Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/25/1997 03:33 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
March 25, 1997
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chairman
Senator Jerry Ward, Vice-chair
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Jim Duncan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jerry Mackie
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 141
"An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns; and
relating to the possession of firearms."
PASSED CSSB 141 (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to legislative ethics; relating to the filing of
disclosures by certain legislative employees and officials; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED CSSB 105 (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 42
"An Act relating to the fiscal operations of the Alaska Railroad
Corporation and to land acquired by the State of Alaska under the
Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982 or otherwise acquired for
railroad purposes; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to welfare to work tax credits under the Alaska
Net Income Tax Act; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 21
"An Act relating to ferries and ferry terminals, establishing the
Alaska Marine Highway Authority, and relating to maintenance of
state marine vessels; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 141- No previous Senate committee action.
SB 105 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/11/97, 3/13/97 and
3/18/97.
SB 42 - See Senate Transportation Committee minutes dated 2/20/97.
SB 116 - No previous Senate committee action.
SB 21 - See Senate Transportation Committee minutes dated 2/18/97
and 3/6/97 and Senate State Affairs minutes dated 3/18/97.
WITNESS REGISTER
Del Smith
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 141
Tuckerman Babcock
Legislative Aide to Senator Green
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sectional analysis of CSSB 141(STA)
Dean Guaneli
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSB 141(STA)
Lauree Hugonin
Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault
130 Seward, Rm. 501
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed concerns with CSSB 141(STA)
Terry Cramer
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward St., Suite 409
Juneau, AK 99801-2105
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 105
Mike McMullen
Division of Personnel
Dept. of Administration
P.O. Box 110201
Juneau, AK 99811-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 105
Neil Slotnick
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to Amendment 1 to SB 105
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-13, SIDE A
Number 00
CHAIRMAN LYDA GREEN called the Senate State Affairs Committee
meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Present were Senators Green, Ward
and Miller. Senator Duncan arrived at 3:35 p.m. Chair Green
announced SB 21 was withdrawn from today's calendar at the
sponsor's request, and would be heard on Thursday. The first order
of business before the committee was SB 141. Chair Green announced
a committee substitute was prepared for SB 141 and Tuckerman
Babcock would explain the changes made.
SB 141 CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS
TUCKERMAN BABCOCK , legislative aide to Senator Green, sponsor of SB
141, read the following statement.
"SB 141 was introduced by Senator Green as part of the general
focus toward a smaller, smarter government with less bureaucracy
and more clarity for citizens with the law. The intent of SB 141
is simple:
There is no reason the permitted few should be more restricted than
the unregulated many. Treat people and their handguns equally.
All Alaskans, who are not otherwise prohibited by federal or state
law from owning or possessing handguns, can carry handguns openly
in certain places and can carry concealed without a permit in
certain places. If 300,000 adult Alaskans can legally carry a
handgun openly, there is no reason to have greater restrictions for
the 6,000 Alaskans who have been fingerprinted, checked, trained
and permitted."
Mr. Babcock noted copies of the memo from Senator Lyda Green
including a sectional analysis and description of the committee
substitute were made available to the audience.
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt CSSB 141(STA).
Without objection, CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for an explanation of the
committee substitute.
Mr. Babcock read the following.
"There have been almost 6,000 permits issued in Alaska for carrying
concealed handguns since that right was recognized in state law in
1994. The Department of Public Safety has done a remarkable job of
ensuring fair and speedy processing of applications.
However, Alaskans have voiced some complaints on overly restrictive
and confusing prohibitions and regulations leading to a burdensome
waste of time. Many of these stipulations were included in the
original legislation due to courteous consideration of the dire
predictions of mayhem in the streets from some members of the legal
community and law enforcement. None of those dire predictions has
proven accurate during years of experience and it is appropriate to
restore equal rights for law-abiding citizens.
For the most part, the law is working. Crime is down. According
to the information we have from the Department of Public Safety, of
6,000 permittees, not one person has used their concealed handgun
to commit a crime.
Similar legislation (SB 177) passed last session by large
majorities but was vetoed by the Governor. Even though legislation
last year prohibited anyone from drinking and carrying a concealed
handgun, some felt that whether one was drinking or not, no
concealed handguns should be allowed in bars. In the spirit of
compromise, we have drafted SB 141 to allow concealed handguns in
restaurants regulated under AS 04.16.049 but not in bars.
This bill does not change other state law restricting carrying
handguns in bars or schools. All the other existing laws
restricting handguns in bars and schools remain in force.
