04/23/2003 01:10 PM House JUD

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

pdf txt

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 23, 2003 1:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair Representative Jim Holm Representative Dan Ogg Representative Ralph Samuels Representative Les Gara MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Max Gruenberg COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 102 "An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons." - MOVED CSHB 102(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 31 "An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 31 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. - MOVED HJR 5 OUT OF COMMITTEE SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 86 "An Act relating to permits issued by the state; and amending Rules 65, 79, and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure." - HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 102 SHORT TITLE:CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS LEGAL SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CROFT Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 02/14/03 0215 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 02/14/03 0215 (H) STA, JUD 02/19/03 0257 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GATTO 03/13/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/13/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 03/27/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/27/03 (H) Heard & Held 03/27/03 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/28/03 0688 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ANDERSON 04/07/03 0830 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAHLSTROM, KOTT 04/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/08/03 (H) Heard & Held 04/08/03 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/10/03 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/10/03 (H) Moved CSHB 102(STA) Out of Committee -- Time Change -- 04/10/03 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/14/03 0960 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 3DP 3NR 04/14/03 0960 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, DAHLSTROM, HOLM; 04/14/03 0960 (H) NR: SEATON, BERKOWITZ, WEYHRAUCH 04/14/03 0960 (H) FN1: ZERO(LAW) 04/14/03 0977 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HOLM, SEATON 04/16/03 1017 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SAMUELS, MASEK 04/16/03 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120 04/16/03 (H) Heard & Held MINUTE(JUD) 04/17/03 1030 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HAWKER 04/22/03 1058 (H) CORRECTED CS(STA) RECEIVED 04/23/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 31 SHORT TITLE:INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WILLIAMS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/21/03 0039 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)

01/21/03 0039 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/21/03 0039 (H) STA, JUD 03/04/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/04/03 (H) Heard & Held 03/04/03 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/25/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/25/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee 03/25/03 (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/31/03 0703 (H) STA RPT 2DP 4NR 03/31/03 0703 (H) DP: HOLM, WEYHRAUCH; NR: SEATON, 03/31/03 0703 (H) GRUENBERG, LYNN, DAHLSTROM 03/31/03 0704 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV) 03/31/03 0721 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MEYER 04/04/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/04/03 (H) Heard & Held MINUTE(JUD) 04/23/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HJR 5 SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WILLIAMS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action

01/21/03 0025 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)

01/21/03 0025 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/21/03 0025 (H) GRUENBERG, LYNN, MINUTE(JUD) BILL: HB 86 SHORT TITLE:INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PERMITTED PROJECTS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS Committee REFERRALS ROKEBERG, HOLM, DAHLSTROM, WILSON MINUTE(RES) GATTO, LYNN, WITNESS REGISTER MAE ALICE HOPKINS Soldotna, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about HB constitutional amendment. JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SS HB Number 0059 CHAIR MCGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons." [In packets was HB 102, replied He added: I'm a permit holder as well. I thought much of the information was useful. But right now somebody does not have to take any test, and the government keeps no list of people who own guns. ... The distinction that we're addressing here is between ... "concealed" or not. And no, ... I wouldn't be in favor of the government having that list, necessarily. We do think that in a number of areas we've helped law enforcement by extending more broadly the requirement that you tell [law enforcement about a concealed weapon]. ... The express reason for the bill, really, is to not have some of these requirements. MS. HOPKINS observed that people may be overconfident and mistakenly believe they understand what is needed for them to carry [a concealed weapon], as well as everything there is to know about the firearm. Number 0459 JOHN L. SMALLWOOD testified on his own behalf, noting that he also is a permit holder. He offered his understanding that laws currently in effect protect most citizens, and that a person isn't allowed to have a firearm in possession at home or elsewhere unless "qualified and not prohibited by federal or state law." Referring to an "instant-check" police officers relating to people who already have permits, he suggested it might be a good idea with respect to safety. Doing away with the permitting system as Vermont has done would be within the constitution, he said, but some people might think it isn't good enough. He referred to a bill passed by Senator Robin Taylor the previous year with regard to reciprocity with other states. MR. SMALLWOOD indicated training is his only concern about the bill. He said he likes the idea, if a person is going to carry a concealed weapon and be among fellow citizens, that some kind of training be required, as well as good knowledge of laws on concealed weapons and self-defense. He also expressed concern about allowing people who don't have training to come into the state [with a concealed weapon]. As for the permit, however, Mr. Smallwood said he didn't care one way or the other, since he believes Alaska's constitution includes the "right to carry a concealed weapon for legitimate purposes." REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Brian Judy, who'd testified at the previous hearing, to state the most significant parts of current handgun-training courses that wouldn't be required if this bill passes, especially safety aspects. He said the big concern is that some segment of the population that currently is required to take safety courses won't take them; he recalled debate about how many people wouldn't do so. Number 0738 BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle Association of America (NRA), replied that he and the NRA assert that the training courses really don't add much to the "safety situation" in Alaska. empirical evidence from many states, whether they have no training requirements or significant ones, is the same: that there aren't any training-related problems. He observed that in Alaska, a person doesn't need a permit or training to carry a weapon openly; however, someone who dons a coat to cover a firearm must take the training and "go through all the other bureaucratic hoops." He suggested that there is no problem in Alaska with people "carrying" openly or carrying concealed while engaged in an outdoor activity, which is another exemption from the permitting requirement. He concluded that nothing indicates a problem now with people who don't go through a mandatory training course, and said he doesn't think that would change. MR. JUDY, in further response to Representative Gara, offered his belief that the existing courses go over state laws and handling of firearms, including loading and unloading. Under existing law, there also is a competency requirement that he characterized as fairly minimal. Number 0910 ROD CHRISTOPHER, Owner, Peninsula Weapons Academy, informed members that Peninsula Weapons Academy is a firearms school in Soldotna. A weapons inspector for more than 20 years, he reported that he has done inspections for law enforcement, the military, and the private sector. People come into his CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] classes who never have held a gun before; these are mostly females - but a few males - who want to carry for protection. The personal protection course is a basic handgun course that addresses handling, safety, ammunition, loading and unloading the gun, and so forth; it allows participants to shoot the weapon and develop a knowledge of how it feels. Emphasizing the importance of learning the laws, he expressed concern about turning people loose on the street who lack "weapons knowledge," including safe handling, know when or when not to use deadly force. He indicated those are taught in his classes, and told the committee that he believes it is a grave mistake to turn people loose on the street without training. CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Christopher whether he'd be supportive of requirements for training, familiarity with state laws, and competency for people who carry weapons openly as well. MR. CHRISTOPHER said he believes that it's common sense to have all those things when carrying a weapon. Furthermore, he added, "If you get into a gunfight, God forbid, and you do use deadly force and you do kill somebody, that 'concealed carry' permit is used as an affirmative defense for you in court." CHAIR McGUIRE remarked, "We're about to change all that in our other bill." Returning to HB HJR Number 1612 CHAIR McGUIRE announced the that the committee would next consider HOUSE BILL NO. 31, "An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for an effective date"; and HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions. CHAIR McGUIRE recalled good points made by Representative Gara at the previous hearing with respect to the burden being placed on the initiative process in general and on the people gathering signatures, as well as the effect on costs "and so forth." She also recalled comments by Representatives Samuels and Anderson about proportional representation. She said that was her line of thinking as well, that there is an effort to heal the so- called urban-rural divide in other areas, and that even though it costs more to "reach out to rural areas," [the legislature still does so]; thus perhaps it should be done in this area also. She mentioned previous testimony via teleconference and reminded members that public testimony was still open. Number 1708 ALVIN A. ANDERS, Chair, Alaska Libertarian Party (Juneau); Secretary, Alaska Libertarian Party (Statewide), referred to his previous testimony and said this bill should be opposed because it is unnecessary and doesn't accomplish what its proponents want it to do; the initiative process works fine, helping to increase turnout and voter registration and allowing citizens to decide contentious issues. If the sponsors' real goal is to include more of the state in the initiative process - rather than just having the new requirements act as a "veto" on issues they don't want to see on the ballot - Mr. Anders asserted that the legislation doesn't accomplish what the sponsors want. MR. ANDERS suggested it would be better to make the initiative one page so that it could be posted on the Internet, downloaded as an Adobe Acrobat file, printed, signed, and mailed in. Offering a copy of an initiative petition used in Anchorage and other areas in the state as an example of a one-page form, he assured the committee that it works fine, that citizens' signatures are still checked for voter registration, and that having one page instead of a booklet will make it easier for "folks in the hinterlands" to fill out and mail in without feeling that they have to get 150 signatures in order to turn in their petition booklet. He said that reform could be done without having to do a constitutional amendment. MR. ANDERS said he'd like the committee to vote against the legislation. He suggested that the "very good reform" supported by Ken Jacobus and the Republican Party with regard to instant- runoff voting failed in the 2002 election because voters were already upset with the Republicans for the closed primary and saw the instant-runoff voting as another way that Republicans were trying to seize control of the state. Saying it should have passed, he said that type of reform is the way to go. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether anyone else wished to testify on HB 31 testimony on both. CHAIR MCGUIRE turned attention specifically to HB 31 was by a vote of 5-1. Number 2132 REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to report HJR 5. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM offered his belief that the preservation of the rights of one set of people at the expense of another is in jeopardy without passage of this [legislation]. He suggested that Alaska is unique because more than half of the population lives in one area and thus can pass laws that adversely affect rural residents all over the state. He asserted that people in this country have a representative republic, not a democracy. He added, "We try to make sure that the majority cannot act in an unruly manner to subject the minority to its whims." Representative Holm said it isn't unreasonable to require a seat at the table for people whose cultures and lives will be affected by laws or initiatives. He suggested that this [constitutional change] would allow that seat at the table, and that it would be a grave injustice to do otherwise. REPRESENTATIVE OGG concurred with Representative Holm's comments. He also suggested that the movement here is towards exercising democracy in its truest form, since [the proposed constitutional change] will be submitted to the voters. TAPE 03-42, SIDE B Number 2380 REPRESENTATIVE OGG concluded by saying this is a suggestion [to voters] that this is a good direction, and that if they see fit to pass it, they will. If not, the people will have spoken. REPRESENTATIVE GARA acknowledged that as a fair point, and said although [HB permission, HJR Nevertheless, he said he thinks [changing the initiative process in this way] is a bad policy for the reasons he'd stated earlier. Number 2297 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Anderson, Ogg, Holm, Samuels, and McGuire voted in favor of reporting from committee. Representative Gara voted against it. Therefore, HJR 5 Committee by a vote of 5-1. [HB HB Number 2287 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 86, "An Act relating to permits issued by the state; and amending Rules 65, 79, and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure." CHAIR McGUIRE indicated no testifiers had signed up. Number 2275 JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State Legislature, presented SS HB 86. REPRESENTATIVE OGG read sections of Rule 65, noting that there is always a balancing test in the court: The plaintiff must be faced with irreparable harm, and the plaintiffs have to make a showing of what that is. In some [cases], he explained, the court will require bonding by the plaintiff to cover the damages the defendant may suffer should the case not work out in the [plaintiff's] favor. The court has plenty of tools, he said, adding that the plaintiff must raise serious and substantial questions going to the merits of the case. All of these things are discussed by the court and the opposing parties before the judge grants the injunction. Number 0201 REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that [an injunction] is a very serious move on the part of the court and there are high standards before the court will grant an injunction. He said some study of this would be helpful before the committee starts changing things. Maybe the answer, he surmised, involves adding more teeth to the statute that deals with injunctions. He said he agrees that these standards should surface early in the lawsuit process, not after everybody has expended time and energy in court; that determination of a frivolous case needs to be made upfront. He said he thinks that Rule 65 requires that [merit] has to be [demonstrated] before an injunction is granted. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS reiterated that "somebody has to pay." He then proffered the following example of an air carrier with an injunction prohibiting it from flying to certain destinations. While the injunction is in force, the carrier still has to make aircraft payments, still has 450 employees to pay, and still has leases to pay and sales to honor. The business's money is tied up, with the company never knowing when the injunction will be lifted. The situation worsens: the employees being laid off are finding other jobs, and there are training costs for new ticket agents and ramp workers. That's the way a large oil company looks at an injunction, he surmised. So once the injunction is lifted, and the case is determined to be frivolous according to SSADJOURNMENT Number 1684 There being no further business before the committee, the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m.

Document Name Date/Time Subjects