Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/13/2000 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
April 13, 2000
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Hal Smalley
Representative Scott Ogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 16
Relating to Avalanche Awareness Month.
- MOVED SCR 16 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 13
Creating the Commission on Alaska's Future.
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 294(JUD), "An Act relating to the
possession of concealed handguns and to concealed handgun
permits."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 444
"An Act relating to nongovernmental activities of state agencies,
including the University of Alaska; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SCR 16
SHORT TITLE: AVALANCHE AWARENESS MONTH
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/17/00 2641 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
3/17/00 2641 (S) STA
3/30/00 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/30/00 (S) Bill Postponed To 4/6/00
4/06/00 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
4/06/00 (S) Moved Out of Committee
4/06/00 (S) MINUTE(STA)
4/07/00 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/07/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/07/00 2928 (S) STA RPT 4DP
4/07/00 2928 (S) DP: WARD, ELTON, PHILLIPS, GREEN
4/07/00 2929 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.STA)
4/10/00 2950 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR 04/10/00
4/10/00 2956 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/10/00 2956 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1 SCR 16
4/10/00 2960 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/10/00 2978 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
4/10/00 2978 (H) STA
4/13/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HCR 13
SHORT TITLE: COMMISSION ON ALASKA'S FUTURE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/11/99 1317 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/11/99 1317 (H) STA, FIN
3/27/00 2717 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CISSNA, CROFT
4/13/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 294
SHORT TITLE: CONCEALED HANDGUNS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/21/00 2678 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
3/21/00 2678 (S) JUD
3/27/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/27/00 (S) -- Rescheduled to 3/29/00 --
3/29/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
3/29/00 (S) Heard & Held
3/29/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
4/03/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
4/03/00 (S) Moved CS(Jud) Out of Committee
4/03/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
4/04/00 2854 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP SAME TITLE
4/04/00 2854 (S) DP: TAYLOR, TORGERSON, HALFORD
4/04/00 2854 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
4/06/00 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/06/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/10/00 2949 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR AND 2 OR 04/10/00
4/10/00 2951 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/10/00 2951 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/10/00 2951 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
4/10/00 2951 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 294(JUD)
4/10/00 2951 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 E1
4/10/00 2952 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/11/00 3010 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
4/11/00 3011 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/12/00 3072 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
4/12/00 3072 (H) STA, JUD
4/13/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JERRY BURNETT, Staff
to Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 125
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HCR 13.
ANGELA REAVIS
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HCR 13.
PAT COYNE
Sutton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HCR 13.
CHRIS NOOKES
Big Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HCR 13.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN KEMPLEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HCR 13.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HCR 13; presented suggestions.
JIM POUND, Acting Staff
to the Senate Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for SB 294.
PORTIA PARKER, Aide
to Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 125
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 294.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 294.
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 294.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-33, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Whitaker, Kerttula and
Smalley. Representatives Green and Ogan arrived as the meeting
was in progress. Representative Hudson was absent.
SCR 16 - AVALANCHE AWARENESS MONTH
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is SENATE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 16 Relating to Avalanche Awareness
Month.
JERRY BURNETT, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State
Legislature, read the sponsor statement for SCR 16 as follows:
Alaska is avalanche country. Each year Alaskans lose
their lives as a result of avalanches. One of the
worst years was 1999 when 14 people were killed by
avalanches in Alaska.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 16 would proclaim November
as "Avalanche Awareness Month." This proclamation
would raise public awareness of the hazards associated
with avalanches and the opportunities to participate in
avalanche safety training at the beginning of the
winter recreation season. It is hoped that public
participation in avalanche safety programs would be
increased and that this increased participation would
result in saved lives during the winter.
The need for this resolution was brought to our
attention by the Backcountry Avalanche Awareness
Response Team (BAART).
Number 0191
ANGELA REAVIS testified via teleconference from the Matanuska-
Susitna (Mat-Su) Legislative Information Office (LIO). The
sister of Keith Coyne, who was killed in an avalanche in December
1999, she feels that passing SCR 16 can really raise awareness in
Alaska for many backcountry travelers. She hopes that people
understand how much family members of the dead support raising
awareness in the general public.
Number 0267
PAT COYNE testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO. The
mother of Keith Coyne, she asked the committee to please think
about passing SCR 16 because the community had just lost another
young man to an avalanche. She noted that Alaskans need to have
awareness and need it badly.
CHRIS NOOKES testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO. A
good friend of Keith Coyne and president of the Backcountry
Avalanche Awareness Response Team, she asked the committee's
support in passing SCR 16 to make November "Avalanche Awareness
Month." She indicated that in the wake of all the deaths in the
last year, Alaska really cannot afford any more deaths. She
agreed that there is need for more awareness, especially because
there is no longer an avalanche warning center in the state, even
though federal law mandates one.
Number 0432
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move SCR 16 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SCR 16 moved from the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
HCR 13-COMMISSION ON ALASKA'S FUTURE
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 13 Creating the Commission on Alaska's
Future.
Number 0546
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN KEMPLEN, Alaska State Legislature, said he
is the sponsor of a resolution creating the Commission on
Alaska's Future. He noted that the reason for putting HCR 13
forward is to address a number of different issues that bedevil
the state. Over the past few years, the state has been wrestling
with the difficulty of crafting a solution to the fiscal dilemma.
In the struggle, an increasing sense of divisiveness has been
observed among Alaskans, with Alaskans seemingly to slowly divide
into self-interest groups. The media has portrayed the struggle
as an urban-rural divide because Alaskans are no longer together
on what is to be done; the sense of common cause, purpose and
vision for where Alaska wants to be has been lost.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted that he had come across a good model
for Alaska in the state of Oregon. He had done research on the
Oregon model to ascertain how they crafted their program and
whether it had been effective. He found that it worked for that
state; in fact, they recently came out with the 1999 benchmark
performance report, which they call "Achieving the Oregon Shines
Vision." This model, which has won national awards for good
government, might be useful to Alaska because Oregon's situation
is remarkably similar to the struggles that Alaska is facing now.
Therefore, HCR 13 would allow the legislature to create an
"Alaska vision" modeled after the Oregon program, and it would
bring Alaskans together so that dialogue as neighbors could
occur. Out of that would come a sense of where Alaska wants to
go, what it wants to achieve, what performance it wants to
attain, and how to get there.
Number 0884
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said approximately three years ago the
City of Fairbanks had attempted something very similar to what
HCR 13 is proposing. Fairbanks had found that a group of
individuals came to every meeting and had been to every public
meeting for many years. It was a disparate group. On one hand
were those who felt that government should have a role in
virtually every function that the city was involved in; on the
other hand were those who did not want government in anything.
There was no compromise, and Fairbanks held many meetings that
came to no conclusion. He asked how Representative Kemplen would
avoid a similar situation with HCR 13.
Number 0958
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that a similar situation is
happening right now in Anchorage where a group is crafting the
update to the Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan. The
group had developed a steering group and a working committee
involving hundreds of residents. From the subsequent series of
meetings, the group did come to a standard of goals for the
community that people had agreed upon, and his sense from talking
to people is that there is support. What made the meetings
successful was the broadness of participation, whereas having an
initiative that is enough to get the activists participating
defines just a narrow slice of the community. Participants must
also reflect the broader will of the community, which is why the
commission is structured with a steering group but also a working
group that is fairly broad.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted that the Alaska Humanities Forum
held a series of town meetings last year, which they called
"Principles and Interest." Those meetings just focused on what
to do about the Alaska permanent fund, and it was a very
informative experience. The forum is planning to continue that
type of dialogue, but other groups out there also are organizing
themselves to get their members to talk about the future of the
state. He envisions that the commission would build upon citizen
initiatives and work with citizens in a real partnership so that
all Alaskans come together as a people. It is breadth of
participation that is most important to meetings, he emphasized,
so that what emerges is not just something that reflects a narrow
slice of a community but rather reflects the broadness of
community thinking.
Number 1240
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER mentioned that there are many who say
that broad-based input may be represented by the legislature, and
perhaps the legislature should do what Representative Kemplen is
suggesting by HCR 13 because that is the legislature's job.
Representative Whitaker indicated that the legislature should
describe a vision for the future of Alaska and take that to the
people when seeking input. He asked what role the legislature
plays as Representative Kemplen envisions it.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that the legislature does play a
very important role, and in this commission the legislature
serves as the final arbiter of the vision because there has to be
somebody who makes the decisions. He noted that there is a
pervasive citizen distrust of the legislature, for whatever
reasons. As a result, it is difficult for the legislature to
make decisions on behalf of the whole state when the citizens do
not trust the legislature to do anything. He suggested that
legislators have to reach out and rebuild that sense of trust
with citizens. He surmised that part of the problem with the
legislature is that it has been difficult to develop a statewide
vision when representatives are focused on their particular
geographic areas; he indicated it is difficult for
representatives from one area of this large state to understand
the needs of people in other regions.
Number 1482
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he understood that six members of the
public would know what the legislature is doing, according to the
commission setup. He asked how the public members will
communicate legislative trust with any effect to the rest of the
state. He also asked whether Representative Kemplen really
believes that what will come out of HCR 13, should it pass, would
make any difference.
Number 1502
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN clarified that there are more than six
members on the commission; the six public members are the
steering committee. There is also the working group, where much
of the dialogue occurs. The working group would invite
participation from all parts and segments of Alaska to define a
common agenda. He envisions that from the working group would
come the crafting of a shared set of Alaskan values.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that the idea of HCR 13 is
laudable, but he is concerned because communities hold community
council meetings and town hall meetings but only about one-tenth
of 1 percent of the population attends, and perhaps only 10
percent read about the meetings. He asked what Representative
Kemplen is going to do differently with HCR 13 to energize the
populace. He said he sees HCR 13 as another of many [reports]
that stack up and gather dust. There will be a reporting back
[to the legislature], the legislature will talk about it, and
that will be the end of it. He asked how Representative Kemplen
would avoid that.
Number 1611
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that he would avoid it by
enlisting civic organizations in the project because it is not
just a small, elite group of people going out and holding some
public hearings about what Alaska should be doing. The way the
commission is structured, it involves active citizen engagement,
and it requires or encourages participation of various civic
organizations. The result of HCR 13 would be a joining with
other organizations such as the Alaska Municipal League, school
boards, cultural groups, community councils and Rotary Clubs; all
of these would be part of the working group, and they would
include the discussion about the future of this state on their
agenda this fall. There would be an extensive dialogue about
Alaska's future, and it would not be just an isolated group of
people doing a nice report that sits on the shelf. The
commission would engage and reach out to Alaskans in a serious
discussion about where Alaska is going.
Number 1748
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated his concern stems from a two-day
[House] Resources [Committee] meeting that he had attended
several years ago in Ketchikan when problems began regarding
logging the Tongass; there was some very vocal input from 25
people because [logging] was their livelihood. He said he could
not imagine a more energized group of people, yet he is afraid
that the concept of HCR 13 is going to follow the same problems
the legislature has had with all these other meetings in that no
one is going to be able to energize the public.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN answered that if all the legislature does
is rely upon various committees of the commission to garner
support and engage people in discussion, the legislature will not
get very much. It is crucial to partner up with civic
organizations and get them to join the initiative. It requires
the steering committee to send out a call asking for all civic
organizations to join in this crucial conversation about Alaska's
future and to work with the commission this fall.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted that during the summer everybody is
out enjoying the beautiful land, but when September comes people
start participating in their organizations again and start
looking for topics; this fall, each of those organizations across
the state could be discussing Alaska's future. He noted that
newspapers carry organization meeting calendars; there would be
100 people that are showing up at the East Rotary Club meeting,
for example. Participation would be far-ranging in trying to
craft a common vision for Alaska.
Number 2031
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if Representative Kemplen thought
the commission would produce a report with graphs and percentages
like Oregon's benchmark performance report.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said that would be the ultimate objective.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that to her the graphs and
percentages are the most exciting thing about that report.
Although she is not sure how much involvement can be attained,
she said it is great if the legislature can even put together the
framework for something like HCR 13. She noted that she had
looked at some of Oregon's report on page 15 regarding tobacco
and alcohol use; there is a measurement - from 1980 through what
appears to be a projection through 2010 - on the percentage of
eighth-grade students who reported using cigarettes in the
previous month. Therefore, it is obvious that Oregon has done
its research. She suggested that kind of quantifiable
information really might help the legislature. She indicated
that in most scientific analyses and certainly in environmental
law, having no way to make a reasonable judgment because a
benchmark is lacking has always been one of the biggest problems.
She emphasized that HCR 13 looks like a great idea to her in
terms of just getting the information.
CHAIR JAMES asked how much HCR 13 would cost.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said he had asked civic organizations how
much organizing events and posting meetings would cost. He said
the only recent forum that he saw was the Principles and Interest
Forum, done by the Humanities Forum; they had gone out to close
to 100 community get-togethers. The Humanities Forum also
published a report. They had told him it only cost $250,000.
CHAIR JAMES reminded Representative Kemplen that the forum was
discussing just one issue, but he is talking about hundreds of
issues.
Number 2215
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that he was also talking about
enlisting many other organizations in the development of these
goals about where Alaska wants to go.
CHAIR JAMES recalled that the second year she came to the
legislature, the legislature had established a long-term
financial task force; some of the members of that task force were
the smartest and best in the state, and they worked day and night
through the legislative interim to come back to the legislature
with a report about just how to balance the budget. She did not
know how much that report cost. Unfortunately, when the task
force came back with its answer, the public did not buy it and,
consequently, neither did the legislature. However, in hindsight
the task force was probably right. If this commission is right
on but the public does not buy in, it would not happen, she
concluded, because the public drives the system. She recounted
some of her person history working with the Community Action
Program. She concluded that HCR 13 is idealistic and sounds good
on paper, but it looks to her like a driving issue, and people
cannot be driven. If an ideal world existed, HCR 13 would be an
ideal way to find answers.
Number 2215
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN disagreed, saying HCR 13 is no idealism
but is real.
CHAIR JAMES replied that she has talked with people in Oregon,
and this is not what they are telling her.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN noted that he has been talking with people
in Oregon also, and perhaps Chair James has been talking to the
wrong people.
CHAIR JAMES answered that she has been talking with her people
and Representative Kemplen has been talking with his, and she and
he are on different sides of the fence.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN explained that HCR 13 is a tangible
product and it has made improvements, but he admitted that
nothing is perfect. He said he is not idealistic enough to think
he can create the perfect solution; nevertheless, progress can be
made. He envisions that HCR 13 is progress. Oregon had made
progress with this program, and it has helped them to come
together, though not perfectly. He said the New England town
meeting style of public engagement is not liberalism but is the
core of what America is all about.
Number 2506
CHAIR JAMES indicated that people who live in her district are
interested in their community, and they participate. However,
when the process is expanded further, fewer people are found who
are willing to go that far; thus some of the voices in the
community get lost in the overall picture. She emphasized that
it is the legislature's job to bring community voices to a common
goal here in the Alaska legislature as issues are determined.
She agreed 100 percent with the town meeting process, saying
there is probably an overall goal to have such an organization as
HCR 13 proposes, but she is not certain that it should be
sponsored by the government, which gives it a different tone.
CHAIR JAMES said she wants to listen to all the people and get
them to the polls to vote. She recounted how she had sent a
letter to constituents who had not voted a few years ago, asking
the reasons; most said they were busy doing something else, and
some would have voted if they could have voted for "none of the
above." She said that when things are tough, people will
participate, but when things are running smoothly, people fade
off into the sunset.
Number 2641
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked how much the Oregon project cost.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied that he did not know but could get
that information.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY commented that the Alaska Municipal League
(AML) could even do some research, and maybe there have been some
other studies similar to the Oregon benchmark report. He
mentioned that "if you fail to plan then you are planning to
fail." He agreed that it would behoove the state to identify
just exactly where the state is going, how to get there, what the
costs are, who will pay the costs, and how much each citizen is
going to share in this ride. Although HCR 13 has merit, selling
the public on it will involve the 60 legislators going in 60
different directions, as well as the AML, city councils and
Chambers of Commerce, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY suggested that the ability to have private
contributions for something like HCR 13 would be beneficial. He
added that a plan for the future or a direction needs to be
identified and attached to the long-range fiscal plan in order to
attract voters. He recognized that education can be accomplished
via the different entities within communities across the state.
However, HCR 13 is not going to happen overnight, and hopefully
the 161 municipalities can begin by talking about a direction
that they, as communities, can help give by doing more than just
community comprehensive plans. He again requested information
about the Oregon figures.
Number 2797
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League, noted
that committee members had a copy of a resolution passed by the
AML Board of Directors in support of establishing a Commission on
Alaska's Future, which occurred after Representative Kemplen had
talked to several board members about the concept. On April 5,
on a teleconference, the board had passed a resolution supporting
HCR 13. He said the conversation that the committee is having
today is interesting, and it would be nice to say that every
committee is right about their comments. He agreed that many
reports stay on the shelf and all the things that the committee
said are true on both sides. He quoted Yogi Berra as saying "If
you don't know where you are going, you may end up someplace
else."
MR. RITCHIE explained that the interesting thing is that
municipal leaders are really enthusiastic about the enthusiasm
that Alaskans share regarding the future of the state, and if
each Alaskan is asked individually, he/she will give input. What
the state has not done is ask Alaskans, in a coordinated way,
about the vision nor allowed all Alaskans to interchange their
thoughts. He agreed that a type of system like HCR 13 actually
could work. The real question is: How does government get
people to participate? And if they do participate, how does
government get leaders to follow the input of the public? He
reminded the committee that traditional ways do not work.
MR. RITCHIE remarked that he was involved with the long-range
financial planning commission and went to all of their meetings.
The process involved some public hearings but focused on the
judgments of people on the commission. He recommended that if
there was a system like HCR 13, the central group of people
coordinating it should not consider themselves the judgment body
but the steering body, to make sure that people participate and
feel empowered in that participation. He recognized that
empowerment would be the biggest change from the system that he
had been involved in at that time.
Number 2824
MR. RITCHIE observed that there are ways that work in obtaining
and channeling public participation. For example, the
traditional way of advertising a public hearing in a regional
newspaper in the legal section does not get people to
participate. He recalled that in New Stuyahok, where the AML
had been talking with people about public participation, the
residents said they got everybody in town to participate not by
advertising but by offering door prizes; that is the kind of
thinking that really works. He mentioned that Representative
Smalley had been involved in a prototype long-range fiscal plan
process held in Kenai, and rather than just listen to the public,
there was a very organized system.
TAPE 00-33, SIDE B
Number 2981
MR. RITCHIE suggested that instead of advertising an event, for
example, the legislature should consult the voter list and take a
random sample right off the registered voter list. The
legislature could send a letter to the voters and then call them
to say they had been chosen randomly from the entire community
to help make decisions. He acknowledged that an allegation could
always be made that an event should be a generally advertised
event, and it is good to invite everybody, but there needs to be
some assurance that there is going to be a representative sample
of folks present. He remarked that there are different things
that can be done and the AML would be excited about doing HCR 13.
He explained that the reason the AML only had one hearing last
year was because political events about revenue-sharing overtook
the AML, and other communities were not willing to hold more
hearings [about that] as opposed to other things that had to be
done at that time. He concluded that the AML would be excited
about participating in a process, and he does not believe it has
to be totally state- or local-government-centered.
Number 2921
CHAIR JAMES observed that she has put together many brainstorming
sessions and workshops, and they did come up with some really
good ideas. She has found that in the political process, if
people get wind that something is going to happen about which
they are interested, they will call their friends and all come to
the meeting, thus becoming the majority at the meeting. Noting
that Representative Kerttula had raised the subject of
statistics, Chair James said legislators love statistics but they
cost money. In fact, administrative chores are a result of
demands for statistics from the legislature and the federal
government.
CHAIR JAMES said she has little confidence in polling because it
depends on how the questions are asked. Nevertheless, gathering
statistics and polling are necessary as a society. However, the
value and cost are the measurements of whether gathering
statistics is worth the cost.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN responded that the legislature is facing a
significant challenge in the state regarding how to meet real
needs in a fiscally sound manner, and in a way that the public
will support. He agreed with Chair James that not many people
participate and those who do participate have their own well-
defined agendas. He noted that there is an increasing isolation
from one another caused by technology. People are in their own
little worlds because of television and computers, and there is
no connection being built between neighbors. He suggested that
loss of a sense of statewide community is the biggest challenge
that Alaska faces. He emphasized that the Commission on Alaska's
Future would reach out and engage Alaskans in true discussion
about community. [HCR 13 was held over.]
SB 294-CONCEALED HANDGUNS
Number 2662
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is CS FOR SENATE
BILL NO. 294(JUD), "An Act relating to the possession of
concealed handguns and to concealed handgun permits."
JIM POUND, Acting Staff to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alaska
State Legislature, presented the sponsor statement for CSSB
294(JUD). He told members that [Alaska's concealed handgun law]
has been one of the most successful "concealed carry" programs in
the United States. That success is based on the original intent
of the legislation to allow only knowledgeable, law-abiding
citizens to obtain state permits to carry concealed handguns.
However, there are several recurring problems with implementation
and management of the state's program. He believes the bill will
improve and streamline the process to obtain and renew a
concealed handgun permit.
Number 2630
MR. POUND informed the committee that the bill will eliminate
some cumbersome and unnecessary language written into the statute
in that applicants will no longer be required to have a sworn
application and permit holders will be allowed to submit their
renewal applications up to 60 days, rather than 30 days, after
expiration. It will also give the agency more time to complete
the renewal process before the expiration date; a new photograph
will be required every ten years, instead of every five (the same
as for a state driver's license); and new thumbprints will no
longer be required during the renewal process because prints
never change.
MR. POUND noted that the bill also makes changes to some of the
training and education statutes, streamlining the process and
making reciprocity with other states more attainable. The
applicant will be required to provide evidence of completion of a
handgun or firearms safety course, but the bill eliminates the
more subjective requirement by eliminating the specific statutory
definition of "competence," which is causing problems with
reciprocity and/or recognition with other states. He added that
Alaska State Troopers now will be authorized by statute to help
teach handgun courses, which may generate additional revenue.
Mr. Pound pointed out that CSSB 294(JUD) makes the statute apply
equally to all citizens statewide and clarifies the standards for
recognition of permits from other states.
Number 2518
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noticed that CSSB 294(JUD) drops the language
on page 1, line 14, and page 2, lines 1 and 2, where it says "and
the possession did not occur in a municipality or established
village in which the possession of concealed handguns is
prohibited under." He asked whether that drops the provision of
law that allows a municipality to prohibit concealed handguns.
MR. POUND replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN surmised that the language was dropped in
order to comply with the uniform application principle in the
constitution.
MR. POUND answered again in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that another part of CSSB 294(JUD) is
"successful completion of a handgun course" rather than
"competence with handguns." Himself a permit holder, he recalled
that the most helpful thing to him in the permitting process was
the videos about situations regarding when and when not to shoot,
and when it is appropriate to use deadly force. He asked if that
kind of training is still going to be required in the course. He
voiced his understanding that the bill would not require that a
person re-qualify with a handgun.
Number 2408
MR. POUND replied that as he understands it, the basic course
itself will be maintained but the actual shooting portion may not
be maintained.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned that, frankly, he thinks it is a
God-given right to be able to defend oneself against a
perpetrator of a crime who is bent on harming another person or
that person's family. He indicated it would be nice if people
could shoot straight, and it is probably in their self-interest
to do that, but not everybody is going to be a handgun expert.
He emphasized that having the right to defend oneself on the
street should be prevalent over how well a person can handle the
gun; a person ought to be able to brandish the weapon and
hopefully dissuade someone from causing harm. Anyway, he added,
in an assault situation a person usually is close enough to be
effective with a weapon. He called the bill great legislation.
He then asked for help in understanding reciprocity with other
states.
Number 2318
MR. POUND replied that now Alaska's only reciprocity agreement is
with Texas because the laws are very similar; by changing some of
this legislation, Alaska will be able to have reciprocity with
some other states as well; which states Alaska will deal with
depends upon negotiations down the line.
Number 2297
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked about Vermont, where everybody can
carry concealed [firearms] and they do not need a permit. He
suggested it is kind of like Sweden where people are almost
expected to carry concealed [firearms]. He asked if Alaska has
reciprocity with Vermont or whether a citizen from somewhere else
carry [firearms] in Vermont.
MR. POUND answered that he is not sure what the laws are in
Vermont, but he would imagine they are probably written in such a
way that a U.S. citizen visiting in Vermont can carry a concealed
weapon.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he takes a different tack and he
also carries a concealed weapon. He explained that he took the
handgun training course simply to find out whether it was going
to be a rubber stamp, or whether it was really going to be a
requirement that a person know how and when to use the gun. He
was very impressed with the legal aspect, which was a full
portion of the course. He indicated that repeating the course
probably should be required upon renewal because some people
forget. He recalled that a young lady in his class had a .32
[caliber handgun]; she did not know how to load it or unload it,
and she could not hit the target, but the trainer did teach her
how to aim. Representative Green suggested that it is imperative
to keep the proficiency test in the requirements in order to get
a permit because he is terrified to think that someone can get a
concealed carry [gun permit] and not know how to shoot.
Number 2189
MR. POUND indicated his belief that the proficiency requirement
is one of the primary glitches in the reciprocity aspect of SB
294. He mentioned that most states with concealed carry [laws]
do not require proficiency.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated that it is a big mistake.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that CSSB 294(JUD) says that it
drops competence [requirements] with handguns, but it does say
"successful completion of a handgun course." He asked if the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) has regulatory authority to
write what that phrase means, which he assumes they can.
Number 2149
MR. POUND replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN surmised, on Representative Green's point,
that DPS could write regulations saying that part of the criteria
of "successful completion of a handgun course" is that the person
be able to hit what he/she is shooting at.
MR. POUND answered that the regulation process could certainly
handle that criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if, by writing the statute with the
phrase "successful completion of a handgun course", it makes it
easier for reciprocity. He recognized that competency and being
able to hit the target could be required by regulation.
MR. POUND replied in the affirmative.
Number 2107
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said understood that under CSSB 294(JUD),
Alaska State Troopers will now be authorized or may be authorized
by statute to help teach handgun courses, which can generate
additional revenue. He asked whether this revenue would be
tagged program receipt money or is a designated fund. He also
asked whether this is on [troopers'] own time or would be
overtime, and inquired as to when this would happen.
MR. POUND answered that he is not really familiar with that part
or how that portion is going to be set up. He suspects that it
would be done through the regulation process, he added, because
CSSB 294(JUD) does not specifically address how it is going to be
accomplished.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY inquired if discussions were held with DPS
prior to that little clause being put into the bill.
MR. POUND replied that as far as he understands, there were prior
discussions.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked where the National Rifle Association
(NRA) stands on this issue.
Number 2044
MR. POUND answered that the NRA is very much in support of SB
294.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked whether Mr. Pound could get a
statement from the NRA.
MR. POUND replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said he thought it would be good to attach
the statement to SB 294.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that driver's license permits could
really be streamlined if proficiency were not required. He asked
Mr. Pound if the Senator had thought about doing something
similar.
MR. POUND answered that such streamlining is not on the agenda.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked which communities have actually
forbidden concealed weapons.
MR. POUND replied that he is not sure, but he thinks some of the
smaller communities have forbidden concealed weapons.
Number 1992
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA mentioned that there is a section in CSSB
294(JUD) about renewals and asked how renewals work right now.
She indicated that a permit holder can keep using an expired
permit if the renewal process has been delayed due to
circumstances not under the control of the applicant.
MR. POUND answered that presently the renewal is almost the same
as the initial process: the person has to have a sworn
application, provide a new photograph and thumbprint, and pay the
fee. He informed the committee that CSSB 294(JUD) eliminates
some of the steps: an individual will not have to get a new
photograph or thumbprint but just has to pay the fee. He added
that the original statute says that if a person's handgun license
expired today and he/she was caught tomorrow carrying a concealed
weapon, that individual would be in trouble.
Number 1936
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she cannot think of another example
where a renewal works this way. She inquired if the person could
wait until the last minute and still be timely in submitting a
renewal. She added that then the department would not have
enough time to process the renewal quickly enough. She asked if
the person could still use the expired license.
MR. POUND replied that if the person's license was expiring, they
now would have a 60-day window to still be legal to carry a
concealed weapon until the departmental [paper]work comes back.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if he could think of an example
where something like that is allowed right now.
MR. POUND answered that he could not think of an example.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated his understanding that the law said a
person could not apply sooner than 60 days before the expiration
date. He explained that he had applied shortly after that, and
had received his permit after his other one had expired, so there
was a week or two when he did not have a license. He explained
that the law said that if a person had the renewal receipt in
his/her possession, the police would honor the receipt because
there were so many people applying that the department was
backlogged.
Number 1848
MR. POUND commented that most people had applied for their
initial permits immediately after the law was passed, and the
permits all expire at the same time. Therefore, there was a
rush on the department in that area.
CHAIR JAMES agreed that it is a good idea to have a little bit of
a cushion of 60 days for renewal, and it is appropriate to have
an extension.
PORTIA PARKER, Aide to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State
Legislature, clarified that under current law, a person can apply
for renewal 90 days prior to the expiration of the permit. She
noted that the impetus for the legislation was the problem with
renewals, which took a long time and were cumbersome.
Furthermore, DPS was backlogged, so even though people tried to
get their permits renewed, they had expired permits simply
because the department did not get the permits to them in time.
Therefore, the exemption was put into CSSB 294(JUD) to say that
if a person has done everything he/she is supposed to do and for
some the reason the department has not returned the permit, the
person can still carry the expired permit although it has passed
the expiration date.
MS. PARKER indicated that on page 7 and 8, specific criteria are
listed for recognizing other permits. She said the problem is
that 17 states were recognized when the first law originally
passed. Later, someone either reviewed the law or interpreted it
differently; as a result, only Texas is recognized for carrying a
permit in Alaska. Therefore, CSSB 294(JUD) clearly states that
if a person is permitted from another state which requires that
the person be at least 21 years of age and eligible to own a
handgun, and that the person must have completed a handgun safety
course and be subject to a fingerprint criminal record search,
then that person can carry [a concealed handgun] in Alaska. Ms.
Parker noted that even though anyone can carry a gun, concealed
or openly, for any reason in Vermont and does not need a permit,
that person would not be allowed to carry [a concealed handgun]
in Alaska because of SB 294 criteria.
CHAIR JAMES asked if Ms. Parker knew of any communities that have
opted out of the "concealed carry" law.
MS. PARKER replied that only one community, Haines, has tried to
opt out, and it was defeated on a 4-1 vote.
Number 1431
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
noted that Lieutenant Hudson was online for the more technical
aspects because he administers this program. Mr. Smith agreed
with Mr. Pound that Alaska has one of the most successful
concealed handgun laws in the country. There are 12,000 permits
and very few problems with the people who hold permits. He added
that there are no problems as a result of the requirements placed
upon acquiring a permit. However, the thumbprint requirement
upon renewal of 12,000 permits has proven to be problematic and,
in retrospect, the department is not sure that the thumbprint
accomplishes much.
MR. SMITH stated that there are a few things in the bill that
might be tweaked, but as to the reciprocity issue, he is not
entirely sure upon what criteria the lieutenant at that time
based his assessment in granting reciprocity to 17 states. Upon
reviewing reciprocity under Lieutenant Hudson's purview and
creating a matrix, it was found that Texas was the only state
that actually met the criteria of Alaska. He added that Texas
had copied the Alaska law, which he finds interesting.
MR. SMITH noted that Arizona, Oklahoma and maybe some other
states allow an unlimited amount of misdemeanor convictions as
long as a person is not violent. However, Alaska law limits it
to two class A misdemeanors within six years; and any more than
that precludes a person from carrying a concealed weapon.
Therefore, he mentioned that in the department's interpretation,
Arizona's law is not as strict as Alaska's. He emphasized that
"dumbing down" Alaska's law in order to meet requirements from
other states for people to carry concealed handguns in Alaska
does not necessarily mean that the other state is going to be
reciprocal to Alaska.
Number 1201
CHAIR JAMES suggested perhaps Alaska should be more lenient like
Arizona.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that Section 7 of CSSB 294(JUD) changes
the qualification of carrying the caliber, but it does keep
intact subsection (a), which says "An applicant for a permit to
carry a concealed handgun shall provide a certificate of
successful completion of a handgun course that is approved by the
department."
He asked if Mr. Smith perceives that the department will approve
a course that does not require some qualification for shooting.
He surmised that although qualification for shooting is being
taken out of the law to help reciprocity, the department could
require, by regulation, competence in shooting.
MR. SMITH replied that he certainly would argue for competence in
shooting. However, in the preparation of regulations, as he
understands it, the department could not be more strict than the
law is; the department is just interpreting the law and applying
it to the everyday world. Therefore, if the legislation does not
say that a person had to be competent, then he is not sure that
the department could require competency - but he would argue
personally and professionally that it is important. He clarified
that he would certainly try to write competency into regulation
but he does not know if the department would be successful in
upholding the regulation if someone complained.
Number 1037
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that part of the section being
eliminated requires competence with a certain action type and
caliber. He asked if Mr. Smith is saying that a handgun course
would not involve shooting. He further noted that the law does
not say that the course has to teach which end of a gun the
bullet comes out of. He asked if the department could not write
a regulation to cover that concern because it is not written into
the law. He explained that he is surprised that the
administration is not going to interpret statute with regulation
because that is generally what the administration does.
Number 0947
MR. SMITH agreed, adding that he would want to put competency
into regulation; however, he remembers that the NRA
representative's testimony in the [Senate] Judiciary Committee
and the representative's conversations with Mr. Smith privately
were to the effect that a number of states do not require actual
firing of the weapon; the NRA representative had argued that it
is not necessary, and some instructors in the state have argued
that too. He added that other instructors have that they do not
care what the law says - no student will leave without showing
competence. He reiterated that he would try to get competency
written into regulation but it is entirely possible that someone
might object and stop the regulation.
CHAIR JAMES recalled that the issue, when the bill was passed in
the beginning, was a handgun course similar to the NRA's personal
protection handgun course. Lawmakers knew what that was at that
time; therefore, anything in that course had to be in any handgun
course or else the course would not qualify for acceptance. She
explained that she is troubled about people not having even shot
their guns; however, she does not have so much of a problem with
people from other states because if a person from another state
has a concealed handgun license and they come here, he/she surely
must have shot a gun. She commented that she could not believe
that somebody would get a permit in another state without having
shot a gun and come here seeking reciprocity rights.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that action type is extremely important,
too. She indicated that just cocking an automatic is a struggle
for her. She prefers a revolver with which she can shoot her
target without a lot of trouble. She added that the gun's size
is not nearly as important to her as the action type. She
suspects that maybe the NRA would change the personal protection
class, Chair James said, but if that were the case, it might no
longer qualify as a class under CSSB 294(JUD). She reiterated
that she is a little uncomfortable that the bill does not require
competency. She does not have a problem with not requiring other
states to have the same kind of class that Alaska requires, but
wants to ensure that Alaska has a class that requires competency.
She asked whether CSSB 294(JUD) includes a class that requires
competency and whether, in the writing of the bill, Alaska has
changed its competency requirement.
Number 0677
MR. SMITH replied that CSSB 294(JUD) eliminates the mandatory
requirement to demonstrate competency with a handgun and to
qualify with an action type or maximum caliber handgun. He noted
that if Alaska recognized Arizona's permit, a person could come
up here for 120 days and carry a concealed handgun based upon
his/her Arizona permit. He commented that he would not know what
Arizona's permit requirements were, even though he would look at
their law, because their regulation would just say "handgun
course" - and whether that requires firing, who knows?
CHAIR JAMES explained that she certainly supports reciprocity
because she wants to be able to carry [a handgun] in other
states; she mentioned Florida in particular.
MR. SMITH responded that Alaska has not recognized Florida
because a person in Florida can apply through the mail to obtain
a concealed handgun permit; Florida's law does not sound as
strict as Alaska's.
Number 0539
CHAIR JAMES indicated there have been no handgun problems in
Florida, either, and history shows that people who carry
concealed handguns are not a problem. She emphasized that she is
trying to find the mentality behind the legislation as opposed to
the emotional fear as to what might be out there. She said she
had used Florida as an example because if a person ever needed a
gun, Florida would be the place.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated he cannot understand why
reciprocity should be increased by dropping the competency
requirement. He reminded the committee that the example he had
spoken of happened in Alaska: this woman, who was his neighbor,
had come to the handgun class with a loaded weapon that she did
not know how to use. To allow somebody to obtain a license in
the state under those circumstances is no less detrimental than
allowing someone to read a driver's manual and then claim to be
able to drive a car. He himself has a driver's license from
Alaska, which he can use to drive in all other states [because
possessing a driver's license implies driver competency]. He
asked why the committee cannot approach reciprocity of concealed
carrying of a gun in the same manner: as long as a person can
demonstrate proficiency. He asked why the committee would want
to drop competency regarding something so important, especially
in view of the fact that even the waiting period to obtain a
handgun has been increased.
Number 0253
CHAIR JAMES said Representative Green ought to file a formal
complaint against the handgun instructor if incompetency is such
a problem with him, because in the original bill it was required
that the lady would have had to train with an instructor who
would then authorize her to obtain a permit. She agreed that it
is a serious issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied that is what he had said. He noted
that the woman had learned to use her gun in the course, but it
was a course that required that she show competency. Although
when she finished the course, she could shoot it, she probably
had not used it since then and would not be able to pass the test
now because she has not practiced. He pointed out that
competency was in the original law, which is why he had voted for
it. He stated that it is a bad, bad idea to start diminishing
requirements now in SB 294.
Number 0132
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that maybe handguns should not be
sold to people unless they have taken a course. He said people
can carry guns right out in the open with impunity. He referred
back to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the
God-given right, in his opinion, to defend oneself or one's
family from attack. He explained that the right to bear arms is
an overriding concern, and if competency were a problem in other
states, Alaska would hear about it from President Bill Clinton,
who he said was going around the country telling everybody about
the evil of handguns.
TAPE 00-34, SIDE A
Number 0026
MR. SMITH said he is a little concerned that Representative Green
thinks the department is pushing SB 294, when in fact it is not.
He stated that SB 294 came about as a result of a hearing in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He reiterated that the department
administers the handgun program, and he is trying to do it in a
way that serves the people of the state and implements the law in
the way that the department understands it to be. He hopes the
committee recognizes that over the past five years the department
has been very diligent in trying to do that in working with
folks. He acknowledged that there are a number of concerns, as
he has expressed here, and he administers the program as best he
can, based upon the law.
MR. SMITH informed the committee that he thinks some of these
things are going too far because he does not know that Alaska's
law should be gutted to meet a standard for outside states
regarding reciprocity, although he does recognize that
reciprocity is a problem, as was brought up at the Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing. He emphasized that he believes that
the department is interpreting the strictness of the law
correctly, and the department's hands are tied as long as that is
the situation.
Number 0145
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, Alaska State Legislature, said CSSB
294(JUD) was a result of hearing from many people, especially
Lieutenant Hudson, who indicated he was having a difficult time
because so many Alaskans became licensed when the law first
passed; now each of those people is due for renewal within a 30-
day period, so Lieutenant Hudson is flooded with requests and
paperwork.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that Representative Green is absolutely
correct regarding competency. Many people out there have
purchased handguns but probably do not know much about handgun
operation. He commented that he is sure that the loaded gun
became a major point of instruction for all the class members
when the woman showed up for class with one. He mentioned that
the Senate Judiciary Committee had heard testimony from several
different instructors and had received letters from others which
showed that there is not a course offered in Alaska where actual
firing on the range is not used. He indicated that the only
people probably exempt from this requirement are retired police
officers, military personnel or others who can demonstrate a
clear level of training, education and significant use. He noted
that the instructor has to sign off on each person; before doing
that, the instructor is going to make certain those people are
competent.
Number 0451
SENATOR TAYLOR remarked that people who are authorized to be
instructors - both in the Alaska State Troopers and out in the
private sector - are very conscientious. However, he admitted
that such information does not address Representative Green's
question about reciprocity. He asked how there can be assurance
that a person coming to Alaska from another state would have
exactly the same level of training that Alaska requires; he said
there is no good answer, and the answer must be left up to the
expertise of Lieutenant Hudson and others who are administering
the program to really review the effective aspects of competency
that are required in other states before Alaska grants
reciprocity.
Number 0559
SENATOR TAYLOR reported that he and Lieutenant Hudson had tried
an additional amendment for the bill, which was going to attempt
to forget about all the different standards because two standards
that exactly line up will never be found. Lieutenant Hudson had
suggested - which Senator Taylor thought made a lot of sense -
that if a state granted reciprocity to Alaska, then Alaska would
grant reciprocity to that state. However, Senator Taylor said
that when discussing the amendment with his colleagues, they
found it might go a little beyond some of the criteria and
standards in the original law; he was not comfortable in going
quite that far. He suggested that the amendment would have been
based on common sense and easy to administer, and it would have
provided to other states the incentive to allow Alaskans who are
licensed to carry concealed [handguns] in those states.
SENATOR TAYLOR reiterated that he does share Representative
Green's concern, and that is why handgun classes are required.
He noted that he had recently visited the police academy in
Sitka, where he spoke with the gun instructor. The instructor
was going to make certain that a few people in that course did
not graduate because the instructor was concerned about their
flippant attitudes; instead, the instructor was going to require
those few people to start thinking a little more about it and
come back again. Senator Taylor commented that he has respect
for the people who are putting on these courses because they
really are concerned, and they are very careful about whom they
license and whom they do not license. In contrast, in many
states a person can literally swing by the county sheriff's
office, pay ten dollars and obtain a permit. Senator Taylor
mentioned that he had done a lot with CSSB 294(JUD) and hopes the
reduction was not too much, thereby causing the bill to fail.
Number 0741
CHAIR JAMES said she has shared and listened to the same concerns
that Representative Green has expressed. She noted that she had
changed her position on that issue [reciprocity] strictly because
of problems. She explained that when they lived in Oregon, her
husband had obtained a concealed handgun permit, which just
required filling out an application. He obtained another permit
after moving to Washington. And when he came to Alaska, the
first thing he wanted to look into was obtaining a concealed
handgun permit. However, he could not get one, which is the
reason that she had filed legislation in the beginning because
she thought Alaska should have a concealed handgun permits
available.
CHAIR JAMES noted that she had not heard of any damage being
caused by those folks in Oregon or Washington who had concealed
handgun permits, nor has all of the concealed handgun legislation
passed by states resulted in problems for the states. Even if
people had never handled a gun before they went to a class, no
problems have arisen. She is convinced, she said, that some
fears are just caused by many different personal experiences that
people have had.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that the committee is about to lose its
quorum and said he would like to move the bill if he could.
Number 0931
CHAIR JAMES replied that there is an amendment to consider.
Noting that the bill would go to the House Judiciary Committee,
she surmised that the amendment could be done there.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that the bill would have to be
moved first but that the committee had just lost its quorum.
CHAIR JAMES said a quorum was not necessary to adopt an
amendment.
MS. PARKER indicated the amendment changes a section to make it
consistent with other changes already made in another section of
CSSB 294(JUD). The change has to do with the initial application
no longer requiring a certified signature under oath. A a
person still has to attest that everything in the application is
true to the best of that person's knowledge, and that if a person
is untruthful on the application, the permit can be revoked. She
commented that the sponsor wanted to make that change to make it
a little bit easier for people, but it still is consistent with
all other public documents. She mentioned that a person could be
prosecuted for unsworn falsification if false information is
given.
MS. PARKER referred to page 6, lines 13 and 14, regarding
renewal. She noted that it still had "under oath" in that
subparagraph, so the corresponding change had not been made under
renewal as had been done under the original application. She
informed the committee that the amendment deletes "under oath";
it also puts the warning in that everything in the application
document is true, to the best of the person's knowledge, and that
if the person intentionally supplies inaccurate information or
untruths, the person can be prosecuted.
Number 1062
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN offered Amendment 1, 1-LS1543\H.1, Luckhaupt,
4/12/00, which read:
Page 6, lines 13-14:
Delete "shall be submitted under oath and"
Insert "[SHALL BE SUBMITTED UNDER OATH AND]"
Page 6, line 22:
Delete "and"
Page 6, line 23:
Delete "[(5)]"
Insert "[AND (5)]"
Page 6, line 23, following "AS 18.65.720":
Insert "; and
(5) the warning
listed in AS
18.65.710(a)(6)
"
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection. There being none,
Amendment 1 was adopted. [CSSB 294(JUD) was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1190
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:00
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|