If SB 141 is passed, the simple effect would be that anywhere you
can carry a handgun openly (which you can do without training,
without background checks, without fingerprinting, and without a
permit) you will be able to carry a permitted concealed handgun.
The existing law is too restrictive, too confusing, too expensive.
For example, under current law you are prohibited from walking into
a financial institution with a permitted concealed handgun, but you
are allowed to take the handgun out and carry it openly into the
bank. Existing law too often turns common sense on its head.
Sections 1,2, and 9 of the bill make several things much clearer
and easier to enforce. If a person is a concealed permit holder
from another state and comes to Alaska, we will recognize that
permit. However, that person is responsible for following the laws
regulating Alaskan permit holders. In addition, Section 12
requires that the visitor must, within 90 days, inform the
Department of Public Safety of their presence so that, just as with
Alaska permit holder, the Department knows who is allowed to carry
concealed handguns in Alaska.
These amendments simply recognize equality of Americans as
requested by SJR 14, which supports legislation in the U.S.
Congress seeking nationwide recognition of concealed carry permits
issued by any government agency or subdivision.
Sections 1 and 2 improve definitions and still attempt to permit a
municipality or village to prohibit possession of concealed
handguns.
Sections 2 does not change existing law making bars off limits to
concealed handguns, but does allow access to restaurants identified
under AS 04.16.049. If the Alcohol Beverage Control Board finds
that a business, or a specific area of a business, is not a bar you
will be allowed to carry a concealed handgun.
Sections 3 and 6 ensure that the applicant for a permit receives a
copy of state law and regulations and certifies the applicant read
them.
Section 4 requires the Department to process the permit if the
permittee is otherwise eligible without having to wait for weeks or
months for the F.B.I. to complete fingerprinting checks. The
Department is given authority to immediately revoke a conditional
permit whenever it receives information from checking
fingerprinting making the permittee ineligible. This conforms
statute to what we are told is actually being done in practice.
Section 5 simplifies for law enforcement, and for citizens, the
standards for qualifications to apply for a permit.
Under existing law, in order to carry openly, you must be 21 years
of age or older and be allowed by state or federal law to own or
possess a handgun.
Under existing state law, in order to carry concealed during
recreation activities, in your dwelling, in your business, where
you are employed, or on land owned or leased by the person, you
must be 16, and you must be allowed by state and federal law to own
or possess a firearm.
Under existing law, in order to carry concealed in other places
than those mentioned above, you must acquire a permit. If SB 141
is passed, in order to do that you must be 21, you must be allowed
by state and federal law to own or possess a handgun, you must be
a 90 day resident of the state immediately preceding your
application for a concealed handgun permit, you must receive
training and education, and you must demonstrate competence with a
handgun.
A restrictive laundry list of prohibitions for the fingerprinted,
trained, permitted carriers make little sense when state law allows
you to carry openly in those places and federal and state law
already address who may own or possess a handgun.
Section 7 reduces the fees from $125 to $99 for the initial
application and from $60 to $30 for renewal or replacement to
better reflect the true cost. This is the cost the Department
informs us would be the actual approximate cost of processing the
permit.
Section 8 amends language to clearly give the authority to
immediately suspend permits for anyone who is ineligible under
state or federal law to own or possess a handgun.
Section 10 repeals a long list of special prohibitions that don't
apply to open carry or, in some cases, to concealed carry
unpermitted. Instead there is a flat prohibition for possession of
a concealed handgun wherever federal or state law prohibits
possession of a handgun.
Section 11 sets up a cascading penalty system beginning with an
infraction subject to a fine, and subsequent offenses being a class
B misdemeanor and the third time (or more) a class A misdemeanor.
Section 12 simplifies definitions so that shotguns, rifles, and
weapons prohibited under AS 11.61.200 would not qualify for the
concealed carry permit. Otherwise, just as in every other state,
any handgun not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law is
treated equally. That, Madam Chairman, is a description of the
committee substitute for SB 141."
Number 188
CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that the Alaska Outdoor Council, Randy
Smith of Mountainview, who is involved with the Citizens Take Back
the Streets group, and Bob Parkerson, a Second Amendment Rights
advocate, expressed concerned that anyone could receive permission
to carry a concealed weapon without the training and permitting
requirements, so Section 5 of SB 141 was removed which would allow
automatic issuance of a permit to a victim of domestic violence.
Just for the record, the State of California has that provision.
Number 206
SENATOR DUNCAN asked for an explanation of Section 2. MR. BABCOCK
stated the current prohibition is AS 11.61.220, misconduct
involving weapons, and (a)(2) is knowingly possesses a loaded
firearm on one's person in any place where intoxicating beverages
are sold for consumption on the premises. Section 2 would amend
current law so that concealed weapons could be carried into those
establishments that are identified as restaurants, not bars, by the
Alcohol Beverage Control Board.
SENATOR DUNCAN clarified Section 2 allows concealed handguns to be
carried into restaurants that serve liquor, but not into a bar.
MR. BABCOCK said that is right.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked whether Section 4 directs the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) to issue a permit within a 15-day time period
even if the fingerprint check has not been received. MR. BABCOCK
replied that is correct. He explained DPS would have had the
opportunity to do a background check and could deny the applicant
on that basis. CHAIR GREEN stated DPS has been doing that already.
Number 238
SENATOR DUNCAN asked for clarification of Section 10. MR. BABCOCK
explained AS 18.65.775 contains a lengthy list of specific places
a permittee may not possess a concealed handgun. Section 10
applies limitations to people who carry concealed handguns in the
same way those limitations are applied to people who carry handguns
openly. Permittees would be prohibited from carrying a handgun any
place a handgun is prohibited under any state or federal law.
SENATOR DUNCAN clarified current statute lists 13 or 14 places
where a concealed weapon cannot be carried; Section 10 repeals that
list and says that concealed weapons cannot be carried anywhere
that is prohibited by federal or state law. He questioned whether
anyone could provide a list of the places prohibited by other state
and federal laws. MR. BABCOCK replied that Jerry Luckhaupt, Legal
Counsel, provided that information in committee packets. Mr.
Babcock said the limitations are listed in AS 11.61.220.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if there are prohibitions under current state
and federal law that will be deleted if CSSB 141(STA) passes. MR.
BABCOCK replied, "yes, that would be the effect. Currently
carrying a handgun openly into a bank is not currently prohibited
in state law but carrying a permitted concealed handgun is
prohibited in state law. Rather than force a situation where an
untrained, no background-check person can walk into a bank - and
that person is not limited in anyway by state law - but the person
who applies for a permit and has been fingerprinted and undergone
a background check and received some training is prohibited from
going to the bank - doesn't make much sense - it doesn't treat
Alaskans fairly. So this would apply the limitation about carrying
handguns equally to those carrying openly and those carrying
concealed."
Number 284
SENATOR DUNCAN asked for other examples. MR. BABCOCK replied ther
would be no prohibition on carrying concealed weapons in domestic
violence facilities, state offices, and financial institutions but
private facilities could put up signs prohibiting firearms on that
property.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Chair Green whether her staff could provide
him with a list of the places that will change if CSSB 141(STA)
passes. MR. BABCOCK noted the list is in AS 11.61.220.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Babcock to review the provisions being
repealed in the bill. MR. BABCOCK explained AS 18.65.715 and
.725(a)(3) are the requirements to take another test before a
renewal for a handgun permit is issued. SENATOR DUNCAN asked if
.715(b) applies to the original permit or to the renewal. MR.
BABCOCK replied it is for a renewal. SENATOR DUNCAN affirmed the
applicant would still be required to take a competency test and
course before receiving the initial permit. MR. BABCOCK agreed.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked about AS 18.65.748. MR. BABCOCK answered tha
deals with permit revocation and is directly related to the
sections repealed. SENATOR DUNCAN asked for clarification. MR.
BABCOCK said, "That is a subsection in .740, (a)(2), related to the
repeal of the .65.705 provision so, if those were repealed, it
wouldn't have any applicability."
SENATOR DUNCAN asked about the repeal of AS 18.65.755 (b)-(c). MR.
BABCOCK explained .755 pertains to special restrictions.
Number 336
SENATOR DUNCAN noted AS 11.61.220 is the statute that lists the
places where weapons cannot be carried openly, or under this bill,
concealed. MR. BABCOCK agreed and added it would also deal with
where you can currently carry concealed weapons without permits,
which includes places where one is involved in an outdoor activity
such as hunting, fishing, trapping, on one's own land, or at a
business that serves alcohol if one is employed by that business.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if the alcohol facility provision is different
from current law. MR. BABCOCK answered it is not, and that is part
of the confusion this bill is trying to address.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if a copy of the federal law was available.
MR. BABCOCK answered the federal law is 18 U.S. Code 922. He
explained the federal law prohibits possession of a handgun if one:
has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by
imprisonment of a term exceeding one year; is a fugitive from
justice; is an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled
substance; has been adjudicated a mental defective or committed to
a mental institution; is an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in
the United States; was dishonorably discharged from the armed
forces; was once a U.S. citizen but denounced that citizenship; or
is subject to a court order involving domestic violence.
Number 366
SENATOR DUNCAN felt it would be clearer to list the prohibitions in
statute so that permittees would know where concealed weapons could
not be carried. MR. BABCOCK responded it would be clearest if DPS
only has to provide a copy of the federal law to permittees.
CHAIR GREEN noted the current statute encourages a person to openl
carry a gun rather than to conceal one because it is legal to
openly carry guns in more places.
MR. BABCOCK said SB 141 directs DPS to provide a copy of applicable
state laws to permittees. He suggested amending the bill to
include a copy of the federal law, but explained that law applies
to who can carry a concealed weapon, rather than where.
Number 406
DEL SMITH , Deputy Commissioner of DPS, stated DPS has made an
effort to work with Senator Green's staff to make SB 141 workable,
but did not have adequate time to review the committee substitute.
Since January of 1995, copies of all regulations and statutes that
deal with concealed handguns have been distributed to permit
holders so that requirement will not pose any problems. His
concerns with the bill are as follows. The 15-day turnaround time
is problematic. DPS currently has a 30-day turnaround time because
the FBI is unable to respond to requests in a short time frame.
DPS does a state fingerprint check and if it finds nothing, and
there are no indications from a national name search that there is
reason to believe an applicant has a criminal background, the
permit is issued. If information that is eventually received from
the FBI is contrary, the permit is revoked. To his knowledge, that
has never occurred. The BATF sent the department and the State a
letter awhile ago that said under Alaska's statute, one could use
the concealed handgun permit to buy instantly in a gun store,
without waiting to go through the complete check, so Alaska does
have a Brady waiver. He is concerned that statutory changes could
affect what ATS does regarding Alaska's Brady waiver on the handgun
permitting process. There is no way DPS will ever receive
fingerprint background check information from the FBI within 15
days.
Number 439
CHAIR GREEN asked if this same provision was in the bill last year.
MR. SMITH said it was and he expressed the same concern. CHAIR
GREEN asked Mr. Smith how he would prefer that provision to read.
MR. SMITH replied DPS is processing permits more quickly now and
will continue to do so, but is doing so administratively. He
cautioned if that requirement is placed in statute, BATF may change
its position because its approval is based on the existing
concealed handgun statute.
CHAIR GREEN asked if Mr. Smith had prepared an amendment. MR.
SMITH said he did not, and did not know what would comport with
federal law. He emphasized he was pointing out a potential
problem.
Number 458
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if DPS uses a 15-day turnaround time period
through administrative procedures now. MR. SMITH replied the
process takes about 30 days. During that 30 days, state record
checks, state fingerprint checks, and the paperwork is completed.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if DPS feels assured an adequate background
check can be done within 15 days using state records to issue
permits. MR. SMITH answered he believes it can be accomplished
within 15 days however, he repeated DPS' concern is whether a
statutory change will affect Alaska's Brady waiver.
MR. SMITH continued addressing DPS' concerns with SB 141. The
section regarding out-of-state recognition of concealed handgun
permits is of concern because Alaska's permitting process requires
permittees to meet certain standards; some states have lower
standards and Vermont has none. He suggested Alaska's standards
are the reason none of its 6,000 permittees have ever used a
concealed handgun in the commission of a crime. Last year he
suggested, during hearings on SB 177, that DPS enter into
agreements with other states and require Alaska's level of
standards as the baseline for reciprocity.
DPS remains opposed to allowing a permittee to carry a concealed
weapon into bars or establishments that serve only alcohol.
Section 2 allows permittees to carry concealed weapons into a
restaurant that serves alcohol. Mr. Smith said DPS does not have
a problem with a permittee carrying a concealed weapon into a
restaurant that serves alcohol when having a bite to eat, but the
department still believes the permittee should not be allowed to
drink alcohol while carrying a concealed weapon because a person's
judgment is the first thing affected.
CHAIR GREEN asked if that prohibition is in current statute. MR.
SMITH replied that statute reads a little differently and prohibits
a person from using a firearm after having a couple of drinks.
MR. SMITH continued. Section 3 requires DPS to provide copies of
Alaska's laws to applicants. DPS does so, and will continue to do
so. Section 7 deals with who a permit can be issued to. There are
any number of offenses a person can be convicted of which precludes
one from getting a permit. He noted the caliber of people who
apply for permits is high and is the main reason permittees are not
causing problems. DPS has rejected 33 applicants because of
criminal history and 18 permits have been revoked during the last
two years.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Smith to elaborate on Section 7. MR.
SMITH said Section 7 removes a lot of the violations or convictions
that were placed in the original law that preclude an applicant
from getting a permit. DPS is concerned about potential problems
that may arise if people who have been convicted of certain
offenses can qualify for permits. He repeated current permittees
are law-abiding citizens which is why very few problems exist with
this program.
MR. SMITH said Section 10 decreases the permit fee to $99. The
current fee is set at $122 - $125. DPS has committed to making
every effort to issue permits for $99, but the amount charged
depends on the volume. Only 1500 permits were issued in the past
year and the cost of issuing those was estimated at $141 each. If
the volume does not increase, DPS will need general funds to cover
the cost of administering permits.
MR. SMITH noted he faxed SB 141 to the Alaska Peace Officers, the
Anchorage Police Department, and the Alaska Association of Chiefs
of Police, so that those organizations could comment directly to
the committee via teleconference.
CHAIR GREEN stated the committee has received a lot of comments
from those groups and others that DPS has contacted.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Smith to address Section 10 of the
committee substitute which removes the reference to the statutory
list of places where a concealed handgun cannot be carried. MR.
SMITH replied he has not had a chance to fully assess that change
in approach. One federal prohibition that he was aware of includes
restricted areas in airports and he assumed jails would fall under
the prohibition.
Number 564
CHAIR GREEN clarified schools, prisons, and airports are prohibited
areas under federal law. SENATOR DUNCAN expressed concern that
Section 10 is not clear to DPS or to the public, and he believed
the current law is easier to reference because it contains a list
of areas where permittees cannot carry concealed weapons. CHAIR
GREEN said another approach would be to talk about places where
guns can be carried openly under current law.
CHAIR GREEN asked how many of the 33 applications that were
rejected would qualify under CSSB 141 (STA). SENATOR WARD asked
during what time period the 33 applicants were rejected. MR. SMITH
said the 33 applicants were rejected over the two-year time period
since the program has been operating. Of those 33, four applicants
received treatment for alcoholism, one had a history of mental
problems, and one was a non-resident. He could not cite the
reasons for the other rejections.
CHAIR GREEN stated she was impressed with the thoroughness of the
federal standard and found it nearly all-inclusive when she
compared it with Alaska's standard.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if, under the committee substitute, a
permittee is prohibited from carrying a concealed handgun in a law
enforcement or correctional facility. MR. SMITH said all law
enforcement officials check their weapons when entering
correctional facilities. It is his understanding that only police
officers can enter a law enforcement facility with a concealed
weapon.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if carrying concealed weapons on school
grounds or a school bus is currently prohibited under state law.
MR. SMITH thought that it is.
TAPE 97-13, SIDE B
Number 548
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if one can carry a concealed weapon into a
court house under current law. MR. SMITH was unsure. SENATOR
DUNCAN asked if the current prohibition extends to state, federal,
and municipal buildings. MR. SMITH replied it does.
SENATOR DUNCAN questioned whether airline passenger terminals and
marine highway vessels fall under the prohibition. MR. SMITH said
yes. SENATOR DUNCAN asked if facilities providing services to
victims of domestic violence or sexual assault are prohibited
areas. MR. SMITH said yes.
SENATOR DUNCAN clarified he was reading from the present concealed
handgun statute and was asking Mr. Smith if the same prohibitions
exist in other statutes. He explained he was trying to figure out
whether the same prohibitions will exist if the current concealed
handgun law is repealed.
SENATOR DUNCAN repeated the same questions and asked Mr. Smith, if
the concealed handgun law is repealed, whether prohibitions against
carrying a concealed weapon in a law enforcement or correctional
facility exist elsewhere in state law. MR. SMITH answered he
believes it is prohibited in a correctional facility but he was not
sure about the law enforcement facility. SENATOR DUNCAN asked
about school grounds or a school bus. MR. SMITH was not aware of
a specific prohibition. SENATOR DUNCAN asked about the court house
or court room. MR. SMITH was unaware. SENATOR DUNCAN asked about
buildings housing only state or federal offices or a political
subdivision of the state. MR. SMITH was unaware. SENATOR DUNCAN
asked about the passenger areas of airline terminals. MR. SMITH
believed that prohibition is in federal law. SENATOR DUNCAN asked
about Alaska Marine Highway vessels. MR. SMITH did not think it
would be prohibited. SENATOR DUNCAN asked about domestic violence
facilities. MR. SMITH said he did not think other prohibitions
exist. SENATOR DUNCAN asked about a private residence where a
conspicuous notice has been posted. MR. SMITH thought a person
could be arrested for trespassing in such a situation.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if, elsewhere in state law, one is prohibited
from carrying a concealed weapon in a meeting of a business,
charitable, or other organization or entity where notices are
posted. MR. SMITH thought the trespass statute might apply in that
situation also but he was not aware of a specific prohibition
against carrying concealed weapons. SENATOR DUNCAN asked about a
financial institution. MR. SMITH was not aware of any prohibition.
SENATOR DUNCAN questioned whether other statutes prohibit carrying
concealed weapons in municipalities or established villages that
have enacted their own prohibitions. MR. SMITH said it is
addressed in statute and noted Palmer has adopted a local
ordinance.
Number 518
SENATOR DUNCAN commented his questions and the responses clearly
point out that this bill will remove almost all of the prohibitions
because they are not prohibited elsewhere in statute.
SENATOR MILLER noted Section 10 says a person may not possess a
concealed handgun anywhere a person is prohibited from possessing
a handgun under state or federal law. He referred to the list and
asked whether a person can openly carry a handgun on a ferry. MR.
SMITH was not sure, but assumed one cannot. SENATOR MILLER asked
whether a person can openly carry a handgun in a courthouse. MR.
SMITH was not aware of any law that prohibits one from doing so but
did not know whether there is a prohibition in court rules.
SENATOR MILLER emphasized the current system is illogical because
it allows a person with no training to openly carry a handgun in
many places that the 6,000 permittees who have received training
and are regulated cannot carry concealed handguns.
MR. SMITH said his testimony was directed toward DPS' analysis of
the bill and he was not recommending State policy.
Number 495
SENATOR DUNCAN repeated his concern that a lot of confusion about
this bill exists and that adequate time be provided as it addresses
a major policy issue. He asked if an organization, that is
holding a meeting, could still post a notice prohibiting concealed
handguns on the premises under this bill. MR. SMITH thought
private businesses could do so, however he suggested getting a
legal opinion. SENATOR DUNCAN asked about a non-profit business
holding a meeting open to the public. MR. SMITH could not answer
that question. CHAIR GREEN thought the more appropriate
prohibition would be against carrying any firearm, whether
concealed or openly.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Babcock if the provision in current law
that prohibits carrying concealed handguns into a meeting of a
business, charitable, or other organization or entity where a
notice has been posted is provided for in the committee substitute.
MR. BABCOCK answered that provision could be addressed by the
trespass statute. He explained under current law a permittee could
walk into the meeting, put the concealed weapon on his/her lap, and
be acting legally.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Smith if he agreed with Mr. Babcock's
analysis. MR. SMITH said he believed one could operate a business
and establish rules prohibiting particular types of activities on
its premises, such as drunkenness or carrying concealed weapons,
not specifically through the concealed handgun statute, but through
others.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Smith whether he thought the best approach
is to specifically list prohibitions in one statute. MR. SMITH
replied when he testified last year on this issue, he did not
support any changes to the current program as it adequately
addresses DPS' concerns. SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Smith whether he
thought the proposal in this bill will work better or worse. MR.
SMITH thought the average citizen would find it easier to find all
the information in one location.
Number 435
DEAN GUANELI , Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), gave the following testimony. SB 141
sweeps aside a number of current legal protections regarding
disqualifying factors for applicants with the idea that federal law
or other state laws will provide the same protections. In
reference to a previous statement made by Mr. Babcock related to
federal disqualifiers, Mr. Guaneli said it is generally assumed
that a person with a felony record would be prohibited from ever
carrying a concealed weapon under federal law, but that is not
true. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that state law
overrides federal law regarding concealed handgun prohibitions.
If, under state law, one can carry a firearm even though he/she has
a felony record, there would be no federal prohibition. Second,
people with lengthy misdemeanor records will not be prohibited from
carrying concealed weapons under this bill. He has seen records of
people with up to 30 misdemeanor convictions. Under CSSB 141(STA)
those people could qualify for concealed handgun permits.
CHAIR GREEN asked if the convicted felon could purchase a weapon
and carry it openly. MR. GUANELI replied he/she could. CHAIR
GREEN asked if the same would hold true for the person with a
lengthy misdemeanor record. MR. GUANELI said yes.
MR. GUANELI explained the other type of protections that would be
swept away are the prohibitions against people who have been
through recent treatment programs for alcoholism and/or drug abuse.
MR. GUANELI disagreed with the sponsor's perception that there is
no difference between carrying handguns openly and carrying
concealed. CHAIR GREEN commented there is a similar freedom that
is ensured; that is the right to bear arms. MR. GUANELI said the
difference he sees between the two groups is that anyone can see a
person who is carrying a firearm openly on the street and avoid
that person more easily. If a person openly carries a firearm into
a bank, security guards will be alerted to that fact simply because
they do not want guns in a bank where there is a lot of money.
Those same guards would have an equal amount of concern if they
knew a person was carrying a concealed weapon into a bank.
Number 375
CHAIR GREEN said the bank owners and operators she has heard from
tend to support concealed or open carry.
MR. GUANELI commented in a survey conducted by Senator Phillips, 60
percent of respondents were opposed to allowing people to carry
concealed handguns into banks. That result indicates that the
public feels more comfortable being in a bank knowing it is illegal
to possess concealed handguns.
CHAIR GREEN asked Mr. Guaneli to read the results from Senator
Phillip's survey on the death penalty. MR. GUANELI did not have
the results available. CHAIR GREEN said those surveys were very
selectively used.
Number 356
SENATOR MILLER commented that Mr. Guaneli is making the assumption
that the same person that can now carry a weapon openly will be
able to carry a concealed weapon without any training or a
background check if this bill passes.
MR. GUANELI clarified that the background check will not apply in
the same way because persons with misdemeanor and felony records
will be eligible for permits.
SENATOR WARD said those same felons can openly carry a gun into a
bank today, but cannot carry a concealed weapon. He guessed if
surveyed, 70 percent of respondents would be opposed that.
MR. GUANELI replied that situation may need to be addressed in
another piece of legislation. The immediate question is whether
people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in the same
places they are allowed to carry open weapons. He said if there is
no difference between the two, there would be no need for any
requirements to carry concealed weapons.
MR. GUANELI discussed the reciprocity provision. Under current
law, a resident or non-resident can legally carry a concealed
handgun without a permit when engaged in any outdoor activities. He
questioned in what other places they should be able to carry.
CHAIR GREEN answered anywhere those people would choose to protect
themselves. MR. GUANELI stated non-residents are not familiar with
state laws.
Regarding repealing the statute that lists the places concealed
handguns cannot be carried, MR. GUANELI said although the criminal
trespass statutes can be used to accomplish the same goal in
certain places, that approach poses some difficulties. Those
statutes differentiate between places open/not open to the public,
which is not as effective as listing the specific places in one
place. Mr. Guaneli thought there were good reasons the Legislature
chose to create that list several years ago.
Number 271
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Guaneli if the only way to enforce a
prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in a domestic
violence facility if AS 18.16.755 is repealed would be to charge
the person with criminal trespass. MR. GUANELI replied that is
correct. SENATOR DUNCAN asked if the same would hold true on
school grounds or a school bus. MR. GUANELI answered there are
currently other laws specific to carrying guns on school grounds
however there is at least one bill that has been introduced to
remove some of those restrictions.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Guaneli if he believes it is best to keep
the restrictions listed in one place in the statutes. MR. GUANELI
said he does.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Guaneli whether he has any concerns about
the restaurant/bar exclusion. MR. GUANELI replied he shares Deputy
Commissioner Smith's concern about people drinking alcohol when
carrying a concealed handgun. Current law prohibits a person who
is under the influence of intoxicating liquor from carrying a gun,
but some judges require that the gun be exposed or used before they
can be prosecuted. He said the current concealed weapon law
prohibits a person from entering a place where alcohol is being
served with a concealed weapon.
CHAIR GREEN noted under CSSB 141(STA) a person could go into a
restaurant that serves liquor with a concealed weapon and eat.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked whether that person could drink liquor. MR.
GUANELI said he did not see any prohibition in the bill, as
drafted, against drinking liquor.
Number 222
LAUREE HUGONIN , Executive Director of the Alaska Network on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), discussed three
sections of concern in the committee substitute. Section 5(2) will
allow people who have been convicted of crimes involving domestic
violence to be eligible for a concealed weapon permit, therefore
ANDVSA prefers the current state law. She noted last year, persons
convicted of the crime of domestic violence were added to the list
of those disqualified from getting a permit.
CHAIR GREEN referred to 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and read the following:
(8) who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received
actual notice, and at which such person had an actual
opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking,
threatening an intimate partner or such person or child of
such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct
that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of
bodily injury to the partner and child and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such a person represents a
creditable threat to the physical safety of such intimate
partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate
partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence.
MS. HUGONIN stated it was her understanding that all of Section (8)
is applicable to protective orders and that the misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence in Section (9) does not include all of the
criminal activity that is included in Alaska's domestic violence
statute. She repeated her preference for the state law.
CHAIR GREEN said all of the complaints being received in her office
are based on the new federal law because it seems to be more
onerous than the state law. MS. HUGONIN expressed concern that
people who have been convicted of crimes involving domestic
violence in this state, that do not fall under the federal law,
will be eligible for a concealed weapon permit.
MS. HUGONIN also expressed concern that although Section (8)
applies to protective orders, it might not apply to ex parte
orders. ANDVSA would prefer that the bill specifically list ex
parte orders and require DPS to immediately suspend a permit if the
permittee is the respondent in a protective order because not all
protective orders include the prohibition against carrying
firearms, concealed or openly.
Regarding Section 10, MS. HUGONIN said the original bill required
DPS to provide copies of the laws to applicants, and included
facilities for domestic violence victims, which ANDVSA appreciated.
Number 123
CHAIR GREEN stated she is discouraged that her staff made several
attempts to share information with DPS during the previous four or
five weeks, but DPS staff did not respond. MR. SMITH disputed that
comment.
SENATOR WARD moved CSSB 141(STA) from committee with individual
recommendations and its accompanying fiscal notes. SENATOR DUNCAN
objected because the committee substitute was not distributed early
enough for adequate review by anyone, because of the concerns
presented during the hearing, and specifically the repeal of the
statute that lists specific places that are prohibited.
A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with Senators
Green, Ward, and Miller voting in favor, and Senator Duncan voting
against.
SB 105 ETHICS/LOBBYING/CAMPAIGN FINANCE
CHAIR GREEN announced the committee just received an amendment that
includes the Executive Ethics Act under SB 105. That amendment was
included in legislation last year that passed the Senate.
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt the amendment (#1). There being no
objection, the motion carried.
SENATOR WARD moved CSSB 105 (STA) from committee with individual
recommendations.
CHAIR GREEN announced a second amendment was prepared that pertains
to legislative employees. She asked Terry Cramer, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, to explain the amendment.
TAPE 97-14, SIDE A
Number 000
TERRY CRAMER stated amendment #2 corrects an oversight and pertains
how legislative employees who, for the first time, are employed at
a Range 19 position and will be required to file financial
disclosure statements. The general deadline is February 15 for
Range 19 employees, however if an employee was a Range 15 and gets
promoted to a Range 19 or above, the employee must file within 60
days.
SENATOR WARD withdrew his motion to move CSSB 105(STA) from
committee, and instead moved to adopt amendment #2. There being no
objection, amendment #2 was adopted.
SENATOR WARD moved CSSB 105(STA) out of committee with individual
recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There being no
objection, CSSB 105(STA) moved from the Senate State Affairs
Committee with individual recommendations.
Number 072
NEIL SLOTNICK , Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
explained he is responsible for implementation of the Executive
Branch Ethics Act and has served in that capacity for the past
three years. He made the following comments. The Department of
Law is opposed to Amendment #1. From his experience, he believes
Amendment #1 is bad for state government and waters down an Act
that has worked well for the last ten years. It makes the Act and
more expensive to administer, and is unconstitutional. The
Executive Branch is different from the Legislative Branch; if the
Executive Branch Act needs amending, DOL is open to that, but does
not know what problem this approach is trying to fix. As
supervisor of all Ethics Act cases, he urged legislators to ask
questions of him or the Personnel Board on decisions. He stated if
the Legislature is critical of how DOL has handled ethics
complaints, he would like to be informed. He emphasized that
before changes are made to this Act, a record of problems needs to
be established so that they can be addressed in another vehicle.
He asked legislators to treat the Executive Branch Ethics Act as a
separate subject, because mixing the two will complicate the Act.
MIKE MCMULLEN , Director of the Division of Personnel, Department of
Administration, stated he will distribute copies of Amendment #1 to
the Personnel Board for their review and position. He asked if
DOA's fiscal note is accompanying the bill.
SENATOR MILLER answered it is, however CSSB 105 (STA) will be heard
in the Senate Finance Committee and adequate time will be available
to submit a new fiscal note. MR. MCMULLEN stated Amendment #1 will
increase the Personnel Board's workload.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|