Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
03/29/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB381 | |
| HB348 | |
| HB381 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 348 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 381 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2010
1:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 381
"An Act relating to self defense."
- MOVED CSHB 381(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 348
"An Act relating to the membership of the state personnel
board."
- MOVED CSHB 348(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 381
SHORT TITLE: SELF DEFENSE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NEUMAN
02/23/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/10 (H) JUD, FIN
03/15/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/15/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/29/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 348
SHORT TITLE: PERSONNEL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LYNN
02/17/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/10 (H) STA, JUD
03/11/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/11/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/10 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/16/10 (H) Moved CSHB 348(STA) Out of Committee
03/16/10 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/10 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 3DP 1NR 2AM
03/17/10 (H) DP: PETERSEN, SEATON, LYNN
03/17/10 (H) NR: GATTO
03/17/10 (H) AM: GRUENBERG, P.WILSON
03/29/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM ELLIS, Staff
to Representative Mark Neuman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 381, Version E, for the bill
sponsor, Representative Neuman.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions, as the
sponsor of HB 381.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of HB 381.
BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Liaison
National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action
(NRA-ILA)
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 381.
MIKE SICA, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 348 on behalf of the bill
sponsor, Representative Lynn, and responded to questions.
JUDY BOCKMON, Assistant Attorney General, State Ethics Attorney
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of HB 348.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Administrative Staff
Central Office
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
testimony on HB 348.
MIKE FORD, Assistant Attorney General & Legislative Liaison
Legislation & Regulations Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during
discussion of HB 348.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:09:38 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:09 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Herron,
Gatto, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gruenberg and Holmes arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 381 - SELF DEFENSE
1:09:45 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 381, "An Act relating to self defense."
1:10:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 381, 26-LS1534\E, Luckhaupt, 3/23/10, as
the working document.
There being no objection, Version E was before the committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that Version E was a truncated version
of the original bill, but it will still benefit from discussion.
1:10:55 PM
JIM ELLIS, Staff to Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that Version E addresses the concerns
which arose for the original bill. He noted that Version E is
limited to one topic.
1:11:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON questioned whether the term, "complete
safety" as used on page 1, line 5, will be statutorily defined.
MR. ELLIS, in response to a question, explained that the
original bill contained a section for a proposed addition to AS
11.81, which discussed prima facie evidence. He pointed out
that this proposed section is removed from Version E.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, pointing to Version E, page 2, line 3,
asked if paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) were necessary in
light of (5).
MR. ELLIS replied that he was not sure, and that there could be
some duplication. He explained that it was easier to add
paragraph (5).
CHAIR RAMRAS, expressing his fascination with the meaning of
different words, asked for the meaning of "or in any place where
the person has a right to be."
MR. ELLIS offered his belief that this is any place where
someone is not trespassing.
1:16:52 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, reading Section 1, echoed Representative Gatto's
question for the need of paragraphs (1)-(4).
MR. ELLIS agreed that paragraph (5) would include the other
paragraphs.
1:19:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, in
response to Chair Ramras, explained that paragraph (1) refers to
premises that a person owns, leases, or resides in. He declared
that paragraph (5) was added to allow an individual to protect
themselves in a place where they have a legal right to be.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked how paragraph (5) expands the rights beyond
the prior four paragraphs.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN named the places a person could be as
described in paragraph (1), and noted that this also included a
member of the person's family, as noted in paragraph (4). He
opined that paragraph (5) expands the current definition for a
"place where you have a right to be to be able to protect
yourself or your family." He relayed that earlier discussions
with the Department of Law (DOL), the National Rifle Association
(NRA), and his staff had revolved around the "razor's edge on
where you fall on rights." Under the bill, there would still be
a determination of whether the use of deadly force was
justified. He suggested that this would prevent vigilantism.
1:24:49 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
acknowledged that Version E addresses many of the DOL's
concerns, but she pointed out that it does not include the "duty
to retreat," which is required in Alaska if it can be done in
complete safety. In Alaska, self defense is a valid defense
only if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you
could not retreat in complete safety. In response to the
question from Representative Gatto, DOL offered its belief that
paragraph (5) eliminates the need for paragraphs (1) - (4). She
explained that these were places that an individual has a right
to be, so it is not necessary to list them. She pointed out
that Alaska statutes do not define the term "complete safety".
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Chair Ramras, stated that although
Version E is better than the original bill, DOL still has
concerns. She agreed with Chair Ramras that Version E "makes a
bad bill, better."
1:26:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked Ms. Carpeneti to comment on the
title of the bill.
MS. CARPENETI said that juries will evaluate whether a person is
justified. She explained that the use of deadly force raises
the question of whether the person had the duty to retreat.
1:27:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked for examples of places that a person
had no legal right to be. He asked if a sign declaring "No
Trespassing" constituted such a place.
[CHAIR RAMRAS passed the gavel to Representative Herron.]
MS. CARPENETI agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if his house or his property would be
included.
MS. CARPENETI, in response, said that his house would be
protected, but that it would depend on whether his property was
clearly marked.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about a paved driveway off a dirt
road, which was the only pavement for a mile, and went directly
to his house.
[Representative Herron returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MS. CARPENETI replied that all of these instances would be
"factually based."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern about determining the
boundaries of someone's unmarked property, which could lead to
an accidental trespass.
[CHAIR RAMRAS passed the gavel to Representative Herron.]
1:30:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern about unknowingly
trespassing onto unmarked private property.
1:31:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to AS 11.46.350(b)-(c) which
addresses criminal trespass. He noted that criminal trespass in
the first degree is defined as entering or remaining unlawfully
with the intent to commit a crime, a Class A misdemeanor. He
defined criminal trespass in the second degree as a Class B
misdemeanor. He pointed out that entering or remaining
unlawfully is defined in the statute. He further explained that
a person entering land, without intent to commit a crime, which
is unused, unimproved, and not enclosed, is "privileged to do
so, unless there is notice against trespass personally
communicated to that person by the owner of the land or some
other authorized person."
The committee took an at-ease from 1:34 p.m. to 1:35 p.m.
1:35:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if being on a paved road could be
trespassing.
MS. CARPENETI, in response, said that it would depend on the
circumstances. The road would have to be marked as private.
She agreed that a mailbox would indicate that it is private, but
it would still depend on the circumstances.
1:36:22 PM
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Lynn, declared that
any person who is invited in, including service people, has a
right to be there.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked about people entering to retrieve an
object, such as a ball or a model airplane.
MS. CARPENETI replied that it would depend on the circumstances.
1:38:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES, referring to the DOL letter dated March
15, 2010 [Included in the members' packets], asked if DOL
maintained its objection. She read from the second paragraph on
page one: "...if person A could avoid killing person B by
walking away, he/she would no longer be required to do so, but
instead would be authorized by law to kill person B." She asked
if this would also now apply with Version E.
MS. CARPENETI replied that it is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES read from page three, paragraph two: "The
proposed subsection... would almost completely eliminate the
duty to retreat." and she asked if this was also still a DOL
concern of Version E.
MS. CARPENETI replied that it was still a concern.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, referring to Version E, page 2, line 3,
asked if this was a re-write from the original bill.
1:40:16 PM
MS. CARPENETI explained that Version E merely changes the
numbering of the paragraphs.
1:40:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there had been discussion
with the bill sponsor for inserting "that you only have a duty
to retreat when you know you can safely do so." He opined that
this was the basic principle of the common law.
MS. CARPENETI replied that this was already included on page 1,
lines 4-7, of Version E.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said
that DOL did discuss with the bill sponsor the "burden of going
forward and the burden of proof."
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Gruenberg, stated
that the duty of presenting evidence of self defense was
discussed in general terms.
1:43:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested a statement that "the burden
to disprove the defense is on the prosecution beyond a
reasonable doubt." He stated further that "all the defendant has
to do is put in some evidence, enough to raise the issue, like
to say, 'gee, I thought he was gonna go after me' and then the
duty to disprove it, to show that didn't occur, is back on the
prosecution and it's the highest burden in the law, beyond a
reasonable doubt."
1:44:09 PM
MR. ELLIS replied that he would speak with the bill sponsor. He
offered his understanding that, for this defense, the burden
shifts to the prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed, and suggested that this be
written into Version E. In response to Representative Herron,
he explained that this is a convoluted area of law, which is not
clarified in Version E. He suggested that making this change in
Version E could better clarify the law.
1:46:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES expressed her concern with gang violence.
She offered her belief that Version E would extend the "no duty
to retreat" to public places such as malls and parks. She asked
if this might unwittingly legalize gang violence.
MS. CARPENETI agreed that DOL also shared this concern. She
said that the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" could be
difficult to prove for either side. In response to a question
from Representative Gatto, she explained that for this defense,
the prosecution has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable
doubt, as defined in the justification section of Title 11.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Gatto, said that it
would be unusual to have this written in two places in the law,
as it could lead to confusion.
1:48:58 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Liaison, National Rifle Association -
Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), offered his belief
that the intent of the bill is to allow a person to kill someone
who criminally threatens him/her. He said there are two
questions to answer when someone is criminally threatened:
first, is there justification for deadly force; and second, is
there the possibility for retreat in complete safety. The NRA
believes that no one should have to be burdened with this
determination if they are in a lawful place. He agreed that
there may still be a need to justify their action. He opined
that Version E merely removed the duty to retreat. He opined
that gang violence was an issue where justification was
necessary. He stated that NRA just wanted to protect the law
abiding citizen.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON declared that HB 381 [Version E] would be
set aside until later in the meeting.
HB 348 - PERSONNEL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
1:52:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 348, "An Act relating to the membership
of the state personnel board." [Before the committee was CSHB
348(STA), 26-LS1360\E.]
1:52:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, speaking as the sponsor, explained that HB
348 would increase the range of representation to the personnel
board allowing for greater independence. He noted that HB 348
would increase the personnel board membership to five members,
which:
allows the governor to make an appointment from at
least three people nominated by the chief justice of
the Alaska Supreme Court, subject to the right of the
governor to request additional recommendations. It
also ensures the board has at least one member of each
of the two parties that got the most votes in the
previous election.
He opined that the current board representation allows for the
public perception that it is "a creature of the governor rather
than a totally independent body when it comes to investigating
executive branch ethics complaints." He stated that the purpose
of the bill was to create a better foundation of trust between
the public and elected officials.
1:55:17 PM
MIKE SICA, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 348 increased the personnel board
membership from three to five, and it allowed for the
appointment of a member from each of the two political parties
receiving the highest number of votes in the gubernatorial race.
He noted that Section 2 was just conforming language. He
pointed out that the two changes in CSHB 348 (STA), Version E,
were in Section 3: page 2, line 14 adds "political" after the
word "or"; and page 2, lines 16-18 reflects that these were now
reformatted into separate paragraphs (3), (4), and (5).
MR. SICA described this as a friendly bill. He described the
personnel board to be very visible, and of great interest to the
public. He pointed out that public policy questions are
discussed at the board meetings. He read the description of the
personnel board: "the personnel board, also created by the
Personnel Act, is an independent agency composed of members
appointed by the governor." He stated a desire for the board to
maintain its independence.
1:59:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, referring to Version E, page 1, line 15,
asked if the language "until a successor is confirmed" allowed
the governor an opportunity to control the board for many years
simply by not submitting any names for confirmation.
MR. SICA offered his understanding that language was included to
allow for interim appointments.
1:59:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO mentioned the possibility for unintended
consequences. He questioned whether the bill should be amended
to ensure that the governor would not be able to exercise this
power.
2:01:09 PM
JUDY BOCKMON, Assistant Attorney General, State Ethics Attorney,
Opinions, Appeals, & Ethics, Civil Division (Anchorage), also
expressed concern for unintended consequences.
[Representative Herron returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MS. BOCKMON expressed concern for the scope of the restrictions
in Section 3. She pointed out that Section 3 adds some
prohibitions and restrictions on conduct for campaigning and
lobbying, which includes employees of the board and persons
under contract. She asked whether the intention of the bill is
to impose these restrictions uniquely on employees hired by the
board or would these restrictions also be imposed on Department
of Administration (DOA) employees working in the [Division] of
Personnel. She questioned how these would relate to the "rights
and responsibilities" listed in AS 39.25.178. Referring to
Section 3, she questioned to whom the persons under contract
specifically referred, and if the restrictions were on an
individual or also the business.
MS. BOCKMON directed attention to the specific restrictions,
which she opined are placed on the members, not the employees.
She questioned whether the restrictions make sense for members
of the personnel board. She asked whether the intention is to
restrict the voluntary board members from any lobbying efforts
on behalf of their personal businesses. She asked to determine
the scope of the restrictions before imposing them. She opined
that the workload of the board would demand more members.
2:08:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO agreed with the distinction between
employees of the board and persons under contract. He offered
his belief that "we don't intend to eliminate those people as
people who might have a special interest."
MS. BOCKMON clarified that the concern is for the scope of
restrictions on an employee, and for which employees are
specified. She pointed out the different types of lobbyists and
asked if this threat of restrictions was appropriate for all of
them.
2:10:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that "imputed
disqualification for a conflict of interest" would often
disqualify all members of the law firm.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested a conceptual amendment, as a
solution, which he stated:
Page 2, lines 8-9, following "board members"
Delete "and board employees and contractors"
Page 2, lines 9-10, following "personnel board"
Delete "an employee of the board, or a person
under contract to provide personal services to the
board"
Page 2, lines 11-12
Delete "or employment or during the term of the
person's contract"
2:12:43 PM
MS. BOCKMON agreed that either the employees or the contractors
should not be included, or the intent of the restrictions needs
to be clarified.
2:13:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, referring to Version E, page 2, line 11,
expressed his difficulty in understanding the difference between
a "person" and an earlier reference to a "member of the
personnel board" and the associated restrictions. He asked if
the proposed conceptual amendment would clarify this.
2:14:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, directing attention to page 2, line
11, suggested deleting "person's" and adding "member's".
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed his desire to hear testimony prior to
discussion of any amendments.
2:15:11 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Administrative Staff,
Central Office, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska
Court System (ACS), explained the differences between the
personnel board and the ethics committee. He stated that ACS
did not want a role in the personnel management of another
branch.
2:16:32 PM
MIKE FORD, Assistant Attorney General & Legislative Liaison,
Legislation & Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau),
Department of Law (DOL), directing his comments to Section 1 of
the bill, pointed out the constitutional concerns for the
insertion of the judicial branch into the appointment process.
He pointed out that the Alaska State Constitution gives the
governor the power to appoint the members of boards and
commissions. He reflected that DOL views Section 1 as an
encroachment on those powers. He referenced Bradner v. Hammond,
1979, and suggested that expansion of this mechanism would not
be viewed favorably.
2:18:11 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
speak, closed public testimony on HB 348.
2:18:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-
LS1360\E.1, Bullard, 3/29/10, which read:
Page 2, line 9, following "contractors.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 2, line 14:
Delete ", political committee,"
Page 2, following line 18:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) In this section,
(1) "political group" has the meaning given
to "group" in AS 15.13.400;
(2) "political party" has the meaning given
in AS 15.13.400."
There being no objections, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:19:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "of the candidate for governor who
received the highest number of votes"
Insert "that has had the highest number of
registered voters"
Page 1, lines 11-12:
Delete "of the candidate for governor who
received the second highest number of votes"
Insert "that has had the second highest number of
registered voters"
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that this same issue had been
discussed in the House State Affairs Standing Committee. He
referenced the gubernatorial campaign in which Mr. Hickel ran as
an independent, not as a member of a major party. He pointed
out that with the current language of the bill, this would have
allowed for an Independent and a Republican Party member, but
not a Democratic Party member, to be nominated to the board. He
explained that Amendment 2 would guarantee that the two largest
political parties in Alaska would have a member on the state
personnel board.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO requested more discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that the purpose of
the bill is to require a bipartisan membership on the board and
ensure membership of the two major political groups. He pointed
out that the remaining members of the board could be non-
partisan.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that there were no further objections,
announced that Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:23:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
page 2 lines 8-13
delete all material
and insert
"Sec.39.25.064. Prohibited conduct by board
members. A member of the personnel board may not,
during the member's term of office,"
CHAIR RAMRAS, noting that there were no objections, announced
that Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reflected on discussions in the House
State Affairs Standing Committee whether the chief justice of
the supreme court should be involved [in the nomination
process.]
CHAIR RAMRAS replied that he was content with CSHB 348(STA), as
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred.
2:24:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether the courts objected to
submitting a list of nominees.
MR. WOOLIVER replied that the court, although preferring not to
be involved, will submit the nominations.
2:25:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report CSHB 348(STA), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
348(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
2:25:47 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:25 p.m. to 2:27 p.m.
HB 381 - SELF DEFENSE
2:27:44 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that as its final order of business, the
committee would return to the hearing on HOUSE BILL NO. 381, "An
Act relating to self defense." [Before the committee was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 381, Version E, which
had been adopted as the work draft earlier in the meeting.]
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 381.
2:28:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 381, 26-LS1534\E, Luckhaupt, 3/23/10, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected, and suggested an oral amendment,
which he stated:
Page 1, lines 4-15:
Delete all
Page 2, lines 1-2:
Delete all
He opined that this would retain the essence of the bill.
CHAIR RAMRAS objected, offering his belief that it was not the
will of the bill sponsor. He asked Mr. Ellis to agree that the
sponsor would include a statement outlining the suggested
amendment from Representative Gatto as part of the bill package
when it moved to the next committee. He opined that he
preferred the specificity of Version E, but he recognized the
value of the suggested amendment, as it offered an "umbrella
over the whole bill."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reflected that more work needed to be
done on the suggested amendment. He pointed out that paragraph
(1) referenced "where this occurs"; paragraph (2) referenced
"who this applies to"; paragraph (3) referenced "where it
occurs'; and paragraph (4) referenced "what the person is
doing". He stated that paragraph (5) should only be substituted
for paragraphs (1) and (3).
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON stated that he did not support the
suggested amendment. He nominated that the bill title be
changed to "An Act relating to self defense in any place where a
person has the right to be."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his support for a title change,
and he asked if the bill sponsor would support this.
MR. ELLIS said that he could not speak for the bill sponsor,
Representative Neuman.
2:31:42 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:31 p.m. to 2:32 p.m.
2:32:45 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS summarized the suggested amendment, and the
subsequent discussion. He also spoke about the proposed title
change.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO clarified that he had not made a motion for
an amendment.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Representative Neuman, as the bill sponsor,
for his response to a title change.
2:34:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed his appreciation and offered his
support to a title change.
2:35:09 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:35:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON [although an objection had been stated to
the motion to move the bill from committee and neither the
objection nor the motion were withdrawn] moved to adopt
Conceptual Amendment 1 for a title change, which he stated:
Page 1, line 1:
Following "defense"
Insert "in any place where the person has a right
to be."
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:36:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON restated his motion to report the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 381, Version 26-LS1534\E,
Luckhaupt, 3/23/10, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 381(JUD) was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:37:07 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 08 HB381 Proposed HJUD CS.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2010 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CS HB 381 Sponsor Statement HJUD.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 381 |