Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/19/2000 01:25 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2000
1:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 220(FIN)
"An Act relating to the requirements for partnerships and limited
liability companies to qualify for the Alaska bidder preference and
a certain disability preference under the State Procurement Code;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 220(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 259(JUD)
"An Act relating to crimes and offenses relating to aural
representations, recordings, access devices, identification
documents, impersonation, false reports, and computers; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 259(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 294(JUD)
"An Act relating to the possession of concealed handguns and to
concealed handgun permits."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 294(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 220
SHORT TITLE: PROCUREMENT PREFS:PARTNERSHP/LTD LIAB CO
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/24/00 2053 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/24/00 2054 (S) L&C, FIN
1/24/00 2054 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL)
1/24/00 2054 (S) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/08/00 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
2/08/00 (S) -- Rescheduled to 2/10/00 --
2/10/00 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
2/10/00 (S) Moved Out of Committee
2/10/00 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
2/11/00 2272 (S) L&C RPT 4DP
2/11/00 2272 (S) DP: MACKIE, TIM KELLY, DONLEY,LEMAN
2/11/00 2272 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (ADM/ALL)
3/21/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/21/00 (S) Heard & Held
3/21/00 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/31/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/31/00 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
4/13/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/13/00 3051 (S) FIN RPT CS 8DP NEW TITLE
4/13/00 3051 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,
4/13/00 3051 (S) PETE KELLY, ADAMS, WILKEN, LEMAN,
4/13/00 3051 (S) DONLEY
4/13/00 3051 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (ADM/ALL)
4/14/00 (S) RLS AT 1:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/14/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/15/00 3130 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 04/15/00
4/15/00 3133 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/15/00 3133 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/15/00 3133 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
4/15/00 3133 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 220(FIN)
4/15/00 3134 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
4/15/00 3134 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/15/00 3145 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/15/00 3188 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
4/15/00 3189 (H) JUD
4/18/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/18/00 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
4/19/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 259
SHORT TITLE: CRIMES: REPRESENTATIONS/I.D./COMPUTERS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/10/00 2259 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/10/00 2259 (S) JUD, FIN
2/16/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
2/16/00 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
2/21/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
2/21/00 (S) Heard & Held
2/21/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/03/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/03/00 (S) Heard & Held
3/03/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/20/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/20/00 (S) Moved CS(Jud) Out of Committee
3/20/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/21/00 2676 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 3NR NEW TITLE
3/21/00 2676 (S) DP: TAYLOR; NR: TORGERSON, ELLIS,
3/21/00 2676 (S) HALFORD
3/21/00 2676 (S) INDETERMINATE FN TO SB (ADM)
3/21/00 2676 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB (COR)
3/22/00 2692 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (ADM)
3/28/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/28/00 (S) Heard & Held
3/28/00 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/06/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/06/00 (S) Heard & Held
4/06/00 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/07/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/07/00 (S) Heard & Held
4/07/00 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/12/00 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/12/00 (S) Moved CS(Fin) Out of Committee
4/12/00 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
4/13/00 (S) RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/13/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/13/00 3054 (S) FIN RPT CS(JUD) 6DP 2NR
4/13/00 3054 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,
4/13/00 3054 (S) GREEN, PETE KELLY, LEMAN
4/13/00 3054 (S) NR: ADAMS, WILKEN
4/13/00 3054 (S) FISCAL NOTE (S.FIN/DPS)
4/13/00 3054 (S) PREVIOUS FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
4/14/00 3082 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 04/14/00
4/14/00 3086 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/14/00 3086 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/14/00 3086 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
4/14/00 3086 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 259(JUD)
4/14/00 3086 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
4/14/00 3087 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/14/00 3117 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/15/00 3161 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
4/15/00 3162 (H) JUD, FIN
4/18/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/18/00 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
4/19/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 294
SHORT TITLE: CONCEALED HANDGUNS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/21/00 2678 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
3/21/00 2678 (S) JUD
3/27/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/27/00 (S) -- Rescheduled to 3/29/00 --
3/29/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/29/00 (S) Heard & Held
3/29/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/29/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
4/03/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
4/03/00 (S) Moved CS(Jud) Out of Committee
4/03/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
4/04/00 2854 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP SAME TITLE
4/04/00 2854 (S) DP: TAYLOR, TORGERSON, HALFORD
4/04/00 2854 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
4/06/00 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/06/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/10/00 2949 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR AND 2 OR 04/10/00
4/10/00 2951 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/10/00 2951 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/10/00 2951 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
4/10/00 2951 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 294(JUD)
4/10/00 2951 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 E1
4/10/00 2952 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/11/00 3010 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
4/11/00 3011 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/12/00 3072 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
4/12/00 3072 (H) STA, JUD
4/13/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/13/00 (H) Heard & Held
4/13/00 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/15/00 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/15/00 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 294(STA) Out of
Committee
4/15/00 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/17/00 3222 (H) STA RPT HCS(STA) 5DP
4/17/00 3223 (H) DP: JAMES, GREEN, HUDSON, WHITAKER,
4/17/00 3223 (H) OGAN
4/17/00 3223 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 4/4/00
4/18/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/18/00 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
4/19/00 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID KOIVUNIEMI, Assistant Commissioner
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 220.
LESIL McGUIRE, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott and
Committee Aide, House Judiciary Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question relating to SB 220.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section - Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Criminal Division of the
Department of Law is in support of the passage of CSSB 259(JUD).
LIEUTENANT DAVID HUDSON
Department of Public Safety
Alaska State Troopers
5700 E Tudor Rd
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns regarding the change in the
fiscal note that resulted in the loss of the position that would
cover the crimes addressed in [CSSB 259(JUD)]. Testified on
proposed HCS CSSB 294.
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
900 W 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with the levels of
punishment assigned the crimes in CSSB 259(JUD).
PORTIA PARKER, Staff
to Senator Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 125
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSB 294(JUD) on behalf of the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
RAY HALLEY
PO Box 1515
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of [the proposed HCS CSSB
294].
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-68, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:25 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, James and Murkowski.
Representatives Croft and Kerttula arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
SB 220-PROCUREMENT PREFS:PARTNERSHP/LTD LIAB CO
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 220(FIN), "An Act relating to the
requirements for partnerships and limited liability companies to
qualify for the Alaska bidder preference and a certain disability
preference under the State Procurement Code; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0067
DAVID KOIVUNIEMI, Assistant Commissioner, Department of
Administration, came forward to explain SB 220. The bill clarifies
the Alaska bidder and disability preference sections of the State
Procurement Code regarding limited liability partnerships (LLPs)
and limited liability [companies](LLCs). He noted that the
procurement code was written in 1987, but the LLCs and LLPs were
not established in statute until the mid-1990s. Mr. Koivuniemi
informed the committee that SB 220 was amended in the Senate
Finance Committee. The bill was amended on page 2, lines 6 and 23,
to refer to managing members rather than managing directors.
Therefore, SB 220 recognizes LLCs and LLPs to allow Alaska
businesses to receive the Alaska bidder preference.
Number 0226
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern that the meaning of a
"qualifying entity" may broaden the opportunity for people without
a disability to benefit from the activities of this LLC, as she
understands that language; she is not sure that was intended with
this legislation. She explained, "In the first place, originally,
it was only those people with sole proprietorships, so there would
be no way to mess them up and give some benefit to somebody who is
not disabled, by this language, special preference."
Representative James clarified that the LLC may have other members
besides managing members; those other members will benefit from the
financial activities of this company, but they may not be disabled.
She expanded on that:
During this whole issue of changing it from a sole
proprietorship - which means the person would be disabled
and no one else is going to benefit from him/her taking
those preferences - the preference is going to directly
relate to that disabled person. We added in partnership,
if each of the partners [is] disabled, and added in
corporation, which is wholly owned by individuals and
each of the individuals is a person with a disability.
... Now we're going to add in limited liability companies
when only the managing members have to be disabled, and
it doesn't mention anything about other members.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated that there are other members that
would benefit from the special preferences given to the disabled
individuals.
Number 0441
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested the need to determine, from the
statutes, how the members of an LLC are defined.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that that bill was just passed
this year.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI acknowledged that and said, "If we are
defining those who are members of an LLC as all being managing
members, it's not a problem here." Otherwise, she said,
Representative James may be correct in that there are managing
members and nonmanaging members. She understood the statute to
describe everyone as a member, but she doesn't believe that the
members designate themselves as managing and nonmanaging members.
Therefore, she wanted to review the statutes in order to determine
whether it is defined. She suggested that the committee may want
to say that all members are residents of the state or all members
are persons with disabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that is a policy call. He
indicated that the memberships of an LLC and an LLP could include
individuals without disabilities such as silent partner investors.
He didn't recall how that was handled in the LLP bill this year, he
said. He suggested that either the LLP bill or the statute could
be reviewed in order to determine whether there is a distinction.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it could be fixed by removing
"managing" from the language, which would be her suggestion.
Number 0603
CHAIRMAN KOTT read [from Title 10], "Except as otherwise provided
in the company's articles of organization, the members of an LLC
manage the affairs and make decisions of the company."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her understanding that perhaps
they are all managing members.
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that would be the case unless the articles of
organization specified otherwise.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that there would still be an
opportunity for other folks to be there. She related her belief
that "we" do not want to provide extra compensation to people who
are not disabled, which is of concern.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the LLC is the most common
form of business organization and thus "we" may be limiting it to
people [whose businesses] are formed that way, although he
recognized that one may be a fleeting partner or alleged
shareholder and have a disability.
Number 0677
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed with Representative James in that it
seems that the section seems fairly tight because it seems to be
careful [in each qualification] to include everybody. Although
that may be restrictive, that is what has been attempted in the
other areas and thus should [apply to] the members of the LLC. He
asked whether, from the statutes, it is the impression that members
of a LLC are managing members unless the document says otherwise.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that is how he reads the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it allows for others to make
investments into this. She doesn't believe that people should be
allowed to make investments in [organizations] that have special
[preferences] unless [the individuals] qualify. She informed the
committee that her own bill that dealt with this issue had taken
four years to move through the process because of that very issue;
it was thought that by giving disabled individuals a benefit,
others would benefit as well. Therefore, she reiterated the need
to specify that it refers to the members, not the managing members.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that it says they are "all
partners or residents of the state." He further pointed out that
one could gain an advantage over a general-type partnership merely
by changing the form of business and adopting new corporate rules,
which he doesn't believe to be fair.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether Representative Rokeberg was
talking about paragraph (4) or (3).
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that it was paragraph (4).
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that they had gone through that
argument. She has a corporation in her own district, she noted,
where three people, who are disabled and in wheelchairs, have
incorporated. They would qualify under this language because [the
corporation] is wholly owned by three people who are disabled.
That is the narrowness of it, so that someone who isn't disabled
[cannot] take advantage of this preferential treatment for disabled
people. She specified that she likes this but isn't comfortable
with the word "managing."
Number 0848
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to remove
the word "managing." She said it is under Section 2.
REPRESENTATIVES CROFT and MURKOWSKI pointed out that it also is in
Section 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES concurred. She then pointed out that in
[paragraph] (4) [under Section 1], there may be a problem if the
LLC is not made up of all [residents] of the state. She said she
doesn't think the committee wants to be inviting in anybody from
out of state to take advantage of this preferential treatment.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI informed the committee that he had expected somebody
from [the Division of Banking, Securities &] Corporations to be
there that day to answer these types of questions; he apologized
that no one was available to do so. He suggested that if the
committee wanted to [amend the bill], they could do that; then he
could check with the division and report back to the committee or
Representative James if a "fix" is required on the House floor.
Number 0933
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES announced that she would like to amend
Amendment 1, to take "managing" out of line 6 [in Section 1] and
line 22 [in Section 2].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the committee's counsel to specify
what AS 32.05 and AS 32.11 are. He asked whether one of those
relates to the LLP.
Number 1015
LESIL McGUIRE, Staff to Representative Pete Kott and Committee
Aide, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature,
after looking in the statutes, answered that one is referenced to
the uniform partnership Act, and the other is referenced to the
uniform limited partnership [Act].
CHAIRMAN KOTT returned attention to Amendment 1, suggesting it may
be problematic. He asked whether there was any objection; none was
offered. [Therefore, Amendment 1 was treated as adopted.]
MR. KOIVUNIEMI reaffirmed that he would get back to the committee
[if the Division of Banking, Securities & Corporations had
concerns.]
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that nobody else was signed up to testify.
Number 1096
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move SB 220 [CSSB
220(FIN)], as amended, from the committee with individual
recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no
objection, HCS CSSB 220(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
SB 259 - CRIMES: REPRESENTATIONS/I.D./COMPUTERS
[There is considerable discussion of HB 338, which is similar but
not identical to SB 259.]
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business would be CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 259(JUD), "An Act relating to crimes and
offenses relating to aural representations, recordings, access
devices, identification documents, impersonation, false reports,
and computers; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1140
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section
- Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, informed the
committee that she was present at the request of Jim Pound, Staff
to Senator Taylor, who had a conflicting responsibility. She noted
that this legislation is similar to the Governor's bill that was
recently passed. Ms. Carpeneti announced that the Criminal
Division of the Department of Law is in support of the passage of
CSSB 259(JUD). She offered to review the differences between HB
338 and this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Carpeneti editorialize
as she reviewed the differences between the two bills.
MS. CARPENETI directed the committee to the first change located on
page 2, line 14, [of both CSHB 338(JUD) and CSSB 259(JUD)]. The
House bill refers to "other printed or electronically recorded
material", while the Senate version refers to "or other material"
per the suggestion of Jerry Luckhaupt, Attorney, Legislative
Research and Legal Services. She explained that Mr. Luckhaupt
feels that the language in the House bill is redundant and that
"material" is adequate. Ms. Carpeneti said that is fine.
MS. CARPENETI then referred to page 4, line 10, which she noted may
cause concern, although she hoped that it wouldn't. She noted that
the [referenced language] is one of the three culpable mental
states for criminal impersonation in the first degree. Page 4,
line 10, of the Senate bill reads "with criminal negligence,
damages the financial reputation of the other person", while the
House bill changed the language to read "recklessly damages the
financial reputation of the other person." She pointed out that
the state already has to prove the culpable mental state of
"knowingly" for the first two prongs. [In the Senate version] the
state has to prove that the person "knowingly" possessed "an access
device or identification document of another person", "without
authorization of the other person, uses the access device or
identification document of another person to obtain a false
identification document, open an account at a financial
institution, obtain an access device, or obtain property or
services" and "with criminal negligence, damages the financial
reputation of the other person." Therefore, Ms. Carpeneti urged
the committee to keep the [language] in the Senate bill [located on
page 4, line 10,] because [the state] already has to prove the
culpable mental state of "knowingly" for the first two prongs.
Number 1361
MS. CARPENETI said, in response to Representative Croft, that she
didn't explain the "knowingly" state very well and thus she
specified that "knowingly" would be read into it by the court. She
explained, "In default of a culpable mental state, the court will
read in knowingly' as to acts and recklessly' as to
circumstances."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT posed a situation in which he "knowingly" has
and uses his wife's ATM card without his wife's permission. He
specified that he uses her ATM card to obtain say $300 and
accidentally causes a problem that financially damages his wife's
financial reputation. He asked, "Shouldn't we have a high standard
there? If I do that negligently, I've just committed this crime,
haven't I?"
MR. CARPENETI replied, "With criminal (indisc.)" However, she
pointed out the need to consider the definition of financial
reputation when considering the possibility that a person could do
it carelessly. That definition is on page 6, lines 1-5, of CSSB
259(JUD). She stressed that one would have to do something bad
enough that it would have to be noted on a credit report.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 6(2) of CSHB 338(JUD),
which refers to the lack of authorization, that he believes is the
protection. He inquired as to what would happen if one does
something without authority, even though the person says, after the
fact, that action was fine.
MS. CARPENETI related her belief that a person could retroactively
give permission to utilize his/her credit card. In further
response to Representative Croft, Ms. Carpeneti indicated that
retroactive permission could occur in a family situation. She
hoped that these are applied with common sense.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT related his hope that these are written with
care as well.
MS. CARPENETI agreed.
Number 1510
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued with the example of using someone's
[access device] without his/her authorization. He said, "The
question becomes: Did you accidentally or intentionally damage the
financial representation?" He asked why [paragraph] (3) [of CSHB
338(JUD)] is based on a recklessness standard rather than an
intentional [standard]. He recognized that the person didn't have
authorization, but what he/she is being punished for is damaging
"the stuff."
MS. CARPENETI said that is correct. She, then, related the
situation of a Ketchikan woman in which someone obtained her credit
card number from a hotel in the Seattle area. With that
information, websites can be used to obtain a person's social
security number. In this case, once the social security number was
obtained, the person opened a bank account and purchased a car.
Ms. Carpeneti informed the committee that nothing ever happened to
this person, who was posing as the Ketchikan woman, even though the
Seattle police knew of the situation. Even if the State of Alaska
had jurisdiction and this statute was in place to prosecute this
person, it would be difficult to prove that this person intended to
damage this person's financial reputation. She said that this
person intended to steal money to purchase items, although this
person's behavior ruined the Ketchikan woman's reputation.
Therefore, it is difficult to prove intent. She specified that
with a recklessness [standard] it would have to be proven that the
person knew of the risk and consciously disregarded it. She
further specified, "Criminal negligence would ... require use to
prove that her failure to perceive it was so bad that she should be
criminally liable for what she did."
Number 1611
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Why don't we key, then, on the salient
point of that example, which is the intent to obtain money or other
property that you had no lawful right to?" He asked if Section
6(2) [ of CSHB 338(JUD)] comes close.
MS. CARPENETI specified that the harm that is being addressed is
damaging someone's financial reputation. If the "impersonator"
were in Alaska, there are laws that would allow her prosecution for
fraud, theft-related offenses. However, the intent of the section
under discussion is to establish a defense that makes the victim
who lost his/her financial reputation, the victim. At this point,
people who loose their identity aren't really considered victims of
a crime but rather the bank or the department store [is considered
the victim].
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "We don't have jurisdiction because of
that?"
MS. CARPENETI reiterated that in the case of the Ketchikan woman
whose financial reputation was damaged, all the criminal acts were
performed in Washington. Therefore, this legislation was drafted
in order for the state "to have something to hang its
jurisdictional hat on." She assumed that having a person convicted
of a crime like this would help the victim in dealing with credit
reporters, et cetera.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if it was determined that [the
department] would not have had jurisdiction in the Ketchikan
woman's case [under existing law].
MS. CARPENETI specified that she didn't believe a formal
interpretation was made because the Ketchikan woman didn't report
the problem in this state, although she spoke with Ms. Carpeneti.
Ms. Carpeneti informed the committee that the Ketchikan woman
worked with the Washington police, but [the case was not a
priority].
Number 1756
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed a situation in which Maude and Gillespie
are getting a divorce. Maude needs money and causes Gillespie to
be overdrawn. Maude doesn't really care about what happens to
Gillespie, but she isn't really trying to hurt him. He asked if
that would satisfy all three of the criteria [specified in Section
6 of CSHB 338(JUD)].
MS. CARPENETI replied that it would depend upon whether it could be
proven that Maude was using his access device and not a common
access device.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that in his example Maude would be
using Gillespie's [access device].
MS. CARPENETI answered, then, that it would have to be proven that
Maude didn't have any authorization to charge on Gillespie's
account. This would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, it would have to be proven that she knowingly used it
to obtain a false identification card or obtain property and with
criminal negligence.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to what that would mean because he
understood it not to be intent if it's negligence.
MS. CARPENETI informed the committee that criminal negligence is:
a person acts with "criminal negligence" with respect to
a result or to a circumstance described by a provision of
law defining an offense when the person fails to perceive
a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will
occur or that the circumstance exists; the risk must be
of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive
it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of
care that a reasonable person would observe in the
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that Maude is mad and she doesn't
exercise a reasonable [standard of care].
MS. CARPENETI specified that Maude would have to perform a gross
deviation, which is difficult to prove in domestic situations.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern with criminal negligence
being a state of mind when there is a class B felony. She posed a
situation in which a 20-year-old son takes another person's credit
card at the local video store in order to obtain property. The
store is one which lists those persons who don't return videos.
She indicated that somehow the son doesn't pay correctly with the
credit card and thus it damages the financial reputation of the
owner of the credit card, which would be a class B felony.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that [such a situation] would not be
included in the definition of financial reputation as that
definition includes the ability to get a loan or credit worthiness
on a credit report. Therefore, [such a situation] would not fall
under this. She reiterated that "knowingly" has to be proven [on
the first two criteria].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated her understanding that the
situation she posed would refer to obtaining property or services
on credit. She asked if it would affect a person's ability to
obtain property or services on credit.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT clarified that the person's credit card that
was used and the bill that wasn't paid would result in the owner of
the credit card not being able to rent from the store anymore.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that there are some things that
end up on credit [reports] such a rentals. She remarked that for
a class B felony, one would not want to take in some of the more
minor things. Therefore, she wondered whether there is a way to
restructure the class B felony such that the intent or some other
aspect is raised and dropped down. She suggested that perhaps
criminal negligence is included for a lower felony or misdemeanor.
MS. CARPENETI reiterated that the House Judiciary Committee changed
it to "recklessly" [in CSHB 338(JUD)].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA specified that she wondered whether it
would be more appropriate to change the intent language and keep it
a class B felony and drop down and have another section of criminal
negligence as a misdemeanor or class C felony.
MS. CARPENETI said that would be something to consider at another
time. However, in reference to [CSSB 259(JUD)] she recommended the
same change as encompassed in [CSHB 338(JUD)].
Number 2013
MS. CARPENETI returned to the [differences] between the two bills.
She referred to page 4, lines 17 and 20, and pointed out that CSSB
259(JUD) includes the language "commit a crime" in reference to
second degree criminal impersonation. She noted that [language
referring to a situation in which] one assumes a false identity and
performs an act in the assumed character with the intent to commit
a crime is included in the Senate bill but not the House bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that means that one can be charged
both with first and second degree criminal impersonation.
MS. CARPENETI replied no, she didn't think so. She explained,
"What we would have to prove in addition to anything under second
degree is that you harmed the financial reputation of another
person."
MS. CARPENETI returned to the differences between the two bills.
She referred to page 4, line 24, [of CSSB 259(JUD)], which is the
definition of business record. She noted that this is another
suggestion by Mr. Luckhaupt. The House version says, " business
record' means a writing, a recording, electronic data, or an
article kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of
evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity" while the
Senate version [per Mr. Luckhaupt's suggestion] says "'business
record' means a writing, recording, or article kept or maintained
by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its
condition or activity." She said that Mr. Luckhaupt feels that the
reference to "a recording" is adequate to cover electronic data.
Ms. Carpeneti said that she didn't have any strong disagreement
with that.
MS. CARPENETI moved on to page 6, lines 6-17, of [CSSB 259(JUD)],
which is Section 14. She pointed out that Section 14 is not
included in the House version. Section 14(1) reads, "gives false
information to a peace officer with the intent of implicating
another in an offense [A CRIME]", which would result in a
misdemeanor. A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee was
concerned that a person could have another person's identity. The
situation was posed in which a person with another's identity could
be driving and when stopped provide the false identity and thus the
driving record of the other person would reflect the driving
violation that was committed. Ms. Carpeneti said that she didn't
object to [Section 14 in CSSB 259(JUD)].
Number 2149
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that a dollar cap might be more
appropriate when differentiating between first and second degree
rather than leaving the standard alone. He indicated that a dollar
cap would alleviate some of Representative Kerttula's concerns
regarding petty criminal activity.
MS. CARPENETI reiterated that the legislation is attempting to
address the harm to someone's financial reputation, which is
defined fairly narrowly. She informed the committee that the
definition [of financial reputation] is a person's credit
worthiness on a credit report or the person's ability to obtain a
loan or credit. This doesn't address the traditional type of
theft. Ms. Carpeneti stated, "I would prefer, if the committee
chooses, to just raise the culpable mental state to recklessness on
line 10."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if these minor changes caused the change
in the fiscal note.
MS. CARPENETI said she didn't believe so. The fiscal notes
basically cover the costs of training police officers and
prosecutors, at this point. She noted that Senate Finance did some
serious work on the fiscal notes, which resulted in smaller fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that the changes are so de minimis
that to force this back to the Senate would take more time.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she would like to know where
the money is coming from.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated agreement and pointed out that the
fiscal note(s) is for $120,000. He also pointed out that there are
four different fiscal notes.
MS. CARPENETI informed the committee that [CSSB 259(JUD)] has to go
to the House Finance Committee.
Number 2311
LIEUTENANT DAVID HUDSON, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Lieutenant Hudson
commended Ms. Carpeneti in her discussion regarding how the [CSSB
259(JUD)] would work and benefit the public in the future. He
informed the committee that when this legislation was initially
brought forth by the Governor, DPS had a trooper position
associated with this in order to investigate the crimes referenced
in the legislation. Lieutenant Hudson noted that he had contacted
various law enforcement agencies around the nation as well as the
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in an attempt to understand
the technology and how it will affect investigative techniques and
skills. He remarked that [the technology] is very dynamic and
[ever]changing. In general, an Alaskan State Trooper Investigator
is a multi-purpose and multi-task individual, who doesn't develop
much specific expertise in one small... [Lt. Hudson's testimony was
interrupted due to technical difficulties.]
The committee took a very brief at-ease at 2:10 p.m. and returned
to order in less than a minute. [The tape was reversed to Side B
and begins recording when the committee comes back to order.]
TAPE 00-68, SIDE B
LIEUTENANT HUDSON expressed concern that because of this technology
and the dynamic advancements, [the department] feels that it will
be difficult to adequately support these criminal investigations
based on the fact that there will not be an extra position for
this. He indicated that [the department] is looking across the
state for support and investigative techniques for [all] law
enforcement officials as well as the Alaska State Troopers.
However, the current situation includes numerous unsolved homicides
and lawsuits pending in regard to charges of inadequate police
services in Western Alaska. He stressed that the reasoning behind
the original fiscal note remains valid and he wished that would be
considered.
Number 0061
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department
of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
noted that there has already been much discussion regarding his
concern, which is that these are property offense crimes. He said
that the level of punishment should be related to the cost or
financial damage to someone. Furthermore, with higher levels of
property offenses [the agency] feels that it is important to
include an intent to defraud so that an intentional act is proven.
Mr. McCune referred to Section 4 of CSSB 259(JUD) and pointed out
that subsection (b) refers to the general levels of offenses in
regard to property crimes. The new crime, criminal impersonation
in the first degree, is about equal in level to an offense in which
one takes or obtains the property of another person [in the amount]
of $25,000 or more. Mr. McCune said that he felt it is important
that the punishment fit the crime in these cases.
MR. McCUNE directed the committee's attention to [AS] 11[.46.285]
of CSSB 259(JUD), which [the agency] believes includes broad
language. With regard to the class C felony in [Section 4(b)(2)],
that relates to obtaining between $500 and $25,000 worth of
property or services. Although it can be bad to enter false
information into a computer and damage the data or financial
reputation of another person, it may be something that is bad at
the level of a class B or class C misdemeanor. Therefore, the
offense wouldn't warrant the severe punishment set out in this
legislation.
Number 0170
MR. McCUNE turned to Section 10, which addresses deceptive business
practices. If a person uses the Internet or a computer network to
commit deceptive business practices, this would make it a class C
felony. He noted that would include making false statements in
advertisements. Again he agreed that people shouldn't do that, but
he indicated that a class C felony shouldn't be imposed if the
damage isn't at that level. In conclusion, Mr. McCune informed the
committee of his concern that the definition of "access device" is
very broad. The definition of "access device" is found in Section
17. He pointed out that any one of the items listed, such as a
social security number, can be included as a theft. Again, he
reiterated that merely obtaining numbers shouldn't be punished to
the extent it is in this legislation.
Number 0236
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to what Mr. McCune would
suggest in the situation where the problem is not monetary damage
but rather the damage done to a person's reputation. She asked if
he believes raising the standard to "reckless" would help in
Section 6 or should it be split into different classes of felonies
while maintaining criminal negligence as a lower felony.
MR. McCUNE stated that he was glad to see the change to
"recklessly." In regard to the damage of a person's financial
reputation, he suggested splitting it out financially. Mr. McCune
believes that the problem is that banking and financial practices
make it easy for people to make financial transactions with minimal
information. Perhaps the solution is to tighten the banking and
commercial transaction processes. However, he hoped that [the
legislation] could include a "reckless" standard and relate the
offense to a level of damage to a financial reputation.
MS. CARPENETI remarked that a class B felony is a serious offense
because it should be, as this is serious conduct. A person whose
identity is stolen is never whole again. For example, the
Ketchikan woman has to order a credit report every three months;
and furthermore she can never open an account on her own. This
Ketchikan woman is never sure when this individual is going to
start purchasing things on her account. She said, " It's really
serious conduct and that's why it's a [class] B felony." In regard
to deceptive business practices, she explained that it is raised to
a class C felony with the use of the Internet or a computer
network because the pool of victims is larger.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the penalty with Section 11.
MS. CARPENETI answered that criminal use of a computer carries a
class C felony. She pointed out that this is current law. She
explained, "The purpose of criminal use of a computer is ... to
outlaw people who get into a computer that they shouldn't get into
, ..., and then they manipulate data, personal data or proprietary
data." This merely adds more conduct to the type of manipulations
that can be performed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG identified [Section 11] as the anti-hackers
clause.
MS. CARPENETI clarified that [this provision] addresses hacking and
then doing something with the information that you had no right to
do; this does not just address hacking.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to page 5, lines 17-18, regarding
someone enhancing a person's financial record.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that could be done in order to
obtain a loan fraudulently.
Number 0490
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved that the committee amend CSSB
259(JUD) [Amendment 1] on page 4, line 10, by deleting "criminal
negligence" and inserting "reckless". She noted that if there was
a way to split these financially, she would go for that because she
strongly feels that this is a terrible crime akin to (indisc.).
However, she can't overcome that criminal negligence is the lowest
standard and to make that a class B felony is extreme. Therefore,
she believes beginning with a reckless [standard] provides a good
tool to prosecutors.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He recalled a trip that he took
a few years ago. A few months after returning from the trip, he
began to receive bills due to the theft of his American Express
Card. Although he was able to stop the spree by changing his
credit card number, he was upset and felt intruded upon. He
stressed that stealing property amounting to $25,000 is nothing; a
person's reputation is worth more than $25,000. Therefore,
Representative Rokeberg said that he had no problem with a class B
felony.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that if one has ever had anybody go
through his/her house, it is the worst experience.
Upon a roll call vote Representatives Murkowski, Croft, Kerttula
and Kott voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1 and
Representatives Green, Rokeberg and James voted in opposition to
the adoption of Amendment 1. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted
with a vote of 4-3.
Number 0712
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee report [CSSB
259(JUD)], as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. There being no
objection, HCS CSSB 259(JUD) was reported out of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 294 - CONCEALED HANDGUNS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 294(JUD) "An Act relating to the possession
of concealed handguns and to concealed handgun permits." [Before
the committee is HCS CSSB 294(STA).]
PORTIA PARKER, Staff to Senator Green, Alaska State Legislature,
informed the committee that she is representing the Senate
Judiciary staff who is unavailable due to a family emergency. Ms.
Parker pointed out that there are four changes between HCS CSSB
294(STA) and the proposed CS before the committee. The four
changes were all requested by the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
and are all supported by the bill sponsor, DPS and the National
Rifle Association (NRA). The department does not oppose the bill.
MS. PARKER, upon the request of Representative Green, reviewed the
changes. She informed the committee that the first change is the
[requirement] to have only one photograph instead of two. The next
change is in regard to the length of time an applicant's photograph
is valid. She explained, "We went from only having to do the
photograph every other renewal to going to back to 30 days so that
you will need a new photograph on the five year renewal." The
third change deletes the requirement that an applicant submit the
renewal form in person. She explained that the department wants to
be able to perform renewals/applications via mail, which would
streamline the process. The final change would place the
competency requirement back in statute and maintain the current
definition of competency, which is found in AS 18.65.792.
Number 0876
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt the proposed
CS, [labeled LS1543\K, Luckhaupt, 4/17/00], as the working document
before the committee. There being no objection, Version K was
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI recalled that when one's photograph is
taken for his/her driver's license, two photographs are taken. She
assumed two photographs are taken in order to have one on file for
a replacement license. She asked if [the concealed carry permit]
would require dual photographs [for the same reason as a driver's
license].
MS. PARKER deferred to the department.
Number 0930
LIEUTENANT DAVID HUDSON, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He explained that one
photograph is taken and digitally stored in a computer in order to
have an extra photograph without the permittee being required to
have two photographs taken.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT requested an explanation regarding the opt-out
procedures. He asked if this essentially moves from a state crime
to allowing municipalities to define their own crime in that area.
MS. PARKER replied no. She explained that this legislation deletes
the local opt-out provisions in Title 18 and thus it is a statewide
permit like the driver's license. She agreed with Representative
Croft's understanding that deleting the caliber and [specific
action] type would authorize the [person] to carry any caliber of
handgun. However, she pointed out that one must first meet the
competency standards and qualify.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked, "I don't like that." He expressed
concern in that a person could qualify with a .32 [caliber], but
carry a .45 [caliber]; the recoil from a .45 caliber could knock
one down. He inquired as to the reasoning for deleting that
information.
MS. PARKER answered that it seemed unnecessary to include that on
the permit as part of qualifying. She pointed out that [the
requirement] to qualify with a particular firearm is rare in other
states. She indicated that the reasoning behind the change is that
it doesn't seem to make any difference in regard to any problems.
She believes that the responsibility lies with the individual
rather than the state in regard to knowing how to use his/her
firearm.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she understood Representative Green's
concern. However, many of the concealed handgun permits around the
nation were never as strict as Alaska, who has had this [process]
for five years. Furthermore, the department does not mind if this
change is made. Representative James felt that if a person goes to
the trouble to obtain a concealed handgun permit, that person will
be sure they know how to use the handgun and they are going to be
careful. That has been proven in the history of the concealed gun
permitting system throughout the nation. She related her belief
that people will carry a handgun with which they are comfortable.
Representative James was comfortable with this, and furthermore she
didn't believe this information on the license was that meaningful.
Number 1180
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA recalled that there used to be many
provisions in Title 18 which would allow municipalities to restrict
the carrying of a concealed handgun if a local option election was
held. She asked if those are all being deleted with this
legislation.
MS. PARKER replied, "That's correct."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she was the original creator of the
concealed handgun [legislation] and that she was sorry that she
included that [opt-out] provision. She informed the committee that
she included that [opt-out] provision at the request of a certain
Alaska Native group. However, over the history of the concealed
carry legislation, there has only been one attempt to override and
delete [the opt-out provision]. That attempt occurred in Haines.
She said that when there is a concealed handgun permitting system,
one can't be concerned with, when crossing [municipal] borders,
whether that particular [community] disallows it or not; [the opt-
out provision] causes confusion. Therefore, she believes it makes
sense to blanket the state. Representative James pointed out that
there are still places in which people can post that they don't
want [concealed handguns] carried.
MS. PARKER indicated that would be correct for private property.
Number 1304
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if currently the permit would note
that competency was achieved for a particular caliber.
MS. PARKER explained that generally, permittees qualify in the
largest caliber and action type in order to carry what he/she
wants. Therefore, permittees were qualifying for something larger
than he/she wanted to shoot in order to be able to carry anything
at any time and not [have to go through the permitting process
again]. She pointed out that DPS isn't concerned about this as the
department doesn't believe it will change much in regard to how the
courses are offered. She pointed out that live fire range is
required in every course; "the NRA personal protection course has
been requiring this long before we required the course."
Therefore, no changes in the course are envisioned as it still has
to be approved by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her understanding that currently
the permit indicates the revolver type and the semi-automatic type.
Now, under this legislation, competency won't be listed because one
would not be able to obtain a permit without first illustrating
competency. Basically, the permit would be similar to a driver's
license.
MS. PARKER agreed that one would have to passed the competency
[test], but it wouldn't appear on the license because passing the
competency [test] allows one to obtain a license.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if upon passage of the course, it
would indicate what [firearm] was being used or the largest
[firearm] that had been practiced with.
MS. PARKER replied no. That [information] would not be required by
statute. She pointed out that currently, one can openly carry
whatever [type] firearm he/she wishes without going to any course.
Number 1514
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he has recently received some
complaints regarding a backlog with renewals for permits. He asked
if this legislation will help speed up the renewal process.
LIEUTENANT HUDSON responded that this legislation will provide
assistance in expediting the renewal process. He pointed out that
under this change renewal applications can be mailed in and the
existing requirement for a thumbprint will no longer be required.
Furthermore, processing only one photograph will save time. In
further response to Representative Rokeberg, Lieutenant Hudson
stated that currently Anchorage is approximately 400 renewals
and/or applications behind. Lieutenant Hudson related his belief
that this legislation will move in the right direction. He
informed the committee that this program began five years ago and
in the first nine months, there were 5,000 applications processed.
Therefore, 5,000 applications are being renewed along with the
continuous new applicants. In response to Representative Kerttula,
Lieutenant Hudson estimated that statewide there are approaching
12,000 permits.
Number 1731
RAY HALLEY testified via teleconference from Valdez. He noted that
he is currently certified to instruct basic pistol, rifle and home
firearm safety and he is a range safety officer. Mr. Halley
requested the committee's support of this legislation. Although
the changes are modest, the improvements are important. He stated
that the most important improvement for Alaskans is in the area of
allowing reciprocity with other states that allow concealed carry
permits. In conclusion, Mr. Halley again requested the committee's
support of the legislation and he thanked Representatives Green and
James who have supported this in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if Representative Green remained
concerned with the caliber issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that he was concerned due to his
experience when he went to obtain his concealed carry permit. When
he went for his permit, he encountered a person that didn't know
anything about [their] .32 caliber, which was loaded when the
person entered. However, during the [permit] process this person
learned how to use the .32 caliber firearm. He said, "But I think
that's a far cry from somebody who may now come in with that same
lack of ability, qualify with a .32 and then decide she wants to
carry a .357 or something else. There is a significant difference.
And to have it the hands of somebody who really hasn't shown
proficiency in that weapon; I'm a little disturbed about it."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT related his understanding that currently a
person who is comfortable with .32 caliber would only qualify with
that [caliber weapon]. With practice, the person becomes
proficient with a higher caliber gun that he/she wished to carry.
In such a case, the person would have to return to the school.
However, with the changes, those who have shown a basic proficiency
with a weapon measure their own [proficiency]. Representative
Croft acknowledged Representative Green's concern, but noted that
it didn't make much sense if the competency [requirement] is kept,
which is part of the proposed CS.
Number 1948
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if there are any requirements with
this permit regarding vision, such as the requirement for a
driver's license holder to take a vision test every ten years. She
asked if there is anything during the permitting process to
illustrate that the person can still shoot and meet the competency
[requirement].
MS. PARKER replied no and specified that to be the responsibility
of the individual. She noted that it has not been a problem in
Alaska or any other state.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that she believes people should have
to have their eyes examined.
Number 2073
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee report [HCS CSSB 294,
Version K,] out of committee with individual recommendations and
the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
294(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|