Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
03/13/2025 03:15 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 | |
| HB2 | |
| HB89 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 89-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
3:47:14 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 89, "An Act relating to gun violence
protective orders; relating to the crime of violating a
protective order; relating to a central registry for protective
orders; relating to the powers of district judges and
magistrates; amending Rules 4 and 65, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration; and
providing for an effective date."
3:47:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 89. He explained the reason for the
proposed legislation is that every day in the United States,
approximately 120 people die either by shooting themselves or by
being shot - a statistically tragic figure. Suicide accounts
for 60 percent of gun deaths in the United States, and Alaska
has the second highest rate of gun suicide deaths in the
country. He reported that between 2011 and 2020, gun deaths
increased by 34 percent. According to the Center for Disease
Control (CDC), 72 percent of all firearm deaths in Alaska were
firearm suicides, killing an average of 2,500 residents per
year. He stated that on average, one Alaska resident dies by
suicide firearm every three days. In Alaska, residents are more
than two and half times likely to die by firearm suicide than
firearm homicide. That said, HB 89 is not just about Alaska's
tragic problem with suicide; it is also about homicide deaths,
for which Representative Josephson offered his understanding
Alaska ranks fifth [highest] in the country. He reported that
57 percent of Alaskans keep firearms in or around their homes;
18 percent of firearm owners do not store them securely.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON remarked on a recent poll by Alaska
Survey Research, which found that 69 percent of Alaskans,
including 55 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of rural
residents, support a policy allowing a family member or law
enforcement to ask a judge to temporarily suspend a person's
access to guns if they have evidence that the person poses a
significant risk to themself or others. He recognized the
sensitivity of the bill. He remarked that former Vice President
Pence, when governor of Indiana, signed a gun violence
protection order bill; current Republican U.S. Senator and
former governor of Florida, Rick Scott, signed a gun violence
protection bill; President Donald Trump for a brief time in 2019
supported the concept of legislation like HB 89; and the
National Rifle Association (NRA), "for a time" and "with
caveats" expressed interest in the bill. He acknowledged people
could be concerned about the proposed legislation and asked that
they be willing to "hear the case."
3:52:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON directed attention to an [Excel
spreadsheet] document in the committee file, [titled "5th and
14th Amendment Due Process Offerings in HB 89"]. He said it has
dual features and everything that matters is in Section 6 of HB
89. He said the document acts as a sectional and user guide to
bill and explained the misguided due process aspect of the bill.
He spoke about due process, notice, and opportunity to be heard,
in the Bill of Rights. He said that everybody gets due process.
He said the respondent - the person being challenged as to their
right to bear arms - must be given due process. He continued
line by line in the spreadsheets, giving an overview of the
concepts of a gun violence protective order (GVPO), and ex parte
GVPO, an emergency GVPO, surrender of firearms, return of
firearms, and that the titled owner - not the respondent - of
firearms can seek early return of firearms. He noted that GVPOs
can be modified by any party.
4:01:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON reflected there may be a tendency to
think that HB 89 is "outrageous." To that, he noted that "it
essentially exists now." He then explained the reason for HB 89
is that it does not exist in the bulk of the cases where someone
is experiencing suicidal ideation. The bill would be a tool to
help stop someone from harming themself. It would also allow a
police officer to receive an emergency risk protective order
(ERPO) or GVPO against someone who is not a family member.
There have been five state courts that have looked at these
types of bills and published the decisions that "these laws are
constitutional."
4:04:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON discussed the issues of the Second
Amendment. He gave some examples of court cases. He
highlighted an 8 to 1 U.S. Supreme Court decision, from United
State v. Rahimi, (June 21, 2024), that "an individual found by
the court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of
another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second
Amendment." He indicated this shows that there is historical
foundation. Regarding this case and HB 89, he questioned why a
court would say that it is okay to leave guns around suicidal
people. He said there is evidence that suggests this bill will
work. He acknowledged that firearms owners, understandably,
don't want to be "broad brushed" as bad. He stated that HB 89
is not wielding a broad brush; it says that if a court finds a
person to be a threat to the community or themself, then the
court will intervene.
4:11:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted that regarding United State v.
Rahimi, (June 21, 2024), Rahimi was under Texas state court
order. He cited Article 1, Section 19, of the Constitution of
the State of Alaska and said it explicitly protects the right to
keep and bear arms, including for self-defense and subsistence.
He asked how the bill sponsor, through HB 89, justified
overriding this state level protection "based on the subjective
assessments of potential danger from a family member or
significant other or ex-girlfriend or whatever." He said he
thinks Alaska's constitution is stronger than the Second
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that he checked for
annotations in AS 18.66, the current law. He said the Alaska
Supreme Court has never taken up a challenge to the law, which
is 27 years old. He said he thinks the Alaska Supreme Court
would say that there are exceptions.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Representative Josephson if he could
provide historical examples of Alaska laws allowing preemptive
firearms seizure without due process that would support the
constitutionality of HB 89.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered no, but he noted that the
Alaska Supreme Court does not do historical analysis in the same
way that the U.S. Supreme Court does.
4:15:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE first noted that she had received more e-
mails on this issue than on the issue of education, thus
positing that the bill sponsor had "created a fire storm" with
HB 89. She referred to Section 6, which addresses the issue of
GVPOs, and she questioned, "What crime have they committed?"
She said it is troubling that the entirety of the bill raises
"at least five constitutional questions." She indicated that
under HB 89, anyone who "reasonably believes" can turn in their
own family member for "simply owning a firearm." She asked,
"What do you say to the public about that?"
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied by discussing findings of
assault that have not been convicted. He reemphasized that
[under HB 89] it would need to be shown that there is a
significant danger to self or others in determining whether to
take away someone's firearms. He said the courts would do an
analysis. He noted that in some states, the percentage that
issue for an individual petition is much lower than for a police
petition; this tells him that the courts are considering whether
an individual is "just mad at their brother," for example. He
noted that the State of California added a misdemeanor for
making false statements that lead to the issuance of a GVOP. He
said he understands that people are allowed to protect
themselves and in public, but fundamentally they are not allowed
to threaten people with firearms. Further, he questioned that
people would ignore a suicidal person who has access to
firearms. He concluded that there are moments in time when a
person may feel the need to threaten someone, including
discharging a weapon, to keep their family safe. The proposed
legislation underlines that "you've got to be right when you're
making these decisions; you can't just randomly and recklessly
put people in ... that sort of threat" or "you could be
vulnerable ... to a gun violence protection order."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed concern about the lack of
evidence required under HB 89. She noted the 10-day requirement
but pointed out that a person could be out of town and return to
find all their firearms had been confiscated because someone
else thinks they should not have those firearms. Further, she
questioned the court deciding in such a scenario the person's
right to bear arms.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed to a 3-day order, where there
is a test of 13 items police officers would have to find,
including recent acts or threats of violence, a pattern of acts
or threats of violence, imminent threat, and violation of
protection orders, among others. He then referred to the 10-day
notice and opined that that gives the person time to say, "This
is unfair" and "This is wrong." He discussed a 20-day order for
which attempts must be made to notify the person, and for which
the court must find that the respondent poses "a significant
danger of injury to self or others." He submitted that this is
much tougher than "reasonable belief." He added that in the
short-term order there must be "immediate danger."
4:23:22 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced the committee would hear invited
testimony on HB 89.
4:24:34 PM
JAKE CHANDLER, Sworn Investigator, Office of the District
Attorney, Deschutes County, began invited testimony on HB 89 by
offering his employment history. During previous work on the
police force responding to mental health calls, he became aware
of the need for preventative measures to address issues related
to mental health culminating in violence. He mentioned two
cases where people were known to be living with mental illness
prior to committing murders. He talked about experiences with
ERPO filing, stating that he and his team filed only for those
they believed were at risk for suicide or homicide. He reported
that from January 1 to December 31, 2023, Deschutes County filed
43 ERPOs, the most of any county in Oregon. He explained this
high rate can be attributed to the comprehensive local training,
as well as the accessibility of provided resources. He noted
that initially training was tailored to law enforcement but now
includes others, including support groups. He related an
instance wherein he was able to diffuse a situation where an
individual with suicidal ideation was intent on obtaining a
firearm in order to insure that police would open fire.
4:29:20 PM
AOIBHEANN CLINE, Lobbyist, National Rifle Association of
America, began her invited testimony in opposition to HB 89.
She said HB 89 is touted as a suicide prevention bill but
"misdirects attention to otherwise lawfully owned firearms."
She related that according to the Department of Health (DOH) in
Alaska, the highest rates of suicide attempts in Alaska by age
group are ages 11-14 and 15-19, and she noted that these are age
groups "that cannot otherwise lawfully purchase handguns." She
said the bill is referred to as a "red flag law" because it only
removes firearms without providing any additional assistance.
She spoke about increased mental health issues and a link to
danger related to red flag issue response to an individual's
home. She reported that in Alaska, "only 45.8 percent of
murders committed with a weapon are with a firearm," which she
said is "considerably less than half." She said this
demonstrates "a misdirected attention to a firearm rather than
an actual solution." She stated that HB [89] raises major
concerns regarding constitutional violations, and she gave
examples. Further, she said it raises administrative issues and
is a tool ripe for political abuse. She said the bill would
allow individuals to be stripped of their right to bear arms
based on "lose, third-party accusations," without notice or the
ability to represent themselves in court. She mentioned a
response by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to a
similar red flag bill in Rhode Island. She talked about ex
parte hearings where an individual has no right to defend
themself. She mentioned further amendment violations when
search and seizure happens at the individual's home and unlawful
"stop and frisk" possibilities. She talked about the difficulty
of rural Alaskans in turning over firearms within 24 hours. She
asserted that HB 89 would deprive individuals of their rights
based on "weak and nebulous standards." Further, it would allow
the removal of self-defense tools of victims of domestic
violence, while offering no real solution to gun violence.
4:34:09 PM
CHRISTOPHER CARITA began invited testimony by sharing that he is
soon to be retired from the police force and has been an
investigator and part of a threat response unit. He further
shared his educational background supporting his ability to
discuss the topic. He cautioned getting into "what-ifs" when
speaking theoretically about an idea on paper. He said law
enforcement people are "gun folks" who respect the Second
Amendment and appreciate the gravity of requesting a protection
order, and they do so under oath. The aforementioned 13
criteria, he noted, are evidence-based to indicate risk of
future violence; the more boxes ticked, the likelier officers
are to use a protection order. He shared an example of one
protection order, when a man under stress wielded a gun in front
of his family and threatened self-harm. The man was taken to
the hospital. Although he had committed no crimes, his wife
said he had displayed this behavior for five years. Mr. Carita
talked about the gray area that was exemplified in this example.
4:38:35 PM
CHAIR CARRICK opened public testimony on HB 89.
4:40:08 PM
JAN CAULFIELD, representing self, said she is a parent in
support of HB 89, as it would give family members and law
enforcement a tool to temporarily remove firearms from a person
in crisis that is showing signs of harming themself or others.
She said the Office of Veterans' Affairs and the American
Foundation for Suicide Prevention, as well as other suicide
prevention organizations recognize the importance of ensuring
that guns cannot be accessed when there is a mental health
crisis. She noted 21 states have adopted "extreme risk"
legislation to prevent firearms suicide, mass shootings, and
school shootings, thus saving lives. She noted the Connecticut
law was associated with a 14 percent reduction in suicide rates;
10 years following a similar law, Indiana found its suicide rate
reduced by 7.5 percent. She echoed the previous report of
Alaska's death by firearm suicide being the highest in the
country, more than double the national average. She offered
further statistics. She emphasized that this is a recognized
public health crisis in Alaska and implored the committee to
begin taking firearm deaths seriously and working on a solution.
4:42:38 PM
NANCY BALE, representing self, noted that she is a school nurse
and would take an epidemiological approach to her testimony in
support of HB 89. She talked about Alaska having second- and
third-tier strategies but no first-tier strategies in terms of
harm reduction/prevention. She spoke about the alert, lockdown,
inform, counter, evacuate (ALICE) strategy used in schools and
noted that that is employed when there is already a shooter on
the premises. She said ALICE can save lives but does not
prevent gun violence. Another method is called "Stop the
Bleed," which trains on ways to minimize death from grievous
wounds. She said this is another example of a response to an
epidemic that is harm reduction only - not primary prevention.
She said HB 89 proposes primary prevention. She opined that no
school student ever should experience the trauma of gun
violence. She said she hoped the committee would support HB 89
to "help us get primary prevention care in Alaska."
4:45:04 PM
DIANE DESLOOVER, representing self, testified in support of HB
89. She echoed the previously noted statistics about Alaska's
firearm deaths and stated her shock that Alaska has "almost no
laws related to gun regulations or gun ownership." She noted
the laws enacted in other states. She said HB 89 is a proactive
bill "to respond to clear and present danger." She cited an
Alaska Survey Research 2018 survey, titled "Alaska Attitudes
Toward Gun Ownership and Regulation," which determined that
support for an ERPO was 84 percent statewide. She said this
eightieth percentile was reflected in "five battleground
states." She asked the committee to pass HB 89.
4:47:49 PM
THERESE LEWANDOWSKI, representing self, testified in support of
HB 89. She said it seems that gun advocates seem to think "gun
safety people" are plotting to rid them of their guns, which she
emphasized is not true. She spoke about the importance of
preventing someone from taking their own life and preventing
someone from using a firearm in a threatening manner, in a
moment of rage. She said she has been a victim and knows others
who have been victims. She highlighted suicides and mass
shootings. She asked committee members to consider that the
next [victim] could be their loved one, and she urged them to
show their constituents that they value gun safety.
4:49:18 PM
TRACIE BROWN, representing self, testified in support of HB 89.
She noted that she and her husband are co-guardians of her adult
brother, who is a vulnerable person addressing drug and alcohol
abuse. He lives on his own and has been collecting guns for
safety, and Ms. Brown said she is concerned but cannot legally
stop him from buying firearms. She related that her brother
reacted to hallucinations by shooting, and one of the bullets
ended up on the neighbor's porch. He was charged with second
and fourth degree felony gun charges, as well as reckless
endangerment; however, he was deemed unfit to stand trial
because of his mental incapacities and all charges were dropped.
4:51:38 PM
PAT MARTIN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 89.
He noted that he is a member of Alaska Gun Rights. He reported
that this year, 321 individuals were disarmed under the State of
Michigan's red flag law; of those, 237 confiscations were issued
ex parte. He asserted that red flag laws are ripe for abuse.
He noted seven cases were in homes with young children; however,
none of the cases indicated that the children had access to the
firearms. He predicted that "the road ahead" under red flag
laws is that parents will be targeted regarding their right to
keep and bear arms based on their minor children's behavior,
which he opined is unjust. Mr. Martin said HB 89 would create
"a pathway for law abiding Alaskans to be forcibly disarmed"
with as little as 24-hour notice.
4:54:06 PM
TOM BOUTIN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB 89
as legislation that would enable the seizure of "all guns and
ammo possessed by Alaskans, who have broken no laws but may have
been accused of intending to break a law." He pointed to AS
18.55.820(11) in HB 89 and noted that seizure could occur even
if the never-indicted and never-convicted Alaskan were accused
of a felony any time in the past and found not guilty. He
opined, "No one should support taking anything lawfully owned
from someone who has broken no law." He stated that threatening
to assault is a crime. He noted that the justice system must
indict, bring to trial, and convict someone before any of their
rights are removed, and he underlined that all rights have equal
importance.
4:55:37 PM
MICHAEL PERRINO, representing self, noted that he is a veteran
and former law enforcement officer, who is opposed to HB 89
because it "flies in the face of due process." He said [the
right to bear arms] is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
He noted that any number of objects can be used to do harm, and
he asked that focus be given to the mental health aspect. He
emphasized that the proposed legislation is "nothing more than a
Band-Aid that takes away an individual's right."
4:57:31 PM
GORDAN WILLIAMS, representing self, testified in support of HB
89. He said he thinks the proposed legislation would serve as a
tool to take firearms out of the equation while addressing
mental health. He noted that in excess of 90 percent of suicide
attempts with a firearm are "successful," which gives no chance
for an individual to seek the help that can lower the chance of
them making a second attempt on their life. He acknowledged
there would be plenty of remarks made about constitutionality
and due process but indicated that a closer examination would
show that "it's not that much different than all legal
situations where the courts make decisions based on what's
brought to them." He expressed his hope that HB 89, as a
prevention bill, could move forward; it would "keep people from
making tragic mistakes."
4:59:57 PM
SALLY RUE, representing self, testified that she is a gun owner
in support of HB 89. She stated that gun violence is an
epidemic and needs to be addressed. She advised that the
statistics can be addressed "through judicious applications of
legislative solutions, through community norms, and also through
individual actions." She said she never again wants to face
comforting those who have lost a loved one, and she said
reasonable steps can be taken to address the tragedies "while
preserving people's constitutional rights." She stated that in
many of the cases of suicide and gun violence there were clear
warning signs in advance, and HB 89 would provide "a temporary
tool for families and law enforcement to address those before
it's too late." She referred to instances in Alaska.
5:02:29 PM
FRANK RUE, representing self, testified that he is a gun owner
and advocate of safe gun storage, who said, "I agree with my
wife." He shared that a friend and family member exhibiting
clear signs of suicidal ideation, and the families involved had
no option to secure the guns from the individual in crisis. He
indicated "both died" under this scenario, and if the families
had had a way to go to the police and get temporary removal of
firearms, then those in crisis would have had a chance to get
help and later have the firearm(s) returned. He thanked the
committee for its efforts in hearing the bill and asked its
members to consider a constitutional solution that not only
protects the right to bear arms but also "our rights to live and
not be harmed."
5:04:40 PM
SPENCER KING, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
89. He said, "They're using suicide and tugging on your
heartstrings as cover to pass this anti-gun bill that's gonna be
abused." He expressed concern that under HB 89, an ex-
girlfriend, for example, could "have the police show up" and
confiscate a person's gun, and if ex parte, it could happen at 5
a.m. "and kicking in their door with no notice." Even if not ex
parte, the person would still need to go to court to defend
themself. He asked the committee not to work on taking guns
away from law-abiding citizens.
5:06:36 PM
DAVID HANNA, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
89. He explained that no matter how well-intentioned the bill
[sponsor], the proposed legislation is "too open for abuse." He
mentioned misrepresentation related to divorce and dispute and
"folks that are unfairly punished" and predicted that HB 89
would "open the door to anyone to abuse the system," especially
in considering the ex parte emergency order aspect of the
legislation. He said he thinks this would not be in line with
constitutional intent. Further, the bill would do nothing to
help someone recover their guns or get restitution; "it's all
against the person and there's nothing there to help them." He
commented on political polarization and said he thinks HB 89
would drive a deeper wedge. He said he would like the mental
health aspect of the issue addressed, but not the confiscation
of firearms.
5:08:52 PM
CLARE ROSS, representing self, testified in support of HB 89.
She questioned why the idea of preventing suicidal or homicidal
individuals from having access to firearms is considered
outrageous. She posed examples of an unstable neighbor and a
suicidal child to illustrate instances where removing firearms
could be considered beneficial. She shared her personal
experience of May 24, 2020, when she received a phone call that
her son, Luis, was in critical care and his friend, Andrew, dead
after being shot by a neighbor, who was having a mental
breakdown. She said the neighbor who shot them had been
reported multiple times to the police in the weeks leading up to
the shooting and was seen by police in a disturbed state of mind
the day before the shooting. She questioned why, in a state
with high rates of domestic violence and suicide, the
legislature would allow people to terrorize their neighbors with
guns and not put a barrier between a suicidal individual and
firearms. She urged support for HB 89 and further urged those
with concerns to address them with the bill sponsor to
strengthen the proposed legislation.
5:11:35 PM
ODETTE EDGAR, representing self, testified in support of HB 89,
which she suggested could help lower Alaska's rates of suicide
and homicide. She noted that two years ago, in February, there
was a mass shooting at the University of Michigan, in Lansing.
Following that was the aforementioned ERPO enacted by the
legislature. That ERPO has existed for one year now, and the
reported outcomes include: 391 complaints filed; 287 orders
issued; and 84 complaints denied. She said this suggests that
the courts in Michigan were not "rubber stamping" requests.
Further, the State of Michigan has penalties for false
statements. She noted that [no false statements] were made that
first year; further, there were zero cases of a respondent
failing to comply with the ERPO.
5:13:59 PM
SALLY DONALDSON, representing self, testified in support of HB
89. She said she is a retired school counselor, who feels that
the legislature must take steps to lower deaths by firearms in
Alaska. She said 21 other states have enacted laws similar to
HB 89. She said she knows far too many children that have been
harmed by firearms - some of them killed. She recalled that in
1996, Evan Ramsey at age 16 walked into a high school in Bethel,
Alaska, and killed two people; in 2002, a young Juneau woman
fatally shot herself; and in 2008, two freshman kids skipped
school and played a game with a gun resulting in one death and
one severely injured, with lasting effects. She thanked the
committee for its attention to the issue and urged its members
to move HB 89 out of committee.
5:15:29 PM
JANE ANDREEN, representing self, testified in support of HB 89.
She noted she spent 36 years working in the areas of domestic
violence and sexual assault, as well as public health. She
shared a personal story of her own deep depression 12-13 years
ago, noting that she was certain if she had access to a gun at
that time, she would not be alive today. She emphasized the
importance of having tools in place to help people going through
situations like hers.
5:17:04 PM
RICK MCCLURE, President, Alaska Gun Rights, stated that he
represents thousands of Alaskans that have signed a petition
against HB 89. He stated that the proposed legislation would
violate Article I, Section 7, regarding due process of law, and
Article I, Section 19, regarding the right to bear arms - both
from the Constitution of the State of Alaska. He asked that HB
89 "go no further than this committee."
5:18:19 PM
TERRY NICHOLS, representing self, stated his adamant opposition
to HB 89, as legislation that would strip [away] law-abiding
firearm owners' constitutional rights. He said the bill would
do nothing to help people's mental problems and suggested the
committee look at AS 47.30.700, addressing involuntary
commitment. He listed instances where he said red flag laws
were "on the books and failed," as follows: the 2020 Highland
Park shooting, in Illinois; the 2022 supermarket shooting, in
Buffalo, New York; the 2018 high school shooting, in [Parkland,
Florida]; the 2021 nightclub shooting, in Colorado Springs,
Colorado; the 2018 Sacramento Library shooting in Sacramento,
California; the 2021 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
shooting, in San Jose, California; the 2021 FedEx shooting in
Indianapolis, Indiana; the 2021 King Supers supermarket shooting
in Boulder, Colorado; the 2019 SunTrust Bank shooting in
Sebring, Florida; the 2018 Borderline Bar & Grill shooting in
Thousand Oaks, California; and the 2015 Umpqua Community College
shooting in Roseburg, Oregon.
5:20:55 PM
MARIAN CLOUGH, representing self, testified as a gun owner in
support of HB 89. She said the bill does provide due process to
temporarily remove firearms from those who pose a threat to
others or themselves. She said there currently are laws in 21
states, including "red states" such as Florida and Indiana. She
spoke about ERPOs saving the lives of Alaskans and urged the
committee to support HB 89.
5:22:28 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that public testimony would be left open
for a future hearing. She encouraged all who testified to
submit their testimony electronically.
[HB 89 was held over.]