER, Aide to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State Legislature, clarified that under current law, a person can apply for renewal 90 days prior to the expiration of the permit. She noted that the impetus for the legislation was the problem with renewals, which took a long time and were cumbersome. Furthermore, DPS was backlogged, so even though people tried to get their permits renewed, they had expired permits simply because the department did not get the permits to them in time. Therefore, the exemption was put into CSSB 294(JUD) to say that if a person has done everything he/she is supposed to do and for some the reason the department has not returned the permit, the person can still carry the expired permit although it has passed the expiration date. MS. PARKER indicated that on page 7 and 8, specific criteria are listed for recognizing other permits. She said the problem is that 17 states were recognized when the first law originally passed. Later, someone either reviewed the law or interpreted it differently; as a result, only Texas is recognized for carrying a permit in Alaska. Therefore, CSSB 294(JUD) clearly states that if a person is permitted from another state which requires that the person be at least 21 years of age and eligible to own a handgun, and that the person must have completed a handgun safety course and be subject to a fingerprint criminal record search, then that person can carry [a concealed handgun] in Alaska. Ms. Parker noted that even though anyone can carry a gun, concealed or openly, for any reason in Vermont and does not need a permit, that person would not be allowed to carry [a concealed handgun] in Alaska because of SB 294 criteria. CHAIR JAMES asked if Ms. Parker knew of any communities that have opted out of the "concealed carry" law. MS. PARKER replied that only one community, Haines, has tried to opt out, and it was defeated on a 4-1 vote. Number 1431 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, noted that Lieutenant Hudson was online for the more technical aspects because he administers this program. Mr. Smith agreed with Mr. Pound that Alaska has one of the most successful concealed handgun laws in the country. There are 12,000 permits and very few problems with the people who hold permits. He added that there are no problems as a result of the requirements placed upon acquiring a permit. However, the thumbprint requirement upon renewal of 12,000 permits has proven to be problematic and, in retrospect, the department is not sure that the thumbprint accomplishes much. MR. SMITH stated that there are a few things in the bill that might be tweaked, but as to the reciprocity issue, he is not entirely sure upon what criteria the lieutenant at that time based his assessment in granting reciprocity to 17 states. Upon reviewing reciprocity under Lieutenant Hudson's purview and creating a matrix, it was found that Texas was the only state that actually met the criteria of Alaska. He added that Texas had copied the Alaska law, which he finds interesting. MR. SMITH noted that Arizona, Oklahoma and maybe some other states allow an unlimited amount of misdemeanor convictions as long as a person is not violent. However, Alaska law limits it to two class A misdemeanors within six years; and any more than that precludes a person from carrying a concealed weapon. Therefore, he mentioned that in the department's interpretation, Arizona's law is not as strict as Alaska's. He emphasized that "dumbing down" Alaska's law in order to meet requirements from other states for people to carry concealed handguns in Alaska does not necessarily mean that the other state is going to be reciprocal to Alaska. Number 1201 CHAIR JAMES suggested perhaps Alaska should be more lenient like Arizona. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that Section 7 of CSSB 294(JUD) changes the qualification of carrying the caliber, but it does keep intact subsection (a), which says "An applicant for a permit to carry a concealed handgun shall provide a certificate of successful completion of a handgun course that is approved by the department." He asked if Mr. Smith perceives that the department will approve a course that does not require some qualification for shooting. He surmised that although qualification for shooting is being taken out of the law to help reciprocity, the department could require, by regulation, competence in shooting. MR. SMITH replied that he certainly would argue for competence in shooting. However, in the preparation of regulations, as he understands it, the department could not be more strict than the law is; the department is just interpreting the law and applying it to the everyday world. Therefore, if the legislation does not say that a person had to be competent, then he is not sure that the department could require competency - but he would argue personally and professionally that it is important. He clarified that he would certainly try to write competency into regulation but he does not know if the department would be successful in upholding the regulation if someone complained. Number 1037 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that part of the section being eliminated requires competence with a certain action type and caliber. He asked if Mr. Smith is saying that a handgun course would not involve shooting. He further noted that the law does not say that the course has to teach which end of a gun the bullet comes out of. He asked if the department could not write a regulation to cover that concern because it is not written into the law. He explained that he is surprised that the administration is not going to interpret statute with regulation because that is generally what the administration does. Number 0947 MR. SMITH agreed, adding that he would want to put competency into regulation; however, he remembers that the NRA representative's testimony in the [Senate] Judiciary Committee and the representative's conversations with Mr. Smith privately were to the effect that a number of states do not require actual firing of the weapon; the NRA representative had argued that it is not necessary, and some instructors in the state have argued that too. He added that other instructors have that they do not care what the law says - no student will leave without showing competence. He reiterated that he would try to get competency written into regulation but it is entirely possible that someone might object and stop the regulation. CHAIR JAMES recalled that the issue, when the bill was passed in the beginning, was a handgun course similar to the NRA's personal protection handgun course. Lawmakers knew what that was at that time; therefore, anything in that course had to be in any handgun course or else the course would not qualify for acceptance. She explained that she is troubled about people not having even shot their guns; however, she does not have so much of a problem with people from other states because if a person from another state has a concealed handgun license and they come here, he/she surely must have shot a gun. She commented that she could not believe that somebody would get a permit in another state without having shot a gun and come here seeking reciprocity rights. CHAIR JAMES mentioned that action type is extremely important, too. She indicated that just cocking an automatic is a struggle for her. She prefers a revolver with which she can shoot her target without a lot of trouble. She added that the gun's size is not nearly as important to her as the action type. She suspects that maybe the NRA would change the personal protection class, Chair James said, but if that were the case, it might no longer qualify as a class under CSSB 294(JUD). She reiterated that she is a little uncomfortable that the bill does not require competency. She does not have a problem with not requiring other states to have the same kind of class that Alaska requires, but wants to ensure that Alaska has a class that requires competency. She asked whether CSSB 294(JUD) includes a class that requires competency and whether, in the writing of the bill, Alaska has changed its competency requirement. Number 0677 MR. SMITH replied that CSSB 294(JUD) eliminates the mandatory requirement to demonstrate competency with a handgun and to qualify with an action type or maximum caliber handgun. He noted that if Alaska recognized Arizona's permit, a person could come up here for 120 days and carry a concealed handgun based upon his/her Arizona permit. He commented that he would not know what Arizona's permit requirements were, even though he would look at their law, because their regulation would just say "handgun course" - and whether that requires firing, who knows? CHAIR JAMES explained that she certainly supports reciprocity because she wants to be able to carry [a handgun] in other states; she mentioned Florida in particular. MR. SMITH responded that Alaska has not recognized Florida because a person in Florida can apply through the mail to obtain a concealed handgun permit; Florida's law does not sound as strict as Alaska's. Number 0539 CHAIR JAMES indicated there have been no handgun problems in Florida, either, and history shows that people who carry concealed handguns are not a problem. She emphasized that she is trying to find the mentality behind the legislation as opposed to the emotional fear as to what might be out there. She said she had used Florida as an example because if a person ever needed a gun, Florida would be the place. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated he cannot understand why reciprocity should be increased by dropping the competency requirement. He reminded the committee that the example he had spoken of happened in Alaska: this woman, who was his neighbor, had come to the handgun class with a loaded weapon that she did not know how to use. To allow somebody to obtain a license in the state under those circumstances is no less detrimental than allowing someone to read a driver's manual and then claim to be able to drive a car. He himself has a driver's license from Alaska, which he can use to drive in all other states [because possessing a driver's license implies driver competency]. He asked why the committee cannot approach reciprocity of concealed carrying of a gun in the same manner: as long as a person can demonstrate proficiency. He asked why the committee would want to drop competency regarding something so important, especially in view of the fact that even the waiting period to obtain a handgun has been increased. Number 0253 CHAIR JAMES said Representative Green ought to file a formal complaint against the handgun instructor if incompetency is such a problem with him, because in the original bill it was required that the lady would have had to train with an instructor who would then authorize her to obtain a permit. She agreed that it is a serious issue. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied that is what he had said. He noted that the woman had learned to use her gun in the course, but it was a course that required that she show competency. Although when she finished the course, she could shoot it, she probably had not used it since then and would not be able to pass the test now because she has not practiced. He pointed out that competency was in the original law, which is why he had voted for it. He stated that it is a bad, bad idea to start diminishing requirements now in SB 294. Number 0132 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that maybe handguns should not be sold to people unless they have taken a course. He said people can carry guns right out in the open with impunity. He referred back to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the God-given right, in his opinion, to defend oneself or one's family from attack. He explained that the right to bear arms is an overriding concern, and if competency were a problem in other states, Alaska would hear about it from President Bill Clinton, who he said was going around the country telling everybody about the evil of handguns. TAPE 00-34, SIDE A Number 0026 MR. SMITH said he is a little concerned that Representative Green thinks the department is pushing SB 294, when in fact it is not. He stated that SB 294 came about as a result of a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. He reiterated that the department administers the handgun program, and he is trying to do it in a way that serves the people of the state and implements the law in the way that the department understands it to be. He hopes the committee recognizes that over the past five years the department has been very diligent in trying to do that in working with folks. He acknowledged that there are a number of concerns, as he has expressed here, and he administers the program as best he can, based upon the law. MR. SMITH informed the committee that he thinks some of these things are going too far because he does not know that Alaska's law should be gutted to meet a standard for outside states regarding reciprocity, although he does recognize that reciprocity is a problem, as was brought up at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. He emphasized that he believes that the department is interpreting the strictness of the law correctly, and the department's hands are tied as long as that is the situation. Number 0145 SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, Alaska State Legislature, said CSSB 294(JUD) was a result of hearing from many people, especially Lieutenant Hudson, who indicated he was having a difficult time because so many Alaskans became licensed when the law first passed; now each of those people is due for renewal within a 30- day period, so Lieutenant Hudson is flooded with requests and paperwork. SENATOR TAYLOR said that Representative Green is absolutely correct regarding competency. Many people out there have purchased handguns but probably do not know much about handgun operation. He commented that he is sure that the loaded gun became a major point of instruction for all the class members when the woman showed up for class with one. He mentioned that the Senate Judiciary Committee had heard testimony from several different instructors and had received letters from others which showed that there is not a course offered in Alaska where actual firing on the range is not used. He indicated that the only people probably exempt from this requirement are retired police officers, military personnel or others who can demonstrate a clear level of training, education and significant use. He noted that the instructor has to sign off on each person; before doing that, the instructor is going to make certain those people are competent. Number 0451 SENATOR TAYLOR remarked that people who are authorized to be instructors - both in the Alaska State Troopers and out in the private sector - are very conscientious. However, he admitted that such information does not address Representative Green's question about reciprocity. He asked how there can be assurance that a person coming to Alaska from another state would have exactly the same level of training that Alaska requires; he said there is no good answer, and the answer must be left up to the expertise of Lieutenant Hudson and others who are administering the program to really review the effective aspects of competency that are required in other states before Alaska grants reciprocity. Number 0559 SENATOR TAYLOR reported that he and Lieutenant Hudson had tried an additional amendment for the bill, which was going to attempt to forget about all the different standards because two standards that exactly line up will never be found. Lieutenant Hudson had suggested - which Senator Taylor thought made a lot of sense - that if a state granted reciprocity to Alaska, then Alaska would grant reciprocity to that state. However, Senator Taylor said that when discussing the amendment with his colleagues, they found it might go a little beyond some of the criteria and standards in the original law; he was not comfortable in going quite that far. He suggested that the amendment would have been based on common sense and easy to administer, and it would have provided to other states the incentive to allow Alaskans who are licensed to carry concealed [handguns] in those states. SENATOR TAYLOR reiterated that he does share Representative Green's concern, and that is why handgun classes are required. He noted that he had recently visited the police academy in Sitka, where he spoke with the gun instructor. The instructor was going to make certain that a few people in that course did not graduate because the instructor was concerned about their flippant attitudes; instead, the instructor was going to require those few people to start thinking a little more about it and come back again. Senator Taylor commented that he has respect for the people who are putting on these courses because they really are concerned, and they are very careful about whom they license and whom they do not license. In contrast, in many states a person can literally swing by the county sheriff's office, pay ten dollars and obtain a permit. Senator Taylor mentioned that he had done a lot with CSSB 294(JUD) and hopes the reduction was not too much, thereby causing the bill to fail. Number 0741 CHAIR JAMES said she has shared and listened to the same concerns that Representative Green has expressed. She noted that she had changed her position on that issue [reciprocity] strictly because of problems. She explained that when they lived in Oregon, her husband had obtained a concealed handgun permit, which just required filling out an application. He obtained another permit after moving to Washington. And when he came to Alaska, the first thing he wanted to look into was obtaining a concealed handgun permit. However, he could not get one, which is the reason that she had filed legislation in the beginning because she thought Alaska should have a concealed handgun permits available. CHAIR JAMES noted that she had not heard of any damage being caused by those folks in Oregon or Washington who had concealed handgun permits, nor has all of the concealed handgun legislation passed by states resulted in problems for the states. Even if people had never handled a gun before they went to a class, no problems have arisen. She is convinced, she said, that some fears are just caused by many different personal experiences that people have had. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that the committee is about to lose its quorum and said he would like to move the bill if he could. Number 0931 CHAIR JAMES replied that there is an amendment to consider. Noting that the bill would go to the House Judiciary Committee, she surmised that the amendment could be done there. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that the bill would have to be moved first but that the committee had just lost its quorum. CHAIR JAMES said a quorum was not necessary to adopt an amendment. MS. PARKER indicated the amendment changes a section to make it consistent with other changes already made in another section of CSSB 294(JUD). The change has to do with the initial application no longer requiring a certified signature under oath. A a person still has to attest that everything in the application is true to the best of that person's knowledge, and that if a person is untruthful on the application, the permit can be revoked. She commented that the sponsor wanted to make that change to make it a little bit easier for people, but it still is consistent with all other public documents. She mentioned that a person could be prosecuted for unsworn falsification if false information is given. MS. PARKER referred to page 6, lines 13 and 14, regarding renewal. She noted that it still had "under oath" in that subparagraph, so the corresponding change had not been made under renewal as had been done under the original application. She informed the committee that the amendment deletes "under oath"; it also puts the warning in that everything in the application document is true, to the best of the person's knowledge, and that if the person intentionally supplies inaccurate information or untruths, the person can be prosecuted. Number 1062 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN offered Amendment 1, 1-LS1543\H.1, Luckhaupt, 4/12/00, which read: Page 6, lines 13-14: Delete "shall be submitted under oath and" Insert "[SHALL BE SUBMITTED UNDER OATH AND]" Page 6, line 22: Delete "and" Page 6, line 23: Delete "[(5)]" Insert "[AND (5)]" Page 6, line 23, following "AS 18.65.720": Insert "; and (5) the warning listed in AS 18.65.710(a)(6) " CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. [CSSB 294(JUD) was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|