Legislature(2021 - 2022)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/13/2021 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL 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 | |
| SB136 | |
| SB119 | |
| SB135 | |
| SB131 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 136-LIMITATIONS ON FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS
3:42:21 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 136,
"An Act relating to firearms and other weapons restrictions."
3:42:37 PM
SENATOR ROBERT MYERS, speaking as sponsor, stated that SB 136
seeks to clarify what sort of restrictions can and cannot be
imposed during a disaster declaration on the ability to own and
operate firearms. He noted that this issue came up in Anchorage
in the context of essential services. The bill effectively says
that a state agency or municipality may not use a disaster
declaration as the basis for imposing new firearms rules. He
deferred further introduction to his staff, Michaella Anderson.
3:44:30 PM
MICHAELLA ANDERSON, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, reported that seven states mandated
the complete or partial closure of firearms stores or ranges
during the pandemic because they were deemed nonessential. SB
136 seeks to prevent that from happening in Alaska.
She referred to the sponsor statement for SB 136 that read as
follows:
Governors of the United States may declare a state of
emergency in the event of a disaster. These
declarations generally provide expansive police powers
to regulate states during emergency situations to
protect the public health and safety. While these
police powers are usually granted by the state
constitution, state statutes clarify and define the
extent of the emergency authority granted during an
emergency declaration. Thus, state legislatures can
create reasonable regulations to define and establish
the restrictions on constitutional rights that may or
may not be justified in times of emergency.
It is the goal of SB 136 to clarify the extent of the
emergency authority granted during an emergency
declaration in regard to the Second Amendment and to
prevent the unnecessary infringements on the right to
keep and bear arms. SB 136 establishes that
notwithstanding a declaration of a disaster emergency,
neither the state or a municipal agency may not forbid
the possession, use or transfer of a firearm, firearm
accessory, ammunition, or other weapon for personal
use. In addition, SB 136 also establishes that the
closure and limitation of commerce under the police
powers of the governor must be equally applied to all
forms of commerce, and prevents undue restrictions of
businesses associated with firearms and public
shooting range facilities.
It is the duty of the state legislature to clarify the
extent of the emergency authority granting
restrictions on constitutional rights during an
emergency declaration. SB 136 provides clarification
that neither the state or municipal agencies may
unnecessarily infringe upon Alaskan citizens right to
keep and bear arms.
3:45:16 PM
MS. ANDERSON summarized the sectional analysis for SB 136 that
read as follows:
Section 1.
Adds new sections to Article 5 of AS 44.99.
a) Establishes that notwithstanding a disaster
emergency declared under AS 26.23.020, a state
or municipal agency may not impose the
following:
a. Forbid the possession, use, or transfer
of a firearm, a firearm accessory,
ammunition, or other weapon for personal
use.
b. Order the seizure or confiscation of a
firearm, a firearm accessory, ammunition,
or other weapon for personal use.
c. Limit the quantity or place other
restrictions on the sale or service of
firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition,
or other weapons for personal use.
d. Unless the closure or limitation applies
equally to all forms of commerce within
the jurisdiction, close or limit the
operating hours of the following:
i. An entity engaged in the sale or
service of firearms, firearm
accessories, ammunition, or other
weapons for personal use, or
ii. An indoor or outdoor shooting
range.
e. Suspend or revoke a permit to carry a
concealed handgun issued under AS
18.65.700, except as provided in AS
18.65.735 and 18.65.740; or
f. Refuse to accept an application to carry
a concealed handgun, provided the
application contains the information
required under AS 18.65.710.
b) Establishes that this section does not apply to
the possession of a firearm, a firearm
accessory, ammunition, or other weapon by a
person who is prohibited from legally
possessing a firearm, a firearm accessory,
ammunition, or other weapon under state law.
c) Establishes that a person may bring a civil
action in superior court if the person is
adversely affected by a violation of (a) of
this section, and the person is the following:
a. Qualified under state law to possess a
firearm, a firearm accessory, ammunition,
or other weapon; or
b. A membership organization consisting of
two or more individuals eligible under (1)
of this subsection that is dedicated in
whole or in part to the protection of the
rights of persons who possess or use
firearms or other weapons.
d) Notwithstanding AS 09.17.020(f) - (h), a
prevailing plaintiff under (c) of this section
may recover.
a. The greater amount of actual economic
damages or punitive damages in the amount
of three times the plaintiff's attorney
fees.
b. Court costs; and
c. Attorney fees.
e) Defines "State or Municipal Agency" to include
the following: University of Alaska or a
department, institution, board, commission,
division, council, committee, authority, public
corporation, school district, regional
educational attendance area, or other
administrative unit of a municipality or of the
executive, judicial, or legislative branch of
state government, and includes employees of
those entities.
Section 2.
Repeals AS 44.99.500(g)(1) which is the definition of
a firearm accessory.
MS. ANDERSON advised that the definition of a firearm accessory
is in the new Sec. 44.99.595.
3:46:40 PM
CHAIR HUGHES recalled that when the governor issued a mandate
early in the pandemic that closed all but essential businesses,
marijuana shops and alcohol venders were allowed to remain open,
but places that sold firearms had to close. She asked if that
mandate was statewide at least for a while.
3:47:22 PM
SENATOR MYERS offered his understanding that when the state
listed essential businesses, hunting and fishing supply stores
were deemed essential and were allowed to remain open. However,
the definitions were not consistently interpreted in the
implementation. For example, to be classified as a hunting
supply store, a certain square footage of the store had to be
dedicated to firearms and firearms materials such as ammunition.
Stores that sold firearms exclusively were allowed to remain
open but stores such as Cabela's and Sportsman's Warehouse were
ordered to close by the municipality.
SENATOR MYERS said multiple complaints were filed against
multiple stores that did not close and each time the
municipality contacted the store and came to resolution. SB 136
would flip the burden of proof and instead of a store having to
prove to a municipality that it was allowed to stay open, the
municipality would be required to prove to the store that it had
to close. The bill states that a store that sells firearms may
be closed if the closure applies to all forms of commerce in the
jurisdiction. He cited the example of a Sportsman's Warehouse
and a Target located next to each other; they are either both
open or both closed.
3:49:36 PM
CHAIR HUGHES summarized that it was a state mandate that
municipalities interpreted differently. She asked if the
Municipality of Anchorage was the only entity that used the
different interpretation.
SENATOR MYERS replied the Municipality of Anchorage was the only
one his office heard about.
CHAIR HUGHES referenced the language in paragraph (4) on page 1,
lines 13-14 and asked him to confirm that this does not address
essential versus nonessential businesses. It is that closures
would apply uniformly to all commerce in the jurisdiction.
SENATOR MYERS answered that is correct.
CHAIR HUGHES turned to invited testimony.
3:50:47 PM
AOIBHEANN CLINE, Northwest Regional Director, National Rifle
Association (NRA), Fairfax, Virginia, on behalf of the tens of
thousands of NRA members in Alaska, spoke in strong support of
SB 136. She stated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
and Art. I, Sec. 19 of the Alaska Constitution provide that the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. SB 136 aims to protect that right by preventing a
state or municipal agency from limiting these rights based on a
disaster declaration. She said the bill is a response to events
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
MS. CLINE maintained the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected
Anchorage based businesses under the municipality's "Hunker
Down" Emergency Order EO-03. The issue was centered in Anchorage
during this pandemic, but the NRA believes that without this
legislation any municipality could be next. SB 136 ensures that
firearm related businesses, shooting ranges, and the right to
keep and bear arms are not unjustly singled out for any
political reason. She cited District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570 in which the United States Supreme Court found
mandatory storage locking requirements were unconstitutional
because it rendered firearms impossible to operate in order to
exercise the core Second Amendment right of self-defense.
MS. CLINE described SB 136 as a narrowly tailored solution to
the specific problem of restrictions on firearms under an
emergency declaration and urged support.
3:54:13 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 136.
3:54:27 PM
ANNE CAULFIELD, Volunteer, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in
America, Juneau, Alaska, stated that as a mother, grandmother,
and retired school counselor she was deeply concerned that SB
136 would restrict public universities and school districts from
setting firearm policies. It would also prevent local
authorities from intervening to temporarily restrict access to
firearms for a person at risk for suicide or domestic violence.
She relayed that as a school counselor she worked with children
daily who were exposed to domestic violence including the deadly
situations when a firearm was involved. This is a reality for
many children. She said children who witness family members
killed or seriously injured by firearms are affected by this
trauma their entire lives. She emphasized that such tragedy does
not need to happen if law enforcement is able to take a
reasonable approach to temporarily restrict firearms when
someone is in danger of hurting themselves or others.
MS. CAULFIELD offered her belief that Juneau's local officials,
mayors, and police chiefs were best equipped to understand local
crime and how to best address it. She urged the committee to not
take away their ability to keep all citizens safe and instead
ensure that Alaska has safe communities.
3:56:44 PM
LUANN MCVEY, Member, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in
America, Douglas, Alaska, echoed the testimony of Anne Caulfield
as a mother, grandmother, and retired teacher. She stated
opposition to SB 136 and pointed out that the state already has
a strong preemption law that keeps local authorities from
overriding the state policy on firearm regulation. She
questioned the reason for narrowing that law and stopping
schools and other entities from protecting against gun violence.
She said young people use alcohol, sometimes to excess, and the
resulting increased aggression and impaired judgement may affect
a decision about whether to use a gun to solve a problem. She
emphasized that guns do not belong on college campuses and state
legislatures should not make colleges less safe by limiting the
ability of a university to set firearms policy.
MS. MCVEY cited the findings of the nonprofit organization
Everytown for Gun Safety, which found that for 20 million
students attending colleges and universities, an average of 10
homicides occur each year. She said having more guns on campus
increases the likelihood of more shootings but is not likely to
prevent mass shootings. She emphasized that SB 136 was not
needed and urged the committee to hold the bill in committee.
3:58:48 PM
ANN GIFFORD, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, stated she was a
retired attorney who had personal experience with some of the
issues SB 136 addresses because of past work with Alaska school
districts and local governments. She described SB 136 as a
poorly thought out bill that would establish bad policy and
create legal chaos. She highlighted that the sponsor said the
bill is to ensure that state and local agencies do not create
new firearm rules during an emergency, but the language in the
bill is much broader. It essentially seeks to prohibit any
municipality, school district, or university or any state or
local agency from regulating the use or possession of a firearm
in any way. She pointed out that this conflicts with several
existing laws. Like other constitutional rights, the right to
bear arms is not unlimited because guns do not belong in some
places. She pointed out that Alaska courts and the U.S. Supreme
Court have long recognized that it is legitimate for governments
to restrict carrying of guns in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings. She pointed out that emotions can run
high when people talk to the legislature or local assembly and
they can also run high in schools over grades and treatment by
other students. Removing guns from these places helps protect
everyone in these facilities. She further pointed out that the
kinds of places and occasions where guns should not be allowed
can vary so what makes sense in Anchorage may not be appropriate
in Sitka. She expressed hope that the committee would not
approve SB 136 that removes all local control on such an
important topic.
4:00:59 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON joined the committee meeting.
4:01:45 PM
MICHAEL FINDLAY, Director, Government Relations-State Affairs,
National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Washington, DC,
stated that NSSF is the trade association for most
manufacturers, retailers, and gun ranges in the nation and he
was speaking in strong support of SB 136. He said that after
listening to the opposition testimony, he believes it is
important to distinguish that SB 136 is about limiting a
governor's ability to deem the firearm industry as nonessential
in a crisis. During the pandemic NSSF saw that for political
reasons some governors decided not to follow the guidance from
the White House. Gun ranges, retailers, and the firearm
manufacturing industry were deemed essential, but these were not
always included in governor declarations.
MR. FINDLAY maintained that SB 136 simply says that a governor
may not treat the Second Amendment as nonessential. Thus people
should be afforded the opportunity to exercise these rights to
protect their families during times of crisis. On behalf of
NSSF, he reiterated strong support for SB 136.
4:03:53 PM
CARRIE HANSON, Volunteer, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in
America, Soldotna, Alaska, stated that as a lifelong Alaskan who
has witnessed many instances when guns were not used responsibly
she was testifying to ask the committee to oppose SB 136. She
said too many Alaskans die each year from gun homicide, gun
suicide, or unintentional shootings. She pointed out that the
state has the highest rate of gun deaths in the country and that
over 66 percent of the gun deaths in the state are by suicide.
This is more than double the national average. She further
pointed out that guns are the leading cause of death for Alaskan
children and teens and that 2010 to 2019 the rate of gun deaths
in Alaska increased more than 19 percent.
MS. HANSON said it is clear that the gun crisis in Alaska is
getting worse and the legislature should respond with reasonable
steps to lower the rate of gun deaths. However, a blanket
preemption is not necessary because there is already a law that
governs the municipal regulation of firearms. She cited an
instance in Soldotna two years ago when a man unintentionally
discharged his weapon while in a coffee shop and hit his wife.
She emphasized that guns do not belong in every public place and
note that states that have allowed guns on college campuses now
struggle with the safety and economic consequences. She said the
fact that insurance companies view guns on campus as a huge
liability helps explain why they are not a good idea. She
highlighted that a guns on campus bill in West Virginia was
estimated to cost $11 million to implement, and asked the
committee to refrain from passing SB 136 from committee.
4:06:33 PM
HEATHER KOPONEN, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated
appreciation for the testimony opposing SB 136 from Caulfield,
McVey, Gifford, and Hanson and offered her belief that it should
be weighted more heavily than testimony from Cline with the
National Rifle Association and Findlay with the National
Shooting Sports Foundation because they profit financially from
passage of the legislation. She refuted the claim that firearm
stores are essential business. While it may be essential for
somebody who is hunting to be able to buy ammunition, she said
it is not essential to make money from weapons that cause severe
injury and death. She said the bill is more about broadening the
strength of gun lobbyists and her belief is that their
interpretation of Second Amendment rights in the context of SB
136 is dubious. She urged the committee not to hold the bill.
4:08:50 PM
CHAIR HUGHES closed public testimony on SB 136. She encouraged
any interested party to send written testimony to
[email protected].
CHAIR HUGHES held SB 136 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 135 v. A Sponsor Statemnet 5.13.21.pdf |
SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 135 |
| SB 135 v. A Legislation.PDF |
SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 135 |
| SB 135- Presentation 5.13.21.pdf |
SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 135 |
| SB 135 Fiscal Note DOA-SSOA 5.7.21.pdf |
SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 135 |
| SB 119 v. G Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 119 v. G Legislation.PDF |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 119 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 119 Zero Fiscal Note.pdf |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 119 |
| SB 136 v. A Legislation.PDF |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 136 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM-CJL.pdf |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 136 Research Document-COVID-19 Emergency Restrictions on Firearms.pdf |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 136 v. A Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 136 Presentation.pdf |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 136 v. A Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 136 Support Letter-Alaska Outdoor Council 5.6.21.pdf |
SCRA 5/11/2021 3:30:00 PM SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 136 Support Letter- NRA 5.11.21.pdf |
SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 136 Public Support Letters 5.12.2021.pdf |
SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 131 Letter of Opposition- Alaska Municipal League Joint Insurance Association.pdf |
SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Letter of Opposition- APEI.pdf |
SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 136 Letter of Opposition- Everytown for Gun Safety.pdf |
SCRA 5/13/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |