Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/29/1994 09:20 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 29, 1994
9:20 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-94, #78, Side 1 (000-end)
SFC-94, #78, Side 2 (575-end)
SFC-94, #80, Side 1 (000-317)
CALL TO ORDER
Co-chairman Steve Frank convened the meeting at
approximately 9:20 a.m.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairs Pearce and Frank, Senators Kelly
and Sharp were present when the meeting began. Senators
Rieger and Kerttula arrived moments after the meeting
commenced. Senator Jacko arrived as it was in progress.
ALSO ATTENDING: Senator Leman; Senator Lincoln;
Representative James; Nancy Slagle, Director of Budget
Review, Office of Management and Budget; Helvi Sandvik,
Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Transportation and Public
Facilities; C. W. Swackhammer, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of
Public Safety; Kate Tesar, representing the City of Haines;
Portia Babcock, aide to Senator Leman; Mike Greany,
Director, Legislative Finance Division; Fred Fisher, fiscal
analyst, Legislative Finance Division; and aides to
committee members and other members of the legislature.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 363 - ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECT
MATCHING GRANT FUNDS AND FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS
Discussion of CSSB 363 (Finance) work draft "J"
was had together with Amendments 1 through 14 which
were reviewed for possible offering on the
floor of the Senate rather than incorporation
within the Senate Finance bill. CSSB 363
(Finance) was then REPORTED OUT of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation.
HB 351 - CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS;WEAPONS POSS.
Representative James, Portia Babcock, and C.W.
Swackhammer came before committee to speak to the
bill. It was subsequently HELD in committee for
further discussion.
SB 363
SB 363 - ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECT
MATCHING GRANT FUNDS AND FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS
[The first portion of the meeting on tape SFC-94, 78, Side
1, did not record. Minutes reflect transcription of
shorthand notes.]
Upon convening the meeting, Co-chair Pearce directed that SB
363 (Act making appropriations for capital project matching
grant funds and for capital projects; and providing for an
effective date) be brought on for discussion. She then
referenced work draft CS SB 363 (Finance) (8-GS2043\J,
Cramer, 4/27/94) which she explained had earlier been
distributed to members. Senator Sharp MOVED for adoption of
work draft "J." No objection having been raised, the "J"
version of CSSB 363 (Finance was ADOPTED.
Co-chair Pearce next directed attention to a packet of
amendments which she explained would be discussed in
committee for possible offering on the floor of the Senate.
She advised that all amendments have the approval of the
House Finance Committee. Senator Kerttula indicated he also
had amendments he wished to offer.
Amendment No. 1 and 1A (Sen. Pearce/OMB)
Co-chair Pearce initially referred to Amendment No. 1
listing a series of increases and offsetting decreases
totaling $665.0 in general funds. The original Amendment
No. 1 was subsequently replaced with Amendment 1A which
effected the following increases and decreases:
Increases
DNR-State Land Acquisition $ 265.0
DF&G-Mgmt. under ANILCA 200.0
+ 200.0
F&G
Funds
DNR-Forest Practices 200.0
Decreases
DH&SS-API Repairs 400.0
DNR-RS 2477 300.0
DF&G-Statewide Maintenance 300.0
DOTPF-Central Region Def.Maint. 1,680.0
Northern Region Def. Maint. 1,610.0
Southeast Def. Maint. 1,085.0
Dalton Highway Def. Maint. 890.0
(See pages 7, 8, and 9 of these minutes for further
discussion of Amendment 1A.)
Amendment No. 2 (Sen. Pearce)
Co-chair Pearce explained that the amendment would add "or
from another lender" to language relating to construction of
the Port Chilkoot cruise ship dock at Haines. (See pages 5
and 6 for further discussion of Amendment No. 2)
Amendment No. 3 (Sen. Sharp)
Co-chair Pearce indicated that funding within the Dept. of
Revenue slated for public housing (AHFC) should be
appropriated separately under the federal grants and special
needs housing program and affordable housing and energy
efficiency programs. Separate appropriation provides
accountability and instruction to the corporation regarding
legislative intent. The Co-chair further directed attention
to a tabulation listing specific projects and appropriations
therefor. She added that the agency came to the legislature
with the $41 million request. (See page 6 for additional
comments on Amendment No. 3)
Amendment No. 4 (Sen. Pearce)
Amendment No. 4 would add funding for Central Region
programs and Anchorage International Airport equipment
purchases. It also inserts a new allocation under Southeast
Region programs. Co-chair Pearce explained that the latter
insertion is necessary because funding for Sitka Airport
lighting improvements was inadvertently left out of the
Senate draft. The insertion does not change the match.
