Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
04/11/2023 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB140 | |
| HB61 | |
| HB81 | |
| HB141 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 61 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 61-LIMITATIONS ON FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS
3:18:06 PM
CHAIR SHAW announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 61, "An Act relating to restrictions on firearms
and other weapons."
3:18:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 61. She paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 61 is a response to situations that have occurred
throughout the country during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In at least five states including Alaska, and the
Municipality of Anchorage, firearms retailers were
arbitrarily closed by governors and mayors. When it
comes to firearms Alaska is different compared to most
other states. Firearm use for protection and
subsistence predates Alaska's statehood and the
application of the Second Amendment.
HB 61 reaffirms Alaskans' right to survive and protect
themselves, along with their rights granted to them
through the Second Amendment. HB 61 stipulates that
the state, municipalities, and other instrumentalities
of the state may not implement new restrictions to
access firearms, ammunition, firearms accessories, or
shooting ranges resulting from disaster declarations.
Furthermore, HB 61 also provides a civil remedy to
Alaskans, should any of those entities adopt statutes,
ordinances, or policies in violation of the provisions
of this bill.
Nothing in HB 61 limits the state, municipalities, and
other instrumentalities from regulating firearms or
their use within previously established constitutional
and statutory boundaries.
3:21:33 PM
STEVE ST. CLAIR, Staff, Representative Cathy Tilton, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tilton, prime
sponsor, offered the sectional analysis for HB 61 [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1 Prohibits the State, municipalities, and
other instrumentalities from restricting the following
under a disaster declaration:
1. Possession, use or transfer of a firearm, firearm
accessory, or ammunition;
2. Ordering the seizure of the above-referenced items;
3. Limiting the quantity or other restrictions on the
sales and services of those items;
4. Closing or limiting the hours of operation for
retail establishments that sell and service those
items unless the closure or limitation applies to all
other forms of commerce within the jurisdiction;
5. Closing or limiting the hours of operation for
shooting ranges;
6. Suspending or revoking a concealed carry permit
outside of current statutory provisions;
7. Refusing to accept an application for a concealed
carry permit;
8. Provides for civil action as relief for a violation
of the above-referenced prohibitions;
9. Provides definitions for "firearm" and "firearm
accessory";
Section 2 Repeals a previous definition of "firearm
accessory" found under the Alaska Firearms Freedom
Act.
CHAIR SHAW invited questions from members of the committee.
3:24:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether firearms restrictions could
be placed on a shelter providing emergency disaster relief.
MR. ST. CLAIR stated that if the location authorized the carry
of firearms prior to a disaster declaration, nothing would
change when a disaster declaration was declared, and vice versa.
For example, if an emergency shelter was created in a Walmart
parking lot post-disaster declaration, individuals would be
allowed to carry firearms on site, as there was no existing
prohibition on carrying a firearm in a Walmart parking lot.
3:27:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether firearms could be restricted
by the mayor or municipal police department in the
aforementioned example of the Walmart parking lot.
MR. ST. CLAIR responded no; the municipality could not implement
new restrictions. He provided an example.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY expressed confusion as to why firearms
could not be restricted in an emergency shelter if it was deemed
advisable by law enforcement.
MR. ST. CLAIR emphasized that the proposed legislation would not
add to or detract from the use of firearms in shelters, adding
that in only applied to gun stores.
3:30:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG inquired about a scenario in which the
windows of a gun store were destroyed by an earthquake and law
enforcement attempted to board them up to protect the store from
looters.
MR. ST. CLAIR explained that law enforcement was authorized to
seize weapons to secure them.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG sought to confirm that concealed carry
permits were not required in Alaska.
MR. ST. CLAIR said a permit was necessary for individuals who
frequently traveled to other states with reciprocal concealed
carry laws.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked how the concealed carry permit
process would be managed midst a disaster.
MR. ST. CLAIR responded that the answer was situational.
3:33:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD sought confirmation that the bill was
specific to equity and commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON confirmed that is correct.
3:33:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY surmised that HB 61 could open the state up
to financial liability. She asked whether municipalities would
be allowed to recoup legal fees or any unnecessary charges.
MR. ST. CLAIR offered to follow up with the requested
information.
CHAIR SAW sought confirmation that the bill was accompanied by a
zero fiscal note.
MR. ST. CLAIR confirmed that the attached zero fiscal note was
from DOL.
3:35:33 PM
CHAIR SHAW commenced invited testimony.
