Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120

04/30/2007 01:00 PM JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= HB 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D. TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 3(JUD) Out of Committee
+= HB 151 INDEMNITY CLAUSE IN PUBLIC CONTRACTS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 151(JUD) Out of Committee
+= HB 225 POSSESSION OF WEAPON WHILE ON BAIL TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 163 PROPERTY FORECLOSURES AND EXECUTIONS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 163(JUD) Out of Committee
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 30, 2007                                                                                         
                           1:08 p.m.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair                                                                                                
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair                                                                                      
Representative John Coghill                                                                                                     
Representative Bob Lynn                                                                                                         
Representative Ralph Samuels                                                                                                    
Representative Max Gruenberg                                                                                                    
Representative Lindsey Holmes                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
All members present.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 163                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to real property foreclosures, executions, and                                                                 
deeds of trust."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 163(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 3                                                                                                                
"An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and to                                                                     
issuance of driver's licenses; and providing for an effective                                                                   
date."                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 3(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 151                                                                                                              
"An Act requiring an indemnification and hold harmless provision                                                                
in professional services contracts of state agencies, quasi-                                                                    
public agencies, municipalities, and political subdivisions."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 151(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 225                                                                                                              
"An Act relating to misconduct involving weapons and bail."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD AND HELD                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 163                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: PROPERTY FORECLOSURES AND EXECUTIONS                                                                               
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
02/28/07       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/28/07       (H)       L&C, JUD                                                                                               
03/30/07       (H)       L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
03/30/07       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
04/20/07       (H)       L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17                                                                              
04/20/07       (H)       Moved CSHB 163(L&C) Out of Committee                                                                   
04/20/07       (H)       MINUTE(L&C)                                                                                            
04/23/07       (H)       L&C RPT 1DP 4NR                                                                                        
04/23/07       (H)       DP: RAMRAS                                                                                             
04/23/07       (H)       NR: BUCH, LEDOUX, NEUMAN, OLSON                                                                        
04/27/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
04/27/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/27/07       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/30/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 3                                                                                                                    
SHORT TITLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.                                                                             
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
01/16/07       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07                                                                                
01/16/07       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/16/07       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
02/27/07       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
02/27/07       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/01/07       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/01/07       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
03/06/07       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/06/07       (H)       Moved Out of Committee                                                                                 
03/06/07       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/07/07       (H)       STA RPT 3DP 2DNP 2NR                                                                                   
03/07/07       (H)       DP: JOHNSON, ROSES, LYNN                                                                               
03/07/07       (H)       DNP: GRUENBERG, DOLL                                                                                   
03/07/07       (H)       NR: JOHANSEN, COGHILL                                                                                  
03/07/07       (H)       FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD                                                                           
04/20/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
04/20/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/20/07       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/23/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
04/23/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/23/07       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/30/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 151                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: INDEMNITY CLAUSE IN PUBLIC CONTRACTS                                                                               
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON BY REQUEST                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
02/22/07       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/22/07       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
03/20/07       (H)       STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                             
03/20/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/20/07       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/24/07       (H)       STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106                                                                            
03/24/07       (H)       Moved CSHB 151(STA) Out of Committee                                                                   
03/24/07       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
03/26/07       (H)       STA RPT CS(STA) NT 6DP                                                                                 
03/26/07       (H)       DP: JOHANSEN, JOHNSON, COGHILL, DOLL,                                                                  
                        GRUENBERG, LYNN                                                                                         
04/02/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
04/02/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/02/07       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/30/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 225                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: POSSESSION OF WEAPON WHILE ON BAIL                                                                                 
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
03/27/07       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
03/27/07       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
04/13/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
04/13/07       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/13/07       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
04/25/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
04/25/07       (H)       Scheduled But Not Heard                                                                                
04/27/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
04/27/07       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
04/30/07       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
STEPHAN ROUTH, Attorney at Law                                                                                                  
Routh & Crabtree, APC                                                                                                           
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on a proposed amendment to HB 3.                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN                                                                                                             
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified as sponsor of HB 3.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
DUANE BANNOCK, Director                                                                                                         
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)                                                                                                
Department of Administration (DOA)                                                                                              
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HB 3.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
LEANNE BOLDENOW, Vice-President                                                                                                 
Marsh USA Inc.                                                                                                                  
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 151.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
JAMES CANTOR, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide                                                                      
Section Supervisor                                                                                                              
Transportation Section                                                                                                          
Civil Division (Anchorage)                                                                                                      
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided assistance during discussion of                                                                 
HB 151.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
BOYD MORGENTHALER, P.E., Client Contract Task Force                                                                             
Alaska Professional Design Council (APDC)                                                                                       
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 151.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
TREVOR FULTON, Staff                                                                                                            
to Representative Craig Johnson                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 151 on behalf of the sponsor,                                                               
Representative Craig Johnson.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff                                                                                                            
to Representative Craig Johnson                                                                                                 
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed HB 255 on behalf of the sponsor,                                                               
Representative Craig Johnson.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                                                                      
Legal Services Section-Juneau                                                                                                   
Criminal Division                                                                                                               
Department of Law (DOL)                                                                                                         
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided legal assistance for HB 225.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, Attorney                                                                                                      
Legislative Legal Counsel                                                                                                       
Legislative Legal and Research Services                                                                                         
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)                                                                                                
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Spoke as the  drafter of HB 225 and answered                                                             
questions.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR JAY  RAMRAS called the  House Judiciary  Standing Committee                                                             
meeting  to  order at  1:08:09  PM.   Representatives  Dahlstrom,                                                             
Coghill, Lynn, Holmes, Gruenberg, and  Ramras were present at the                                                               
call to  order.   Representative Samuels  arrived as  the meeting                                                               
was in progress.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 163 - PROPERTY FORECLOSURES AND EXECUTIONS                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:08:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the  first order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL   NO.  163,  "An   Act  relating  to   real  property                                                               
foreclosures,  executions,  and deeds  of  trust."   [Before  the                                                               
committee was the proposed committee  substitute (CS) for HB 163,                                                               
Version 25-LS0630\K,  Bannister, 4/24/07, which had  been adopted                                                               
as the work draft on 4/27/07.]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS referred members to page 3, lines 25-26.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:11:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STEPHAN ROUTH,  Attorney at  Law, Routh  & Crabtree,  APC, stated                                                               
that  what  happens  at  a  foreclosure  sale  is  reinstatement,                                                               
wherein  the   owners  pay  the   delinquent  amounts,   but  the                                                               
reinstatement should have  happened prior to the  auction.  Other                                                               
states have  addressed the problems  associated with  last minute                                                               
reinstatements  by moving  back the  deadline for  reinstatement;                                                               
for example, Washington has set  the reinstatement deadline at 10                                                               
days prior  to the auction, which  in his view, he  remarked, was                                                               
too  long, though  it might  be acceptable  if the  deadline were                                                               
left at 5 days, or perhaps even reduced  to 2 or 3 days.  He said                                                               
another reason  he felt the  reinstatement should occur  prior to                                                               
the  auction  is to  maximize  bidding  for  the benefit  of  the                                                               
borrower, and  reiterated his  belief that  reinstatements should                                                               
not be considered at the time of the auction.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
STEPHAN ROUTH said  he calculated that if  the reinstatement date                                                               
were left  at 5  days, as  current law  allows, then  the minimum                                                               
time to  complete foreclosure in  Alaska would be 120  days, with                                                               
90 days for  foreclosure, and 30 days after default  on the loan.                                                               
He  explained  that the  timeframe  for  a foreclosure  does  not                                                               
include  the  three-month  delinquency period  that  institutions                                                               
typically allow prior to initiating  a foreclosure process, which                                                               
makes  the  standard  timeframe for  the  borrower  to  reinstate                                                               
actually closer  to six months.   Under current law,  the parties                                                               
have 5  days prior to  the sale to  reinstate, and in  about 97.3                                                               
percent of  the time  the reinstatement  time is  approximately a                                                               
total of 175 days.   He said that he would  feel satisfied if the                                                               
date were  moved away from  the sale  time, which is  the auction                                                               
date.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES  asked  whether   the  owner  often  makes                                                               
payment of the  foreclosure costs within 48 hours  of the auction                                                               
time.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
STEPHAN ROUTH  responded that payment  close to the date  of sale                                                               
does not  often happen,  but when  it does  occur it  creates big                                                               
problems.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  asked whether a two-day  deadline would be                                                               
amenable to Mr. Routh.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
STEPHAN  ROUTH  concurred  that   a  two-day  deadline  would  be                                                               
amenable.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  indicated that  he supported  a two-day                                                               
deadline.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS, after  ascertaining  that no  one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on HB 163.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:15:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES  made  a  motion  to  adopt  a  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1,  to replace "five"  with "two"  on page 3,  line 25.                                                       
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved  to report the proposed  CS for HB                                                               
163, Version 25-LS0630\K, Bannister,  4/24/07, as amended, out of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal  notes.   There  being  no  objection, CSHB  163(JUD)  was                                                               
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
HB 3 - REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:16:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An  Act relating to issuance of identification                                                               
cards and to issuance of  driver's licenses; and providing for an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that public testimony on HB 3 was closed.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN,  as sponsor  of HB  3, indicated  that since                                                               
the bill was  last heard, work had been done  to address concerns                                                               
regarding the grace period.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:18:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS referred  to  Amendment  1, labeled  25-LS0040\C.4,                                                               
Luckhaupt, 4/24/07, which read:                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 20:                                                                                                           
          Delete "expired"                                                                                                  
         Insert "been expired for more than 12 months"                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  explained that  Amendment  1  would give  Alaskans                                                               
ample opportunity to replace their  expired driver's license with                                                               
a new driver's license.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:20:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DUANE  BANNOCK,  Director,  Division  of  Motor  Vehicles  (DMV),                                                               
Department  of  Administration   (DOA),  concurred  [although  no                                                               
formal motion was made to adopt Amendment 1].                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected  for the purpose of  discussion.  He                                                               
offered his understanding  that non-residents have up  to 90 days                                                               
to obtain a license.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS said  he believes that is set out  in regulation and                                                               
would apply to military personnel and new residents.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK explained that current  statutes provide that persons                                                               
are not required  to hold an Alaska driver's license  if they are                                                               
in the  state for less than  90 days, and stipulate  that persons                                                               
are required  to have a  driver's license  if they reside  in the                                                               
state longer than 90 days.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN   questioned  whether   it  would   be  more                                                               
appropriate to match  Amendment 1 to that  specific timeframe for                                                               
consistency.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK, recalling  a question from a  prior hearing, pointed                                                               
out  that this  entire bill  section  is not  compliant with  the                                                               
federal REAL  ID Act of 2005,  so any changes made  to [paragraph                                                               
(8)] will not  affect other parts of the  statute, therefore, the                                                               
division has no preference regarding the specific timeframe.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN suggested  an amendment  to Amendment  1, to                                                               
change "12 months" to "90 days".                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what the  current grace period is if                                                               
one's driver's license is expired.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BANNOCK responded  that under  current statute  there is  no                                                               
grace period, and  one cannot drive with an expired  license.  If                                                               
a person  comes into  the DMV  office a day  or so  after his/her                                                               
license expires, the division would  continue the renewal process                                                               
without penalty,  though by  regulation, if  more than  12 months                                                               
has lapsed since the license  expired, the person must retake the                                                               
written exam.   After 5 years  have lapsed, he/she would  need to                                                               
retake the skills test, commonly  referred to as the "road test."                                                               
He noted  that the DMV does  not impose any fines  for an expired                                                               
driver's license.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:24:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  agreed that 90 days  seems consistent and                                                               
mentioned  driver's licenses  are  also  used for  identification                                                               
purposes.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM  questioned whether extending  the grace                                                               
period  any  length  of  time would  cause  problems  within  the                                                               
division, for  example, for  the purpose  of address  changes, or                                                               
other administrative and police functions.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK  responded that placing  the change in  statute would                                                               
establish  a  grace  period.    He  stated  that  other  than  an                                                               
exception for military or college  exemption, he was not aware of                                                               
any other  grace period allowed.   But he said that  the question                                                               
of grace periods  also raises the issue of whether  a person with                                                               
a lapsed  license is considered  to hold  a valid license,  or if                                                               
his/her driving privilege is in  limbo; regardless, the change to                                                               
grace  period would  still  only apply  to  the driver's  license                                                               
function.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  said he thought that  Amendment 1 applied                                                               
to renewal of a license, or  issuance of a duplicate license.  He                                                               
added that Amendment  1 would not affect the  issuance of initial                                                               
driver's licenses.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  [although  no  formal motion  was  made]  said  he                                                               
accepted the  amendment to  Amendment 1.   He explained  that the                                                               
effect of  the amendment to  Amendment 1  is that the  text being                                                               
inserted would read "been expired for more than 90 days".                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  [treating Amendment  1  as  having been  amended],                                                               
asked if  the objection was  maintained.  After  determining that                                                               
it was not, announced that Amendment 1 [as amended] was adopted.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:28:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  2,                                                               
labeled 25-LS0040\C.5, Luckhaupt, 4/30/07, which read:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 11:                                                                                                           
          Delete "the person's legal status and presence in                                                                     
     the United States"                                                                                                         
          Insert "(1) a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa                                                                      
     or nonimmigrant  visa status for entry  into the United                                                                    
     States,  (2)  a  pending or  approved  application  for                                                                    
     asylum in the United States,  (3) entry into the United                                                                    
     States  in refugee  status, (4)  a pending  or approved                                                                    
     application  for  temporary  protected  status  in  the                                                                    
     United States, (5) approved  deferred action status, or                                                                    
     (6) a  pending application for adjustment  of status to                                                                    
     legal   permanent  residence   status  or   conditional                                                                    
     resident status"                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 30 - 31:                                                                                                     
          Delete "the person's legal status and presence in                                                                 
     the United States"                                                                                                     
          Insert "(i) a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa                                                                  
     or nonimmigrant  visa status for entry  into the United                                                                
     States,  (ii) a  pending  or  approved application  for                                                                
     asylum  in  the United  States,  (iii)  entry into  the                                                                
     United  States in  refugee status,  (iv)  a pending  or                                                                
     approved application for  temporary protected status in                                                                
     the  United   States,  (v)  approved   deferred  action                                                                
     status, or  (vi) a  pending application  for adjustment                                                                
     of  status  to  legal  permanent  residence  status  or                                                                
     conditional resident status"                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that  there are people who are                                                               
unable  to obtain  their green  card timely  due to  bureaucratic                                                               
reasons.  He stated that the  language in Amendment 2 is based on                                                               
Virginia law  [Virginia Acts of Assembly-Chapter  [H2471]], which                                                               
would  allow  a  person  with  a pending  application  to  get  a                                                               
driver's license.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:29:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK stated that the division supports Amendment 2.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN announced that he accepts Amendment 2.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM removed her objection to Amendment 2.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  asked  for   clarification  and  for  an                                                               
example of a person who is in refugee status pending asylum.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK responded  that the division has  attempted to define                                                               
a person's  legal status,  but the  state has  not yet  adopted a                                                               
legal presence law, although 40  other states have.  For example,                                                               
the  State of  Virginia adopted  a six-point  plan for  its legal                                                               
presence law.   He said that his division staff  could not find a                                                               
single  circumstance   or  instance   in  which   an  immigrant's                                                               
application  status did  not fit  within  the six  points of  the                                                               
Virginia Act.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS  asked for clarification of  the source of                                                               
the language in Amendment 2 and asked about asylum status.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK  replied that the  language in Amendment 2  was taken                                                               
verbatim   from  portions   of   the   Immigration  and   Customs                                                               
Enforcement (ICE), provisions.  While  he said he could not speak                                                               
specifically  to the  asylum  status, he  said  that the  federal                                                               
government clearly offers  protection to those in one  of the six                                                               
statuses.   He stated  that the DMV  has maintained  inclusion of                                                               
all who  are legally present in  the U.S.  Those  legally present                                                               
in  the U.S.  will  fit  one of  the  six  categories [listed  in                                                               
Amendment 2].                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:32:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES  agreed with  the director  that immigrants                                                               
fit within the six federal  criteria in the Virginia law embodied                                                               
in Amendment 2,  and pointed out that all these  immigrants had a                                                               
legal right to be in the  United States.  She related a situation                                                               
in  which a  family  member experienced  a  significant delay  in                                                               
obtaining a green  card, even though he/she had  followed all the                                                               
rules required to  apply for legal immigration  status.  However,                                                               
due  to a  significant ICE  backlog,  he/she could  not obtain  a                                                               
green card timely.  During this  limbo period he/she had not been                                                               
given  any written  documentation to  prove legal  status in  the                                                               
United  States.   If contacted,  the ICE,  would verbally  verify                                                               
that the person had a legal right  to be in the country.  In this                                                               
situation,  the person's  legal status  was considered,  "pending                                                               
adjustment of status."                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  inquired  as  to  how  long  a  driver's                                                               
license  would be  valid  under the  proposed  amendment if  that                                                               
party had made an application for asylum in the United States.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BANNOCK replied  that all  drivers' licenses  are valid  for                                                               
five  years, until  the  person's next  birthday  in five  years,                                                               
regardless of whether  the party was rejected  by the immigration                                                               
office.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  suggested  a conceptual  amendment  to                                                               
Amendment 2,  to read, "to  expire on  the next birthday  in five                                                               
years  unless  rejected, and  if  rejected  the driver's  license                                                               
would expire immediately".                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS expressed  concern  that  a person  could                                                               
potentially physically possess a  valid driver's license, even if                                                               
the  driver's license  was expired,  or the  person's immigration                                                               
application had  been denied, because  the expiration  date would                                                               
actually reflect future  date.  He asked if it  would be possible                                                               
to set  the initial  expiration date for  a shorter  timeframe to                                                               
allow for immigration processing time.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BANNOCK  replied  that  the  federal  government  posts  and                                                               
updates an estimated wait period  on its website, which sometimes                                                               
exceeds  two  years.   He  explained  that the  federal  agency's                                                               
backlog sometimes creates  a problem for the  division, and using                                                               
the Virginia language  embodied in Amendment 2  will help address                                                               
and mitigate these issues.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:36:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  asked whether the driver's  license would                                                               
be valid  only during  the time the  person has  authorized legal                                                               
status.   He also asked  whether Amendment 2 would  place tension                                                               
in   its   directive  to   the   agency   because  the   person's                                                               
authorization status was listed as indefinite.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG referred  members to  the Virginia  Act                                                               
included in  the committee packet.   He stated that  although the                                                               
language in  the Virginia Act  is mirrored in Amendment  2, other                                                               
portions  of  the Virginia  Act  could  potentially address  this                                                               
issue.  He  indicated that he would support  amending Amendment 2                                                               
to reflect the rest of the Virginia language.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK explained  that another portions of HB  3 pertains to                                                               
immigrants' indefinite statuses.   He opined that  if Amendment 2                                                               
were adopted,  even when a  person's pending status  is continued                                                               
into  perpetuity he/she  would still  only be  issued a  driver's                                                               
license  for a  one-year period.   After  one year,  he/she would                                                               
have to renewal annually during the application pending status.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG said  that  he could  also support  the                                                               
entire Virginia language as alternative language.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  asked whether the division  could renew a                                                               
license  that  was  in  pending status  if  the  person  provided                                                               
documentation that showed the application was still pending.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK replied  yes.  The division would require  a one year                                                               
renewal on  applications without  an end date.   However,  if the                                                               
individual's documentation  allowed him/her  legal status  in the                                                               
United  States  for  18  months, the  division  would  issue  the                                                               
license  up  until  the  18-month  date.   He  noted  that  these                                                               
licensing circumstances are addressed in HB 3.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  questioned  whether the  limitation  for                                                               
license issuance  and renewals ought  to be clarified  further to                                                               
identify  the applicant's  status, such  as identifying  "pending                                                               
legal status" or "indefinite status."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK  responded that it would  not be necessary to  do and                                                               
referred to the limiter in Section 6.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BANNOCK, in  response to  Representative Coghill,  confirmed                                                               
that  a pending  application would  be treated  as an  indefinite                                                               
application status.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:40:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  whether  the division  preferred                                                               
the language  in Section  6 or the  additional language  from the                                                               
Virginia Act.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK  explained that the  difference between Section  6 in                                                               
HB  3 and  the Virginia  Act  is that  the Virginia  Act is  very                                                               
specific to items  listed in paragraphs (1)  through (6), whereas                                                               
Section 6  pertains to the whole  gambit.  He said  he understood                                                               
that  very few  people actually  hold permanent  residency cards,                                                               
but that  those in  permanent residency  status must  still renew                                                               
their card  every 10 years.   He said that he  thought the result                                                               
would be  the same, whether the  Virginia Act is altered  to make                                                               
it  specific to  the six  paragraphs  listed in  Amendment 2,  or                                                               
whether Section 6 is maintained.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  stated  he  was satisfied  with  the  language  in                                                               
Section 6.   He asked whether  Amendment 2 dealt with  the issues                                                               
adequately within Section  6 or if additional  language should be                                                               
added  to further  clarify how  renewals on  pending applications                                                               
are handled.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK  responded that  he thought  the instructions  to the                                                               
division are crystal clear.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS  described  an  instance  where  the  ICE                                                               
indicated there would be an  a delay in processing an application                                                               
for  about  two-and-a-half  years.  And  whether  the  DMV  would                                                               
consider  applicant  in  the  aforementioned  pending  status  an                                                               
indefinite status.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. BANNOCK responded yes.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS related his  understanding that the bill's                                                               
goal, is to  stop potential terrorists from  obtaining a driver's                                                               
license.   He  expressed  concern  that the  DMV  might issue  an                                                               
identification card  ]from one to  five years] to a  person whose                                                               
intention is to harm our country.   However, he said he would not                                                               
offer any amendments to Amendment 1  if the DMV is satisfied with                                                               
issuing one-year  licenses for  those persons  holding indefinite                                                               
status.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  stated he was satisfied  with Amendment                                                               
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS removed  his objection to Amendment 2.   There being                                                               
no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:44:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM  moved to report  HB 3, as  amended, out                                                               
of   committee   with    individual   recommendations   and   the                                                               
accompanying fiscal notes.   There being no  objections, the CSHB                                                               
3(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
HB 151 - INDEMNITY CLAUSE IN PUBLIC CONTRACTS                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:45:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO. 151,"An Act  requiring an indemnification and hold                                                               
harmless provision  in professional  services contracts  of state                                                               
agencies,  quasi-public agencies,  municipalities, and  political                                                               
subdivisions."   [Before the committee  was a  proposed committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB 151,  Version  25-LS0479\L,  Bannister,                                                               
3/28/07,  which   had  been  previously  adopted   by  the  House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee on 4/2/07].                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:46:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LEANNE BOLDENOW,  Vice-President, Marsh USA Inc.,  explained that                                                               
March USA  Inc. is an  insurance brokerage that works  with about                                                               
30  design firms  statewide.   She  related  that she  previously                                                               
wrote  a letter  of  support for  HB 151  because  she often  has                                                               
reviewed  poorly  written,   uninsurable  contracts  released  by                                                               
public  agencies that  contain  onerous indemnification  clauses.                                                               
Those contracts  often require the  design consultant to  take on                                                               
liabilities that  are not typically his/her  responsibility.  She                                                               
said that  insurance generally covers  liability in tort  law and                                                               
that a firm would be held  responsible even if a written contract                                                               
is not in  place.  She said  she also supports HB  151 because it                                                               
is  in alignment  with professional  liability insurance  for the                                                               
design professionals.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:48:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAMES  CANTOR,  Chief  Assistant  Attorney  General  -  Statewide                                                               
Section  Supervisor,   Transportation  Section,   Civil  Division                                                               
(Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL),  stated that he agreed with                                                               
the  last   speaker.    He   opined  that  HB  151   pertains  to                                                               
insurability  and the  negligent  acts that  cause liability  and                                                               
third  party claims  not contract  claims between  the contractor                                                               
and  the  agency or  claims  between  the subcontractor  and  the                                                               
contractor.   He  said that  HB 151  applies to  a person  who is                                                               
injured and  who sues  the person that  built, designed,  or owns                                                               
the project, which  amounts basically to tort  claims.  Insurance                                                               
is already  available to cover  the risk between  consultants and                                                               
the public agency, but that  co-insurance is not available.  This                                                               
legislation addresses  how risk should be  handled when insurance                                                               
is not  available.  He said  that the Department of  Law supports                                                               
CSHB 151, Version L, as written.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLMES asked  whether  the standardized  language                                                               
contained within  HB 151 was in  the state's best interest  or at                                                               
the least would not adversely impact the state.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CANTOR responded  that HB  151  is similar  to language  the                                                               
Department  of   Transportation  &  Public   Facilities  (DOT&PF)                                                               
already uses.  The bill is aimed  at the few agencies that do not                                                               
currently use the DOT&PF provisions.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
[Chair Ramras passed the gavel to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:50:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BOYD  MORGENTHALER,  P.E.,  Client Contract  Task  Force,  Alaska                                                               
Professional Design Council (APDC), explained  that the APDC is a                                                               
consortium of professional societies  that represents about 5,000                                                               
architects, engineers,  and land surveyors registered  in Alaska.                                                               
He  related that  APDC  and himself,  as  a mechanical  engineer,                                                               
strongly support  HB 151.  He  said that the bill  levels out the                                                               
playing field for  insurance and liability questions  in tort and                                                               
would  help  the  design professionals  more  smoothly  negotiate                                                               
contracts.   There is a wide  range of how terms  are written and                                                               
that  this   proposed  standardization  would  help   the  design                                                               
professionals.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
VICE-CHAIR  DAHLSTROM, upon  determining  no one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony on HB 151.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:52:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
TREVOR  FULTON, Staff  to  Representative  Craig Johnson,  Alaska                                                               
State Legislature,  said that  he wanted to  be certain  that the                                                               
members' prior  concerns have been  addressed.  He  stressed that                                                               
HB  151 pertains  only to  construction related  contracts, which                                                               
are addressed in the CSHB 151(STA),  and are also included in the                                                               
Version L.   He noted that the bill does  not address issues that                                                               
arise  between builders  and public  contracting  agencies.   The                                                               
Associated General Contractors (AGC)  and the Associated Builders                                                               
and Contractors, Inc., Alaska Chapter  (ABC) support the bill, he                                                               
related.  The DOT&PF language does  not extend to builders and he                                                               
opined  that  doing  so  would  expand  the  scope  of  the  bill                                                               
considerably.    He  explained that  subcontractors  are  covered                                                               
under  the terms  of a  separate  contract between  them and  the                                                               
agency, or the company with whom they are contracting.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:55:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  moved to report the  proposed committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB 151,  Version  25-LS0479\L,  Bannister,                                                               
3/28/07,  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the accompanying  fiscal notes.   There being no  objection, CSHB                                                               
151(JUD)  was   reported  from   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                               
Committee.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HB 225 - POSSESSION OF WEAPON WHILE ON BAIL                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:56:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be                                                                 
HOUSE  BILL  NO. 225,"An  Act  relating  to misconduct  involving                                                               
weapons and bail."                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 1:56 p.m. to 1:59 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS advised  that the  public testimony  was previously                                                               
closed on HB 225.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:00:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JEANNE  OSTNES, Staff  to  Representative  Craig Johnson,  Alaska                                                               
State  Legislature,  indicated that  the  CSHB  225, Version  25-                                                               
LS0710\M, Luckhaupt, 4/11/07, had  previously been adopted by the                                                               
House Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  made  a  motion to  adopt  Amendment  1,                                                               
labeled 25-LS0710\M.2, Luckhaupt, 4/23/07, which read:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 15 - 20:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
               "(A)   while the  person is on  release under                                                                
     AS 12.30.020 - 12.30.040 for a felony under AS 11; or                                                                  
               (B)   in violation of  AS 11.61.220(a)(6) and                                                                
     the  person  is on  release  under  AS 47.12.080 for  a                                                                
     delinquent act  that would be  a felony under  AS 11 if                                                                
     committed by an adult."                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, following line 20:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
        "* Sec. 3. AS 11.61.210(a) is amended to read:                                                                        
          (a)  A person commits the crime of misconduct                                                                         
     involving weapons in the fourth degree if the person                                                                       
               (1)    possesses on  the  person,  or in  the                                                                    
     interior of a  vehicle in which the  person is present,                                                                    
     a  firearm   when  the  person's  physical   or  mental                                                                    
     condition is  impaired as a result  of the introduction                                                                    
     of  an intoxicating  liquor or  a controlled  substance                                                                    
     into  the person's  body  in  circumstances other  than                                                                    
     described in AS 11.61.200(a)(7);                                                                                           
               (2)    discharges  a  firearm  from,  on,  or                                                                    
     across a highway;                                                                                                          
               (3)    discharges  a  firearm  with  reckless                                                                    
     disregard for  a risk of  damage to property or  a risk                                                                    
     of  physical injury  to  a  person under  circumstances                                                                    
     other than those described in AS 11.61.195(a)(3)(A);                                                                       
               (4)    manufactures,  possesses,  transports,                                                                    
     sells, or transfers metal knuckles;                                                                                        
               (5)    manufactures,  sells, or  transfers  a                                                                    
     switchblade or a gravity knife;                                                                                            
               (6)     knowingly  sells   a  firearm   or  a                                                                    
     defensive weapon to a person under 18 years of age;                                                                        
               (7)    other  than a  preschool,  elementary,                                                                    
     junior  high, or  secondary  school student,  knowingly                                                                    
     possesses  a  deadly  weapon  or  a  defensive  weapon,                                                                    
     without  the  permission  of the  chief  administrative                                                                    
     officer of  the school or  district or the  designee of                                                                    
     the chief administrative  officer, within the buildings                                                                    
     of, on the grounds of, or  on the school parking lot of                                                                    
     a  public  or  private  preschool,  elementary,  junior                                                                    
     high, or secondary school, on  a school bus while being                                                                    
     transported  to or  from school  or a  school-sponsored                                                                    
     event,  or while  participating  in a  school-sponsored                                                                    
     event, except  that a person  21 years of age  or older                                                                    
     may possess                                                                                                                
               (A)   a  deadly weapon,  other than  a loaded                                                                    
     firearm, in the trunk of  a motor vehicle or encased in                                                                    
     a closed container in a motor vehicle;                                                                                     
               (B)  a defensive weapon;                                                                                         
               (C)   an  unloaded firearm  if the  person is                                                                    
     traversing  school premises  in  a rural  area for  the                                                                    
     purpose  of entering  public or  private  land that  is                                                                    
     open to hunting and  the school board with jurisdiction                                                                    
     over  the  school premises  has  elected  to have  this                                                                    
     exemption  apply  to  the   school  premises;  in  this                                                                    
     subparagraph,   "rural"  means   a  community   with  a                                                                    
     population of  5,500 or less  that is not  connected by                                                                    
     road  or  rail to  Anchorage  or  Fairbanks or  with  a                                                                    
     population of 1,500  or less that is  connected by road                                                                    
     or rail to Anchorage or Fairbanks; [OR]                                                                                    
               (8)   being  a preschool,  elementary, junior                                                                    
     high, or secondary  school student, knowingly possesses                                                                    
     a  deadly  weapon or  a  defensive  weapon, within  the                                                                    
     buildings  of, on  the  grounds of,  or  on the  school                                                                    
     parking  lot   of  a   public  or   private  preschool,                                                                    
     elementary,  junior high,  or  secondary  school, on  a                                                                    
     school bus  while being transported  to or  from school                                                                    
     or a school-sponsored event,  or while participating in                                                                    
     a  school-sponsored event,  except that  a student  may                                                                    
     possess  a  deadly  weapon, other  than  a  firearm  as                                                                    
     defined under 18  U.S.C. 921, or a  defensive weapon if                                                                    
     the student  has obtained the  prior permission  of the                                                                    
     chief administrative officer of  the school or district                                                                    
     or  the designee  of the  chief administrative  officer                                                                    
     for the possession; or                                                                                                 
               (9)   knowingly possesses  a firearm  that is                                                                
     concealed on the person                                                                                                
               (A)   while  the person  is on  release under                                                                
     AS 12.30.020 - 12.30.040 for a                                                                                         
               (i)    misdemeanor  crime  against  a  person                                                                
     under AS 11.41;                                                                                                        
               (ii)   misdemeanor  crime involving  domestic                                                                
     violence; or                                                                                                           
               (iii)    crime  under a  municipal  ordinance                                                                
     similar to  a crime  described in (i)  or (ii)  of this                                                                
     subparagraph; or                                                                                                       
               (B)   in violation of  AS 11.61.220(a)(6) and                                                                
     the  person  is on  release  under  AS 47.12.080 for  a                                                                
     delinquent act that  would be a crime  listed in (A)(i)                                                                
     - (iii) of this paragraph if committed by an adult."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 28:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 3"                                                                                                       
