Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/16/1994 01:00 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 16, 1994 1:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair Rep. Gail Phillips MEMBERS ABSENT Rep. Pete Kott Rep. Joe Green Rep. Cliff Davidson Rep. Jim Nordlund COMMITTEE CALENDAR SB 24: "An Act extending the maximum period of probation after conviction." HEARD AND HELD SB 220: "An Act amending schedule IA of the schedules of controlled substances applicable to offenses relating to controlled substances to add the drug methcathinone, commonly identified as 'cat.'" HEARD AND HELD SB 322: "An Act repealing the requirement that an oil or gas lease sale be held during the calendar quarter for which scheduled under the leasing program and repealing related allowable delays for certain oil and gas lease sales under the Alaska Land Act; and providing for an effective date." HEARD AND HELD SB 316: "An Act relating to commercial fishing penalties." HEARD AND HELD SJR 39: "An Act relating to the individual right to keep and bear arms." HEARD AND HELD WITNESS REGISTER MICHAEL FINKELSTEIN, Aide Senator Dave Donley Alaska State Legislature Capitol Bldg., Room 11 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Position Statement: Testified on SB 24 on behalf of prime sponsor. C.E. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, AK 99811-1200 Position Statement: Testified on SB 24 and SJR 39. JOHN QUEBBEMANN, Intern Senator Johnny Ellis Alaska State Legislature Capitol Bldg., Room 9 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 465-4534 Position Statement: Testified on CSSJR 39 on behalf of prime sponsor. GERALD L. GALLAGHER, Director Division of Mining Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 107016 Anchorage, AK 99510-7016 Position Statement: Testified on SB 322. JIM BECKER Bristol Bay Fishermen P.O. Box 240522 Douglas, AK 99824-0522 586-1900 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. DAVE THOMPSON, Aide Senator Rick Halford Alaska State Legislature Capitol Bldg., Room 111 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 465-4958 Position Statement: Testified on SB 316 on behalf of prime sponsor. SAM DANIEL P.O. Box 833 Girdwood, AK 99587 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. (Spoke via teleconference) JACK FOSTER, JR. Sand Point, AK 99661 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. (Spoke via teleconference) DAVID WHITMIRE P.O. Box 2481 Homer, AK 99603 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. (Spoke via teleconference) GIOVANNI TALLINO Kodiak Island Sport Association P.O. Box 4496 Kodiak, AK 99615 Position Statement: Supported SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) WILLIAM WOOD P.O. Box 3622 Palmer, AK 99645 Position Statement: Supported SB 316. (Spoke via teleconference) DAN HASTINGS P.O. Box 3324 Soldotna, AK 99669 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. (Spoke via teleconference) KONRAD SCHAAD 53198 McNeil Pl. Homer, AK 99603 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. (Spoke via teleconference) ROSELEEN (SNOOKS) MOORE 41980 Kachemak Dr. Homer, AK 99603 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. (Spoke via teleconference) INGRID JACOBSEN II Sand Point, AK 99661 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. (Spoke via teleconference) DAN HENNICK 40345 Waterman Road Homer, AK 99603 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. (Spoke via teleconference) ALVIN OSTERBACK, Mayor City of Sand Point Sand Point, AK 99661 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. (Spoke via teleconference) JERRY McCUNE, President United Fishermen of Alaska 211 4th St., Suite 112 Juneau, AK 99801 586-2820 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. HUGH MALONE, Lobbyist Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association 2517 David St. Juneau, AK 99801 364-2932 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316. LOUIS MENENDEZ Assistant District Attorney Department of Law 155 South Seward St. Juneau, AK 99801 586-5242 Position Statement: Testified on SB 316. Opposed passage of the bill without further evaluation. COLONEL BILL VALENTINE, Director Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection Department of Public Safety 5700 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99507-1225 269-5509 Position Statement: Testified on SB 316. DAVE OSTERBACK Sand Point, AK 99661 Position Statement: Opposed SB 316 (Spoke via teleconference) PORTIA BABCOCK, Committee Aide Senate State Affairs Committee Senator Loren Leman's Office Alaska State Legislature Capitol Bldg., Room 113 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Position Statement: Testified on SJR 39. W.J. HALLERAN, JR. P.O. Box 92342 Anchorage, AK 99509 Position Statement: Supported SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) DAN DAVIS P.O. Box 1285 Delta Junction, AK 99737 Position Statement: Supported SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) GENE OTTENSTROER P.O. Box 1059 Delta Junction, AK 99737 Position Statement: Partially supported SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) JOE SCHOENER 891 Ridgetop Road North Pole, AK 99705 Position Statement: Supported the original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) LADD McBRIDE P.O. Box 83567 Fairbanks, AK 99708 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) CLARENCE BAYSINGER P.O. Box 96 Nenana, AK 99760 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) LARRY PETTY Century Club P.O. Box 56114 North Pole, AK 99705 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) FRANK TURNEY 702 Turney Ct. Rd. Fairbanks, AK 99712 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) ROBERT ANDERSON P.O. Box 2625 Kodiak, AK 99615 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) MARK CHRYSON Gun Owners of America 2140 Wolverine Circle Wasilla, AK 99654 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) DOUG MILLARD P.O. Box 870351 Wasilla, AK 99687 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) MIKE CHRYST P.O. Box 872488 Wasilla, AK 99687 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) LOUIE R. MARCH P.O. Box 686 Seward, AK 99664 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) HELEN I. MARCH P.O. Box 1331 Seward, AK 99664 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) DANIEL J. FICKLE P.O. Box 1331 Seward, AK 99664 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) WESLEY JONES HCR 64, Box 535 Seward, AK 99664 Position Statement: Testimony read by LOUIE MARCH. Supported SJR 39. ROBERT WISEMAN P.O. Box 2741 Soldotna, AK 99669 Position Statement: Supported CSSJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) ROBERT MEYER P.O. Box 945 Sterling, AK 99672 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) RAY HALLEY P.O. Box 1751 Valdez, AK 99686 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) DON CHASE P.O. Box 1515 Valdez, AK 99686 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) LARRY PETTY P.O. Box 56114 North Pole, AK 99705 Position Statement: Supported SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) CHUCK SERRA 7724 Brentwood Anchorage, AK 99502 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) NEIL CAMERON 3514 W. 40th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99517 Position Statement: Supported SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) SALLY CHRYST P.O. Box 872488 Wasilla, AK 99687 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) JEANNE PHIPPS P.O. Box 544 Delta Junction, AK 99727 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) LEON CHYTHLOOK P.O. Box 2741 Soldotna, AK 99669 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. (Spoke via teleconference) Several people submitted written testimony which was retained in the bill files. They attended teleconferences, but due to time restraints on the teleconferencing network, were not given time to testify. Those people are as follows: PAUL D. PETTY P.O. Box 36 Delta Junction, AK 99737 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. LEIGH DENNISON P.O. Box 873 Delta Junction, AK 99737 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. BRUCE GROSSMAN P.O. Box 1284 Delta Junction, AK 99737 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. ALLEN G. AVINGER P.O. Box 354 Delta Junction, AK 99737 Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39. OLIVER (BUD) BURRIS Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association P.O. Box 70669 Fairbanks, AK 99707 Phone: 474-0437 Position Statement: Supported CSSJR 39. JEANNE EVERHART P.O. Box 81269 Fairbanks, AK 99708 Position Statement: Supported SJR 39. DOUG EVERHART P.O. Box 81269 Fairbanks, AK 99708 Position Statement: Supported SJR 39. RONALD L. SCHWAB P.O. Box 327 Ester, AK 99725 Position Statement: Supported SJR 39. PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 24 SHORT TITLE: EXTEND MAXIMUM PERIOD OF PROBATION SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY,Little JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/11/93 21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/93 01/11/93 21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/11/93 21 (S) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 02/02/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 02/02/94 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 02/04/94 2678 (S) JUD RPT 3DP 1NR 02/04/94 2679 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED (DPS) 03/01/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 03/01/94 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 03/02/94 3026 (S) FIN RPT 4DP 2NR 1DNP 03/02/94 3026 (S) ZERO FNS PUBLISHED (LAW, COURT, CORR) 03/02/94 3026 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS) 03/14/94 (S) MINUTE(STA) 03/16/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 03/16/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/22/94 3317 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/22/94 03/22/94 3318 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/22/94 3319 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 03/22/94 3319 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 24 03/22/94 3319 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LITTLE 03/22/94 3319 (S) PASSED Y19 N- A1 03/22/94 3324 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/23/94 2923 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/23/94 2923 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 04/11/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/13/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/14/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/15/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 220 SHORT TITLE: ADD "CAT" TO SCHEDULE IIA DRUG LIST SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) ELLIS,Little; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Navarre JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/03/94 2451 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/93 01/10/94 2451 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/10/94 2451 (S) STA, JUD 02/09/94 (S) STA AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 02/09/94 (S) MINUTE(STA) 02/14/94 2824 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE 02/14/94 2824 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB & CS PUBLISHED (DPS, LAW) 03/14/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/15/94 3212 (S) JUD RPT 5DP (STA)CS 03/15/94 3212 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DPS, LAW) 03/18/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 03/18/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/24/94 3344 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/24/94 03/24/94 3347 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/24/94 3348 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/24/94 3348 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 03/24/94 3348 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 220(STA) 03/24/94 3348 (S) PASSED Y16 N- E1 A3 03/24/94 3353 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/25/94 2959 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/25/94 2959 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY 03/25/94 2985 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): NAVARRE 04/05/94 3124 (H) STA RPT 4DP 1NR 04/05/94 3124 (H) DP: VEZEY, ULMER, B.DAVIS, G.DAVIS 04/05/94 3124 (H) NR: OLBERG 04/05/94 3124 (H) -2 PREVIOUS SEN ZERO FNS (DPS,LAW) 2/14 04/05/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/05/94 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/11/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/13/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/14/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/15/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 322 SHORT TITLE: DELAYS OF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/14/94 2832 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/14/94 2832 (S) RES, FIN 02/22/94 (S) RES AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/22/94 (S) RES AT 03:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/23/94 2944 (S) RES RPT 3DP 1NR 02/23/94 2944 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED (DNR) 02/23/94 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/23/94 (S) MINUTE(RES) 02/24/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 518 02/28/94 2989 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE 02/28/94 2990 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO CS (DNR) 02/28/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 518 02/28/94 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 03/01/94 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 03/01/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/09/94 3105 (S) RULES RPT 4CAL 1NR 3/9/94 03/09/94 3118 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/09/94 3118 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/09/94 3124 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY LITTLE 03/09/94 3125 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y9 N11 03/09/94 3125 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FLD Y11 N9 03/09/94 3125 (S) THIRD READING 3/10 CALENDAR 03/10/94 3152 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 322 (FIN) 03/10/94 3152 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2 03/10/94 3153 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE 03/10/94 3153 (S) Lincoln NOTICE OF RECONSID ERATION 03/14/94 3197 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 03/14/94 3197 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 3/15/94 03/15/94 3217 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y18 N- E1 A1 03/15/94 3218 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE 03/15/94 3227 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/16/94 2825 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/16/94 2825 (H) OIL & GAS, JUDICIARY 03/21/94 (H) O&G AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/21/94 (H) MINUTE(O&G) 03/23/94 2934 (H) O&G RPT 4DP 1NR 03/23/94 2934 (H) DP: KOTT, SITTON, G.DAVIS, GREEN 03/23/94 2934 (H) NR: OLBERG 03/23/94 2934 (H) -PREVIOUS SEN ZERO FN (DNR) 2/23/94 04/11/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/13/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/14/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/15/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SB 316 SHORT TITLE: FISHING VIOLATIONS:FINES/BURDEN OF PROOF SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD,Jacko,Kerttula,Miller, Frank,Pearce JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/14/94 2831 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/14/94 2831 (S) RES, FIN 03/02/94 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205 03/03/94 3056 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 4NR SAME TITLE 03/03/94 3056 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS PUBLISHED (LAW) 03/15/94 (S) FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE FINANCE 518 03/16/94 3240 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 2NR (RES)CS 03/16/94 3240 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS PUBLISHED (DPS) 03/16/94 3240 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES TO CS (LAW) 03/16/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 03/16/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/16/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 518 03/24/94 3344 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3CAL 2NR 3/24/94 03/24/94 3350 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/24/94 3350 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/24/94 3350 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY ADAMS 03/24/94 3350 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y3 N12 E1 A4 03/24/94 3351 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 03/24/94 3351 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 316(RES) 03/24/94 3351 (S) PASSED Y13 N2 E1 A4 03/24/94 3351 (S) Kerttula NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 03/28/94 3379 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 03/28/94 3380 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N4 E1 03/28/94 3380 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/29/94 3037 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/29/94 3037 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 04/15/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: SJR 39 SHORT TITLE: RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/10/94 2450 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/10/94 2450 (S) STA, JUD, FIN 01/21/94 (S) STA AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205 01/21/94 (S) MINUTE(STA) 01/24/94 2579 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1NR 01/24/94 2579 (S) FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED (GOV) 01/29/94 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/04/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211 02/04/94 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 02/07/94 2717 (S) JUD RPT 4DP 02/07/94 2718 (S) PREVIOUS FN (GOV) 02/15/94 2858 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 1NR 02/15/94 2858 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED (DPS) 02/15/94 2858 (S) PREVIOUS FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 02/15/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 518 02/16/94 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 03/01/94 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 03/01/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/02/94 3029 (S) RULES RPT 4CAL 1NR 3/2/94 03/02/94 3032 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/02/94 3032 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 03/02/94 3032 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 39 03/02/94 3034 (S) (S) ADOPTED LETTER OF INTENT Y15 N4 A1 03/02/94 3035 (S) MOTION TO RETURN TO 2ND/AM 1 WITHDRAWN 03/02/94 3035 (S) PASSED Y15 N5 03/02/94 3036 (S) Duncan NOTICE OF RECONSID ERATION 03/03/94 3064 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 03/03/94 3064 (S) (S) ADOPTED LETTER OF INTENT Y16 N3 E1 03/03/94 3065 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y16 N3 E1 03/03/94 3066 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/04/94 2597 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/04/94 2597 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 04/15/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-59, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Committee was called to order at 1:07 p.m. on April 16, 1994. There was no quorum present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would take up SB 24 first, then SB 220, SB 322, SB 316, and CS SJR 39. The bills would be heard again on Monday, hopefully with a quorum, in order to take action. Testimony on SB 316 and SJR 39 was heard via teleconference. SB 24 - EXTEND MAXIMUM PERIOD OF PROBATION Number 041 MICHAEL FINKELSTEIN, Legislative Aide to Senator Dave Donley, Prime Sponsor of SB 24, reported having received several letters of support and no letters in opposition of SB 24. He explained that the bill simply extends probation from five to ten years. The Sentencing Commission recommends this extension, which is part of Governor Hickel's anti-crime package. Number 055 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Finkelstein to explain, for the record, what the benefit of the extension of time would be. MR. FINKELSTEIN replied that the judges would be given more discretion and other sentencing options. They are limited to five years probation right now, and it would be a good option for judges to be able to increase that time, as opposed to longer prison sentences. Number 069 REP. GAIL PHILLIPS questioned the zero fiscal note, since there must be costs involved, assuming the cost of controlling probation for ten years would be double that of five years. She asked for a response from the Departments of Corrections and Public Safety. Number 078 MR. FINKELSTEIN stated that there would be no increase in cost for the first five years during the implementation process, and after that, the fiscal impact would be hard to determine. The cost could actually be less, since it may result in less people in jail. The cost of probation may increase, but it might be offset by the lower cost of having fewer people in prison. Number 110 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that this would only affect sentencing occurring after the law is enacted; and the daily costs of probation are minuscule compared to the daily cost of the alternative - incarceration. Number 131 C.E. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, answered Rep. Phillips' questions regarding costs to the Department of Public Safety. He believed the costs would fall upon the Department of Corrections. He explained that it makes more sense to maintain some amount of control after a person is released from prison, as opposed to starting the whole process over again. Number 158 CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the discussion on SB 24. Number 165 SB 220 - ADD "CAT" TO SCHEDULE IIA DRUG LIST Number 178 JOHN QUEBBEMANN, Intern, Senator Johnny Ellis', Prime Sponsor of SB 220, urged the committee to support the bill including "CAP" and described the process of concocting illegal "designer" drugs, listing some of the ingredients. Mr. Quebbemann relayed that Senator Ellis would be in favor of the bill. REP. JAMES asked if there was some way to change the statute, making similar concoctions illegal, if the intent was for mind altering drugs. CHAIRMAN PORTER, in discussion with DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER and JOHN QUEBBEMANN, brought up the fact that proof of intent for using the concoctions as drugs would be rather difficult, since some precursors are everyday household items obtained from hardware stores, such as battery acid and "Draino". CHAIRMAN PORTER then concluded the discussion of SB 220. Number 328 SB 322 - DELAYS OF OIL & GAS LEASE SALES JERRY GALLAGHER, Director of the Division of Mining, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that this bill was introduced by the Senate Resources Committee. He explained that if the last two sentences were deleted from the current law, AS 38.05.180c, more flexibility would result. This current law requires the department to complete oil and gas lease sales within 90 days of when they are put on a two year schedule. If the sale is not completed within that 90 day period, it falls off the schedule and DNR is forced to start over. Sometimes sales are delayed by court challenges. In other instances, more time should be allowed for public comment. He said SB 322 deletes the last two sentences, allowing the program to run properly. Mr. Gallagher assured the committee that DNR is in support of the bill, and urged them to move it out of committee when a quorum is present. REP. PHILLIPS and MR. GALLAGHER discussed the importance of passing the bill, the lack of opposition, and the possibility of an immediate effective date. Number 398 REP. JAMES speculated about the history of the statute. She presumed the reason for the statute was so that the commissioner did, in fact, have these lease sales, and the opportunity for lease sales would not have been missed because of some delinquent or mislead commissioner; which has not proven to be the case. She showed support for the bill, believing the intent, at the time the statute was written, was meant for problems that no longer exist. Number 418 MR. GALLAGHER agreed with Rep. James, reminding the committee of the "Mean Green" area of statute, stemming from the late 1970's when people feared that an evil green environmental commissioner would delay oil and gas sales. That has not happened and is not expected to become a problem, since the pressure to maintain the leasing program exists. Number 427 CHAIR PORTER asked questions of Mr. Gallagher regarding bids, and requested clarification of what takes place in the current given 90 day period. Chairman Porter then concluded the hearing on SB 322 and announced SB 316 to be the next bill up for hearing via teleconference. Number 485 SB 316 - FISHING VIOLATIONS/FINES, BURDEN OF PROOF JIM BECKER, a Bristol Bay fisherman, expressed his concerns that the line in Bristol Bay is too restrictive, and the LORAN management of that line is unpredictable. He said he has no problem with those people in extreme violation who are blatantly over the line, being heavily fined or having their boats taken away; but the unclear line gets in the way of the average fisherman just trying to make a living, as does a fine for setting nets a couple of minutes early. A couple of those small violations should not result in someone losing their privilege to fish. Number 530 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked DAVE THOMPSON from Senator Halford's office to describe the bill. Number 531 DAVE THOMPSON, Aide, Senator Rick Halford, Prime Sponsor of SB 316, explained the bill, saying that it amends an escalating schedule for suspension and for eventual forfeiture of commercial fishing privileges, as well as the license itself. It amends 16.05.722 which doubles the potential maximum allowable fines. It amends the elementary burden commercial fishermen must satisfy in order to rebut the presumption that fish found on board in the fishing vessel have been taken illegally. Burden of proof has been increased from the preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing standard. He said he finds the declining fine amounts for the 90 repeat offenders disturbing. Mr. Thompson then proceeded to explain the difference between "preponderance of evidence" and "clear and convincing." Number 643 REP. PHILLIPS had concerns over the fluctuation of accuracy in the technological measuring devices. Number 660 MR. THOMPSON agreed that the LORAN equipment does have calibration problems and is not always accurate. Number 681 REP. JAMES suggested charging repeat offenders a double fine, and discussed other types of fines and their affects on fishermen with MR. THOMPSON, and REP. PHILLIPS. She expressed the need to come up with a fair compromise that would not deplete the livelihood of such an offender. CHAIRMAN PORTER then accepted oral testimony via teleconference, beginning with Anchorage. Number 690 SAM DANIEL, an Anchorage commercial fisherman, opposed SB 316. He blamed the problem on the repeat offenders. He urged lawmakers to consider some other means of enforcement rather than taking away fishing licenses, which results in the fishermen losing their operations if they are to be out of business for a year. He felt the bill is not an effective management tool. Number 804 JACK FOSTER from Sand Point strongly opposed the bill. Number 836 DAVID WHITMIRE, a fisherman from Homer, strongly opposed the bill, informing listeners that those 90 violations received by repeat offenders was a small amount, considering the number of permits that were issued (2850), and also considering the number of opportunities each permit holder has to commit such violations. TAPE 94-59, SIDE B Number 000 REP. JAMES commented that this was not a black and white situation. Number 012 GIOVANNI TALLINO, President, Kodiak Island Sport Association, which has over 400 members, urged the committee to let the people vote on SJR 39 (wrong bill). Number 060 WILLIAM WOOD, Palmer, strongly supported SB 316. Number 092 DAN HASTINGS, a commercial fisherman in Kenai, opposed the bill, feeling that the penalties would be too stiff for the offense. Number 155 [INAUDIBLE NAME], a 20 year Bristol Bay fisherman, believed the bill to condemn people to being guilty until proven innocent, and also has the potential of taking away the livelihood of fishermen. Number 200 KONRAD SCHAAD, Homer fisherman, spoke in opposition to the bill he described as being short-sided, specifically with the use of the LORAN, a unit which is supposed to be accurate (or inaccurate) up to 200 meters, depending upon the weather. He claimed that there is a gray zone in which fishing violations are issued. Mr. Schaad strongly believed that the real problem was lack of boundary definition and suggested creating a line made up of physical buoys. Number 277 REP. PHILLIPS acknowledged KONRAD SCHAAD'S line suggestion as being a reasonable solution. Number 296 ROSELEEN (SNOOKS) MOORE, Homer, said she has fished commercially for 34 years and expressed concerns about the militaristic attitude of the Fish & Game officers, and also about the fact that fishermen sometimes feel compelled to take action that may jeopardize their lives, just to avoid a fine. Number 343 INGRID JACOBSEN, Sand Point commercial fisherman of 15 years, opposed the bill which appears to presume offenders guilty until proven innocent. Ms. Jacobsen objected, specifically, to the language "clear and convincing burden of proof." Number 388 DAN HENNICK, Homer, a 38 year commercial fisherman, suggested giving Public Safety more funding to better enforce existing laws. He objected to increasing fines and believed most violations to be unintentional, not deliberate. Number 450 ALVIN OSTERBACK, Mayor of the City of Sand Point, viewed the bill as being backwards regarding "innocent until proven guilty." Number 515 GERALD McCUNE, Juneau, testified on behalf of the United Fishermen of Alaska in opposition to SB 316. He gave examples where "preponderance of evidence" was used to issue violations against fishermen while he believed "clear and convincing evidence" would have been a more fair scale of judgement. He suggested the committee consider an interim task force. Number 572 HUGH MALONE, Lobbyist, testified on behalf of the Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association, who oppose SB 316. Number 598 LOUIS MENENDEZ, Assistant District Attorney in Juneau, stated that he has quite a bit of experience in Kenai and Anchorage prosecuting fish and game cases, and working with fish and game protection officers. He suggested that perhaps a better way to deal with this problem would be to increase enforcement, not fines. He believed this complex issue requires more evaluation before passing the bill. Number 693 REP. PHILLIPS, REP. JAMES and MR. MENENDEZ discussed the need for either more enforcement officers on the line, or the establishment of a physical boundary line. Mr. Menendez displayed lack of faith in the idea of increasing the fines. Number 799 CHAIRMAN PORTER and MR. MENENDEZ discussed the legal definition of acting "negligently." Number 828 REP. JAMES expressed distress over the feeling that any amount of enforcement would not stop the fishermen from violating the regulations. TAPE 94-60, SIDE A Number 000 COLONEL BILL VALENTINE, Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety, agreed with Mr. Menendez that it would be nice to have a protection officer behind every bush out at Bristol Bay, but he believed it was not meant to be. He said that Fish & Game supports the bill. He believed that whatever they do will not provide a deterrent. The fishermen violate regulations right in front of the Fish & Game officers while they are working on other cases. The officers cannot keep up, no matter how many people they put on the line. He explained that this bill allows for a judge to take action to suspend a permit after the second offense, which may deter some from deliberate violations. Number 031 CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed that SB 316 not only raises the fine to add a deterrent, but at the same time changes the standards of proof on these presumptive areas from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing. Number 107 COLONEL VALENTINE made comments about a great deal of testimony being made regarding the doubling of fines. He said the only place that a maximum penalty case occurs is in Bristol Bay, which costs $3,000 on the first offense. Places like Southeastern and the YK-Delta charges run from $100 to $1,000, depending upon the magistrate, the judge, or the recommendation of the Department of Law. Maximum penalties for violations are not currently requested from the court by the Department of Public Safety. Number 139 REP. PHILLIPS spoke about the fact that it is probably physically possible to mark the line and requested an opinion of COLONEL VALENTINE. Number 147 COLONEL VALENTINE replied that after having spent 23 years as a "fish cop" and having spent one year as a commercial fisherman, he thinks that a physical line would be the best solution; especially in a fishery as intense and short served as Bristol Bay is. If the line were to move around a little, so be it, the line would be defined where it is marked, and would not be subject to the jitter of the LORAN, nor sun spots. Number 150 REP. PHILLIPS spoke in favor of clearly marking the line. Number 155 CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the discussion of SB 316, followed by a short break. Number 200 REP. PHILLIPS requested that the Department of Law be present for comment and question when the bill was brought back up on Monday; and she also requested that the hearing be heard via teleconference. CHAIRMAN PORTER concurred. Number 210 DAVID OSTERBACK from Sand Point was not in favor of the bill, as he said it threatens the livelihood of many fishermen. CHAIRMAN PORTER reminded meeting attenders that SB 316 would be heard again on Monday. He then continued on to SJR 39. Number 252 SJR 39 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that a copy of the CS was currently being circulated throughout the legislative offices, and asked PORTIA BABCOCK to present SJR 39 and describe the CS. Number 287 PORTIA BABCOCK, Committee Aide to the Senate State Affairs Committee, explained that SJR 39 was introduced by the Senate State Affairs Committee from numerous requests that it be passed through the legislature so that it could be voted on in the 1994 general election. She said this idea has been an issue, primarily since 1983, when an attorney general's opinion was written by JOE GELDHOFF, which sort of set off a lot of Alaskans, making them uneasy, because the opinion interpreted exactly what Article 1, Section 19 means. MS. BABCOCK said at this time there is no Alaska supreme court interpretation of exactly what Article 1, Section 19, means, because it has never been challenged and has never been considered by the supreme court. She stated this clarification is strongly supported by Senator Leman, who wished to apologize for not introducing it himself. He would encourage passage of as clear and concise language as can possibly be put before the voters so they can understand exactly what they would be voting on, and also to keep in line with fairly clear, direct language in the constitution. MS. BABCOCK said SJR 39 passed out of the Senate with a vote of 16 to 3. The bill presently before the House Judiciary Committee clarifies an individual right to keep and bear arms. Ms. Babcock said it is the opinion of Senator Leman and many others throughout the state that Article 1, Section 19, as is, right now, with what is identical to the second amendment of the federal constitution, does currently guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. This should guarantee that right, in Senator Leman's opinion, as well as in many others', (including the supreme court's) in cases in the late 1800's and up into the 1930's, which is the last time the federal supreme court actually heard a case involving the second amendment. At that time, the supreme court's interpretation was that this is a state, as well as an individual right or protection, for individuals to bear arms, and challenges to that at lower court levels, or the interpretations of attorneys, attorney generals, and other opinions, but it has never been viewed differently at the court or supreme court level. With no state supreme court case law to look at, it is difficult to decide what our supreme court would do. No one really knows how they would interpret it, or what they think Article 1, Section 19, actually means. Some cases have been brought up by our own Department of Law in reference to other cases in other states. Their concern is that passing this amendment will somehow abrogate laws that are currently on the books or that may be in the future. MS. BABCOCK said Senator Leman does not believe that to be true. He believes this should change absolutely nothing, because the way the second amendment reads right now, in our current language, it does guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms. With a compelling government or state interest, laws have been upheld under language very similar to this language proposed in SJR 39, as well as under more strict language, as in our current constitution; and also, more strict and explicit constitutions are found in other states. Laws have been consistently upheld, regulating felon and possession laws, prohibiting minors and juveniles from being able to possess weapons up to a certain age, not allowing weapons or firearms on school grounds or in schools. A lot of these have been challenged and they have been upheld. MS. BABCOCK said the only case where the felon and possession law was partially upheld and partially struck down was in Colorado. Their constitutional language was more explicit than what is being proposed in SJR 39. That language states "the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property or in aid of a civil power, when adhered to a legal setting, shall be called into question." And so it is strictly stated that the person has the right to defend themselves, to keep and bear arms in defense of self, home, family and state. The only time it was a question was when the court ruled that someone who had been convicted of a felony had been released and was back out, not on parole, and it was illegal for them to possess a firearm in the state of Colorado. The court said, "You can possess a firearm if it is an affirmative defense for them to prove they were in possession of that weapon to defend themselves, their family, home or state; but they did uphold the felon possession law. That is the only case. It has been challenged in other states and they have all been upheld. MS. BABCOCK said that Senator Leman, as well as most of the people she has heard testimony from (which is about 1500 people statewide and thousands of letters and petitions - she has a box of petitions that she chose not to distribute because she didn't want to waste the paper), and she has over 8,600 signatures in support of SJR 39 as well as HB 351 (they are both on the petition). So, in the opinion of Senator Leman, this should have no affect on how a court would interpret this, and the language we currently have already protects the individual right. And most people feel very secure with that. It was only after this opinion was written in 1983 that they started questioning whether they actually had an individual right to bear arms under Article 1, Section 19, of our state constitution as well as the federal constitution, second amendment. When that was brought into question, people wanted this clarified to say, "This is what we think it means. We want to be able to vote on this, and tell the courts very clearly what we mean and what we think the constitutional language for the right to keep and bear arms means and want the chance to vote on that." That was the reason for introducing SJR 39. Ms. Babcock then announced that she would be willing to answer questions or address the CS. Number 415 REP. PHILLIPS requested an analysis between the two be made by Ms. Babcock. Number 420 MS. BABCOCK explained that the proposed judicial CS would change the title, first of all. On line 4 of the title, it inserts "unreasonably", and then on line 5 after "state" it adds the last 2-1/2 sentences of language: "and establishing that the expanded right to keep and bear arms does not change the level of judicial scrutiny applicable to the review laws relating to reference." She said that changes the title. Number 435 REP. PHILLIPS requested that Ms. Babcock address that language and Senator Leman's feeling on the subject. Number 440 MS. BABCOCK explained that on page 2 similar change is on lines 3, 4 and 5. Senator Leman opposes this change, as well as the other changes, seeing a problem with setting a bench mark for courts to try and interpret in the future, because there is no judicial level of scrutiny of weapons laws to look at right now. The level of scrutiny the court will use is almost impossible to judge when there are no cases to look at, and nothing by which to set a bench mark. People who are going in to vote on this would have no idea what this means. She does not think this bill is necessary, since there is nothing to look back on to understand what exactly this means. The supreme court is going to look at the constitutional language, and they are going to decide whether these laws are constitutional or not, based on their interpretation of the law, and under the constitution. She does not think this gives them enough guidance from the legislature for them to understand what we are talking about. The language is not clear to the voter. The bill is not written as an absolute. Number 493 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Babcock, if the bill is written as "not an absolute," why would it be offensive to add the one word that would guarantee that it is not an absolute? Number 508 MS. BABCOCK explained that the reason most people, as well as the Senator, would find the word "unreasonably" to be unnecessary, is that they are worried about the courts using that word unreasonably to mean any law that has any positive justification, rather than proving a compelling governmental interest. She said, we do want high standards. People that believe we do have the right to keep and bear arms have a philosophical constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as law abiding citizens. What they are worried about, is that the word "unreasonably" is a term that they feel could be abused by the court. Number 520 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that Deputy Commissioner Swackhammer would explain the other side to that point of view. Number 522 REP. JAMES asked MS. BABCOCK whether or not other states have this particular language in their constitutions. Number 530 MS. BABCOCK responded affirmatively. She said the two states have very similar language, which is also very similar to language already in our constitution. Number 620 C.E. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, said the department agrees with the idea of the right to bear arms, yet they are trying to predict how the supreme courts will interpret the language. Number 663 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Dep. Comm. Swackhammer to discuss the standard of review suggested in the CS. DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER understood the level of judicial scrutiny as having to do with the compelling state's interest. They believe that the proposed language in the title will not change that level of review. Number 672 REP. JAMES and REP. PHILLIPS interjected thoughts proposing the idea that, perhaps, changing this language, in effect, changes nothing. If it is upheld by the federal constitution; i.e., if a case went to supreme court, it would then be subject to the federal language anyway. Number 710 CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the interpretation of this amendment would not go to the supreme court, unless a federal issue is involved. It would stop at the state supreme court, who would have ultimate jurisdiction. He said he could not imagine a case of this nature being a federal issue; therefore the case would not go to the federal level. He then described the three general standards of review used by the supreme courts when looking at due process considerations, which are: 1) the Compelling Interest Standard, which basically means that this is the highest standard of review, when related to the individual's right versus the state's right. Under this standard, the court has to establish that the state has compelling interest in this field in order to impact an individual's right; 2) the Rational Basis Standard, which says, "If the state can show any rational basis for this infringement, then it is legal, and then the individual's right is gone; and 3) the Sliding Scale Basis (which is what Alaska's supreme court has adopted) which balances off the compelling interest versus the rational basis, making a decision in the middle. What this provision says is that we are telling the supreme court we like the fact that you are going to make decisions in the middle, and we do not want to change that. If the original version is adopted, this will tell the supreme court to use a higher standard of review than they are currently using. The testimony stating that this would confuse the supreme court is not exactly an appropriate characterization. Number 745 REP. JAMES suggested that it appears the title, where it says that "establishing the expanded right" (and she was of the opinion that the committee was wanting to just restate the existing right) that if the language were left the way it is in the original bill, and the second part were put in there, then it would do more to meet their needs than it does now with the change, because she did not think that when "unreasonably" is put in there that it does change it. REP. JAMES said that it is expanded, it is an expanded right, and that is the problem. She said, we are not trying to expand the right, we are trying to just assert the right that we think we already have. We can talk about this at a later time when we have the Department of Law here. Number 750 CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that, as was testified to right now, the only law in the books is the attorney general's opinion that says there is no individual right to keep and bear arms in the state of Alaska. Consequently, he said, we are recognizing that when we say we are expanding that, and we would like to expand that to recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms. Number 760 REP. PHILLIPS asked which attorney general wrote the opinion, and when. MS. BABCOCK replied that it was Joe Geldhoff who wrote the opinion in 1983, which is only that -- an opinion; it has absolutely no authority at all. Number 764 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that we need to remember that the attorney general's opinion is in effect until it is superseded by law, or challenged. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for teleconference testimony. Number 777 W.J. HALLERAN, JR., via teleconference from Anchorage, spoke out in favor of passing SJR 39. Number 787 DAN DAVIS, of Delta Junction, urged the committee members to promote the bill. Number 804 GENE OTTENSTROER, of Delta Junction, agreed with SJR 39, except for the clause about a regulated militia. Number 807 JOE SCHOENER, North Pole, expressed belief that the word unreasonably neutralizes the bill... (continued on other side of tape) TAPE 94-60, SIDE B ...and the bill needs to stay in its original form. Number 009 LADD McBRIDE, Fairbanks, expressed concerns over the third rescheduling of the teleconference. He spoke in favor of passing SJR 39 in its original form and keeping it simple. If the commissioner is for it, he said, he is against it. Number 041 CHAIRMAN PORTER apologized for the inconvenience of rescheduling the meeting and explained the reason for the rescheduling (committee members were called to the floor). Number 049 CLARENCE BAYSINGER, Fairbanks, spoke in favor of SJR 39 without the CS. Number 077 FRANK TURNEY of Fairbanks showed support of passing the bill without the CS. Number 110 ROBERT ANDERSON of Kodiak supported the bill in its original form, feeling skeptical of the word "unreasonably" which he felt leaves the bill open to too much interpretation. Number 158 MARK CHRYSON, State Field Coordinator of Gun Owners of America, Wasilla, was in favor of SJR 39 in its original form, believing that the word "unreasonably" will create unreasonable voters in the reelection. Number 173 DOUG MILLARD, Wasilla, supported the bill without the word "unreasonably." Number 200 MIKE CHRYST of Wasilla, President of [inaudible] ... Against Government [inaudible], said he comes in contact with hundreds of people. Of those people, nobody is in opposition to the bill, but they do oppose the term "unreasonably." Number 232 LOUIE MARCH of Seward supported passing SJR 39 in its original form, feeling it should be voted on by the people. He also thought that the "federal government" should be added to Article 1, Section 19, line 11, where the bill states that, "The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed upon by the State or a political subdivision of the State." Number 310 HELEN MARCH, Seward, spoke in support of SJR 39 in its original form. Number 320 DANIEL FICKLE, Seward, spoke in support of passing SJR 39 in its original form, and putting it up for the people to vote on. Number 330 WESLEY J. JONES' testimony was read by LOUIE MARCH via teleconference from Seward, which consisted of a three page document written by J. Neil Schulman entitled, "English Usage Expert Interprets 2nd Amendment." Basically, this article grammatically dissects a particular sentence, proving the interpretation of the sentence to have only one absolute meaning, as long as the reader has full understanding of proper English usage. MR. JONES' point was, though the intent of the wording in the bill is clear, unfortunately, many people do not fully understand English construction and usage, therefore language to clarify the meaning of the current state provision would be advantageous to those people. Number 389 MR. JONES supported moving SJR 39 out of committee. Number 390 ROBERT WISEMAN, Soldotna, supported the bill excluding the CS, having fears that the bill would make him subservient to those that would disarm him. He believed SJR 39 would alleviate some of those fears. It would allow a lot of people to send a message that the law-abiding citizens of Alaska believe very strongly in these basic rights. Number 420 ROBERT MEYER, Sterling, supported the bill excluding the CS, in order to protect citizens' rights against a tyrannical government. Number 448 RAY HALLEY of Valdez supported the bill, excluding the CS. Number 470 DON CHASE of Valdez supported the bill without the CS. Number 500 LARRY PETTY of Fairbanks supported the bill without the CS. Number 514 CHAIRMAN PORTER defended insertion of the word "unreasonably", stating that it is a word that is in the fourth amendment, addressing reasonable searches and seizures, and it is a word that is a derivative of the supreme court, and there is quite a bit of case law on it. He does not think it is something that would take anybody by surprise. Chairman Porter said that if people feel secure against "unreasonable searches and seizures", the "unreasonable" infringement of your firearm should not be too much of a detriment. Number 523 CHUCK SERRA, a Viet Nam combat veteran, via teleconference in Anchorage, wanted the committee to pass the bill in its original form so people can vote on the issue. Number 570 NEIL CAMERON, Anchorage, spoke in support of SJR 39. Number 590 SALLY CHRYST of Wasilla supported SJR 39, excluding the CS. She also complained of the unreasonable amount of time she had to wait to testify. Number 593 CHAIRMAN PORTER apologized for her waiting to testify. He explained that he reasonably tried to read the list of those wishing to testify, and she was not on the list. He asked if there were any others wishing to testify who were unreasonably omitted. Number 600 JEANNE PHIPPS, Delta Junction, supported the bill, excluding the word "unreasonably." Number 630 LEON CHYTHLOOK of Soldotna spoke in support of the bill, excluding the CS. Number 648 NEIL CAMERON, Anchorage, spoke again, this time complaining of the lack of allowance of testimony via teleconference, in general. Number 675 CHAIRMAN PORTER apologized once again, explaining that the constitution limits the amount of time the legislature can meet, resulting in the committee meetings being allowed a limited amount of teleconference time. CHAIRMAN PORTER also explained that the goal of the committee is to obtain as much public testimony as possible in the limited time allotted, and expressed appreciation to Mr. Cameron for his testimony this time. CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the hearing, scheduling resolution of the hearing on Monday, April 18. He said it would be a "listen only" teleconference meeting. Number 692 CHUCK SERRA, Anchorage, spoke again, this time commending Chairman Porter for hearing this bill and expressed hopes of it moving out. He also commended Chairman Porter for getting SJR 39 heard. The House Judiciary Committee was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.