3:35:56 PM
AOIBHEANN CLINE, State Director, National Rifle Association
(NRA), paraphrased the following written remarks [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
On behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA), I
am writing to express strong support for House Bill
(HB) 61. The NRA is appreciative of your willingness
to give the bill its initial hearing on May 10, 2023
and we respectfully request another hearing to move
the bill to the Senate Floor for further
consideration.
HB 61 seeks to place limitations on firearms
restrictions by state and municipal agencies during
disaster emergency declarations. These limitations are
drawn from real-life examples of restrictions imposed
by governmental entities during disaster emergency
declarations.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the
emergency conditions that followed, New Orleans police
superintendent ordered the confiscation of privately-
owned firearms, saying "only law enforcement will be
able to have guns." This deprivation of Second
Amendment rights led the U.S. Congress to pass Public
Law 109-295 (42 U.S.C.A. § 5207), which protects
citizens from federal officials confiscating lawfully-
owned firearms during a declaration of emergency.
In 2020, declarations of emergency due to the COVID-19
pandemic were similarly used to curtail Americans'
Second Amendment rights. At the outset of the
pandemic, varying levels of government across the
nation discussed, and in some cases decided, which
businesses could stay open and which would have to
close, including here in Alaska. These decisions
impact firearms related businesses and negatively
impact Alaskans' right to keep and bear arms as
protected by the Second Amendment and Article 1,
Section 19 of the Alaska Constitution.
Recognizing the differing ways in which government
entities were treating gun stores, the Cybersecurity &
Infrastructure Agency (CISA), a part of the Department
of Homeland Security, issued revisions to its advisory
memorandum listing "essential" infrastructure and
workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency
declared firearms stores, ammunition manufacturers and
shooting ranges to be essential businesses. In
contrast, under Anchorage Mayor's Emergency "Hunker
Down" Order EO-03 (issued March 20, 2020), firearms
stores and shooting ranges were not listed as an
enumerated "critical" business, imposing the burden of
proof on the firearms business owners to establish
that their business was in-fact critical.
In defense of the Second Amendment, in January 2022, a
three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit sided with the National Rifle
Association Institute of Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
when it recognized that Los Angeles County violated
the Second Amendment when it forced gun stores and
shooting ranges to close in 2020 during the COVID19
pandemic.
HB 61 recognizes Alaskans' Constitutional rights to
keep and bear arms, rights that "shall not be denied
or infringed by the State or a political subdivision"
thereof (Alaska Constitution Article I, Section 19).
When a firearms store is forced to close, when
ammunition is not allowed to be sold, when gun ranges
are shut down, and concealed carry permits are not
issued, an individual's ability to keep and bear arms
is infringed, and could be rendered impossible.
Further, HB 61 recognizes the importance of local
control and maintains municipal authority in an
emergency by providing that a state or municipal
agency may close or restrict firearms stores and
shooting ranges as long as "the closure or limitation
applies equally to all forms of commerce within the
jurisdiction." Local governments retain enactment and
enforcement power of firearm ordinances under AK Stat
§ 29.35.145 (2017), powers already granted by the
state.
At the core of the Second Amendment is the right to
self-defense. The importance of this right is elevated
in times of chaos, uncertainty, and emergency.
Alaskans must be able to access firearms, ammunition,
shooting ranges and other essential firearms-related
businesses during times of emergency. HB 61 provides a
thoughtful and effective approach to balance Second
Amendment rights and local control.
On behalf of the tens of thousands of members of the
National Rifle Association across Alaska, I
respectfully urge your support of HB 61.
3:40:06 PM
CHAIR SHAW opened public testimony on HB 61.
3:40:51 PM
MARIAN CLOUGH, Representing Self, paraphrased the following
written remarks [included in the committee packet], which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Thank you for considering my testimony in opposition
to HB 61. I testified at your committee meeting on
Tuesday, April 11 and in addition, have submitted two
written letters which should be included in the
documents for HB 61.
As I stated before, I support the Second Amendment, a
citizen's right to bear arms. I am a gun owner and
enjoy trap shooting.
I do not support HB 61 as it is written in regards to
subparagraph (c) at page 2, starting at line 13, which
allows civil action by "a membership organization
consisting of two or more individuals" to bring suit
if adversely affected. A prevailing plaintiff would
recover punitive damages in the amount of three times
their actual attorneys' fees.
Are there other Alaska state statutes that allow a
prevailing party to recover three times the punitive
damages? Is it common in the State of Alaska? The four
examples of similar legislation from other states
(Georgia, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West
Virginia) are not similar at all regarding three times
the punitive damages. Georgia allows actual damages or
liquidated damages of three times plaintiff's
attorney's fees and is the only state of the examples
provided that mentions triple damages. North Dakota
says "reasonable attorney's fees." South Dakota has
the attorney general, not an individual or
organization, litigate on Second Amendment rights;
there is nothing about emergency declarations. West
Virginia allows closure in a declared emergency and
allows "reasonable" not three times attorney's fees.
There are already protections in the Alaska State
Constitution and the U.S. Constitution protecting our
right to bear arms. Is HB 61 really necessary?
If HB 61 was only about commercial parity with private
businesses that would be one thing. Unfortunately, HB
61 goes much further to hamstring our state or
municipal agencies to respond to disasters
unencumbered by the political agendas of interest
groups. Wouldn't it better to have the Alaska
Department of Law, instead of special interest groups
be enforcers of our laws thus avoiding expensive
private party and interest group litigation? It would
be nice to have less lawsuits not more.
I respectfully request you not pass HB 61.
Thank you for your continued public service.
3:42:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked Ms. Clough which state she was from.
MS. CLOUGH said she had lived in Alaska for 40 years.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether there should be
repercussions for a gun shop being shut down arbitrarily.
MS. CLOUGH emphasized her belief in equity and commerce, adding
that a gun store or gun range should remain open if other
commercial businesses remain open.
3:44:16 PM
ODETTE EDGAR, Representing Self, paraphrased the following
written remarks [included in the committee packet], which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Good afternoon, Chair Shaw and members of the State
Affairs committee.
My name is Odette Edgar. I live in Juneau, am a 53-
year Alaska resident, and I represent myself.
I am testifying in opposition to HB61. The bill's
sponsors have testified that this bill does not
significantly change state law; that is a good reason
not to pass this bill.
During an emergency, state and municipal officials
must take unusual measures to protect public safety.
This bill allows them to be sued if they decide to
limit gun use to protect public safety. Here's an
example discussed during earlier hearings in the
Community and Regional Affairs committee. Officials
could be sued if guns are prohibited in an emergency
shelter or soup kitchen set up in a public place, for
example, a Walmart parking lot. I believe guns should
not be allowed in an emergency shelter, regardless of
its location.
But my main objections are with sections C and D in HB
61:
Section C allows two or more members of a gun rights
organization or the group itself to bring civil action
in superior court. I strongly object to giving any gun
right organization special status in Alaska law. My
apologies to any committee members here who are
members of this organization, but this is a special
interest group that does not reflect my values.
In Section D, the enhanced (triple) attorney fees are
outrageous, and awarding court costs may conflict with
the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure. The award of
attorney fees is a normally determined by the court
system.
We are a society that sues at the drop of a hat, and
this bill takes us further down that road.
Please do not pass HB61 out of committee.
Thank you for considering my testimony.
3:47:27 PM
FRANK RUE, Representing Self, introduced himself as a gun owner,
hunter, and former commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game (ADF&G), stressing his support for shooting sport,
hunting, and responsible use of firearms. He stated his
opposition to HB 61, as drafted, and urged the committee to
amend the legislation. He opined that the bill should be
limited to equity and commerce, as opposed to possession and
use. In closing, he reiterated his belief that the bill needed
further clarification.
3:50:54 PM
JAN CAULFIED, Representing Self, paraphrased the following
written remarks [included in the committee packet], which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I am 44 year resident of Alaska, my family owns a gun
used for hunting, and I oppose HB 61.
I listened to the House & Senate Community and
Regional Affairs Committee hearings regarding HB
61/SB63 and I understand the proponents' interest in
equity in commerce. If HB 61 was amended to address
just this interest that gun/ammo stores and gun
ranges would remain open under a disaster declaration
if other commercial businesses were allowed to remain
open then I would not oppose that version of the
bill.
However, as currently written, the bill goes far
beyond that, and includes sections that could threaten
public safety in times of disaster.
First Bill proponents state that it would not
eliminate existing restrictions or prohibitions on gun
use and possession during time of disaster. However,
that is not really the point of concern. What is
critical and potentially dangerous is that the bill
would not allow the Governor, state agencies or
municipalities to place any additional, temporary
restrictions on gun use and possession during a
declared emergency including sensible restrictions
that may be temporarily needed to protect public
safety.
Are you really saying that municipalities or disaster
responders running emergency shelters in areas where
guns are not currently prohibited (for example, a
retail parking lot, a YMCA) would not be allowed to
prohibit carrying firearms at those shelters, or even
make smart rules about how shelter residents' firearms
are stored? Wouldn't you agree that some rules about
gun possession and use might be needed in that shelter
to keep families and children safe in these crowded
and potentially chaotic conditions?
Disaster agencies need to be able tor [sic] respond to
the particular risks and dangers in each emergency to
keep
us safe. Tying their hands and taking away needed
tools and authorities makes no sense.
Second It is outrageous that this law would be
enforced by civil suit (including suits by special
interest groups) and that those bringing suit could
receive triple punitive damages from Alaska's
governments or disaster response entities. The fear of
costly litigation would be a dangerous distraction to
state and local officials as they manage rapid
disaster response in a crisis situation, and would
dampen good decision making that is in the public
interest.
I am curious if the bill proponents or members of
this Committee have asked Alaskan municipalities,
the Alaska Municipal League, first responders, or
disaster relief organizations their views regarding
losing the authority to temporarily and in a limited
manner restrict gun use or possession during a
disaster, AND the potential that they would be sued
and suffer costly penalties if they took such action
to protect the public.
I encourage you to fully understand ALL sections of
this bill. Purportedly, the main interest is to keep
gun stores open in a disaster. But, this bill goes far
beyond ensuring "equity in commerce". I urge you to
address that interest only, and delete the bill
sections that limit the authority of state and
municipal responders in times of emergency and that
invoke enforcement by civil suit.
3:54:43 PM
LUANN MCVEY, Representing Self, paraphrased the following
written remarks [included in the committee packet], which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Dear Representatives Shaw, Wright, Carpenter, Johnson,
Allard, Armstrong, and Story,
I am a retired Alaskan teacher and a volunteer with
the Alaska Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun
Sense. I am opposed to HB 61 and I strongly urge you
to keep this unnecessary and potentially harmful bill
from passing out of your committee. I do not
understand why we would prevent the governor, a state
agency, or a municipality from taking action, during a
declared disaster emergency, to restrict the
possession, use or sale of a firearm, a firearm
accessory, ammunition or other weapon. It does not
make sense to stop our elected officials or agencies
from temporarily closing gun stores or gun ranges
during a declared disaster.
During a disaster emergency, emotions tend to run hot
and our leaders might find it necessary to restrict
gun use or sales, in order to limit the chaos that can
erupt when angry people have easy access to firearms.
I believe in the ability of our leaders to decide when
such limits are necessary.
Please do not take away a tool that could be used for
constructive purposes, to disarm those who might cause
harm to others. Guns are not the answer to human
strife, especially during a declared disaster
emergency. I hope you will prevent this bill from
passing out of your committee.
I implore you to put your time and energy into
constructive legislation, such as requiring secure
storage of firearms, or increasing funding for Alaskan
schools, rather than crafting unnecessary legislation
like HB 61.
3:57:10 PM
SALLY RUE, Representing Self, paraphrased the following written
remarks [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Dear Chairman Shaw and Members of the House State
Affairs Committee,
Thank you for scheduling this opportunity for public
comment on HB 61, "An Act relating to restrictions on
firearms and other weapons."
I am a 46-year resident of Alaska and a gun owner. I
have serious concerns about HB 61 and its potential
negative impact on the ability of the governor, state
agencies and local governments to protect the public
health, safety and welfare in the event of a declared
disaster emergency.
By definition, times of emergency are unpredictable,
chaotic, and full of stress and uncertainty.
Communications are often disrupted. Keeping the public
safe often requires fast and decisive action. State
law gives officials broad powers that would not apply
under ordinary circumstances for good reason.
Why would we want to arbitrarily limit the ability of
the governor and state and municipal officials to
respond to unique disaster emergencies in the most
effective way to protect life and safety? Enacting a
blanket prohibition on any kind of restrictions on
possession and use of firearms and other weapons
during a disaster second-guesses the frontline local
and state officials who know best what is happening on
the ground.
Although sponsors say this will not affect existing
restrictions on carrying firearms in currently
prohibited locations such as schools, hospitals, and
shelters, I would like to see a specific clause added
to that effect.
If this bill is enacted, what happens when an
emergency shelter is set up in another location? Will
first responders and local emergency officials be
prohibited from restricting a person from bringing in
firearms and other weapons? Will families with
children be sheltered with a lot of stressed out,
exhausted people with loaded firearms and 'other
weapons?' Can we expect that volunteers from the Red
Cross and other organizations will feel safe
volunteering in this environment?
My second major concern is in Sec. 44.99.510(c),
providing for civil action by a person who thinks they
have been adversely affected, or "a membership
organization consisting of two or more individuals
eligible under (1) of this section that is dedicated
in whole or in part to the protection of the rights of
persons who possess or use firearms or other weapons."
Giving such a particularly described organization the
status of a 'person' is troublesome at best. Allowing
triple punitive damage awards will invite costly and
likely specious lawsuits. At worst, this section will
create confusion, and could have an extreme chilling
effect on first responders, state and local emergency
services officials, and volunteers trying to do their
job of protecting the public under difficult
circumstances.
I urge you to consider the real implications and
unintended consequences of this bill in real disaster
emergencies.
I urge you to oppose this bill as written, and address
the substantial deficiencies that have come to light
prior to moving it forward.
4:00:29 PM
ISAAC RICHARDS, Representing Self, offered a rural perspective
in relation to HB 61. He identified himself as a retired first
responder and spoke in favor of the bill, as it would protect
equity and commerce, as well as the right to self-defense. He
shared a personal anecdote.
4:04:13 PM
TAMARA KRUSE ROSELIUS, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, spoke
in opposition to HB 61. She characterized the bill's prevention
of any restrictions on firearm use during a disaster as
legislative overreach into local governance. She stated that
during the state of emergency, the focus should be on the state
officials' actions to protect public safety, instead of limiting
local governments' power to maintain order and safety. In
conclusion, she stated that the constitutionally guaranteed
right to own guns was not threatened by an emergency; however,
taking public safety out of the hands of trained emergency
personnel would be a threat, she opined. She urged the
committee to oppose HB 61.
4:07:12 PM
DAVE MAXWELL, Representing Self, identified himself as a State
of Alaska whistle-blower, positing state officials as uncredible
and unreliable. He stated his support for HB 61, opining that
it didn't go far enough.
4:10:05 PM
CARMELA WARFIELD, Executive Vice President, Alaska Policy Forum,
expressed her support for HB 61. She opined that Alaskans
should be able to defend themselves and provide for their
families, especially during unprecedented times of emergency.
Restrictions on firearms and firearms accessories during
official emergencies would undermine and infringe upon
fundamental freedoms.
4:12:09 PM
JENNIFER GRAHAM, Representing Self, described HB 61 as
imperative during an emergency. She emphasized that the
constitution should be respected, adding that Alaskans should
have the right to purchase or possess a firearm without
government interference, especially during an emergency. She
urged the committee not to stop her from protecting herself.
4:14:08 PM
MIKE KUNZ, Representing Self, described HB 61 as paramount. He
recounted scenes from the pandemic, recalling that gun shops
were shut down while porn shops were deemed essential. He
opined that the bill would stop the misuse of "home rule." He
emphasized that gun owners were lawful and trained. He urged
the passage of HB 61 without further delay.
4:17:32 PM
PAMELA SAMASH, Representing Self, recalled a personal anecdote
wherein a gun saved her and her baby's life. She spoke against
the government selecting which stores should stay open and which
should close during a state of emergency.
4:21:00 PM
CARL NELSON, Representing Self, stated his support for the bill,
describing it as essential for protecting individual rights and
mandatory for state security.
4:22:35 PM
PATRICK MARTIN, Representing Self, directed attention to Section
1, line 15 and asked whether an existing statute explicitly
authorized the government to shut down commerce during an
emergency disaster declaration. He argued that if no such
statute existed, the bill was creating a new statutory authority
on line 4 that failed to protect Second Amendment and broader
commerce rights. He opined that HB 61 should be amended to
provide Second Amendment protections without creating a new
statutory authority that infringed upon those rights.
4:26:06 PM
CHAIR SHAW closed public testimony on HB 61 and announced that
the bill would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB61vA-031323.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB 61 - Fiscal Note - LAW - 2023-03-22 - 0.0.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB61vA-040723-LegalMemo.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB61vASectional-031323.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB61vASponsor-031323.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB61vASTA-032123.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB 141 - Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact - OMB - 2023-04-07.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141 Supporting Documents photos.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB141 Bill ver B.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 141 |
| HB 140 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/30/2023 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 140 |
| HB 140 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 3/30/2023 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 140 |
| HB 140 - Fiscal Note - ADM - 2023-03-30 - 0.0.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 140 |
| HB 61 - Emailed Public Comment - As of 04-10 - Oppose.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB 61 - Emailed Public Comment - As of 04-10 - Support.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB61vAPresentation-031323.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 61 |
| HB141 Don Young's Timeline and Accomplishments.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 141 |