Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/13/1996 08:05 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
February 13, 1996
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 338
"An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 51
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to limited entry for sport fish guides and allied
professions.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 338
SHORT TITLE: CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT AMENDMENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES, Foster, Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/07/95 1950 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/07/95 1950 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
10/05/95 (H) STA AT 09:00 AM ANCHORAGE LIO
10/05/95 (J) MINUTE(STA)
10/05/95 (S) STA AT 09:00 AM ANCHORAGE LIO
10/05/95 (J) MINUTE(STA)
01/11/96 2419 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
01/23/96 (H) STA AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
01/23/96 (S) STA AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
01/23/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/23/96 (J) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 51
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2358 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2358 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2358 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FSH, JUDICIARY
02/13/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
IRL STAMBAUGH, Chief of Police
City of Wasilla
250 North Knik
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 373-9077
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
ROY BRITTIAN
HC 60 Box 330-M
Copper Center, Alaska 99573
Telephone: (907) 822-3051
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
BERNARD GOODNO
c/o P.O. Box 92
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4000
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
WESLEY NEWCOMB
P.O. Box 1001
Sterling, Alaska 99672
Telephone: (907) 262-3135
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
LADD MCBRIDE
P.O. Box 83567
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-8096
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
ROE THOMAS
P.O. Box 8282
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-4852
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
MARY ELLEN EMMONS
860 Century Drive
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-4413
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
GENE OTTENSTROER
c/o P.O. Box 1059
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4805
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
HARLAN KNUDSON, President
Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association
319 Seward Street, Number 11
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1790
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony against HB 338.
GARY HAYDEN, Director
Alaska Marine Highway System
P.O. Box 25535
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5535
Telephone: (907) 465-3959
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony against HB 338.
BOB PROVOST, Regional Director
Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific, Alaska Region
231 South Franklin Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-8200
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony against HB 338.
ROBERT NESVICK
P.O. Box 5276
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-4618
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association
114 2nd Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 338.
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
MARK BUCHNER
P.O. Box 1103
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-4435
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
JOE KILIAN
P.O.Box 1947
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5002
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
MEL ERICKSON, Vice President
Kenai River Guide Association
Deep Creek Charter Association
P.O. Box 1127
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: Not available
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
JOE HANES, President
Kenai River Guide Association
P.O. Box 3132
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-6388
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
DONALD WESTLUND
P.O. Box 7883
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
DENNIS PETRE
P.O. Box 55675
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-4589
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
KENT HALL
500 Lincoln, Number 641
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-5089
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
PAUL JOHNSON
P.O. Box 72
Elfin Cove, Alaska 99825
Telephone: (907) 789-0944
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
MIKE KRAMER
P.O. Box 73196
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 479-0860
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 51.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-14, SIDE A
Number 0000
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Robinson, Ogan, Willis, Porter and James.
Members absent were Representatives Green and Ivan.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES explained Representative Green was not here
because his flight did not arrive on time and Representative Ivan
was in a sub-committee meeting.
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 338.
HB 338 - CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT AMENDMENTS
CHAIR JAMES called on Barbara Cotting, Legislative Assistant to
Jeannette James to present the committee substitute.
Number 0214
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Jeannette
James, explained the package of information before the committee
members contained the committee substitute (CS 9-LS1157/F), the
sponsor statement, a brief explanation of the changes, and a list
of the misdemeanors. She stated two years ago HB 351 was passed
into law. She further stated one year ago Representative James
introduced HB 338 which changed the handgun regulations. She
explained there were a lot of hearings over the summer and as a
result CS 9-LS1157/C was introduced at a House State Affairs
Committee meeting a few weeks ago resulting in CS 9-LS1157/F.
MS. COTTING read the following statement into the record.
"After the passage of House Bill 351 in 1994, providing for the
issuance of concealed handgun permits, we heard many comments from
prospective applicants and license holders that
1. the process needed to be simplified,
2. the cost needed to be lowered, and
3. most of all, the list of places where a concealed handgun could
be carried needed to be less restrictive.
"People were discovering that, after subjecting themselves to the
lengthy and expensive process of obtaining a concealed handgun
permit, they were very limited in where they were allowed to carry
their concealed handguns.
"Those individuals willing to undergo the rigorous training courses
and background checks required to acquire a concealed handgun
permit in Alaska must be assumed to be among our most law abiding,
trustworthy, and conscientious citizens. They should not have to
be constantly leaving their handguns behind in order to conduct a
normal day's business in our state. HB 338 would alleviate this
problem."
MS. COTTING referred the committee members to the list of 10
changes made to the CS 9-LS1157/F. She explained item 1 kept the
applicant fee the same as in HB 338 at $65. However, she explained
Representative James would be submitting a different fee. It would
remain under $100, but still cover the actual costs, which had yet
to be determined. Therefore, the fee would be under $100 and
probably higher than $65 as stated in HB 338.
MS. COTTING explained item 2 listed the places where a concealed
handgun may not be carried: for example, areas prohibited by
federal law, areas that have opted out, State Court Facilities, and
bars that served liquor. Item 2 further stated a licensee was
prohibited from disembarking from a vehicle while on school
grounds, if a concealed handgun was carried on the person.
MS. COTTING explained item 3 was the list of misdemeanors retained
in the concealed handgun program. The list included the
misdemeanors that dealt with violence and weapons violations.
MS. COTTING explained item 4 returned the residency requirement to
90 days.
MS. COTTING further explained item 5 maintained reciprocity with
other states. It also required licensees from approved states to
register their permit and obtain a copy of state laws.
MS. COTTING explained item 6 granted retired police officers a
permit without training requirements, if they applied within one
year of retirement and paid the license fee. After receiving the
permit, she explained, they would be subject to all existing
revocation and renewal requirements.
MS. COTTING further explained item 7 changed the word "firearms" to
"concealed handguns."
MS. COTTING explained item 8 to item 10 returned the original
statute due to the reciprocity agreement, to for example:
Prohibiting miniature handguns and derringers, returning the
original training requirements, including the need to qualify for
a specified caliber and action type, and returning the requirements
of fingerprints and background checks.
Number 0739
MS. COTTING referred the committee members to the actual CS 9-
LS1157/F and explained the various sections.
MS. COTTING explained Section 1 dealt with the school ground issue,
and a village or municipality that was prohibited under current
statute.
MS. COTTING explained Section 2 dealt with the places that were
valid to carry a concealed handgun.
MS. COTTING explained Section 3 changed the word "firearms" to
"concealed handguns" for the convenience of the Department of
Public Safety.
MS. COTTING explained Section 4 returned the approval or rejection
of an applicant back to within 30 days.
MS. COTTING explained Section 5 referenced the list of misdemeanors
retained in the concealed handgun program. She further suggested
an amendment to omit line 7 to line 9, on page 4. She also
mentioned the residency issue was addressed on page 4, line 18, and
returned it to 90 days.
MS. COTTING explained Section 6 conformed the firearms to concealed
handguns.
MS. COTTING explained Section 7 added that an honorably retired
peace officer could apply for a permit within one year after
retirement.
MS. COTTING explained Section 8 addressed reciprocity.
MS. COTTING explained Section 9 amended the fees. The amount was
unknown, however.
MS. COTTING explained Section 10 conformed to previous sections and
explained conditions under which a permit could be revoked.
MS. COTTING explained Section 11 explained the places where a
concealed handgun could be carried: for example, a licensed
restaurant, school grounds in a vehicle, and a courtroom. She
explained page 7, line 4 to line 28, were omitted.
MS. COTTING explained Section 12 conformed repealed statutes.
Number 0956
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions from the committee
members.
Number 0975
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON wondered why the residency changed
from 1 year to 90 days.
Number 0988
CHAIR JAMES said the concern was qualification, and stated either
a person was qualified or not to carry a concealed handgun. She
also said there was a reciprocal issue involved. She cited there
was an influx of people to Alaska and it did not matter if they
were a resident of the state. She stated she preferred no
residency requirement at all because it took 30 days to get the
permit and the background check would identify those not qualified.
Therefore, the 90 days were not as restrictive as 1 year.
Number 1053
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered who would determine the
reciprocity qualifications with other states.
CHAIR JAMES replied the Department of Public Safety.
Number 1073
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if the Alaska Marine Highway
System and domestic violence programs, for example, could post a
sign prohibiting concealed handguns.
Number 1087
MS. COTTING replied that part of the statute had not been changed
so she assumed any facility could post a sign to prohibit a
concealed handgun.
Number 1096
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the Marine Highway System was
considered a facility.
Number 1101
MS. COTTING replied, "yes," as she interpreted it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if any place could post a sign
prohibiting a concealed handgun.
MS. COTTING replied, "certainly."
Number 1107
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON enquired about posting a sign prohibiting
handguns at her own home.
Number 1121
CHAIR JAMES responded it was possible, if she was brave enough.
Number 1130
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if she could ask someone to leave
if they were carrying a handgun.
CHAIR JAMES replied she was not sure and called on Representative
Brian Porter to respond.
Number 1138
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said a person had the right to refuse
entrance, or ask someone to leave their home at any time and for
any reason.
Number 1150
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if the CS 9-LS1157/F included
banks.
MS. COTTING replied, "yes."
Number 1157
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN referred the committee members to page 7,
line 15, item 9, and read "A residence where notice that carrying
a concealed handgun is prohibited has been given by the posting of
a conspicuous notice or by oral statement by the resident to the
permittee."
Number 1178
CHAIR JAMES wondered if page 7, item 9 was intended to be deleted.
Number 1201
MS. COTTING replied she missed that item. She further responded to
Representative Robinson's question regarding banks, and stated it
was taken out of the places that were prohibited to carry a
concealed handgun.
Number 1226
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the removal of item 9 on page 7 might
not be necessary because a law could not be written to control a
person's private residence to allow a person inside with a gun.
Number 1242
CHAIR JAMES replied when HB 351 was passed in 1994, a list of
prohibited places was demanded from the individuals obtaining the
permit. Therefore, the intent of HB 338 was to list all the places
prohibited and not prohibited.
Number 1286
MS. COTTING asked Representative Porter if Section 11, item 10, was
included as a given right.
Number 1301
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied a person responsible for a public
facility had the right to qualify who may or may not enter or
remain on the premise as long as it did not discriminate against a
protected class. He said it was backed-up by a trespassing charge.
Number 1333
CHAIR JAMES suggested conferring with the Department of Law
regarding that issue. She further believed it was premature to
make any changes to the concealed handgun law. However, a few
changes were needed, but she did not want to make any drastic
changes. She cited some permitees were concerned about walking to
and from a bank with a large sum of money without a concealed
handgun, because once at the bank they could not enter. She stated
"concealed" was the action word and no evidence should be shown
that a permittee carried a concealed handgun. She said permittees
should not even reveal they had a concealed handgun permit. The
advantage to carrying a concealed handgun was for personal
protection. She was concerned a permittee would be treated
differently, if it was known a handgun was being carried. She
stated this could not be written into law, so it must be understood
by the permit holders and addressed in the classes.
The record reflected the arrival of Representative Ivan Ivan at
8:20 a.m.
Number 1502
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained a restaurant and a bar were not
clearly defined and cited his personal building experience. He
wondered how it would work, if the intent was to keep individuals
with concealed weapons out of the bars.
Number 1604
CHAIR JAMES responded she tried to include in HB 338 that it was
illegal to consume alcohol when carrying a concealed handgun. This
was objected by a lot of people, however, who socially drink. She
further said it was even objected by law enforcement and legally it
would be hard to enforce. She explained, if you visited a place to
eat you could carry a concealed handgun, but if you were visiting
a place to drink you could not. That was the delineation of the
intent.
Number 1684
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what if a person was visiting a place
to eat and drink?
Number 1690
CHAIR JAMES reiterated she believed a person should not consume
alcohol while carrying a concealed handgun.
Number 1705
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed with Chair James. She stated it was
an easy bottom line or guideline to follow. A person carrying a
concealed handgun should not drink, she asserted. She further
wondered, if it was possible for the owner of a restaurant to post
a notice.
Number 1740
CHAIR JAMES explained the intent was for a private person to be
able to post a notice where it was visible to prevent a
confrontation.
Number 1764
MS. COTTING suggested calling on Deputy Commissioner Del Smith,
Department of Public Safety, for clarification regarding the
posting of a notice and alcohol consumption issues.
Number 1787
CHAIR JAMES replied she had already discussed with Deputy
Commissioner Smith the issue of alcohol consumption.
Number 1793
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if a statute already addressed the
possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.
Number 1804
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied there was a statute that addressed
intoxication and the possession of a firearm whereby the level of
intoxication was determined on a case-by-case basis. However,
there was no prohibition against having a drink while possessing a
firearm.
Number 1822
CHAIR JAMES said based on personal experiences, alcohol and guns
did not mix. She cited many observations of hunting parties where
alcohol was consumed more than bullets shot. She reiterated she
would like to prohibit that in the bill.
Number 1874
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested specific language was needed for
posting notices similar to the fetal alcohol notice, to prevent
confusion for private business owners. She further wondered what
places were prohibited by federal law.
Number 1924
CHAIR JAMES replied: for example, federal courts, and airport
passenger loading areas.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said to his surprise banks were not included.
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS wondered about schools.
CHAIR JAMES replied, "no." A court decision indicated states could
only make that decision based on an interference with the commerce
clause of the constitution. Chair James said she would research
the question further and respond on Saturday, February 17, 1996.
Number 1957
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested hearing testimony regarding the bar
issue. He wondered how it would be enforced and suggested language
was needed to clarify the issue.
Number 1990
CHAIR JAMES said there was an impression by the public that anyone
carrying a concealed handgun had an ulterior motive. She cited the
issue surrounding Carr Gottstein Foods Co. that wanted to post a
notice sign to prohibit concealed handgun. She stated dark parking
lots were very dangerous, and wondered what a person would do with
the weapon at the door before entering. She said the semantics
dictated this bill, and it was discriminatory to prohibit just
permitees from entering. The person with an ulterior motive did
not care if there was a sign posted. She said she did not
understand the hesitation when there was a general bill already
allowing a weapon to be carried on a person while engaging in a
lawful activity. House Bill 338 just extended it a little bit
more, she asserted. Furthermore, HB 338 required training and a
background check which was an improvement. She further stated once
a person carried a concealed weapon, keeping it concealed was what
made it successful.
Number 2149
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if it was legal to carry a
concealed handgun into a state court.
CHAIR JAMES replied it was prohibited as indicated in the CS 9-
LS1157/F.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in Mat-
Su, Irl Stambaugh.
Number 2173
IRL STAMBAUGH, Chief of Police, City of Wasilla, said he was
concerned HB 338 would allow people to carry a concealed handgun
into inappropriate places such as, city hall, city facilities, or
any police agency.
Number 2208
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Chief Stambaugh if there was an
enforcement problem for a person carrying a concealed weapon into
a restaurant, but not a bar.
Number 2223
CHIEF STAMBAUGH said it was hard to differentiate sometimes if a
person was in a restaurant or in a bar. He further said he
believed guns and booze did not mix.
Number 2240
CHAIR JAMES commented there was a need for the food service
industry to protect itself with a concealed weapon, and asked Chief
Stambaugh to respond.
Number 2255
CHIEF STAMBAUGH replied he did not have a problem with a
restaurant, but did have a problem with a bar, and reiterated it
was hard to sort the difference sometimes.
Number 2265
CHAIR JAMES wondered, if Chief Stambaugh's concern was about a
person carrying a concealed handgun while consuming alcohol, or was
he concerned about a person being accosted and responding.
Number 2277
CHIEF STAMBAUGH replied he had seen all of the above before. He
said people did not use good sense after drinking too much in a
bar.
Number 2286
CHAIR JAMES asked Chief Stambaugh how he felt about adding language
in the bill that prohibited alcohol consumption while carrying a
concealed handgun.
Number 2292
CHIEF STAMBAUGH responded it was appropriate and a good start.
Number 2297
CHAIR JAMES wondered if Chief Stambaugh was more comfortable
allowing an individual to carry a concealed handgun while eating in
a restaurant.
CHIEF STAMBAUGH repeated he did not have a problem with an
individual carrying a concealed handgun while in a restaurant, only
in a bar.
CHAIR JAMES wondered if it would be helpful to include in the bill
why the person was in the restaurant or bar.
Number 2312
CHIEF STAMBAUGH replied it would be difficult to enforce.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Glennallen, Roy Brittian.
Number 2320
ROY BRITTIAN said a person should not drink alcohol while carrying
a concealed weapon. He further commented on classes offered in
Glennallen. He stated the classes were too expensive, over $300.
He asserted the cost limited it to those with a high salary. He
further stated he wanted to see the classes conducted by the
National Rifle Association (NRA). He suggested a waiver for the
remote areas. He cited he would have to drive 250 miles one way to
attend an NRA class. He further stated he would like the bill to
include all weapons and not just a certain caliber or type of
handgun. He further suggested stores should employee a parking lot
patrol so the patrons would be safe walking from their car to the
store. He reiterated the fee needed to be reduced, and special
consideration given to the remote areas.
Number 2440
CHAIR JAMES replied his concerns regarding the remote areas were
real. She cited the classes were not available in the bush and the
price prohibited those vulnerable, such as single women from
obtaining a permit. However, to maintain credibility, the classes
and background checks needed to continue.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta
Junction, Bernard Goodno.
Number 2484
BERNARD GOODNO said he opposed HB 338. He stated it was a direct
violation of the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and a direct violation of Article I, Section 19, of
the Alaska State Constitution. He stated the oath meant nothing,
and the drafter of HB 338 was breaking the law.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai,
Wesley Newcom.
Number 0018
WESLEY NEWCOMB said there should not be a carry permit because the
individuals that we needed to worry about were the ones that did
the damage. However, since there was a carry permit, he questioned
the regulation against a small, miniature gun and cited the
derringer. He further said the cost was out of line and it was too
high for a lot of people. Mr. Newcomb also stated training was not
necessary for the individuals who had served in the military. He
agreed a weapon should not be carried into a place to drink or a
police station. Other areas, he stated, a person should be able to
carry a concealed weapon unless posted.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Lynn Levengood.
Number 0106
LYNN LEVENGOOD thanked Chair James for trying to straighten the law
out. He stated he helped draft the original language. The
regulations drafted by the Department of Public Safety, he
asserted, were abominable. He said the regulations treated Alaskan
citizens like common criminals. He cited police in Fairbanks used
their computer to determine if a person pulled over had a permit.
He reiterated he was tired of being treated like a criminal. When
the law was passed in 1994, it changed the Alaska State
Constitution also. He said the right of the people to keep and
bear arms should not be infringed or denied by the state or a
political subdivision of the state. He stated HB 338 did not
address the private property issue. He asserted the constitutional
right did not apply to areas open to the public. He also said it
was against the Alaska State Constitution to allow municipalities
to opt-out of the bill and should be deleted from the bill. He
said the controversy surrounding the bars and restaurants was a
non-issue. He cited this had not been a problem in the states of
Vermont, Florida, and Alabama. He further stated the zone around
the school and not the language of carrying a gun into the school
building while in session was struck down by a federal court. He
cited gun shows were held in school buildings in Fairbanks. He
suggested changing the language in Section 11, item (2), page 6, to
include "while in session." He said the intent was not to protect
an empty building. He suggested changing the language in Section
8, item (a), to read "the state shall honor reciprocity of other
state licensed holders." He said it was a constitutional right and
should be honored among all states. He alleged HB 338 created a
legal mine field with respect to the places a person could or could
not carry a permit. He cited it was an automatic misdemeanor if a
woman forgot to take a gun out of her purse, for example. He
suggested adding the words discussing a Class D misdemeanor,
"except for valid permit holders for which it is a violation
punishable by a fine of up to $500." He said a criminal record for
an inadvertent mistake was chilling and needed to be addressed.
Number 0352
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Levengood if he felt the right to
keep and bear arms was an absolute right.
Number 0363
MR. LEVENGOOD replied it was a fundamental right such as the right
to privacy. Therefore, "no," it was not an absolute right.
However, the state could restrict fundamental rights when there was
a compelling government interest.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Ladd McBride.
Number 0386
LADD MCBRIDE reminded the committee members it was the law abiding
citizens this bill addressed. He thanked the committee members for
reviewing the fee schedule. He reiterated this bill was addressing
law abiding citizens that were protected under the Second
Amendment. He cited the saying, "don't ask, don't tell" addressing
the private property issue. He was concerned about restricting a
law abiding citizen as to where he could eat and drink. In
conclusion, he stated, if it was made a problem, it might very well
become a problem.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Ketchikan, Roe Thomas.
Number 0472
ROE THOMAS said he was concerned about allowing a concealed handgun
into a bar but not a restaurant because the licensed premises were
not really posted. He suggested treating a licensee the same as an
individual while under the influence when driving. He wondered,
however, how this would be policed. He agreed with the school
premise issue, and again suggested the restaurant issue needed
further consideration.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Mat-
Su, Mary Ellen Emmons.
Number 0578
MARY ELLEN EMMONS said her family had discussed this issue many
times. She stated it was a shame to be discussing this issue
because it meant there was a failure in the justice system. She
did not want to have to carry a gun to protect herself. She wanted
to believe this was a more civilized time. However, she also did
not want to be a victim. She stated it was important to remember
HB 338 was for the law abiding citizens. She wanted the law to be
straight forward because common sense could not be legislated. She
stated there were systems in place and she wanted the ultimate
energy to go towards making sure there were sufficient consequences
for criminals. She stated it was important that society had the
guts to put someone behind bars. Ms. Emmons said, in conclusion,
this law was a result of a lot of frustration.
Number 0675
CHAIR JAMES replied nationwide there were very few incidents
surrounding individuals that carried a concealed weapon. She said
there was not an escalation of gun activity because an individual
had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In her opinion, the
people that carried a concealed weapon were very sincere about why
it was needed. She cited the most vulnerable were single women and
carrying a small gun in their purse made them feel secure. She
further stated the law enforcement issue needed to be put into
perspective. She cited there was a limited number of officers,
court time, and places where criminals were held. She stated law
enforcement was working hard, but was not here to protect the
individual from an individual challenge.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta
Junction, Gene Ottenstroer.
Number 0758
GENE OTTENSTROER said he opposed HB 338. He said it needed to be
scrapped. He called it a big infringement. He cited the Second
Amendment of the United States Constitution and read, "a well
regulated militia being necessary to secure a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." He
read the definition of militia from a law dictionary, "a body of
citizens in a state enrolled for discipline as a military force but
not engaged in actual services except in emergencies as
distinguished from regular troops or a standing army." He also
read the definition of infringement, "a breaking into, a trespass,
or an encroachment upon a violation of law, regulation, contract or
right." He said the bill was a great injustice to the citizens and
the state of Alaska. He wondered if the committee members
understood the constitution.
Number 0859
CHAIR JAMES responded the committee members vowed they would
support the constitution. She stated Mr. Levengood made it clear
that whenever there was a state compelling interest, provisions
were allowed.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Harlan Knudson.
Number 0885
HARLAN KNUDSON, President, The Alaska State Hospital and Nursing
Home Association, said he was here today to offer an amendment and
to make a plea on behalf of the individuals that run community
hospitals, nursing homes, and mental health centers. He referred
the committee members to page 7, line 13, and read "A facility
providing services to victims of domestic violence or sexual
assault." He said he opposed the deletion of this provision and
suggested an amendment to allow institutions to post a sign. He
said he could not cite an incident in a health facility due to a
concealed handgun. However, he explained he was concerned about a
weapon in a handbag left by a woman: for example, in a nursing
home with a suicidal patient, or in an emergency room, or in a
community mental health center. A sign was needed to protect the
patients. He said the woman would not claim the mistake and the
trial lawyers would sue the hospital, nursing home, or community
mental health center because the patient was not protected. He
urged the committee members to include a health care facility in
the law to post a sign.
Number 1089
CHAIR JAMES replied she was insulted that he believed a lady with
a concealed handgun would be that careless. She said people who
carried a concealed handgun were responsible. She wondered about
a young woman who carried a concealed handgun and sought treatment
at a health care facility. She wondered if she was a law breaker
because of the concealed handgun in her purse. She did not want an
answer from Mr. Knudson she just wanted to pose a different
scenario. She further said there was a communication problem
between the parties regarding responsibility and in a few years a
consensus would be reached. She also stated these people were not
criminals, but felt the need to carry a concealed weapon to protect
themselves. The fear Mr. Knudson was feeling now that compelled
him to testify, was the same fear that compelled an individual to
carry a concealed handgun, and it was important to understand each
other's fear.
Number 1200
MR. KNUDSON replied, "point well taken, and we will do that."
Number 1208
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if hospitals and other facilities
that wanted to post, could?
Number 1221
CHAIR JAMES stated she believed they could, but would verify with
the Department of Law. She said she did not want to make an
individual a law breaker by going to a place for assistance, such
as a hospital. She suggested looking at the semantics and fear of
when to arm, and when to disarm.
Number 1271
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN asked if there were similar amendments
submitted.
Number 1288
CHAIR JAMES replied, "no." A committee substitute was being
discussed now. The bill was still in transition and still being
discussed. She said on Saturday, February 17, 1996, hopefully, an
agreement would be reached on the amendments. She announced she
wanted to move the bill soon, but it needed to be acceptable by the
majority of the people.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Gary Hayden.
Number 1333
GARY HAYDEN, Director, Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS),
referred the committee members to Section 11, line 12, and stated
he was concerned, as the bill read, it would allow an individual to
carry a concealed weapon aboard a vessel of the Alaska Marine
Highway System. He said the AMHS was a common carrier and a public
agency. He wondered if a public entity had the right to post a
policy notice regarding handguns. He further said the AMHS
transported around 400 to 600 people each year on any one of the
ships. He said HB 338 would diminish the safety, security and well
being of the passengers, and the confidence of the public. He said
it created safety and security concerns for the employees of the
AMHS. The officers represented the lawful authority at sea, and
their duties included an on-going effort to encompass a security
program to minimize conflict and protect the lives of the
passengers and the crew. Periodically the AMHS met with state and
national law enforcement agencies to assess the risk of travelling
and considered steps to mitigate any potential problems. The AMHS
continually dealt with unruly, belligerent and hostile passengers,
but the crew was not armed. The policy did not allow loaded
weapons on the vessels. A carried, unloaded firearm was allowed
locked in a vehicle, and a foot passenger needed to check the
weapon with ship personnel. The most serious incidents in the past
evolved from passengers reporting other passengers with concealed
weapons. The crew, with one exception, was able to control the
situation. He cited that one exception occurred on January 14,
1994 when an individual took a pursuer hostage and fired several
rounds then took his own life, and current policy was a direct
result of that incident. He said if concealed firearms were
allowed on ships the valuable edge gained from passenger
observation would be lost. He said it would be difficult to tell
the good guys from the bad guys. He wondered about the additional
security measures needed, such as metal detectors. There was no
information to suggest that the passengers needed weapons to
protect themselves or that the crew had been unable to protect the
passengers, he stated. He said, if HB 338 was passed, the AMHS
would need to implement a policy patterned after Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations concerning concealed weapons on
airlines. In conclusion, this bill suggested deleting the AMHS was
not needed. If a passenger needed additional security he suggested
the passenger check-in with the officer upon boarding and
arrangements would be made.
Number 1687
CHAIR JAMES said she agreed with Mr. Hayden except for the
statement made referring to the distinction between the good guys
and the bad guys and took offense to the statement.
Number 1711
MR. HAYDEN replied she misunderstood the statement. He explained
in the past the AMHS had dealt with individuals who carried a
weapon, successfully. However, now that there were two groups on
board - those who could carry and those who could not carry - it
complicated the crew's job performance. He did not mean to be
offensive.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Bob Provost.
Number 1765
BOB PROVOST, Regional Director, Inlandboatman's Union of the
Pacific, Alaska Region (IBU), said there was a long history of
transporting passengers safely. He said there was a system in
place to check-in handguns in comparison to a bank or a store.
There was no need to carry a firearm legally or illegally on the
ferry, he asserted. He further said he supported Mr. Hayden's
testimony. The IBU members were the stewards, deck hands, and
engine room personnel that took care of passenger's needs all over
the vessel. He cited in the middle of the summer there were as
many as 500 passengers aboard the ferry system of which some slept
on the solarium. He stated he was concerned someone would get into
a handbag or pocket which had happened in the past, when sleeping.
He said he was not worried about the licensed individuals, but
about the other individuals who might come across the weapons when
they were not secured.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Ketchikan, Robert Nesvick.
Number 2040
ROBERT NESVICK said he was a former police chief. He said there
was a lot of hysteria created by people who had very little
knowledge of carrying a concealed weapon. He said in Alaska there
were more people carrying a concealed weapon without a permit than
with a permit. He wondered why everyone was worried about the
individuals who had taken the time to get a permit. He said if a
person was carrying a concealed weapon no one would know. He cited
he had been in and out of banks in the course of duty and nobody
knew if he had a gun or not. He said there was an enforcement
problem regarding bars and restaurants. He stated there was a
policy where the off-duty officer could not carry a concealed gun
when drinking, and suggested that be extended to everyone. He
wondered why there was a problem as other states had shown it was
not a problem.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Vernon Marshall.
Number 2186
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education Association
Alaska (NEA), said the assumption was school zones were free zones.
He said schools were experiencing an escalation of violence. He
felt guns and school kids did not mix. He wondered about
uncontrollable situations and commented it would be hard to
distinguish between permitees and non-permitees. He urged the
committee members to continue the schools as gun free areas. He
questioned the wording "propelled vehicle," and wondered if that
pertained to snow machines and motorcycles.
Number 2424
CHAIR JAMES responded, a snow machine would be a propelled vehicle
as well as any other vehicle found in the bush. She stated the
current law was too strict and a permittee should be able to drop
off his wife or child at school without breaking the law. It was
unreasonable, she asserted. She said a weapon in the car did not
perpetuate more guns on the school grounds.
TAPE 96-15, SIDE A
Number 0000
HJR 51 - SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HJR 51.
CHAIR JAMES called on Jeff Logan, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Joe Green.
Number 0072
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,
thanked Chair James for bringing HJR 51 before the House State
Affairs Committee. He said Representative Green was detained due
to his flight so he would present the sponsor statement. He
further said he would limit his testimony to the statewide policy
implications of the authority granted in this resolution. He said
the subsequent hearings in the House Special Committee on Fisheries
and the House Judiciary Committee would explore the technicalities
of law and fish management. Mr. Logan read the following sponsor
statement into the record.
"HJR 51 proposes a constitutional amendment to grant the state the
authority to limit entry into the sport fish guide profession. HJR
51 is needed because the state's authority to impose such limits is
not clear at this time. We believe that without a constitutional
amendment, litigation is sure to follow any attempt to limit sport
fish guides under current law.
"While it is anticipated that such limits will be the conclusion of
a public process, based on scientific data, HJR 51 does not address
the specifics of implementing such restrictions. HJR 51 simply
grants a clear and concise line of authority from the voters to the
state."
MR. LOGAN said it was not known if the state needed to limit sport
fish guides, but there were strong indications that limits were
needed in some fisheries. He referred the committee members to the
bill packet and mentioned the information that indicated the
increase in the number of guides in southeast and southcentral
Alaska. The numbers indicated a problem, he asserted. He further
stated the limitations would be a result of the public process and
based on scientific data. He stated the mechanics for collecting
the scientific data were spelled-out in HB 175.
MR. LOGAN further said in 1991 resource managers proposed limiting
guides on a popular river in southcentral Alaska. It was reviewed
by the Department of Law and found unconstitutional. He referred
the committee members to a memorandum dated December 4, 1995 from
Legal Services which indicated attempts to impose such limits might
not be patently unconstitutional, but there was a good chance it
would be viewed as constitutionally unfounded by the court. In
conclusion, he stated, HJR 51 was good statewide policy because it
granted the resource managers a tool needed, and allowed the state
to get ahead of the resource management, and litigation curve. He
urged the passage of HJR 51 to the next committee of referral - The
House Special Committee on Fisheries.
Number 0320
CHAIR JAMES stated she was concerned about a binding policy
compared to a local policy. The Alaska State Constitution
guaranteed equal access to the resources and that the resources
should be managed on a sustainable basis. Therefore, it was wise
to limit the sport fish guide entry if that fell under the
constitutional mandate to sustain the resources. Moreover, a
constitutional amendment might not be necessary to accomplish this,
and she questioned the appropriateness of an amendment addressing
a specific resource. She said she did not approve or disapprove,
but was concerned about the policy.
Number 0440
MR. LOGAN replied resource managers felt they needed to limit in
some fisheries the number of sport fish guides. The Department of
Law found those proposals were unconstitutional so in order to
proceed further, a constitutional amendment was needed according to
Legislative Legal Services.
Number 0485
CHAIR JAMES responded the Alaska State Constitution should be the
guidepost for all subsequent statute changes as it was broad based
and fair towards sharing and maintaining the resources. Therefore,
if previous proposals were found unconstitutional, there was a
reason. She stated she did not want to "mini manage" the state
through constitutional amendments.
Number 0536
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he was concerned about the
constitutional specificity of sport fish guide. He wondered if
there would be a constitutional amendment for brown bear guides
next year, for example. He further wondered if there was a need to
limit any of these functions and suggested crafting an amendment
that would allow the flexibility needed.
Number 0620
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered, if HB 175, which established the
licensing system, should be in place before HJR 51 was moved
forward.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Valdez, Mark Buchner.
Number 0672
MARK BUCHNER said it was a little too early to try to limit sport
guides. He said there might be some problems in specific areas,
such as the Kenai River, but there were so many places in the state
that were so wide open that any form of legislation would cut a lot
of people off. He said he would be present at all the future
teleconferences and follow the progress of HJR 51.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Valdez, Joe Kilian.
Number 0723
JOE KILIAN said there might be areas of the state that needed
limitations, but there were areas that would be hurt by a limit.
He cited in Valdez at times there were not enough charters to
service the tourists. He stated once a limit was imposed, it
affected the community as well. He stated HJR 51 was premature.
He also said he would follow the progress of the resolution and
would be present at future teleconferences.
CHAIR JAMES reminded the witnesses that the focus of the issue
today was on the philosophy of the issue as an amendment to the
Alaska State Constitution, and not the specifics.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai,
Mel Erickson.
Number 0840
MEL ERICKSON, Vice President, Kenai River Guide Association, and a
member of the Deep Creek Charter Association, suggested area
specific limitations. He cited there were open areas in commercial
fishing. He further stated guides would probably increase in 1996
due to the Coast Guard easing-up on the six passenger license.
CHAIR JAMES reminded Mr. Erickson the issue today was the
appropriateness of a constitutional amendment and not the specifics
of the fishing area.
MR. ERICKSON replied he did not know that much about the Alaska
State Constitution. He said he was all for it if it took a
constitutional amendment. He stated he did not care how it
happened as long as there were some regulations. It was getting
way out of control and there was a resource problem. He cited
commercial fishing was limited, the upper Kenai River was limited,
and he wondered why the sport fish guides were by passed. He said,
just figure out a way to do it even if it took a constitutional
amendment.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai,
Joe Hanes.
Number 0973
JOE HANES, President, Kenai River Guide Association, said a limit
was needed one way or the other. He stated everybody wanted it to
happen and cited the commercial fishermen, guides, and the board of
fish wanted a limit. He said the precedence had been set in the
commercial and big game industry, and there was limited entry in
federal waters. He asserted HJR 51 gave the local resource
managers the latitude to manage the fishery.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied, to clarify the record, there was no
precedence for limited entry in any big game guide. He said there
was a use area and it was unrestricted. The only constitutional
precedent was for commercial fisheries and limited entry.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Ketchikan, Donald Westlund.
Number 1066
DONALD WESTLUND asked the committee members how HJR 51 would be
justified. He stated the state would loose money by limiting the
sales of sport fish licenses. He said some people wanted this and
some did not. He cited he worked with Senator Robin Taylor for a
couple of years on this issue and said it would not pass the state
attorney. He reiterated and wondered again how HJR 51 would be
justified.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Dennis Petre.
Number 1147
DENNIS PETRE said he agreed with a constitutional amendment, but
only for areas that were needed. He said the constitution as
written was behind the times and needed to be updated.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Sitka,
Kent F. Hall.
Number 1183
KENT F. HALL said a constitutional amendment was too drastic of a
means. He suggested a moratorium process. He reiterated a
constitutional amendment was too drastic.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Paul Johnson.
Number 1221
PAUL JOHNSON said the common use clause came into effect to get rid
of fish traps. It was the push behind statehood, he said, to take
the fish and give to the common property. He said flexibility was
needed for good public policy for the residents. He said the
residents, the people that owned the resources in the state would
be the losers. He said it was a commercial activity and as public
policy the sacred clause would need to be dealt with. He said the
pie was not big enough to fit everybody, and the dollar value
needed to be protected. A moratorium would not fly because it was
not constitutional. He said an amendment was a clear cut avenue
and gave the opportunity to protect the areas needed. The
resolution stated "may" and was not a blanket clause. He further
said it needed to be dealt with at some time and every year waited
somebody would get hurt, big time.
Number 1308
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Johnson if he was satisfied the way limited
entry worked for commercial fisheries.
MR. JOHNSON replied, "no."
CHAIR JAMES said it was perpetuated by a constitutional amendment.
MR. JOHNSON replied it was perpetuated by a constitutional
amendment, and as a result of the legislative process the permit
became sellable instead of an entry through a point system, for
example, and that was the down fall of limited entry.
Number 1364
CHAIR JAMES wondered if leaving a constitutional amendment open
would create the same problems as the others.
Number 1385
MR. JOHNSON said by the time the resolution went through the public
process, it would have many bumps and curves. He said he was not
concerned, this time, but did not have any problem including it in
the constitution as a guideline.
Number 1444
CHAIR JAMES said she saw no benefit to catch and release because it
violated every reason for the need to go fishing.
Number 1471
MR. JOHNSON said during the constitutional convention, the sole
concern was fish traps and registered trap lines. Today, the issue
was sport fish guides. He stated the law needed to be clear or it
would be fought in the courts forever costing big bucks.
Number 1516
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said something needed to be put in place while
the resources were available. His constituents wanted to see some
restrictions.
Number 1537
CHAIR JAMES said all the resources in the state were vulnerable at
this point. She stated she was not comfortable including a
specific resource limit in the constitution. She said she would
prefer a broader approach to allow statutory changes or policy
changes for the Department of Fish and Game.
Number 1562
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said there was frustration in rural Alaska to
protect the resources and the resolution was seen as a vehicle to
consider now.
Number 1582
CHAIR JAMES compared the resolution to the Second Amendment of the
United States Constitution in that a resource could be managed if
there was a compelling state interest. She said there must be a
way to work within the existing constitution.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Mike Kramer.
Number 1605
MIKE KRAMER said the constitution should not be amended unless
there was a compelling reason and limited entry for sport fish
guide was not the proper subject for a constitutional amendment.
He stated HB 175 and HJR 51 went hand-in-hand. He said there were
problems in certain areas, such as the Kenai River, and should be
dealt with by granting the Department of Fish and Game more
emergency power. He further said resource conservation was not the
problem, but rather the allocation of the fish into the rivers.
Number 1740
MR. LOGAN said he was confident that he had the answers to most, if
not all, of the questions raised by the committee members today.
He asked when the resolution would be brought up again.
CHAIR JAMES replied, Saturday, February 17, 1996.
Number 1755
CHAIR JAMES said, for the record, Representative Ivan Ivan arrived
8shortly after the House State Affairs Committee meeting was called
to order as he had a finance subcommittee meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee at 10:08
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|