03/08/2011 09:00 AM House FINANCE

HOUSE BILL NO. 80                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     "An Act relating to self defense in any place where a                                                                      
     person has a right to be."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
9:57:12 AM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE MARK  NEUMAN, SPONSOR, discussed  that Alaska                                                                    
statute provided  the right to  use deadly force  to protect                                                                    
family, person,  and property. House Bill  80 clarified that                                                                    
the right applied to the home  and in any place a person had                                                                    
a right to  be. The bill clarified an  individual's right to                                                                    
protect  their  life and  the  lives  of their  family.  The                                                                    
proposed legislation  strengthened the legal  recognition of                                                                    
a  human's  basic  right for  self-defense  and  placed  the                                                                    
responsibility  of retreat  on the  perpetrator. He  relayed                                                                    
that  18 states  had introduced  similar legislation;  HB 80                                                                    
closely  followed language  suggested  by  the other  states                                                                    
which was included in member packets.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked whether the bill  forced people                                                                    
to retreat.  She referred to  email correspondence  that had                                                                    
expressed concern about the issue.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Representative Neuman  responded that currently the  duty to                                                                    
retreat was  included in  Alaska statute,  but it  was being                                                                    
examined in  the judicial system.  The bill put  the ability                                                                    
into the  hands of the  individual responsible for  making a                                                                    
"split-second decision" and protected their rights.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Representative Wilson  asked whether  an attempt  to retreat                                                                    
would  still be  required or  whether a  person could  stand                                                                    
their ground  without worrying  about being  prosecuted. She                                                                    
shared that constituents in her  community wanted to be able                                                                    
to protect their families and did  not want to be faced with                                                                    
making a decision to retreat in an emergency situation.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Neuman    replied   that   there    was   a                                                                    
justification  clause in  statute  that specifically  stated                                                                    
how  self-defense could  be applied;  however,  the duty  to                                                                    
retreat language  was somewhat vague. He  explained that the                                                                    
bill worked  to clarify  a person's  ability to  stand their                                                                    
ground.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara  believed  that the  current  law  only                                                                    
required a  duty to retreat  in situations that  would allow                                                                    
an individual to retreat safely.  He did not want to provide                                                                    
individuals with  the right to  shoot someone in  all cases.                                                                    
He wondered what the standard would  be if there was no duty                                                                    
to retreat even in cases  where safe retreat would have been                                                                    
possible.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative   Neuman   responded    that   AS   11.81.330                                                                    
specifically  listed situations  in  which self-defense  was                                                                    
justified, including  the use of  force with  mutual combat,                                                                    
and  against  death,  serious physical  injury,  kidnapping,                                                                    
sexual assault  in the first  and second degree, abuse  of a                                                                    
minor, and  robbery in any  degree. The statute  also stated                                                                    
that a person may not use  deadly force under the section if                                                                    
a person knew  that "with complete personal  safety and with                                                                    
complete safety as to others  being defended, the person can                                                                    
avoid the  necessity of  using deadly  force by  leaving the                                                                    
area."  He thought  it  was  up to  the  judicial branch  to                                                                    
provide interpretation  on when deadly force  could or could                                                                    
not be  used. The  goal of  the bill was  to clarify  that a                                                                    
person did  not have  to second guess  their right  to self-                                                                    
defense.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
10:03:21 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara wanted  to ensure  that fair  standards                                                                    
existed that did not allow a  person to shoot someone for no                                                                    
good reason.  He stated  that the  law was  circular because                                                                    
there was  a duty to not  shoot a person if  it was possible                                                                    
to safely retreat,  but the bill allowed a  person in safety                                                                    
to shoot  a person.  He thought  the other  circumstances in                                                                    
which a  person was not  allowed to shoot someone  were most                                                                    
likely  listed  somewhere  in  statute  that  had  not  been                                                                    
provided.  He  wanted  to  ensure   that  a  definition  was                                                                    
included in statute.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze asked  Representative Neuman  to make  the                                                                    
materials he was reading from  available to the committee at                                                                    
future hearings on the bill.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Neuman  responded  in  the  affirmative.  He                                                                    
clarified  that  the bill  did  not  attempt to  change  any                                                                    
existing  justification  clauses;   full  justification  was                                                                    
still required for a person to use deadly force.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gara  asked whether the  justification clause                                                                    
was under AS 11.81.330.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
Representative Neuman responded in the affirmative.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the  Department of Law (DOL) and                                                                    
Department   of  Public   Safety  (DPS)   would  be   active                                                                    
participants   in  the   next  committee   hearing  on   the                                                                    
legislation.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Gara wanted  to  also hear  from the  Public                                                                    
Defender Agency.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Stoltze  responded  that Quinlan  Steiner,  Public                                                                    
Defender  was available  for  questions via  teleconference,                                                                    
but the committee would discuss  the bill more thoroughly at                                                                    
the next hearing.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair Fairclough  asked to hear from  DOL regarding the                                                                    
proposed two new full-time attorney  positions listed in its                                                                    
fiscal   note.  She   asked   the   department  to   provide                                                                    
information that supported the fiscal note.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg wondered  whether the  bill would                                                                    
have changed  the outcome of  any specific situations  if it                                                                    
had been  implemented in the  past. He did not  know whether                                                                    
the bill made life safer or more complex.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Neuman  did  not   believe  there  would  be                                                                    
changes in  past convictions. He asked  for clarification on                                                                    
the question.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Guttenberg wondered  about  the impetus  for                                                                    
the bill and whether specific  incidents had occurred in the                                                                    
past that the bill could have helped.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze notified the  sponsor that he could provide                                                                    
the  committee with  an answer  at the  next meeting  on the                                                                    
bill.  He believed  that  the  purpose of  the  bill was  to                                                                    
reduce the  amount of prosecutions related  to self-defense.                                                                    
He reiterated that he would talk to DOL.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
10:08:39 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
Representative  Wilson asked  how  the 1,155  cases in  2010                                                                    
that were  listed in  the fiscal note  were relevant  to the                                                                    
department's  calculation  of  costs. She  wondered  whether                                                                    
there were past  cases that may not have  been prosecuted if                                                                    
the bill had existed at the time.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze  replied that  the committee would  get the                                                                    
answer from DOL and DPS.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
Vice-chair  Fairclough  asked  the   sponsor  to  provide  a                                                                    
definition for  self-defense in Alaska statute.  She thought                                                                    
it  would help  to  clear up  members'  questions about  the                                                                    
benefit of the legislation.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
Representative Joule  referenced the  state's law  that gave                                                                    
people the  right to conceal  a weapon. He wondered  how the                                                                    
bill  would  impact a  person  carrying  a concealed  weapon                                                                    
without a permit  who acted in self-defense in  a place they                                                                    
had a right to be.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Stoltze  responded that there was  currently a dual                                                                    
system  that allowed  individuals with  or without  a permit                                                                    
the   right   to   carry  a   concealed   weapon   in   most                                                                    
circumstances.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
Representative Neuman  answered that a person  could not use                                                                    
a handgun  for deadly force if  they did not have  the legal                                                                    
right to have  a handgun. The bill did not  protect a person                                                                    
that was  not legally permitted  to have a handgun,  such as                                                                    
felons and other.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
HB 80 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                               
consideration.