Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/22/1997 05:00 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES{PRIVATE }
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
22 April 1997
5:00 p.m.
TAPES
SFC-97, Tap 122, Sides A and B
[NOTE: The first part of the meeting on Side A of Tape 122 is
double-recorded or corroded, as well as most of Side B; parts of
the meeting are difficult to distinguish accurately.]
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Bert Sharp, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chair Sharp, Senators Pearce, Parnell,
Torgerson, Phillips, Donley, and Adams were present.
ALSO ATTENDING:
Tuckerman Babcock, Staff, Senator Lyda Green, Sponsor; Senator
Lyda Green; Dean Guaneli, Department of Law; Senator Tim Kelly;
Marianne Burke, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 104 OMNIBUS INSURANCE REFORM
CSSB 104(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and fiscal note by the Department of
Revenue and zero impact note by the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development.
SB 141 CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS/FIREARM POSSESS
CSSB 141 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and previously published fiscal note by
the Department of Public Safety and previously
published zero impact note by the Department of Public
Safety.
SENATE BILL NO. 141
"An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns; and
relating to the possession of firearms."
Co-chair Sharp provided history of the bill in committee.
Senator Phillips MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1.
Co-chair Sharp OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Phillips explained that under current law, a homeowner had
to post a sign on their property warning that concealed weapons
were not allowed in the home or on the property. The amendment
would delete the requirement of the homeowner to post the sign.
Instead, the person carrying the concealed weapon would be
required to notify the homeowner of the weapon and ask for
permission to enter.
Senator Parnell opined that the amendment went beyond the
description offered and the intent of the sponsor. Co-chair Sharp
explained the amendment.
The OBJECTION was MAINTAINED.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Adams, Phillips, Pearce, Sharp
OPPOSED: Torgerson, Parnell, Donley
The motion PASSED (4/3). Amendment 1 was adopted.
Co-chair Sharp noted that Amendment 2 would not be offered.
Senator Adams MOVED to ADPOPT Amendment 3.
Senator Adams explained that the amendment would clearly describe
the penalty and avoid a double standard.
Senator Pearce OBJECTED to the amendment, which she thought
changed the intent of the bill.
Senator Adams questioned restrictions.
TUCKERMAN BABCOCK, STAFF, SENATOR LYDA GREEN, SPONSOR, explained
that Amendment 3 would extend gun control by restricting where
people could go with open or concealed weapons. He stated that the
sponsor wanted people who committed a Class A misdemeanor after
getting the permit to lose the right to get another permit ever
again. He pointed to Section 18.65.740(a)(2). He stated that
Senator Green proposed an amendment to version X of the bill that
would delete (Section 17, page 8) the repealer of AS
18.65.749(a)(2). Anyone who committed a Class A misdemeanor after
a conviction would lose the right to carry a concealed weapon. He
pointed to a March 24 memo to the committee from legal counsel
listing who could not carry. He noted that the amendment did not
deal with who could carry but where a person could carry. He
agreed that the provision would be more appropriate to another
piece of legislation.
In response to a question by Senator Parnell, Mr. Babcock
responded that the current situation in Alaska law was that the
court system had interpreted the constitutional provisions
allowing the court system to control firearms in court houses and
had an administrative order to that effect.
Senator Parnell asked what a person caught in a courthouse would
be prosecuted under. Mr. Babcock did not know.
DEAN GUANELI, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testified that there were two
possibilities for dealing with a gun in a courtroom. One
possibility was that a person could be arrested and prosecuted for
criminal trespass if the person was told to leave and refused.
More commonly, a judge who saw a gun in a courtroom would simply
hold the person in contempt of court, and use the contempt powers.
He referred to a case that went to the Alaska Supreme Court over
twenty years prior involving a person who came into a courtroom
with a gun; the judge held the person in contempt of court, and
established the inherent power to control the courtroom through
contempt powers.
Senator Parnell asked whether the state could proscribe carrying
weapons in state offices. Mr. Babcock replied that under current
law, anyone could carry openly in state office buildings.
Senator Parnell questioned whether the state had the power to post
a particular building against carrying open or concealed weapons.
Mr. Babcock replied that the legislature had never provided the
state with the authority for open carry; only permitted concealed
carry was banned under current law.
Mr. Guaneli reported that an opinion had been written by the
attorney general several years prior regarding the authority to
post signs and prohibit certain activity, including carrying
concealed weapons. He added that the opinion of the Department of
Law was that anyone could post a sign in a public building,
including the state. In a building open to the public, however, a
posted sign was not effective to prosecute someone with criminal
trespass. The person would have to go into the building, be told
to leave, and refuse to leave. The mere posting of the sign gave
people notice that they were not supposed to be there, but would
not allow them to be arrested. The posted sign would not
effectively prohibit a person from carrying weapons.
Senator Parnell asked whether buildings were currently posted
against carrying open or concealed weapons. He referred to the
distinction made by the sponsor between open and concealed
weapons. Mr. Guaneli did not believe buildings were posted at that
time. He pointed out that each building manager dealt with
security problems as they arose; if they saw someone walking into
a building with a gun, they would call the security guard. The
fear was not knowing when someone was carrying a concealed weapon.
Senator Parnell asked what facilities providing protection to
victims of domestic violence or sexual assault could do to prevent
open or concealed weapons from being brought into a shelter. Mr.
Babcock replied that the shelter would be able to post a sign that
would apply equally to carrying open or concealed weapons. The
sign could advise people that it would be a violation of the law
to enter the premises and that a person refusing to leave would be
criminally trespassing. He did not know whether such a person
would be prosecuted as a Class A or a Class B misdemeanor.
Mr. Guaneli noted that domestic violence facilities were private
and not generally open to the public. The posting of the sign in a
private facility was enough in and of itself to allow a person to
be charged with an offense; it was not technically required that
the person be told to leave and then refuse to leave, as was
required in public buildings.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN, SPONSOR, wanted to redirect focus. She
maintained that the legislation was about permitting and permit-
holders. She did not think it mattered what was posted or what the
law was. She thought a person who was determined to do mischief
would not get a permit, would not ask permission, and would not be
concerned about a sign on a building. The bill was intended to
focus on people who felt they needed personal protection in their
daily lives.
Senator Parnell asked what weapons were allowed or not allowed on
a school bus, and queried the applicable provision; he pointed to
the mention of school buses in the amendment. Mr. Babcock did not
know the purpose of the restriction. He stated that on school
grounds and in schools, the written permission of the school
administrator was required for adults. Children going to school
did not need permission if they were in a shooting or rifle club
at school.
Senator Phillips queried federal or state laws regarding
prohibition against a permit holder possessing a concealed weapon,
especially regarding where. Mr. Babcock replied that the
Department of Public Safety was trying to acquire the list of
federal restrictions. He listed the places he was familiar with
[where a person could not carry concealed]: all federal buildings
and buildings in which there were federal offices, airports,
correction facilities, state and federal courthouses, state
correctional facilities, and school grounds. He also included any
private entity that wished to post a sign forbidding firearms.
Senator Phillips concluded that the repealer was essentially
covered by federal law. Mr. Babcock agreed that it was covered
either by federal law, or by Mr. Guaneli's explanation of how a
state office could post, or by criminal trespass for a private
building. He stated that the purpose of the bill was to treat
people who were permitted the same way as people who carry openly.
The OBJECTION to Amendment 3 was MAINTAINED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Adams, Phillips
OPPOSED: Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Pearce, Sharp
The motion FAILED (5/2). Amendment 3 was not adopted.
Senator Donley MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, to delete language
pertaining to the repealer, on page 8, line 6 [18.65.740(a)(2)].
He explained that the deleted portion stipulated that a person
getting a misdemeanor after getting a permit would lose the
permit: the "permit to carry concealed handgun shall be
immediately revoked by the department when the permittee is
convicted of two Class A misdemeanors of this state or similar
laws of another jurisdiction within a five-year period if at least
one of the convictions occurs after".
Co-chair Sharp queried Class A misdemeanors, and was told that
examples included drunk driving, fourth-degree assaults (generally
without a weapon), a number of drug offenses (including possession
of more than one-half pound of marijuana), and some theft
offenses. He noted that it was the general misdemeanor-level
offense that applied to a wide range of conduct.
There being no OBJECTION, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Senator Donley queried treatment of offenders with misdemeanor
offenses involving violent conduct. Senator Green responded
[unintelligible].
Senator Pearce MOVED to REPORT CSSB 141 (FIN) out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 141 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and previously published fiscal note by the
Department of Public Safety and previously published zero impact
note by the Department of Public Safety.
SENATE BILL NO. 104
"An Act relating to regulation and examination of insurers
and insurance agents; relating to kinds of insurance;
relating to payment of insurance taxes and to required
insurance reserves; relating to insurance policies; relating
to regulation of capital, surplus, and investments by
insurers; relating to hospital and medical service
corporations; relating to the portability and availability
of health care insurance; making amendments to the insurance
statutes to conform to federal requirements regarding health
insurance; relating to the repeal of certain small employer
health care insurance provisions; requiring that uninsured
and underinsured motor vehicle insurance apply to claims of
an insured even if other policy limits are not exhausted;
repealing delayed provisions relating to dental, vision, and
hearing insurance in secs. 3 and 4, ch. 101, SLA 1992;
repealing delayed provisions relating to small employer
health care insurance in secs. 4, 7, 9, and 12, ch. 39, SLA
1993; repealing the delayed effective date in sec. 5, ch.
101, SLA 1992, and in sec. 13, ch. 39, SLA 1993; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-chair Sharp provided a history of the bill in committee.
Senator Donley MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1.
There was an OBJECTION for discussion.
Senator Donley explained that cases in other states had raised
potential problems related to rental car insurance; the purpose of
the amendment was to prevent litigation. The amendment would
clarify the hierarchy of claims when a rental car was damaged. The
first place a claim would go would be the collision policy
purchased when someone rented a car and purchased collision; the
second place would be the operator of the car, if they had a
policy; the third place would be the owner of the rental-car
company. Most people believed the listed order was already
required in current law, but litigation in other states had shown
that the claim order was not always clear.
Senator Donley informed the committee that he had sponsored
language in existing law eight years prior that stipulated that an
auto insurance policy in Alaska required coverage of rental cars.
The amendment was consistent with the original language to prevent
litigation.
Senator Torgerson asked why Canada was listed in the provision.
Senator Donley answered that the language was in existing law.
In response to a question by Co-chair Sharp, Senator Donley
explained how the legislation would work: If a person renting a
car bought a collision waiver, the collision policy would be the
first thing covering damage costs. If a person did not buy a
collision waiver, and the person's auto insurance covered rental
cars, then that would be the next in line. The person who rented
the car out would be responsible if the renting person had neither
of the first two options.
Co-chair Sharp summarized that the person who owned the rental car
would be liable if the person renting the car did not buy
additional coverage and did not have it themselves. Senator Donley
agreed.
[SFC-97, Tape 122, Side B]
Senator Donley noted that the issue was not completely clear in
other states. Under the old law, a person with uninsured or
underinsured motorist coverage would have a policy up to a certain
amount; the only way the person could file a claim under such a
policy was if there was a claim and compensation did not cover the
whole amount of the damages. Because of overlap with other
policies and because Alaska had mandatory auto insurance, the
system only worked if someone without insurance caused the
accident. Anyone with insurance had coverage. He believed that
people were confused about the coverage. The law had been changed
to clarify that if one person was in an accident resulting in
damages of $125,000 with a second person who had $100,000 worth of
insurance, the policy of the second person would pay $100,000 and
the policy of the first person would pay the $25,000 balance.
Senator Donley continued that there was a section in another
statute [AS 28.22.020(1)(a)] that was not modified. The presence
of the conflicting statute enabled the insurance companies to go
to federal court and get a ruling that the legislature did not
mean what it said. The federal court determined that the
protection did not have to be paid for. The ruling was appealed up
to the ninth circuit to get it back to the state court, where it
should have been in the first place. At the same time, there was
another case that resulted in the opposite ruling-that the
legislature meant what it said. In other words, one case said pay,
the other said not to pay; some insurance companies in Alaska had
to pay, and some did not. The amendment would clarify the issue
and establish that the payment should be stacked.
Senator Donley articulated the policy arguments on both sides. On
the one hand, the argument was that stacked policies became more
expensive.
SENATOR TIM KELLY reported that the Rules Committee had sponsored
the bill at the request of the Division of Insurance. He did not
object to Amendment 2. He stated that he understood the public
policy call. He did not believe Amendment 1 belonged in the bill,
however.
MARIANNE BURKE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INSURANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, testified that Senator Donley
had succinctly described the issue, which was controversial and
long-standing. She affirmed that there were two court rulings and
that the attorney general's office had filed a brief supporting
the provision. The division supported the brief and concurred
with it. However, she noted that the issue was highly
controversial and asked that the amendment [Amendment 1] not be
attached to the bill. She stressed that there were convincing and
strong arguments either way. She stated that both the original SB
104 and the Kassenbaum-Kennedy amendment were deliberately
structured to be as non-controversial as possible, because the
bill was critical to Alaska.
Co-chair Sharp noted the OBJECTION to Amendment 1.
Ms. Burke emphasized that an amendment as controversial as the
proposed amendment could kill the bill. She stressed that the
bill had to go through during the current session or the
Kassenbaum-Kennedy (the federal regulation) effective date would
start.
Senator Kelly asked whether the controversial issue had been
introduced on its own merits. Senator Donley replied that it had
not been introduced during the current year.
A roll call was taken on the motion. [The answers were difficult
to hear on the tape, which was double-recorded with another
meeting. The answer of Senator Parnell was unclear and the
outcome regarding Amendment 1 unclear.]
IN FAVOR: Phillips, Donley, Adams
OPPOSED: Torgerson, Pearce, Sharp
Senate Pearce MOVED to REPORT SB 104 (FIN) out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 104(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and fiscal note by the Department of Revenue and
zero impact note by the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|