HB 69-EXEMPT FIREARMS FROM FEDERAL REGULATION  2:39:20 PM CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of HB 69. He moved to bring the work draft Senate committee substitute (CS) for CSHB 69, labeled 28-LS2090\R, before the committee. SENATOR DYSON objected [for discussion purposes]. CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged that the sponsor may or may not agree with the proposed Senate CS. 2:40:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, sponsor of HB 69, introduced the bill speaking to the following sponsor statement: [Original punctuation provided.] The intent of House Bill 69 is an effort to protect Alaskans' rights to keep and bear arms protected by both the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions. In light of the President's executive orders and legislative proposals, it is important that Alaska protect not only our Second Amendment rights but also asserting citizens' and states' rights guaranteed under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment. The legislation was drafted in anticipation of President Obama's executive orders based on recommendations of a work group led by Vice President Biden. This group was charged with developing a set of concrete policy proposals for reducing gun violence. These proposals were the basis for the Presidential Executive [memoranda] that were announced on January 16, 2013. The plan combines executive actions and calls for legislative action that "would help keep guns out of the wrong hands, ban assault and high- capacity magazines, make our schools safer, and increase access to mental health services." Although the executive orders did not carry the force of law, the recommendations calling for Congressional action could affect Second Amendment rights and the rights of states as well. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT highlighted that HB 69, before the proposed Senate CS, adds the phrase, "possession of a firearm within the state" to current statute. It also adds new subsections that say that any federal actions to restrict guns or ammunition ownership taken after the effective date of this bill are unenforceable in the state. CHAIR COGHILL thanked the sponsor for proposing the bill and the clarification of executive memoranda versus executive order. SENATOR DYSON relayed that his research found that the only difference between an executive order and executive memorandum is that one declaration goes into the congressional record. CHAIR COGHILL read the new subsection (g) in Section 5 and suggested it might be more workable than the original felony language. He asked the sponsor if he had reviewed the language in the proposed Senate CS. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said he hadn't had an opportunity to look in depth at the proposed language, but his staff had communicated potential concerns. CHAIR COGHILL said his intention was to adopt the Senate CS and consider amendments next week. He asked Mr. Shilling to review the changes proposed in the Senate CS, particularly subsection (g). 2:45:19 PM JORDAN SHILLING, staff to Senator Coghill, explained that the Senate CS inserts a new Section 2 that prohibits the use of state funds for the purpose of implementing or aiding in the implementation of a federal action that infringes on a person's Second Amendment right or due process right. Section 2 also contains definitions for the terms "asset" and "state or municipal agency." 2:46:31 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what the provision in paragraph (A) on page 3 would encompass regarding infringement on a person's Second Amendment right. MR. SHILLING offered his understanding that there are recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that define the limits of a person's right to bear arms. He added that the Alaska Supreme Court would probably make a determination as well. CHAIR COGHILL suggested the committee ponder that question over the weekend and review the specific language in Section 1 of the version that passed the House. SENATOR DYSON asked if the definition of "asset" on page 3, line 12, includes personnel. MR. SHILLING responded that employees are addressed in the definition of state or municipal agency on page 3, line 20. 2:49:29 PM TOM WRIGHT, staff to Representative Mike Chenault, prime sponsor of HB 69, added that the language in subsection (f) on page 4 applies to this bill. It reads as follows: (f) A federal statute, regulation, rule, or order adopted, enacted, or otherwise effective on or after the effective date of this Act is unenforceable in this state by an official, agent, or employee of this state, a municipality, or the federal government if the federal statute, regulation, rule, or order attempts to (1) ban or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or a magazine of a firearm; or (2) require a firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered. CHAIR COGHILL observed that that goes to Senator Wielechowski's question about paragraph (A) on page 3. SENATOR DYSON commented that he recalls times when state public safety officers refused to cooperate with what federal agencies were doing in the state, so this wasn't breaking new ground. MR. WRIGHT said he found four or five instances of sheriffs in other states who said they wouldn't enforce a certain federal provision. CHAIR COGHILL asked if this discussion was similar to the Arizona immigration policy that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned. MR. WRIGHT said he didn't believe so because the bill was specific to the Second Amendment. He said it's a constitutional question involving states' rights, but it's also legitimate to ask when the federal government will start enforcing laws it imposed, like for marijuana. CHAIR COGHILL commented that the state surrenders Tenth Amendment rights by taking funds from the federal government under conditions, but HB 69 speaks to fundamental rights outlined in the constitution. He opined that the state has good standing. After all, the states formed the nation, not the other way around. MR. WRIGHT noted that the findings in Section 1 of HB 69 specifically allude to art. I, sec. 19, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The courts will decide whether it is defensible or not. CHAIR COGHILL added that version R says this is the policy and the state will use its assets to thwart federal action to the contrary. He asked, because of the constitutional question, if there was original jurisdiction. MR. WRIGHT replied he didn't have an answer. 2:53:50 PM CHAIR COGHILL asked if deleting the felony language would potentially erode support for the bill. MR. WRIGHT said he didn't believe so, although many supporters subscribed to a class C felony. He noted that the bill was modeled on Wyoming law that has class A misdemeanor language. He opined that the SCS was a little more enforceable than the House version that tries to have a trooper arrest a federal agent or employee [for trying to enforce a federal law]. 2:55:32 PM SENATOR DYSON removed his objection and version R was before the committee. 2:56:27 PM CHAIR COGHILL announced he would hold HB 69 in committee.