          Insert "sec. 4"                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, line 30:                                                                                                           
          Delete "applies"                                                                                                      
          Insert "and AS 11.61.210(a)(9), added by sec. 3                                                                       
     of this Act, apply"                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. OSTNES  explained that Amendment  1 separates out  the second                                                               
concealed  weapon offense  by aligning  the to  the level  of the                                                               
initial crime.   She explained  that if  the initial crime  was a                                                               
misdemeanor, and he/she violated  bail conditions in a subsequent                                                               
crime [using a concealed weapon],  he/she would be charged with a                                                               
second misdemeanor.   However, if the initial crime  was a felony                                                               
crime, and he/she violated bail  conditions in a subsequent crime                                                               
[using  a  concealed weapon],  he/she  would  be charged  with  a                                                               
second felony crime.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:01:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS asked  for clarification  whether  Amendment 1  was                                                               
consistent with Amendment 2.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  responded that one amendment  pertains to                                                               
the charge and  the other amendment pertains to  the condition of                                                               
probation.   He  expressed a  concern that  someone who  has been                                                               
convicted  of a  misdemeanor, and  who is  subsequently found  in                                                               
possession of a concealed weapon  could be charged with a felony.                                                               
Amendment  1 sets  the  charges for  a  concealed weapon  offense                                                               
equal to the level of the initial charge.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  OSTNES, referring  to Amendment  1, explained  that for  the                                                               
change  proposed   to  page  3,   lines  15-20,  of   Version  M,                                                               
subparagraph  (B)  refers  to  a juvenile  on  release  under  AS                                                               
47.12.080 and also separates out misdemeanors from felonies.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM inquired  as  to whether  a person  who                                                               
charged  is subsequently  found innocent,  would face  additional                                                               
proceedings for a concealed weapon charge.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. OSTNES  specified that when  someone is charged with  a crime                                                               
the judge, as a provision of  bail release, advises the party not                                                               
to  carry a  concealed weapon.    If the  person subsequently  is                                                               
found carrying  a concealed weapon,  he/she would incur  a second                                                               
charge for violation of the judge's order.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM  said that although she  agrees with the                                                               
intent of the bill and the  amendment, both appear to be aimed at                                                               
persons carrying  concealed weapons.   She  pointed out  that the                                                               
sponsor  statement refers  to gang-related  crimes, yet  the bill                                                               
doesn't seem  to be  restricted to  gang-related instances.   She                                                               
inquired as to the constitutionality of the bill.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  OSTNES  explained that  the  bill  drafter  did not  find  a                                                               
constitutional problem  because the judge would  order the person                                                               
not to carry a concealed weapon, as a condition of bail release.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DAHLSTROM  again   expressed  concern  about  the                                                               
constitutional rights of a person  who has not yet been convicted                                                               
of a crime.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered  his understanding that conditions                                                               
of bail do  curtail some personal rights.  He  said that the bail                                                               
limitations are set to correlate to the magnitude of the crime.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:08:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. OSTNES,  in response to  Representative Lynn,  indicated that                                                               
HB 225 applies only to concealed weapon use.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether the  bill should be expanded to                                                               
cover non-concealed  weapon use for  felony crimes.  He  posed an                                                               
instance involving  a domestic violence dispute  in which someone                                                               
did  not carry  a concealed  weapon but  could brandish  a weapon                                                               
out in the open.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. OSTNES opined  that in crimes involving  a domestic violence,                                                               
a person  [the victim] would be  able to react to  a situation in                                                               
which he/she  could visibly see a  gun, as opposed to  when a gun                                                               
was  concealed.    She  opined   that  she  did  not  think  some                                                               
organizations, such  as the National Rifle  Association (NRA), or                                                               
others  would support  a blanket  restriction,  unless the  judge                                                               
ordered and imposed, as a  condition of bail, that the individual                                                               
could not carry any firearm at all.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if  the crime was serious wouldn't                                                               
the person already be incarcerated and not be released on bail.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. OSTNES  pointed out  that all  domestic violence  charges are                                                               
misdemeanors and  that a person could  have numerous misdemeanors                                                               
on his/her record [and could still be released on bail].                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM maintained her objection.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:10:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representatives  Coghill, Samuels,                                                               
Lynn, Holmes, Gruenberg,  and Ramras voted in  favor of Amendment                                                               
1.    Representative  Dahlstrom voted  against  it.    Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 6-1.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  made  a  motion to  adopt  Amendment  2,                                                               
labeled 25-LS0710\M.3, Luckhaupt, 4/26/07, which read:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Page 3, lines 21 - 25:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
          "Sec. 12.30.018. Possession of concealed firearms                                                                   
     while on  release. A court  may prohibit a  person from                                                                  
     possessing a  concealed firearm while on  release under                                                                    
     AS 12.30.020 -  12.30.040 for a felony  crime against a                                                                    
     person under AS 11.41."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  explained that  Amendment 2  outlines the                                                               
conditions of bail  and defines the authorizing  language for the                                                               
judge's sentencing  guidelines.  She  noted that AS  12.30 covers                                                               
misdemeanor offenses, while AS 11.41 covers felony offenses.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 2:11 p.m. to 2:26 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:26:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section-Juneau,  Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law  (DOL),                                                               
expressed  concern   that  Amendment   2  gives  the   court  the                                                               
discretion to  prohibit firearms for certain  crimes.  Currently,                                                               
the  court has  the discretion  to impose  that condition  on any                                                               
crime and  by adding this  language, a court might  interpret the                                                               
language to mean that these are  the only crimes for which it can                                                               
impose the limitations.  She said  that there are many crimes for                                                               
which a  court would want  to prohibit  a person from  carrying a                                                               
firearm, let alone a concealed weapon, as a condition of bail.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL clarified  that  he  thought current  law                                                               
applies to both misdemeanors and felonies.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI concurred.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL questioned  whether dividing  the charges                                                               
in  Amendment 1  altered the  situation between  misdemeanors and                                                               
felonies.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said  that she did not necessarily  think they were                                                               
connected.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL  questioned   whether  that   permissive                                                               
language was clear in statute elsewhere.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI related  that indicated she would  have to research                                                               
the  issue of  bail law  further but  that sections  of bail  law                                                               
address  firearms   specifically,  especially  with   respect  to                                                               
domestic violence offenses.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:29:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether  Amendment 2 replaces Section                                                               
3 of the bill, and whether  Ms. Carpeneti shared the same concern                                                               
about Section 3 as she had expressed with Amendment 2.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI responded  that although  she  was less  concerned                                                               
about  Section 3,  she maintained  a little  concern because  one                                                               
could  argue that  while it  is mandatory  for these  crimes, the                                                               
imposition  is still  discretionary.   She stated  that all  bail                                                               
provisions  have a  catch-all  phrase that  allows  the court  to                                                               
order a condition of bail necessary to protect the public.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   HOLMES   questioned    whether   Ms.   Carpeneti                                                               
recommended that the committee not  adopt Amendment 2, and delete                                                               
Section 3, or  if merely rely on the underlying  bail statutes to                                                               
address the issues.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI said  that she recommended the  committee not adopt                                                               
Amendment 2.  She opined that  Section 3 is acceptable so long as                                                               
the  record is  clear that  the  legislature does  not intend  to                                                               
limit the  court's discretion  to impose a  condition of  bail in                                                               
relation to any other charges.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:31:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
GERALD   LUCKHAUPT,   Attorney,    Legislative   Legal   Counsel,                                                               
Legislative  Legal  and  Research Services,  Legislative  Affairs                                                               
Agency (LAA),  acknowledged that there  could be an  issue raised                                                               
for Amendment 2  vis-à-vis the authority that a  court would have                                                               
to  restrict  someone to  possess  a  handgun.   He  opined  that                                                               
Section 3 does not pose a  problem since there is nothing in that                                                               
section that would conflict with  the court's ability to restrict                                                               
a handgun as a condition of bail.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL suggested  deleting  Section  3 from  the                                                               
bill because  he said he  thought it  imposes a directive  in all                                                               
circumstances.    He  expressed  concern  that  Section  3  would                                                               
infringe on  the right to  bear arms, and therefore  he suggested                                                               
that the condition should be more permissive                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:33:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  maintained his motion to  adopt Amendment                                                               
2,  but   cautioned  that  the   directive  sets  up   a  special                                                               
circumstance that under  all bail releases the  judge must direct                                                               
that the individual cannot keep a concealed firearm.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES surmised that the  intent of Amendment 2 is                                                               
to  give the  judge more  latitude.   She questioned  whether the                                                               
language of  Amendment 2  was already  covered under  the current                                                               
bail statutes.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL   related  his  understanding   that  Ms.                                                               
Carpeneti is  saying that the  discretion to  impose restrictions                                                               
for  concealed   and  non-concealed  weapons  is   covered  under                                                               
existing  bail  statutes.    If  that is  so,  he  suggested  the                                                               
committee strike Section 3 and leave it to the court to decide.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  opined that the statute  is quite clear                                                               
that the  court can  impose any  restriction necessary  to assure                                                               
the  public's safety.   He  referred  to AS  12.30.020 (b)(7)  as                                                               
follows:   "if a  judicial officer determines  under (a)  of this                                                               
section  that  the release  of  the  person will  not  reasonably                                                               
assure the appearance of the person  or will pose a danger to the                                                               
alleged  victim, other  persons, or  the community,  the judicial                                                               
officer  may impose  any  other  condition considered  reasonably                                                               
necessary to  assure the defendant's  appearance as  required and                                                               
the  safety  of  the  alleged   victim,  other  persons,  or  the                                                               
community."    He  related his  belief  that  the  aforementioned                                                               
language  specifically  allows  a   judge  to  impose  reasonable                                                               
conditions for bail in any case.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
A roll call  vote was taken.  Representative Lynn  voted in favor                                                               
of  Amendment 2.    Representatives  Samuels, Holmes,  Gruenberg,                                                               
Dahlstrom,  Coghill, and  Ramras  voted against  it.   Therefore,                                                               
Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 1-6.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:36:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL moved  Conceptual Amendment  3 to  strike                                                               
Section 3 from HB 225.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  said  that the  courts  have  discretion                                                               
under current law to set conditions of bail.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. CARPENETI,  in response  to Representative  Holmes, confirmed                                                               
that  under current  law the  courts have  the discretion  to set                                                               
conditions for bail.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS asked  if  there were  any  further objections  and                                                               
there were none.   Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.   He asked                                                               
Ms.  Carpeneti if  she  had  any concerns  with  the language  in                                                               
Amendment 1, which the committee previously passed.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI  said that  although  she  had some  concern  with                                                               
Amendment 1, it might only  require technical fine tuning.  Under                                                               
current statute,  AS 11.56.757 (a),  it is a Class  A misdemeanor                                                               
to  violate any  condition of  release, except  for a  failure to                                                               
appear, which is already a  crime.  She related her understanding                                                               
that the  sponsor did  not intend to  change that  condition, but                                                               
that  the sponsor  would  like to  make it  more  serious if  the                                                               
person were  released under  certain circumstances,  for example,                                                               
if he/she carried a concealed  weapon after the court had ordered                                                               
the person not to do so.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:38:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CARPENETI suggested  a conceptual  amendment could  be made,                                                               
and  referred to  page 1  line 13,  (B), Version  M, because  the                                                               
committee   eliminated  that   section  with   the  adoption   of                                                               
Conceptual Amendment  3.  She  reiterated her  understanding that                                                               
the  sponsor  and  the  committee   wanted  to  make  carrying  a                                                               
concealed  weapon after  an individual  has been  ordered by  the                                                               
court not  to do so  a more serious  crime..  She  suggested that                                                               
she would work with the bill drafter to ensure that that                                                                        
condition was met.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS asked to set HB 225 aside to bring back to the                                                                     
committee for further review.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred Ms. Carpeneti and Mr. Luckhaupt                                                                  
to AS 12 30.018 in Section 4.  The aforementioned statute was                                                                   
added by Section 3.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS set aside HB 225, Version M, as amended.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects