Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/22/1996 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
22 March 1996
9:20 A.M.
TAPES
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.
PRESENT
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
committee.
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
ferries."
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
states.
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
themselves.
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
renewal.
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
adopted.
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
students.
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
buildings.
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
grounds
Co-chairman Halford HELD the bill in committee pending
further action.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:20 A.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|