03/25/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB60 | |
| HB408 | |
| HB251 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 408 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 25, 2010
1:22 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 60(L&C)
"An Act relating to the Uniform Probate Code, including wills,
trusts, nonprobate transfers, augmented estates, personal
representatives, and trustees; and amending Rules 3 and 8,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1, Alaska Rules of Probate
Procedure, and Rule 37.5, Alaska Rules of Administration."
- MOVED CSSB 60(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 408
"An Act relating to misconduct involving weapons."
- MOVED CSHB 408(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 251
"An Act relating to liens on vehicles; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 251(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 60
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM PROBATE CODE; TRUSTS, WILLS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MCGUIRE
01/21/09 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/16/09
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) L&C, JUD
03/24/09 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/24/09 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/31/09 (S) L&C AT 1:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/09 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/09 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/16/09 (S) L&C AT 3:45 PM BELTZ 211
04/16/09 (S) Moved CSSB 60(L&C) Out of Committee
04/16/09 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/17/09 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 2NR 2AM SAME TITLE
04/17/09 (S) DP: THOMAS
04/17/09 (S) NR: MEYER, DAVIS
04/17/09 (S) AM: PASKVAN, BUNDE
02/01/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/01/10 (S) Heard & Held
02/01/10 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/08/10 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/08/10 (S) Moved CSSB 60(L&C) Out of Committee
02/08/10 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/10/10 (S) JUD RPT CS(L&C) 4DP
02/10/10 (S) DP: FRENCH, COGHILL, EGAN, MCGUIRE
03/10/10 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/10/10 (S) VERSION: CSSB 60(L&C)
03/17/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/17/10 (H) JUD
03/25/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 408
SHORT TITLE: MISCONDUCT INVOLVING WEAPONS
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
02/26/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/10 (H) JUD, FIN
03/12/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/12/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/10 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/24/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/24/10 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 03/25/10>
03/25/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 251
SHORT TITLE: PRIORITY OF TOWING LIENS
SPONSOR(S): RAMRAS
01/08/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) STA, JUD
03/09/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/09/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/10 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/11/10 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/11/10 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/11/10 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/11/10 (H) STA RPT 1DP 4NR
03/11/10 (H) DP: LYNN
03/11/10 (H) NR: JOHNSON, GATTO, GRUENBERG, PETERSEN
03/25/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
ESTHER CHA, Staff
Senator Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 60 on behalf of Senator
McGuire, sponsor.
RICHARD W. HOMPESCH II, Attorney at Law
Hompesch & Evans, PC
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing SB 60.
JONATHAN G. BLATTMACHR, Attorney at Law
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
New York, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on SB 60.
JANE PIERSON, Staff
Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 408 on behalf of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, which is chaired by Representative
Ramras.
BRIAN JUDY, Lobbyist
National Rifle Association of America (NRA)
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408.
WILLIAM R. SATTERBERG, JR., Attorney at Law
Satterberg Law Offices
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 408.
RON STERLING
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Had his testimony read by Wayne Anthony
Ross, Attorney at Law, during the hearing on HB 408.
WAYNE ANTHONY ROSS, Attorney at Law
Ross & Miner, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 408.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
hearing on HB 408.
DON HABEGER, Staff
Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 251 on behalf of
Representative Ramras, sponsor.
MARGARET RABY
Alaska Towing Association (ATA);
Badger Towing
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 251.
SHAWN ROSS, President
Alaska Towing Association (ATA);
Owner
Badger Towing
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 251.
MARK ANTHONY DAVIS, President
Interior Towing & Salvage, Inc.
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 251.
ELISABETH GRISWOLD, Owner/Manager
Gabe's Towing
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 251.
WILLIAM R. SATTERBERG, JR., Attorney at Law
Satterberg Law Offices
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 251.
JANE PIERSON, Staff
Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 251 on behalf of Representative Ramras, sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:22:19 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:22 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Herron,
Gatto, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Dahlstrom and Holmes arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
SB 60 - UNIFORM PROBATE CODE; TRUSTS, WILLS
1:23:40 PM
[Contains brief mention that the committee had already heard and
passed out HB 144, the companion bill to CSSB 60(L&C).]
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 60(L&C), "An Act relating to the Uniform
Probate Code, including wills, trusts, nonprobate transfers,
augmented estates, personal representatives, and trustees; and
amending Rules 3 and 8, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1,
Alaska Rules of Probate Procedure, and Rule 37.5, Alaska Rules
of Administration."
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the companion bill to CSSB 60(L&C),
HB 144, had already passed from committee.
1:24:25 PM
ESTHER CHA, Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 60 on behalf of Senator McGuire,
sponsor. She concurred that SB 60 is identical to HB 144. She
explained that SB 60 would amend the Uniform Probate Code, with
the aim of improving the ease of administration of wills,
estates, and trusts for Alaska residents. She relayed that the
Uniform Probate Code is a set of laws that govern the affairs of
decedents and their estates. She said Alaska is one of 15
states to have adopted the code in its entirety; the remaining
34 states have adopted only parts of the code.
MS. CHA said the climate for trusts and estate planning is
highly competitive, and the trust business is a multi-billion
dollar sector, which often crosses state lines in order to take
advantage of more attractive state trust laws. She stated that
most of the amendments made through SB 60 either clarify
language or eliminate unnecessary verbiage. Further changes
would: create a procedure for the establishment of will and
trust validity before death; add provisions that would allow a
settlor of a trust to designate a representative who could
represent or bind an incapacitated person in future proceedings
relating to trust administration; clarify property transfers
involving a deceased spouse; and address the venue proceeding if
the decedent lived outside of Alaska but held significant assets
within the state.