Amendment No. 5 (Sen. Pearce)
Co-chair Pearce said that Amendment No. 5 effects a change
in intent language relating to RuralCap, requiring a report
to the legislature on use of CSBG funds for the economic
development catalog "before grant funds are released" rather
than in the next fiscal year. An additional change
substitutes "will provide" for "has provided" in enumerated
requirements the catalog must meet.
Amendment No. 6 (Sen. Pearce/OMB)
Co-chair Pearce indicated that funding and language changes
for municipal matching grants and unincorporated community
matching grants set forth on Amendment No. 6 were requested
and approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
Amendment No. 7 (Sen. Pearce/OMB)
Co-chair Pearce indicated that projects in Amendment No. 7
were requested and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget. In response to questions from Senator Rieger, NANCY
SLAGLE, Director of Budget Review, Office of Management and
Budget, came before committee.
[The remainder of the minutes reflect transcription from a
tape recording of the meeting.]
Mrs. Slagle explained that communities listed in the
amendment identified projects for which additional moneys
are needed. The amendment makes funding adjustments for
communities with remaining balances in their accounts.
Senator Rieger questioned whether funding from FY 94 would
already have been appropriated to another federal matching
grant. Mrs. Slagle indicated that transitional procedures
allow OMB to provide moneys to communities until the end of
the fiscal year. The proposed amendment could provide both
FY 94 and 95, together, so that communities would have the
funding available for next year. She further explained that
moneys set forth on the amendment would flow from the
capital matching grant fund rather than the general fund.
Amendment No. 8 (Sen. Pearce/DOE, Postsecondary)
Co-chair Pearce noted that intent language relating to
appropriation of $100.0 in corporate receipts for a cost
benefit analysis of contracting out Alaska Student Loan
Program servicing to a third-party, private contractor was
requested by the Postsecondary Education Commission. Such
an arrangement has been discussed for many years. The board
approached local banks with the prospect, but banks have
declined interest. The new director of Postsecondary
Education feels there may be an opportunity to "get some
national firm to come in."
Amendment No. 9 (Sen. Adams)
Co-chair Pearce pointed to amendment language, requested by
Senator Adams, for capital grant projects for the cities of
Mountain Village and Unalakleet. Dollar amounts remain the
same.
Amendment No. 10 (Sen. Pearce)
Co-chair Pearce explained that the amendment contains
language effecting changes in descriptions of election
districts to fit projects in the proper districts. She
noted movement of major highways into statewide designation
within ED 99 and need to change the Seward Highway Canyon
Creek project from Anchorage areawide to statewide. Co-
chair Pearce further pointed to page 18, lines 23 and 24, of
the draft capital budget and noted that land acquisition for
the Galbraith Airport is not on the priority list from
municipalities. It should thus be deleted from the bill.
The same is true for land acquisition for the Prospect Creek
Airport shown on page 19, lines 14 and 15. Amendment No. 10
also inserts the word "roof" to language relating to funding
for the Ryan Middle School at Fairbanks.
Amendment No. 11 (Sen. Kerttula)
Senator Kerttula explained that rural districts have
requested increased funding for public broadcasting. He
then directed attention to the list of stations to receive
portions of the $590.6 request.
Amendment No. 12 (Sen. Kerttula)
Senator Kerttula explained that the requested $119.4
relating to the potato seed virus study was originally
requested by the governor. The project is statewide in
nature. The studies would be conducted by a scientist in
Fairbanks.
Co-chair Pearce subsequently advised that, in an effort to
keep the capital budget below $100 million--the agreement
between the House and Senate--she would oppose both
Amendments 11 and 12 when they are offered on the floor of
the Senate. Senator Kerttula subsequently advised that he
would withdraw Amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 2
Senator Rieger asked that discussion revert to Amendment No.
2 and raised questions regarding proposed construction of
the Haines dock. He voiced his understanding that the
proposed $1 million loan would be matched by a "term loan of
some sort." He said he was uneasy with language within the
bill and requested additional information. Reading from
backup material, Co-chair Pearce explained that grant funds
would combine with city funds and loan proceeds to provide
an estimated $2.3 million in total construction costs. That
would build a 120 foot extension, seaward from the existing
dock. The City of Haines and Haines Chamber of Commerce
have spent $35 for preliminary engineering and permitting.
The city has expended an additional $17.0 for lighting.
Preliminary analysis shows that dock revenue, after
operating expenses supplemented with local tax revenues,
will service debt of $600.0 to $800.0.
Senator Rieger asked what would happen should the project be
redesigned to cost $1.1 million. Would the city only have
to borrow $100.0 while the $1 million would flow from the
state? KATE TESAR, came before committee on behalf of the
city of Haines. She explained that language requested in
Amendment No. 2 was proposed as a result of efforts between
the city and the Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development
to develop a funding plan for submission to AIDEA, once the
$1 million is in place. That is the reason for the
contingency language. The loan would not flow to Haines if
the total funding package does not materialize. The wording
"or from another lender" was added to allow the project to
expand to other lenders in the event total funding is not
provided by AIDEA, and the city must seek other sources.
Current language only allows for procurement of funding from
AIDEA. The city seeks the flexibility of obtaining moneys
elsewhere. Senator Rieger asked if the arrangement would
involve a term loan. Ms. Tesar responded affirmatively and
indicated a term of twenty or thirty years.
Directing attention to page 3, line 12, Senator Sharp voiced
concern that "$900,000 or another amount" could be construed
as a lesser amount. He then voiced his understanding that
the amount would commence at $900,000 and increase rather
than decrease. Kate Tesar explained that the present
funding package calls for a total of $2.2 million. Plans
have been in place for a number of years, and the city does
not foresee spending more than $2.2 million. Senator Sharp
suggested addition of "at least" before the $900,000 figure
in the bill. He said that would allay fears that city
participation might decrease substantially. Kate Tesar
responded that she did not foresee the amount decreasing
below $900,000 because that amount would be needed to fund
the plan now in place.
Senator Rieger and Senator Sharp advised that they would
work on possible amendment language to apply when Amendment
No. 2 is offered on the floor of the Senate.
Amendment No. 3
Redirecting attention to Amendment No. 3, Senator Rieger
noted earlier concerns pertaining to the Cedar Park Housing
project in Juneau. He questioned expenditure of $8 million
to rebuild 39 units. Senator Sharp explained that in
discussions of low-income, rental housing with AHFC, the
corporation assured it would receive $4.5 million in federal
funds for the project. That is a major change. The amount
of needed corporate receipts was thus reduced from $8
million to $3.5 million. Those receipts will leverage the
federal moneys. Senator Rieger voiced concern that total
funding of $8 million for 39 units equates to $200.0 per
unit. That appears out of line for a multifamily housing
project. Co-chair Pearce voiced her understanding that even
if the project is not rebuilt, the old project contains
asbestos and would have to be torn down. A large portion of
the $8 million funds removal of the old building.
Co-chair Pearce directed that the meeting be briefly
recessed pending receipt of two additional amendments from
the Office of Management and Budget.
RECESS - 9:50 A.M.
RECONVENE - 10:05 A.M.
Amendment No. 13 (Sen. Miller)
Upon reconvening the meeting, Co-chair Pearce directed
attention to Amendment No. 13 by Senator Miller. She
explained that the Tanana River road, located in Nenana, is
in need of stabilization. The proposed amendment contains
the proper description change.
Amendment No. 14
Amendment No. 14 was not presented for discussion.
Amendment No. 15 (Senator Jacko)
Senator Jacko explained that Amendment No. 15 would reduce
the amount of funding flowing from the power cost
equalization endowment for small utility improvements from
$2 million to $500.0. In response to a question from
Senator Rieger, Senator Jacko explained that the $66 million
endowment funds PCE throughout the year. There is concern
that withdrawals will quickly diminish the principal. The
original intent was that the endowment last for 20 years.
Amendment No. 1A (Office of Management and Budget)
At this point in the meeting, attention reverted to the
tabulation set forth on Amendment 1A. Co-chair Pearce
pointed to page 9, lines 37 and 38 of the bill and the
$100.0 for statewide advanced project definition. She
explained that the Office of Management and Budget earlier
requested that the $100.0 be deleted and added to other
projects. OMB has since determined it needs the funding
because it provides for preliminary work on projects that do
not fit federal requirements. In order to reinstate the
project, $25.0 was taken from deferred maintenance in each
of DOTPF's four regions. Other changes on the tabulation
include increasing DNR state land acquisition from zero to
$265.0. Alaska has provided the federal government a list
of all lands selected under state entitlement. Efforts must
continue, however, on that acquisition, classification, and
assessment. The original request was for $650.0. The
legislature proposed zero. The new legislative proposal
provides $265.0. For Dept. of Fish and Game efforts in
protecting Alaska's right to manage its resources under
ANILCA, the administration sought $500.0 for the second year
of the project. The legislature proposed zero. The Office
of Management and Budget and the department returned with a
request for $200.0 in general funds plus $200.0 in fish and
game funds. That has been provided. The Dept. of Natural
Resources further requested $300.0 for forest practices act
effectiveness research. Again, the legislature proposed
zero. The department, Office of Management and Budget, and
the timber association requested that funding be increased
as much as possible. A total of $200.0 had thus been
provided. In addition to the $25.0 decrease for deferred
maintenance in each of DOTPF's four regions, further
decreases consist of a reduction of funding to the Dept. of
Health and Social Services for API repairs from $1,032.5 to
$400.0, reduction of Dept. of Natural Resources RS 2477
moneys from $400.0 to $300.0, and a reduction in statewide
maintenance for Dept. of Fish and Game facilities from
$650.0 to $300.0. Co-chair Pearce reiterated that the
foregoing increases and reductions have been approved by
both the House and the Office of Management and Budget.
Senator Sharp voiced concern over reductions in Dept. of
Natural Resource RS 2477 moneys. He stressed that if
rights-of-way associated with state trails are not asserted,
they will be lost forever. He voiced further concern over
the quality and usefulness of forest practices act research.
Co-chair Pearce advised that CS SB 363 (Finance) reflects a
capital budget utilizing general funds of $99,996,600,
including amendments proposed for the floor, with the
exception of Senator Kerttula's amendment for the Alaska
Public Radio Network which would boost the capital budget
beyond $100 million. Federal funds total $567,601.6
million. Authorizations for DOTPF stem from the
department's construction season list for 1994 and 1995.
SENATOR LINCOLN pointed to funding for Dept. of
Transportation and Public Facilities projects, noted
deletion of the Denali project and addition of funding for
improvements and rehabilitation of the Steese Highway and
Chena Hot Springs Road, and raised questions concerning
whether the Steese Highway project was ready to proceed.
Co-chair Pearce explained that the Denali project was
deleted because of public outcry over proposals to pave a
road that is only open a portion of the year. She then
noted that Chena Hot Springs is on the department's Priority
I list. While improvements to the Steese Highway show as
Priority II, the project has been on the six-year list for
approximately five years.
HELVI SANDVIK, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Transportation
and Public Facilities, came before committee. She concurred
that Steese Highway improvements are presently Priority II
and have been under design for some period of time. The
project is thus design ready. It is listed as Priority II
rather than Priority I because current maintenance efforts
have enabled the department to "keep the roadway in pretty
good shape." While the design stage is complete, the public
involvement process to get the project on the three year
state transportation improvement program (STIP) has not yet
occurred. The Chena Hot Springs project has not undergone
planning and design and cannot be construction ready in the
next two years. Senator Lincoln voiced her understanding
that although the legislature is providing $3.7 for Steese
Highway improvements and $3 million for Chena Hot Springs
Road rehabilitation, the Dept. of Transportation and Public
Facilities will not be able to implement the projects. Ms.
Sandvik said that the Steese Highway project could commence
upon conclusion of the public involvement process. It is
unlikely, however, that the Chena Hot Springs Road will be
in a position to go forward in the next two years.
In response to a further question from Senator Lincoln
concerning the availability of other projects, Ms. Sandvik
said that projects on the construction season forecast
reflect work the department believes it can get done within
the prescribed time frame.
End, SFC-94, #78, Side 1
Begin, SFC-94, #78, Side 2
Further discussion followed between Ms. Sandvik and Senator
Rieger regarding the scheduling of other department
projects. Co-chair Pearce voiced committee concern that
moneys allocated to statewide enhancement, statewide rural
village roads and trails, safety, or contingency might
instead be applied to the Copper River Highway. Ms. Sandvik
responded that that was not the department intent.
Discussion regarding use of contingency funding followed
between Ms. Sandvik and Senator Rieger.
Co-chair Pearce called for further discussion of proposed
amendments. None was raised. She then queried the audience
for public testimony. None was forthcoming.
Senator Rieger MOVED that CS SB 363 (Finance) pass from
committee with individual recommendations. No objection
having been raised, CSSB 363 (Finance) was REPORTED OUT of
committee. All members present signed the committee report
with a "do pass" recommendation with the exception of
Senator Kerttula who signed "no rec." [Senator Jacko was
temporarily absent from the meeting and did not sign.]
Co-chair Pearce directed that the meeting be briefly
recessed prior to proceeding with the agenda.
RECESS - 10:20 A.M.
RECONVENE - 10:40 A.M.
HB 351 - CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS;WEAPONS POSS.
Co-chair Pearce directed that CSHB 351 (Fin)am (efd add) be
brought on for discussion and noted that file material
consists of the bill transmitted by the House, the Senate
State Affairs version, three fiscal notes, a list of groups
supporting the bill, an analysis of both the House and
Senate State Affairs versions, a sponsor statement, policy
briefing, and various articles.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, sponsor of the legislation, came
before committee. She noted that the bill was extensively
rewritten as it made its way through the House, and
additional changes were effected by Senate State Affairs.
She attested to support for the legislation which she said
balances the issue and provides that law abiding citizens
will be able to carry concealed weapons for self-defense,
after having taken training to ensure that they are
knowledgeable about the firearm. Senator Kerttula asked who
would provide required training. Representative James
explained that the bill presently calls for provision by
private industry, per approval by the department.
Discussion followed between Senator Kerttula and
Representative James regarding the type of container needed
for transport of a firearm.
PORTIA BABCOCK, Senate State Affairs committee aide, came
before committee to provide a section-by-section analysis of
bill provisions and changes effected by Senate State
Affairs:
Sec. 1. Allows a permit to carry a concealed weapon as an
affirmative defense to possession.
Sec. 2. Provides that transport of a firearm in a closed
container designed for transporting firearms does
not constitute carrying a concealed weapon.
Sec. 3. The Senate State Affairs bill effected a change
clarifying the difference between a loaded and
unloaded firearm. The Dept. of Public Safety has
no opposition to the change.
Sec. 4. Makes provisions for permits to carry concealed
handguns and delineates criteria an applicant must
meet to receive a permit. Fingerprints must be
taken by individuals qualified by the department
to take fingerprints. Language in the House bill
required action on applications for permits within
30 days of receipt of background information. The
Senate bill requires approval or rejection within
15 days of receipt of "permit eligibility
information."
The House bill provided for licensing for three
years while the Senate version provides for a
five-year license. The Senate bill adds a
requirement that the holder complete a full
handgun training course every five years. The
House bill required only a refresher course for
alternate renewals (every six years).
Ms. Babcock pointed specifically to statutory
citations on page 4 of both the House and Senate
versions and explained that they relate to
misdemeanor offenses. If one or more of those
misdemeanors is committed by an applicant within
five years immediately preceding application for a
permit to carry a concealed weapon, the applicant
will not qualify for the permit. The Senate bill
also adds subsection (5) language requiring that
the applicant not have been "convicted of two or
more class A misdemeanors of this state or similar
laws of another jurisdiction within the five years
immediately preceding the application. The Dept.
of Public Safety has no problem with the addition.
In response to a question from Senator Kerttula,
Ms. Babcock advised that illegally carrying a
concealed weapon constitutes misconduct involving
weapons in the fifth degree, a class A
misdemeanor.
Ms. Babcock referenced interaction with the Dept.
of Health and Social Services regarding access to
mental health records, alcohol treatment program
records, etc. That discussion lead to development
of Senate State Affairs language at page 5,
subsections (14) and (15).
Speaking to information which must be contained
within the application to carry a concealed
handgun, Ms. Babcock noted a change in the Senate
bill at page 5, line 15, whereby the applicant
must provide information concerning the city and
state of each place the applicant has resided in
the five years immediately preceding application.
That allows the Dept. of Public Safety to check
misdemeanor records for the previous five years.
Ms. Babcock next directed attention to page 6,
line 1, and noted that the Senate bill changes
language relating to permit eligibility from "may"
to "will."
Subsection (b) at the top of page 6 was part of
previous House versions of the bill although it
was not included in the version transmitted to the
Senate. Senate State Affairs reinserted
provisions prohibiting demand for information
beyond that set forth on the application,
including information on firearms owned by the
applicant.
Referencing provisions relating to demonstration
of competence with handguns, Ms. Babcock explained
that the House bill, in describing the weapon,
referred to type and size. Senate State Affairs
did not feel that was clear. Language was thus
changed to refer to action, type, and caliber. A
permittee may carry as a concealed handgun only
the caliber of the action type for which the
permittee has demonstrated competence, or any
lesser caliber of the same action type. The
department shall approve the personal protection
course offered by the National Rifle Association
and any other handgun course that tests the
applicant's (1) knowledge of Alaska law relating
to firearms and the use of deadly force (2)
familiarity with the basic concepts of the safe
and responsible use of handguns; (3) knowledge of
self-defense principles; and (4) physical
competence with each action type of handgun the
applicant wishes to carry under the permit.
Senator Kerttula asked how competence would be
demonstrated and approval garnered in rural areas.
Representative James voiced her understanding that
most individuals carrying concealed weapons in
rural Alaska would be protected under existing
law. That is not going to change. She further
pointed to options allowing communities to opt out
of concealed weapon permitting. Representative
James further voiced her belief that, upon passage
of concealed weapon legislation, more handgun
courses by which an individual may demonstrate
competence would become available to a wider
number of people in both urban and rural areas.
Ms. Babcock stressed that, under present law, an
individual can carry a concealed weapon if
involved in a lawful outdoor activity.
Senator Rieger pointed to Senate language stating
that the department "shall approve the protection
course offered by the NRA," noted that it
represents a change from the House version and
asked why it was included. Ms. Babcock said it
was inserted at the request of certified
instructors who now offer personal protection
courses sponsored by the National Rifle
Association. It is intended to provide a measure
of comfort to instructors who fear they might not
be approved in deference to a state-sponsored or
alternative program.
Pointing to page 6, line 29, Ms. Babcock noted
that the Senate bill removes House language
relating to refresher courses and substitutes
completion of a handgun course every five years.
At page 7, line 11, Senate State Affairs
established a cap on fees. Thirty-four states
have some form of concealed weapon permitting
system with fees set in statute. The fee for
Alaska is established at $125 with a renewal fee
not to exceed $50. Those costs are in addition to
the cost of the personal protection course, the
cost of fingerprinting, pictures, etc. Alaska's
fees are at the higher end of the spectrum.
Page 7, lines 17, contains provisions and criteria
for permit renewal, including a $25 late fee. A
new subsection (d) at page 8 applies restricted
information provisions for the original
application to renewal as well.
Ms. Babcock next spoke to provisions allowing for
suspension rather than revocation of permits. She
further pointed to language at page 9 relating to
revocation of the permit if a permit holder is
convicted of two class A misdemeanors within a
five year period.
Pointing to page 9, line 24, Ms. Babcock noted a
language change from "The department, and its
officers and employees, are not liable" to "The
state, and its officers and employees, are not
liable." The court system requested the change
since the Dept. of Public Safety is not the only
state agency that will be dealing with permits and
permittees. That language was included in an
earlier House bill but was not in the version
transmitted to the Senate.
The House bill provides that failure to carry the
concealed weapon permit and proper other
identification when carrying a concealed weapon
constitutes a class B misdemeanor. Senate State
Affairs changed that to a violation. House
legislation provides that failure of a permittee
to inform a peace officer that the permittee is
carrying a concealed weapon when the permittee is
contacted by police constitutes a class B
misdemeanor. The Senate bill changes that to a
class A misdemeanor.
Pointing to language allowing a peace officer to
secure a handgun, Senator Rieger asked if that
means the gun could be taken away. Ms. Babcock
answered affirmatively, advising that it could be
"secured" for the duration of contract between
police and the permittee. A peace officer could
not take the handgun and not give it back if the
permittee is not arrested or taken into custody.
Provisions are intended to assist peace officers
in situations where they feel uncomfortable.
Senator Rieger asked if an individual would be
required to yield an unconcealed weapon to an
officer as well. Ms. Babcock said she did not
know. Senator Rieger voiced concern that, under
bill provisions, a peace officer might be required
to return a concealed weapon to an individual who
continues to be agitated following a
confrontation. C. W. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy
Commissioner, Dept. of Public Safety, came before
committee in response to the question. He
explained that a police officer would take the
weapon, regardless of whether it is concealed or
not, if the officer believes the gun holder is
dangerous to himself, herself, or other people. A
permit holder who refuses to surrender his or her
concealed weapon when requested to do so by a
police officer could be arrested for violation of
a class A misdemeanor.
Ms. Babcock next directed attention to page 10,
line 21, and noted reinsertion of language from
earlier House versions of the bill. It prohibits
the carrying of a concealed weapon into a
courthouse or courtroom unless the permittee (A)
is a judge; or (B) has been authorized to possess
a concealed handgun by a judge presiding at the
courthouse or courtroom. Co-chair Pearce asked
why judges were singled out. Ms. Babcock
explained that language was lifted from Florida
statutes. It responds to increased instances of
weapons brought into courthouses and threats
against judges and prosecutors.
End, SFC-94, #78, Side 2
Begin, SFC-94, #80, Side 1
Ms. Babcock next attested to additional areas
where possession of a concealed handgun is
prohibited, noting specifically: state and
federal offices and offices of political
subdivisions, airline terminals, a vessel of the
Alaska marine highway system, financial
institutions, etc. She also noted that
municipalities or established villages could
prohibit possession of concealed handguns through
opt-out provisions of the legislation.
Page 11, lines 12 through 21, speak to misuse of
permits and penalties therefor. The Senate bill
splits out and places in separate subsections
language relating to penalties for displaying an
expired permit and possession and display of a
suspended or revoked permit. Those displaying an
expired permit are guilty of a violation with an
associated $100 fine while display of a suspended
or revoked permit constitutes a class A
misdemeanor.
Discussion followed between Senator Jacko,
Representative James, and Ms. Babcock regarding
application of the proposed bill to fish camps,
etc. Ms. Babcock noted need to review the
definition of "established village" in present
law. Opt-out provisions at page 12, line 16,
speak to both municipalities and established
villages.
Ms. Babcock referenced new Senate language at page
12, lines 13 - 15, relating to a municipal
preemption. She explained that state law would
apply unless prohibited by the municipality
through the opt-out election. Senator Jacko asked
if the reverse approach had been considered
whereby a municipality would have to opt-in to
allow the carrying of concealed weapons. Ms.
Babcock said that while that approach was
considered, it became evident it would be
impractical in that every municipality or
established village would have to have an
election. That was neither popular nor feasible
and did not provide for uniform state law.
Directing attention to page 13, line 30, Ms.
Babcock referenced the meaning of "derringer" and
said that the definition was included at the
request of the Dept. of Public Safety.
The Senate State Affairs bill provides for an
effective date of October 1, 1994. The effective
date of the House version is January 1, 1995.
Discussion followed between Senator Rieger and Ms. Babcock
regarding definitions relating to derringers and miniature
handguns as well as competency testing for firearms. Ms.
Babcock advised that the National Rifle Association course
consists of 12 hours of classroom time plus two, two-and-a-
half hour instruction periods at the shooting range.
In response to further questions from Senator Rieger, Ms.
Babcock summarized Senate changes to the House bill as:
1. Clarification of what type of firearms permittees
will
be allowed to carry (action, type, and caliber).
2. Narrowing the description of permit eligibility.
3. Changing the permit approval or denial period from
30
to 15 days. She stressed that this time period is
flexible. When an application is received, the
department must submit the applicant's
fingerprints for tracking within 5 days of receipt
of the application. Once information from the
computerized record search is received, the
department has 15 days to respond.
4. Removal of misdemeanor driving offenses as a cause
for permit suspension or revocation.
5. Rewording and clarification of sections relating
to mental health and alcohol program involvement by
permittees.
6. Requiring the retaking of the entire handgun
competency course every five years for renewal
rather than a refresher course every six
years.
7. Establishment of caps on fees. Ms. Babcock
stressed that the department is required to charge
only for the actual cost of processing
the application. She then voiced her
hope that the cost would be less than
the $125 cap.
8. The narrowing of information required of the
applicant.
9. Addition of the municipal preemption.
10. Change of the effective date to October 1, 1994.
Senator Kerttula attested to concerns raised by a grocery
store owner that, under the proposed bill, he would be
forced to carry a weapon because shoplifters could be
carrying concealed weapons. He further attested to worries
associated with permittees who might carry concealed weapons
into bars and other areas where alcohol is involved. Deputy
Commission Swackhammer explained that being in possession of
a firearm in an establishment that is selling alcoholic
beverages for retail is against current law.
Co-chair Pearce called for additional questions on the
legislation. None were forthcoming at this time. She then
advised of a number of people who wished to testify on the
bill and directed that it be HELD for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:35 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|