Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/15/2000 09:15 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 15, 2000
9:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Scott Ogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Hal Smalley
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 294(JUD)
"An Act relating to the possession of concealed handguns and to
concealed handgun permits."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 294(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 444
"An Act relating to nongovernmental activities of state agencies,
including the University of Alaska; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 444(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
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
4/13/00 (H) Heard & Held
4/13/00 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/15/00 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 444
SHORT TITLE: STATE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/06/00 2889 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
4/06/00 2889 (H) STA, FIN
4/11/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/11/00 (H) Heard & Held
4/11/00 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/13/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/13/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
4/15/00 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID HUDSON, Lieutenant
Program Manager for the
Alaska Concealed Handgun Program
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding SB 294.
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska Liaison
of the National Rifle Association (NRA)
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 294.
PATRICK McKEEN
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 294.
MIKE CARLSON
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 294.
DANIEL DAVIS
PO Box 1285
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 294.
DICK BISHOP, Vice President
Alaska Outdoor Council
PO Box 73902
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 294.
PORTIA PARKER, Legislative 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 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 294.
ANNETTE DEAL, Researcher
to Representative John Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 444.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-35, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Green, Whitaker,
Hudson, and Ogan. Representatives Kerttula and Smalley were
absent.
SB 294-CONCEALED HANDGUNS
Number 0069
CHAIR JAMES announced the first 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."
DAVID HUDSON, Lieutenant, Program Manager for the Alaska
Concealed Handgun Program, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
testified via teleconference from Seattle, Washington. He said
he has been in charge of the program since the fall of 1998 and
is not familiar with how it progressed five years prior; however,
he does know some history in regard to the legislation initiated
in 1995. He said this program has been very successful, as
everyone has testified, in view of the fact that there are people
out there who are competent, qualified and mentally prepared to
carry a concealed handgun in Alaska. He noted that he has seen
or tracked all the various violations of laws in the last year
and a half in regard to this program. He cannot recall any
criminal act that was initiated in regard to a concealed handgun
permit that was carried by authorized concealed handgun permit
holders. Rather, people have been arrested for other reasons and
have had concealed handgun permits legally in their possession,
whereupon the concealed handgun permit was revoked. He indicated
that recently a person was charged with failure to identify
him/herself as a permit holder with a handgun in possession when
contacted by law enforcement.
Number 0410
LIEUTENANT HUDSON said Alaska has a good, valid, working program
based on legislation put forth in 1995, and regulations that were
appended to legislation since that time have been very workable.
He informed the committee that SB 294 has become an issue because
the public perceives DPS as slow to process a permit or a
renewal. He remarked that he understood that the program in 1995
was revenue-based, which it still is. Although there were
expectations that possibly 25,000 people might come forward to
obtain a handgun permit almost immediately, that did not happen.
About 5,000 people came forward almost immediately to obtain a
handgun permit, and that has created problems for the department
today. Because the program is revenue-generated, DPS did not
maintain a staff throughout the years; consequently, there was no
large staff to handle all the renewals and applications as they
came through. Now, five years later, initial permit holders who
had applied immediately are all due for renewal; hence the
department's staff of one full-time clerk and one half-time clerk
are overloaded in support of the program. The many renewals have
created a burden on the staff as well as much distress to the
public because the department is not able to respond to
processing permits or renewals as quickly as applicants would
like.
Number 0598
LIEUTENANT HUDSON noted that one reason for SB 294 was due to
slowdown of the process; it was also introduced with the idea of
trying to increase reciprocity of Alaskan concealed handgun
permits across the nation. He explained that someone had
testified that before he took over the program there were 11-17
states from which Alaska would accept handgun permits. When he
took over the program, he had evaluated the laws as they existed
and had reviewed handgun rules information as provided by state
program managers across the nation, from which he was able to
gather information and evaluate based on Alaska's "as strict as
compliance." He indicated that consequently he had determined
that not many states met the criteria established by the Alaska
legislature, and only Texas had a program at least as strict as
Alaska's. Texas had copied Alaska's handgun program after
reviewing it, and the two states' regulations are almost the
same.
Number 0752
LIEUTENANT HUDSON remarked that he would like to address the
twofold issue of reciprocity and better service to Alaskans in
regard to renewal of and application for permits. He reminded
the committee that several issues in SB 294 will be valid for the
department. For instance, in the renewal process currently, a
clerk from the department has to take a thumbprint from the
individual who is renewing his/her handgun permit; that requires
a clerk's time in each of the post detachments and detracts from
other duties. Additional time and energy is required when the
thumbprint has to be evaluated by someone in the department. The
DPS believes that the department would better serve the public if
the thumbprint requirement could be eliminated. He added that he
has not seen any problem with thumbprints for renewals that have
already been done, and he does not believe that it will be a
future issue, based upon what the department has observed.
Eliminating the thumbprint requirement is a valid way by which
the renewal process could be expedited.
LIEUTENANT HUDSON discussed another issue arising out of the
permit application process. The current requirement of a sworn
statement under a perjury statute means that an applicant must
obtain a notarized statement. However, he believes there is no
need to require a sworn statement because under Alaska Statute,
Title 28, the motor vehicle registration law, when a person signs
the back of the vehicle registration it says that a person who
lies could be charged with unsworn falsification. He suggested
DPS could modify its handgun application to include the same
stipulation as Title 28, which would make it easier for the
public and eliminate a little bit of work for renewals.
Number 0905
LIEUTENANT HUDSON mentioned that a major issue is competency. He
indicated the competency requirement was established in 1995;
although he is not sure how it got worked into that program, it
certainly has proven valid. He likened [not having to prove
handgun] competency to obtaining a driver's license without ever
stepping behind the wheel of a car and demonstrating driving
competency. Although initially there were many certified
[firearms] instructors for the concealed handgun permit program,
three or four seem to do the most instruction; he has spoken with
them in the last several weeks and with their students, in order
to get a feel for how they are doing.
LIEUTENANT HUDSON said it is best stated by Joe Nava from
Fairbanks, who in an e-mail had indicated he has trained about
2300 students. Lieutenant Hudson had asked whether Mr. Nava had
ever had a problem with a person not being able to get a handgun
permit based on Alaska's competency standard; Mr. Nava had
responded that none of his students had ever failed to qualify on
their first try because he takes the extra time to have the
students shoot the weapons. Lieutenant Hudson commented that all
of the other instructors with whom he had spoken - who had
trained thousands of people in Alaska - feel the same way;
therefore, there is no issue that people are not becoming
qualified based on the competency requirement, and instructors
feel that competency is extremely important. Whether [proof of]
competency is required by law or not, the instructors had
indicated that they would still require it from their students.
LIEUTENANT HUDSON said many people seem to think that eliminating
competency from the program is a panacea for reciprocity
agreements with states across the nation; however, he thinks such
thinking is a terrible mistake because people look at Alaska's
program statutes and evaluate [the program] on that basis. If it
is assumed that Alaska instructors will require competency and
yet it is not stated in Alaska Statute, then another state is not
going to be able to review Alaska's law and say, "These folks
require competency and so do we; therefore, we will grant
reciprocity." He recognized that unfortunately there are
probably some instructors who would eliminate competency no
matter what, if it were not required by statute, and so Alaska
could potentially have people who are carrying firearms who have
not demonstrated competency.
Number 1082
LIEUTENANT HUDSON observed that there seemed to be a little
confusion about action and caliber type. The law reads that a
person has to demonstrate competency with the largest caliber
weapon or action type that the person is going to carry.
However, some instructors tell students to qualify with a .44
Magnum revolver and a .45 semi-automatic pistol because that
allows the student to carry any lesser caliber or action type.
He explained that no one has to qualify with a .44 Magnum
revolver or a .45 semi-automatic pistol. If a person is small or
light - or has small hands - and wants to carry a .32 or a .22,
then that is all he/she needs to shoot. If smaller persons never
want to carry a .44 Magnum in their belts or a .45 semi-automatic
in their purses, they would be well within the standards of the
law, and it will not be an issue.
LIEUTENANT HUDSON indicated that he thinks Alaska is doing a
disservice [to its citizens] by viewing reciprocity as only
allowing a person from another state to carry a firearm in
Alaska. He emphasized that Alaska should worry about in what
states Alaskans can carry firearms instead. The way SB 294 is
written will not overcome the obstacles to reciprocity because SB
294, in eliminating the competency requirement, puts the words
"similar to" in its place. He reminded the committee that when
he sees "similar to" in regard to "successfully complete some
type of handgun or firearm safety course," for example, he then
has to evaluate other states to determine if they are "similar
to" and "successfully complete some type of handgun or firearm
safety course."
LIEUTENANT HUDSON noted that in Florida a person can fill out a
form, send in information and obtain a Florida concealed handgun
permit. He recognized that Florida also says that one thing a
person can do to obtain a permit is send a copy of the person's
military DD214 (Department of Defense form). He does not think
that anyone would disagree with him that SB 294's requirements
are not met by completing military service and receiving a DD214,
he said. He has more than 27 years of military service and yet
never carried a firearm, although he was trained to use one;
consequently, just because he was in the military and he has a
DD214 to say that he has "successfully completed ... a course" is
a stretch. He stated that Alaska does not want to take a program
that has demonstrated success - and that citizens are comfortable
with - and detract from it in that fashion.
LIEUTENANT HUDSON reiterated that SB 294, as written, will not
get Alaska where it wants to go. He recalled that Senator Taylor
had wanted to propose an amendment that would allow Alaskans to
carry their concealed handguns in other states and then Alaska
would allow [citizens of] those states to carry [concealed
weapons] in Alaska. He said true reciprocity means "I'll give
you mine if you'll give me yours." He suggested it is imperative
that Alaska do something to allow Alaskans to carry firearms in
other states if they are licensed and so choose. He commented
that Alaskans call him to ask him in what states they can carry
their permits.
LIEUTENANT HUDSON explained that even though the National Rifle
Association (NRA) web page lists which states recognize Alaska
permit holders, he, as program manager, cannot attest to that or
put it on the Alaska Concealed Handgun Permit Program web site
because Alaska has no agreements with those states. He commented
that the sergeant in charge of the program in Arizona said that
he would like to have a letter from Lieutenant Hudson saying that
Alaska would accept the Arizona permit, and Arizona would give
Alaska a comparable letter. However, the department has not
written that letter, and SB 294, Section 13, as worded does not
allow the department to do so. Lieutenant Hudson indicated he
had proposed an amendment for this statute to say Alaska would
accept another state's permit if that state accepted Alaska's
permit, which would allow Alaska's citizens to obtain the best
service.
Number 1593
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison for the National Rifle
Association (NRA), testified via teleconference from Sacramento,
California, in support of SB 294. He said he is speaking on
behalf of NRA members who live in Alaska and noted that there are
various issues in SB 294. He explained that the technical change
as suggested by the legislative council to delete the sworn
statement requirement is fine, and Lieutenant Hudson apparently
does not have a problem with that change.
MR. JUDY commented that there are a number of process efficiency
issues that Lieutenant Hudson had talked about, and he assumes
that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) is receptive to them
in addition to the thumbprint, the sworn statement, trooper
participation in courses, allowing previous photos for renewal
and replacement, extending the period for renewal, and extending
the validity of expired permits if the renewal process is
delayed. He mentioned that all of these are good amendments and
would serve to make the process efficient.
MR. JUDY indicated three substantive changes in addition to the
above are being made by SB 294. He noted that the first
substantive change - and probably one of the issues that was
paramount in causing this legislation to be brought forward - is
clarification of the requirements for recognizing other states'
permits. When SB 141 became effective in 1998, he believes it
was the legislative intent that quite a number of states with
issuance programs similar to Alaska's would be recognized in the
state, he said. After the law became effective, a list was
promulgated by DPS that included 17 states wherein permits from
those states would be recognized in Alaska; then, at some point
subsequent to that, staff changes occurred.
MR. JUDY observed that the initial list was apparently repealed,
and up until just recently no state was recognized. He said such
restrictive recognition was not intended by the legislature, and
current language allows a person to make an interpretation along
any lines. He reiterated that a person can make an
interpretation fairly broad along the lines of what was intended
with the 17 states or come up with a list of zero if every state
was required to have a sworn application and the exact arbitrary
competency standards. He said someone could go through the law
and make it so that no states are recognized, just as the
situation is today in Alaska.
MR. JUDY suggested that if it is clarified that permits from
other states that have truly comparable programs are recognized
in Alaska, then more people will be "carrying" in Alaska, which
is not a bad thing. He explained that studies have shown that
when law-abiding citizens do carry a permitted concealed weapon,
crime is lowered because criminals realize that law-abiding
citizens can counteract and defend themselves. He further
commented that if Alaska recognizes more permits from other
states, then Alaskans will automatically have the ability to
carry in other states because many states recognize permits from
states that recognize their permits.
Number 1844
MR. JUDY acknowledged that there are problems, as Lieutenant
Hudson had described, with a program that requires written
agreements between states. He emphasized that he has had much
experience dealing with many states and with many different
types of reciprocity or recognition programs. He had found that
whenever a statute is written that allows states to sit down
together and work out a deal for reciprocity, nothing happens.
He cautioned the legislature against doing that type of system
here because he thinks that the end result will be a recognition
system that recognizes no states, as Alaska does today.
MR. JUDY suggested that the best type of program would be like
Idaho's, where they just recognize permits from other states,
period; as time goes on, more states that pass concealed weapon
permit laws result in more states recognizing Idaho's permits.
He again proposed that if Alaska followed Idaho's example,
Alaskan permit holders would eventually be recognized in many
states.
MR. JUDY said a second issue is deletion of the unused and
unconstitutional municipal opt-out provisions. Currently, cities
and municipalities can put an issue on the ballot to prohibit
concealed carrying [of handguns] in their municipalities. He
commented that only one municipality had attempted to opt out in
the last seven years, which was rejected by a 3-1 margin. In
addition, Article 1, Section 19, of the Alaska State Constitution
provides that the individual right to keep and bear arms shall
not be denied or infringed upon by a political subdivision of the
state; therefore, he suggested that if a city opted out down the
road, the option would very likely be thrown out [of court]. He
indicated the current law would be cleaned up if the opt-out
provision were deleted.
Number 1981
MR. JUDY addressed the deletion of the competency requirement.
He maintained that the NRA is the foremost advocate of safe and
responsible firearms use, having had an education and training
division in place since the 1930s; he feels that the training is
very good. He reminded the committee that it should be offered
and provided on a voluntary basis since the NRA does not believe
that statutory mandates are necessary. He added that it is
interesting to look at the range of states that allow concealed
carry[ing of handguns], including Vermont, which does not even
require a permit to carry a concealed weapon; Washington, which
has no training requirement; Utah, which requires familiarity but
does not require "live fire"; and Alaska, which does require
"live fire." He said empirical evidence from all of these states
is exactly the same in that there is no problem with law-abiding
citizens.
MR. JUDY said anybody can lawfully carry [a firearm] openly in
Alaska right now. No permit, fees, background check or training
course is needed. He said the NRA's intent when pushing this
legislation to create a concealed weapon permit law many years
ago was that if a person can carry [firearms] openly, he/she
should be able to [carry firearms] concealed. He suggested it is
not logical or practical to have additional restrictions on
people who are voluntarily going through backgrounds checks,
fingerprinting and licensing. He commented that ideally no
training requirement would exist, as is already the situation in
other states, where it works. He mentioned that the people who
are carrying [handguns] know how to use them, and Lieutenant
Hudson had said nobody has ever failed to qualify [for a handgun
permit]. He suggested that a government-mandated training course
is nothing more than an unnecessary obstacle. He urged the
committee to support SB 294.
Number 2140
PATRICK McKEEN testified via teleconference from Delta Junction
in agreement with SB 294. He said he firmly believes that people
should show some type of competency before obtaining their
permits, and although he had much experience before obtaining his
permit, it had done him no harm to go through the course and
learn something new. He pointed out that there are major
differences between the actions of a revolver and a semi-
automatic, and people who know how to use one don't necessary
know how to use the other. He specified that he would like the
differences between semi-automatic and revolver to remain noted
in SB 294.
Number 2180
MIKE CARLSON testified via teleconference from Delta Junction in
support of SB 294. He indicated that he would like to be able to
carry [a handgun] in other states because he does a lot of
traveling and anything that can be done to lessen the burden of
obtaining a permit in other states should be considered. He
mentioned that if Alaska has to accept other states' permits, he
would like to see that done here in order to carry [a handgun] in
other states.
Number 2228
DANIEL DAVIS testified via teleconference from Delta Junction in
agreement with SB 294. He remarked that he has a "concealed
carry" permit and appreciates having it. The training that he
went through was part refresher and part new, and he appreciates
the training he received. He noted that his training had been
with Mr. Joe Nava, who is an excellent instructor and has an
excellent attitude. He said he agrees with testimony that day
and appreciates Lieutenant Hudson's positive attitude towards the
program. He said he travels occasionally in other states and,
like Mr. Carlson, would like the opportunity to carry [firearms].
He indicated that he just likes the option in Alaska but feels
that there is a greater need to carry [firearms] in other states;
he would like to see reciprocity so that he can do so.
Number 2298
DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), a
state affiliate of the NRA, said his association supports SB 294
and thinks five years' experience in implementing the law has
provided the basis for needed improvements in the law. He noted
that since Alaska's "concealed carry" law was implemented, the
rates of several types of violent crimes have declined
significantly; he suggested that this affirms the law's
appropriateness. He also suggested that SB 294 carries technical
cleanup to a logical conclusion: ensuring that law-abiding
citizens can obtain a concealed carry permit with minimum
requirements.
MR. BISHOP indicated it is appropriate that SB 294 makes clear
the standards for recognizing concealed carry permits from other
states. He is concerned about the issues that Mr. Judy raised,
he said, in that the legislature may get into a "black hole" in
trying to effect written agreements with other states, and that
should be taken into consideration when reviewing amendments to
SB 294. He said no opportunity for delay should be provided in
reaching agreements with other states as far as reciprocity goes.
Number 2403
MR. BISHOP recognized that competency standards is an interesting
issue. He said all responsible citizens want to make sure that
people who carry firearms, whether concealed or not, are well
enough versed in firearm safety that they are not a hazard to
themselves or others. He added that SB 294 provides that the
required course has to be approved by DPS, and it does include
the NRA personal protection course, a very good course that is
the basis for much of the instruction now; therefore, he does not
see the need for additional requirements of competency. He
suggested competency could be deleted and requirements simplified
for people without sacrificing the assurance otherwise provided
in statute for safety, knowledge and ability in the use of
firearms. He said that with some of these amendments, Alaska can
have a safe, sound and workable "concealed carry" law, and the
NRA does appreciate the provision in the law that assures that
people who are permitted to carry concealed [firearms] will not
be precluded from doing so in municipalities.
Number 2487
CHAIR JAMES explained that she believed that the original law,
which recognized the NRA personal protection course as the
course, automatically meant firing and showing competency. She
noted that the cooperativeness of the DPS is an advantage to the
legislature, she said, but she does not want to be caught unaware
if a new administration comes in and is not so understanding.
Chair James recalled that the previous administration had
objected to the original "concealed carry" law but said it is
easier for the legislature now because there is history to refer
to now in regard to such laws. She emphasized that she would
like to have the firing provision included in the courses;
otherwise, she fears that someone might not learn firing because
it takes a little more time. She mentioned that in order to cut
costs, some courses may charge the same money and yet put people
through quickly, short-circuiting the firing portion, if it is
not required by law.
CHAIR JAMES indicated that the handgun license need not show what
the permittee is qualified to carry because people are not going
to carry a firearm that they are not qualified to shoot. She
asked Mr. Bishop if he would object if competency were required
as part of the handgun course. She emphasized that it would not
be a requirement of people coming from another state.
Number 2622
MR. BISHOP replied that the NRA would not object to a competency
requirement if the scope or definition of competency were clear.
He asked what competency would require; how specific it would be;
how restrictive it would be; and whether it would require, as it
does now, different actions and calibers. He acknowledged that
identifying action and caliber is an advantage regarding people
who are minimally familiar with various kinds of firearms; those
subjects are covered well in such a course as Joe Nava's. He
suggested that if the requirement of competency remains open-
ended in statute, then there is room for much difficulty because
the administration will take a very conservative view in order to
ensure that nothing goes haywire with the program.
Number 2677
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Mr. Bishop. She said she liked the
classes because the most important part is learning when it is
proper to brandish a gun, and how to do it. People do not know
the law, and it is very important to know when the concealed
weapon can be used; however, her instinct tells her that there
have not been problems with people who "carry concealed" doing
wrong things. She said the good results tell her that people who
want to "carry concealed" either already know how to use a gun or
are planning to know how to use a gun; she indicated her belief
that those people are not going to go out in public without
knowing how to use their guns.
CHAIR JAMES suggested the competency requirement is not necessary
at all; however, the problem is getting support from the
administration to obtain this kind of legislation. She
reiterated that the more history available regarding the
concealed carry law, the more support it generates. If she were
to support changes regarding competency, it would be only to gain
public acceptance. She asked Mr. Bishop if it has been
cumbersome, inefficient or a burden to comply with the "concealed
carry" law as written.
Number 2778
MR. BISHOP replied that it is his impression that the "concealed
carry" legal requirements have not been a burden in terms of
Alaskans being able to obtain a concealed carry permit. However,
the difficulty seems to come in comparing the requirements of
Alaska to those of other states.
CHAIR JAMES said she understood that. She suggested it is not
necessary to indicate what action type and so forth on a permit
because she believes that a person will carry a gun that he/she
knows how to use. Having passed the test and obtained the
license is enough for her. She noted that she has an amendment
that would leave in competence with handguns as part of the
course but that does not define what that means, and she thinks
that should tell instructors that they must do something.
Number 2854
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bishop if he would agree with the
statement that competency has more to do with judgment than how a
person aims a gun.
MR. BISHOP replied yes, although he thinks that people have to
have some basic exposure and instruction as to the appropriate
ways to handle firearms.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he believed gun control meant being able
to hit what a person shoots at.
MR. BISHOP answered that he thought it was like beauty, "in the
eye of the beholder."
Number 2894
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that he has viewed competency as
accuracy and being able to shoot what a person is aiming at. He
wondered if the committee was ready to discuss the amendments.
CHAIR JAMES replied yes and reminded the committee that Amendment
1 had been passed at the last committee meeting on 4/13/00;
however, a full quorum was lacking [then], so she wanted to
present Amendment 1 again for full committee consideration.
Amendment 1 read as follows:
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)"
PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Aide to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska
State Legislature, explained that Amendment 1 was to confirm
other changes made in SB 294 deleting the sworn oath requirement
from the application and renewal. She noted that the sworn oath
requirement was burdensome.
TAPE 00-35, SIDE B
Number 2977
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 to SB 294.
There being no objection, it was adopted.
Number 2943
CHAIR JAMES announced there are some conceptual amendments to
discuss; they are a result of conversations with DPS and some of
the concerns she has heard. She labeled the first of those
conceptual Amendment 2. She explained that it conceptually
places the requirement for demonstrated competence with handguns
back into SB 294. She commented that it was just a selling point
with her.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested the amendment should say either
the "successful completion of a handgun course" - which he likes
and would not like to see totally lost out of SB 294 - or
"demonstrated competence with handguns." He mentioned that
demonstrated competence is probably almost the same thing as
successful completion but, of course, it would be a bona fide,
certified or qualified training. He indicated that he knew many
people who he would like to make certain take a training course.
Number 2852
CHAIR JAMES reassured Representative Hudson that the amendment
[Amendment 2] does not remove that language from SB 294.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the amendment does take out the
"successful completion of a handgun course" if ....
CHAIR JAMES replied that the amendment does not take out the
language because on page 3, lines 16 and 17, that paragraph is
there to exclude "competence with a handgun" and add in "the
successful completion of a handgun course" instead, but that
"competence with handguns" is already somewhere else in SB 294.
Number 2837
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 for
purposes of discussion; he mentioned one of the "deletes" on
lines 16 and 17, page 3. He noted that he liked what
Representative Hudson had said; he agreed that if "successful
completion of a handgun course or competence with handguns" were
written in the amendment, that would give DPS a little "wiggle
room" for reciprocity. He emphasized the importance of
reciprocity, and he concurred with testifiers who want to carry
firearms in other states, where he himself feels less safe than
in Alaska and would therefore like to carry firearms himself.
MS. PARKER indicated Amendment 2 deletes the change "successful
completion of a handgun course," but said she was not sure if the
sponsor intended to define "competency."
CHAIR JAMES replied no and said Amendment 2 means that courses
are to remain as they are in current law, not to allow somebody
to come in and give a shorter course that does not include
everything that the course has now. She mentioned that DPS is
going to certify the current course anyway, but she is not sure
DPS can do that if such authority is not written into SB 294.
Number 2790
MS. PARKER remarked that if it is the intent of the committee to
leave the law exactly the way it is, then other changes need to
be made, which probably can be done conceptually.
CHAIR JAMES affirmed that the intent is to let competency
[standards] remain as written. She added that the committee does
not want action type and caliber to be part of the license.
MS. PARKER observed that if the committee wanted to write in
"submits evidence of successful completion of a handgun course"
or "provides demonstration of competency with handguns," as
Representative Hudson had mentioned, and to leave SB 294 the way
it was, that would need to be defined or it would be defined by
DPS regulations. She stated that if the foregoing is the intent,
then her explanation is the way to make the change; the other
option is to write in "competence with handguns" and define that
in statute but not require action type and caliber.
Number 2691
CHAIR JAMES said she understood and believes that Representative
Hudson read Amendment 2 as taking out the course and putting in
competency. She suggested Representative Hudson would like to
have it read "either/or," not realizing that Amendment 2 does not
do away with the course. She said she does not want to do away
with the course either, so having the course or competency is
acceptable. She explained that in this particular case it is
understood what the committee is going for.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned that he had suggested that
Amendment 2 read "successful completion of a handgun course,"
which is already in the law, or "competence with handguns as
provided in AS 18.65.715," so the committee can do one or the
other. He indicated he had asked for some testimony from the
administrator of the program as to whether those words would help
with reciprocity. He emphasized that he is looking for a way to
address the concerns of those who are worried about "competency"
remaining in SB 294 and ensuring better reciprocity with other
states. He remarked that if Amendment 2 accomplishes what he
wants, he would be very supportive and thinks it would win
support on the House floor.
Number 2596
LIEUTENANT HUDSON indicated that he is afraid that if the
language were to read "successful completion of a handgun course
or competence with handguns," that might create some confusion as
to demonstrating competency unless DPS writes a regulation that
requires "demonstration of competence" versus what it is now. He
agreed that such a regulation would allow people who were
firearms instructors in the past or shooters to exempt themselves
from actually taking the firearms course since the course talks
about the laws and "use of force" policy. Nevertheless, he
emphasized that he is afraid that if "or" is written in, then
competence would have to be redefined to mean knowledge of the
law as well as competence, because competence probably can be a
mental attitude but also involves an accuracy issue in being able
to hit whatever a person is aiming at.
Number 2516
CHAIR JAMES clarified that she meant SB 294 to keep Alaska's
requirements in this state exactly as they are except to drop
action type and caliber on the handgun license. She emphasized
that she had not wanted to affect reciprocity in SB 294. She
remarked that if other people do not do it as Alaska does, that
is not a real problem, but she wants Alaska to keep its current
requirements.
MS. PARKER suggested it does not matter what Alaska's
requirements are because the statute requires four things that
other states must meet to carry [firearms] in Alaska and be
recognized by Alaska. She stated her understanding that the
committee's intent in presenting Amendment 2 was to maintain the
handgun course exactly the same way except for action type and
caliber requirements. She recognized that the NRA personal
protection course has always required "live fire" and that the
students have shot on the range before SB 294 ever appeared. She
said she had spoken with the bill sponsor about Amendment 2, and
he did not think it was necessary but would not oppose it.
Number 2428
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if language could be written in
Amendment 2 that would say "pass a handgun course equivalency of
the NRA" because the NRA course has competency.
CHAIR JAMES voiced her understanding that such a phrase had been
written into the original law and she thought it was still there,
in which case she thought the committee was already protected.
MS. PARKER responded that the law says that the department shall
approve a handgun course, including the personal protection
course offered by the NRA, if the course tests the applicants.
Then the law lists four requirements: knowledge of Alaska law,
familiarity with the basic concepts of the safe and responsible
use of handguns, knowledge of self-defense principles, and
physical competence with each action type of handgun that the
applicant wishes to carry under the permit and the maximum
caliber.
Number 2381
CHAIR JAMES asked whether SB 294 does the above.
Number 2353
MS. PARKER replied that SB 294 removes number 4 under Section 7
and then writes in "successful evidence of completion of a
handgun course."
CHAIR JAMES agreed and said SB 294 removes "the certificate must
state the action type and caliber of handgun," and she does want
that left out. People have to obtain a permit for whatever
handguns they want to carry, but SB 294 does not say that they
are qualified in any particular action or caliber on their
licenses. She said maybe Amendment 2 is not needed.
MS. PARKER reminded the committee that SB 294 does say that the
course has to be approved by DPS. She suggested perhaps the
committee would feel more comfortable by writing in "successful
completion of a handgun course which includes live fire on a
range," which would make it clearer that the intent was to
include that requirement in the course.
CHAIR JAMES said she is almost convinced that Amendment 2 is not
needed.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed that it is not needed.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt conceptual Amendment 3
to SB 294(JUD), which read:
Delete lines 7-9, page 6
(This deletes section 8 of the bill, removing any
appearance of state employees on state time competing
with commercial trainers.)
Number 2230
CHAIR JAMES noted that SB 294 says "a member of the Alaska state
troopers may participate in or conduct handgun courses," and one
problem here is that DPS has already taken the position that
people can do that on their own time. She noted that the
existing administration agrees that a state trooper on his own
time may train someone else, but she feels nervous after having
suffered with DPS administration before the present DPS
administration; therefore, she would like to leave the language
in SB 294 but DPS would like to have it removed.
Number 2178
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
explained that the "concealed carry" law went into effect in
1995, and troopers then were allowed to teach firearms
instruction classes on their own time. He reminded the committee
that in certain parts of the state, the trooper is the only
person available to teach, so DPS would not object; however, he
does not believe it needs to be in statute.
MR. SMITH commented that he certainly does not want any
implication that state employees might, on state time, be in
competition with private instructors, and does not see the need
for it in statute. He suspects that there is always the
potential with the change of administrations that someone might
decide that it is a bad idea, he said, but by that time there
will have been at least eight years of this program. He prefers
that the trooper stipulation not be in statute because he would
hate for one of his troopers to come to him and quote statute
saying that it was legal for the trooper to make money
instructing in firearms on state time.
CHAIR JAMES asked if a trooper could instruct in firearms off
duty.
Number 2144
MR. SMITH replied that "off duty" could be written in, but he
sincerely does not see the need for it. He prefers that nothing
regarding troopers working be put in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the only reason someone might want to
keep the wording is for areas of the state where there might not
be a certified firearms instructor and residents might like to be
able to carry concealed [firearms]. He conceded that Mr. Smith
had a point in that these people could do this on their own time,
after hours, if they wish.
CHAIR JAMES noted that conversation at an earlier meeting
indicated that SB 294 would allow the troopers to get some
revenue. She explained that the administration does not want the
troopers to be doing this and charging for it as troopers
employed by the state.
Number 2048
MR. SMITH commented that the money probably would never get to
the department, so he just does not think it is a reasonable
approach. He reminded the committee that the department would
potentially be competing with private-sector folks if that were
the case, and presumably the person would be doing that on duty.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned that if the committee is
concerned about troopers moonlighting, the phrase "volunteer to"
could be added on line 8, page 6, after the word "may"; that way,
the trooper in some cases would be able to train people. He
indicated that he does not see the fear or concern of this
tainting the public view of the trooper.
CHAIR JAMES requested Mr. Smith's response to the volunteer idea.
Number 1963
MR. SMITH agreed that all of what Representative Hudson said is
true; however, Mr. Smith does not think it needs to be in statute
because the troopers have done very well off duty for the past
five years. He informed the committee that he had absolutely no
understanding of where the notion of a trooper working on state
time came from, unless some trooper did not want to do it and had
claimed that his bosses would not let him do it. He emphasized
that no one has ever called him and asked him if a trooper could
do this.
Number 1931
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if there are troopers who teach a
firearms course when they are off duty.
MR. SMITH replied that he believes there are troopers who teach.
LIEUTENANT HUDSON acknowledged that he does know troopers who
have taught the concealed handgun permit course. For example,
Trooper J.J. Johnson in Nome and Sergeant Bartellini in Bethel
have taught the firearms course in their areas. Lieutenant
Hudson added that he has assisted in classes across the state on
his own time, as indicated by the deputy commissioner, and always
accepts an opportunity to stand in front of a crowd of people who
are positive toward law enforcement. Training by troopers has
been done and is being done, and there is no reason why it will
not continue if there is a need.
CHAIR JAMES said her experience with the DPS administration has
been good, and DPS wants lines 7-9, page 6, deleted; she thinks
the committee should remove those lines.
Number 1860
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN offered his view that SB 294 is saying that
an Alaska State Trooper is a qualified instructor. He noted that
if Representative Hudson's language is added - "may volunteer to
participate in or conduct handgun courses" - then SB 294 is
sanctioning troopers as instructors in remote parts of Alaska
where there are no other instructors.
CHAIR JAMES asked whether the proposed wording would prevent the
trooper from getting paid for performing instruction.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that he thought so.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER explained that his point was that if
these people are already getting paid for training on their own
time, why keep them from doing that? He suggested the language
should just be deleted, leaving a system in place that works.
CHAIR JAMES asked whether there was any objection. There being
no objection, conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON offered conceptual Amendment 4 to SB
294(JUD), which read:
Amend AS 18.65.748 to read: A person holding a valid
permit or license to carry a concealed handgun from
another state or political subdivision of another state
is a permittee under AS 18.65.700(a) for purposes of AS
18.65.700-18.65.765, if the person has not been in
Alaska for more than 120 consecutive days; provided
that the state or political subdivision of the state
that issued the permit or license recognizes a valid
Alaska Concealed Handgun Permit issued under AS
18.65.700. The Alaska State Troopers shall make a
determination as to which states will be recognized in
Alaska and provide that list to every law enforcement
agency within the state.
(This amendment will serve to increase reciprocal
agreements with other states and afford the citizens of
Alaska the opportunity to have their permits recognized
when they are in jurisdictions outside Alaska.)
Number 1757
MS. PARKER pointed out that the sponsor opposes this amendment
unless some minor changes are made: insertion of a new
subsection (b) on page 8, line 5, after (4); the addition of
"permit holders from other jurisdictions ... (a)" on page 7, line
23, Sec. 18.65.748; and on page 8, line 5 at the end of "records
search", the addition of "or".
MS. PARKER explained that the sponsor of SB 294 is trying to
provide two options: one for reciprocity and one for
recognition. That recognition is the same for permit holders
from other states after providing four clear requirements that
other states must meet: a fingerprint check, completion of the
firearm safety course, being 21 years of age, and being eligible
to possess a firearm under federal law. She indicated another
option is that a person could be recognized under reciprocity on
page 8, line 5, new subsection AS 18.65.748(b), by inserting
"will be given reciprocity with Alaska and provide" instead of
"which states will be recognized." Thus, SB 294 will have a
section for reciprocity and recognition that will give Alaska the
broadest availability of permit recognition both in Alaska and in
other states. She emphasized that the sponsor supports these
changes.
Number 1620
CHAIR JAMES directed members to page 8, line 3, and quoted: "(3)
successfully complete some type of handgun or firearms safety
course; and." She asked if it would be possible for someone to
come to this state, perhaps from Washington state, without having
qualified in a handgun course.
MS. PARKER replied that it would be allowed if there were a
reciprocity agreement with Alaska. However, if Washington state,
for example, does not require a handgun safety course of its
permit holders, then the person with a Washington permit would
not qualify to carry [a concealed handgun] in Alaska under SB
294.
CHAIR JAMES remarked that Alaskans cannot carry in Washington,
then.
MS. PARKER answered not necessarily because the right to carry
[firearms] depends upon whether Washington accepts Alaskan
permits, and that is up to Washington.
Number 1551
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt the suggested changes.
CHAIR JAMES directed members and Lieutenant Hudson to page 7,
line 23, where it says "permit holders". She noted that a
subsection (a) is added; and on page 8, line 5, at the end of
"criminal records search", an "or" is added, and after paragraph
(4), a subsection (b) is added, which reads as follows:
A person holding a valid permit or license to carry a
concealed handgun from another state or political
subdivision of another state is a permittee under AS
18.65.700(a) for purposes of AS 18.65.700-18.65.765, if
the person has not been in Alaska for more than 120
consecutive days; provided that the state or political
subdivision of the state that issued the permit or
license recognizes a valid Alaska Concealed Handgun
Permit issued under AS 18.65.700. The Alaska State
Troopers shall make a determination as to which states
will be recognized in Alaska and provide that list to
every law enforcement agency within the state.
Number 1422
LIEUTENANT HUDSON said it sounds as if it will increase
reciprocity for Alaskan citizens, and it sounds like something
the department would like to do.
CHAIR JAMES asked whether there was any objection. There being
none, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 1381
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move CSSB 294(JUD), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the
attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
294(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 444-STATE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 444, "An Act relating to nongovernmental activities of state
agencies, including the University of Alaska; and providing for
an effective date." [HB 44 was sponsored by the House Rules
Committee, chaired by Representative John Cowdery.]
Number 1299
ANNETTE DEAL, Researcher to Representative John Cowdery, Alaska
State Legislature, offered to explain changes in Version H, the
new proposed committee substitute (CS).
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB
444, version 1-LS1177\H, Bannister, 4/13/00, as a work draft.
There being no objection, proposed CSHB 444, Version H, was
before the committee.
Number 1257
MS. DEAL explained that the original bill had included a
paragraph on page 5, lines 6-10, which specified that the
competitive field bidding process would be used if and when an
agency decided to hire a private person to perform an activity.
This paragraph has now been deleted from the proposed CS. She
mentioned that all language that pertains to the University of
Alaska was deleted because the university does not fall under the
executive branch and has a very progressive attitude towards
identifying outsourcing possibilities. She indicated that
paragraph (e) under the "Challenge and appeal" section, found on
page 4, line 9, was modified to include allowance for a person to
appeal a decision to a superior court. She informed the
committee that the allowance already applied, but it becomes
clear that everyone has a constitutional right to go to court by
adding this language.
Number 1124
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move CSHB 444, version 1-
LS1177\H, Bannister, 4/13/00, out of committee with individual
recommendations and no fiscal note. There being no objection,
CSHB 444(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
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 |
|---|