03/12/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB253 | |
| HJR38 | |
| HB408 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 253 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 408 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 12, 2010
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lindsey Holmes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 253
"An Act relating to the time periods affecting certain liens
related to providing labor, material, service, or equipment to
real property, including buildings and other improvements."
- MOVED HB 253 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to and increasing the number of members of the house of
representatives to forty-eight and the number of members of the
senate to twenty-four.
- MOVED CSHJR 38(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 408
"An Act relating to misconduct involving weapons."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 253
SHORT TITLE: MECHANIC/MATERIALMEN LIENS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) RAMRAS
01/08/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) L&C, JUD
03/01/10 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/01/10 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/01/10 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/04/10 (H) L&C RPT 5DP
03/04/10 (H) DP: LYNN, BUCH, CHENAULT, T.WILSON,
OLSON
03/12/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 38
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) P.WILSON
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/02/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/02/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/10 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/18/10 (H) Moved CSHJR 38(STA) Out of Committee
02/18/10 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/10 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 4DP 1DNP 1NR
02/19/10 (H) DP: SEATON, GRUENBERG, P.WILSON,
PETERSEN
02/19/10 (H) DNP: GATTO
02/19/10 (H) NR: LYNN
03/12/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 408
SHORT TITLE: MISCONDUCT INVOLVING WEAPONS
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
02/26/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/10 (H) JUD, FIN
03/12/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DON HEBIGER, Staff
Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 253 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Ramras.
ROCKY PAVEY, President
Rocky's Heating Service
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Characterized HB 253 as a "win-win
situation."
GRACE RUDY
Overhead Door Company
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Concurred with Mr. Pavey's testimony
regarding HB 253.
WAYNE LONG
Wayne's Air Supply
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 253, concurred with
the testimony of Mr. Pavey and Ms. Rudy.
JIM SLATER
Slater Construction
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 253, offered his
belief that extending the time period beyond 120 days would be
beneficial.
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HJR 38.
MARGARET PATON WALSH, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HJR 38, answered
questions.
BRUCE BOTELHO
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 38.
KARLA SCHOFIELD, Deputy Director
Accounting
Legislative Administrative Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HJR 38, answered
questions.
BEN MULIGAN, Staff
Representative Bill Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 408 on behalf of the sponsor,
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 408.
JIM ADAMS
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 408, related his
personal experience with losing the ability to posses firearms.
ERIC STANLEY
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support HB 408.
RICHARD PATTERSON
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408, but
suggested changes.
DON CLARK
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 408, urged the
committee to change the law regarding restoring the right for
convicted felons to hold firearms.
WAYNE ANTHONY ROSS, Attorney at Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided remarks on HB 408.
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska Liaison
National Rifle Association (NRA)
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested changes to HB 408.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:12:38 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. Representatives Ramras,
Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, Herron, Gatto, and Lynn were present at
the call to order. Representative Chenault was also in
attendance.
HB 253 - MECHANIC/MATERIALMEN LIENS
1:14:39 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 253, "An Act relating to the time periods
affecting certain liens related to providing labor, material,
service, or equipment to real property, including buildings and
other improvements."
1:15:16 PM
DON HEBIGER, Staff, Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 253 came at the request of
constituents. This legislation extends by 30 days the period of
time in which a mechanic or material man may work with a
customer for payment or settlement of a bill or an invoice
before being able to file a lien. Therefore, the time period
would be changed from 90 days to 120 days.
CHAIR RAMRAS, speaking as the sponsor, relayed that HB 253
addresses those who live in a diesel-dependant community. He
explained that the harder a boiler works the more inclined it is
to go out and rarely does the boiler go out during normal
business hours. Therefore, bills for such services are often
high and in cases in which there is other damage, such as water
damage, the insurance claims can take time. Moreover, the check
for insurance claims can be made to the occupant rather than the
individual who actually performed the work/repair. Chair Ramras
mentioned that the Home Builder's Association is opposed to HB
253 and believes that [the mechanic/material man] should secure
a promise of payment for the work.
1:21:14 PM
ROCKY PAVEY, President, Rocky's Heating Service, opined that
small business is the economic backbone of any community. This
legislation will help small businesses across the state in terms
of securing payment for their hard work. The intent of HB 253,
he offered, is to extend the amount of time allowed to file a
mechanic's lien by another 30 days. He characterized it as a
timing issue, and explained that when he does work for a
customer at the beginning of the month, the bill isn't generated
until the end of the month. Once customers receive the bill,
they often feel they have 30 days to pay the bill. Therefore,
companies face 60 days before payment is received from a
multitude of customers. He noted that if a customer calls and
requests an extension, it's often given. However, he said it
shouldn't be at the company's own peril. In such a case, after
75-85 days of nonpayment the company faces making a judgment
call around regarding whether to file a lien against the
individual.
[Chair Ramras passed the gavel to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MR. PAVEY characterized HB 253, which adds 30 more days, as a
"win-win situation" for the contractor as well as the homeowner.
After the 90 day period has expired, the company would know
within 10-15 days whether the customer is going to pay or not.
This legislation allows small businesses to provide better
payment terms to customers without filing a lien, creating an
adversarial relationship, and damaging the credit history of the
customers.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MR. PAVEY acknowledged that the Alaska Homebuilder's Association
has pointed out that small businesses have the ability to file a
notice of intent to lien. However, he said it doesn't
necessarily work in the service industry as it does in new home
construction when only one to two customers are dealt with once
or twice a month. Mr. Pavey pointed out that it's very
difficult to get a customer to sign something. Furthermore,
there are often cases in which the property owner/landlord,
business owner, or homeowner isn't present when the work is
done. "It really is quite impractical to assume that we can
file one of the notice of right to lien papers every single
service call," he emphasized. Furthermore, to expect his
technicians to track down owners to sign the notice of lien
would create a massive amount of paperwork. The aforementioned
would be unnecessary if HB 253 is passed. Mr. Pavey informed
the committee that his company has lost tens of thousands of
dollars, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of dollars, from
customers who take advantage of the current 90-day timeframe.
Providing the additional 30 days would weed out those customers
who are struggling but intend to pay the bill from those who are
working the system. Unlike an automobile repair shop or other
shop to which equipment is brought to the shop, the heating
services industry can't hold the equipment until payment is
received. Mr. Pavey encouraged the committee to give careful
consideration to HB 253.
1:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Pavey whether any of his clients
are opposed to HB 253.
MR. PAVEY said that he didn't know. However, he didn't believe
providing extra time to pay the bill would negatively impact his
customers. He reiterated his belief that HB 253 is a "win-win
situation." In further response to Representative Gatto, Mr.
Pavey related that colleagues who perform similar work,
including plumbing, mechanics, or electrical, and with whom he
has spoken are in support of [HB 253]. Mr. Pavey reiterated
that the 120 days provides the extra days necessary to weed out
those who absolutely aren't going to pay versus those who will.
With regard to the suggestion of a time period of 180 days, he
said that the longer he has to work with the customer the
better. Still, 120 days is sufficient.
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that Lobbyist Ashley Reed and bankers are
opposed to HB 253. He further noted that bankers don't want
another entity before their lien.
MR. PAVEY, in response to Chair Ramras, shared examples of
services his company provides and the price of each. For
example, the standard rate for annual servicing is $325; after-
hours calls incur an additional $50 fee.
1:31:42 PM
GRACE RUDY, Overhead Door Company, concurred with Mr. Pavey's
testimony. In response to questions, Ms. Rudy indicated that
her company also has after-hours callouts for which the owner of
the building isn't really known. In these cases, the company is
going on a call in good faith, trusting that the customer will
pay the bill. She informed the committee that the Overhead Door
Company charges $120 an hour during normal hours and $180 an
hour for after-hour calls. The company also charges for travel.
Therefore, a service call will be a minimum of $120. In further
response to questions, Ms. Rudy related that the Overhead Door
Company employs an average of 13 employees and Rocky's Heating
Service employs 16 employees.
1:34:12 PM
WAYNE LONG, Wayne's Air Supply, concurred with the comments of
the previous two speakers. He related that he's currently
working with an insurance company that owes him $5,000. In
response to questions, he recounted the specifics of the case in
which he performed work for a customer who made a claim with an
insurance company that says the check is the mail while the
homeowner has a different story. He noted that companies want
to be fair and just and the extra time would be helpful in
making the decision whether to file a lien.
1:36:14 PM
JIM SLATER, Slater Construction, offered his belief that
extending the time period beyond 120 days would be beneficial.
He related that he has been in numerous situations in which he
has had to place a lien on a customer's property. He recounted
an example wherein the existing lien timeframe of 90 days was
insufficient to prevent court services and paperwork, which are
expensive. For small repair services the 120 days should be
fine, however, for contractors a longer time period would be
more appropriate as it would limit or minimize issues for the
homeowner, subcontractor, and suppliers, all of which are at a
disadvantage under the 90-day time period. He opined that a
180-day time period would be more advantageous for everyone. If
a lien needs to be filed, there are other issues, such as
honesty and credibility, involved beyond just the funds owed.
In response to questions, Mr. Slater informed the committee that
he is a general contractor who either works on his own or
subcontracts out his work with bills that total $10,000 or more.
Although extending the timeframe is desirable, he suggested that
the lien issues should be reviewed as well. He informed the
committee that when claims are filed, it doesn't go to small
claims court because it involves property and deeds of trust,
which are Alaska Superior Court issues. Due to the amount of
cases in Fairbanks, it can take a year to a year-and-a-half to
merely obtain a court date at the Alaska Superior Court.
1:40:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that HB 253
will benefit homeowners as well as companies since it will help
avoid additional legal fees.
CHAIR RAMRAS highlighted the difficulty some have when trying to
pay their [service/repair] bills as well as home heating bills.
He reiterated the further costly impact of diesel-dependent
communities. He then reviewed the next committee of referral
for HB 253, which is the House Rules Standing Committee.
MR. PAVEY, in response to comments, reiterated that HB 253 will
provide one more tool by which to protect his business's
financial well-being, and in turn that of his clients. He,
again, characterized HB 253 as a "win-win situation."
1:47:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether the goal of HB 253 could be
accomplished through a borough ordinance.
CHAIR RAMRAS answered that he didn't believe so, as it's in
statute. He opined that it's likely a similar issue in other
communities and thus would be meaningful throughout the state.
He noted that the smaller the business the less access it has to
the legal system due to the cost and the time involved. This
legislation protects small contractors and allows for those who
are merely slow to pay rather than those who just aren't going
to pay.
MR. PAVEY concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted, however, that ordinances can make
statutes more restrictive. Therefore, he asked if the time
period could be reduced by an ordinance, even if the legislation
is passed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied no, adding that's because of
the language of HB 253.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 253.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON disclosed that passage of HB 253 would
benefit the small businesses he owns in Bethel.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected, thus requiring Representative
Herron to vote.
1:51:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 253 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 253 was reported from the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HJR 38 - CONST. AM: INCREASE NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS
1:52:59 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to and increasing
the number of members of the house of representatives to forty-
eight and the number of members of the senate to twenty-four.
[Before the committee was CSHJR 38(STA).]
1:53:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature,
paraphrased from the following written sponsor statement
[original punctuation provided]:
HJR 38 will put a constitutional amendment before the
voters in the 2010 general election that would
increase the size of the legislature to 44
representatives and 22 senators. Upon voter approval,
the measure would apply to the 2012 determination of
new boundary's for the election district.
In the first 50 years of statehood, Alaska has not
changed the 20 senator, 40 representative size of its
legislative body, the smallest bicameral legislature
in the nation. In this time span, the population of
the state has more than tripled. Most significantly,
the population increase is disproportionate, strongly
favoring large urban areas over rural and small
community areas. The task then of applying the
proscriptions of Article VI, above, has
correspondingly become more difficult and contentious.
Except for the 1960 reapportionment, all subsequent
reapportionments have faced successful legal
challenges, requiring boundary adjustments and on
several occasions, a court constructed plan.
Federal protections of the U.S. Voter Rights Act of
1965 for large minority concentrations further
complicate Alaska's reapportionment process. Indeed,
they can act to counter the Section 6 requirements.
Rural election district distortions are evident in the
current plan. There is a probability that the new
population distribution of the 2010 census cannot
reconcile Section 6 and the Voter Rights Act without
increasing the size of the legislature.
Between 1960 and 2006, twenty nine states have changed
the size of their legislative body. For the nine
states with small populations similar to Alaska
(509,000 to 1,429,000), the average size of their
legislative bodies is 134 members.
Another measure of the effect of the state's growth
and complexity on the work of the legislature is its
budget responsibilities. Legislative expenditures for
government programs and projects has risen from a
figure of $104 million in FY 61 to somewhere in the
neighborhood of $7 billion currently. This is an
increase from $2700 per capita in 1961 nominal dollars
to $10,000 per capita today.
For these reasons, putting a proposal to increase the
size of the legislature before the voters is timely
and merited.
[Chair Ramras passed the gavel to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON then remarked that HJR 38 would provide
Alaskans that reside in expanding rural districts better access
to their legislators. Although rural residents will never have
the ease of access urban residents experience, an increase in
the size of the legislature may maintain access similar to what
currently exists. For the aforementioned reasons,
Representative Wilson requested the committee forward HJR 38 so
that the initiative can be placed before voters in 2010.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to comments and questions,
directed the committee's attention to a map entitled "State of
Alaska - Amended Final Redistricting Plan" which highlights just
one Senate district. She opined that the large and spread out
district illustrates how difficult it has become for some
legislators to represent and know the people in their district.
If nothing is done, the highlighted district will become much
larger, and the remaining districts will become more condensed
in the urban areas. Representative P. Wilson characterized it
as a fairness issue to the legislator and the constituents. She
informed the committee that the district illustrated on the map
is the largest district in the United States.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON questioned why an individual would be
concerned about the size of a state since the 1965 Voting Rights
Act changed [national representation] to be based on population
rather than area. Therefore, he inquired as to who would
advocate for the ballot measure in rural areas besides rural
legislators.
2:02:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that HJR 38 will
benefit [urban districts]. For example, he represents the
distinct socio-economic area of Mountain View and this
resolution would allow the district to be small and cohesive
much like in rural districts that have the same heritage,
language, and economy.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that to get HJR 38 passed and
before the voters it will be essential for urban supporters of
the resolution to join with rural supporters. Although the
resolution may allow rural districts to retain a couple of
seats, the main accomplishment of the resolution will be to keep
districts small. In further response to comments,
Representative Gruenberg said that he wouldn't have a problem
advocating for the proposed ballot measure.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he supports HJR 38.
CHAIR RAMRAS related a discussion he had regarding HJR 38 and
keeping the Senate at 20 members and increasing the House to 60.
Although the aforementioned would make the House the People's
House, the fiscal note would be large.
2:08:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that under HJR 38, the
representation doesn't change as every resident would continue
to have one representative and one senator. With regard to the
large district referenced earlier, the resolution would reduce
its size but it would remain large. Furthermore, constituents
aren't happy with [government], and therefore he questioned why
anyone would vote to increase the number of legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that if the resolution and
subsequent ballot measure is approved, it would have to be
precleared by the U.S. Department of Justice. He inquired as to
when the preclearance occurs.
2:11:28 PM
MARGARET PATON WALSH, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and
State Affairs Section, Department of Law (DOL), explained that
the preclearance would occur after the ballot measure is
approved. However, the preclearance paperwork could be prepared
ahead of time so that if the ballot measure is approved, the
paperwork could be then filed with the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) the next [business] day. She further explained
that the DOJ has a 60-day turnaround time during which it could
ask for more information, approve, or disapprove of the ballot
measure. If the U.S. Department of Justice requests more
information, then another 60-day period begins. Ms. Paton Walsh
said that although the timing would be tight, it could be
achieved, particularly if the DOJ was amenable to the amendment.
2:12:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that it would be
possible to implement for the election in 2012.
MS. PATON WALSH related that the redistricting process will
begin in early 2011 and each state's data will be issued from
mid January through April. Although she said she didn't know
when Alaska will receive its data, last time the states were
provided the data in alphabetic order of the states. Therefore,
DOL is planning to be prepared for an early January date. Ms.
Paton Walsh explained that if the data is received in mid
January, then the [redistricting] board would be provided 30
days to develop plans and another 60 days of hearings for those
plans in order to have adopted a plan by April. By the time the
[redistricting] board starts its work, DOL will want to know how
many districts are going to be created. She reviewed a scenario
in which it would be early January, which would be just prior to
receipt of data from the U.S. Census Bureau. As long as the DOJ
preclears within the 60-day timeframe, the process should
proceed fine.
2:14:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Ms. Paton Walsh is aware
of any other issue in Alaska that will need to be precleared.
MS. PATON WALSH responded no, not other than the plan itself.
Although she noted that the Division of Elections may have some
changes that would require preclearance, the preclearance
requests are independent. Therefore, she didn't believe that
any other preclearance issues for the state would impact this
situation.
2:15:52 PM
BRUCE BOTELHO, after mentioning that although he's the mayor of
the City & Borough of Juneau, he's speaking in his private
capacity. He then mentioned he has served as attorney general
and deputy attorney general for the state and was intensely
involved with reapportionment for the 1990 plus plan that was
finally adopted in 1994 and in 2002. Mr. Botelho related his
support for HJR 38. In response to earlier questions and
comments, Mr. Botelho explained that since the U.S. Constitution
has been interpreted to mean one person one vote, that will be
the case regardless of the size of the legislature. With regard
to why, then, it should be changed and who will speak for the
ballot measure, Mr. Botelho opined that people intuitively know
that a person who represents a more compact district will have
an easier time communicating with his/her constituents than a
person with a larger district. Without a change to the state
constitution, the challenge to the next reapportionment board
will be great and will exacerbate the geographic disparity in
the state. In conclusion, Mr. Botelho recommended the
resolution as it was originally proposed with a House body of 48
as it would minimize the increase of the footprint of any given
district while preserving the symmetry in the constitution,
particularly with regard to super majority votes whether they be
two-thirds or three-quarters votes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO opined that although there is an optimum
number, he doubted that it's 48 and suggested that it's more
likely that we should reflect New Hampshire. He asked why Mr.
Botelho chose 48.
MR. BOTELHO answered that 48 most nearly represents districts in
geographic size as they are today, that is the largest
districts. He remarked that there is no optimum number as one
must consider the expense, the space, and the functionality of
the body versus the ability to provide better access between
representatives and their constituents.
2:21:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Mr. Botelho knows how other
local governments feel about this proposal.
MR. BOTELHO related his understanding that the only body that
has extensively debated the issue is the Conference of Southeast
Mayors, which has adopted a resolution in support.
2:22:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, referring to the fiscal note, asked if
there is any part of analysis of this proposal that will cost
the state money that isn't included in the fiscal note.
2:22:53 PM
KARLA SCHOFIELD, Deputy Director, Accounting, Legislative
Administrative Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, answered
not that she is aware of, although she said the fiscal note is
the best judgment of what to expect. In further response to
Representative Gatto, Ms. Schofield pointed out that there are
funds in the contractual line item for an increase in office
space rent. However, until after redistricting it won't be
apparent whether the Anchorage Legislative Information Office
(LIO) or the smaller LIOs will require increased space or
whether there would be the need for an LIO in a new location.
There is also funding for a position for part-time LIO officers
for session only. She pointed out that the funding is included
in the personal services line item and is outlined on page 2 of
the fiscal note. The $1.9 million in personal services includes
salaries and benefits for the legislators and their staff as
well as additional LAA staff, including an additional attorney,
two LIO officers, and one enroller or Help Desk technician. She
then pointed out that the office rent is included in the
contractual line item, which includes an increased amount for
allowance accounts for the additional legislators as well as
connectivity costs and an increase in office space rent.
2:25:31 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, upon ascertaining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HJR 38.
2:25:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report CSHJR 38(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 38(STA) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 408 - MISCONDUCT INVOLVING WEAPONS
2:26:16 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 408, "An Act relating to misconduct involving
weapons."
2:27:08 PM
BEN MULIGAN, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 408 is before the committee as
the result of the court case Caron vs. U.S. that is now being
interpreted by the federal government as restricting firearm
possession. This legislation proposes to change the affirmative
offense in AS 11.61.200(b) to a non-applicability provision. He
further explained that under the Caron case the interpretation
is that if there is any restriction for carrying or possessing
firearms, that right is no longer retained under the federal
government.
2:29:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature,
interjected that HB 408 attempts to develop a logical path for
those who have lost their right to own a gun to reestablish
their right to bear arms. He noted the similarity of this
effort to that of reestablishing voting rights. In discussing
this with legislators from rural areas of Alaska, there are
circumstances in which the inability to own a firearm affects
the essence of the way of life in some areas.
CHAIR RAMRAS related that he doesn't see language in HB 408 that
creates two classes of rights, one for those who have lost the
right to possess firearms due to a felony conviction and those
who have a felony conviction that involved weapons. He asked if
it's possible to address that in the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE characterized HB 408 as a starting point
and the language to which Chair Ramras referred could certainly
be part of the discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed interest in any citations for
relevant cases other than the Caron v. U.S. and Gabrielle v.
State of Alaska cases.
2:36:03 PM
JIM ADAMS related his personal experience in which he was
convicted in 1985 and the judge waived the anti-gun [possession
provision] but was given five years of probation. He, then,
applied for and received a federal firearms license in 1986.
After attending gun smith schools outside of Alaska in 1986 and
1989, he was informed by the state in 1998 that he would have to
turn over his federal firearms license due to changes in the
law. He was told that under the State of Alaska law he couldn't
own handguns. He was also told by the federal government that
he could either own any type of firearm or no firearm. At this
point, Mr. Adams said that he isn't allowed to purchase a
handgun, rifle, or shotgun in his own name. He informed the
committee that he never had any difficulties with the law prior
or after the 1985 conviction. Therefore, he would like to be
able to enjoy the use of firearms again, including gunsmithing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized Mr. Adams' case as very
compelling.
2:41:42 PM
ERIC STANLEY related his support for HB 408. Mr. Stanley
characterized himself as an "average Joe" who has paid his debt
to society, received a pardon under suspended imposition of
sentence (SIS). He noted that he has also fulfilled all the
obligations, terms, and conditions of his probation after being
charged with theft in the second degree due to receiving stolen
property when he was 19 or 20 years of age. Mr. Stanley, an
outdoorsman, said that he sometimes asks himself whether he
should have the right to protect his own life. He related that
due to his inability to carry a gun he has stopped taking his
daughter fishing [and other things such as biking and camping]
as he refuses to place his daughter in a situation in which he
can't protect her. "I have no desire to break the law and carry
a gun unlawfully, so what choices or rights do I have? I feel
as if my right to spend quality time with my family has somewhat
been encroached on also," he opined. Mr. Stanley expressed his
hope that someday his rights and the rights of others in similar
situations will be restored. Although fishing is a major part
of his life and he isn't willing to give it up, he fears that it
is only a matter of time before he finds himself in an encounter
with a bear during which he won't be unable to defend himself.
CHAIR RAMRAS remarked that Mr. Stanley illustrates his earlier
point regarding the difference between individuals who have
committed a felony with a weapon versus those who've committed a
felony without a weapon. He inquired as to the details of Mr.
Stanley's case.
MR. STANLEY related that in his case, the theft in the second
degree was due to receipt of a stolen weapon. At the time, he
said he didn't know the weapon was stolen. He clarified that he
didn't use a weapon in the commission of a crime.
2:48:53 PM
RICHARD PATTERSON relayed that he has been a pilot in the Bush
for the last 30 years, the last 15 years he has been engaged in
medivac and search and rescue operations encompassing the North
Slope and the Northwest Arctic Borough. He related that a
firearm is a tool that he must have in his profession and
thanked the legislature for addressing this issue for those with
felony convictions. He told the committee that years ago he
erred, saw it was wrong, and corrected the situation. Mr.
Patterson said that his success is the result of hard work,
dedication, loyalty to Alaskans, and those he serves. He
further said that he has made exemplary rehabilitative efforts
and performed extraordinary acts that have been recognized by a
duly elected executive officer of Alaska. Mr. Patterson was
granted a full, unconditional pardon in order to allow him to
have handguns to protect others. He recounted various bear
encounters he has experienced and opined that a firearm is not a
luxury but is instead a necessity. Mr. Patterson then related
his support for HB 408, but suggested that it be amended such
that all rights to bear firearms are restored. He pointed out
that the federal government is intervening in the legislature
and the power to pardon lies in the executive branch and
legislative instruments that interfere with that pardon clearly
violate the separation of powers. In conclusion, Mr. Patterson
expressed hope that the inadequacies in HB 408 will be
rectified.
2:53:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that HB 408 goes beyond the
restorative right to bear arms but also affects his
constituents. He related his intention to pursue the issue of
ensuring that the civil rights of rehabilitated individuals are
fully restored.
CHAIR RAMRAS concurred.
2:54:32 PM
DON CLARK related the situation in which he found himself
convicted of a controlled substance violation. He was told that
if he pleads guilty he would face a fine, two years probation,
SIS, and that upon completion of the conditions his record would
be wiped clean and all his rights returned. The aforementioned
happened, except that he was unable to purchase a weapon because
federal law and state law have been interpreted differently.
Mr. Clark noted that he utilized every avenue available, but
nothing was enough for the federal government. Therefore, he
approached Mr. Ross for help, which led to [HB 408]. He opined
that in Alaska hunting and fishing are a way of life and a
firearm is a necessity not a luxury. In closing, Mr. Clark
stated that the law needs to be changed.
2:56:44 PM
WAYNE ANTHONY ROSS, Attorney at Law, reviewed Alaska's law with
regard to the rights of convicted felons to own firearms.
However, under the Caron case if there are any restrictions on
an individual's right to own a firearm, then that individual
can't possess any type of firearm. The aforementioned, in
essence, changes the state's law. Although Mr. Ross remarked
that HB 408 might need to be fine tuned, it stands up for
state's rights and provides Alaskans with the rights the state's
imposed [prior to the Caron case.]
MR. ROSS, in response to Chair Ramras, indicated his agreement
with differentiating between those who used a weapon to commit a
felony and those who did not. He opined that previously passed
legislation already made such a distinction.
3:01:01 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska Liaison, National Rifle Association (NRA),
opined that although this is a complicated issue, there's a
simple solution. He then pointed out that members' packets
should contain detailed technical background information
regarding how the state is in this situation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports the bill, and would
like to hear Mr. Judy's concerns so the committee can address
them.
MR. JUDY explained that under the Caron decision unless a state
restores 100 percent of an individual's rights and treats
him/her as any other law-abiding individual who never lost
rights, the individual has no rights for the purposes of the
federal law. Alaska essentially restores 95 percent of the
individual's rights [with regard to weapons]. With regard to
the distinction in classes [of felons], Mr. Judy pointed out
that it's already distinguished in law. There's a prohibition
for carrying firearms that are capable of being concealed and
there's a separate prohibition for concealed carry of a handgun.
Both of those prohibitions can be found in AS 11.61.200 and for
both there are affirmative defenses. The affirmative defense
for carrying a concealed handgun is restoration of rights and a
limitation on carry. Mr. Judy suggested that HB 408 be amended
by repealing the limitations on concealed carry, as specified in
AS 11.61.200(g)(2). He further suggested that the affirmative
defenses need to be changed, as specified in AS 11.61.200(b) and
(g), to exceptions. The aforementioned changes will, in effect,
completely restore the rights of deserving individuals. If an
individual who has had his/her rights restored can be arrested
and charged with a crime and then raise an affirmative defense,
that individual isn't treated the same as an individual who has
never lost his/her rights and can't be charged with that crime
in the first place. With regard to the specific classes, Mr.
Judy reiterated that in statute there is already a distinction
between felons who have their rights restored and the felony
wasn't against a person and felons who did have a crime against
another person. Furthermore, those individuals who violated AS
11.41, who committed a crime against another individual, can't
get their rights restored.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that Mr. Judy mark up HB 408
and provide it to Mr. Mulligan, who would forward it to the
committee.
[HB 408 was held over.]
3:08:17 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HJR38 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 03 HJR38 CS(STA)-LEG-COU-2-18-10.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 04 HJR38 -OOG-DOE-2-1-10.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 05 HJR38 District Numbers.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 06 HJR38 Article re two redistrictings possible.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 02 HJR38 Bill HSTA CS v. R.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 01 HB253 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| 02 HB253 ver A.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| 03 HB253 Fiscal Note-CED-COM-2-26-10.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| 04 HB253 Letters of Support.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 253 |
| 01 HB408 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| 02 HB408 Bill v. A.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| 03 HB408-LAW-CRIM-03-08-10.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| 04 HB408 NRA Background information.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| 05 HB408 Leg. Legal opinion 2.16.10.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| 06 HB408 Caron v. US.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| 07 HB408 Gabrielle v. DPS.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| 08 HB408 Support.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| HB408 AS11.61.20011_05_08.pdf |
HJUD 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |