Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/15/2022 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB136 | |
| SB92 | |
| SB145 | |
| SB152 | |
| HB148 | |
| HB123 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 136-LIMITATIONS ON FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS
3:33:33 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 136
"An Act relating to firearms and other weapons restrictions."
[This was the second hearing, public testimony was noticed, and
CSSB 136(CRA) was before the committee.]
3:34:11 PM
SENATOR ROBERT MYERS, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 136, refreshed the committee's recall of the bill.
He explained that SB 136 seeks to ensure that rules related to
the ownership or use of firearms do not change based on a
disaster declaration at either the state or municipal level.
3:35:16 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how the possession or use of illegal
firearms would be treated, should the bill pass.
SENATOR MEYER answered that the bill does not change any rules
relating to firearms, so an illegal firearm would still be
illegal if the bill were to pass. Similarly, the bill does not
propose to change the law prohibiting a felon from possessing or
using a firearm. SB 136 simply says that new firearm rules
cannot be created by executive authority when there is a
disaster declaration.
CHAIR SHOWER summarized that SB 136 would only be in effect
during the limited window of a disaster declaration.
SENATOR MEYER agreed that was correct.
3:36:17 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that the definition of "firearm" in AS
11.81.900 talks about things that use propulsion such as guns
and shotguns, but it is not specific. It does not talk about a
shotgun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches or a machine gun
that someone may not have a license to carry. He asked if that
might compromise the bill.
SENATOR MEYER replied he did not believe so. The definition is
intentionally broad and it does not change what is or is not
prohibited. The goal is to clarify that an executive authority
may not use the powers granted under a disaster declaration to
impose additional firearms rules. He acknowledged that the
legislature would still have the authority to change rules
during a disaster declaration.
3:37:50 PM
MICHAELLA ANDERSON, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, added that the term "additional
rules" is defined as anything that removes Second Amendment
rights. This includes forbidding the use and carry of firearms
and closing gun and ammunition stores or firing ranges.
CHAIR SHOWER offered to invite the Department of Law to a future
meeting if there were follow-up questions.
3:38:38 PM
CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 136.
3:39:12 PM
JOHN SULLIVAN representing self, Douglas, Alaska referenced
[page 2], line 9 and offered his understanding that the bill
allows someone to carry and shoot a gun in both emergency and
non-emergency situations, regardless of whether they can legally
possess a firearm. He mentioned hurricane Katrina and the people
on the bridge in New Orleans and restated that SB 136 says that
anybody is able to carry a gun in an emergency. He said that is
the "beef" he has with SB 136.
SENATOR COSTELLO said she understands the language on page 2,
line 9 to say the opposite. She read the new Sec. 44.99.510 (b):
(b) 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
SENATOR COSTELLO suggested the legal drafters comment on this
subsection because it is an important part of the bill and
should be clarified.
CHAIR SHOWER concurred with her interpretation and said he would
hold the bill if the attorneys were not available.
3:44:16 PM
JAKE MCGUIGAN, Managing Director for State Affairs, National
Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Massachusetts, testified in
support of SB 136. He stated that NSSF is the trade association
that represents manufacturers, distributors, and retailers in
the firearms industry. He thanked the sponsor for introducing
the bill to address the issue that has arisen the last two
years, which is retailers and shooting ranges being required to
close based on state or local emergency declarations. Texas is a
good example. It has strong preemption laws but local
governments, including in the Houston area, shut down firearms
retailers and shooting ranges during COVID-19 lockdowns. NSSF
supports SB 136 because many states did not deem the firearms
industry essential during the pandemic, so people who were
trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights were prevented
from doing so. Some states forced the issue by shutting down the
state background check system. He highlighted that about 40
states declared the firearms industry essential during the
pandemic, but that left 10 states that restricted both Second
Amendment rights and firearm retailers' ability to conduct
business.
MR.MCGUIGAN highlighted that the firearms industry is now open
nationwide and gun sales have broken records. Over 13 million
people became new gun owners over the last two years. He
surmised that the number would have been even higher if people
had been able to exercise their Second Amendment right in those
10 states. He reiterated support for SB 136.
3:47:57 PM
HOWARD APPEL, representing self, Ninilchik, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 136. He shared an observation he made when he was
visiting his son in Washington state during the pandemic. Every
time he passed by a particular gun shop it had a line of people
outside that extended past three storefronts. His son attributed
it to the restrictions that the City of Seattle imposed on
firearms businesses. He noted that churches were also closed,
but liquor stores and bars remained open. That made no sense;
thus his support for SB 136.
3:49:49 PM
AOIBHEANN CLINE, Northwest Regional Director, National Rifle
Association (NRA), testified in support of SB 136. She stated
that SB 136 does not change firearms laws in Alaska. Prohibited
persons would still be unable to possess firearms during an
emergency. The bill simply states that firearms businesses
cannot be infringed under the color of an emergency declaration.
This protects Alaskans' right to self-defense, firearms,
ammunition, and shooting ranges when there is an emergency
declaration. She said the bill is in response to real life
examples of restrictions based on emergency declarations from
across the country. She recounted that the NRA sued Los Angeles
County after it deemed firearms businesses were not essential.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that unconstitutional.
She restated that SB 136 simply protects firearms businesses and
Alaskans' Second Amendment right to access firearms during an
emergency declaration.
3:51:57 PM}
ANN GIFFORD, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, stated that she
is a retired attorney who opposes SB 136, in part because it is
broader than restrictions on firearm businesses. She directed
attention to subsection (a)(1) on page 1 that forbids the
possession or use of a firearm. The concern is that this would
tie the hands of the governor and other state leaders during the
chaos of a disaster when it is not clear what action these
leaders might need to take. For example, curfews and other
limitations on people's activities are needed when Alaska
experiences an earthquake, tsunami, or large fire. Limiting
individuals' use of firearms in a specific area is one of the
time and place restrictions on Second Amendment rights that has
been recognized as constitutional. It is the kind of action a
government might need to take to maintain public order and
safety. She opined that ruling those options out would be a
mistake because it is not possible to anticipate all the ways
they may be needed. She urged the committee not to pass SB 136.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if it would improve the bill to delete the
word "use" on page 1, paragraphs (1) and (2).
MS. GIFFORD said yes, but the talk about any kind of rule that
forbids possession or use of a firearm is the greatest concern.
CHAIR SHOWER suggested she send any other thoughts on the bill
to [email protected].
3:55:01 PM
MARIAN CLOUGH, representing self, Auke Bay, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 136. She stated that as a mom, a grandma, and a
gun owner she does not believe SB 136 is about protecting gun
ownership. Rather, it is about giving special privileges to gun
dealers. She opined that it also invites endless and distracting
legal battles. She pointed out that government is supposed to
protect citizens during disasters and she questions how
guaranteeing gun stores and ranges the right to stay open helps
in the event of fires, tsunamis, landslides, or volcanic
eruptions. She asked if gun stores should remain open if there
were armed riots. She offered her belief that in an epidemic as
contagious as Omicron and lethal as Ebola, the only hope would
be the strictest of protocols with only essential facilities
such as grocery stores and medical facilities remaining open. By
contrast, SB 136 would mandate that gun shops and ranges remain
open even if they were super-spreaders. She urged the committee
to ensure that state and municipal agencies have the ability to
respond to disasters, unencumbered by the political agendas of
interest groups. She asked the committee not to pass SB 136.
3:57:08 PM
ANNETTE MARLEY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that as a mother and public health professional she was asking
the committee to oppose SB 136. It makes no sense to
preemptively force the governor and local communities to keep
shooting ranges and gun stores open during an emergency
declaration, she said. Measures to protect public safety are
needed during emergency situations, not a special law that
prohibits the regulation of guns. She opined that undermining
government authority to take such measures set the stage for
usurping other authorities. She suggested the committee instead
focus on legislation that prepares for emergencies, through
advanced food security, emergency shelters, and improving the
state's public health system. She said SB 136 does not merit
passage.
3:59:03 PM
CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 136.
3:59:09 PM
At ease
4:00:05 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting.
SENATOR COSTELLO referenced earlier testimony and urged the
committee to ask Legislative Legal Services to clarify that the
language on page 2, lines 9-11 states that a person who is not
allowed to possess a gun will not be able to possess a gun
during an emergency declaration under SB 136.
CHAIR SHOWER asked the sponsor to request Legislative Legal
Services and the Department of Law review the bill in light of
the questions that were raised and respond to the committee in
writing.
4:01:29 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND shared that he was living in Louisiana during
hurricane Katrina and he saw that the police were not prepared
to document property ownership so it could be returned. He noted
that murders were also committed in the city during that time.
He said that is the other side of the story and he believes that
disarming citizens during times like that is something to
consider.
CHAIR SHOWER mentioned that some of his friends who were members
of the guard and serving in the city at that time have some
horrific stories about what happened.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether art. III, sec. 20 of the Alaska
Constitution on martial law would supersede the statute.
4:02:51 PM
SENATOR MEYER replied the bill is not about martial law, but he
believes those provisions in the state constitution would
override SB 156. He committed to follow up to make sure that was
correct.
4:03:22 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 136 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 152 Sectional Analysis 1.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| SB 152 sponsor statement 1.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| sb136 non support emails.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 152 32-LS1306-B work draft.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| I support SB136 7 emails.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| fiscal note 2022.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| SB 136 EMAILS OF SUPPORT 40 TOTAL.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| SB 136 EMAILS OF SUPPORT 38 TOTAL.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| sb136 support emails.pdf 44.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| I support SB136 7 emails.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| AK SB 136 - NRA Testimony - Emergency Powers - SUPPORT 2-31-22.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |
| HB 123 support emails 3.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| SB 136 3 e mails of support.pdf |
SSTA 2/15/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 136 |