HB 319 - FIREARMS  1:08:54 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 319, "An Act relating to firearms." 1:09:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, characterized HB 319 as another opportunity to reaffirm the Second Amendment rights of Alaska's citizens, adding that it cleans up some sections of statute pertaining to concealed handgun permits. Specifically, [Section 1] clarifies that when a concealed handgun permit expires or a permit holder leaves the state, the holder doesn't need to surrender the permit; [Section 2] provides that an expired concealed handgun permit may be displayed as long as the permit holder doesn't represent it as being valid; [Section 1] requires that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) send permit holders a letter, at least 90 days before their permit expires, notifying them that their permit is about to expire; and [Section 3] requires the chief law enforcement officer in a jurisdiction to execute, within 30 days, the federal firearms forms required for the transfer of certain types of firearms. A copy of those forms is included in members' packets, and the forms, in part, require the chief law enforcement officer to certify that he/she has no information that the transferee of the firearm will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes, and no information that the receipt or possession of the firearm by the transferee would place him/her in violation of state or local law. He offered his belief, however, that some law enforcement officers who don't approve of firearms transfers simply refuse to fill out their portion of these forms. In conclusion, he characterized HB 319's proposed changes as important to Alaska's law-abiding citizens, and asked for the committee's favorable consideration of the bill. 1:18:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether Section 3 would allow a chief law enforcement officer to refuse to sign the federal firearms forms if he/she does have reason to believe that the transferee would use the firearm unlawfully. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER relayed that that would be the case. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether the title warranted narrowing. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated that it did not. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there is a typographical error in the law enforcement certification section of the aforementioned federal firearms forms. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER acknowledged that point. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how proposed AS 18.65.725(e), which requires the DPS to provide notice that a person's permit is going to expire, would be effectuated, what the cost would be, and whether permit holders would have a duty to keep the DPS informed of any address changes. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said that permit holders already have a statutory duty to inform the DPS of address changes, and surmised that all which could be asked of the DPS is to send the notification to the permit holder's last known address; and that the fiscal note provided by the DPS outlines approximately $900 in yearly ongoing costs and approximately [$37,000] in one-time computer programming costs. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response to a question, explained that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requires the aforementioned federal firearms forms to include the law enforcement certification section, but a chief law enforcement officer is under no obligation to fill it out, and Section 3 of HB 319 is intended to ensure that he/she does do so. In response to another question, he said that when a chief law enforcement officer refuses to certify that he/she has no information that the transferee of the firearm will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes, and no information that the receipt or possession of the firearm by the transferee would place him/her in violation of state or local law, then the transferee has no legal recourse and cannot take possession of the firearm in question. He characterized such refusals as interfering with people's Second Amendment rights. He mentioned that currently, the Anchorage Police Department (APD) conducts extensive background checks on transferees before the chief law enforcement officer fills out the certification section. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed favor with addressing this issue, characterizing it as a serious problem. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned whether such refusals would be in violation of [the Second Amendment]. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER declined to venture a response. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that such refusals would be in violation of the Civil Rights Act and therefore actionable. In response to a question, he indicated that he supports Section 3. He then, again, questioned how proposed AS 18.65.725(e) would be effectuated. 1:37:32 PM DAVID SCHADE, Director, Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public Safety (DPS), explained that as outlined in the DPS's fiscal note, the DPS intends to automate the notification process such that the database would systematically identify permits expiring within 90 days, and then generate, print, and save notices of expiration; those notices would then be mailed to permittees. In response to further questions, he said that the DPS would send the notices to the addresses on file, that permittees are required to notify the DPS of address changes, and that the DPS would send the notices but would have no way of knowing whether the permittees actually received them. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO - noting that the language of proposed 18.65.725(e) says in part, "The department shall provide a permittee with notice" - surmised that Mr. Schade's comment indicates that the department, under certain circumstances, would be unable to comply with the proposed statute. MR. SCHADE acknowledged that that could potentially be the case. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that perhaps that language should be changed such that the department would only be required to send the notice of expiration. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Section 3 would create compliance problems for the DPS. 1:41:16 PM RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Deputy Commander, A Detachment, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), indicated that it would not. 1:42:47 PM AUDIE HOLLOWAY, Colonel, Director, Central Office, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), concurred, adding that it would be an exception if the DPS were unable to meet the proposed 30-day deadline. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether any police chiefs have expressed concern [about Section 3]. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he has not heard any such concerns expressed. He mentioned that the turnaround time for the APD has generally been between 4-10 days, and that he does not believe that the bill would put any undue burden on law enforcement. CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 319. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Hawker whether he would be interested in narrowing the title. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated that he would not. 1:46:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, to delete the term, "provide a permittee with" from page 1, line 4, and insert the term, "mail a". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected, and suggested that instead the language being inserted should read, "mail the permittee a". REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he would be amenable to such a change to Conceptual Amendment 1. [Although no motion was stated, Conceptual Amendment 1 was treated as having been so amended.] REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted. 1:47:31 PM CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26- LS1273\E.1, Luckhaupt, 2/4/10, which read: Page 2, line 8: Delete "a new section" Insert "new sections" Page 2, following line 16: Insert a new section to read: "Sec. 18.65.820. Checks on firearms while firearm  secured by peace officer during certain contacts. A peace officer may not conduct a check of the serial number of a firearm being legally carried by a person when the firearm has been secured by the peace officer under the authority of AS 11.61.220(a)(1)(A)(ii)." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that Amendment 2 addresses concerns expressed to him regarding a situation in which a person is stopped by a law enforcement officer who then takes the person's firearm away to check the serial numbers on it. He asked the DPS to explain why Amendment 2 is not necessary. LIEUTENANT DIAL attempted to reassure the committee that as a routine practice, DPS personnel are not seizing or retaining the firearms of Alaskans who are otherwise committing only minor offenses or who are engaged in lawful outdoor activities. He offered his understanding that the statute pertaining to the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree gives law enforcement officers the authority to seize a firearm during contact or to ask the person to secure the firearm. At the time of contact, it's a judgment call that the law enforcement officer has to make regarding which approach to take. He recounted that on rare occasion, he himself choose to seize the firearm because he felt that the actions of the individual indicated that it would be better for that firearm to be in the possession of law enforcement. For example, if he were to stop someone who'd reportedly appeared to be casing a neighborhood, he would want to take the person's firearm and check its serial number because, in many cases, it could link the person to a burglary, and sometimes multiple burglaries are solved in this fashion. He noted also that it is not uncommon for law enforcement to take possession of firearms that turn out to have been stolen in the Lower 48. LIEUTENANT DIAL characterized checking the serial numbers of firearms as somewhat low on the intrusiveness scale, since, if a serial number doesn't match anything on the database, the number is not then linked to either a firearm or a person in the database. He indicated a willingness to research the policy issue raised by Amendment 2 further, to perhaps provide that law enforcement officers use discretion in situations where there is no other outside indicator suggesting that the person is involved in illegal activity, but he would like to retain the authority to seize a firearm and check its serial number because that allows law enforcement officers to solve a number of crimes every year. LIEUTENANT DIAL, in response to comments and a question, said that as a routine policy, DPS personnel are not taking the firearms of those they stop; instead, law enforcement officers have become somewhat immune to the fact that most people have firearms. He added that he has never met a trooper that doesn't support the Second Amendment 100 percent. He acknowledged, though, that because academy graduates are currently coming into the field with a higher level of officer safety in mind, perhaps training issues with regard to making judgment calls at routine stops could be addressed. CHAIR RAMRAS asked that the DPS's policy on this issue be clarified in writing and provided to the committee. LIEUTENANT DIAL agreed to do so. CHAIR RAMRAS then withdrew Amendment 2. 1:55:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 319, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 319(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.