Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/05/2013 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB24 | |
| HB52 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| HB 52 | |||
| HB 24 | |||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 24(JUD)
"An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a
person has a right to be."
9:14:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, introduced HB 24 and explained
that it addressed concerns from Alaskans related to self-
defense. The bill allowed people the right to use deadly
force to protect themselves or their family members. He
pointed out language on page 2, line 3 stating "in any
other place where a person has a right to be." He expressed
concern with the statute's statement that a person had the
duty to retreat in a self-defense situation. The statute's
justification clauses would not be altered. He mentioned
past discussion regarding gang violence, alcohol abuse,
sexual assaults. The bill's purpose was to add the language
"any place where you have the right to be." He pointed out
that the House Judiciary Committee added the word "other"
following a discussion that a person already had the right
to self-defense if in a home, residence or place of
business. He mentioned a letter sent from the Attorney
General regarding the bill and his opinion that the rights
of Alaskans should not be put before the rights of the
courts.
9:17:59 AM
Senator Dunleavy stated that the bill was self-explanatory.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that a lot of time was spent with the
bill in the judiciary committee. He understood that the
bill was introduced last year and wondered where the bill
died. Representative Neuman replied that the bill died in
the Senate Finance Committee.
9:18:42 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the judiciary committee's concerns
had been addressed. Representative Neuman responded that
the judiciary committee reviewed the legislation
extensively and passed the bill.
9:18:57 AM
Senator Olson noted that Connecticut passed multiple laws
on gun control following a school shooting. He wondered how
Alaska could justify an opposite course. Representative
Neuman responded that the issue was one of self-defense and
Alaskans supported the concept. He noted that Alaska laws
currently allowed the use of deadly force to protect in the
event of an incident. The difference presented in the
legislation is the opportunity to protect oneself prior to
an incident.
9:20:19 AM
Senator Olson understood that the law allowed one to use
deadly force when in the home. He interpreted that HB 24
allowed the use of deadly force outside of the home.
Representative Neuman answered in the affirmative, HB 24
allowed the same rights anywhere a person had a right to be
in Alaska. He repeated that the justification clauses would
remain unchanged.
9:20:53 AM
Senator Olson stated a great difference between being in
one's home versus elsewhere. He inquired how one might
justify the use of deadly force outside of the home.
Representative Neuman responded that he justified the right
for Alaskans to protect themselves. He mentioned court
cases where defense attorneys claimed that the criminals
were innocent because the victimized Alaskan did not do
everything possible to retreat. The rights that Alaskans
had to protect themselves in their homes ought to extend to
areas outside of the home.
9:22:31 AM
Senator Dunleavy noted that the issue addressed self-
defense rather than guns. He provided a hypothetical
scenario and noted that self-defense might include using a
gun, knife or even a rock.
9:23:09 AM
Co-Chair Kelly inquired about the letter from the Attorney
General.
9:23:22 AM
REX SHATTUCK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, clarified
that the Attorney General's letter mentioned by
Representative Neuman was drafted for last session's
version of the bill, HB 80.
9:23:42 AM
Senator Hoffman inquired how it would be interpreted if a
person protecting themselves was breaking another law with
a concealed weapon. Representative Neuman replied that the
current Alaska laws did not require a person to have a
concealed weapons permit. He added that the justification
clause addressed the issue.
9:24:46 AM
Senator Bishop assumed that the Attorney General's opinion
was still good today. Representative Neuman responded that
the only difference between HB 80 and HB 24 was the
addition of the word "other" by the judiciary committee.
9:25:32 AM
JOSHUA DECKER, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) OF
ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference) testified against HB
24. He explained that the bill did not address the self-
defense doctrine. Alaskans always had the right to use
deadly force when threatened with imminent injury. He
explained that HB 24 lowered the duty to retreat. If the
bill was enacted, then where ever an Alaskan had a legal
right to be would not require retreat prior to using deadly
force. He stated that written testimony was provided to
committee members listing multiple examples where retreat
was possible, but would not be required under HB 24. He
stated ACLU's position that the bill would not increase
safety for Alaskans.
9:27:25 AM
Senator Olson noted that anyone with a knife could kill as
fast as a gun and inquired why a person would not wish to
be ready to shoot when threatened with a knife. Mr. Decker
agreed and stated that the law allowed a person faced with
that threat to use deadly force. The difference with HB 24
was that a person could shoot a person holding a knife who
was standing one block away. With that distance, a person
could safely retreat.
9:28:29 AM
Senator Olson noted that if he was threatened with a knife,
his thoughts were not on retreating, but were on protecting
his family if the offender was a "stone's throw" away. Mr.
Decker replied that if an offender were a stone's throw
away, then current law would allow a person to use deadly
force to protect themselves. He stated that his letter
cited an example in Houston Texas where a similar law
increased gun play. He referenced the letters of support in
the packet.
9:30:27 AM
Senator Olson interjected that he had a different opinion.
He did not wish for a person to incur large legal bills
because they were threatened.
9:31:00 AM
Co-Chair Kelly recalled an article about police training
and stated that a person with a knife who was 20 feet away
would be able to kill someone before he was able to draw a
gun. He derived from the article that the zone around a
person that required protection was larger than expected.
He disagreed with opinions expressed by ACLU attorneys.
9:32:09 AM
Senator Dunleavy opined that there was an assumption in Mr.
Decker's statement that everyone was fit enough to run
away. He noted that a handicapped person would not be able
to outrun an attacker. An elderly person might also have
difficulty retreating.
9:33:38 AM
Representative Neuman stated that in the cases that Mr.
Decker was referring, it would not have been legal to use
deadly force because of Alaska's justification clauses. He
added that line 6 and 7 of the bill ensured that a person
must believe that the use of deadly force was necessary.
9:35:02 AM
Mr. Shattuck stated that the bill addressed self-defense.
In each case, the Attorney General would be obligated to
review the case and a jury would determine whether self-
defense was utilized in accordance with the law.
9:36:12 AM
Representative Neuman recalled that Commissioner Masters
from Department of Public Safety testified that the bill
would not change the department's investigation process. He
added that testimony from Department of Law stated that the
process would remain the same regarding prosecution.
9:37:26 AM
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony. He observed that
the bill had a zero fiscal note and wondered why the bill
came to finance. He trusted the judiciary committee and he
supported the bill.
9:38:06 AM
AT EASE
9:38:51 AM
RECONVENED
9:38:54 AM
Senator Olson inquired what would happen if a person shot
someone on their porch after receiving a complaint about
loud noise. He queried how the bill would deal with that
situation. Representative Neuman replied that the neighbor
who approached the porch with the complaint would be
considered an initial aggressor under the justification
clauses. If the person listening to the loud music felt
threatened, then he would be able to protect himself under
current Alaska law.
9:40:22 AM
Co-Chair Kelly understood that the current statute defined
the person complaining about the music as the aggressor.
9:40:30 AM
Senator Bishop noted that he did not oppose the bill, but
that he respected the comments of those who did. He noted
that it was big decision to take a person's life and that
he would do anything personally to retreat rather than
taking someone's life. He disagreed that gun play would
increase or be encouraged as a result of the bill.
9:42:14 AM
Senator Dunleavy clarified that the bill was not a gun
bill. The bill simply allowed Alaskans to feel safe
protecting themselves against aggressors, no matter where
they were.
9:43:01 AM
Senator Olson queried a hypothetical question about hunters
trespassing on someone's property and the property owner
shooting the hunters. He inquired how the bill would deal
with that scenario. Representative Neuman responded that
the bill would still be prosecuting in the same way. He
observed that under the hunting scenario, the property
owner would not be reasonable in thinking that his life was
in danger.
9:45:19 AM
Senator Olson noted that in this particular situation, one
boy was killed and the other was paralyzed. He inquired if
the bill would protect the shooter. Representative Neuman
responded no because the shooter could not prove that he
thought his life was in danger.
9:46:00 AM
Co-Chair Kelly stated that the bill was a "collapsed"
version of the statutes. The statutes did not allow the
aggressor to shoot a person that was trying to get away.
9:46:45 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT CSHB 24 (JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
9:47:08 AM
HB 24 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with four previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN1(ADM), FN2(ADM), FN3(LAW), and FN4(DPS).
9:47:10 AM
AT EASE
9:51:43 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 52 28-LS0170A PFD Allowable Absences.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Amended Sectional Analysis 28-LS0170AA.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Comparison 28-LS0170AA to 28-LS0170A.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 PFD Allowable Absences Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 PFD Select Regulations.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 PFD Select Statutes.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Sponsor Statement PFD Allowable Absence.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52 Support Letter Ross.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 52am 28-LS0170AA PFD Allowable Absences.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 52 |
| HB 24 Additional Statutes AS 11 81 340 & 350 3rd Party & Property.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 24 |
| HB 24 Related Statues on deadly and nondeadly force.docx |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 24 |
| HB 24 Sponsor Statement.docx |
SFIN 4/5/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 24 |