MS. CHA said SB 60 is part of an ongoing effort to modernize
Alaska's trust laws, thereby creating more jobs and revenue,
while diversifying the state's economy. She said Alaska has
directly received millions of dollars through insurance premium
taxes, and many jobs have been created in the trust, banking,
insurance, and legal professions as a result of the state's
competitive and contemporary trust laws.
1:27:11 PM
MS. CHA, in response to Representative Gatto, explained again
that the basis of the bill is to establish a pre-mortem validity
of a will. Further, the bill addresses those residents of
Alaska who have moved out of the state or a non-resident of the
state who has established a trust in Alaska; it would provide a
venue of proceeding.
1:29:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO recounted an incident wherein a mother
died, and the inheritance was not divided equally between the
surviving children. Those who received more argued that the
mother's wishes were carried out, while the ones who received
less claimed the mother had not known what she was doing. The
result was that no one received money, except the lawyers. He
said he thinks the case would have been resolved differently had
the siblings been able to litigate prior to the mother's death,
so that she could have seen their point and responded. He asked
if SB 60 would provide for that to happen.
MS.CHA said she believes so.
1:30:56 PM
RICHARD W. HOMPESCH II, Attorney at Law, Hompesch & Evans PC,
relayed that the proposed legislation clarifies who a trustee
should notify in situations where the beneficiary is a minor or
incapacitated. In Section 1, the bill would provide that the
person setting up the trust can designate who should be served
or notified with respect to a minor, child, or incapacitated
person beneficiary. He explained the reason that is important
is that without such a designation, typically the trustee would
have to request that the court appoint a guardian ad litem for
the minor, child, or incapacitated beneficiary, which would
generally cost a lot more money than had the designation been
done in the trust instrument.
MR. HOMPESCH concurred with everything Ms. Cha said regarding
the lifetime probate provision that is in Section 8. He said
the disadvantage that the proponent of the challenged will has
is that the essential main witness, unfortunately, is always
dead. Section 8 would allow the court to ask questions of that
main witness - the person who wrote the will or trust - before
he or she dies. He offered his understanding that this would be
the first time this has ever been done, and he predicted it
would minimize litigation.
1:35:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO related that he and his wife have set up a
will through which each child will receive equal assets, but
none will receive any assets before the youngest child has
graduated from college, if he/she desires to attend. He asked
Mr. Hompesch if that is legal.
1:35:47 PM
MR. HOMPESCH replied that it is legal to hold assets in a trust
until a child reaches a certain age.
1:36:21 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS said he's heard concern expressed regarding how
such laws are benefiting the state, where employment rates have
risen, which banks are becoming the depositories for these
funds, when this all began, and what the future potential is.
MR. HOMPESCH proffered that the Revised Limited Liability
Company and Limited Partnership Act of 1997 made limited
liability and partnership laws the most attractive in the U.S.
Prior to that Act, no one ever came to Alaska to form a limited
liability company or limited partnership, or if they did the
business was so inconsequential no one kept track of it. After
the bill was passed, in conjunction with other trust
legislation, Mr. Hompesch said he heard there were so many
attorneys from out of state that wanted to form Alaska limited
liability companies that an online filing process was started.
The state received a $250 filing fee for each limited liability
company. There was substantial work for the Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing, and there
were substantial fees to the state. He said there is a biennial
tax of $100 that is paid every two years by each limited
liability company. He said that is one example, and he
suggested the committee could get more accurate information from
the Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED).
MR. HOMPESCH offered another example, which was a bill of
several years ago, which changed the excise tax that is charged
on life insurance premiums. He explained that the State of
Alaska charges an excise tax on every life insurance premium
that is paid. However, before the aforementioned bill, the
state was charging approximately 2 percent on premiums in excess
of $100,000, and there were so few of those the state was never
getting any money from those large premiums. The bill reduced
the excise tax down to one quarter of a percent of any premium
over $100,000. As a result, many individuals in the Lower 48
who would have bought their life insurance elsewhere, started
buying premiums from Alaska, and the state started receiving
hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra premium tax as a
result of that change. Mr. Hompesch said a third example is
that he is contacted each week by lawyers in the Lower 48 who
have clients interested in creating trusts under Alaska law to
be administered by trust companies in Alaska, and that is
something that did not happen prior to 1997.
1:41:52 PM
JONATHAN G. BLATTMACHR, Attorney at Law, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley
& McCloy LLP, concurred with the comments of Mr. Hompesch. He
said there has been an addition of 15-20 management level jobs
in Alaska as a result of the legislation that began in 1997. He
said those are relatively high-paying jobs that have "made
Alaska look better." He said this is just another example of
where Alaska is at the forefront of one part of the financial
services industry. He said Delaware has got the corner on
forming corporations, but now Alaska is doing well in relation
to limited liability companies. Mr. Blattmachr said with the
right backing of the legislature, he thinks this could be an
enormous industry for the State of Alaska. He listed states
that vie with Alaska, including Delaware, South Dakota, and
Utah, and said "our group" gets together each year to try to
come up with the most creative ideas to obtain additional
business for the state.
