Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/03/1997 08:10 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 3, 1997
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ivan Ivan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Relating to amendment of Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act.
- MOVED HJR 21 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act relating to the fiscal operations of the Alaska Railroad
Corporation and to land acquired by the State of Alaska under the
Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982 or otherwise acquired for
railroad purposes; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 269
"An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns; and
relating to the possession of firearms."
- MOVED HB 269 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 141(RLS) am
"An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns; and
relating to the possession of firearms."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 21
SHORT TITLE: REQUESTING CONGRESS TO AMEND ANILCA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK, Ogan, Cowdery, Ryan, Martin,
Vezey, Mulder, Rokeberg, Kohring, Austerman
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/97 314 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/97 314 (H) RESOURCES, STATE AFFAIRS
03/13/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/27/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/01/97 893 (H) RES RPT 2DP 2DNP 3NR
04/01/97 893 (H) DP: MASEK, OGAN
04/01/97 893 (H) DNP: NICHOLIA, JOULE
04/01/97 893 (H) NR: DYSON, GREEN, HUDSON
04/01/97 894 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.RES)
04/08/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/08/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/10/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/10/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/15/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/15/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/18/97 1188 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COWDERY, RYAN, MARTIN
04/18/97 1188 (H) VEZEY
04/22/97 1275 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MULDER
04/23/97 1307 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
04/24/97 1331 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
BILL: HB 55
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA RR BUDGET AND LAND
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 42 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 42 (H) TRANSPORTATION, FINANCE
01/15/97 78 (H) STA REFERRAL ADDED
02/05/97 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/05/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/10/97 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/10/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/17/97 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/17/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/19/97 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/19/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/24/97 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/24/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/25/97 461 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 2DP 2DNP 2NR
02/25/97 461 (H) DP: SANDERS, COWDERY
02/25/97 462 (H) DNP: HUDSON, ELTON
02/25/97 462 (H) NR: MASEK, WILLIAMS
02/25/97 462 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, 2-DNR)
02/25/97 462 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
05/03/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 269
SHORT TITLE: CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/01/97 1445 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/01/97 1445 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
05/03/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 55.
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 55.
DOROTHY URBACH
P.O. Box 249
Seward, Alaska 99664
Telephone: (907) 224-3089
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 55.
JOHNE BINKLEY
P.O. Box 80447
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-6006
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 55.
BILL SHEFFIELD, Chairman
Board of Directors
Alaska Railroad Corporation
P.O. Box 107500
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 265-2403
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 55.
JOLENE M. MOLITEROS, Administrator
Federal Railroad Administration
Address not provided
Telephone: Not provoded
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 55.
TROY STRASS
909 Chugach Way, Lot 81
Seward, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 562-9380
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 55.
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council
211 4th Street, Suite 302
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 269.
STEVE HEYANO
1201 Denali Street, Number 109
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-7475
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 269.
DUANE BUELL
P.O. Box 32319
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 780-4489
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 269.
PATRICK JOHNSON
54540 East End Road
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-3170
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 269.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4322
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 269.
GREG HALL
P.O. Box 813
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-5050
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 269.
DAVID WILLIAMS
420 West 12th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9178
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 269.
HORACE BLACK
P.O. Box 10811
Fairbanks, Alaska 99710
Telephone: (907) 457-7300
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 269.
DEAN J. GUANELI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 269.
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4356
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 269.
JERRY BAGNESCHI
923 East 17th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-9267
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 269.
TUCKERMAN BABCOCK, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Lyda Green
State Capitol, Room 125
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-6600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 269.
BILL JONES
P.O. Box 795
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-0307
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 269.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
130 Seward Street, Room 501
Telephone: (907) 586-3650
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 269.
HAL HUME
4016 Birch Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-6724
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 269.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-56, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Berkowitz, Dyson, Elton, Hodgins,
and Vezey. Members absent were Ivan.
HJR 21 - REQUESTING CONGRESS TO AMEND ANILCA
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HJR 21, Relating to amendment of Title VIII
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
Number 0035
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES explained she had been requested to move HJR
21 to the House Rules Standing Committee. She asked for a motion.
Number 0050
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS moved that HJR 21 move from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s).
Number 0071
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON and REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ
objected at the same time.
Number 0115
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated he was sorry that Representative
Ivan Ivan was not here because his views carried a lot of weight
with him on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ further stated it was unfortunate that we
were proceding in this manner. Senator Ted Stevens expressly
indicated that the resolution complicated matters. It was a
mistake to fly in the face of his warning. More work should have
been done when imposing a solution on a problem that required
consensus to move forward, especially since the testimony indicated
this was highly contentious. Ultimately, the state would have to
be united in its approach to the subsistence question. "I don't
think HJR 21 unites, it divides."
Number 0205
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated he had been surprised at the
vehement reaction to the resolution when to him it appeared to be
a good option to explore. He had hoped that the resolution would
produce a lot more meaningful dialogue instead of the polarized
reactions. "I don't think that it is going to be the solution as
Representative Berkowitz says until there is some buy in by all the
parties." However, we have got to move because of the October 1,
1997 deadline. He believed that there would be a draconian impact
on Alaska's subsistence of fish and game as a result of the take
over by the federal government. He did not think that HJR 21 by
itself would solve the problem. But, there were two other
proposals that could be part of the solution. Therefore, he agreed
to move the bill forward. He did not want people to think that he
had caved in on his views. The resolution was a good faith attempt
for a solution. It was in no way meant to diminish the rights to
the use of Alaska's fish and game.
Number 0398
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated HJR 21 was a solution that favored one
wing of those affected. The other solutions that Representative
Dyson referred to had yet to be heard. House Joint Resolution 21
was the only solution moving forward. He noted that there had been
two or three special sessions over the past seven years on the
issue of subsistence. "I guess I think that this moving forward
with this bill is divisive. I think it drives wedges between the
people who need to come toward the middle for a solution. And, I
agree absolutely with Senator Ted Stevens about the impact of this
particular solution." He objected to moving the resolution and to
moving it this late in the session.
Number 0554
CHAIR JAMES stated the solution to the issue would not be solved by
the legislature but by the public. She would not say that HJR 21
was not needed, nor would she say that the language was not
correct. There were three components to the solution: a
resolution to be sent to Congress; a statute to be written in an
Alaskan way; and a constitutional amendment to be enacted that
would not violate the common use clause, and that would give
similar protection and comfort as the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) gave. She would move the
resolution forward, but her recommendation would be amend rather
than do pass.
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James,
Dyson, Hodgins and Vezey voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted against the motion.
House Joint Resolution 21 was so moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HB 55 - ALASKA RR BUDGET AND LAND
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 55, "An Act relating to the fiscal
operations of the Alaska Railroad Corporation and to land acquired
by the State of Alaska under the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of
1982 or otherwise acquired for railroad purposes; and providing for
an effective date."
Number 0720
CHAIR JAMES explained the plan for the bill was to hold it over
until Tuesday, May 6, 1997, in order to take additional testimony.
Number 0799
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Alaska State Legislature, explained
the bill was introduced on behalf of the Legislative Budget and
Audit Joint Committee after allegations that the Alaska Railroad
was not following the procedure act for the state of Alaska. A
letter by Norman C. Gorsuch, Attorney General, dated May 26, 1984,
indicated that the state should not neglect its responsibility to
privatize the railroad. The legislature only wanted to be a
conduit to save the railroad because the federal government wanted
to get rid of it. Since then there had been efforts to privatize
the railroad and to stop it, but that was a different battle. The
bill did not deal with privatization, selling the railroad, or the
land. It only dealt with bringing the corporation under the
Executive Budget Act (EBA) like every other corporation in the
state. Last year, a letter from Tamara Brandt Cook, Director,
Division of Legal and Research Services, indicated that the state
must bring the Alaska Railroad under the EBA. Therefore, the
legislature on behalf of the public would be able to protect the
land, resources, and other assets that belonged to the state.
Number 1070
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, was the next person to
testify in Juneau. The Administration was not in support of the
bill. The opinion from 1984 referred to by Representative Martin
was being misrepresented. There were varying types of corporations
in the state in different business. The legislature had chosen to
treat each of the corporations differently under the EBA. There
had been other corporations that had been totally off budget. The
opinion in 1984 was a value judgement of the type of entity that
would operate the Alaska Railroad. The legislature chose that it
would be an entity that was capable of conducting business as a
private corporation, but also recognizing that it was a
governmental entity. The legislature wanted it to run without
subsidy on a business type budget, not a governmental type budget;
otherwise, it would be bound by the state's fiscal year, line-
items, and the requirements of the EBA.
MR. BALDWIN further stated there was concern that access to the
credit market would be impaired by placing the railroad under the
EBA. The railroad took advantage of a small issuers exemption to
the Internal Revenue Code which gave a better interest rate because
it was under $10 million. If the railroad was lumped with the
state under the EBA it would not be considered less than $10
million and the cost of borrowing would be more.
Number 1285
DOROTHY URBACH was the first person to testify via teleconference
in Seward. She was opposed to the bill because it would limit
flexibility to the customers on long-term contracts. It would also
limit financing for future acquisitions. The Alaska Railroad had
a very efficient board of directors and was making a profit. "Why
destroy it?" she asked.
Number 1337
JOHNE BINKLEY was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Fairbanks. He currently served on the board of directors for the
Alaska Railroad. He had also served in the Alaska State
Legislature, and had been part of a family business for his entire
life. There were many reasons to oppose the bill and there was
only one reason to pass the bill.
MR. BINKLEY further stated the Alaska railroad retained its earned
revenue unlike any other agency. The bill would preclude the
railroad from enjoying the status that allowed it to get a lower
interest rate from banks. It would also violate the covenant in
the existing long-term debt and would have the banks call on the
notes. The banks would no longer be able to enjoy the tax break
from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
MR. BINKLEY further stated it would preclude the railroad from
borrowing money in the future for capital expenditures because it
would require a legislative appropriation. The railroad relied
heavily on equipment. It would be disastrous to try and get money
from the legislature.
MR. BINKLEY further stated it would increase the risk to the state
of Alaska. The Alaska Railroad purchased its insurance for
catastrophic single occurrence coverage for up to $75 million.
There had been dozens of lawsuits against the Alaska Railroad
Corporation and not once had the state been named.
MR. BINKLEY further stated the railroad's peak season was the
summer months. The EBA would force the railroad to adopt the
state's fiscal year which ended on June 30. It did not make any
business sense to interrupt the fiscal year in the middle of the
busiest season. The railroad's fiscal year was the calendar year
ending in the off season which allowed for more efficiency.
MR. BINKLEY further stated that the federal government realized in
running the Alaska Railroad that it would not work if political
power was the board of directors. Political power was why the
railroad lost huge sums of money over the years. It was also why
the Railroad Act said to set it up as a private or separate
corporation. The bill would be in violation of the act, but he did
not know if the federal government would take action.
MR. BINKLEY further stated the only one reason to pass the bill was
to allow for the legislature to have more influence over the
running of the Alaska Railroad. He did not believe that the bill
would only allow for a small line in the front section of the
budget because he had seen how the legislature worked and how it
affected the operations of state agencies. The railroad ran on the
same principles as the private sector - customer service and
profit. In addition, he was appalled that a republican run
legislature was even considering this type of bill.
Number 1782
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Binkley if he received any
compensation from the Alaska Railroad now?
MR. BINKLEY replied, "Yes." He received a stipend as a board
member as called for in law.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated he now understood the testimony of
Mr. Binkley.
Number 1800
MR. BINKLEY replied, if Representative Hodgins was suggesting that
he was testifying because it was benefitting him financially, he
took exception to the comment. He worked in a family business with
over 140 employees that received a paycheck every Friday. His
employees were his primary focus. He was asked to serve on the
board. He did not serve because of a stipend. He served because
he felt a true and genuine obligation to keep something going that
worked for the state of Alaska.
Number 1832
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS apologized to Mr. Binkley.
Number 1837
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he was really uncomfortable about just
what happened. He was also uncomfortable because of the laughing
in the audience when people were testifying telephonically.
CHAIR JAMES asked the committee members and the audience to control
their gestures.
Number 1903
BILL SHEFFIELD, Chairman, Board of Directors, Alaska Railroad
Corporation, was the next person to testify via off-net in
Anchorage. He noted today was Railroad Day in Anchorage and Jolene
M. Molitoris, Federal Railway Administration, was here as well
wishing to testify.
MR. SHEFFIELD further stated there were three basic categories of
flaw in the bill: the impact on the private businesses that
thrived on the railroad, the governmental problems, and the damage
to the fundamental way the railroad was organized.
MR. SHEFFIELD explained the railroad was purchased from the federal
government so that Alaskans could control a vital transportation
corridor. The legislature understood that governmental railroads
were often run for political reasons and by bureaucrats. And, if
it had to compete for money with hospitals and schools, it would
fall into disrepair. Therefore, the railroad was set up precisely
to avoid the pitfalls. It was separated so that it could hire
professional managers whose goals were to provide good service,
earn a profit, and focus on safety. The bill would violate the
separation.
MR. SHEFFIELD explained the bill was bad for business and for the
contractors. Its business year was established to met the business
flow. The state's fiscal year would rip its business year right
down the middle of its busiest season. The railroad had to act
quickly because it was a service business. It could not wait for
the legislature to increase its budget or to collect the extra
revenue. The bill would also hurt its ability to borrow money to
upgrade equipment, expand its service, or track for example. The
loans were not written so that the interest and principle were
depended upon legislative appropriation. It was hard to believe
that a commercial lender would loan the railroad money at the
current interest rates if repayment was dependent upon legislative
appropriation. This would cause the railroad to either go under or
force it to go to the legislature for subsidy.
MR. SHEFFIELD explained the bill had been sold to the public as a
good governmental bill with no real oversight or added
responsibility for the state. The Alaska Railroad Corporation was
intentionally separated from the government so that any financial
obligations would not fall back to the state in the case of default
or liability. If the bill passed the state would be liable
regardless of the new tort reform law because with control came
responsibility and real cost.
MR. SHEFFIELD stated, in conclusion, the bill would add a layer of
governmental bureaucracy to a profitable and self-sustaining asset.
It would increase the cost of doing business and strain the ability
of the railroad to obtain financing for improvements affecting
customer service. It would undue the intent of the legislature in
1985, and it would expose the citizens and the Governor to
substantial liability.
Number 2245
JOLENE M. MOLITEROS, Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration, was the next person to testify via off-net. The
Clinton Administration was committed to a partnership that enhanced
rail transportation for the twenty-first century. She was here to
focus on the safe operations of the railroad and to enhance the
partnership. The railroad was a crucial transportation resource
for the future of the state. It was unique in the United States
because it represented the artery of the state's transportation
system. It was important to know that there was federal
legislation that would help the railroad compete for existing
transportation resources enhancing its ability to become more
profitable and safe. She reiterated she had been impressed with
the partnership around safety and customer service. It was the
type of relationships that the president believed would enhance the
transportation system in the twenty-first century to meet global
competition.
TAPE 97-56, SIDE B
Number 0001
TROY STRASS was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Seward. He started his career with the Alaska Railroad in
passenger services. He was concerned about the impact of the bill
on the budget cycle of the railroad. It was important to have the
money for the busy season in the summer months. He could not see
how the railroad could expand under the fiscal cycle of the state.
CHAIR JAMES announced the public testimony was closed for today.
The bill would be scheduled again for Tuesday, May 6, 1997.
Number 0068
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON apologized to Representative Martin for his
reaction earlier in light of the realization that he was not being
contemptuous to the testifiers.
HB 269 - CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 269, "An Act relating to permits to carry
concealed handguns; and relating to the possession of firearms."
Number 0094
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, sponsor of HB 269, explained the bill was
an attempt to tweak the existing law.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained Sec. 1 and Sec. 2 amended the
criminal statutes to make it clear that no felon, even a non-
violent felon, would ever be able to apply for a concealed carry
permit.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained Sec. 3, Sec. 5 and Sec. 15 cleaned
up the law to make it easier to enforce. Section 15 recognized the
right of an out-of-state permit holder to carry in the state of
Alaska. He suggested amending the bill to limit the time to 120
days - 30 days more than the 90 days required to get a permit. We
would not want a person to maintain his citizenship in another
state just for the purpose of carrying a concealed handgun without
getting a permit in Alaska. Section 3 and Sec. 5 improved the
definition that allowed municipalities and villages to prohibit the
possession of concealed weapons. Section 5 allowed for a person to
carry a concealed handgun into a restaurant even if it served
alcoholic beverages; as-long-as, the permittee did not consume
alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained Sec. 7 and Sec. 8 ensured that the
applicant received a copy of the law and required the Department of
Public Safety to compile a summary of the law. Section 8 required
the department to process the permit without waiting unduly long
for the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to complete the
background check. It also gave the authority to revoke a permit if
it received information that would make the permittee ineligible.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained Sec. 10 simplified the standards for
the qualifications to apply. It also allowed a person under the
age of 21 to carry with the permission of his parents, and only on
the parent's dwelling or place of business.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated he did not follow the parental
permission Representative Vezey explained in Sec. 10.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY apologized because it was not in Sec. 10, but
in the statute that Sec. 10 addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained Sec. 12 reduced the fee.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained Sec. 13 amended the language to give
the department the authority to suspend permits for anyone who was
ineligible under law to possess a handgun.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained Sec. 14 amended the language to
increase the elapsed time for a conviction of a misdemeanor from
"5" years to "6" years.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained Sec. 16 repealed prohibitions that
were not applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained Sec. 17 simplified some of the
definitions.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained Sec. 18 repealed redundant aspects
of the law.
Number 0354
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), was
the first person to testify in Juneau. The AOC was a statewide
conservation organization and the official state association of the
National Rifle Association. The AOC supported the right of an
individual to keep and bear arms, and the safe and ethical use of
firearms. The AOC supported the permit to carry a concealed
handgun, HB 269, and SB 141. The AOC was pleased that the debate
had gotten beyond the emotional stage and had gotten down to the
nuts and bolts of refining the law. The AOC in particular
supported the provisions of the right to carry wherever it was not
prohibited by law, the reciprocity, the accommodations for the
honorably retired police officers, the streamline process of the
application process, the improved protections for the permittee,
the concise definition of concealed handgun, and the strong stance
against felons having the same privileges. The AOC urged the
passage of HB 269.
Number 0473
STEVE HEYANO was the first person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. He was a student at the university. He supported HB
269. He held a concealed handgun permit. He wondered why the
opposition believed somebody would go through the permitting
process and still commit a crime. The common criminal would not go
through the hoops necessary to commit a crime. He stated, "All we
are are law abiding citizens trying to protect ourselves in pretty
much any where we go."
Number 0544
DUANE BUELL was the next person to testify in person in Juneau. He
had followed the concealed handgun legislation since the beginning.
He agreed with Representative Vezey that HB 269 was a clean up of
the existing law. He supported the bill fully.
Number 0584
PATRICK JOHNSON was the next person to testify via teleconference
in Homer. He taught a concealed carry class and had served in two
different law enforcement agencies over the years. He was
positively in favor of the bill. He supported the reciprocity
provision. It had yet to present a problem in other states,
otherwise the anti-gun press would report it. He supported the
provision to allow permittees to carry into a bar when not
consuming alcohol, the provision that recognized retired law
enforcement officers, and the provision to reduce the fees. As an
instructor, he had seen people not take the class because it was
too expensive. He recognized it was a catch-22 situation because
the fees supported the program, while at the same time it kept
people out that could potentially generate more fees. He noted in
conclusion that as an instructor he had not graduated a student
that he did not feel comfortable with.
Number 0735
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, was the next person to testify in
Juneau. He was concerned about the reciprocity issue. He
supported reciprocity if the permittee met the standards of the
state. He was concerned that a person could carry a concealed
handgun without being aware of the standards of Alaska. He
recognized that the fee could be high for some people. The
department was now spending close to the fee of $122 for two clerks
to run the program. If the fee was reduced to $99 the department
would try to live within the means, but it could mean that he would
have to cut back on the personnel. He did not want to go any lower
than two because he did not want to slow down the process. He was
also concerned about the issue of individuals in alcohol treatment
programs covered under current law which was not addressed in HB
269.
Number 0880
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey if the bill addressed
individuals in alcohol treatment programs?
Number 0891
MR. SMITH stated it was covered under current law.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey if the bill took it away?
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied we did not address the issue.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey if it was still there?
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied to the best of his knowledge it was
still there.
Number 0913
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Smith if reducing the fees would
slow down the permitting process?
Number 0920
MR. SMITH replied the permitting process took about 30 days. If
the fee was reduced to $99 and the volume did not change, it could
potentially affect the permitting process. The department would
have to cut back the times it was open for business.
Number 0958
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Smith what his other concern was
besides, reciprocity, fees, and individuals in substance abuse
programs?
MR. SMITH replied he could not recall another concern.
Number 1027
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Smith if there was information to
demonstrate that non-violent felons that were clean for 10 years
were a threat to public safety?
Number 1063
MR. SMITH replied he was not sure if there was any statistical data
for non-violent felons. He would be opposed to any violent felons
- ever - to carry a concealed handgun or a gun. He was concerned
in general about the state extending a privilege to someone who
violated the law. He did not have any strong feelings, however, if
after 10 years a non-violent felon should be punished for life.
Number 1104
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated there was a provision that allowed a
felon if he or she stayed out of the clutches of the law to get the
right to vote back.
Number 1142
GREG HALL was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Delta Junction. He supported HB 269. There was a language
difference in the sponsor statements between HB 269 and SB 141. He
could not see the difference in the bills, however. He found Sec.
5 redundant because if a person had a sip of alcohol with a gun it
was a violation of the law anyway. He was concerned about an
amendment offered to SB 141 that required the announcement of a
concealed gun upon entering a home when there were dishonest
people. He was also concerned about retirees. A person should not
be given special treatment after retirement because the part of
carrying a gun for his career was over. He did not have a problem
with active or reserve policemen, however.
Number 1369
DAVID WILLIAMS was the next person to testify in Juneau. He
supported HB 269 and believed that the changes were reasonable. It
was very aggravating to leave his gun behind when entering a hotel
or restaurant simply because there was a bar attached to the
premises. There were laws already on the books to prohibit
drinking while in possession of a gun. The reduction of the fees
would be appreciated because he knew of some people who could not
afford the cost. In Fairbanks, it amounted to $400 for a couple to
get their licenses. The prohibition of a derringer was silly
because it was designed as a concealed firearm. Relaxing the laws
would encourage more law abiding people to apply when only a little
over 2 percent of eligible Alaskans carried a license. In Florida,
not one innocent person had been killed or injured by a concealed
permittee in the eight years post its reform. A study of good
samaritans that came to the aid of violent crime victims indicated
that 80 percent were gun owners and many carried one with them or
in their car. A more user friendly concealed carry law would
benefit the citizens and contribute to the security of society.
Number 1568
HORACE BLACK was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Fairbanks. House Bill 269 was a good bill as it stood right now.
He could not in any way support CSSB 141(FIN) because it would be
detrimental and punitive to permittees. He quoted a statement by
a woman who left her gun in her car because she could not bring it
into the restaurant where violence broke out and many were killed.
There was a notable lacking of knowledge in regards to what other
states were doing from those that opposed this type of legislation
when it made sense to research what other were doing. The facts
indicated that concealed handguns saved money in preventative
crimes and the associated damage expense. Thousands of crimes were
prevented by permittees because they were there at the outset of
the incident while the police were called after the crime had been
committed. There were ten times more permit holders than police
officers. In addition, permit holders were honorable citizens and
the crime rate was about the same rate as the crime rate amongst
state legislatures and members of the United States Congress -
extremely small.
Number 2031
DEAN J. GUANELI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law, was the next person
to testify in Juneau. It was one thing to reduce the fees or speed
up the process, but it was another thing to tinker with the
underlying qualifications. He objected to changes in who and where
a person could carry a concealed handgun. Current law specified a
number of areas in the state where concealed handguns could not be
carried even with a permit. The areas were carefully considered
three years ago. They represented sensitive areas where tempers
flared and included the following: police departments,
correctional facilities, governmental offices, and domestic
violence shelters. House Bill 269 would wipe away their
protection. It had been said that all of the areas could rely on
current criminal trespassing laws for protection such as posting a
sign: "No concealed handguns". A sign would work only in private
buildings such as domestic violence shelters. It would not work in
public buildings such as the legislature because it would not
prohibit somebody from entering the premise. If a person failed to
leave a public building upon direction the crime of criminal
trespass was committed. Therefore, there could be signs posted in
public buildings, but they would not make a bit of difference.
MR. GUANELI further stated that there were 6,000 permittees or 1
percent of the Alaskan population. Therefore, 99 percent of
Alaskans did not carry a concealed handgun. The individuals that
did not carry felt more comfortable in public buildings knowing it
was against the law to have a concealed handgun. It was a balance
between the desires of the 1 percent who carried and the comfort
level of the 99 percent who did not carry.
MR. GUANELI further stated current law indicated who could and who
could not carry a concealed handgun. Individuals, for example, in
a treatment program could not obtain a permit unless they had been
out of treatment for three years. The bill, however, would repeal
that protection.
TAPE 97-57, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. GUANELI further stated that any of the provisions in AS
18.65.705, "Qualification to obtain a permit" should not be swept
away. They were more specific than federal law and provided more
guidance.
MR. GUANELI further stated in regards to reciprocity, unless there
was a provision indicating that the requirements of another state
were as strict as Alaska's, you elevated the rights of nonresidents
above the rights of residents. Nonresidents could carry a gun when
hunting, fishing, or hiking for protection before there was a
concealed handgun permit law - all the reasons for a tourist to
carry a gun. There were provisions in Alaska law that did not
exist in other states. For example, provisions in Alaska law
required a person to inform a police officer that he or she was
carrying a concealed handgun. People from other states would not
know that they were required to do that thereby putting them at
risk of violating the law. At the least, the state should limit
its reciprocity with those states that had the same requirements.
It was the same concept as a drivers license, except that there was
a broad interstate compact amongst the states.
Number 0249
CHAIR JAMES stated she understood the public's fear of guns. She
asked Mr. Guaneli how we could change the public's view by
separating the gun from the carrier?
Number 0334
MR. GUANELI replied he was not certain how to change public
perception. People had very deeply held beliefs on some subject
matters including guns. There were a lot of honest and law abiding
citizens who believed that guns made them safer. There were also
a lot of honest and law abiding citizens who believed that guns put
them in greater danger.
Number 0407
CHAIR JAMES stated there were a lot of dead people who believed
that their only protection was the police. Her basic belief was
that a person had responsibility for himself.
Number 0475
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated, in regards to testimony from Mr.
Guaneli, a sign would not do anything except inform. The sign
itself was not a physical barrier from a person carrying onto the
premise a concealed weapon. He asked Mr. Guaneli to clarify what
he meant by the signs prohibiting.
Number 0526
MR. GUANELI replied in a private building if a sign was posted and
a person entered with a concealed handgun it was a crime. In a
public building if a sign was posted and a person entered with a
concealed handgun it was not a crime until the person was
confronted and directed to leave.
Number 0576
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated the only thing that would stop a person
was a search. The word "prohibit" was being used differently.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Guaneli how was it possible to
balance the right of a person to protect himself with the
prohibited places, particularly for those that had been a victim of
domestic violence? Essentially, the law said to a stalker where he
could go when a victim was vulnerable.
Number 0681
MR. GUANELI replied there was no evidence to indicate that a
stalker waited for a person to enter an area where a concealed
handgun was prohibited. He would prefer to maintain the sanctity
of sensitive areas rather than opening them up to concealed
handguns.
Number 0739
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he saw the sanctity of a person being
able to protect himself as a higher need.
Number 0760
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated as a private pilot when he flew into
Canada he familiarized himself with the laws. Ignorance should not
protect somebody from the law in regards to reciprocity.
Number 0796
MR. GUANELI agreed ignorance of the law was not an excuse.
Number 0800
CHAIR JAMES stated experience had shown that a person had to park
his gun at various times throughout the day due to the prohibitions
in law. She believed that leaving a gun in a car, for example, was
the most dangerous place because the owner was not in control of
it. The safest place to keep a gun was concealed on the owner's
body because no one would know it was there and the owner would be
in control. She was more concerned about the individuals that were
carrying a concealed handgun without a permit because they felt
danger.
Number 0962
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained his experience with a concealed
weapon was with a narcotics trafficker. The fact that the
trafficker had a permit was of assistance to law enforcement. He
wondered if AS 11.61.200(a)(12) with the exception of the language
"is concealed" was the same as AS 11.61.200(a)(1).
Number 1052
MR. GUANELI stated the two provisions were very similar. Non-
violent felons would be allowed to obtain a permit after a certain
period of time elapsed. Alaska Statute 11.61.200(a)(1) stated a
felon could not possess a concealed handgun with some exceptions
until 10 years had elapsed. Alaska Statute 11.61.200(a)(12) stated
a felon could not knowingly possess a concealed handgun.
Number 1134
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he was puzzled by the comment made by
Representative Berkowitz in regards to a narcotics trafficker being
allowed to carry a concealed carry permit.
Number 1151
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained the language sweep on page 2,
lines 13-14, would not include a convicted narcotics trafficker
with a concealed weapon.
Number 1178
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated it would still be a felony to possess
any narcotic with the intent to sell. And, 10 years would still
have to elapse before he or she was eligible for a permit.
Number 1202
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated a person convicted of vehicular
assault not involving a weapon would be unable to use the
affirmative defense under (a)(12). Whereas, a person convicted of
a narcotics defense involving a weapon, but not convicted on the
weapons portion, would be able to use the affirmative defense under
(a)(12).
Number 1234
MR. GUANELI explained the critical point was the language on page
2, line 15, "and". A person convicted of burglary after 10 years
time could only possess a concealed weapon in his own house; on his
land; or when engaged in hunting, fishing, trapping, or other
lawful outdoor activities.
Number 1301
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, was the next person to
testify in Juneau. The council was concerned that individuals with
domestic violence offenses would be eligible for a permit.
Legislation was passed at the federal level prohibiting an
individual with a domestic violence offense from obtaining a
permit. Alaska's definitions revised last year were broader. The
council was also concerned about the removal of domestic violence
and sexual assault programs as places were concealed handguns would
be banned. Domestic violence shelters would be able to post a sign
and were secured facilities. However, there were outreach offices
for most of the programs for the community based clients. In
addition, most domestic violence offenders did not have a criminal
record. They would be eligible for a permit.
Number 1456
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Andreen if anything had been done to prohibit
a woman from coming to a shelter with a concealed handgun?
Number 1476
MS. ANDREEN replied, currently, a woman would not be able to bring
a concealed handgun into a shelter.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Andreen if HB 269 allowed her to do that?
MS. ANDREEN replied it could depending on interpretation.
Number 1501
JERRY BAGNESCHI was the next person to testify via teleconference
from Anchorage. He was in support of HB 269 and SB 141. He was
concerned about the prohibition of guns in the schools because his
wife attended the university in Anchorage where there had been
several rapes on campus. In Fairbanks, several women had been
killed on campus. There should be a provision for colleges.
Number 1588
TUCKERMAN BABCOCK, Legislative Assistant to Senator Lyda Green, was
the next person to testify in Juneau. He was here to answer any
questions in regards to SB 141 or HB 269 and its relationship to SB
141.
MR. BABCOCK noted the concerns of the Department of Public Safety
had been addressed in SB 141 with the amended reciprocity
provisions. In addition, the Alaska's Peace Officers Association
objected to the lowering of the fees, otherwise it supported SB
141. The police chiefs of Valdez and the North Slope Borough
endorsed SB 141. The police chief of Wasilla also spoke in favor
of the bill.
MR. BABCOCK further noted the experience of the last two and a half
years had shown that a concealed handgun had yet to be used. And,
despite the provisions that discriminated against a person from
carrying a concealed handgun versus carrying an opened handgun into
certain areas, the public safety question had been answered.
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Babcock if HB 269 allowed somebody
to enter a home with a concealed handgun if a sign was not posted?
Number 1764
MR. BABCOCK replied a provision was added in the Senate Finance
Committee, which Senator Green did not support, that would require
a person to announce when entering a home that he or she was
carrying a concealed weapon. House Bill 269 did not have the same
requirement.
Number 1809
BILL JONES was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Barrow. He supported HB 269 as written. Law abiding Alaskans had
already proven that they could handle the responsibility of
carrying a concealed weapon. The opposition in general was
emotional and not backed up with facts or statistics.
Number 1847
LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, was the next person to testify in
Juneau. The network did not support the changes in Sec. 10, Sec.
13 and Sec. 16 and would prefer the current law.
MS. HUGONIN stated there were some circumstances where a person
would not be eligible to carry a firearm. The courts had ordered
the forfeiture of a deadly weapon if it was in the actual
possession of or used by the defendant during the commission of a
crime of domestic violence, crimes against a person, or crimes of
theft, for example, in Alaska. Another circumstance was a person
knowingly possessing a firearm that was capable of being concealed
if he or she had been convicted. In addition, there were a couple
of circumstances when a protective order was granted that a person
would be required to not use a gun while committing a crime of
domestic violence. The network believed that a person who had
committed a domestic violence crime should not be permitted to
carry a concealed weapon.
MS. HUGONIN stated the proposed bill loosened the protections in
Sec. 13 that were currently available because it only applyed to a
person convicted of a second class "A" misdemeanor.
MS. HUGONIN stated the network was primarily concerned about
domestic assault facilities in Sec. 16. She did not agree that a
person could carry a concealed or opened handgun into a secured
facility because he would be stopped at the door. A victim would
be asked to turn over her weapon until further arrangements were
made and she was ready to leave the shelter. A victim would not be
penalized if she brought her weapon with her to a shelter, however.
MS. HUGONIN stated she was concerned about reciprocity and the
deletion of certain training requirements in Sec. 18. It would be
a helpful safeguard to require training before reissuing a permit.
CHAIR JAMES stated from her experience individuals preparing to
carry a concealed handgun would not forget their training. They
often engaged in target practice and were very concerned about
safety, therefore, additional training would not be necessary.
Number 2352
HAL HUME was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Fairbanks. He had been a state police officer for over 15 years
and was a certified firearms instructor. Vermont had the right
approach because constitutionally good and honest citizens had the
right to carry a firearm - concealed and opened. Studies had shown
there was less crime in states that had a concealed carry law. He
had a problem with bureaucrats that assumed the majority of the
citizens were not stable and responsible individuals so that they
needed to be controlled. A concealed carry law was simply
protecting the public from honest and responsible citizens, not
criminals.
TAPE 97-57, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. HUME further stated the automobile was just as much of a weapon
as a firearm when the state did not require training in a
classroom, for example. If the state was concerned about death and
accidents, it should consider better training for drivers as
opposed to additional firearm training. In addition, he wondered
why a permittee would be required to submit his firearm to a police
officer if demanded. It would only create a chance for accidental
discharge.
Number 0080
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HB 269 move from the committee
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s).
There was no objection, HB 269 was so moved from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0095
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 10:35 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|