Legislature(1999 - 2000)

03/22/1999 01:08 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
         HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                   March 22, 1999                                                                                               
                     1:08 p.m.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Representative Joe Green                                                                                                        
Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                                                                  
Representative Jeannette James                                                                                                  
Representative Lisa Murkowski                                                                                                   
Representative Eric Croft                                                                                                       
Representative Beth Kerttula                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3                                                                                                    
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                               
relating to initiatives regarding natural resources belonging to                                                                
the state.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HJR 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7                                                                                                    
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                               
relating to initiative and referendum petitions.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHJR 7(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25                                                                                                   
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                                               
relating to a petition for an initiative or referendum regarding                                                                
fish or wildlife.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHJR 25(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 103                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to civil actions by municipalities and certain                                                                 
public corporations and prohibiting certain civil actions by them                                                               
against firearms or ammunition manufacturers and dealers."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 103(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3(RLS)                                                                                                   
"An Act relating to the crimes of murder, solicitation to commit                                                                
murder in the first degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the                                                                  
first degree, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide;                                                                  
relating to homicides of children; relating to registration as a                                                                
sex offender or child kidnapper; relating to the crime of                                                                       
interference with custody of a child or incompetent person; and                                                                 
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED HCS CSSB 3(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
(* First public hearing)                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HJR  3                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES                                                                                    
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) BUNDE                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/19/99        16     (H)  PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99                                                                             
 1/19/99        16     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/19/99        16     (H)  RESOURCES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                                                       
 1/27/99               (H)  RES AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                         
 1/27/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 1/27/99               (H)  MINUTE(RES)                                                                                         
 2/01/99               (H)  RES AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                         
 2/01/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/01/99               (H)  MINUTE(RES)                                                                                         
 2/05/99               (H)  RES AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                         
 2/05/99               (H)  MINUTE(RES)                                                                                         
 3/03/99               (H)  RES AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                         
 3/03/99               (H)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 3/03/99               (H)  MINUTE(RES)                                                                                         
 3/05/99       357     (H)  RES RPT  2DP 2NR 1AM                                                                                
 3/05/99       357     (H)  DP: MORGAN, HARRIS; NR: KAPSNER,                                                                    
                            MASEK;                                                                                              
 3/05/99       357     (H)  AM: OGAN                                                                                            
 3/05/99       357     (H)  FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                                                                   
 3/05/99       358     (H)  REFERRED TO JUD                                                                                     
 3/17/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/17/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/22/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HJR  7                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS                                                                          
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) WILLIAMS                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/19/99        17     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/19/99        17     (H)  STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                                                   
 2/11/99               (H)  STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 2/11/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/11/99               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 2/18/99               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 2/19/99               (H)  STA AT  3:30 PM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 2/19/99               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 2/23/99               (H)  STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 2/23/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 2/23/99               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 2/25/99               (H)  STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                                                                         
 2/25/99               (H)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 2/25/99               (H)  MINUTE(STA)                                                                                         
 2/26/99       318     (H)  STA RPT  COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE(STA) 3DP                                                              
                            2DNP 1AM                                                                                            
 2/26/99       318     (H)  DP: JAMES, WHITAKER, HUDSON;                                                                        
 2/26/99       318     (H)  DNP: SMALLEY, KERTTULA; AM: OGAN                                                                    
 2/26/99       318     (H)  FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                                                                   
 2/26/99       318     (H)  REFERRED TO JUD                                                                                     
 3/05/99       377     (H)  COSPONSOR(S): DAVIES                                                                                
 3/12/99       444     (H)  COSPONSOR REMOVED:  DAVIES                                                                          
 3/17/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/17/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/22/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HJR 25                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: FISH & WILDLIFE INITIATIVES                                                                             
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 3/08/99       389     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 3/08/99       390     (H)  RES, JUD, FINANCE                                                                                   
 3/15/99               (H)  RES AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                                                                         
 3/15/99               (H)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 3/15/99               (H)  MINUTE(RES)                                                                                         
 3/16/99       467     (H)  RES RPT  5DP 3NR                                                                                    
 3/16/99       467     (H)  DP: OGAN, WHITAKER, HARRIS, BARNES,                                                                 
 3/16/99       467     (H)  MASEK; NR: SANDERS, KAPSNER, MORGAN                                                                 
 3/16/99       467     (H)  FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                                                                   
 3/16/99       467     (H)  REFERRED TO JUD                                                                                     
 3/17/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/17/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/22/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 103                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY RELATING TO FIREARMS                                                                                     
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DYSON, Austerman, Halcro                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 2/19/99       260     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 2/19/99       260     (H)  CRA, JUDICIARY                                                                                      
 2/24/99       308     (H)  COSPONSOR(S):  AUSTERMAN                                                                            
 3/09/99               (H)  CRA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                         
 3/16/99               (H)  CRA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                                                                         
 3/16/99               (H)  MOVED CSHB 103(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                
 3/16/99       471     (H)  CRA RPT  COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE(CRA) NT                                                               
                            5DP 2NR                                                                                             
 3/16/99       471     (H)  DP: DYSON, HALCRO, HARRIS, MORGAN,                                                                  
 3/16/99       471     (H)  MURKOWSKI; NR: JOULE, KOOKESH                                                                       
 3/16/99       471     (H)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCRA)                                                                             
 3/16/99       471     (H)  REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                                                                               
 3/17/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/17/99               (H)  SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                                             
 3/22/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BILL: SB   3                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES OF MURDER & CHILD MURDERS                                                                                   
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Phillips, Donley, Green, Leman,                                                                 
Taylor, Pearce, Lincoln, Kelly Pete, Kelly Tim, Ward, Miller,                                                                   
Mackie; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Cissna                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                                                                           
 1/19/99        13     (S)  PREFILED RELEASED - 1/8/99                                                                          
 1/19/99        13     (S)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 1/19/99        13     (S)  JUD, FIN                                                                                            
 1/22/99               (S)  JUD AT  1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                                                                      
 1/22/99               (S)  MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                              
 1/22/99               (S)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 1/25/99        76     (S)  JUD RPT      3DP 1NR                                                                                
 1/25/99        76     (S)  DP: TAYLOR, HALFORD, ELLIS;NR:                                                                      
                            TORGERSON                                                                                           
 1/25/99        76     (S)  FISCAL NOTE (COR)                                                                                   
 1/25/99        76     (S)  INDETERMINATE FN (ADM-2)                                                                            
 1/25/99        76     (S)  ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                                                                              
 2/02/99               (S)  FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                                                                  
 2/02/99               (S)  MINUTE(FIN)                                                                                         
 2/02/99       135     (S)  FIN RPT  9DP                                                                                        
 2/02/99       135     (S)  DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,                                                                   
                            GREEN,                                                                                              
 2/02/99       135     (S)  PETE KELLY, ADAMS, WILKEN, LEMAN,                                                                   
                            DONLEY                                                                                              
 2/02/99       135     (S)  PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FNS (ADM-2)                                                                  
 2/02/99       135     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LAW)                                                                              
 2/02/99       135     (S)  PREVIOUS FN (COR)                                                                                   
 2/16/99               (S)  RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                                                                   
 2/16/99               (S)  MINUTE(RLS)                                                                                         
 2/17/99       269     (S)  RULES TO CALENDAR AND COMMITTEE                                                                     
                            SUBSTITUTE NEW TITLE                                                                                
 2/17/99       269     (S)  PREVIOUS FN (COR)                                                                                   
 2/17/99       269     (S)  PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FNS (ADM-2)                                                                  
 2/17/99       269     (S)  PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LAW)                                                                              
 2/18/99       293     (S)  READ THE SECOND TIME                                                                                
 2/18/99       294     (S)  RLS  COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE ADOPTED UNAN                                                              
                            CONSENT                                                                                             
 2/18/99       294     (S)  ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                                                                      
                            CONSENT                                                                                             
 2/18/99       294     (S)  READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 3(RLS)                                                                    
 2/18/99       294     (S)  COSPONSOR(S): PEARCE, LINCOLN, PETE                                                                 
 2/18/99       294     (S)  KELLY, TIM KELLY, WARD, MILLER,                                                                     
                            MACKIE                                                                                              
 2/18/99       294     (S)  PASSED Y19 E1                                                                                       
 2/18/99       295     (S)  EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE                                                                   
 2/18/99       297     (S)  TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                                                                  
 2/19/99       248     (H)  READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                                                                   
 2/19/99       248     (H)  JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                                                                  
 3/03/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
 3/03/99               (H)  HEARD AND HELD                                                                                      
 3/03/99               (H)  MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                         
 3/10/99       418     (H)  CROSS SPONSOR(S): CISSNA                                                                            
 3/22/99               (H)  JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant                                                                                            
  to Representative Joe Green                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 214                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-4931                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on the Bess v. Ulmer case.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant                                                                                         
   to Representative Pete Kott                                                                                                  
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 118                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-3777                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on the Bess v. Ulmer case.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON                                                                                                       
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 104                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-2199                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 103.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
VICTOR GUNN, Legislative Administrative Assistant                                                                               
   to Senator Pete Kelly                                                                                                        
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 510                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-2327                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 103.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
JULI LUCKY, Researcher                                                                                                          
   for Senator Rick Halford                                                                                                     
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Capitol Building, Room 121                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                                                                           
Telephone:  (907) 465-4958                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 3 on behalf of sponsor.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                   
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law                                                                                                               
P.O. Box 110300                                                                                                                 
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                                                                       
Telephone:  (907) 465-3428                                                                                                      
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on SB 3.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-16, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing                                                                 
Committee meeting to order at 1:08 p.m.  Members present at the                                                                 
call to order were Representatives Green, Rokeberg, Murkowski,                                                                  
Croft and Kerttula.  Representative James arrived at 1:26 p.m.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted that Chairman Kott is absent today                                                                
and that he will be the acting chairman.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
HJR 3  - CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES                                                                                        
HJR 7  - CONST. AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS                                                                             
HJR 25 - CONST. AM: FISH & WILDLIFE INITIATIVES                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN announced the first order of business in                                                                
HJR 3, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of                                                               
Alaska relating to initiatives regarding natural resources                                                                      
belonging to the state; HJR 7, Proposing an amendment to the                                                                    
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and                                                                  
referendum petitions; and HJR 25, Proposing an amendment to the                                                                 
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a petition for an                                                               
initiative or referendum regarding fish or wildlife.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0131                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Chairman-designee Green whether it is                                                                
his intention to move the bills out of committee today.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN replied yes, unless someone brings it to                                                                
his intention that there is a problem with them constitutionally or                                                             
legally - the purview of this committee.  Whether or not they                                                                   
should go to the House floor is under the purview of a different                                                                
committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0177                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated Representative Williams' resolution                                                                 
[HJR 7] has the most persuasive argument and for that reason he                                                                 
doesn't think the approach of Representative Bunde (HJR 3) and                                                                  
Representative Ogan [HJR 25] is right.  Under the purview of this                                                               
committee, there isn't anything unconstitutional or legally infirm                                                              
about the resolutions.  It is a policy choice.  For those reasons,                                                              
he is opposed to HJR 3 and HJR 25; HJR 7 presents a closer call.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0293                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agrees that Representative Williams'                                                                   
resolution is very different than Representative Bunde's in terms                                                               
of where the bar is set.  Representative Williams' resolution talks                                                             
about the collection of signatures, while Representative Bunde's                                                                
resolution talks about the actual vote.  They are two very distinct                                                             
resolutions; and, unfortunately, since they were lumped together at                                                             
the last hearing they are being viewed as the same.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0367                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated all three resolutions present                                                                    
significant policy problems.  House Joint Resolution 3 and HJR 25                                                               
present issues that should be discussed at a constitutional                                                                     
convention, especially since HJR 25 fully removes something that                                                                
the public had been able to do previously.  She also has concerns                                                               
about HJR 7.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 0430                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked Representative Kerttula whether she                                                               
feels that none of the three resolutions pose a legal problem, but                                                              
instead a policy call.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied HJR 3 and HJR 25 may have legal                                                                 
problems and should be part of a constitutional convention.  It                                                                 
won't be known, however, until the end of the "court case."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0461                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated she is not certain whether the                                                                  
committee has adopted the proposed committee substitute.  It was                                                                
indicated in the affirmative that the committee adopted it at the                                                               
last hearing.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0505                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HJR 3 from the                                                                    
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal                                                               
note(s).                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                                                                     
Representatives Green, Rokeberg and Murkowski voted in favor of the                                                             
motion.  Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted against the                                                                   
motion.  The motion failed by a vote of 3-2.  House Joint                                                                       
Resolution 3 failed to move from the House Judiciary Standing                                                                   
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0619                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a brief at-ease at 1:17 p.m. and                                                             
called the meeting back to order at 1:26 p.m.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted the arrival of Representative James.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted, in failing to pass HJR 3 out of                                                                  
committee, it is still before the committee.  He asked                                                                          
Representative Croft to explain his objection.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0653                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated he is not positive that the initiative                                                              
process is broken.  There have been initiatives on the ballots that                                                             
he has agreed with and there have been initiatives on the ballots                                                               
that he has disagreed with.  But, it has generally worked to effect                                                             
the will of the people.  There isn't a two-thirds voting                                                                        
requirement of the people for the other provisions and he is not                                                                
convinced that it should be a requirement for natural resources.                                                                
If there is something broken, it seems to be how an initiative gets                                                             
to the ballot rather than requiring a super majority for one                                                                    
particular area.  In addition, he is worried that if all three                                                                  
resolutions go to the ballot it will be very confusing.  If any of                                                              
the approaches have merit, it is a permutation of HJR 7.  He                                                                    
maintained his objection.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0743                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agrees with Representative Croft.  She                                                                  
reiterated she has constitutional concerns about HJR 3 and HJR 25                                                               
because they completely remove a right, especially HJR 25, and                                                                  
there might need to be a constitutional convention rather than an                                                               
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0815                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN indicated the objection is maintained.  A                                                               
second roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Green, Rokeberg,                                                              
James and Murkowski voted in favor of the motion.  Representatives                                                              
Croft and Kerttula voted against the motion.  The motion passed by                                                              
a vote of 4-2.  House Joint Resolution 3 was so moved from the                                                                  
House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0857                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated there was quite a bit of testimony                                                               
indicating that 10 percent of those who voted in the preceding                                                                  
general election within each house district would be difficult to                                                               
meet.  She has empathy with ensuring that the entire state is                                                                   
involved in the process, but nobody wants to see the process close                                                              
down.  She offered an amendment to change "10 percent" to "2                                                                    
percent".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN objected for discussion purposes.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0925                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES shares the same concern, but 10 percent is too                                                             
high and 2 percent is too low.  She is not sure what the figure                                                                 
should be, however.  The right number is somewhere between 1 person                                                             
from each house district and 10 percent.  She would accept                                                                      
something bigger, but she will not vote for 2 percent.  In                                                                      
addition, it only calls for 30 out of the 40 house districts.  The                                                              
less difficult districts to travel to could be used to get the                                                                  
signatures.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1019                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted that the average turnout is about                                                                 
5,000 per district or lower which would only be 500 signatures.  He                                                             
is reluctant to allow the current system because it allows the Rail                                                             
Belt to have so much influence.  The bar should also be high enough                                                             
so that the ballots are not cluttered each year with resolutions.                                                               
He maintains leaving it at 10 percent.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1145                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI likes Representative Williams' suggestion                                                              
of going to all areas of the state.  Other states require 8 percent                                                             
with a signature gathering period of 90 to 150 days.  Although 10                                                               
percent may be higher, there is a one-year period to collect                                                                    
signatures here in Alaska.  She is concerned about the outside                                                                  
organizations that have targeted Alaska as a cheap place to get                                                                 
something on a ballot.  It is not like years ago when everybody in                                                              
the neighborhood was packing around a petition.  Nowadays, petition                                                             
gathers are paid good money and are organized by outside                                                                        
corporations.  She supports HJR 7 and is comfortable with going as                                                              
high as 10 percent.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1272                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a brief at-ease at 1:38 p.m. and                                                             
called the meeting back to order at 1:40 p.m.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1278                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that this pertains to both initiatives                                                               
and referendums which are important rights.  He doesn't know how                                                                
receptive the public will be on restricting its power to decide                                                                 
issues via the initiative process and correct the legislature via                                                               
the referendum process.  The referendum process is an area that the                                                             
legislature ought to be very careful before touching, given that it                                                             
is the public's last recall on what the legislature does.  Maybe,                                                               
there ought to be a policy of not touching it.  It is not used very                                                             
often and when it is, it is obvious that the people feel seriously                                                              
that the legislature has erred.  He said, "It may not be for us to                                                              
tell them how they get that done."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 1358                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that referendum is referred to in                                                                 
Article XI, section 5 of the state constitution, and the resolution                                                             
only deals with Article XI, section 3.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1387                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated it is important to recognize that                                                                   
Alaska has 365 million acres of land with a very small population                                                               
of which nearly half lives in the Anchorage Bowl.  That calls for                                                               
outreach to ensure the folks in the less populated areas are not                                                                
left out, even though this might not be a good idea for other                                                                   
states.  Once an initiative is on the ballot and it represents                                                                  
those in the Anchorage Bowl, it will pass, and the rest of the                                                                  
votes from the rest of the people will mean nothing.  She still                                                                 
thinks 10 percent is too high, especially since there is a low                                                                  
voter turnout in some of the rural areas and it will be some time                                                               
before there are more people in those areas.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1587                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative James what was the                                                                
discussion in the House State Affairs Standing Committee regarding                                                              
the percentages.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied it was similar to today's discussion,                                                              
but there wasn't the same type of public testimony.  There was a                                                                
motion to make it 5 percent, but it didn't pass.  The committee                                                                 
decided on 10 percent.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative James whether the                                                                 
original bill called for 15 percent.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied yes.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted that the objection is maintained.  A                                                              
roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Green, Rokeberg and                                                                  
James voted against the motion.  Representatives Murkowski, Croft                                                               
and Kerttula voted in favor of the motion.  The motion failed by a                                                              
vote of 3-3.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1668                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move CSHJR 7(STA) from the                                                                
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal                                                               
note(s).                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.  A roll call vote was taken.                                                                     
Representatives Green, Rokeberg, James and Murkowski voted in favor                                                             
of the motion.  Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted against                                                                
the motion.  The motion passed by a vote of 4-2.  The CSHJR 7(STA)                                                              
was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1747                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a brief at-ease at 1:50 p.m. and                                                             
called the meeting back to order at 1:51 p.m.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1750                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSHJR 25(JUD) from                                                                
the committee with individual recommendations and the attached                                                                  
fiscal note(s).                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that there is legitimate concern about                                                               
HJR 25, but the people are smart enough to sort it out.  The                                                                    
distinction between the aerial wolf hunt and the wolf snaring                                                                   
initiatives prove that point.  The people were able to see the                                                                  
difference between prohibiting an act that didn't comport with a                                                                
fair chase and protecting a lifestyle choice.  He doesn't believe                                                               
that taking it off the plate is appropriate.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1825                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated there is no comparison between the two                                                              
initiatives because shooting wolves from an airplane was already                                                                
illegal.  The people couldn't tell the difference.  The                                                                         
advertisements influenced the votes and didn't have anything to do                                                              
with reality.  To say that the people can sort it out is a good                                                                 
argument, if there is a level playing field for both sides.  The                                                                
boards are the best system to manage fish and game, until someone                                                               
can come up with a better one.  The initiative process is not it.                                                               
There are flaws with the initiative process.  It doesn't have a                                                                 
public process.  It doesn't have the committees and the testimony                                                               
that the legislative process has.  She sympathizes with the folks                                                               
that want to do something and the legislature simply doesn't listen                                                             
to them so they turn to the initiative process.  She supports that                                                              
as a method of passing statutory law, but the valuable resources                                                                
such as fish and game need the public, committee and legislative                                                                
processes.  "If we want to have a better system of managing fish                                                                
and game, then we should statutorily change the management--the                                                                 
whole management, not just specific management of specific game and                                                             
specific fish."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1944                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that this is a representative                                                                     
democracy and the initiative process is probably the cleanest and                                                               
most public oriented part of it because once an initiative is on                                                                
the ballot everybody has the right to vote on it.  She is concerned                                                             
about restricting that process since people in Alaska feel strongly                                                             
about natural resource issues.  It is also ironic to see the people                                                             
who supported "the resolution" that failed coming in to change the                                                              
process.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1983                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understands that this is a representative form                                                             
of democracy, but the representative part of government is "out the                                                             
window" when going to an initiative because each district loses its                                                             
voice when the "water is muddy."  Once an initiative is on the                                                                  
ballot, the votes are in Anchorage.  "I don't if you heard that or                                                              
not, but that's where they are."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied she heard the testimony.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 2029                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG favors HJR 25 because Article VIII, section                                                             
2 of the state constitution clearly sets forth the legislature's                                                                
responsibility in providing for the utilization, development and                                                                
conservation of all natural resources belonging to the state for                                                                
the maximum benefit of the people.  The power is reserved to the                                                                
legislature.  He said, "I'm very concerned that the type of                                                                     
initiatives that have occurred...And, I think the point's well                                                                  
taken that with enough money and the changing demographics in this                                                              
state where people don't have the traditions of hunting and fishing                                                             
and gathering that we've had here for years, that we would put in                                                               
jeopardy to a very large investment by an outside interest group                                                                
that could gradually change our culture.  And, I'm not willing to                                                               
take that risk entirely.  Notwithstanding the sound arguments on                                                                
the other hand for the voice of the people.  And, Mr. Chairman, I                                                               
think that this--if we don't do something it could be the end of                                                                
commercial fishing in the state of Alaska.  If you look at the                                                                  
number of commercial fishers versus the growing power and                                                                       
importance of sport fishery, and I think justifiably so in certain                                                              
instances, but if we end up by ballot box animal husbandry and                                                                  
theological choices, I think we're going to be wronged."  He will                                                               
vote yes.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2098                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI is concerned that HJR 25 is closer to a                                                                
revision of the constitution as opposed to an amendment.  It is                                                                 
completely taking away the ability of the people to vote on fish                                                                
and wildlife issues.  It takes the state closer to the need for a                                                               
constitutional convention.  She is not comfortable with that.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2141                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a brief at-ease at 2:00 p.m. and                                                             
called the meeting back to order at 2:02 p.m.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2148                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted that Representative Murkowski brings                                                              
up a very good point.  He referred to a memorandum from Legislative                                                             
Legal Services dated March 19, 1999 which states that all three                                                                 
resolutions are constitutional as a method of eliminating                                                                       
initiatives, and that they probably won't go to the point that the                                                              
state supreme court went to in Bess v. Ulmer.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2212                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated the Bess case affected several parts of                                                             
the constitution.  She asked what other part of the constitution                                                                
would HJR 25 affect.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 2233                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,                                                               
Alaska State Legislature, stated that testimony on Bess v. Ulmer                                                                
indicates it is difficult to determine what will be a revision and                                                              
what will be an amendment.  There were three constitutional                                                                     
amendments before the Alaska Supreme Court, and it found that two                                                               
were amendments and one was a revision.  The revision on a scale of                                                             
1 to 10 of how much it affects the constitution was a 10.  It                                                                   
affected almost every aspect of the constitution.  The four-part                                                                
test, the extent that it affects the whole constitution and a                                                                   
person's understanding of the implications of an amendment, was                                                                 
laid down in that case.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 2299                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Jardell whether any                                                                           
constitutional amendment with any degree of controversy would be                                                                
challenged in court prior to going to the ballot because of the                                                                 
Bess case as a matter of course.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. JARDELL replied it is safe to say that the supreme court could                                                              
find factual determinations to make a decision on a challenge.  It                                                              
is really hard to allow Bess to determine which resolution should                                                               
go forward.  It is a preliminary case and it will take further case                                                             
law to narrow down what is a revision and what is an amendment,                                                                 
unless the supreme court gives a bright-line test, which is not                                                                 
expected.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 2347                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted the only thing that could dissuade                                                                
counsel from introducing lawsuits is the Senate Finance Standing                                                                
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2373                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete                                                                  
Kott, Alaska State Legislature, stated that the memorandum dated                                                                
March 19, 1999 from Legislative Legal Services talks about the                                                                  
powers enumerated by the legislature and the Bess decision.  The                                                                
courts have been slicing away at the initiative process in regards                                                              
to natural resources, fish, and wildlife for about 20 years now.                                                                
They have made inroads.  The courts didn't want ballot-box voting                                                               
for allocation issues such as fish stocks, mining, natural                                                                      
resources, etc.  The memorandum indicated, based on legal precedent                                                             
available in this state, that the legislature has the power to                                                                  
propose a constitutional amendment that would, if approved by the                                                               
people, reduce the power of the people to enact laws relating to                                                                
fish and game by initiative.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted it sounds Draconian.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 2451                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move CSHJR 25(JUD) from                                                                
the committee with individual recommendations and the attached                                                                  
fiscal note(s).                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-16, SIDE B                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued.  There is confusion on the Bess                                                                 
case because of expansiveness.  The prisoners' rights proposed                                                                  
amendment affected everything.  The supreme court eliminated the                                                                
sentence that said, "No provision of this constitution may be                                                                   
interpreted to require the State to recognize or permit marriage                                                                
between individuals of the same sex.", in the marriage proposed                                                                 
amendment.  The redistricting proposed amendment affected nine                                                                  
different provisions of the state constitution, but the supreme                                                                 
court said it was understandable.  Therefore, he is not sure                                                                    
whether there will be that much trouble with this case.  It is not                                                              
going to be a huge burden.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted that the objection is maintained.  A                                                              
roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Green, Rokeberg, James                                                               
and Murkowski voted in favor of the motion.  Representatives Croft                                                              
and Kerttula voted against the motion.  The motion passed by a vote                                                             
of 4-2.  The CSHJR 25(JUD) was so moved from the House Judiciary                                                                
Standing Committee.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0080                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a brief at-ease at 2:12 p.m. and                                                             
called the meeting back to order at 2:15 p.m.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 103 - LIABILITY RELATING TO FIREARMS                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN announced the next order of business is HB
103, "An Act relating to civil actions by municipalities and                                                                    
certain public corporations and prohibiting certain civil actions                                                               
by them against firearms or ammunition manufacturers and dealers."                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN indicated that the committee will take up                                                               
CSHB 103(CRA), and called on Representative Fred Dyson, sponsor of                                                              
the bill.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0111                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, stated HB 103                                                              
is an Act that will prohibit political subdivisions from suing                                                                  
firearm manufacturers for the misuse of legally manufactured and                                                                
distributed firearms.  Six to seven cities have sued firearm                                                                    
manufacturers and are seeking judgment to cover the cost of the                                                                 
misuse of firearms.  House Bill 103 is virtually the same as SB 77                                                              
which is on the way to the Senate floor.  House Bill 103 will get                                                               
to the House floor at roughly the same time, if this committee                                                                  
concurs with it.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 0173                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
VICTOR GUNN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Pete                                                               
Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, noted that HB 103 and SB 77 are                                                                
companion bills.  They are identical in language and mirror each                                                                
other.  They were created in response to the lawsuits brought by                                                                
municipalities throughout the United States against gun                                                                         
manufacturers to recoup damages from the illegal use of their                                                                   
products.  Enfolded by recent tobacco lawsuits, municipalities are                                                              
attempting to supplement their general fund with lawsuits directed                                                              
at deep pockets - the manufacturers - for what they consider                                                                    
politically incorrect products.  They claim that manufacturers                                                                  
allegedly have conspired to flood markets outside the cities with                                                               
strict gun laws knowing that they will reach the cities through a                                                               
black market.  Further, the manufacturers are supposedly producing                                                              
more powerful guns in order to increase their sales.  It is obvious                                                             
that the aim is to bankrupt the gun company by suing them for                                                                   
medical costs and monetary damages of gun related crimes.  This                                                                 
litigation circumvents constitutional limits as well as democratic                                                              
debate.  The gun control movement thinks it can win without passing                                                             
laws or winning elections.  By using litigation to raise prices and                                                             
to drive manufacturers out of business, gun controllers can reduce                                                              
access to firearms without confronting the Second Amendment.                                                                    
Reasonable people see the clear intent in using the court to                                                                    
accomplish what any gun lobbyist has been unable to achieve in                                                                  
federal and state legislatures.  This clear abuse of the tort                                                                   
liability system seeks to use potentially bankrupting lawsuits to                                                               
force makers of legal, but politically incorrect, products to quit.                                                             
The intent of this legislation is to prevent local governments from                                                             
seeking reimbursements for the cost of gun related violence from                                                                
businesses engaged in the lawful manufacture, sale, design or                                                                   
marketing of firearms or ammunition.  It is not the intent of this                                                              
legislation to prevent bringing an action for breach of contract or                                                             
warranty purchased by a political subdivision or local government                                                               
authority.  Gun related manufacturing is a legal enterprise                                                                     
producing quality products that are lawfully and safely used by                                                                 
thousands of Alaskan for hunting, sport, recreation and protection.                                                             
It really has more to do with the people than the guns.  It's                                                                   
easier to blame the manufacturer than to have people take                                                                       
responsibility for their actions.  In a nationwide survey of                                                                    
registered voters conducted by the American Firearms Council, 92                                                                
percent say that cities or states should not sue gun makers as a                                                                
means to stop violence; and, 67 percent say that enforcing current                                                              
laws against using firearms is more effective in addressing                                                                     
criminal violence than limiting the number of firearms an                                                                       
individual may purchase.  He noted that the survey was done in                                                                  
October of 1998 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0341                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Representative Dyson's amendment                                                               
and stated he is concerned that it would prohibit a lawsuit for a                                                               
manufacturing defect such as shoddy metal.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he was told by the bill drafter that                                                                
poor workmanship is covered under breach of warranty.  The                                                                      
amendment makes it clear.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0396                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there was a case with a                                                                   
judgment against a gun manufacturer in Connecticut.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied there was a case with judgment in                                                                  
Brooklyn.  It is subject to appeal.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what was the amount of damages.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUNN replied $550,000 against 15 manufacturers.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0423                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT is concerned about unintended consequences.                                                                
While no manufacturer should be liable for simply selling a lawful                                                              
product that somebody misuses, there are appropriate legal theories                                                             
for selling something for specific illegal purposes.  The seller of                                                             
a car is generally not liable in the case of a hit-and-run, but if                                                              
that car is sold for a specific illegal purpose, the seller could                                                               
be held liable.  It almost crosses the line into criminal                                                                       
conspiracy.  He said, "You cannot just hold Ruger liable for the                                                                
fact that some criminals use Ruger, but if I come to a gun dealer                                                               
and say, 'I want to kill the Pope.'  Is that special                                                                            
Popemobile--what armaments can I--exactly do I use and what armor                                                               
are piercing.  And, they sell me exact tailored things that are                                                                 
only appropriate for a specific purpose with full knowledge of that                                                             
purpose, you're not only criminally liable, but I think you                                                                     
probably should be civilly liable."  It is a lawful sale, but the                                                               
ultimate purpose was unlawful.  It is related to the lawful sale,                                                               
manufacture, design, or marketing of firearms, but it is not                                                                    
related to a negligent design, breach of contract, or breach of                                                                 
warranty.  He asked Representative Dyson why the bill says "a                                                                   
person", if it is meant to stop municipal or governmental lawsuits.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0521                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied it seems that knowingly supplying                                                                  
equipment for a crime is accessory before the fact which is covered                                                             
in other parts of state and probably federal law.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Number 0539                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that Representative Dyson is right.  A                                                               
person on those facts could be criminally liable, but would be                                                                  
immune under this section from civil liability.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that person would be prosecuted under                                                               
different sections.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUNN noted the bill was heard in two other committees that both                                                             
amended it to include other than municipalities such as a person.                                                               
It was felt that the word "lawful" covered a conspiracy to sell a                                                               
product for unlawful means.  It isn't the intent to encourage                                                                   
unlawful acts by gun manufacturers.  There is no "smoking gun" like                                                             
in the tobacco suits.  In those suits, there were misleading                                                                    
memorandums and intent by the manufacturers to mislead the public                                                               
to believe that their product was not harmful.  There hasn't been                                                               
anything like that in this legislation.  In fact, "it" says that                                                                
the product is designed to be dangerous, but it is designed for                                                                 
lawful purposes:  sport, recreation and protection.  The intent of                                                              
the bill is to prevent frivolous lawsuits against firms that                                                                    
manufacture a lawful product.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0658                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether it is correct that a number                                                               
of suits have been filed because of the Brooklyn case on behalf of                                                              
municipalities.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON cited:  New Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta,                                                                     
Bridgeport, and Miami Dade.  Los Angeles, Boston, Philadelphia, St.                                                             
Louis, and San Francisco are coming.  Several states are starting                                                               
to limit the liability suits like Alaska.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 0709                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked Representative Dyson whether any of                                                               
those cases have gone to settlement.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied the Brooklyn case has been awarded and                                                             
is now under appeal.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a motion to adopt Representative                                                             
Dyson's amendment.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0709                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1                                                                         
[1-LS0503\D.1, Ford, 3/19/99].  There being no objection, it was so                                                             
adopted.  It reads as follows:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 9-10                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          Delete "for negligent design"                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
          Insert "resulting from a negligent design, a                                                                          
manufacturing defect"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0764                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated he continues to worry about unintended                                                              
consequences because the bill is drawn so broadly.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0848                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Dyson whether this is                                                              
based on handguns and not other firearms.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied he is not sure that handguns were                                                                  
specifically selected.  The inference that many of the crimes are                                                               
created by handguns is logical, but in times past it was                                                                        
traditional to use shotguns and Tommy guns, for example.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0883                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Dyson and/or Mr. Gunn                                                              
whether they have read any pleadings in court cases specifically                                                                
directed at handguns or are they directed at firearms in general.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied the manufacturers that were being sued                                                             
produced firearms not just handguns.  He doesn't believe that the                                                               
suits were specific to handgun.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is concerned that including the                                                                 
manufacturer and seller brings liability problems.  What about a                                                                
situation where a youth picks up a weapon in a gun shop and                                                                     
inadvertently shots someone?  There would be immunity in that case                                                              
which is not the intent of the bill.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0940                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN wondered whether the language "lawful sale"                                                             
is the seller.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated it is being limited to the negligent                                                             
design or manufacturing defect.  According to her research,                                                                     
one-third of unintended shootings are when a child fires a loaded                                                               
gun or when somebody discharges a gun believing that it wasn't                                                                  
loaded.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN said that is negligence of the parent.                                                                  
Number 1016                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what is "lawful marketing".                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN stated, if the owner of a shop loads a gun                                                              
and something happens, then there is negligence, but it shouldn't                                                               
fall back on the manufacturer of the firearm.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted the bill says "or seller".                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted a seller would not be exonerated, if                                                              
that seller negligently loads a gun and allows somebody to shot it.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the language is drafted                                                                          
disjunctively.  It sets up a separate criteria for sellers.  It                                                                 
doesn't read "and/or"; it reads "or".                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted "or" means both of them.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted "or" means either one of them.  It is                                                             
disjunctive, not conjunctive.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN said the fact that it reads "or" means that                                                             
there doesn't have to be all of those for a cause of action.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1130                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated part of the difficulty is the wording                                                               
"related to" - Page 1, line 8.  It is very broad.  It doesn't say                                                               
"solely based on" or "primarily concerning".  It could be written                                                               
with less comprehensive language to accomplish its primary goal.                                                                
The lawful sale of a lawful product without anything more can't                                                                 
form the basis of liability for a car or gun or whatever.  The fact                                                             
that a person might use it for an illegal activity is not a basis                                                               
of reliability against the seller or manufacturer.  Anything                                                                    
peripherally related to any of these things and anything otherwise                                                              
irresponsible can be immunized.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1224                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted it is especially so because of the                                                                
exception sentence - lines 9-10.  It tries to get the exemption to                                                              
the immunity back up to the seller.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1253                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Dyson why the seller                                                               
vis-a-vis a retailer is included when it seems the actions are                                                                  
against manufacturers not retailers.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied the huge retailers in the country are                                                              
considered to be deep pockets, and the small arms manufacturing                                                                 
industry is not doing well.  The totality of the business is around                                                             
$1.4 billion.  He cited Fred Meyers, Sears and Roebuck, and K-Mart                                                              
as deep pockets.  Traditionally, the trend in court is to go after                                                              
them, and they don't want to be improperly sued.  When he bought a                                                              
firearm at Fred Meyers the clerk would not put the ammunition on                                                                
top of the counter and the firearm at the same time.  The clerk                                                                 
walked with him out to the parking lot and handed him separate                                                                  
bags.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1421                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN suggested changing the language "related                                                                
to" with "predicated on" - Page 1, line 8.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated it depends on how substantial that                                                                  
relationship has to be.  "Related to" is 1 percent, "based solely                                                               
on" is 100 percent, "primarily" is... He doesn't want to slow the                                                               
bill down, but he wants it to reflect what the majority within the                                                              
committee wants it to do.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Number 1508                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUNN stated the language is the exact wording of a Georgia law                                                              
that passed its legislature and was signed into law by its                                                                      
governor.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted it was passed without the amendment.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted Alaska is different.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 1549                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG understands that there is a public policy                                                               
demand to immunize the sellers as well.  But, the language is a                                                                 
little too broad as it relates to the retailer.  He is not real                                                                 
comfortable with it, but he is very supportive of the bill itself.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked Representative Rokeberg whether the                                                               
word "predicated" relieves some of his concern.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied not really.  It is the nexus                                                                    
between the act of selling and marketing that a whole plethora of                                                               
different scenarios can come into play causing injury.  Unless it                                                               
can be separated and replaced with a different standard such as a                                                               
higher level of negligence, there could be a lot of personal injury                                                             
cases.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Number 1649                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked are the sellers at risk of liability                                                              
when automobiles are recalled because of a defective design?  "We                                                               
want to make sure that the seller, unbeknownst to a flaw in the                                                                 
design, is not going to be held reliable because he's a deep                                                                    
pocket."                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the seller shouldn't be responsible                                                              
for a manufacturer problem.  "It is not the act of selling per se,                                                              
it's the act of being a merchandiser for manufactured merchandize                                                               
is what we're trying to get at."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1700                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated it seems that Representative Rokeberg                                                               
is dwelling on the term "marketing".  She wondered whether "faulty                                                              
marketing" could be included in the language just amended.  That                                                                
might not be the best term, but something like that to relieve his                                                              
concern.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1745                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated as the bill is written now she                                                                   
thinks a loaded gun left on a counter that a child picks up would                                                               
be covered by this statute when it is clearly negligent behavior.                                                               
And, that's not the intent of the bill.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1801                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated this doesn't preclude a seller from                                                                 
being sued for negligence in leaving a loaded weapon where a child                                                              
could misuse it.  This only immunizes a seller against being sued                                                               
through the business of selling it.  He offered the language "based                                                             
on" as an alternative for the language "related to".  In addition,                                                              
it wouldn't do a disservice to his intention to strike the word                                                                 
"marketing" from the bill.  "And, frankly, as a certifiable gun                                                                 
nut, I am uncomfortable about some of the marketing that goes on in                                                             
the firearm manufacturer that tends to be the approach.  If you                                                                 
look at some of the quasi-underground books that are marketed on                                                                
how to get anybody and how to do urban sniper fire against your                                                                 
enemies and convert your weapons into fully automatic, change you                                                               
identity and how to escape, you know.  Some of that stuff makes me                                                              
uncomfortable."  His suggestions are not an amendment, just                                                                     
respectful suggestions.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted there is still the word "sale".                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied, and properly so.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1960                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated is seems that the committee is trying                                                               
to separate the products from the actions.  In other words, the                                                                 
product itself is exempt, but what is done with the product is not.                                                             
Maybe, there is language that can separate the products and the                                                                 
actions.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 1998                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that is precisely his point.  It's                                                               
the manufactured item that he's been talking about.  He suggested                                                               
language, "(indisc.) manufacturers or a retailer of that                                                                        
manufactured firearm or ammunition".  It would focus the act on                                                                 
revolving around the handgun/firearm.  It's not the act of selling                                                              
that's immunized.  "You're only a conduit, if you're a wholesaler                                                               
or retailer.  You're not the manufacturer.  And, I think in the                                                                 
theory here is the creation of and manufacture of firearms that's                                                               
causing the damage."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN stated he would accept that, except the                                                                 
word "dealer" is included in the title.  If the intent is to keep                                                               
the dealer in the bill, he would suggest two paragraphs - one to                                                                
deal with the manufacturer and one to deal with the dealer.  It is                                                              
too difficult to include both in one paragraph.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 2100                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that typically a distributor is liable                                                               
for a defective product, even if there isn't any negligence.  A                                                                 
distributor has the right to go after a manufacturer in that case.                                                              
The language, "based on", suggested by Representative Dyson solves                                                              
most if not all of his concerns.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 2156                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated adding the language, "or to the                                                                  
reckless endangerment by retailers", to line 8 would take care of                                                               
her concern, as well as Representative's James and Rokeberg.  If                                                                
somebody put a loaded gun on a counter and a child picked it up,                                                                
there wouldn't be a bar from suing.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 2198                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated adding that language doesn't let them                                                               
go back to the manufacturer.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 2275                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to delete the language "related                                                              
to" on line 8, and insert the language "based on".  There being no                                                              
objection, it was so moved.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to include the language "or" on                                                              
line 8 between the words "manufacture," and "design,".  There being                                                             
no objection, it was so moved.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked whether there is still concern with                                                               
gross negligence of the seller, or is this enough to allow the                                                                  
intention of the AS 09.65.155.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks so.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted by taking "marketing" out...                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 2448                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted the title still refers to dealers.                                                               
The committee is talking about two separate things.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN stated, unless it is made very, very                                                                    
cumbersome, would it be better to have two separate...                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
TAPE 99-17, SIDE A                                                                                                              
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN continued.  Can negligent endangerment                                                                  
cover everything a seller might do? he asked.  That's what the                                                                  
committee is after.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 0014                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that reckless endangerment is a                                                                   
higher standard than just negligence.  She would feel more                                                                      
comfortable with just negligence because of that argument, but at                                                               
least it would cover some of the worst cases of somebody leaving a                                                              
loaded gun lying around.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0069                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. JARDELL stated using the language, "based on the lawful sale",                                                              
a cause of action wouldn't be based on the sale.  There is an                                                                   
argument of relating an action to the sale with using the language,                                                             
"related to the lawful sale".  In the case of the language, "based                                                              
on the lawful sale", the cause of action would be based on the                                                                  
negligent handling of the weapon.  It would fix the problem of                                                                  
ancillary negligence.  General negligence would still be there as                                                               
long as it's not based on the actual sale.  The New Orleans case                                                                
and several others have included the dealers in an attempt to get                                                               
them to stop selling the firearms through legal fees.  Saying that                                                              
they should have known that these person were going to use the                                                                  
weapons or they put an unusually large number on the street.  There                                                             
are some reasons to include dealers, and there are some reasons to                                                              
preclude blanket immunity for negligent handling of firearms.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0223                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated, with that testimony on the record                                                               
as the intent, she is comfortable with it.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 0241                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. GUNN pointed out that one of the lawsuits in New Orleans                                                                    
includes the people who sell firearms which is why marketing is                                                                 
included in the bill.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0270                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move CSHB 103(CRA), as                                                                    
amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and the                                                             
attached fiscal note(s).  There being no objection, CSHB 103(JUD)                                                               
was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CSSB 3(RLS) - CRIMES OF MURDER & CHILD MURDERS                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN announced the next order of business is                                                                 
CSSB 3(RLS), "An Act relating to the crimes of murder, solicitation                                                             
to commit murder in the first degree, conspiracy to commit murder                                                               
in the first degree, manslaughter, and criminally negligent                                                                     
homicide; relating to homicides of children; relating to                                                                        
registration as a sex offender or child kidnapper; relating to the                                                              
crime of interference with custody of a child or incompetent                                                                    
person; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0330                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt the proposed House                                                               
committee substitute for CSSB 3, Version 1-LS0028\H, Luckhaupt,                                                                 
3/9/99 as a working document.  There being no objection, it was so                                                              
adopted.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained the proposed House committee                                                                  
substitute raises the offenses to felonies and deletes misdemeanors                                                             
under AS 11.41 - page 3, lines 20-22.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 0418                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether the sponsor agrees with the                                                                  
changes.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Number 0432                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
JULI LUCKY, Researcher for Senator Rick Halford, Alaska State                                                                   
Legislature, stated the sponsor agrees with the changes made to the                                                             
proposed House committee substitute.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 0518                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to consider Amendment 1                                                                   
[1-LS0028\H.2, Luckhaupt, 3/12/99].  There being no objection, it                                                               
was before the committee.  It reads as follows:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 20:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          Delete "AS 11.41"                                                                                                     
          Insert "AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.300 or 11.41.410 -                                                                       
          11.41.458"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 22:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
          Delete "AS 11.41"                                                                                                     
          Insert "AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.300 or 11.41.410 -                                                                       
          11.41.458"                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained the amendment excludes the crimes                                                             
of custodial interference in the first and second degrees.  The                                                                 
sponsor is lukewarm on the idea, so he thought it should be                                                                     
discussed by the committee.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 0588                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated "it" was already limited to a felony                                                                
and now this amendment takes out custodial interference as well.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated custodial interference in the first                                                              
and second degrees is still a felony.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated all of the misdemeanors have already                                                                
been taken out and this amendment would take out a couple of the                                                                
felonious custodial interferences.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0616                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated "we" didn't want to delete Section                                                               
5 because it is an important fix for the Department of Law.  He                                                                 
said, "I guess my concern was, if you have--if you have a case that                                                             
come up with the DWI plus custodial interference makes you into--or                                                             
the--you have a death on a DWI death, it raises it to second-degree                                                             
murder.  And that's where I..."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0659                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative Rokeberg, if her                                                                  
husband takes her kids to Turkey for six years and goes underground                                                             
with them, whether it would still be considered a felony.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied not under the intent of SB 3.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 0711                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY stated the amendment would take out felony custodial                                                                  
interference, as well as robbery in the first degree, robbery in                                                                
the second degree, extortion, and coercion.  She is not sure                                                                    
whether that is the intent of the sponsor of the amendment.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, if that's the case, it is a                                                                     
drafter's mistake.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY further stated the proposed House committee substitute                                                                
took out custodial interference as a misdemeanor (custodial                                                                     
interference in the second degree), but left in custodial                                                                       
interference in the first degree - kidnapping one's own child and                                                               
going underground, for example.  A felonious custodial interference                                                             
in the first degree is usually charged to get a warrant for                                                                     
extradition.  Criminal negligence is not only drunken driving, but                                                              
shaken baby syndrome, abusing a child until its death, and starving                                                             
a baby.  This is exactly the type of person this bill is trying to                                                              
get - a history of abuse against children, acting recklessly                                                                    
towards children, taking a child against an order, or kidnapping a                                                              
child across state lines, and then through criminal negligence kill                                                             
another child through shaken baby syndrome or abuse.  That's the                                                                
type of person the bill is looking for.  It is her understanding                                                                
that somebody who takes a child on vacation would not be charged                                                                
with felonious custodial interference.  If somebody accidentally                                                                
killed that child through drunken driving, that would not fit into                                                              
the fact-pattern of this section of the bill.  The sponsor believes                                                             
that taking out custodial interference waters down this section of                                                              
the bill.  The sponsor is also concerned about the other sections                                                               
that the amendment deals with that are obviously a drafting error.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Number 0891                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked Representative Rokeberg which of the                                                              
numbers he didn't want in the amendment.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied the amendment was intended for AS                                                               
11.41.320 and 11.41.330.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY noted that AS 11.41.330 would have already been taken out                                                             
of the bill with the misdemeanor change.  The only substantive                                                                  
custodial interference change would be in AS 11.41.320.  The                                                                    
sponsor would want to include the following felony offenses:  AS                                                                
11.41.500, 11.41.510, 11.41.520 and 11.41.520.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 0943                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his amendment.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Number 0978                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA made a motion to consider Amendment 2 from                                                              
the attorney general's office.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called on Anne Carpeneti from the                                                                       
Department of Law to explain the amendment.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1003                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services                                                                   
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, stated the                                                                
amendment would avoid costly litigation in the future.  It defines                                                              
"conviction" to include a person convicted of a sex offense then                                                                
given a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for that conviction                                                              
for the purposes of sex offender registration.  In 1994, when the                                                               
legislature adopted the sex offender registration Law, it went back                                                             
to 1980 to gather those who were convicted of a sex offense and                                                                 
required them to register for 15 years after their depravation of                                                               
parole was finished.  The Department of Public Safety defined                                                                   
conviction in regulation to include those convicted of a sex                                                                    
offense and given an SIS, but in 1988 the legislature changed the                                                               
law to forbid a court from giving an SIS to a person convicted of                                                               
a sex offense.  Looking back at the sentences imposed in the late                                                               
1970's and 1980's the courts gave SIS's to those convicted of a                                                                 
first-degree sexual assault, first-degree sexual abuse of a minor,                                                              
and less serious offenses.  An SIS was originally designed and                                                                  
practically imposed on people who have been convicted of less                                                                   
serious offenses, but the legislature found that sex offenders have                                                             
a higher rate of recidivism.  The amendment is being offered                                                                    
because two people have convinced the courts that they shouldn't                                                                
have to register and two other judges have found that they should                                                               
have to register under similar circumstances.  It would be helpful                                                              
to set it straight.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Number 1204                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked Ms. Carpeneti whether the amendment                                                               
would prevent the problem in the future or is it retroactive.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied it would define conviction to exclude SIS                                                                 
for all those who were given SIS's in the past.  It is not really                                                               
necessary for the future because the law prohibits the use of SIS's                                                             
now.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Number 1225                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated they should have to register.  He is                                                                
uncomfortable with avoiding litigation, however.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Number 1236                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti whether it includes all                                                             
levels of sex offenders, and what is the time period for the SIS's.                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied the sex offender registration law applied to                                                              
people who were convicted or still under legal obligations prior to                                                             
and after 1984.  If a person was free of any legal obligation and                                                               
condition before 1984, that person did not have to register.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Number 1282                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wondered whether there is a distinction                                                                 
between class A, B or C felonies.  These people are being swept up                                                              
in one big net.  He asked Ms. Carpeneti whether it is correct that                                                              
an SIS is not on a record after a certain period of time, if there                                                              
is no wrong doing.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied correct.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti whether a person who                                                                
has already reached that person's agreed upon SIS terms would be                                                                
stuck on the sex offender registry after the fact.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied that person should have already been                                                                      
registered.  There isn't a distinction between the different                                                                    
felonies and how many people were given SIS's during that period of                                                             
time.  There were at least 200 people given SIS's between 1984 and                                                              
1988.  Some of whom were convicted of two sex offenses and given                                                                
SIS's.  One of whom was convicted of three sex offenses and given                                                               
an SIS for all three.  Some of them were first-degree sexual abuses                                                             
of a minor and second-degree sexual assaults.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 1360                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti whether or not at that                                                              
time there were certain terms and conditions put on an SIS, and if                                                              
they were not met that person would go back to jail.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied yes.  Usually, a judge imposes conditions of                                                              
jail time, for example.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti whether there would be                                                              
an instance where the full force of a conviction would have been                                                                
met and agreed to by both the state and individual that would get                                                               
trapped in this net.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI reiterated that they should have been registered this                                                             
whole time, according to the law as the Department of Law                                                                       
interprets it.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti, isn't that the point                                                               
of the amendment?  Is there a split in the cases?                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied two people have convinced the courts that                                                                 
they should not have to register.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti, because they paid                                                                  
their debt to society?                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied there were a variety of reasons.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he is concerned about an inequity.                                                               
He said, "It seems to me that it's who they're going to throw this                                                              
net out and capture--get if they've already in essence have                                                                     
completed their debt to society and all of a sudden because of the                                                              
retrospective aspect of the law, they're being asked to do                                                                      
something and then they've already completed their routine in which                                                             
their actual offense is lifted off the record, if that's if--if I'm                                                             
not mistaken."                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Number 1475                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN stated the intent is to get those people                                                                
anyway.  They slipped through because of a couple of liberal                                                                    
judges.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Number 1487                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she wants to get everybody on this list                                                             
who ought to be on it.  But, she finds it difficult to make                                                                     
legislation to change court cases.  She asked Ms. Carpeneti whether                                                             
anything will happen to those four cases.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied they are on appeal.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Carpeneti, if the law is changed                                                                 
with this amendment, will it affect their appeal.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied, "I hope so."  She hopes that the court will                                                              
be instructed to see the clarification in the law to require people                                                             
who were convicted in the 1980's and who were given an SIS to be                                                                
registered.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Carpeneti to explain how the                                                                     
amendment is a clarification as opposed to a change in the law.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied when the sex offender registration law was                                                                
passed in 1994, the legislature gave the Department of Public                                                                   
Safety the authority to adopt regulations to implement it.  As part                                                             
of the regulations, the definition of conviction included every                                                                 
finding of guilt that was not turned over by a court including                                                                  
pleas, and findings of guilt by a court or jury.  This amendment                                                                
takes that definition and puts it in statute.  It also includes an                                                              
intent section to clarify the confusion evident by the judges that                                                              
made those decisions.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Number 1608                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that the person is still convicted.                                                               
For every change of plea that she has done, the person understood                                                               
that he/she was convicted, that they had an opportunity under the                                                               
SIS to go back, but the conviction still stood.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN stated that person wouldn't be registered.                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied at this point the courts are split.                                                             
The amendment is to clarify the conviction.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1656                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated AS 12.63.020 says if it's not an                                                                    
aggravated sex offense, it is only 15 years from the date of                                                                    
conviction.  If it's an aggravated sex offense, it is a lifetime                                                                
obligation, and in that case that person is caught in the net.  If                                                              
a person is clean for 15 years, then that person can drop of the                                                                
list.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI stated, if a person does not check in with the                                                                    
Department of Public Safety or a police department every year to                                                                
update information in the registry, then that person doesn't get                                                                
credit for that year.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated if a court has determined that they                                                                 
don't have to, then they wouldn't be charged for...                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said correct.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1740                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti what constitutes an                                                                 
SIS.  Would a conviction be removed from the books upon completion                                                              
of the conditions?                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied when a SIS is imposed a person has to fulfill                                                             
the obligations that a court has imposed, but a conviction really                                                               
isn't removed from every single aspect.  "12.55.085 specifically                                                                
provides that you cannot get an SIS if you have a prior conviction                                                              
and it also provides that convictions in terms of that section of                                                               
whether--so whether or not you have a prior conviction includes                                                                 
conviction where you were given an SIS.  So, if you're convicted of                                                             
a theft as a young person and were given an SIS and provided--did                                                               
everything  you were suppose to do and got your conviction off the                                                              
record, and ten years later if you committed another theft, under                                                               
the law of SIS's the court could go back--has to go back and look                                                               
at that.  And, you can't get another one because conviction for                                                                 
purposes of law of SIS does not include an SIS provision."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1851                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that Megan's Law has withstood                                                                    
constitutional tests at the U.S. Supreme Court level, but many                                                                  
states have a two tier system where the severity of a sex offense                                                               
is balance with the crime and the length time on a registry.                                                                    
Alaska doesn't have that.  Therefore, a sex offender convicted of                                                               
assault in the fourth degree is in the same boat of a sex offender                                                              
that committed assault in the first degree.  He takes exception to                                                              
that as a matter of public policy.  He asked Ms. Carpeneti whether                                                              
there would be a distinction in terms of severity when that net is                                                              
thrown back out.  He also asked Mr. Carpeneti whether the net would                                                             
be thrown back over offenders who have completed their conditions.                                                              
In addition, a person in that case would have to say that he/she                                                                
has never been convicted, but that he/she is on a sex offender                                                                  
registry when completing a job application, for example.  It is a                                                               
weird set of circumstances.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 1920                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI replied Alaska does have a two tier sex offender                                                                  
registration program.  People convicted of an aggravated sexual                                                                 
assault and kidnapping are required to register for life, even if                                                               
it a first offense.  People convicted of sexual abuse of a minor in                                                             
the first degree, and people convicted twice of any sexual offense                                                              
also have to register for life.  People convicted of other sexual                                                               
offenses have to register for 15 years.  In addition, she has never                                                             
believed that a person can answer truthfully about a conviction on                                                              
a job application, even if through an SIS that conviction has been                                                              
set aside.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 1990                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the sponsor has any objection                                                             
to this amendment since it piggybacks SB 62.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. LUCKY replied the sponsor does not have an objection to the                                                                 
amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
Number 2038                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked whether there is further objection.                                                               
There being none, Amendment 2 was so adopted.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Number 2062                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move the proposed House                                                                
committee substitute for CSSB 3, as amended, from the committee                                                                 
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s).                                                                
There being no objection, HCS CSSB 3(JUD) was so moved from the                                                                 
House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Number 2181                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing                                                                  
Committee meeting at 3:37 p.m.                                                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects