Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/27/2003 08:01 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 102-CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS LEGAL [Contains discussion of SSHB 177] CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons." Number 2295 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, told Chair Weyhrauch he appreciates that both SSHB 177 [sponsored by Representative Stoltz] and HB 102 are being heard on the same schedule because they "were born out of the same frustration." He said he has seen two or three concealed-carry bills during his short time in the legislature. He said his involvement on the bill includes working on the reciprocity issue over the summer, trying to talk to the Texas Department of Public Safety, participating in "the debate that led to the amendment that we're being forced to correct in the prior bill," and meeting with Representative Stoltz on [SSHB 177]. He said he'd left the meeting with Representative Stoltz thinking that "this was entirely too complicated and too restrictive of Alaskans' right to keep and ... bear arms." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he'd told Representative Stoltz at that time that he would draft something modeled on Vermont's law, which is unrestrictive and allows [its residents] to bear arms. He indicated no significant problems had resulted in Vermont, which has a very low crime rate. Representative Croft reported that Representative Stoltz had said [Vermont's concealed-carry law] fits with "our Alaskan character and our specific and very definite constitutional right to keep and bear arms." Unlike the U.S. Constitution, Alaska's constitution says it's an individual right. Representative Croft said he knows that the purposes behind [Alaska's] restrictions regarding "concealed carry" are all done with the best motives, but he just doesn't believe "we need to second guess our citizens in that way." Number 2440 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said although a person may think that Vermont's law might create a problem of transients from nearby high-crime states coming into Vermont, that hasn't been Vermont's experience. He opined that Alaska, situated next to restrictive Canadian gun laws along one side and having water around the rest of the state, should have been the state to start "this experiment" first. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned getting out of "a constant, somewhat condescending" discussion of the particulars of allowing people to carry a weapon inside, rather than outside, their purses or coats. He stated, "The more these details stood as impediments to the individual right of Alaskans to keep and bear arms, the more I questioned the entire premise of these laws." He said he is presenting for the committee's consideration that "we can trust our citizens more than that." Number 2526 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the intent of the bill is to get rid of the requirement that a person has a permit. Currently, he noted, permit holders must tell someone at a private residence that they are entering with a concealed [weapon], at which point the resident might refuse entry or just be aware of the information. Permit holders, when stopped by a police officer, have the obligation to tell the officer if they are "carrying concealed." He said, "Both of those are reasonable provisions in deleting the permit requirement. We accidentally, in the first draft of this bill, deleted those two requirements." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the amendments are available [included in the committee packet]. He said he would like for somebody carrying concealed, after the passage of this bill, to have all the requirements that a permit holder had before. He clarified, "If it was illegal for you to carry a gun before, it would be under this bill. We simply eliminate the requirement that you get this government permit." Number 2626 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT brought attention to Amendment A.1, labeled 23-LS0515\A.1, Luckhaupt, 2/20/03, which read: Page 1, lines 3 - 8: Delete all material. Insert a new bill section to read: "* Section 1. AS 11.61.220(a) is amended to read: (a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person (1) knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon, that is concealed on the person and when contacted by a peace officer fails to immediately inform the peace officer of that possession; (2) knowingly possesses a loaded firearm on the person in any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises; (3) being an unemancipated minor under 16 years of age, possesses a firearm without the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor; (4) knowingly possesses a firearm (A) within the grounds of or on a parking lot immediately adjacent to a center, other than a private residence, licensed under AS 14.37, AS 47.33, or AS 47.35 or recognized by the federal government for the care of children; (B) within a (i) courtroom or office of the Alaska Court System; or (ii) courthouse that is occupied only by the Alaska Court System and other justice-related agencies; or (C) within a domestic violence or sexual assault shelter that receives funding from the state; or (5) possesses or transports a switchblade or a gravity knife. Page 2, line 2: Delete "11.61.220(a)(1), 11.61.220(b), 11.61.220(e), 11.61.220(h)" Insert "11.61.220(b)" REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment A.1 adds back in the "permit" requirement which was previously deleted. In response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch, he clarified that A.1 addresses [the issue of informing a police officer of possession of concealed weapon]. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT brought attention to Amendment A.2 [labeled 23-LS0515\A.2, Luckhaupt, 3/14/03], which read: Page 1, lines 3 - 8: Delete all material. Insert a new bill section to read: "* Section 1. AS 11.61.220(a) is amended to read: (a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person (1) knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon, that is concealed on the person within the residence of another person unless the person has first obtained the express permission of an adult residing there to bring a concealed deadly weapon within the residence; (2) knowingly possesses a loaded firearm on the person in any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises; (3) being an unemancipated minor under 16 years of age, possesses a firearm without the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor; (4) knowingly possesses a firearm (A) within the grounds of or on a parking lot immediately adjacent to a center, other than a private residence, licensed under AS 14.37, AS 47.33, or AS 47.35 or recognized by the federal government for the care of children; (B) within a (i) courtroom or office of the Alaska Court System; or (ii) courthouse that is occupied only by the Alaska Court System and other justice-related agencies; or (C) within a domestic violence or sexual assault shelter that receives funding from the state; or (5) possesses or transports a switchblade or a gravity knife. Page 2, line 2: Delete "11.61.220(a)(1), 11.61.220(b), 11.61.220(e), 11.61.220(h)" Insert "11.61.220(b)" REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment A.2 addresses [the issue of informing the resident of possession of a concealed weapon]. He said, "If the committee decided to do both, the drafters would have to put a '(1)' and a '(2)' there and join them." He indicated he didn't know if the committee would choose both; thus he'd had them drafted as separate amendments. Number 2700 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his assumption that Amendment A.1 would have to be amended to only apply if the defendant is aware that he/she is speaking to a police officer, because the officer could be under cover. Referring to [existing language in paragraph (1)] of both Amendments A.1 and A.2, he asked whether the term "deadly weapon" includes more than a concealed handgun. For example, could it include a pipe bomb or machine gun? REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered that he believes the definition of "deadly weapon" is broader. He admitted that it may be an issue, although unintended. He said it was his intent that people be able to carry firearms without the restriction. Number 2797 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked for confirmation that a pipe bomb, for example, is already illegal to possess. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the crime is called "misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree," and is a broad crime crafted to include any kind of a concealed deadly weapon. Number 2835 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that there are persuasive attorneys on the committee, because he initially concurred with Representative Gruenberg's comments but now agrees with Chair Weyhrauch. He continued as follows: If it's independently illegal, as I think a pipe bomb and, I'm fairly sure, a sawed-off shotgun ... would be, then it doesn't matter, I guess, so much whether ... [it's] concealed or not; it's just illegal to possess. And we aren't affecting the federal or state prohibitions on what you can and can't carry. We're simply eliminating ... the distinction of it being under your jacket or outside of it. Number 2869 REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked Representative Croft if [Vermont's concealed-carry law] has affected its crime statistics. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered that [Vermont's crime rate] is one of the lowest in the nation; however, that may be attributed to a lot of different factors. He opined that the important thing is that [Vermont's] decision to allow its citizens to "carry concealed" freely didn't [cause the crime rate to go up]. He said, "It may be one of those things that is a measure of respect that you treat your citizens. And that may have benefits that [are] hard to quantify." Number 2934 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said these are crimes under other statutes, as well. He asked, "This is a misdemeanor, is it not, Representative Croft?" REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered, "I believe so." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained, "It provides the prosecution with the charging option. And it's important to keep it on the books properly." He mentioned a discussion yesterday with Representative Stoltz and said, "We wanted to keep the prosecution to have as many charging options as they can." TAPE 03-30, SIDE B Number 2999 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if this bill would [make it illegal] for a person out hunting to fail to immediately reveal to an Alaska Fish & Game Department (ADF&G) protection officer that he is carrying a concealed hunting knife. He pointed out that a sheath knife wouldn't be defined as an ordinary pocket knife. Number 2980 REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZ, Alaska State Legislature, responded that it isn't even a "concealed carry" status. He related his belief that it would be "concealed carry in the field." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered his belief that there is an exception in the current concealed-carry [law], and said, "We'd certainly want it here for outdoor recreational activity." He said he thinks when a person is in the field, it is a different situation. However, he gave an example of the person getting into a car and driving through a metropolitan area; at that point, he noted, the person would probably be violating the law if the [weapon] was still concealed. He said, "They have tried, at least, to address this recreational activity idea. We'll check to make sure that before, and in the changes we make in the bill, ... it stays there." Number 2887 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to [existing statute in paragraph (1) of Section 1 of both Amendments A.1 and A.2], which read: "knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon, that is concealed on the person". He said many people who aren't hunting wear sheath knives. He said he doesn't think the intention is to say that only ordinary pocket knives are now permissible to possess without being charged with a crime [for not revealing the carrying of a concealed weapon]. He said, unfortunately, there are circumstances when officers are unreasonable. He asked [Representative Croft] to "tighten up that language." Number 2815 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT cited AS 11.61.220(b)(2), current law that will not be changed, which reads: (2) actually engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or other lawful outdoor activity that necessarily involves the carrying of a weapon for personal protection; REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked, "So they've at least tried to address the specific [issue] that you talked about." Agreeing with Representative Seaton's general point regarding who is going to determine when [the language in statute] "necessarily" is involved, he said it sounds as though both he and Representative Seaton "would like to err on the side of the right." Number 2670 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Section 3 of the bill repeals statutes including AS 18.65.755(a)(1). That paragraph, with the surrounding statutory language, read as follows: (a) A permittee may not possess a concealed handgun (1) within a residence, other than the permittee's residence, unless the permittee has first obtained the express permission of an adult residing there to bring a concealed handgun within the residence; and (2) anywhere a person is prohibited from possessing a handgun under state or federal law. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said repealing paragraph (1) would allow a person to possess a concealed handgun in a residence and not obtain the permission of an adult residing there. Number 2603 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, "You have to eliminate the distinction between permittees and ordinary citizens if you're going to take this step. And it's the reason, then, that we have Amendments [A.1 and A.2], to add it back as a crime for a person to carry a deadly weapon." He referred to [the proposed added language in A.2], which read as follows: within the residence of another person unless the person has first obtained the express permission of an adult residing there to bring a concealed deadly weapon within the residence; REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the more he listens to the committee's questions, the more he thinks there is [language in the bill] to clean up. He explained that the reason the word "permittee" should not be used is because people are now allowed to "carry concealed" without a permit. He said "person" [should be used] in its place, which is what Amendment A.2 does. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about adopting the amendment as a proposed committee substitute (CS) and then working on it. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT reminded members that Amendments A.1 and A.2, although similar, address two different things. They could be adopted together or just one could be adopted. He recommended the former action. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested that the previously stated issue regarding the use of "concealed handgun" rather than "deadly weapon" be addressed. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed to do that before the next meeting. Number 2530 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt a conceptual amendment incorporating both Amendment A.1 and Amendment A.2. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 2453 BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Institute for Legislative Action, said HB 102 is "really shifting gears" from the concealed weapon permits bill [SSHB 177] by "doing away with that whole process." He said he doesn't think it's inconsistent to discuss the two at the same time. He told members: While the NRA has supported the concealed weapon permit law - as evidenced by [HB] 177, we're continuing to improve upon it. At the same point in time, philosophically, we don't believe that ... law- abiding citizens should have to get permission from the government to be able to provide a means of self- protection. And, essentially, the concealed weapon permit process puts a price tag on people's ability to provide a means of self-protection. As was pointed out, in Alaska you don't need to get that permission if you're going to carry openly. You can carry openly in Alaska, loaded, unloaded, anywhere. You can also carry concealed in Alaska, without a permit, if you're engaged in a lawful outdoor activity necessarily involving the use of firearms for self-protection. This, basically, would expand that just a little bit to say anytime, even if you're ... not engaged in a lawful activity but you're carrying a firearm for self-protection, you should be able to do so without having to go through the bureaucracy, get a permit, pay the fee, ... et cetera. Essentially, what it comes down to is: you can carry a firearm anywhere in plain view in Alaska, but if you put on a coat when it's cold and you cover that weapon, then you have to go through all this bureaucracy. And it really doesn't make sense. The Vermont experience has been talked about. Crime is at the bottom of the barrel in that state; it just doesn't cause a problem. Montana is similar. In 99.8 percent of Montana, you don't need a permit to carry concealed; you only need a permit to carry concealed in Montana if you're ... within city limits. And in Montana, crime is very low. There's just not a ... problem. Law-abiding citizens are the only ones getting permits right now. This would allow them to carry without that permit. Criminals right now are carrying concealed weapons, regardless of the permit law, and they're going to continue to do so. We heard a lot of horror stories in 1994, when the concealed weapon permit law was first proposed. We heard that there was going to be blood running in the streets, there were going to be shootouts in Anchorage. It was quite amazing to hear. It didn't surprise us because we had heard that in all the other states that proposed concealed weapon permit laws. As in all those other states, it didn't take place. Number 2315 MR. JUDY referred to a graph included in the committee packet. He explained that it shows violent crime [in Alaska], and indicated the position of the line at the point when the concealed weapon permit law took effect. He noted [on individual graphs] that crime dropped in the following areas: violent crime, robbery, and aggravated assault. He continued: Now, as Representative Croft indicated, I'm not going to try to claim that that was because, all of a sudden we had a concealed weapon permit law. But whatever the reason, the passage of the concealed weapon permit law not only didn't cause all the horrors that were predicted, but crime went down. And I would suggest that ... the horror stories that you will likely hear about are not going to take place. I can't predict that crime's going to continue to drop precipitously as it has, but one can only hope that it will continue to approach those levels in Vermont. Number 2268 MR. JUDY discussed training as follows: The last point I want to make is on training. I'm sure we're going to hear that this is a terrible proposal because people aren't going to be subjected to mandatory training. Well, again, it doesn't make sense that ... law-abiding citizen ... who can lawfully own or possess a firearm can carry openly anywhere in Alaska and they're not subjected to mandatory training. But if you want to wear a coat and cover your firearm, all of a sudden you have to take this expensive course and go through this bureaucracy. I would suggest that it's not really necessary. There are 43 states that issue concealed weapon permits. Those states have a wide range of training, from no training in the State of Washington to very restrictive. And Alaska's among the more restrictive. The State of Washington's a good example, aside from the Vermont experience. In Washington, there are approximately 250,000 concealed weapon permits issued. They don't require training. There ... is not a problem, training-related or otherwise, with concealed weapon permit holders in Washington. The empirical evidence from every state, regardless of the level of training, is that these people who are carrying firearms for self-protection are exercising their constitutional right and their natural right to provide a means of self-defense in a responsible ... manner. Number 2189 MR. JUDY continued: The NRA supports training on a voluntary basis. We're the group that instructs the instructors. The instructors right here in Alaska who are providing the screening courses are, in most cases, I would suspect, NRA-certified ... instructors. So, we support training. We don't believe it should be mandated. We support the concept of HB 102, and we urge your support. Thank you. Number 2158 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated a technical inconsistency. He referred to AS 18.65.750(d) and said, "We are repealing Section 750 entirely." He said [that section] dealt with possession and display of the permit. Subsection (d) defines the term "contacted by a peace officer", he noted. He said because Amendment A.1 was adopted, the phrase "contacted by a peace officer" is reinserted. He offered a technical amendment to reinsert the statutory definition, since the concept is now back in the bill. Number 2100 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks that is a good point which bears further consideration. Mentioning points made earlier by Representatives Seaton and Gruenberg and that two amendments had, in effect, been adopted, Representative Croft said he wants to take a second look at some of the more technical aspects. He said he is still comfortable "with the policy direction." Number 2060 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [in reference to his previously stated amendment] asked that "that phrase" be defined. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that he'd heard no objection and that the foregoing technical amendment was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that also repealed would be AS.18.65.770, which read as follows: Sec. 18.65.770. Access to list of permittees by peace officers. The department shall compile a list of permittees in a manner that allows immediate access to the information by peace officers. The list of permittees and all applications, permits, and renewals are not public records under AS 40.25.110 - 40.25.125 and may only be used for law enforcement purposes. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Representative Croft and Mr. Judy, for example, would speak with the Department of Public Safety to find out if the department, for any legitimate reason, needs to retain that section in law. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he would. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 102 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|