02/21/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE

HOUSE BILL NO. 24                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a                                                                      
     person has a right to be."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:44:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair Neuman stated  that HB 24 added  the language "in                                                                    
any other  place where a  person has  the right to  be" they                                                                    
have  a  right  to   defend  themselves.  He  remarked  that                                                                    
Alaskans  had  the  right   to  defend  themselves,  without                                                                    
worrying about how the court may see their actions.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:45:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REX  SHATTUCK, AIDE,  REPRESENTATIVE MARK  NEUMAN, explained                                                                    
that Alaska Statutes already recognize  that we have a right                                                                    
to  use deadly  force  to protect  our  family, person,  and                                                                    
property.  HB 24  further clarifies  that  right exists  not                                                                    
only in our home but also in  any other place that we have a                                                                    
right  to be.  This legislation  clarifies the  individuals'                                                                    
right  to  stand  their  ground and  not  second  guess  the                                                                    
consequence  of  protecting  their  family or  self.  HB  24                                                                    
strengthens the legal recognition of  a basic human right to                                                                    
defend oneself,  by sending a  message to the  Judiciary and                                                                    
Law Enforcement that it is the  criminal who has the duty to                                                                    
retreat.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Shattuck  stated that federal  law, "Stand  Your Ground"                                                                    
and "No Duty to Retreat"  governed the United States federal                                                                    
case  law in  which  self-defense was  asserted against  the                                                                    
charge  of a  criminal  homicide. He  referred  to the  1895                                                                    
Supreme Court  ruling of  the Beard vs.  US case.  That case                                                                    
included  a ruling  with the  language  that a  man who  was                                                                    
"where he  had the right  to be"  when he came  under attack                                                                    
and  "did  not  provoke  the   assault,  and  had  the  time                                                                    
reasonable  grounds,  and in  good  faith  believe that  the                                                                    
deceased intended  to take  his life, or  do him  great body                                                                    
harm, was  not obligated to  retreat, nor to  consider where                                                                    
he safely retreat to, but  was entitled to stand his ground.                                                                    
He also referred  to a Minnesota case,  "State vs. Gardner."                                                                    
In this  case, a man was  acquitted for killing man  who had                                                                    
attempted to kill him with a  rifle. The judge for that case                                                                    
explained  that the  doctrine of  "retreat to  the wall"  or                                                                    
"duty  to  retreat"  had its  origin  in  medieval  England,                                                                    
before the general introduction  of guns. The judge stressed                                                                    
that  the  "duty  to  retreat" had  general  regard  to  the                                                                    
general use and type weapon.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative Thompson  wondered how many other  states had                                                                    
similar  laws like  the proposed  legislation. Mr.  Shattuck                                                                    
replied  that there  were more  than  17 states  that had  a                                                                    
similar law,  but deferred to  Mr. Judy for a  more accurate                                                                    
count.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Representative Thompson wondered if  the bill would enable a                                                                    
person to use  deadly force to protect a victim  of a crime.                                                                    
Mr.  Shattuck  responded  that  the  statutes  already  make                                                                    
provisions for that concern.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:53:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BRIAN   JUDY,   SENIOR   STATE   LIAISON,   NATIONAL   RIFLE                                                                    
ASSOCIATION  (via teleconference),  stated  that  HB 24  was                                                                    
important  self-defense legislation.  He  explained that  it                                                                    
would provide that  a law abiding person,  who was justified                                                                    
in  using  deadly force  in  self-defense,  had no  duty  to                                                                    
retreat from an  attack from any place a person  had a legal                                                                    
right  to  be.  He  reiterated   that  the  person  must  be                                                                    
justified  in   using  deadly  force.   He  felt   that  the                                                                    
opposition to  the bill  ignored the  point that  the person                                                                    
could only  use deadly  force for  a justifiable  reason. He                                                                    
explained  that existing  Alaska law  already provided  that                                                                    
there  was  no  duty  to  retreat,  if  a  person,  who  was                                                                    
justified, was on premises which  the person owns or leases,                                                                    
or in a building where they  work. He stressed that a person                                                                    
would  be required  to retreat,  if they  were in  any other                                                                    
location.  He   remarked  that  there  were   currently  two                                                                    
considerations  that a  person  must take  into account:  1)                                                                    
Justification, which  was the  primary and  most significant                                                                    
consideration;  and   2)  Retreat,   which  was   much  less                                                                    
significant. He felt that the  only time "retreat" becomes a                                                                    
consideration  is  once a  person  felt  justified in  using                                                                    
deadly  force   in  self-defense.   He  stressed   that  the                                                                    
legislation  would   only  amend   the  subsection   (b)  AS                                                                    
11.81.335.  He remarked  that all  of the  statutes detailed                                                                    
the  legal framework  for what  constitutes "justification."                                                                    
He  felt that  it  was  critical to  review  the details  of                                                                    
"justification"  in order  to understand  what the  existing                                                                    
requires  for   a  person   to  claim   "justification."  He                                                                    
explained  that  a person  may  use  deadly force  in  self-                                                                    
defense, only if  a person reasonably believed  that the use                                                                    
of  deadly was  necessary  for  self-defense against  death,                                                                    
serious  physical  injury,  kidnapping, sexual  assault,  or                                                                    
robbery. He noted  that a person must  satisfy, under Alaska                                                                    
case law, both a subjective and an objective standard.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Judy shared that Alaska  statute also outlined a list of                                                                    
activities   that  specifically   preclude  a   person  from                                                                    
claiming justification:  if a person  was engaged  in mutual                                                                    
combat; if  a person  provoked the  other's conduct;  if the                                                                    
person  was the  initial  aggressor; or  if  the person  was                                                                    
involved in gang activity.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:01:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Mr. Judy stated  that the NRA believed  that the legislation                                                                    
would reduce  the cost of criminal  prosecution, because the                                                                    
bill did  not change the  primary requirement that  a person                                                                    
using deadly force in  self-defense must have justification.                                                                    
He stressed  that the bill  did not change  what constitutes                                                                    
"justification."  He  stressed  that  once  the  prosecution                                                                    
determined that  there was justification, the  provisions of                                                                    
the bill allowed for the charges to be dropped.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
Vice-Chair  Neuman thanked  the  committee  for hearing  the                                                                    
bill.   He  reiterated   Mr.   Judy's   points  related   to                                                                    
justification.  He  stressed  that   the  bill  stated  that                                                                    
individuals should  have the same  rights that they  have at                                                                    
home or at work, while at any  place a person has a right to                                                                    
be.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HB  24  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
consideration.