Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/22/1996 09:20 AM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                    SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                   
                          22 March 1996                                        
                            9:20 A.M.                                          
  SFC-96, #47, Sides 1 & 2                                                     
  SFC-96, #48, Side 1                                                          
  CALL TO ORDER                                                                
  Senator Rick  Halford, Co-chairman, convened the  meeting at                 
  approximately 9:20 A.M.                                                      
  In  addition  to  Co-chairman  Halford,  co-chairman  Frank,                 
  Senators Phillips,  Donley, Rieger and  Zharoff were present                 
  when the meeting was convened.  Senator Sharp arrived later.                 
  Also  Attending:  Mr.  Chris Christensen,  General  Counsel,                 
  Judicial Branch,  Alaska Court  System; Senator Lyda  Green;                 
  Mr. Brett Huber, aide to Senator Green; Mr. David Schwantes,                 
  ret., NEA; Lt. Chris Stockard,  Department of Public Safety;                 
  Jayne  Andreen,  Council  on  Domestic  Violence  and Sexual                 
  Assault;  Mr.  Ed  Viscardi, NEA;  Kimberly  Homme,  Special                 
  Assistant  to  the  Commissioner, Department  of  Education;                 
  Kathryn  Daughhetee,  Fiscal  Analyst,  Legislative  Finance                 
  Division; and aides to committee members.                                    
  SUMMARY INFORMATION                                                          
  SENATE BILL NO. 167                                                          
  "An Act relating to day fines  in certain criminal cases and                 
  release of employment information for  use in the collection                 
  of criminal judgments."                                                      
  Testimony was given  regarding the  bill by Senator  Rieger.                 
  Senator Rieger moved  amendment #1 and without  objection it                 
  was adopted.  Senator  Donley had objection to amendment  #2                 
  and it  was held.   Mr. Chris Christensen,  General Counsel,                 
  Judicial Branch,  Alaska Court  System testified before  the                 
  committee.   Co-chairman  Halford noted  the  matter  needed                 
  further  discussion  and  therefore  SB   167  was  HELD  in                 
  CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(JUD)                                              
  "An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns."                    
  Testimony was given by the sponsor of the bill, Senator Lyda                 
  Green and her aide, Mr. Brett Huber.  Mr. Huber reviewed all                 
  sections  of the  bill for  the committee.    Senator Donley                 
  moved amendment  #1 and  without objection  it was  adopted.                 
  Senator Frank moved  amendment #2  and without objection  it                 
  was adopted.  Senator Donley  moved that in Sec. 3,  page 2,                 
  line  25  the  House  version  (HB0338b),  page  2,  line  2                 
  beginning with  the word "the..."  and ending with  the word                 
  "possession" on line 4 be added and without objection it was                 
  adopted.  Senator Donley moved in Section 7, page 4, line 19                 
  delete  "11.06.484(a)(1),  (2),  or  (7)",  line  22  delete                 
  "[11.56.545,]", line 23  delete   "[, 11.56.805]" and  leave                 
  line 24  as is and  without objection  it was adopted.   The                 
  following individuals  testified before the committee:   Mr.                 
  David Schwantes, ret.,  NEA; Lt. Chris  Stockard, Department                 
  of  Public  Safety;  Jayne  Andreen,   Council  on  Domestic                 
  Violence  and  Sexual  Assault; Mr.  Ed  Viscardi,  NEA; and                 
  Kimberly  Homme,  Special  Assistant  to  the  Commissioner,                 
  Department of  Education.  The  bill was  HELD in  committee                 
  pending further action.                                                      
       SENATE BILL NO. 167                                                     
       "An Act relating to day fines in certain criminal cases                 
  and  release  of  employment  information  for  use  in  the                 
  collection     of criminal judgments."                                       
  Senator Rieger said he did not notice that additional crimes                 
  could  be included in  the day fine.   The  problem with the                 
  bill was  the  treatment of  misdemeanants in  general.   In                 
  Alaska misdemeanants are not going to  jail.  This bill will                 
  not  relieve   prison  overcrowding.     He  introduced  two                 
  amendments that were recommendations.  Amendment #1 makes it                 
  the same calculation  for daily income for  all individuals.                 
  Amendment #2 sets day  fine minimum not below $40  nor above                 
  $4,000.   Co-chairman Halford  asked if that  was a combined                 
  total or was it by the day?   Senator Rieger said points are                 
  assigned  for  various crimes  which  are multiplied  by the                 
  calculation of daily  income.   Co-chairman Halford said  he                 
  would like to see the upper limit a  little higher.  Senator                 
  Rieger said crimes against individuals are excluded from day                 
  fine.   These are  misdemeanors.   Senator Frank  asked what                 
  were the crimes.   Senator Rieger said they were  driving in                 
  violation  of  an instruction  permit,  fraudulent use  of a                 
  credit card, concealment of  merchandise, contempt of court,                 
  petroleum discharge  without a  discharge contingency  plan,                 
  interference   of   constitutional   rights,   operating   a                 
  commercial vehicle or being off duty while  in possession of                 
  alcohol or  controlled substance,  leaving the  scene of  an                 
  injury  accident.    Senator Frank  asked  about  the $4,000                 
  maximum.   Co-chairman Halford  said the  fine was  based on                 
  one's net income.  $4,000 is the total fine.                                 
  Senator Donley asked  about the $4,000 cap.   Senator Rieger                 
  said there should  not be  a range  that is  greater than  a                 
  factor of 100, between the person with the lowest income and                 
  the  person  with the  highest income  to  pay for  the same                 
  offense.   The  Supreme Court schedule  of fines  shows many                 
  down around $50   Senator Frank asked what the  maximum fine                 
  was.  Senator  Rieger said  that for a  class A  misdemeanor                 
  including crimes against persons it is $5,000.                               
  Mr.  Chris Christensen,  General  Counsel, Judicial  Branch,                 
  Alaska Court System was  invited to join the committee.   He                 
  said he just reviewed the  amendments and indicated the bill                 
  as  submitted last year  and these  amendments to  it solved                 
  some technical  problems with the day fine  statute that was                 
  passed in  1984.  The  problem was the  Legislature's stated                 
  intent  in  passing  what  was  to  help  solve  Corrections                 
  problems by reducing the  number of people who were  in jail                 
  and to  increase the State's  fine collection  so the  State                 
  could  get more income from people who commit criminal acts.                 
  The problem is that 90% of those convicted and sent  to jail                 
  for misdemeanors  are convicted  of either  DWI, refusal  to                 
  take  breathalyzer  test,  driving with  license  suspended,                 
  driving with license revoked, simple  assault or violating a                 
  domestic violence restraining order.  But all of those fines                 
  are excluded from the day fines legislation.  A judge cannot                 
  give someone a day fine in lieu of a jail sentence for those                 
  six offenses.   The bill  will not reduce  the overcrowding.                 
  The second  problem  is that  the  Department of  Law  fines                 
  collection unit currently brings in a lot of money each year                 
  but the  percentage of  fines they  are able  to collect  is                 
  actually quite low and  unless they get some new  tools that                 
  rate is not  going to go  up.  The  day fines committee  had                 
  recommended that  the legislature  consider prohibiting  the                 
  issuance or renewal of State licenses and permits to persons                 
  who had not  paid criminal  fines.   That would  be one  new                 
  tool.  The legislature's intent in passing the day fines law                 
  in  1994  will not  be  met  by  passage of  this  piece  of                 
  legislation.    Co-chairman Halford  asked  if this  was not                 
  introduced by the  Court System.  Mr.  Christensen said that                 
  the  original bill was  introduced by  the Court  System and                 
  once the law  became effective there  was a long term  study                 
  done by  a committee made up of judges, representatives from                 
  the  executive  and legislative  branches  and that  was the                 
  point at which  we were  finally able to  determine that  in                 
  fact people were not being sent to jail for all those crimes                 
  that were covered by the bill.  When the bill was  passed by                 
  the Legislature in 1994 they had made a policy decision that                 
  it did not want  to include those six offenses.   Subsequent                 
  studies  showed that those  were in  fact the  offenses that                 
  were causing the  problems.   The reason none  of these  are                 
  covered by the bill is because  they either have a mandatory                 
  minimum jail  sentence or  they involve  violence against  a                 
  person.  Those are the two categories that the day fines law                 
  excluded from coverage.                                                      
  Senator Rieger MOVED  amendment #1.   Senator Zharoff  asked                 
  what was the  effect of  putting a minimum  and maximum  on.                 
  Mr. Christensen said that it was a policy called for by  the                 
  Legislature.  The real effect is  if the upper limit insures                 
  that people who make a great deal of money won't be paying a                 
  fine that is  commensurate with the fine of a  person with a                 
  lower income level.   Mr. Christensen gave the  committee an                 
  example of a  minimum and maximum  fine and said this  would                 
  essentially have the effect of putting  a cap on what people                 
  at upper income levels would pay.   Senator Zharoff asked if                 
  this was based on gross earnings.  Mr. Christensen said that                 
  it  was  a  complex  formula  in  which   the  earnings  are                 
  calculated.    Current law  provides  the Court  to  use the                 
  defendant's gross income  to calculate net daily  income and                 
  essentially  we  are   looking  at  net  daily   income  and                 
  offsetting the number of dependents.                                         
  Senator  Donley  asked if  there  was any  constitutional or                 
  other reason for  the 100 times  the daily income  standard?                 
  Mr.  Christensen  said  that the  law  which  was originally                 
  passed by the Legislature had  suggested that there actually                 
  be  a  large range  and  in  looking at  this  the committee                 
  decided that it needed to be  lowered because it was getting                 
  into the area of excessive fines.  Ultimately it is a policy                 
  call as to  how many days  of income should  be taken for  a                 
  particular  offense.   Senator  Donley  said this  amendment                 
  would put a $4,000 cap on any offense.  Mr. Christensen said                 
  that if someone had enough income they might be getting more                 
  than  $4,000 for a  Class III or V  offense.  Senator Donley                 
  said it appeared that some of  the more serious offenses are                 
  ones  that should  have the flexibility  to go  over $4,000.                 
  $40  seems kind of low to put in a statute because this is a                 
  State that  gives everyone $1,000  a year.   Senators Donley                 
  and Zharoff discuss that  there is a separate  fine schedule                 
  for corporations depending on what type of crime.                            
  Senator Frank and Mr. Christensen  discussed indigency.  Mr.                 
  Christensen  said  that  the   indigency  forms  were  quite                 
  extensive  but  the  Court  could  not  control  determining                 
  income.    There  is  a  difference  and  for  purposes   of                 
  determining indigency for a public  defender one is required                 
  to find out if the person can not afford to pay for a public                 
  defender, which means  not just their  income is looked  at,                 
  but also what  else they might have or what  might be coming                 
  in such  as property.   The  day fines  is just  based on  a                 
  percentage of annual  gross income.   However, it will be  a                 
  more difficult, complicated  and time consuming system.   If                 
  the bill is not going to  do what the Legislature originally                 
  wanted,  which  is  to  bring  in  more  fines  and   reduce                 
  overcrowding is it  worth the   expense to give judges  this                 
  option?  He said  one gets the public defender  for anything                 
  for which one could be sent to jail.                                         
  Co-chairman Halford referred to amendment #1 and there being                 
  NO OBJECTION it was ADOPTED.                                                 
  Senator  Donley  mentioned  that  DWI,  refusal  to  take  a                 
  breathalyzer test, and  some of the  others that would  have                 
  generated the most amount of money and was there some reason                 
  that they could not be included?   Mr. Christensen said that                 
  was a policy call for the  Legislature.  Senator Donley said                 
  it would be appropriate to go back and look at those if that                 
  is what  the Court  System is  saying that  could make  this                 
  work.     The  exclusion   of  those   from  the   statute's                 
  applicability should be looked at.                                           
  Co-chairman Halford said  if that were  to be gone into  the                 
  bottom limit should then be a lot higher that $40.   Senator                 
  Donley  said  the six  categories  that  seemed to  be  more                 
  serious  crimes  could have  a separate  higher range.   Co-                 
  chairman Halford  said that  was the  substance that  really                 
  makes the  bill work.  Day fines could  be paid if they were                 
  high enough except  for one day  that they would have  to go                 
  through  the  process.   Senator  Donley said  the committee                 
  could  dissect  the  fine section  from  the  mandatory time                 
  serving section  and have  the fine  section be  a day  fine                 
  flexible   for  those   without   effecting  the   mandatory                 
  sentencing provisions.                                                       
  Co-chairman Halford said that Senator  Donley should work on                 
  this matter and HELD the bill in committee.                                  
       CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(FIN)                                         
       "An  Act  relating   to  permits  to   carry  concealed                 
  handguns; and  relating to  possession of firearms  on state                 
  Senator Lyda Green,  sponsor of SB  177 was invited to  join                 
  the  committee.    This bill  was  originally  introduced to                 
  address  four  problems  with  the  concealed  carry  permit                 
  system.  One,  the price which was felt to be too high; two,                 
  reciprocity;  three,  ability of  people  who  are concealed                 
  permit holders to know where they could travel and it not be                 
  a problem for them; and four,  the timing of the issuance of                 
  hand gun permits.   Certain provisions were deleted and more                 
  provisions were returned to the bill to make in more strict.                 
  A language solution  has not been reached  with the schools.                 
  It was never  an intention to  cause concern on this  issue.                 
  Basically it was to allow hand  gun permit holders to travel                 
  in their daily mission unimpeded.                                            
  Co-chairman  Halford   and  Senator   Green  discussed   the                 
  amendment deleting  the changes in  schools, school  grounds                 
  and  school areas.  Senator Green indicated that it reverted                 
  the bill back to the original status.                                        
  Mr. Brett Huber, aide  to Senator Green was invited  to join                 
  the committee.   Section one of  the bill was  dealt with in                 
  amendment  #1.    Currently  the  language provides  for  an                 
  affirmative offense  for someone  holding a  permit that  is                 
  either dropping off or picking up  without detour or delay a                 
  person or thing on  school grounds.  This would  be deleted.                 
  Section two provides for reciprocity  for holders of permits                 
  of  other states that honor  Alaska permits as determined by                 
  the Department of Public Safety.   Section three provides an                 
  affirmative  defense  for  AS 11.61.220  allowing  a  permit                 
  holder  to  possess a  firearm  in an  establishment  with a                 
  beverage  dispensary  license.   Section  four  requires the                 
  Department  of Public  Safety  provide  concealed  hand  gun                 
  permit  applicants  a  copy  of  the  laws  and  regulations                 
  relating to concealed hand gun.                                              
  Senator  Phillips refers to section  two.  Which states have                 
  substantially  similar  laws  to  ours  regarding  concealed                 
  weapons?    He  said  that   each  state  has  a   different                 
  qualification  for  their  weapons  and   so  they  are  not                 
  necessarily like ours.  He said  the State of Washington has                 
  had the concealed weapons bill for a very long time but they                 
  do  not  allow concealed  weapons in  bars.   This  bill, if                 
  passed  would allow them in bars.   Co-chairman Halford said                 
  section  two deals with reciprocity and it only applies when                 
  it is a defense in a case  where it is illegal in the state.                 
  The  next section of  the bill is open  and there is another                 
  debate on that because  there is an alternative way  to deal                 
  with that proposal.  The second section is reciprocity.  The                 
  biggest difference  in the  states is  there is  a class  of                 
  states that  basically consider  the permit  within whatever                 
  the training and all the education  requirements as a right.                 
  There  is  another  set  of  states  in which  you  have  to                 
  basically prove to someone that you have a need to carry  to                 
  get a  permit.    That is  the  biggest  difference  between                 
  Co-chairman Halford continued and asked about establishments                 
  that  serve  alcohol.    There  was  some  discussion  about                 
  providing some kind  of language  which basically said  that                 
  one could go out  to dinner in a restaurant that  had a beer                 
  and wine license but if one were carrying a concealed weapon                 
  under  a permit one  could not consume  alcohol or basically                 
  have any alcohol  in your  system.  Senator  Green said  she                 
  would  consider  that.   Senator  Donley indicated  that the                 
  house version incorporated the same  language.  He asked  if                 
  that  only  pertained to  concealed weapons  and Co-chairman                 
  Halford indicated  that was correct and that further it only                 
  pertained to being  in that  particular establishment.   The                 
  normal tolerance for  a CCW  permit holder in  any place  is                 
  that  one cannot be impaired.  If one is in an establishment                 
  that serves alcohol  one may not  be impaired but must  also                 
  have absolute zero tolerance.                                                
  Mr. Huber continued  to section  four of the  bill and  said                 
  that  it  required  Department  of  Public  Safety   provide                 
  applicants  a copy  of the  law and regulations  relating to                 
  concealed handguns.   Section five extends  the Department's                 
  time period to approve or reject  an application.  Currently                 
  it is fifteen  days and in this  bill it would extend  it to                 
  thirty days.   The Department  could return the  fingerprint                 
  background  checks  from  the  FBI  and issue  the  permits.                 
  Senator  Phillips asked  if  permit eligibility  information                 
  from the FBI  or any other  agency was  being deleted?   Mr.                 
  Huber noted that  the FBI fingerprint  check and the  Alaska                 
  Automated  Fingerprint Service  check  were being  retained.                 
  This  section will  extend the  time the  Department has  to                 
  issue,  accept  or  reject a  permit.    Co-chairman Halford                 
  indicated that the  existing law  provided for fifteen  days                 
  and in this bill it is within thirty days of the  receipt of                 
  the application.   Mr. Huber  indicated that the  Department                 
  concurred with this time period.  He continued on to section                 
  six  and  said  there  was a  language  change  reflected in                 
  section nine.  The changes delete the requirement to qualify                 
  with  a  specific  caliber  but  maintain the  qualification                 
  specific to action type.   This program is unique  to Alaska                 
  and also part of the NRA  personal protection course that an                 
  individual  qualify  with  action   type  but  not  specific                 
  caliber.  He said section  seven removes certain misdemeanor                 
  violations that preclude  obtaining or would be  grounds for                 
  revoking a permit.  Those  deleted include criminal trespass                 
  in the first  and second degree,  a portion of the  criminal                 
  mischief subsection (a)(336).  Senator Donley asked if these                 
  were the violations that would no longer disqualify someone.                 
  Brett Huber indicated that was correct and were removed from                 
  the  list  of  misdemeanors  that  are used  in  determining                 
  qualification or revocation  of the permit.   Senator Rieger                 
  asked what the logic  was if an individual convicted  of the                 
  crime of  criminal trespass  in the  first or second  degree                 
  should have  the right  to carry  a concealed  weapon.   Mr.                 
  Huber answered that the specific criteria used in looking at                 
  offenses was those involving  weapons misconduct or violence                 
  to  a person.    Co-chairman  Halford  asked  how  long  the                 
  disability for these  offenses was  and Mr. Huber  indicated                 
  that it was  five years.   Co-chairman Halford said that  it                 
  included  all  felonies  and  the   long  list  of  retained                 
  misdemeanors.  He said  there was an adjustment to  the list                 
  of misdemeanors which  are exclusionary for five  years from                 
  the provisions of  being able  to apply and  go through  the                 
  process of getting a  permit.  There was a  short discussion                 
  among members of these misdemeanors.                                         
  (switch to side 2 of SFC-96, #47)                                            
  Senator  Frank  asked  about  domestic  violence  orders and                 
  violation of  a domestic  violence restraining  order.   Mr.                 
  Huber indicated that this misdemeanor  was being retained in                 
  this bill.  He continued on to section eight  and said there                 
  was a language  change corresponding to the  language change                 
  made  in  section  four.    When  an  individual  signs   an                 
  application in front of Department of Public Safety it is an                 
  acknowledgement they have received copies of the regulations                 
  and laws pertaining to the concealed  program.  Section nine                 
  removes the requirement to qualify with specific caliber and                 
  maintains the  requirement  to qualify  specific  to  action                 
  type.   Section ten  of the  bill deals  with  the fees  and                 
  changes the fee cap under current  language from $125 to $65                 
  on initial permit issuance  and from $60 to $30  on renewal.                 
  The  second amendment  that Senator Green  introduced before                 
  the committee adjusts the fee cap on initial permit from $65                 
  to  $99 in  this draft  of the  bill.   The  reduction would                 
  therefore be from  $125 to  $99.  This  is supported by  the                 
  Department and will allow them the  funds they need to issue                 
  permits timely and  leaves it as a  self-sufficient receipts                 
  program.   Section eleven limits  the reasons for revoking a                 
  concealed handgun  permit and brings  it in line  with those                 
  misdemeanors  which  are outlined  in  section seven  of the                 
  bill.   The list of misdemeanors contained  in section seven                 
  are  reasons for  revocation.   Above  that,  any other  two                 
  misdemeanors not  contained in that  list, some of  the ones                 
  cited that were being  deleted, would be grounds  for either                 
  suspension or  denial of a  permit issue.   The  substantive                 
  changes  deal with the misdemeanors in section seven and all                 
  felonies.    Co-chairman  Halford  wanted  to  know  if  the                 
  provision that any two  misdemeanors is disqualification  is                 
  being  repealed.    Mr. Huber  indicated  that  was correct.                 
  Section twelve  removes some of  the restrictions on where a                 
  permit holder is allowed to carry.  Other than inside school                 
  buildings or  with the  amendment that  is to  be considered                 
  today,   all   school  grounds,   state   Court  facilities,                 
  correctional  facilities,  law  enforcement facilities,  and                 
  where disallowed by State or federal law.                                    
  Senator Rieger  asked what the  impetus was for  some others                 
  that  were being deleted  such as State  or federal offices,                 
  facilities providing services to domestic violence or sexual                 
  assault and  most interesting  personal  residents who  must                 
  notice they  do not want  concealed handguns in  their home.                 
  What was  the reasoning  for that?   Mr. Huber said  that it                 
  does not preclude  posting notice  on personal residence  or                 
  other business.  This section made it a separate misdemeanor                 
  violation if an individual ignored one of those notices.  He                 
  referred  to a  legal  opinion from  the  Department of  Law                 
  provided  to the Department  of Public Safety  dated 12 July                 
  1995 stating that it  is within the right of a person either                 
  in their home or business to post a sign that would disallow                 
  sandals and  backpacks,  concealed carry  and  all  weapons.                 
  That is still a  right that exists under the law.   It takes                 
  away this being a separate misdemeanor violation.   This was                 
  because many people were not sure where they could and could                 
  not carry.  They are law-abiding citizens and do not want to                 
  be in a situation wherein going through their average course                 
  of business for the day they  would be impeded from carrying                 
  or  put in a  position that if  they were  going to go  to a                 
  restaurant or to the bank, they would have to take their gun                 
  out  and put it in their car and then walk from their car to                 
  the grocery store, to  the bank, unprotected and  then there                 
  is more of a chance for problems with the weapon  leaving it                 
  unattended in a car rather than properly concealed and under                 
  the individual's control.                                                    
  Senator Rieger said one could put up a sign stating they did                 
  not want concealed handguns  in their home because it  is no                 
  longer a misdemeanor to  do that.   This now makes it  clear                 
  where that  person can  and cannot  carry regarding  what is                 
  going  on in the individual's home?   Mr. Huber said that it                 
  was still a violation to ignore that but it is now under the                 
  criminal trespass section.  Co-chairman Halford said some on                 
  the  list  were  still  federal  requirements.    Any  place                 
  prohibited by the state or  federal government has been left                 
  in and is  still illegal as a  place for carriers.   Senator                 
  Green said she  felt this  bill was more  clear and  covered                 
  more locations.                                                              
  Senator Phillips  and Co-chairman Halford  discussed whether                 
  or  not  a person's  property  rights superceded  a person's                 
  right  to  carry a  concealed  weapon.   Co-chairman Halford                 
  indicated  that it did  and one could post  on their home or                 
  make  it verbally known  that an  individual could  not come                 
  into their home with a concealed weapon.                                     
  Senator Rieger referred to the legal opinion from Department                 
  of Law noting the criminal trespass  statute says that it is                 
  not clear  how the Court  would rule.   Co-chairman  Halford                 
  said  it  should  be  clarified  because  there  is  not  an                 
  intention to change the criminal  trespass statute.  Senator                 
  Frank inquired  about the  facilities providing  services to                 
  the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault section.                 
  Mr. Huber said the facility itself has the option of putting                 
  up  a  notice.   It is  important  to remember  and consider                 
  differentiating between a concealed permit  holder, which is                 
  what is being discussed here, and  someone wanting to misuse                 
  a weapon.  Senator Donley said  that under existing law if a                 
  person  who worked  at a  domestic  violence facility  had a                 
  concealed carry permit it would be a crime for them to bring                 
  it  to  work.   Under  this  version the  domestic  violence                 
  facility  could  put up  a  sign  saying no  one  other than                 
  employees  or  authorized personnel  can  bring  a concealed                 
  weapon  on this  premise.   They could also  include persons                 
  receiving services.  Co-chairman Halford said the client may                 
  be someone who  has gone  through the process  and gotten  a                 
  permit because they  are afraid of  someone and if going  to                 
  this place  says  you  have  to  depend  on  someone  else's                 
  protection  that  may be  ten  minutes  away and  only  be a                 
  response and  not a protection;  if you leave  it up  to the                 
  shelter they are going to decide  based on what their people                 
  want to do.  In some cases they are going to want to protect                 
  Mr. Huber continued on to section  thirteen which contains a                 
  language change  corresponding to specific  caliber deletion                 
  provided for in section eight.  Section fourteen deletes the                 
  prohibition  on   derringers  and   miniature  handguns   as                 
  allowable firearms  for concealed carry  by permit  holders.                 
  Section fifteen provides for three  repealers:  two class  A                 
  misdemeanors; residency  requirement; and  the  fee on  late                 
  Senator  Donley  proposed an  amendment on  page two  of the                 
  senate (jud)  version, line 26  after the  reference to  "AS                 
  18.65.790"  to insert the language that appears in the house                 
  version on line 2,  after that same reference to  read, "the                 
  defendant  did  not consume  an  intoxicating liquor  at the                 
  place where the possession occurred  and did not consume  an                 
  intoxicating  liquor  at  any time  during  the  eight hours                 
  before the  possession".  Senator  Green did not  oppose the                 
  amendment.  Without objection the amendment was adopted.                     
  Senator Donley  moved Senator Green's proposed  amendment #1                 
  regarding  school  grounds  and  without  objection  it  was                 
  Senator  Frank moved Senator  Green's proposed amendment #2.                 
  Senator Sharp asked if  the figure of $99 was  close to what                 
  the study indicated that was to  have been done in Anchorage                 
  by the sponsor  in the house?   Mr. Huber said that  it was.                 
  This figure was  arrived at  with the  Department of  Public                 
  Safety:  $24 for  FBI fingerprint check; $35 for  the Alaska                 
  Automated  Fingerprint  Check;  and $40  for  administrative                 
  fees.  Without objection amendment #2 was adopted.                           
  Mr. David  Schwantes,  ret., NEA  was  invited to  join  the                 
  committee.  He stated that he was present  to testify on the                 
  school issue but since it was amended out he appreciates the                 
  change having been made.  However, the simpler and easier it                 
  is  made  for people  to carry  concealed handguns  the more                 
  relaxed and careless they are going  to become.  Further the                 
  responsibility  for people  carrying  handguns into  private                 
  residences  should be on the  person carrying the gun rather                 
  than  the person  who owns  the residence.   Senator  Donley                 
  asked about  the gun  issue in  schools and was  this a  bad                 
  precedence  or  was it  sending  the wrong  messages  to the                 
  Mr. Schwantes indicated  that he  did not see  any need  for                 
  there ever to be  a concealed gun on the school  ground.  He                 
  said he  did not question  a police officer  in the line  of                 
  duty or for  an assembly to be  armed on the  school grounds                 
  but  was   not  in   favour  of   an  off-duty  officer   or                 
  plainclothesman carrying  a  concealed  weapon  onto  school                 
  grounds without first checking with the school authorities.                  
  Senator  Rieger  said  that entering  a  personal  residence                 
  against the wishes of  the owner with a concealed  weapon is                 
  no longer an offense which disqualifies one from eligibility                 
  to carry a  concealed weapon.   Criminal trespass is one  of                 
  the violations which is no longer a disqualification.                        
  Co-chairman Halford  said there  was a  concern about  being                 
  able to drop a child  off at school; to be able to pull into                 
  the parking lot, stay in the car and then go  on to your job                 
  carrying a  concealed handgun.  Mr. Schwantes said one could                 
  deliver their child to the edge of the school boundary.                      
  Lt. Chris Stockard, Department of  Public Safety was invited                 
  to join the  committee and answer their questions.   Senator                 
  Phillips asked how  many requests for concealed  weapons had                 
  been received.  He  said 4,019 as of the  middle of January.                 
  Have there been any complaints regarding existing law?  What                 
  were the complaints?  Lt. Stockard said that he did not have                 
  this information but that  he would be glad to  research it.                 
  Co-chairman   Halford   referred   to   the   administrative                 
  provisions of the bill, the fee,  the times for response, do                 
  they work from the Department's point of view?  Lt. Stockard                 
  said that the Department  was satisfied with the bill  as it                 
  was and would prefer that it  stayed as it was.  Co-chairman                 
  Halford asked about the operating  provisions where there is                 
  a change from fifteen days to thirty days; the fees, do they                 
  generate the  cost; do  they work?   Lt.  Stockard said  the                 
  current  bill  works  for  the  Department.    However,  the                 
  department  can  live  with  the  revised  fee  and  revised                 
  administrative  timings.    Senator  Halford  asked  if  the                 
  Department  had  any   position  on   the  requirement   for                 
  qualification by caliber  and does the Department  require a                 
  different qualification by caliber beyond action type in its                 
  dealing  with  weapons.   Lt.  Stockard reiterated  that the                 
  Department was satisfied with the law  as it was requiring a                 
  qualification  with  a  particular caliber  and  action.   A                 
  person may carry that size or lower only.  The  concern with                 
  caliber sizes  and actions  was that  someone would  qualify                 
  with a .22  and then elect to  carry a much larger  and more                 
  difficult caliber.  That is why those provisions were in the                 
  bill  originally.     Co-chairman   Halford  asked   if  the                 
  Department required someone to re-qualify  if they go within                 
  the same action  type from a .40  caliber or 10mm to  a .45?                 
  Lt.  Stockard  said   that  current  law  would   require  a                 
  modification of  the permit  if a  person goes  to a  larger                 
  caliber than that  which they qualify.   Co-chairman Halford                 
  asked if  this was required  of a uniformed  police officer.                 
  Lt. Stockard said  that the  Department requires a  specific                 
  individual qualification with every individual weapon  which                 
  an officer is a authorized to carry.  If he wants to carry a                 
  weapon other  than the  issued weapon  he must qualify  with                 
  that specific  weapon three times  each year as  required by                 
  the  Department.   Co-chairman Halford  said every  licensed                 
  peace officer can carry a concealed weapon.  And if they are                 
  qualified to carry  while on duty a .357 or .38 they can, in                 
  fact, carry  a  concealed  .45  anywhere,  anytime,  without                 
  qualification on that  weapon.  Lt.  Stockard said that  was                 
  not correct.  The Department of  Public Safety only allows a                 
  specific  weapon  for  which  one  has  been  qualified  and                 
  certified by the  Department.  Co-chairman Halford  asked if                 
  that applied for off duty?   Lt. Stockard indicated even off                 
  duty.    The  Department  requires  specific  individualized                 
  weapons have  the  serial  numbers  and  qualification  date                 
  recorded three times  a year.  They have  to be inspected by                 
  the Department armorers.  The existing policy calls for only                 
  the issue weapon  or a  like Smith  and Wesson  manufactured                 
  semi-automatic pistol as  authorized.  The Department  has a                 
  very  limited number of weapons that officers are allowed to                 
  qualify with.                                                                
  Jayne  Andreen,  Executive  Director,  Council  on  Domestic                 
  Violence  and  Sexual  Assault  was   invited  to  join  the                 
  committee.  She stated the council's opposition to the bill.                 
  A number of  domestic violence  offenders are, according  to                 
  the  definition,  law-abiding citizens.    There is  a great                 
  concern  about removing  criminal  trespassing and  criminal                 
  mischief from the  standpoint that the way the  system works                 
  is what actually happens,  what is charged and what  ends up                 
  in  a conviction can  be very different.   A lot of domestic                 
  violence ends up  being reduced  throughout the process  and                 
  criminal  trespass  and  criminal  mischief  as two  of  the                 
  charges  that exist  in domestic  violence cases.   There is                 
  also a concern  about removing domestic violence  and sexual                 
  assault  programs  from  the  list  of places  where  permit                 
  holders would  be prohibited  from bringing  in a  concealed                 
  weapon.   The discussion  that has happened  here today does                 
  cause concern  that it would be  left up to  the programs or                 
  that it  could be  taken care  of by  posting a  conspicuous                 
  sign.  She said  that the legal opinion from  the Department                 
  of Law  was based  on existing  law and  it may  or may  not                 
  pertain to  the bill  that is  before  the committee  today.                 
  From  the program's  perspective they  need to  have a  safe                 
  environment.  The  majority of domestic violence  and sexual                 
  assault programs are residential programs and there are very                 
  strict regulations about what one can and cannot do in terms                 
  of  safety.   What  comes to  mind  is that  now there  is a                 
  regulation that requires  all medications on the  premise to                 
  be locked up so  that the children do not  accidentally have                 
  access  to  them.   It is  opened  up just  at the  time the                 
  medication is  needed by  a shelter  worker and  then it  is                 
  locked back up.  It is unimaginable that  there would not be                 
  an even stricter regulation  for weapons to be  permitted on                 
  the premise.  Another concern is  why does the emphasis have                 
  to be  on   the program  to post  a notice  rather than  the                 
  person who has the  concealed weapon being able to  say they                 
  have  it.   It  is  understood  that these  are  law-abiding                 
  citizens  but there is  a concern that  it includes domestic                 
  violence offenders.                                                          
  Senator Donley said he thought section seven is problematic.                 
  In discussions with the  sponsor she said she  would restore                 
  the existing language in all but subsection (e) which is the                 
  disorderly conduct  section.   That would  then address  the                 
  criminal  trespass  first  and second  degree  and  criminal                 
  mischief that this witness has specifically raised.  Senator                 
  Donley moved to  amend section  seven of the  bill, page  4,                 
  line  19  delete  "ll.06.484(a)(1), (2),  or  (7)",  line 22                 
  delete  "[11.56.545,],  line 23  delete  [,  11.56.805]" and                 
  leave line 24 as is and without objection it was adopted.                    
  Senator Sharp  asked  if  any  of the  other  shelters  have                 
  postings outside as to what one  can bring onto the premises                 
  like liquor or  weapons?   Jayne Adreen said  there were  no                 
  postings other  than "no  smoking" signs  posted inside  the                 
  Senator Phillips  referred to  page seven,  lines 14-15  and                 
  asked  if there  was any  state law  prohibiting weapons  in                 
  domestic  violence  shelters.    He  asked if  the  domestic                 
  violence people  come  in  with  a regulation  would  it  be                 
  covered under this bill?  Senator Donley said they could.                    
  Mr. Ed Viscardi, NEA, was invited to join the committee.  He                 
  supported  the change in  the bill  to exclude  weapons from                 
  school grounds as  this is not  a place for deadly  weapons.                 
  Children understand the significance of a uniformed  officer                 
  carrying  a weapon  or  an officer  being  invited onto  the                 
  school grounds but they do not  understand a private citizen                 
  carrying a weapon onto the grounds.   He was concerned about                 
  the  qualification for  specific  caliber.    An  individual                 
  should have to  remain with  the same caliber  or less  that                 
  they qualify on.                                                             
  Kimberly  Homme,  Special  Assistant  to  the  Commissioner,                 
  Department of Education  was invited to join  the committee.                 
  She stated that the State Board of Education took opposition                 
  to the concepts  that were  originally contained  in SB  177                 
  dealing with the provisions for concealed handguns on school                 
  grounds  and  thanked the  committee  for dealing  with this                 
  matter in the amendments.  They still are concerned with the                 
  provision allowing concealed weapons in public libraries the                 
  State  operates and  other political subdivisions.   Senator                 
  Donley said  that a regulation could be  written saying that                 
  one could  not bring a  gun into  a public library  on State                 
  grounds.    Senator  Donley  asked   if  the  Department  of                 
  Education  supported  the suggestion  that  any plainclothes                 
  policeman  would  have  to get  permission  from  the school                 
  district  to  wear  a concealed  weapon  on  school grounds.                 
  Kimberly Homme said  she would have  to do research on  this                 
  matter.  One concern was that school administrators know who                 
  has weapons.  There  are weapons that are allowed  on school                 
  Co-chairman Halford  HELD  the  bill  in  committee  pending                 
  further action.                                                              
  The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:20 A.M.                        

Document Name Date/Time Subjects