Legislature(1993 - 1994)

04/18/1994 01:00 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 18, 1994                                        
                            1:00 p.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman                                                  
  Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair                                             
  Rep. Gail Phillips                                                           
  Rep. Pete Kott                                                               
  Rep. Joe Green                                                               
  Rep. Cliff Davidson                                                          
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  Rep. Jim Nordlund                                                            
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  SB 221:   "An Act relating to arrest of a person for illegal                 
            possession, consumption or control of alcohol; and                 
            providing for an effective date."                                  
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  HB 523:   "An Act amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure                 
            6(r) relating to admissibility of hearsay evidence                 
            by peace officers before the grand jury."                          
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  SB 286:   "An Act relating to special conditions of                          
            mandatory parole; relating to conditions of                        
            mandatory or discretionary parole; extending the                   
            termination date of the Board of Parole; and                       
            providing for an effective date."                                  
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  SB 321:   "An Act relating to the taking of a legible set of                 
            fingerprints when a person is arrested, upon                       
            initial appearance or arraignment, upon the                        
            conviction of the person, and when the person is                   
            received at a correctional facility, and providing                 
            that the set of fingerprints shall be provided to                  
            the Department of Public Safety; relating to                       
            criminal and crime records and information;                        
            requiring the reporting of information concerning                  
            homicides and suspected homicides to the                           
            Department of Public Safety for analysis;                          
            requiring the Department of Public Safety to                       
            participate in the Federal Bureau of                               
            Investigation, Violent Criminals Apprehension                      
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  SB 24:    "An Act extending the maximum period of probation                  
            after conviction."                                                 
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  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.'"                      
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  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."                                  
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  SB 316:   "An Act relating to commercial fishing penalties."                 
            HEARD AND HELD                                                     
  SJR 39:   Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the                  
            State of Alaska to guarantee, in addition to the                   
            right of the people to keep and bear arms as                       
            approved by the voters at the time of ratification                 
            of the state Constitution, that the individual                     
            right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or                 
            infringed by the state or a political subdivision                  
            of the state.                                                      
            MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  JOE AMBROSE                                                                  
  Chief of Staff                                                               
  Senator Robin Taylor's Office                                                
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 30                                                       
  Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                        
  Position Statement:  Testified on CSSB 286                                   
  MICHAEL J. STARK                                                             
  Assistant Attorney General                                                   
  Criminal Division                                                            
  Department of Law                                                            
  P.O. Box 110300                                                              
  Juneau, AK 99811                                                             
  Position Statement:  Testified on SB 286 and HB 523                          
  RICH COLLUM                                                                  
  Parole Board                                                                 
  P.O. Box 112000                                                              
  Juneau, AK 99811                                                             
  789-9786 h./465-3384 w.                                                      
  Position Statement:  Testified on SB 221                                     
  DANIELLA LOPER                                                               
  Committee Aid                                                                
  House Judiciary Committee                                                    
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol, Room 118                                                      
  Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                        
  Position Statement:  Gave bill schedule update                               
  PREVIOUS ACTION                                                              
  BILL:  SB 221                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)TAYLOR,Duncan,Miller,Pearce,Kelly,                     
  REPRESENTATIVE(S) Ulmer                                                      
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  01/03/94      2451    (S)   PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/94                          
  01/10/94      2451    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  01/10/94      2451    (S)   HES, JUD                                         
  01/19/94              (S)   HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH                        
                              ROOM 205                                         
  01/19/94              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  01/24/94              (S)   HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH                        
                              ROOM 205                                         
  01/24/94              (S)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  01/26/94      2597    (S)   HES RPT  4DP 2NR                                 
  01/26/94      2597    (S)   ZERO FNS PUBLISHED (LAW,                         
                              DPS, ADM-2)                                      
  01/31/94              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211                     
  02/07/94              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211                     
  02/07/94              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  02/09/94      2750    (S)   JUD RPT  2DP 3NR                                 
  02/09/94      2750    (S)   ZERO FNS PUBLISHED (COURT,                       
  02/09/94      2750    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (ADM-2,DPS,                    
  02/09/94              (S)   RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  02/09/94              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  02/11/94      2786    (S)   3 RLS TO CALENDAR 1 NR 2/11/94                   
  02/11/94      2798    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  02/11/94      2798    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                   
  02/11/94      2798    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  SB 221                      
  02/11/94      2798    (S)   COSPONSOR(S): DUNCAN,  MILLER,                   
  02/11/94      2798    (S)   PEARCE, KELLY, LEMAN, LITTLE,                    
  02/11/94      2798    (S)   DONLEY,SHARP,HALFORD,ZHAROFF                     
  02/11/94      2799    (S)   PASSED Y19 N- E1                                 
  02/11/94      2799    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE                   
  02/11/94      2807    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  02/14/94      2367    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/14/94      2367    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY                                   
  02/14/94      2389    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S):  ULMER                         
  03/28/94              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                      
  03/28/94              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                      
  03/29/94      3045    (H)   HES RPT  3DP 3NR 3AM                             
  03/29/94      3045    (H)   DP:  BUNDE, TOOHEY, OLBERG                       
  03/29/94      3045    (H)   NR:  G.DAVIS,NICHOLIA,BRICE                      
  03/29/94      3045    (H)   AM:  KOTT, VEZEY, B.DAVIS                        
  03/29/94      3046    (H)   -2 PREVIOUS SEN ZERO FNS                         
                              (DPS,LAW) 1/26                                   
  03/29/94      3046    (H)   -2 PREVIOUS SEN ZERO FNS                         
  03/29/94      3046    (H)   -2 PREVIOUS SEN ZERO FNS                         
                              (ADM) 1/26                                       
  04/18/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  HB 523                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  03/09/94      2683    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/09/94      2683    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                         
  03/09/94      2684    (H)   -4 ZERO FISCAL NOTES                             
                              (2-ADM,DPS,LAW) 3/9                              
  03/09/94      2684    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL                           
  03/26/94              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                      
  03/26/94              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                      
  03/29/94      3044    (H)   STA RPT  4DP                                     
  03/29/94      3044    (H)   DP:  VEZEY, KOTT, G.DAVIS,                       
  03/29/94      3044    (H)   -4 PREVIOUS ZERO FNS                             
                              (LAW,DPS,2-ADM) 3/9                              
  04/18/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  SB 286                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE                                                 
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  02/09/94      2753    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/09/94      2754    (S)   L&C, JUD                                         
  02/15/94              (S)   L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  02/15/94              (S)   MINUTE(L&C)                                      
  02/18/94      2886    (S)   L&C RPT  2DP 2NR                                 
  02/18/94      2886    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED                       
  03/02/94              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM                       
  03/02/94              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/10/94      3146    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  3DP  NEW TITLE                      
  03/10/94      3147    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES                         
  03/10/94              (S)   RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/10/94              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/18/94              (S)   RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP                       
                              ROOM 203                                         
  03/18/94              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                      
  03/25/94      3372    (S)   RULES RPT CS & CAL  2DP 1NR                      
                              NEW TITLE                                        
  03/28/94      3373    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES                         
  03/28/94      3374    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/28/94      3374    (S)   RLS  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  03/28/94      3374    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                        
                              UNAN CONSENT                                     
  03/28/94      3374    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB
  03/28/94      3375    (S)   PASSED Y13 N6 E1                                 
  03/28/94      3375    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y19                        
                              N- E1                                            
  03/28/94      3375    (S)   Adams  NOTICE OF RECONSID                        
  03/30/94      3413    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD                        
  03/30/94      3414    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN                   
  03/30/94      3414    (S)   AM NO  1     MOVED BY LINCOLN                    
  03/30/94      3414    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED Y15 N3 E2                   
  03/30/94      3414    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                   
  03/30/94      3415    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y18                    
                              N- E2                                            
  03/30/94      3415    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE  SAME AS PASSAGE                  
  03/30/94      3415    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/31/94      3102    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/31/94      3102    (H)   JUDICIARY                                        
  04/18/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  BILL:  SB 321                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: FINGERPRINTING AND CRIME RECORDS                                
  SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD,Phillips,Kerttula,Taylor,                     
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  02/14/94      2832    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/14/94      2832    (S)   JUD, FIN                                         
  03/02/94              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM                       
  03/02/94              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                      
  03/07/94      3087    (S)   JUD RPT  CS  4DP  NEW TITLE                      
  03/07/94      3088    (S)   ZERO FNS TO SB & CS PUBLISHED                    
  03/15/94              (S)   FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE FINANCE                   
  03/15/94              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                      
  03/16/94      3240    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  5DP 1NR                             
                              NEW TITLE                                        
  03/16/94      3241    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FNS APPLY                          
  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                   
  03/21/94      3293    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED                       
  03/22/94      3317    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4CAL 1NR                      
  03/22/94      3319    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                             
  03/22/94      3320    (S)   COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA, TAYLOR,                  
  03/22/94      3320    (S)   DONLEY, LEMAN, LITTLE, MILLER,                   
  03/22/94      3320    (S)   FIN  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                     
  03/22/94      3320    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING                        
                              UNAN CONSENT                                     
  03/22/94      3320    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB
  03/22/94      3321    (S)   PASSED Y20 N-                                    
  03/22/94      3324    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                               
  03/23/94      2924    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  03/23/94      2924    (H)   FINANCE                                          
  03/25/94      2980    (H)   FIN REFERRAL WAIVED                              
  03/25/94      2980    (H)   JUD REFERRAL ADDED                               
  03/28/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  04/08/94              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                      
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 94-61, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order                   
  at 1:20 p.m. on April 18, 1994.  A quorum was present.                       
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  SB 221 first, followed by HB 523, SB 286, SB 321, SB 24, SB
  220, SB 322, HB 316, and then HCSSJR 39.                                     
  CHAIRMAN PORTER welcomed JOE AMBROSE from SENATOR TAYLOR's                   
  office to begin discussion of SB 221.                                        
  SB 221 - ARREST OF MINORS FOR CONSUMING ALCOHOL                              
  Number 042                                                                   
  JOE AMBROSE, Chief of Staff to Senator Robin Taylor,                         
  described SB 221 and said Senator Taylor was the prime                       
  sponsor of the bill.  The bill was introduced this bill at                   
  the request of concerned parents, law enforcement agencies                   
  in the first judicial district, and Alaskans for drug free                   
  youth.  In May of last year state troopers and municipal                     
  police departments were directed not to arrest minors under                  
  the influence of alcohol (minor consuming statute) unless                    
  the arresting officer actually saw the minor consume the                     
  alcohol.  The directive was issued after two judicial                        
  officers ruled that merely being under the influence in the                  
  officers' presence was not enough to make an arrest.  The                    
  District Attorney's directive stated, "Officers who                          
  encounter minors under the influence should issue citations                  
  rather than make arrests."  The court ruling left law                        
  enforcement officers in the position of either leaving such                  
  a minor on the street, or taking the minor into protective                   
  custody.  Past practice had been to arrest the minor and                     
  turn the youth over to parents or legal guardians.  He SB
  221 would add minor consuming to the list of crimes that                     
  allow for warrantless arrests.  While the court ruling                       
  currently impacts only the first judicial district, it could                 
  be extended to other jurisdictions.  Senator Taylor's goal                   
  in sponsoring the bill was not to increase the number of                     
  arrests for minor consuming; but he does not believe the                     
  legislature ever intended for a police officer to simply                     
  write a ticket and walk away from a minor who is under the                   
  influence.  The bill is more about protecting young people                   
  than prosecuting them.                                                       
  Number 090                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked how in the world the                      
  district attorney could justify a ruling when there is                       
  already a law in the book that says it is illegal for                        
  someone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol.  She                         
  expressed absolute amazement.                                                
  Number 100                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the district attorney has to                     
  follow the policy of the court, and the court, whether you                   
  agree with it or not, is a distinctly different body of                      
  government, and they have the ability to make decisions                      
  based upon their interpretation of the law.                                  
  Number 106                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS asked how they could refute an existing law                    
  that says it is illegal if you are under 21.                                 
  Number 109                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that he would not be the one to try                  
  to explain the logic of that court decision.  That is why he                 
  would be in support of the bill.                                             
  REP. PHILLIPS asked if the law applied to just the first                     
  judicial district or if it included everybody.                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that yes, it was intended to                        
  include everybody.  He thought the first judicial district                   
  was the only district that had made this interpretation.  He                 
  said the bill would not change the application of the law in                 
  any other jurisdiction he knew of, except the first, where                   
  it is needed.                                                                
  Number 123                                                                   
  MR. AMBROSE pointed out that the officers do have the option                 
  of protective custody, which is an expensive proposition at                  
  the local level, because you have to take them to a                          
  hospital, and then you've got to figure out what you are                     
  going to do with them next.  Some communities do not have                    
  available facilities and the minors often end up riding                      
  around in a police car for the rest of the night,                            
  effectively taking that officer out of duty.                                 
  Number 130                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said the other option is a citation and                      
  release, in which case you have an intoxicated kid on the                    
  street, which does not do a lot of good.                                     
  Number 137                                                                   
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES responded, stating that                       
  absolutely getting them off of the street is the thing to                    
  do, and she thinks we have jumped over the fence to being                    
  more concerned, now that we have had many of our teenagers                   
  killed in traffic accidents, and so forth.  Previously, it                   
  was like, "Oh he was just a little kid that had a little                     
  flight that night.  Let us just take him back to his                         
  parents, because then that way it could all be hush hushed,                  
  and so forth."  That idea is gone forever because alcohol                    
  and drugs are the two biggest causes for all of our crime,                   
  and all of our accidents, all of the problems that we suffer                 
  in the state.  Rep. James said she thought that the attitude                 
  seems to be switching, and hopefully the court will catch                    
  Number 163                                                                   
  MR. AMBROSE stated that the sad thing is, in Juneau, after                   
  this ruling, kids were actually taunting police officers on                  
  the street because they knew that the policemen could not do                 
  anything more than write them a ticket.                                      
  Number 167                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were any other questions to                   
  be asked of Mr. Ambrose.  There were not, nor were there any                 
  more people wishing to give testimony on SB 221.                             
  Number 172                                                                   
  REP. JAMES moved to move the bill out with individual                        
  recommendations and the attached fiscal note.                                
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that, with no objection, SB 221 was                   
  moved.  He then welcomed Michael Stark from the Department                   
  of Law, inviting him to testify on HB 523.                                   
  HB 523 - GRAND JURY EVIDENCE BY POLICE OFFICERS                              
  Number 180                                                                   
  MIKE J. STARK, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal                          
  Division, Department of Law, testified on HB 523.  He said                   
  this is not his normal area of expertise, but he was filling                 
  in for Dean Guaneli and Margot Knuth, who were both out of                   
  town.  He summarized from a statement that Margot prepared,                  
  describing the bill.  He said HB 523 amends criminal rule 6r                 
  to create a narrow exception to the rule that in a grand                     
  jury, one witness cannot testify about what another witness                  
  heard or said.  This exception would allow one peace                         
  officer, such as an Alaska State Trooper or a police                         
  officer, to tell the grand jury what another peace officer                   
  heard, said, or did, in the course of a criminal                             
  investigation.  It is a very narrow exception, because it                    
  applies only to peace officers who testify to what their                     
  fellow officers saw or heard; e.g.,      as to the contents                  
  of their fellow officers' police reports.  Under this bill                   
  the grand jury would continue to retain the authority to                     
  request the other police officer to testify in person if                     
  there is some uncertainty about the facts in the minds of                    
  the grand jury.  The existing rule is very expensive and                     
  does nothing to protect the constitutional rights of Alaskan                 
  citizens.  All it does is pull dozens of police officers and                 
  troopers off of patrol every month to wait in the district                   
  attorney's office for their turn to testify about something                  
  that one officer could do just as well.  He added  that the                  
  rule this bill would amend, if amended, would be similar to                  
  the federal system, which does allow one police officer to                   
  testify as to what other police officers saw or heard.  Mr.                  
  Stark stated he was available for any questions.                             
  Number 210                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER informed the committee that there was a time                 
  when a police officer could go to the grand jury and testify                 
  to everything, whether it was another police officer's                       
  observations, or a witness's observation -- anybody's                        
  hearsay.  Those were more crooked days, but since then, we                   
  have gone the other way, and now we are trying to get back                   
  in the middle.  Chairman Porter thought this was a pretty                    
  reasonable approach.                                                         
  Number 225                                                                   
  REP. JAMES moved to move out HB 523 with individual                          
  recommendations and the zero fiscal note.                                    
  Number 230                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER called for a vote after REP. NORDLUND                        
  objected to the motion.  A vote was taken and the bill was                   
  moved out with a 5 - 1 majority.  Reps. Kott, Phillips,                      
  Green, Porter and James voted yes; Rep. Davidson voted no;                   
  and Rep. Nordlund was absent.                                                
  CHAIRMAN PORTER then introduced RICH COLLUM from the Parole                  
  Board to explain SB 286, and also noted that MIKE STARK was                  
  present if it was necessary to ask questions of the                          
  Department of Law.                                                           
  Number 274                                                                   
  RICH COLLUM, Parole Board, said that it was not too long ago                 
  that he was before Chairman Porter testifying in favor of                    
  House Bill 418 to extend the Parole Board for four years.                    
  He said SB 286 began in the Senate with that same provision                  
  and had a couple of major sections added.  Although the                      
  sections are fairly lengthy, what they do is simply take                     
  things that the board has done over the last 30 years, that                  
  are included in the AAC's (Alaska Administrative Code), and                  
  now includes them in statute.                                                
  MR. COLLUM explained that the first major addition is the                    
  ability for a single board member to set conditions of                       
  parole on mandatory parolees.  He said, if we were to have                   
  to use all five board members to set conditions on mandatory                 
  court parolees, we would have to ask for an increase in our                  
  budget and it would take a great deal of our time in order                   
  to do that.  We have been using a single board member over                   
  the last thirty years.  It has been in the Alaska                            
  Administrative Code and it has worked very well.  He said                    
  the other section with major change is that it has taken the                 
  regular standard conditions that we have used again,                         
  probably over the last thirty years, and that are outlined                   
  in the Alaska Administrative Code, and moved them into the                   
  Alaska Statutes.  Mr. Collum stated that he, or Mike Stark                   
  from the Department of Law, would be willing to answer legal                 
  questions about either of these section changes, and stated                  
  that the Parole Board certainly does support SB 286.                         
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Collum about the individual Parole                 
  Board members holding hearings and making determinations,                    
  and the previously mentioned administrative procedures act                   
  that, in effect, causes a member to become a hearing                         
  Number 338                                                                   
  MR. STARK answered that they do not hold an in-person                        
  hearing when they are setting conditions on mandatory                        
  parolees, and explained that what they are trying to avoid                   
  is have an in-person hearing.  The institutional parole                      
  officer sends in a packet of information to the office.  One                 
  Board Member reviews that information, including the pre-                    
  sentence report, and then sets conditions.  That is in the                   
  case of mandatory parolees.  In the case of discretionary                    
  parolees, the in-person hearings, the five board members are                 
  present before anybody is released on discretionary parole,                  
  and all five board members set the conditions.                               
  REP. PHILLIPS asked if the mandatory parole method of                        
  handling these cases was pretty consistent with other                        
  MR. STARK guessed that it was consistent, but stated that he                 
  could not answer that authoritatively.  He said most states                  
  that have any type of parole system have some type of                        
  mandatory parole where prisoners are supervised for the                      
  amount of good time they earn.  In our state it is one-                      
  third; in some states it is a great deal more.  Some have                    
  half, and some have even more than that.                                     
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were any others wishing to                    
  testify on SB 286.                                                           
  MR. STARK explained what a mandatory parolee is:  when a                     
  person is sentenced to incarceration for a crime, they are                   
  awarded good time, as long as they behave themselves while                   
  they are incarcerated.  Those who do not get into any                        
  trouble, earn one-third off of their sentence, so they serve                 
  two- thirds and have one-third off.  That one-third is then                  
  served on mandatory parole.  They are released from custody,                 
  but they are supervised by a parole officer, and by the                      
  parole board who sets conditions for their behavior while                    
  they are under supervision.  This is where we would like one                 
  board member to be allowed to set conditions of parole.  If                  
  the parolee is unhappy with the conditions the board member                  
  sets, the parolee can always appeal to the whole board, and                  
  then the whole board would review the case and make a                        
  decision.  He said he was talking about the initial setting                  
  of those conditions.  The reason this is so important is                     
  when this statute was adopted in 1986, we were not aware                     
  that there was a little technical loophole in the statutes                   
  which requires all orders of the decisions by the board to                   
  be conducted by a quorum of the board.  The board has always                 
  historically done this through one board member.  The                        
  statutes do not seem to allow for that.  There is now a                      
  number of law suits by parolees who got out on parole and                    
  then, for violating their conditions, are back in jail and                   
  are now saying, "Hold on, court, these conditions were not                   
  validly set, because only one board member was involved in                   
  the setting of these conditions."  The bill will make this                   
  allowance retroactive back to the time the statute was first                 
  adopted so these law suits will go away, and these people                    
  will do their time like they are supposed to.                                
  REP. CLIFF DAVIDSON asked Mr. Stark how many of these                        
  lawsuits fall into this category.                                            
  MR. STARK answered that there were about four or five of                     
  them pending, but he could say that from having represented                  
  the Department of Corrections, Parole Board for many years,                  
  there is a copy cat effect, and he expects to see many, many                 
  more cases just like this, unless this bill is adopted.                      
  REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Stark if we were likely to get into                  
  trouble with the ACLU (Alaska Civil Liberties Union) on the                  
  retroactive effective date.                                                  
  Number 380                                                                   
  MR. STARK answered that he did not think so, because we are                  
  not talking about the conditions themselves that were set,                   
  just how they were set.  We are talking about one board                      
  member versus a quorum of the board, which would be three                    
  members.  He felt sure that they would be challenged, as                     
  inmates love to litigate, but he did not think there was any                 
  constitutional problem with it.                                              
  Number 385                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were further questions.                       
  Number 388                                                                   
  REP. PETE KOTT asked about page 3, line 21, where it talks                   
  about what the circumstances might be prohibiting a prisoner                 
  released on parole from possessing a defensive weapon, or a                  
  deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife, with a                   
  blade three inches or less in length.  He asked if this                      
  meant that a person would not be able to carry a hunting or                  
  fishing knife, and if we were restricting their movement in                  
  that area, or if there would be a provision for an allowance                 
  and an exception.                                                            
  Number 400                                                                   
  MR. AMBROSE answered that the conditions Rep. Kott was                       
  referring to on page 3 are those that are discretionary on                   
  the part of the board.  He said they set those conditions on                 
  most people, but were particularly concerned to make sure                    
  that these were discretionary rather than mandatory, because                 
  so many people are involved in commercial fishing, and that                  
  sort of thing, possibly hunting.  So, in the particular case                 
  of a fisherman, the parole officer tells the individual to                   
  keep knives, and dangerous weapons, so to speak, on the                      
  boat.  The parolee cannot carry them off of the boat to                      
  carry, or take home when they are not in the process of                      
  working.  That is why it is set out as a discretionary                       
  condition rather than a mandatory one.                                       
  REP. JAMES said that he was thinking of the person who might                 
  just be setting out for the weekend on a hunting or fishing                  
  trip, from a private standpoint, not a commercial fisherman,                 
  but a sports fisherman.                                                      
  MR. AMBROSE answered that they would have to talk to their                   
  parole officer, but he did not believe the parolee would be                  
  given permission to have a knife.  He thought the parole                     
  officer would probably argue that a knife within the                         
  regulations would be sufficient to clean the fish.                           
  Number 430                                                                   
  REP. JAMES said that she reread the language that says,                      
  "...may require the member of the Board, acting for the                      
  Board, may require as a condition of mandatory parole these                  
  things."  It says that they may require that they not                        
  possess these things.  It is really difficult when we                        
  visualize what we are doing on a specific bill, when we look                 
  at cases and peoples and places, and so forth, where there                   
  might be some rural resident, as an example, for whom                        
  hunting is a part of their lifestyle, and she said she would                 
  think that providing for the difference of the kind of case                  
  they had, and so forth, there might be an allowance where                    
  the person may be allowed to go hunting.                                     
  MR. AMBROSE agreed with Rep. James, and said that there are                  
  cases where they would not give a parolee a knife, cases                     
  where they had been assaultive with a knife.                                 
  Number 430                                                                   
  REP. JAMES demonstrated trust in the Parole Board members to                 
  make these discretionary conditions, so as not to set people                 
  up for defeat.  She then motioned to move SB 286.                            
  Number 450                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the bill was moved, after no                       
  further discussion was desired.                                              
  CHAIRMAN PORTER then went on to take up the four bills that                  
  were heard previously, beginning with SB 321.  He briefly                    
  explained that SB 321 had all of the fingerprint provisions                  
  of the bill previously passed out of the Judiciary                           
  Committee.  The bill also adopts the VICAP (Violent Crimes                   
  Apprehension Program), allowing the Department of Public                     
  Safety to view open homicide cases within the state, and to                  
  participate in the national program to see if our cases have                 
  any tie-in with any existing outside cases, which would                      
  indicate a serial killer.  It would be very helpful just to                  
  be in the program.                                                           
  REP. PHILLIPS motioned to move the bill with individual                      
  recommendations and zero fiscal notes.                                       
  Number 497                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER moved SB 321 with no objection.                              
  SB 24 - Extend Maximum Period of Probation                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that he, REP. JAMES and REP. PHILLIPS                   
  heard SB 24 already.  He explained that the bill asks that                   
  the allowable time for probation be extended from five years                 
  to ten years.  He asked if there was any discussion among                    
  the committee members who did not hear the bill previously.                  
  Number 510                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS wanted to note for the record that this change                 
  was recommended by the Sentencing Commission, and that there                 
  was no negative testimony when the bill was previously                       
  Number 520                                                                   
  REP. JAMES moved to move SB 24 out with zero fiscal notes                    
  and individual recommendations.                                              
  REP. CLIFF DAVIDSON asked how they could explain a zero                      
  fiscal note while engaging the resources of the state for                    
  another five years.                                                          
  Number 540                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that this question had come up in                  
  the previous hearing, and noted the extension would not take                 
  effect for five years.  So for the next five years, as                       
  called for on the regular fiscal note, there is no fiscal                    
  impact.  What is hoped for, and he saw no reason why this                    
  hope should not come into play, but the balancing off of the                 
  courts having a little more discretion in how long to lay in                 
  probation for, might actually decrease the amount of time                    
  given in the first place, so the amount of probation                         
  occurring from five to ten years would hopefully be more                     
  than offset by reduced sentencing in the first place.                        
  Having the ability to place someone on probation for a                       
  longer period of time might somewhat reduce the amount of                    
  sentencing they received in the first place.  It costs less                  
  to keep a person on probation than to reincarcerate them                     
  again.  He then asked if there was further discussion on SB
  Number 560                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS made motion to move SB 24 with individual                      
  recommendations and zero fiscal notes. The bill was moved.                   
  SB 220 - ADD "CAT" TO SCHEDULE IA DRUG LIST                                  
  Number 565                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced SB 220, explaining that the bill                  
  would add a synthetic drug, presently being abused, to our                   
  list of schedule 1A, controlled substances.  He asked if                     
  there was any discussion on this bill.  He noted that our                    
  label says "2A" but it is supposed to read "1A."                             
  REP. JAMES made the same statement that she had made on                      
  Saturday regarding this bill.  She wished there was some                     
  language put into the statutes making all such drugs illegal                 
  when they are dreamed up, instead of the legislature having                  
  to come back and put each one on the list individually.  She                 
  thought they should still be looking for some wording as to                  
  the purpose or affects of the drug or something.  It seems                   
  that as soon as a drug is added to the list, somebody comes                  
  up with a new drug, and she would like to see that stop.                     
  Number 590                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER could not disagree with that, and thought                    
  there was a law passed stating that if the federal drug list                 
  was updated, that ours was automatically updated.  He said,                  
  while we do not have the lag time we used to have, we still                  
  have a little bit of lag time in these kinds of drugs                        
  getting up here to Alaska.                                                   
  Number 600                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS said that in looking through the bill pack, it                 
  appeared that the bill [drug] did make it's debut in Hawaii                  
  in 1989 and has been moving around the country since that                    
  time.  She said this is a preventative measure bill.  She                    
  asked if we have had instances of law enforcement officers                   
  actually finding it ["cat"] being utilized in Alaska.                        
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said he believed the testimony to have been                  
  that we have not had any known use of this substance in                      
  Alaska.  It does not mean that it is not here, we just have                  
  not heard about it yet.  So we may actually be taking a                      
  preemptory strike here, rather than a reactive strike.                       
  Number 620                                                                   
  REP. GREEN asked if we are presently checking for                            
  methcathinone on arrests on people who are acting weird.  He                 
  asked if there is equipment to check for this, seeing a zero                 
  fiscal note.  He thought there must be some sort of test                     
  they do.                                                                     
  Number 625                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said they probably would not be testing for                  
  consumption, they would be testing the item itself if it                     
  were found on the person.  The Alaska Forensics Lab has the                  
  ability to test for any chemical.                                            
  Number 627                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS pointed out that the second page of the fiscal                 
  note from the Department of Law addresses that they do not                   
  expect a significant new case load upon the approval of this                 
  bill.  Although an additional case load is not expected,                     
  including the "cat" schedule is important because of danger                  
  to users in the public.                                                      
  Number 637                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that, remarkably, there are many                       
  people who are very knowledgeable about what is and what is                  
  not against the law in that area, and are guided thereby.                    
  Number 640                                                                   
  REP. JAMES made amotion to move SB 220 with individual                       
  recommendations and a zero fiscal note.  The bill was moved.                 
  SB 322 - DELAYS OF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES                                   
  Number 650                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER reminded the committee that this was the                     
  elimination of the 90 day rule for the lease sale.  He asked                 
  if the committee members had any questions about this bill.                  
  Number 655                                                                   
  REP. GREEN recommended moving SB 322 out of the committee                    
  with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes.                       
  Number 662                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS asked what the companion bill number to SB 322                 
  was.  Nobody knew for certain right off.                                     
  Number 670                                                                   
  The bill was moved.                                                          
  SB 316 - FISHING VIOLATIONS                                                  
  Number 675                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the next bill for                             
  consideration was SB 316.  He said that this was a bill that                 
  had extensive testimony here in Juneau and on                                
  teleconference.  He believed it was fair to say that the                     
  commercial fishing permit holders around the state thought,                  
  perhaps this was not the best bill in the world.  He noted                   
  that the sponsor of the bill was Senator Halford, whose aide                 
  was present and able to answer questions about it.                           
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what the wish of the committee on CSSB
  316 was.                                                                     
  Number 685                                                                   
  REP. DAVIDSON and REP. JAMES both wished to keep the bill in                 
  committee for a little while.                                                
  REP. KOTT made the motion to move the CS for SB 316, and                     
  Rep. James objected.                                                         
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was discussion.                               
  Number 693                                                                   
  REP. JAMES stated she did not have as big a problem with it                  
  in theory as she did in practice.  She felt like it was                      
  trying to create a solution in the wrong way, and she felt                   
  like many, many more people would be hurt than would gain                    
  from this effort.  Short of rewriting this bill, and getting                 
  it another substitute, which we have the right to do, though                 
  we are running out of time, she would like to see the                        
  department come up with some better solutions by regulation                  
  or by the existing law, rather than to pass this bill which                  
  she felt would hurt a lot of people.                                         
  Number 704                                                                   
  REP. PHILLIPS said she believed that the testimony taken                     
  from the people the other day showed clearly what the people                 
  felt about this bill.  One thing came up in the testimony                    
  that she thought could be fixed.  She said she had offered a                 
  judiciary letter of intent, asking the Department of Fish                    
  and Game and the Department of Public Safety to research the                 
  issue of an actual physical line; the placement of an actual                 
  buoy line.  She had talked with several commercial fishermen                 
  and several other people involved in this fishery to see if                  
  it would be possible, and the answer was yes, it would be                    
  possible.  She said she did talk with people in the                          
  Department of Public Safety.  It is something that they have                 
  had under consideration.  Then, if there was an actual                       
  physical line, rather than a line that could be so                           
  misrepresented by the difference in technical equipment                      
  (LORAN) that people have, she thought there would be a far                   
  better leg to stand on before any kind of increase in fines                  
  was instituted.                                                              
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said he certainly would support that letter                  
  of intent.  In his discussions after the bill was heard, it                  
  would appear that it is the Department of Fish and Game that                 
  actually has to adjust their regulations so as to put out                    
  the physical line, in place of the LORAN line.  But by an                    
  enforcement standpoint, to him, it seemed that the LORAN's                   
  variation, which is establishable in court, is 600 feet or                   
  so; so you could not get a conviction.  You could                            
  negligently cross the line, but guilt beyond reasonable                      
  doubt would need to be proven, so a conviction could not be                  
  the result of crossing that 600 foot line.  He said, if the                  
  tide moved the physical line 40 feet, who cares?  Rep.                       
  Porter said he did not understand why the Department of Fish                 
  and Game was not already doing this.                                         
  Number 732                                                                   
  REP. DAVIDSON gave an analogy, saying that in the great                      
  resource battle scheme of things, it appears that this bill                  
  is one in which general law completely bashes private                        
  industry and undermines the general economic well being of                   
  lots of people in other areas of the state.  It seemed to                    
  him that if they were going to make specific law and apply                   
  it generally, this is not the best way to go.  This will                     
  create more problems than it solves.  He said, it would                      
  appear that if we are not going to be committed to spending                  
  more on enforcement, as well as resource management, we                      
  should at least, before we move forward with haste, be fair                  
  to fishers in other areas.  He said he knows there is a                      
  problem where this law is trying to correct an eager                         
  fisherman and even people who are cheating as they take from                 
  the resource bank of the fisheries, but he thinks this bill                  
  goes too far and is, in fact, unfair in many respects;                       
  because, although he is not a fisherman, he knows it is                      
  sometimes difficult to be specific out on the fishing                        
  grounds.  He believes this bill needs more work, but said he                 
  could appreciate the intent of the bill.                                     
  Number 756                                                                   
  REP. JAMES responded to Rep. Phillips' concerns in her                       
  letter of intent.  With the letter of intent, she did not                    
  think they needed the bill.  That was her concern about it.                  
  She thought they could handle this if they were to take it                   
  on responsibly and solve this problem.  She said she will                    
  not sit there and say that she wants fishermen to get over                   
  the line, taking fish they are not entitled to, and all                      
  those other kinds of things.  She just thought that if you                   
  make the rules so they are easy enough to follow, and then                   
  you have the "fish cops" out there to do this, and if the                    
  line is very visible, it should not be difficult for them to                 
  get a conviction.                                                            
  REP. JAMES said there is more to this bill than that.  The                   
  additional consequences for failure to adhere to the rules                   
  is much, much more, and it is a guilty until proven innocent                 
  proviso, and she thought that was another thing that seemed                  
  to be totally against due process, particularly when the                     
  line is so invisible.  She said if they were over the line                   
  and then forced to prove that they were not, or prove that                   
  they had a reason to be there, or it was an accident, or was                 
  not meant to be there, it is a difficult situation.  They                    
  are replying to something that really needs to be addressed,                 
  and Fish and Game can really address it, and we should give                  
  them an opportunity.  If they do not address it, then next                   
  year, maybe we should come back with such a bill, but she                    
  thought the timing is wrong for this right now.  It has                      
  served it's purpose; everybody has been heard, and the                       
  problem should be solvable without this legislation.                         
  Number 780                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he did not have the concern                      
  expressed in quite a bit of the testimony, that someone in                   
  another fishery, where the gross take might be $6,000, would                 
  be fined for a violation up to this maximum of $6,000.  If                   
  this happened in Southeast somewhere he thought the                          
  magistrates and the district court judges who hear these                     
  cases would apply appropriate levels of fines.  Moving the                   
  maximum fine up to $6 - $12,000 would only be applied in                     
  those fisheries in which that level of fine was significant.                 
  One set can bring in a whole bunch of bucks, as opposed to                   
  one month's worth of fishing, not bringing in hardly any.                    
  The thing that concerns Rep. Porter is the forfeiture of the                 
  permit for a second violation, and you can be found guilty                   
  of the violation for a nonintentional act.  That is kind of                  
  tough, he said, especially when we have decided that the                     
  method they use to determine how it is you are going to be                   
  found negligent leaves quite a bit to be desired.                            
  Number 800                                                                   
  REP. JAMES compared this to the timber industry.  She said                   
  if you cross the line and cut trees you are not supposed to                  
  cut, it does not make any difference if you did it                           
  accidentally or not.  You did it, and you have to pay three                  
  times the value of the timber that you benefitted from.  She                 
  said she did not know why they could not dream up something                  
  for fishing that would be the same thing, and then that way,                 
  it would always be applied fairly, and this does not.  Rep.                  
  James said if she were a fisherman and there was the                         
  possibility of a $6,000 or $12,000 fine, and that may be                     
  more than she would ever make in a season, she would feel                    
  uncomfortable having that law in the book.                                   
  Number 810                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the one difference between the                     
  fisheries and the timber industry is that you have a big                     
  green "X" on that tree, and that tree is not going to move,                  
  but it is tough to mark those fish.                                          
  REP. JAMES replied that the point had been made.  That is                    
  the point.  Are they taking fish illegally?  Or are they                     
  not?  And there has to be a sufficient amount of marking to                  
  indicate that for sure they are over the line, or they are                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said he understood.  He asked if there was                   
  any further discussion or any objection to moving the bill.                  
  REP. JAMES objected to moving the bill.                                      
  A roll call vote was taken and SB 316 was voted down 5 - 1.                  
  Reps. Phillips, Davidson, Green, Porter and James voted no.                  
  Rep. Kott had the only yes vote.  Rep. Nordlund was absent.                  
  It was asked of Chairman Porter what he decided to do with                   
  SB 252.                                                                      
  DANIELLA LOPER said SB 252 would be heard on Wednesday.                      
  CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the number one witness who                    
  wanted to testify on SB 252 was not available.                               
  SJR 39 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS                                         
  HOUSE CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 39(JUD):                            
  Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of                     
  Alaska to guarantee, in addition to the right of the people                  
  to keep and bear arms as approved by the voters at the time                  
  of ratification of the state Constitution, that the                          
  individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be                          
  unreasonably denied or infringed by the state or a political                 
  subdivision of the state, and establishing that the expanded                 
  right to keep and bear arms does not change the level of                     
  judicial scrutiny applicable to the review of laws relating                  
  to weapons.                                                                  
  Number 850                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that where this bill was left, they had                 
  received an awful lot of testimony saying that they were not                 
  in favor of the committee substitute.  He offered it                         
  himself.  He explained that it basically changes two things:                 
  it adds one word to the essence of the constitutional                        
  amendment that we would be asking the public to adopt, and                   
  that is the word "unreasonable" on page 13 of the draft.  It                 
  would then say that the individual right to keep and bear                    
  arms should not be unreasonably denied or infringed by the                   
  state or by a subdivision of the state.  It would also add                   
  in another section of the constitution if this passed, and                   
  then passed to go to the public, the standards of review                     
  that the Supreme Court would want to use in assessing                        
  questions brought to them around this constitutional                         
  amendment would be assessed at a standard that they now use,                 
  a sliding scale standard, which is, basically, a middle                      
  ground between a compelling interest standard and rational                   
  basis standard.  That is the essence of the CS, he said.                     
  Number 866                                                                   
  REP. JAMES asked if they would keep the same type of review                  
  that is now in use.                                                          
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "Yes, they would."                                     
  REP. JAMES then asked if there was any way to tie that                       
  language in, and whether that was something that, because                    
  this is the date we passed that, they know what they are                     
  using on that date.                                                          
  TAPE 94-61, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER gave a generalization, and passed out a                      
  sponsor statement, saying that there are three general                       
  standards of review the court can use when looking at how                    
  they want to interpret constitutional amendments.  The                       
  compelling interest standard, which is, by the way, the                      
  standard that the letter of intent that the Senate sent over                 
  with this bill asks that we adopt and then would be asking                   
  the Supreme Court to use, is a standard of review that                       
  basically says the state must show a compelling interest in                  
  passing a law if it impacts an individual right, and if,                     
  short of a compelling interest, that law will fall.  The                     
  other end of the scale is a rational basis test which                        
  basically says if the state can show any rational basis in                   
  protecting the public or whatever, in passing this law, then                 
  it will override an individual right.  What the Supreme                      
  Court now uses is called the sliding scale standard of                       
  review, which is basically a standard of review between                      
  these two extremes that tries to balance the interest of the                 
  state against the interest of the individual and make a                      
  rational decision on it.  What we would be saying by Section                 
  3 on page 2 is that we would like the Supreme Court to use                   
  that standard in their review of this question.  He                          
  entertained a motion to adopt the CS for SJR 39(JUD).                        
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that there was an objection (made by                   
  Rep. Phillips) and asked if there was any discussion.                        
  REP. PHILLIPS said she did not like the Judiciary Committee                  
  CS.  She did not agree that the people of Alaska would buy                   
  into adding the word "unreasonably" or the level of judicial                 
  scrutiny as part of our constitutional statement on the                      
  right to bear arms.  She was opposed to those amendments.                    
  Number 075                                                                   
  REP. JAMES said she does not believe the people of Alaska                    
  would agree, either, yet she supported the amendment.  She                   
  said she believes that both sides of this issue are in                       
  agreement of the same thing, and the visualization of what                   
  they want the rights of the people to be is the same; it is                  
  determined then how the wording is.  And she understood Rep.                 
  Porter's concerns to be that if we say, "It shall not be                     
  infringed by the state or by a subdivision of the state,"                    
  and we know how our courts determine how our constitution                    
  reads.  If someone were to challenge that because of a                       
  denial of the use of a gun, and they challenged it on a                      
  constitutional right to bear arms that cannot be infringed                   
  by the state or a subdivision, we could have a court                         
  decision that says, "That's absolutely right, absolutely                     
  everybody can carry a gun."  Rep. James said she has a                       
  problem with that in the fact that there are a lot of people                 
  we do not want to have guns.  She said people have tried to                  
  convince her that is not the case, and she kind of agrees                    
  with them, but that is not the case.  That will never                        
  happen.  However, knowing how word for word our courts, and                  
  not having a lot of faith in them either, how they determine                 
  the language in the constitutional law leads me to believe                   
  that might be the case, and the other reason for being                       
  persuaded is that the "unreasonably" that is used under                      
  searches and seizures has been doing us fine; and so she                     
  thinks that "unreasonable" in this might do us fine as well.                 
  So, for that reason, she supported the CS.                                   
  Number 129                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER discussed the bill some more.  He said he                    
  believed that Rep. James was correct.  It was his perception                 
  that there is no opposition to this bill, in terms of the                    
  stated intent, or it's adoption.  What there is a difference                 
  of opinion on is the effect of the wording of the bill.                      
  While he understands the point of view that says if you put                  
  "unreasonable" in here, it gives the court the opportunity                   
  to do just the opposite, be totally unreasonable about the                   
  level to which they would confiscate weapons.  He said he                    
  has had a lot of experience dealing with the law, and                        
  therefore does not have that concern.  It is not, by any                     
  stretch of the imagination, going to happen in our lifetime,                 
  unless the country  falls.  They would not waive a 4th                       
  amendment, which does have the word "unreasonable" in it.                    
  He said, you can imagine all of the interpretations that                     
  have gone through the courts upholding the individual's                      
  right to be protected in their own house against                             
  unreasonable searches and seizures.  No one is going to walk                 
  into a house and obtain your guns or anything else, just                     
  because of the provision that has the word "unreasonable" in                 
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, we have had, though, in this state, a                  
  couple of decisions that caused him the concern he did have.                 
  The Raven case and the Glass case that were briefly touched                  
  on.  The Raven case was the infamous marijuana case that we                  
  bring up quite a bit, where the Supreme Court took the                       
  state's right to privacy, which is an additional irritant,                   
  if you will, to this discussion, because our state has a                     
  right to privacy, many other states do not have the right to                 
  privacy in their constitution.  It is one of those                           
  unqualified statements in our constitution like the proposed                 
  Senate bill that each individual has the right to privacy.                   
  But what does that mean?  Is it an absolute right?  Well,                    
  they came darn close to saying that when the Supreme Court                   
  said you can possess marijuana, a federally prohibited                       
  contraband item.  We do not care about federal Law.  You can                 
  have marijuana in your home, because of our constitutional                   
  right to privacy.  What would preclude them from saying, "In                 
  your home, a felon could possess a firearm?  We do not care                  
  if it is against the law, federally.  This is a statement of                 
  absolute.  The individual right to keep and bear arms shall                  
  not be denied."  That is what the Senate version of this                     
  bill says.  That is his concern.  That is his rationale for                  
  this amendment.                                                              
  Additionally, CHAIRMAN PORTER said, the Senate does not want                 
  the Supreme Court to use the rational basis or the sliding                   
  scale, but wants the court to use the compelling interest                    
  standard to review that question, which would, in his mind,                  
  give it even more likelihood that we would have one of these                 
  unfavorable situations.                                                      
  CHAIRMAN PORTER then asked if there was any further                          
  REP. PHILLIPS stated that today they addressed two bills                     
  that dealt with the courts, which, in her mind, made totally                 
  unreasonable rulings.  One, in violation of the law we have                  
  in the books, says that if you are under 21, it is against                   
  the law to consume alcohol, and yet a district court                         
  official sent down a ruling that said the policeman had to                   
  actually see the kid under 21 in possession of the alcohol,                  
  or drinking it, before they can be arrested.  What a bunch                   
  of poppycock, she said.  Then the other one we had was on                    
  the oil lease, where just very recently, we had a judge send                 
  down, in her mind, a very unreasonable ruling on a state law                 
  that we have in existence on oil leases.  She did not                        
  believe it would be good to give the courts any more                         
  flexibility, especially for something as precious as this                    
  amendment to our constitution.  She did not agree with the                   
  word "unreasonable" in there a bit.                                          
  REP. DAVIDSON stated that he can appreciate each point of                    
  view, but he does not have the same misgivings about our                     
  court system.  He said he knows they have a very difficult                   
  task and he has not studied law to the extent most people                    
  have within the system, so he does not hold the same strong                  
  views, but if the forefathers really intended that clause to                 
  apply to the individual instead of "people," he thought they                 
  would have said "individual" right to keep and bear arms.                    
  He thought the CS would strike a happy balance, or a                         
  reasonable balance, and that is why he thought to go forward                 
  without the CS might end up in a situation where some of                     
  those areas that you suggested we may not want to be in.                     
  Rather than doing nothing, he thought they should go forward                 
  with something, and so that was why he supported the CS.                     
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the one thing he did not want                      
  anybody to misunderstand is that this CS provides the                        
  individual right to keep and bear arms.  He guessed it to be                 
  debatable, but we had testimony and he believe that, absent                  
  another court decision or statute or constitutional                          
  amendment, the law of the land in this state right now is an                 
  old attorney general's opinion that said there is no                         
  individual right to keep and bear arms in this state; it is                  
  a collective right of a militia.  So if it is ultimately                     
  passed out of this body and voted on by the public,                          
  favorably, we are establishing a right that does not now                     
  exist in this state to individually keep and bear arms.  The                 
  only thing he was asking is that it be made reasonable, not                  
  REP. GREEN shared Rep. Phillips' concern about our courts.                   
  HE said, you can add to some of those absurd decisions, some                 
  of this reapportionment garbage they went through, but his                   
  concern is just the opposite, that, as expressed by the                      
  chairman, the courts could be so unreasonable as to go                       
  absurdly around and say that this is a conflict now, this is                 
  a more recent law, obviously the people's elected officials                  
  want felons and everybody else to have the law.  He honestly                 
  did not believe that would happen, as he remembered back.                    
  Rep. Green said that most of the people present would be too                 
  young to remember this, but when they came around with gun                   
  registration, he was concerned about what might happen.  He                  
  was not even an NRA (National Rifle Association) member                      
  then, but he was concerned, so when he bought his son a                      
  weapon under the registration law, he hid all the rest of                    
  his weapons, just because he had been led to believe that                    
  there would be confiscation.  This registration gave them an                 
  address, and it gave them the type of weapon, and he stood                   
  by, thinking that within ten years, they would have it, and                  
  this was 25 years ago.  He still has his weapon.  So he does                 
  not think we are headed down the road for undue oppression                   
  of the courts.  "Unreasonable," he thinks, is a good word.                   
  REP. JAMES responded, saying that she thinks they are moving                 
  in that direction, and she thinks she is older than Rep.                     
  Green.  The reason that she thinks it has not happened is                    
  because of the NRA lobby.  They have been the ones                           
  protecting us, and she thinks it is time for us to take some                 
  of our own protection.                                                       
  CHAIRMAN PORTER gave another reason why he does not think                    
  this would ever happen.  He said that right now there are                    
  some suggestions that there should be involuntary searches                   
  for firearms in certain federally funded housing projects in                 
  Boston and in Chicago.  In speaking today with an attorney                   
  in Anchorage on another matter this came up.  He is an NRA                   
  member and an advocate of this legislation, and he agreed                    
  that the ACLU will intercede in a heartbeat, and it will                     
  never be upheld, based on the 4th amendment, which has                       
  "unreasonable" in it.  That is just not going to happen.                     
  Voluntarily, maybe, but not involuntarily, he said.                          
  After an objection, a roll call vote on the adoption of the                  
  CS was taken.  Reps. Kott and Phillips voted no; Reps.                       
  Green, Davidson, James and Porter voted yes; and Rep.                        
  Nordlund was absent.                                                         
  REP. JAMES motioned to move the bill.  CSSJR 39 was moved.                   
  CHAIRMAN PORTER entertained the motion to adopt a House                      
  Concurrent Resolution due to a title change in the movement                  
  of the bill.  Seeing no discussion or objection, the                         
  resolution was adopted.                                                      
  The House Judiciary Committee was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.                     

Document Name Date/Time Subjects