MR. BLATTMACHR related that his brother is president of the
Alaska Trust Company, and he knows that that company has tens of
millions of dollars on deposit in various banks, which are
available to loan to Alaska businesses to help them grow. He
said there are about a dozen other states that are constantly
imitating Alaska's law, which is a compliment. He encouraged
the committee to support the proposed legislation.
1:45:39 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS asked what the trust community's goal is in coming
back to the legislature year after year to update Alaska's
statutes.
MR. BLATTMACHR replied that the other states are trying to make
their laws better than Alaska's laws, and every once in awhile
another state comes up with an idea that will be more attractive
to individuals who may want to create a trust or buy insurance
policies in a tax efficient manner. He said, "So, we keep on
those, and we come back and ask that we be able to be as good as
any other state in some areas. And we also come back to ask
that we be better than any other state in other areas." He said
the group puts in hundreds of hours each year to figure out how
to make Alaska the best state in the country to do trust
business. He noted that the aforementioned legislation Alaska
passed in 1997 was just adopted about a year ago by Nevada -
over a decade later.
MR. BLATTMACHR indicated that the trust community, which
considers these matters, spends time each year debating,
drafting, speaking with legal scholars, and considering the
impact of ideas on the state. He said the group thinks SB 60
will significantly reduce the burden on the court, because it
will "stamp out any likely will contest that would arise." He
indicated that people have a pretty good idea when there will be
a contested will, and the proposed legislation would head that
off and allow an arrangement to be made and the will admitted to
probate. He said he anticipates that the trust business will
continue to grow throughout the U.S., and he wants Alaska to be
a major part of that business.
1:48:47 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on CSSB 60(L&C).
1:48:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report CSSB 60(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 60(L&C) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:49 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
HB 408 - MISCONDUCT INVOLVING WEAPONS
1:50:57 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 408, "An Act relating to misconduct involving
weapons."
1:51:46 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS [moved to adopt] the committee substitute (CS) for
HB 408, Version 26-LS1459\K, Luckhaupt, 3/24/10, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version K was before the
committee.
1:52:10 PM
JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 408 on behalf of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, which is chaired by Representative Ramras.
She directed attention to the following changes: The phrase,
"do not apply to a person if", has been added in Section 1, on
page 1, line 6, and page 2, line 4; and in Section 2, AS
11.61.200(a)(12) was added to those statutes to be repealed.
She said Version K would return full gun rights to those with
pardons, set-asides, or to those who have gone 10 years since
being let off from a felony.
CHAIR RAMRAS reviewed that the committee had discussed during a
prior hearing that unless there is a perfect alignment between
state and federal law, then the federal law preempts people from
getting their full rights back. He asked Ms. Pierson if that is
the gist of the alignment that the bill would reestablish.
MS. PIERSON answered that is correct.
1:53:40 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Lobbyist, National Rifle Association of America
(NRA), urged support of HB 408. He attempted to assure the
committee that HB 408 would not restore firearms to felons. He
said it is already the policy of the State of Alaska to restore
firearm rights to former offenders. The right to possess rifles
and shotguns is restored upon their release from incarceration,
while the right to possess handguns is restored if the person
receives a pardon, set-aside, or "by operation of law after 10
years from their unconditional discharge." With a person's
right to possess a handgun comes his/her right to carry it
openly anywhere in the state. However, carrying a concealed
handgun after a pardon, set-aside, or the 10-year period is
limited to home property and lawful outdoor activity. He noted
that 95 percent or more of a person's rights are restored by the
state. Currently the only real restriction in current law is
that a person who has had his/her rights restored cannot cover a
handgun. He noted that a former offender, upon his/her
unconditional discharge is also given back voting rights, jury
rights, and the right to hold public office.
MR. JUDY said that because of a technical and complicated
interaction between state and federal law and a U.S. Supreme
Court decision, Caron v. United States, persons who have had all
these rights restored by the State of Alaska are still not
recognized as having any rights restored for the purpose of
federal law, and they can be prosecuted under federal law. He
stated that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Caron v. United
States decision, held that an all or nothing test must be
applied, and that any state's weapons limitation activates the
Uniform Federal ban on possessing any firearms at all. In other
words, unless Alaska restores 100 percent of a person's rights
related to bearing arms, and treats that person like any other
law abiding citizen who never lost rights, then under the
federal law, the person has no rights. Because the State of
Alaska imposes this slight restriction, under federal law, these
individuals have no firearms rights whatsoever, he clarified.
The intent of the bill is to facilitate the implementation of
existing state policy and to allow persons whose rights have
been restored by the state to exercise those rights and not have
them extinguished by the federal government - to create an
alignment between state and federal law.
1:56:44 PM
MR. JUDY said there are two existing limitations on persons who
have otherwise had their rights to possess firearms restored
that are not imposed on persons who have never lost their
rights. The first relates to a person's right to carry
concealed, which is in AS 11.61.200(g)(2) and would be repealed
by HB 408. The second limitation is that a person whose right
to bear firearms has been otherwise restored would be in a
position of having to raise an affirmative defense to a charge
of either possessing a concealable firearm or carrying a firearm
concealed. Mr. Judy said the bill proposes to repeal the
prohibition on carrying a concealed weapon, because in effect
that is contained within the prohibition on possessing a
concealable firearm. In other words, he clarified, a person
cannot carry a concealed weapon without already possessing that
weapon. Repealing AS 11.61.200(a)(12) and (f) and (g) would
leave just the prohibition on possessing a firearm capable of
being concealed. The bill would further propose to "change the
affirmative defend for that crime to an exception." By
alleviating those two limitations and treating persons whose
rights have been restored in the same manner as persons who have
never lost their rights, HB 408 would solve the problem created
by the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court decision.
MR. JUDY, in conclusion, offered the NRA's hope that legislators
can move beyond the perceived stigma of "giving firearms to
felons," which is not being done here, and realize the
legitimacy of allowing persons who have long ago paid their debt
to society to finally attain the restoration of their rights,
which are already provided by the State of Alaska but
extinguished because of the interaction between state and
federal law, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
CHAIR RAMRAS mentioned that something similar was accomplished
in the realm of a "minor consuming" bill, only in that case, the
state was out of alignment with the federal government.
MR. JUDY confirmed that HB 408 would create an alignment between
the state and federal government.
2:01:33 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that Representative Stoltze had brought up a
concern regarding reciprocity with eight other states.
MR. JUDY opined that there should not be a concern because there
are already differences between various states' statutes related
to this issue, but many states already recognize all other
states' permits. The only potential problem, he surmised, may
be where a state has conditional recognition, in which that
state will recognize another state whose laws are comparable to
its own. He explained that those states may have a problem if
their issuance rules do not permit a person who has been
convicted of a felony [to get a gun permit]. He indicated that
there are eight such states, including Arizona and Montana;
however, he noted that Montana will issue permits to those
people whose rights have been restored. The other seven states
that fall into the two criteria - will not issue a permit for a
felony and only recognize states with comparable laws -
currently recognize Montana's permits. He concluded, "So, the
other state ... that does what we're proposing to do here is
recognized by virtually every state out there, including those
states that have conditional recognition."
2:04:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether, under HB 408, an Alaska
State Trooper or Alaska certified local police officer would
"follow state law ... under these circumstances." Further, he
asked if, under 408, a federal law enforcement officer could
approach someone in the state and arrest them for violating the
federal law.
MR. JUDY said the point of the proposed legislation is to align
Alaska's law with federal law. Under HB 408, Alaska would
recognize 100 percent of a person's rights regarding arms, thus,
the federal government would completely recognize those rights.
CHAIR RAMRAS disclosed that Bill Satterberg has done legal work
for him and is a friend.
2:06:20 PM
WILLIAM R. SATTERBERG, JR., Attorney at Law, Satterberg Law
Offices, Fairbanks, Alaska, testifying on behalf of himself,
told the committee he has worked as an attorney going on 34
years, and he related that 33-40 percent of his work involves
criminal defense, while the rest is civil defense. He said last
spring a client plead no contest to a felony suspended
imposition of sentence (SIS). Regarding the term SIS, he
explained that if a person has committed a crime, there is a
mechanism available in criminal statute that allows the person's
conviction to be set aside if he/she complies with the court's
conditions of probation. He explained this means that although
the person was convicted, the sentence was never imposed;
therefore, the person is not a convicted felon. He said that
particular mechanism has been used for years, and it is
beneficial in restoring rights to those who committed non-
violent crimes.
MR. SATTERBERG said the aforementioned client, after
successfully completing his probationary period, went to pick up
his weapons, which had been held for safekeeping by the Alaska
State Troopers, and he was told the Alaska State Troopers could
not return the weapons to him because he was a convicted felon.
Mr. Satterberg said the man lives in the Bush and relies heavily
on his weapons for subsistence living and protection, but was
told the state would be breaking federal law if it gave his
weapons back to him.
MR. SATTERBERG said there are many people in Alaska who have
committed drug offenses, for example, and have paid their debt
to society, but cannot get their weapon rights back because of
an interpretation that the Department of Law is putting on "the
statute that began last April." He mentioned letters he had
written to Attorney General Dan Sullivan and Deputy Attorney
General Richard Svodony [included in the committee packet]
explaining why the interpretation of the federal law was wrong;
however, he said because of a bureaucratic roadblock nothing of
note happened as a result of the letters. He stated that
[Version K] solves the problem, and he said he wholeheartedly
supports it. He expressed his hope that there will be
reciprocity regarding concealed carry, and he revealed that he
is a concealed carry permit holder. However, he said even if
there is no reciprocity with the 7 other states previously
referenced, there are still far more citizens in Alaska that
need to have their firearm rights returned to them.
2:10:56 PM
MR. SATTERBERG, in response to Representative Gatto, clarified
that an SIS is "a legal fiction of sorts." He said the person
is technically convicted for the period of time that the
probationary period is outstanding, but since a sentence or
judgment of conviction is never imposed, the person is never
really convicted. In response to a follow-up question, he
clarified that the SIS is not the judgment; the judgment is
imposed at sentencing, but ceases to exist at the conclusion of
the SIS period. He said there are some people who should never
have their rights restored, but he indicated that SIS people are
not among them.
2:13:08 PM
RON STERLING had his testimony read by Wayne Anthony Ross,
Attorney at Law, as follows:
My name is Ron Sterling. A few years ago I applied to
buy two firearms and was denied by the mixed
background check. This denial stems from a legal
problem I had when I was 18. My younger brother was
found by an Alaska State Trooper in possession of
illegal drugs and told the trooper that he got them
from my room. My father allowed the Trooper to search
my bedroom, where he found one ounce of marijuana and
a few pills. The Trooper stated that I was selling
drugs, but I told him that I was not selling drugs.
My dad told me not to lie to the Trooper. This went
on for a long period of time until I finally gave up
that I would agree to whatever they wanted. I was
arrested many months later and charged with possession
with intent to sell. I retained an attorney who, even
though I told him I wasn't guilty, at trial persuaded
me to plead guilty. He told me I would get probation,
and that at some point my record would be clean. This
happened with the State of Alaska.
I've gone to the State Trooper headquarters on Tudor
Road and gotten a background check to coach high
school and American League in baseball at Service High
School. My background and check from the State of
Alaska shows no criminal record. After being denied
by the next people, I retained the law firm of Ross &
Miner to contest my case. My attorney filed to have
my record expunged. This was approved without being
contested. After this court approval, I again applied
and was again denied the right to purchase firearms.
The NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check
System] stated that it is perfectly legal for me to
own, possess, or use firearms for any legal purpose,
but because the State of Alaska didn't state that it
was okay for me to purchase firearms, they're going to
continue to deny me the right to purchase any
firearms. This is incredibly twisted logic, as it is
legal for me to have a firearm, but illegal for me to
purchase one.
I am 58 years old. I lived in Soldotna for 11 years;
sold a home; bought and paid for a home in Anchorage
where I currently live with my wife of 26 years. We
have raised two sons and a daughter. I've worked the
same job for 36 years, paid my taxes, and voted in
every election. I work with the football staff at
Soldotna High School for five years and was an
assistant coach for Soldotna High School basketball
team for three years. I also coached for Soldotna
Little League for five years, (indisc.) Rabbits for
five years, and Service High School and American
League in baseball for two years. I served on the
executive board of the Anchorage Independent
Longshoremen Union for 12 years. By any measure I am
a good citizen and to be in a position where the
federal government can continue to penalize me 40
years after the fact, using twisted Alice In
Wonderland logic, is a folly. I would certainly
appreciate any and all help that you can give me in
this manner.
Sincerely, Ron Sterling
2:16:40 PM
WAYNE ANTHONY ROSS, Attorney at Law, Ross & Miner, Inc.,
estimated that in his 42 years of practice, he has had six
clients that have been affected by the federal inconsistency
with Alaska law. He said Mr. Satterberg has had such clients,
and he said he is sure there are hundreds of others similarly
affected. He urged the committee to support HB 408.
MR. ROSS, in response to Representative Herron, said under
present law, Alaska State Troopers and police officers can use
federal law to arrest someone merely for possession of a rifle
or a shotgun. He said HB 408 should correct that problem,
because federal law recognizes people's rights to own firearms,
provided they have gotten their full rights restored, and the
proposed legislation would make that happen.
2:20:06 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), stated
that DOL has a concern with the bill because it believes that by
changing these provisions from an affirmative defense to making
the law not apply to these people will make it extremely
difficult to prosecute anybody for being a felon in possession
of a firearm - even people who have not had 10 years pass by.
Currently, the defendant has the burden of proving that those
circumstances exist. For example, she said, if a person has a
prior offense, for which he/she received a pardon, then that is
information that is uniquely in the possession of that person.
[Under HB 408], DOL would have to disprove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the person did not have a pardon or an SIS that was
set aside.
2:22:59 PM
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Chair Ramras, offered an example
in which, under current law, a person charged with being a felon
in possession would bring forth evidence of a pardon. In
response to a follow-up question from Chair Ramras, she said
drug offenders and others in that milieu get guns one way or
another - not necessarily legally - and if they are found with a
gun by a police officer, and the state wanted to prosecute them,
the state would have to prove that they did not get a pardon for
the underlying offense for which they were convicted.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked, "Isn't it impossible to prove a
negative?"
MS. CARPENETI responded that that is the department's concern,
that the information that a person has a pardon is in that
person's possession, and he/she should be able to come present
that information to the court. The same applies to an SIS, she
relayed. She said she thinks the department would have
information about an SIS for a conviction in Alaska, but not
necessarily from other states. In response to a follow-up
remark from Representative Gatto, Ms. Carpeneti said by saying
that these provisions do not apply to a person in these
circumstances, the person would have no duty to come forward and
say, "I was pardoned."
CHAIR RAMRAS asked for suggestions on how to make it possible to
"create this accommodation" without compromising the work of the
department.
MS. CARPENETI indicated that finding such suggestions is
difficult, because the state is dealing with federal law, which
is supreme over state law. She said she does not have a
suggestion at this point, but the department is certainly
willing to work with the bill sponsor. She emphasized the
difficulty of this area of law.
CHAIR RAMRAS concluded then, that this is a policy call whether
to come up with a mechanism to restore rights for convicted
felons who have paid their debts to society and then have to
deal with the burden of proving pardons and SIS claims from
those from other states.
MS. CARPENETI replied that under Version K, the department
believes that it would have to "disprove that beyond a
reasonable doubt."
2:27:56 PM
MR. ROSS offered his understanding that if a person is arrested
and charged with being a felon in possession, then the defense
would be: "I'm not a felon in possession; it's not against the
law for me to do it." He said he does not understand the logic
behind the argument of the department. He said if a person is
charged, he/she comes up with a defense; it should not have to
be an affirmative defense, because "the average person does not
have to come up with an affirmative defense." He stated, "But
certainly if anyone is charged, they're going to have to come up
with a defense, they just don't have to prove their aspect of
the defense." He indicated that it is the roll of the
prosecutor to prove that the charges against someone are
correct.
2:29:18 PM
MR. SATTERBERG concurred with Mr. Ross that anytime there is an
affirmative defense, the burden of persuasion shifts to the
other side to have to come forward with evidence to prove the
allegations. He said when the affirmative defense is made such
that a person must provide proof of "the following," there is a
failure to realize that that person is still being charged
initially. The government, under constitutional law, has the
burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt; however, if the
government is going to charge somebody with being a felon in
possession of a weapon, the government should be in possession
of the evidence it needs to prove that case. He interpreted the
testimony of Ms. Carpeneti to mean that the state is going to
charge the person, then make that person come forward with
evidence to disprove the state's charge. He said it is rare in
our society's system that a person has to come forward with any
proof; the person has constitutional rights to remain silent and
the government has the requirement to prove the person guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. He said "our" position is that if
the state does not have its facts in order, it should not bring
forth charges in the first place. He concluded, "If we're
talking about aligning things up with federal law again, the
problem is if you don't do it this way, you're going to find a
disjoint between the federal law and the state law, and we're
right back to the problem that started this."
2:31:01 PM
MS. CARPENETI noted that under current law, the fact that person
had a pardon is an affirmative defense, and under Alaska law, an
affirmative defense is one that the defendant has the burden of
proof of establishing. On the other hand, she said, a defense
is a defense that the state has to disprove beyond a reasonable
doubt. She offered self-defense as an example of defense. The
bill would change Alaska law from affirmative defense to say
that the prohibition against carrying concealed does not apply
to a person with a pardon. She said that is an unusual way of
drafting [law], and DOL's position is that that, in effect,
makes it a defense that the state has to disprove. So, in
bringing a charge of felony possession, the state would have to
be prepared, as Mr. Satterberg said, to disprove that the person
got a pardon, and that pardon might have come from any state in
the Union.
CHAIR RAMRAS said this is a policy call. He indicated that he
understands the concerns of the state, but does not empathize
with the department's position, because of the compelling
stories he has heard from Alaskans who have paid their debts to
society and cannot get their gun rights back.
2:34:14 PM
MS. CARPENETI said she understands the confusion regarding this
issue, but the concern of the department is, for example, that a
drug dealer who has been convicted of an unclassified felony is
still carrying a concealed weapon, even though that is against
the law, and if he is charged with being a felon in possession,
the state would have to prove that he was not pardoned in other
states, which would be a difficult burden of truth.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he cannot envision a judge
saying, "We have to do a lot of work on every one of you guys."
He said the judge would simply make a ruling; however, the
attorney may say the ruling is out of order. He asked Ms.
Carpeneti if that is the scenario that is of concern.
MS. CARPENETI answered that a judge must follow the law adopted
by the legislature. She said the department's concern is that
"saying that it does not apply to people in these circumstances"
would "make it part of the case in chief for us to have to
disprove." She offered her understanding that Mr. Satterberg
had just said as much.
2:35:58 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, close public testimony on HB 408.
2:36:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 408, Version 26-LS1459\K, Luckhaupt,
3/24/10, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
408(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HB 251 - PRIORITY OF TOWING LIENS
2:36:37 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 251, "An Act relating to liens on vehicles; and
providing for an effective date."
2:36:44 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS [moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
HB 251, Version 26-LS0786\E, Luckhaupt, 3/15/10, as a work
draft.] There being no objection, Version E was before the
committee.
2:37:24 PM
DON HABEGER, Staff, Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 251 on behalf of Representative
Ramras, sponsor. He explained that there have been cases
wherein towing companies have towed vehicles, often under the
authority of a public safety officer, but have not been paid for
their service. Mr. Habeger stated that a court has determined
that towing liens are not a priority over perfected liens, and
banks using the vehicle as a security have priority. He relayed
that there are an increasing number of cases in which banks are
saying they will not pay the towing company because of the court
decision.
MR. HABEGER directed attention to Section 1, in which new
language is added to specify that possessory liens by towing
companies have priority over other liens. He said this
provision would be "directly connected to the vehicle." He then
highlighted another feature of Version E, - a requirement for
notification - that is found in language in Section 2, on page
2, lines 5-11, which read as follows:
Unless a vehicle has already been reclaimed by the
owner, the person possessing the vehicle under this
section shall notify the registered owner or primary
lienholder, if any, of the towing, transporting, or
storage of the vehicle, by certified letter, return
receipt requested, mailed to the registered owner or
primary lienholder, if any, within five working days
after the initial towing, transporting, or storage of
the vehicle.
2:41:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON recounted that when he was a city manager,
this problem was prevalent, and local towing companies were
refusing orders from police officers because [they were not
getting reimbursed]; therefore, he said he supports the bill,
because he said he thinks it will benefit everyone.
Notwithstanding that, he asked if, under HB 251, there may be a
chance that towing companies would charge exorbitant rates for
"this special service."
2:42:36 PM
MR. HABEGER offered his understanding that the likelihood of
that happening is lessened because of competition. For example,
he said there are a number of towing companies in Fairbanks,
Alaska, which compete well with one another and charge market
rates. He said the odd situation wherein rates went up because
of non-notification is addressed in Section 2.
CHAIR RAMRAS said, "It's balanced."
2:43:28 PM
MARGARET RABY, Alaska Towing Association (ATA);, Badger Towing,
testified that ATA has no issue with Version E and considers it
to be an excellent idea to give possessory liens priority.
However, she stated that ATA has concerns about Section 2. She
said the association understands the need for consumer
protection, but does not think HB 251 is the appropriate venue
in which to address the issue, which she said is more
complicated than just notifying within five days or not. She
said the vehicle owner may have been arrested or may be in the
hospital following a motor vehicle accident, and "all
notification does is get their lien holder excited to take their
vehicle back," when there is no need for that to happen. She
said Badger Towing just had this situation occur a week ago.
Furthermore, she relayed, notification would drive up the cost
for towing companies; the time and labor involved could result
in an actual mailing cost of over $10 per vehicle. She noted
that Section 2 limits a lien to towing and storage charges, and
does not include compensation for the time and money invested in
notification.
2:46:05 PM
MS. RABY stated that towers are part of a service industry, and
banks are the only part of the process not in partnership with
towers. Moreover, she said banks seem to be in direct
opposition with towing companies. She said it makes good press
to say a towing company held onto a vehicle for a long time to
drive up storage charges; however, she explained, the reality is
that if a vehicle's residual value is less than 30 days worth of
towing storage, it is unlikely that there is a lien against that
vehicle in the first place, unless the vehicle has been
destroyed and the lien holder is looking to dump it.
MS. RABY said Alaska law has created a situation such that both
private vehicle owners and lien holders have the ability to
abandon vehicles - which is unlawful - and the towers "have no
mechanism to take care of it." She continued as follows:
So, if there are towing companies that may be
extending the storage charges on towing a storage
lien, I can tell you just from my own experience,
they're very likely trying to cover charges from
multiple vehicles that have been dumped on them. This
is just one more way of cost-shifting, unfortunately.
It's a practicality of trying to make ends meet when
you're a small mom and pop company. It doesn't make
it right, but that is what happens.
MS. RABY concluded that there are a lot of changes that need to
be made to Alaska towing laws; however, ATA believes suggesting
that the entire bulk of monitoring and ensuring nothing goes
wrong and nobody is harmed should be the responsibility of the
towing companies is putting those companies in an untenable
position.
2:48:29 PM
SHAWN ROSS, President, Alaska Towing Association (ATA); Owner,
Badger Towing, concurred with Ms. Raby that there are a lot of
other costs involved with notification. He questioned whether
"five working days" refers to the towing companies' schedules,
which are 24 hours a day, seven days a week, or the bank's
schedule, which is usually Monday through Friday. He related a
situation in which Badger Towing sent out letters within five
days. He said Badger Towing understood that the vehicle owner
was in good standing with the lienholder, but the lienholder
repossessed the vehicle anyway. The towing company's bill was
approximately $300, but the lienholder ended up charging the
vehicle owner almost $1,100 to get his vehicle back.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked Mr. Ross if he supports the bill "in its
present form."
MR. ROSS responded yes. In response to Chair Ramras, he related
that there are currently approximately 30 members of ATA, and
they range across the state and "part of the Northwest." He
said Sitka, Soldotna, Nenana, and Anderson are included in the
list of those communities with memberships in ATA.
2:51:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that Section 2 would require the
aforementioned notification to be given to "the registered owner
or primary lienholder", but sent to "the registered owner and
primary lienholder". He said he finds the change from and to or
confusing.
MR. ROSS concurred, and opined that the word "and" should be
used in both cases.
2:52:08 PM
MR. HABEGER related that the bill drafter said the "or" and
"and" need to be used as is. He reminded the committee that the
notification language is part of the 60-day process. He
explained that currently a towing company has the right to have
a lien against the vehicle for 60 days. Under Version E, if the
towing company wants to have that possessory title past 60 days,
it has to notify the lienholder and owner in five working days.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed dissatisfaction with that
rationale.
2:53:37 PM
MARK ANTHONY DAVIS, President, Interior Towing & Salvage, Inc.,
testified that he agrees with Section 1, but expressed concern
with language in Section 2, page 2, line 5, which read: "(b) A
lien under this section is limited to towing and storage
charges." He indicated the language needs to specify associated
charges at the end of that sentence, which would cover the cost
of the letters and certification. Further, regarding language
on page 2, line 10, he said he thinks the requirement to send
notification "within five working days" should be changed to
seven working days. He stated his belief that towing companies
need the extra two days, because many vehicles are registered
outside the state, and towing companies would require extra time
to find out what application form is needed to request the
information. Furthermore, the extra two days would help when
the days include a weekend. Mr. Davis concluded, "But other
than that I 100 percent believe that this bill needs to go
forward."
2:55:06 PM
ELISABETH GRISWOLD, Owner/Manager, Gabe's Towing, said towing
companies have been struggling with credit unions not paying the
charges when repossessing vehicles. Credit unions would hire
lawyers that sent the towing companies letters stating that the
credit union would pay "a reasonable tow fee" and storage for
three to five days; however, the reasonable tow fees were way
below market price. Ms. Griswold expressed appreciation for the
language change in Section 1, but concurred with Mr. Davis
regarding the suggested changes to Section 2.
2:56:35 PM
WILLIAM R. SATTERBERG, JR., Attorney at Law, Satterberg Law
Offices, Fairbanks, Alaska, told the committee that although he
has associations with and/or has served as lawyer to some of the
individuals who have testified, he is testifying on his own
behalf. He said he was involved in the case Ms. Griswold
related, and he confirmed that [Gabe's Towing] had a storage
lien trumped by a credit union, and it was a fight to get the
company paid for the job it did. He said he supports HB 251;
however he said he thinks the towing liens need to take
priority. He concurred with Representative Gatto regarding the
disjointed language in section 2. Finally, he recommended the
requirement for notification be set within "seven days,
excluding weekends and holidays."
2:57:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, "to
change the registered owner or primary leaseholder to registered
owner and primary leaseholder in the two places where I see it
and in any other places." There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, so that the
sentence on page 2, line 5 would read, "A lien under this
section is limited to towing, storage, and associated charges."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. He said he would understand if
the associated charges were specified as mailing fees, but he
expressed concern that without that limitation the language is
too wide open.
CHAIR RAMRAS [treated Representative Gatto's remark as a motion
to adopt a conceptual amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2],
whereby the sentence on page 2, line 5 would read, "A lien under
this section is limited to towing, storage, and associated
mailing charges." He announced that there being no objection,
the Conceptual Amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 2, [as amended]. There being no further objection,
Conceptual Amendment 2, [as amended], was adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, on page 2,
line 10, so that the language would read, "seven working days,
excluding weekends and holidays".
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. He asked if that would mean 7
working days.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he thinks "seven working days, excluding
weekends and holidays" would be the same as seven working days,
but could be as much as 10 days with a weekend.
MR. SATERBERG explained that his previous recommendation
regarding this language is copied from Civil Rule 6. He
explained that the court system will often exclude weekends and
holidays if the time period is less than seven days. He said he
foresees the use of the term "working days" as being
problematic.
3:01:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the act of sending a letter and
asking for a return receipt satisfies all obligations, because
the person to whom the letter is sent may never receive it.
MR. SATTERBERG said that can be a problem. He said presumably a
person who is being served will sign certified mail. He said he
does not know how the problem Representative Gatto described
would be handled.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern that the committee may be
making legislation that would lead to difficulty.
3:02:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she has no problem with the part of
Conceptual Amendment 3 that would change "five" to "seven";
however, she expressed concern about the rest of the phrasing.
She said Civil Rule 6 defines the meaning of "days" under the
court system rule. She offered her understanding that Alaska
Statute has similar definitions regarding working days. She
said she thinks it would be better to use the term "working
days" and leave off "except weekends and holidays", and then
rely on Alaska Statute beyond that.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned what the exact meaning of
"holiday" would be.
3:03:32 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3.
CHAIR RAMRAS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, to change
"five" to "seven". There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 4 was adopted.
3:03:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said the committee has not yet addressed
the issue of whether or not it is sufficient to send the
notification or if proof of its receipt is necessary. He said
he considers the latter sufficient.
3:04:32 PM
MR. SATTERBERG noted that the language in Section 2 would
require the notification to be sent "by certified letter, return
receipt requested". He offered his understanding that once a
towing company has sent notification in that manner, it would
have met the requirement of notification.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO argued, though, that it is the obligation
of the sender to ensure that the recipient receives the
notification.
MR. SATTERBERG said traditionally the obligation in many of
Alaska's notification statutes is to send [to] the last known
address. He said the Division of Motor Vehicles has that
requirement and sends notification of license withdrawal to the
last known address. He stated, "It would seem to me that if
it's been sent to the proper address ... by registered mail, the
sender's met the obligation."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM mentioned that she'd sent something to
someone who had moved without her knowing, and she got the
missive back in the mail. She suggested that the same thing
would happen in this case.
3:06:40 PM
MR. SATTERBERG said it is possible; however, he stated that
there is "an obligation on all of us to make sure we have proper
addresses on record."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said typically notices from the phone
company or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are 30-day
notices. He indicated that seven days is too short a time for a
recipient to respond. He said not everyone checks his/her mail
daily. He expressed his hope that consideration would be made
to hold the bill over to address this issue further.
3:07:56 PM
JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Ramras, sponsor, stated
that current statute allows for 60 days [before storage charges
"cease to be part of the lien"], and sometimes notice is not
sent out until the 59th day. Under the proposed legislation [as
amended], she said, that notice would have to be sent out within
seven days, which provides added security to the person who owns
the vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed dissatisfaction with the
language, because he offered his understanding that the people
who are supposed to get the notification will suffer if they
don't check their mail.
MS. PIERSON told Representative Gatto that those people would
actually suffer less, because of the proposed legislation, as
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO argued, though, that "they're not notified
if they didn't get notified."
MS. PIERSON stated her belief that it is not the obligation of
the towing company to "chase these people down." She said she
would rather receive notification within seven days and only
have to pay seven days worth of storage charges, than have a
$2,000 bill - [resulting from a notice sent out much later] -
which she may not be able to pay.
3:10:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 251, Version 26-LS0786\E, Luckhaupt,
3/15/10, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Herron, Lynn,
Holmes, Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 251, Version 26-
LS0786\E, Luckhaupt, 3/15/10, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Gatto voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 251(JUD)
was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a
vote of 5-1.
3:11:01 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB408 Proposed CS version K 3.24.10.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| 01 SB60 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
SB 60 |
| 02 SB60 Bill L&C CS v. S.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
SB 60 |
| 03 SB60 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
SB 60 |
| 04 SB60-2-1-021010-LAW-N.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
SB 60 |
| 01 HB251 Proposed CS version E.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| 02 HB251 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| 03 HB251-1-1-031110-CED-N.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| 04 HB251-2-1-031110-DOT-N.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| 05 HB251 version R.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| 06 HB251 Support documents.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |