Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2016 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB200 | |
| SB180 | |
| HB334 | |
| SB174 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 112 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 334 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 174-REG. OF FIREARMS/KNIVES BY UNIV. OF AK
4:04:38 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would
SENATE BILL NO. 174, "An Act relating to the regulation of
firearms and knives by the University of Alaska."
4:05:35 PM
SENATOR PETE KELLY advised there was a conflict between the
Board of Regents policy, the Constitution of the State of
Alaska, and Alaska's Statutes. In 2003, he related, under House
Bill 102, it became legal to have a concealed carry in this
state. He described it as a blanket legislation. He said that
subsequent to that law, the University of Alaska put into policy
that concealed carry was not allowed, put up red signs advising
that no one could have a gun on campus, and there was a campus-
wide restriction on the carrying of weapons. He stated that
the state constitution is specific about the right to keep and
bear arms in the State of Alaska, and it is more strongly
specified than the Constitution of the United States. The
Constitution of the State of Alaska reads that the right to keep
and bear arms is an individual right. Currently, he said, there
are 150 campuses in the United States allowing concealed carry,
and eight states put that into specific legislation. This
legislation was originally drafted to mirror a piece of
legislation that had gone through the process a couple of years
ago. The University of Alaska pointed out their concerns and,
he noted, that a couple of unique concerns involved the fact
that the university deals with domestic violence disputes,
employee and student disputes, investigations of those disputes,
assaults, and it has dormitories. Changes were made in the bill
allowing the university to restrict weapons in specific areas
where the university handles disputes, and that the firearms
must be secure in the dormitories. Essentially, he explained,
the legislation makes it so the university has to be in line
with other places in the state. Alaskans have the right to
defend themselves and, he described the current university
policy as a red sign saying bad guys don't carry weapons here,
which does not meet any test it would put forward to provide
safety, if that is its intent. He related that it unduly
restricts the constitutional rights of Alaskans and it does not
have the authority to do that, because the authority rests
within the legislature and the provisions of the Constitution of
the State of Alaska. That is essentially what this bill does,
he said.
4:10:10 PM
SENATOR KELLY reiterated that this bill recognizes that Alaskans
have the right to keep and bear arms. He explained that a
motivation for the legislation was the San Bernardino shooting,
and multiple shootings in the United States over the past few
years. Since 1955, all but two of the mass public shootings in
the United States have happened in gun free zones. When a
person that normally has the right to defend themselves is told
that they cannot defend themselves in these areas they become
soft targets for the bad guys. He related that one of the items
on the shooters plan, at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University (Virginia Tech) shooting, was that it was a gun
free zone. He said, with regard to the Century movie theater in
Aurora, Colorado shooting, there were eight other theaters in
that city, but that particular theater was posted as a gun free
zone. The choices made by the people who will do violence do it
in places where they do not have people shooting back, they
don't want to be interrupted in their mission by people
defending themselves and, he commented, that many of those
people will ultimately commit suicide. He opined the University
of Alaska has made itself a large target, not only for people
who are unstable, but also members of ISIS that have gained more
and more strength in the country. When ISIS comes to Alaska,
the sponsor wants to be certain Alaskans are prepared, and able,
to defend themselves, and are not breaking the law when they
carry out their "god given right," he said. He stated that the
University of Alaska is against this bill on, probably, a
philosophical basis, or it does not think it is able to manage a
citizenry carrying out its constitutional rights. He noted the
university's complaint that it is not able to restrict someone's
right to carry if they are a threat to themselves or others, and
said that currently exists in law, under a Title 47 hold.
Senator Kelly advised Chair LeDoux that he had to leave ...
4:14:28 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that while she realizes he is a busy
man, there are three questions she would like to ask. She
referred to secured guns in the dormitories, and asked why that
would not be constitutionally prohibited because the dormitories
are the student's living area. She referred to the Senate
Finance Committee zeroing out the fiscal note, and asked for the
rationale. She then referred to letters from the public
pointing out that people with guns are not allowed in the Juneau
Capitol Building where the legislature resides. The public has
asked why the people working at the University of Alaska have to
deal with people with guns when they are not allowed in the
legislative building.
4:15:32 PM
SENATOR KELLY responded, with regard to the dormitories, the
bill reads that people must keep the weapon in a lockbox with a
self-locking mechanism.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what good is having the gun in a lockbox if
someone breaks into the dormitory.
4:15:47 PM
SENATOR KELLY answered that the bill provides that a person
either has it on their person, or it's in a lockbox. It would
be against the rules for a person, leaving their dormitory for a
long period of time, to leave it in there where it could be
stolen. The idea is that with responsible gun ownership,
certain things are wired into gun owners, such that the person
has control of their weapon or has secured their weapon.
Although, he related, the gun can remain in the lockbox if they
are going shopping, or gone for a short period of time. Senator
Kelly said he does not want people leaving their guns in their
dormitories for a long period of time.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the gun has to be in a lockbox if a
person is in their room in the dormitory, or whether it is
alright if they are in their room with the gun.
SENATOR KELLY replied that the gun has to be on their person or
in the lockbox, which is basic responsible gun ownership.
SENATOR KELLY referred to zeroing out the fiscal note and
offered that other states had put forward large fiscal notes,
but those fiscal notes were never funded because they were not
necessary. He offered that the red signs do not work, but areas
where the university is investigating a domestic violence
situation in a certain room, it is reasonable for the university
to restrict weapons from that area. He described it as a simple
matter that does not require wands and magnetic metal detectors,
"it allows them to restrict in that manner." Similarly, he
noted, courts do not allow weapons and the courts have magnetic
metal detectors, but he does not feel that is necessary for the
university because it will not be dealing with heightened levels
of criminality that the courts deals with on an hour-by-hour
basis.
4:18:23 PM
SENATOR KELLY referred to the difference between the university
and legislators [and restricting people with guns], and
responded that this bill is not about the legislature. If there
is a desire for another bill, he commented that he just might
sponsor that bill. This bill is regarding the university campus
and he unsure about adding it to the bill because there may be
complications he is unaware of at this late date, he remarked.
4:18:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the lockbox idea and asked
whether it would be in a student's room or on the main floor,
and whether a lockbox is like a safe.
SENATOR KELLY advised that the lockbox would be in the student's
room, and a lockbox is similar to a safe except it is smaller.
Although, he explained that a safe could be used because the gun
would be even more secure. He further explained that the
lockbox is safer, and the bill specifies that it must be made of
metal.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska providing a greater right to possess arms than the
Constitution of the United States, and asked whether he is aware
of any Alaska Supreme Court case making that finding.
SENATOR KELLY advised that he is mostly tracking court cases for
the Alaska Supreme Court where there has been an argument that
the right to keep and bear arms is a general right in Alaska.
When reading the Constitution of the State of Alaska on this
matter, it reads that it is an individual right, he said.
4:20:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494
(Alaska 1975), involving marijuana where the court found there
was a greater right to privacy than in the federal constitution,
and asked whether he was aware of an Alaska Supreme Court case
that makes a similar finding.
SENATOR KELLY said, no.
4:20:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to his statement regarding the
constitutional right to bear arms, and asked whether a homeowner
has the right to tell his dinner guests that guns are not
allowed in the house and to leave them in the car.
SENATOR KELLY responded that that issue is not contemplated in
this bill, this involves the university.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said that he asked the question in terms
of Senator Kelly's conception of the right to bear arms and how
it weighs on other constitutional rights. He then reiterated
the question and asked whether the neighbor can say that guns
are not allowed in his house, and whether that would be within
his constitutional right to tell the guest to put the gun in the
car.
SENATOR KELLY responded that the property owner, absolutely,
would have the right to say that guns are not allowed in his
home.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that the neighbor's house is not a
public building.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed, and he referred to the comparison
between the Alaska Court System, which has taken the position
that it can bar weapons from the public courthouse, he asked why
it is not within the university's right, as the owner of that
public space, to make these same determinations. He further
asked how the university differs from the court system.
SENATOR KELLY responded that there is somewhat of a wall between
the legislature being able to impose rules on the courts,
although, there is some authority to do that, but there is a
separation of powers between the legislature and the court. The
right to keep and bear arms has evolved over time. The right of
the court to say that the court is in session and guns are left
outside the courthouse has been part of the American culture,
and it is accepted by gun advocates. He noted he is unaware of
anyone that supports guns in the courtroom due to the criminal
nature, contentious nature, and adversarial nature of court.
4:23:36 PM
JOE BYRNES, Staff, Senator Pete Kelly, Alaska State Legislature,
referred to the fiscal note and advised that the University of
Alaska requested $1.3 million because it referenced the same
amount as the University of Idaho system had requested in order
to implement its campus carry system. The State of Idaho
legislature never funded the University of Idaho's request, and
he said, "they found that the fiscal note, and I think we feel
likewise to the fiscal note, on -- the university has offered on
SB 174, um ... it was an attempt to oppose the bill." Although,
he said, the University of Idaho system did implement long over-
due security changes. Currently, he commented, all of the
University of Alaska campus security forces are armed, and are
actual peace officers. He questioned, why allowing law abiding
citizens to carry concealed handguns on campus would require a
sudden increase in security if the university currently believes
its policy adequately protects its campus. He then offered to
go through the sectional of the bill.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked that he focus on the most important aspects
of the bill.
4:25:44 PM
MR. BYRNES agreed, and referred to Section 1, page 1, lines 6-
10, which read as follows:
FINDINGS AND INTENT. The legislature finds that the
individual right to keep and bear arms is a
constitutionally protected right under art. 1, sec.
19, Constitution of the State of Alaska, and may not
be abridged by the Board of Regents of the University
of Alaska. The legislature reserves to the state the
authority to regulate firearms, except as specifically
provided in AS. 14.40.173.
MR. BYRNES advised it adds the findings and intent language to
uncodified law.
MR. BYRNES advised that Sec. 2 amends the University of Alaska
Community College statutes under Title 14, and makes explicit
that the authority to regulate firearms and knives is reserved
to the state, except as provided in statute, the Board of
Regents may not regulate firearms and knives. He explained that
the Board of Regents may regulate, through this legislation,
includes: open carry firearms; restricting the discharge of
firearms on land where there is a reasonable likelihood people,
animals, or property will be in jeopardy; the possession of
firearms or knives in posted restricted access areas, defined as
an area beyond a secure point where visitors are screened and
does not include common areas of ingress and egress open to the
public; and may include university designated rooms where sexual
assault, sexual harassment, or domestic violence are
investigated and victim assistance is provided; and in
university-designated rooms during adjudication of staff and
student disciplinary issues and disputes. He continued that the
Board of Regents may regulate the carrying of firearms in
dormitories or shared living quarters; however, those
regulations must require that the handgun is either carried on
the person or secured in an owner provided lockbox. Persons
living in dormitories must declare to the university their
intention to store a weapon in their dormitory room. He noted
that the university may privately collect and store that
information for no more than one year, and use it for making
housing decisions for students who have expressed they do not
want to share a dormitory room with a person who possesses a
firearm.
4:27:38 PM
MR. BYRNES explained that the sponsor is trying to balance the
rights of students who wish to carry their right to privacy, and
the rights of students not desiring to share their dormitory
room with a person possessing a firearm. Furthermore, he
advised, the bill prohibits the following: the university
creating a database or registry of persons who possess a firearm
on campus; requiring permission before a person may possess a
firearm on campus; or adopting implied consent policies on
campus. The bill also contains a civil liability immunity
section that states the university is immune from civil
liability for any act or omission resulting from a policy or
regulation adopted or enforced under this section of law. He
offered that the University of Alaska requested that provision.
MR. BYRNES explained that Sec. 3, adds an effective date for the
bill of August 1, 2016, to address the university's concern for
enough time to promulgate conformed regulations before the
upcoming semester. He then listed individuals available to
answer questions.
4:29:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed to his reference about restricted
access areas, and asked where it is located within the bill
itself.
4:29:35 PM
MR. BYRNES responded that restricted access areas are mentioned
on page 2, line 16, and are defined on page 4, lines 3-5. He
explained that the restricted access area is a secure point
beyond which visitors are screened, and does not include areas
of common ingress and egress open to the public. He noted that
this exact language is also found in Title 29, Municipal
regulation of firearms statutes, because municipalities are not
allowed to regulate firearms beyond what is found in the law,
but are allowed to erect these restricted access areas.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised that he spoke with friends
who had hunted since they were young children, and also trusted
police officers. He advised that his hunting friends, one of
which had taken a marksmanship course at the University of
Alaska Fairbanks, advised that stress can affect aim, and the
police officers advised that in high stress and dangerous
situations it is difficult to identify hostiles versus friendly
people. He then referenced Senator's Kelly's comments regarding
several mass shootings and opined that the clear implication is
that this is seen as legislation that will advance the right to
self-defense. He asked what precedence exists of attempted mass
killings, cut short by intervention from everyday people who may
carry concealed weapons, and that their actions directly
resulted in a better outcome.
MR. BYRNES responded that he does not have a study at his
disposal, although, he offered that FBI statistics indicate that
retaliating people have an overwhelmingly better chance of
getting out of their ordeal better than if they didn't
retaliate. Although, he acknowledged, that statistic didn't
have examples of how the people retaliated. Anecdotally, he
said, there are many cases where armed citizens have de-
escalated situations by having a gun. He pointed out that when
it comes to violence on campus and the fear that more armed
persons on campus will cause an increase in violence or increase
in suicide, that burden of proof rests with people who wish to
deny the right to begin with. He said that in all of the
concealed carry campuses there has not been a marked increase in
violence or suicide. Therefore, he commented, the evidence
shows that, overall, this would not be an issue.
4:36:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the active shooter
training provided at the Capitol Building, and noted that the
basic take away was that defensive retaliation is appropriate.
He said he agrees there has probably not been an increase of gun
violence or suicides on campuses adopting concealed carry, but
he would like to know what insurance companies think in
evaluating the risks, and how it may, or may not, affect
policies, which is a market based test.
4:37:56 PM
MR. BRYNES answered that he does not have any actuarial analysis
from insurance providers, but there has not been an increase in
violence. He added that the four instances that occurred have
been accidental discharges from irresponsible use with non-life
threatening injuries. He commented that concealed carry is for
the self-defense of the person who is carrying, and not to
protect other people. He advised that the sponsor does not
contemplate or encourage creating amateur armed swat teams
roaming around campuses to take out the bad guys in mass
shooting, and described it as irresponsible behavior. In many
situations, he commented, where a person has been threatened,
the mere brandishing of a gun may have de-escalated that
situation, and currently on campus that is not allowed.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that Europe does not have concealed
carry due to stringent gun control laws, and it is highly
unlikely the people in Brussels or Paris were carrying guns.
Alaska, she said, has a fairly broad concealed carry law and
Alaska could be the only area a study could take place.
4:41:24 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX turned to Michael Hostina, University of Alaska
Fairbanks, and noted that, currently, guns are not allowed on
campus, but Alaska has a broad concealed carry law in general.
She asked how he would know whether someone is carrying a gun,
because they are not required to go through metal detectors and
they are not frisked.
4:42:07 PM
MICHAEL HOSTINA, General Counsel, clarified that weapons are
permitted on campus under certain circumstances and students may
have their weapons stored in secure storage. There are various
events on campus to which weapons may be carried, such as gun
shows, the rifle team where people may check in and check out
their weapons, and people in faculty and single housing are
permitted to store weapons. Weapons are not permitted in the
dormitories and concealed carry is not generally permitted on
campus. He explained that the university becomes aware of
someone carrying a weapon when they act in an inappropriate
manner, such as threatening someone, demonstrating their weapon,
or the weapon is mishandled and falls out. When the university
becomes aware of a person carrying a gun it takes steps to
administratively remove those weapons from campus.
4:43:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the restricted access areas
listed in the bill and asked his understanding of what the
university would be required to do, to create those areas.
MR. HOSTINA responded that a sign is not sufficient to establish
a restricted access area, and currently the university, by
policy, may limit weapons in areas such as, a disciplinary
hearing or an investigative meeting. With the passage of this
bill, the university would not be able to enforce a policy
unless it had established a secure point beyond which visitors
are screened. In order to regulate weapons in those areas, the
university would have to establish the restricted access area
and, he said, that's the definition of a restricted access area.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether that involves metal
detectors or a guard sitting at the secure access point using a
hand wand to check for weapons.
MR. HOSTINA answered that that is not clear and, he pointed out
the best way to set up the university's restricted access area
is not clear. Therefore, he explained, the fiscal note has an
expense associated with it, which is now limited to the cost of
a security analysis.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the university could have a
secure access point, without having something different,
screening for weapons. Or, he asked, would the university have
to have something that screens for weapons to make it qualify as
a restricted access area.
4:45:49 PM
MR. HOSTINA opined that someone disadvantage by the university's
enforcement of a restricted access area, that did not include
some type of screening, would certainly have an argument that
the university had not complied with the law. The university's
ability to enforce requires it to establish some form of secure
point, and some form of screening, otherwise it will not be able
to enforce that aspect of the law.
4:46:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that, currently, the university basically
does not allow any guns on campus, and asked why it does not
have a wand to test everyone. She then asked why, if the
university is now allowing guns on campus, that people would
have to go through the wand exercise. Clearly, she pointed out,
a good portion of the university is in Fairbanks and there must
be many people carrying guns in Fairbanks.
MR. HOSTINA replied that he does not know whether that is the
case or not, or whether it is more likely in Anchorage, or not.
CHAIR LEDOUX interject that the university doesn't know whether
a person is carrying because a wand is not used; therefore, if
it is so important to check everyone, why isn't the university
using the wands now.
MR. HOSTINA explained that it is a matter of being able to
respond when the university becomes aware of an issue.
Currently, he said, if the university becomes aware of someone
violating its policy, the university can do something about it.
Under this bill, the university would not be able to do
something about someone carrying on campus unless the university
had established a restricted access area. He pointed out that
the bill establishes a restricted access area to prevent weapons
from being involved in adjudications or investigations.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether, currently, the university
is involved in investigations of sexual assault, sexual
harassment, domestic violence, and providing victim assistance.
MR. HOSTINA responded that the university is involved in
investigations and assistance on a daily basis. He explained
there are issues such as, sexual harassment, sexual assault,
other assaults, student disciplinary issues, staff disciplinary
issues, disputes involving student grades, and removal from
programs. Those adjudications and investigations take place on
a daily basis on the campuses of the university, he reiterated.
4:48:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that, under this bill, the
university would be required to create something akin to the
courthouse wherein people are screened prior to entering the
courthouse. He said that under this bill, the university would
no longer assume people were obeying the rules of the campus and
not carrying weapons.
MR. HOSTINA agreed.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why the university would currently assume
that people are not carrying weapons just because a sign is
posted that says "no guns." She continued that the courthouse
does not assume that people do not have guns.
MR. HOSTINA opined that the university does not assume that
people do not have guns, but it does let people know that that
is the policy of the university. The university can ask them to
declare whether they have a firearm, and can ask them to remove
it from the campus. Alternatively, he noted, with younger
people who carry, many may be responsible, but there will be
some who will brag to their friends or roommates [about the
gun], or possibly try to intimidate someone. Currently, when
the university becomes aware of that [behavior], it can take
action. Although, he said, that would not be the case under
this bill, it would have to occur in a secure area.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification that if
someone was brandishing a gun, intimidating, or showing off,
asked whether anyone would have any recourse, or whether that
become the new norm.
MR. HOSTINA asked whether that was a question for the
university.
CHAIR LEDOUX answered yes, because he is the general counsel for
the university.
MR. HOSTINA responded that, under SB 174, if someone was
brandishing a gun there may be an issue of some type of threat,
assault, or intimidation. There is a difference between a
criminal and university proceeding, and the university could
conduct an administrative proceeding if someone were
intimidating someone with a weapon, he said.
4:52:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that a person can intimidate without
having a gun, and whether currently the university would act if
someone was intimidating someone else on the campuses.
MR. HOSTINA replied, absolutely. He then asked Chair LeDoux
whether he could offer brief remarks because there may be a
misapprehension that the university is in direct opposition to
this bill, which is not the case. The university is seeking an
amendment to this bill to manage firearms in specific
situations, and it does not believe the current language allows
it to do that effectively.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed, opened public testimony, and advised Mr.
Hostina that he could testify.
4:53:26 PM
MR. HOSTINA advised that the Board of Regents is seeking six
amendments to SB 174, the Senate Education Standing Committee
Substitute included four of the amendments sought by the Board
of Regents, and this bill only includes two and creates
additional issues. He pointed out that the amendments sought by
the university are grounded in existing state policy and
existing state law. Those amendments would apply to situations
similar to those situations in state law or under legislative
policy where weapons are prohibited. For example, he advised
that weapons are precluded under state law in the Capital
Building, concealed carry is precluded for people under the age
of 21, concealed carry in residences without the express
permission of an adult resident, loaded firearms in places where
intoxicating liquor is served, possession in childcare
facilities, possession in court system facilities, possession in
domestic violence and sexual assault shelters, and possession in
schools from pre-school through secondary school. These
existing policies in law, he explained, are constitutional for
the reasons Antonin Gregory Scalia, Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States noted in District of Columbia
v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which involved sensitive places
for government property, and were based on sound public policy.
For the same reason, the University of Alaska's amendments,
would be constitutional, they wouldn't criminalize conduct, are
narrowly tailored to achieve the same public safety goals, would
not exclude weapons from campus, but the amendments would permit
the Board of Regents to manage specific high conflict, high risk
situations common on its campuses. He mentioned there are two
problems the current language of SB 174 creates, such that it
does not adequately address secure storage of handguns and does
not address storage of rifles or knives. It also technically
allows concealed carry of rifles, as well as open carry of
knives.
4:56:05 PM
MR. HOSTINA referred to risk of harm to self or others, and
noted previous testimony offered that Title 47 takes care of
that. He said that Title 47 is a high threshold to meet,
because it involves committing someone involuntarily to a
hospital and essentially imprisoning them. It happens rarely,
he said it is not a useful tool for the university to use in
dealing with students and employees, and it simply is not a good
way to go when dealing with a student population the university
is trying to help and support, or an employee population. He
referred to the testimony regarding mass shootings on campuses,
and noted that those are still fairly rare events, but suicide
in Alaska is not a rare event. He explained that suicide is one
of the leading causes of death among persons 15-24 years of age,
and referred to the memorandum he provided to the committee
earlier. Suicide attempts by firearms are a more successful
means because people can't change their minds after the trigger
has been pulled. The university believes that the time to act
is when behavior indicates a risk of harm to self or others, and
that Title 47 does not provide an effective answer. He said the
university would appreciate an amendment allowing it to deal
with this as the Senate Education Standing Committee [Version N]
provided.
4:58:19 PM
MR. HOSTINA explained that Amendments 2 and 3, involve health,
counseling services, or other services, related to sexual
harassment or violence located within the facilities used for
adjudication of student and employee disciplinary issues or
disputes. The university appreciates that this bill allows it
to establish restricted access areas to address weapons in these
areas, but doing so will involve some expense. He said, the
issue will have to be addressed to create those restricted
access areas, and make the rules enforceable as disputes are
being adjudicated, or dealing with people possibly involved in
domestic violence or sexual assault.
4:59:09 PM
MR. HOSTINA advised that the fourth amendment is regulation in
student dorms and other shared living quarters. To be clear, he
explained, the university is not seeking authority to regulate
single family dwellings or individual apartments, but rather in
shared living quarters. He advised that the discussion is
concreate living, RA's manage these areas, and impose
discipline. The dormitories themselves and shared apartments
involve shared facilities, such as bathrooms and lounges. He
referred to allegations that the university has few students
under the age of 21, and clarified that 40 percent of the
students in the dorms are over 21. Therefore, there will be a
mix of people legally permitted to conceal carry, and those who
are not. He pointed out there are transient visitors in dorms,
the rooms are sometimes frequently visited by other students,
alcohol is present, and allowing concealed carry in dorms and
other shared housing results in concealed handguns and knives
being accessible in a volatile environment, unlike any private
residence. He said the lockbox portion of the bill provides
that the students provide their own lockboxes, it is not clear
how that will solve a problem since lockboxes have to be
installed and the bill does not provide for that. The bill also
does not provide technical specifications for lockboxes, some of
which are easily defeated with a paperclip or simply dropping
them upside down. On the other hand, he commented, installing
quality lockboxes in every room is a complex and expensive
issue. He noted that another issue in this area is that the
committee substitute appears to inadvertently provide for
storage of long guns in university housing, it doesn't make any
provision allowing the university to require secure storage of
long guns in university housing. He asked that the committee
amend this bill to allow the university to regulate weapons in
shared housing and dormitories.
5:01:46 PM
MR. HOSTINA explained that the fifth amendment involves K-12
dedicated programs on campus, it does not include K-12 students
occasionally being on campus, visiting a museum, or happening to
walk across campus. This amendment relates to dedicated
programs, and is a narrow amendment that only applies to
portions of the facility used for K-12 dedicated programs, and
only while the program is occurring. He explained that these
all involve programs where the university assumes the role of a
parent or guardian, and does not bear any resemblance to public
places where children just happen to be present and accompanied
by their parents. He advised that the ability to regulate in
these areas, where dedicated K-12 programs are going on, would
be consistent with current law on K-12 property. It would avoid
potential accidents, and the university would be able to apply
the same standard of care for K-12 as is the case on K-12
property.
5:03:06 PM
MR. HOSTINA related that due to the nature of the university
premises, it believes that a conceal carry permit is useful. He
point out that of the eight states requiring a public university
to allow concealed carry, six require a permit, and two of those
require an enhanced concealed carry permit. He reminded the
committee that the university operates in close quarters,
classrooms, laboratories, libraries and other communal space,
and related it is appropriate that students have some training
and knowledge about gun safety and applicable law. The permit
would also exclude certain individuals with criminal
convictions, including class A misdemeanors for domestic
violence or stalking, from carrying concealed weapons on campus.
He noted that the university asks the committee to adopt the
Senate Education Standing Committee Substitute for SB 174 in
place of the version passed by the full Senate, and to also
include the two additional amendments which provide for
regulation for K-12, and a permit.
5:04:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether insurance will rise
in any manner if this bill passes.
MR. HOSTINA replied that insurance companies often give
insurance company type answers to that question. The university
is self-insured for the first $2 million in claims against the
university. The university's excess carrier indicated it will
let the university know the impact of this bill when the final
bill is in place, and the policies and regulations of the
university are in place, after the bill is passed, he said.
5:05:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether he had spoken with
other universities in jurisdictions where similar legislation
was passed, and if so, how that affected their insurance
premiums.
5:05:29 PM
MR. HOSTINA said he was unsure whether the university asked
about insurance premiums with other universities, although, it
has asked about increased costs. He opined that the University
of Idaho implemented screening procedures for its stadiums and
added additional police. He referred to the earlier comment
that all three of the University of Alaska campuses have armed
police forces, and clarified that the Southeast campus does not
have a police force.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked why a person should be required to
have a permit to carry on campus if they are not required to
have a permit walking down the street.
MR. HOSTINA responded that the university has specific
responsibilities for its students and employees on its campuses,
in the event it doesn't respond when someone behaves
irresponsibly, liability may result. Whereas, municipalities
are not responsible for certain events taking place on public
streets.
5:07:12 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether part of the bill exempts the
university from liability.
MR. HOSTINA agreed that part of this bill does exempt the
university, except "lawyers live for finding ways around
provisions like that under certain civil rights actions." While
it would prevent simple negligence type claims, it is not a
guarantee, he said,
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there is any guarantee there wouldn't
be claims brought against a municipality when someone is walking
down a street.
MR. HOSTINA responded that in terms of a shooting incident, the
municipality wouldn't ordinarily be subject to a claim.
Obviously, he pointed out, if the police were called and they
failed to respond, or responded inappropriately, a claim could
arise but not the simple event itself. Whereas, he stated, on a
university campus the university would likely be viewed as
somehow responsible for failing to ensure safety.
5:08:37 PM
MR. HOSTINA, in response to Chair LeDoux as to whether he was
aware of any other university being dinged for that, answered
the University of Alaska was dinged many years past, in a
negligence action. He agreed with Chair LeDoux that the bill
exempts the university from negligence actions.
5:09:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the fiscal note describing a
need for a consultant to estimate what is necessary to create a
secure area, and asked reason Mr. Hostina could not provide a
ballpark range.
MR. HOSTINA explained that, at this point, the university
believes it best to not attempt a guess.
In terms of the university trying to be fiscally restrained, it
would be best to obtain professional advice on how to arrange
sensitive areas involved in issues, such as investigation and
disciplinary actions, to minimize the cost, potentially, of
establishing secure restricted access areas, he explained.
5:11:13 PM
MAC COOPER, Associated General Counsel, Office of General
Counsel, University of Alaska, responded that the university's
rough estimate on the cost of a metal detector ranges from
$5,000 - $10,000 per unit - with wands costing a few hundred
dollars per unit, and a full-time security guard at
approximately $50,000 - $80,000 per year. The University of
Kansas is addressing the secured access issue in response to a
law effective in July, 2017. The University of Kansas advised
if it secured every building in its system, it would be beyond
its financial means to do so. Mr. Cooper remarked that the
University of Kansas is currently preparing the same type of
study to determine what buildings and areas of buildings should
be secured.
5:12:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER made a point of order that the committee
is far afield from debating the bill, and offered to make a
motion to zero out the fiscal note.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised the conversation is allowed to continue,
and subsequent to public testimony, the fiscal note debate can
take place.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he would hold his questions until the
fiscal note debate so the public would have a chance to testify.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted the public testimony list is fairly long, and
asked Mr. Cooper whether he would be available tomorrow.
MR. COOPER said he would be available tomorrow.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony, and advised she is
limiting testimony to two minutes per person to allow time for
all witnesses.
5:13:32 PM
KEN LANDFIELD related that he occasionally takes classes at the
Katchemak Bay campus of the Kenai Peninsula College, and shared
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article VII Section 3,
which read:
The University of Alaska shall be governed by a board
of regents. The regents shall be appointed by the
governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the
members of the legislature in joint session. The board
shall, in accordance with law, formulate policy and
appoint the president of the university. He shall be
the executive officer of the board.
MR. LANDFIELD said that beyond the Board of Regents and the
president of the University of Alaska, there are chancellors
responsible for their respective campuses, not to mention
various branches with their own directors and respective
administrations. He asked whether these officials and
administrations are not the proper avenue for establishing
university policy in general, and in particular. While there is
a state policy allowing concealed carry statewide, he related
that weapons are not allowed in public places, such as the
legislature and the court system. He suggested that this
legislation is a clear case of state government overreach and
questioned why, in the face of a crippling budget crisis, the
legislature is spending precious time on an expensive, non-
urgent, non-issue, outside of its constitutional jurisdiction.
He asked that the bill not be enacted.
5:16:45 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:16 p.m. to 5:28 p.m.
5:28:54 PM
ERIN HOOD said he is testifying on his own behalf, teaches at
the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), and opined that one of
the main justifications for this bill is righting some sort of
constitutional wrong. Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution
of the State of Alaska was amended in 1994 to confer broader gun
rights, he said, and then read the instruction to voters, "This
amendment 'quote' would not overturn or invalidate state laws
restricting access of possession of firearms in school
building." Therefore, people voting in 1994 were told this
amendment was still in accordance with banning firearms in
school buildings. He said he would read from an Alaska Supreme
Court decision, as follows: "In limited respects as, 'quote,'
the Board of Regents is, 'quote,' co-equal rather than
subordinate to that of the executive or legislative arms of
government." That language "in the constitution," implies that
there should be deference to the Board of Regents with regard to
policies within the University of Alaska's campuses. He
explained that the University of Alaska, Board of Regents voted
nine to two against this bill, and in working at the university
and talking with students, staff, and administrators, the nine
to two vote is representative of the amount of support the bill
has on campus, with approximately 80 percent against the bill,
he remarked. He pointed to the idea of government overreach and
related that the people of King Cove are angry and disrespected
because they can't build a road to the airport because the
federal government is ignoring their particular concerns and
overruling them. The university campus is overwhelmingly
against this bill and its concerns are being ignored. From a
practical standpoint, the focus has been almost entirely on
school shootings, 30,000 shootings in the United States every
year, of those, two-thirds are suicides, one-third are
homicides, and less than one percent are justifiable homicides.
Therefore, there is no reason to think that by putting guns on
campus will doing anything except increase suicides and
homicides, he related.
5:32:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked the subject he teaches at UAS.
MR. HOOD responded, Environmental Science.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to his statement that the students
on campus are 80 percent ...
MR. HOOD interjected that that is his personal opinion after
speaking with student and other staff about guns and hunting,
and opined that the support is almost negligible between staff,
the administration, and students.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether his opinion is primarily based
upon students in the environmental science classes.
MR. HOOD advised that he teaches all majors in his introductory
education classes.
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to his statement that he has no reason to
believe this bill will do anything other than increase suicides
and homicides, and asked whether he was familiar with the other
schools that have now initiated the guns on campus system. She
opined there has been no uptick in homicides or suicides.
5:33:42 PM
MR. HOOD answered that only 8 states out of [50] allow guns on
school campuses, and school shootings and justifiable homicides
are a tiny fraction of the total number of shootings in the
United States. He remarked that it is more important to ask why
42 states do not want guns in their school, and to consider, in
this budget crisis, whether the legislature wants to attract
students from out-of-state, and to consider parents being told
guns are in the dormitories where people are drinking.
5:34:50 PM
SALLY RUE said she is a long-time resident of Alaska, is
speaking on her own behalf, and urged the committee to oppose
this bill. She offered that she grew up in a hunting family, is
a gun owner, has enjoyed hunting and passing on the tradition to
her children, and she is not against guns. Although, she
pointed out, she is against the legislature forcing the Board of
Regents to allow guns almost everywhere on campus. Currently,
the university allows weapons on campus in a reasonable manner
that is not in conflict with the Second Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States. Restricting firearms in
government buildings and schools has been recognized by the
courts, and the Alaska legislature, as presumptively lawful and
outside the scope of constitutional protections. The right to
bear arms is not the same as the right to carry arms all of the
time and anywhere. This bill is trying to address a problem
that does not exist, she opined. Alaska's university system is
first and foremost a place of learning where students, faculty,
and staff need to feel safe to freely discuss ideas and explore
differences. She described it as a place where young people are
growing into adults, where they experience the ups and downs of
adolescence and young adulthood. This often includes
experimenting with alcohol and drugs, navigating romantic
relationships and breakups, and sometimes dealing with a mental
health crisis. The students live in dorms and close quarters
where friction can occur, and mixing firearms into this volatile
environment does nothing to increase safety, and does everything
to make it inevitable there will be avoidable tragedies. Alaska
has the highest rates of suicide, gun violence, and sexual
assault in the nation, and there is no evidence this bill will
do anything to lessen that and, it could likely worsen it.
During this time of Alaska's budget crisis, the university is
facing huge cuts to its budget, cutting academic programs and up
to hundreds of faculty positions and, she remarked, this
legislation would divert even more resources from academics and
student support. Alaska and the Alaska legislature face
momentous choices this session that will determine the future
health and welfare of the entire state, she said. This bill is
not needed, potentially harmful to Alaska's young people and the
university system, and does nothing to focus on its biggest
issues. She urged the committee to oppose SB 174.
5:37:59 PM
FRANK RUE said he lives in Juneau, and is a long-time Alaskan
hunter and gun owner. He related that he is aware of a suicide
that took place because the gun was left unlocked, and once the
decision is made to pull the trigger it can't be un-pulled.
Allowing concealed weapons on campus will not make campuses
safer, but rather more depressed suicidal students will have the
means to kill themselves, and firearms will be readily available
at that moment of no return. He commented that rather than
students being hungover and seeking help from a counselor there
will be more dead students. The same is true, he noted, for
those moments when a student is angry about being dumped by
their girlfriend or given a bad grade by a professor. He opined
that rather than an incident of assault or harassment,
counseling, and/or legal proceedings, there will be dead
girlfriends and faculty. The same runs true for someone drunk
on alcohol and a fight. He pointed out that the most promising
students and faculty are the people likely to go elsewhere due
to the presence of concealed weapons on the University of
Alaska's campuses. He advised that the same is happening
elsewhere in the country where weapons on campus legislation is
passed. For example, he pointed out that the dean of the highly
touted University of Texas Architecture School left Texas to
become the Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Design School
in large part, because the newly passed Texas law allowed
concealed guns on campus. He pointed to the sponsor's remark to
people with the same above decisions, "Don't let the door hit
you on the ass on your way out the door," or words to that
effect, he said. He related that most people, who care about
the University of Alaska system, disagree with that sentiment,
and agree that Alaska keeping its best students and faculty will
improve the experience and education for all students. He
related that President Mark Hamilton remarked, as follows: "The
10 percent free tuition to 10 percent greatest highest students
was the one thing that made the -- increased the academic rigor
of the university because now you had the very best students in
Alaska." Mr. Rue reiterated that, that one thing alone raised
the academic standards of the university, and he opined that
this bill will drive some of those students away.
5:40:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to his mention of other
universities enacting these laws, and asked whether those state
schools saw a change after they added the concealed carry
provisions in terms of students applying to go to those schools.
MR RUE answered that he was not aware of any.
5:41:19 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to his concerns about dead girlfriends,
dead boyfriends, suicides, and so forth, and pointed out that
many students live off campus. The university doesn't make it a
condition of attending UAA, UAF, UAS, that no students are able
to live off campus and have guns. She advised she does not see
the distinction between living on campus and living off campus.
MR. RUE opined that situations can evolve quickly. He offered
the scenario of people drinking in dorms, suddenly they are
pushing each other, and a fight breaks out. Students are in
close proximity to each other in a dorm, which is far more
volatile than someone living in a house five miles off campus,
he opined.
5:42:49 PM
CALLIE CONERTON, Student Government President, University of
Alaska Southeast, advised she is a student at the University of
Alaska Southeast (UAS), and serves as student government
president, and as the statewide coalition of student leader's
vice-chair. She commented that there are multiple reasons she
opposes SB 174, campus is no place for guns. Contrary to what
the committee has been told, there are fiscal impacts and
Alaskan students cannot afford it. Major stakeholders from the
university, including its president, the Board of Regents
through the school faculty have opposed this dangerous and
expensive legislation. A campus is no place for guns because,
especially in dorms, guns and alcohol leads to impaired
judgement about whether to shoot a gun, and impairs the aim when
firing. A Columbia University study found that one-half of
United States students binge drink or abuse illegal or
prescription drugs. She said there is also an elevated risk for
a firearm suicide as it is a one-shot deal and suicide attempts
with guns are more successful than other suicide attempts.
Alaska has huge problems with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD)
which also leads to depression in students, people age 18-20
represent 4.4 percent of the total United States population but
those people commit 17 percent of all gun homicides. Some
students may be responsible gun owners; however, there are often
situations where they are in close proximity with students who
do not have the knowledge or responsibility of gun handling and
think of guns as a toy. Two weeks after the State of Idaho
passed a bill allowing guns on campus, during class a professor
literally shot himself in the foot accidentally, and she
questioned whether Alaska wants that in its lecture halls and
classrooms. She pointed out that students will end up paying
for guns on campus, and with the current budget crunch it is
irresponsible to pass a bill that will cost students money. She
asked the committee to vote no on SB 174, and asked whether a
responsible gun owner at a party will lockup the gun, or
continue playing beer-pong.
5:45:57 PM
JENNIFER McCLUNG, Instructor, University of Alaska Anchorage,
said she is an instructor at the University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA), and is opposed to the bill, because one of the premises
on which the bill was written is false. The FBI released a
study of active shooter incidents in the United States between
2000-2013, including shootings in schools, movie theaters,
business districts, commercial areas, gun free zones, and areas
allowing concealed weapons. The study found that less than one
percent of active shooter events were resolved by an ordinary
citizen with a firearm. She continued that out of 160
incidents, over a 14 year period, only one was stopped by a good
guy with a gun. In contrast, that study stated that 21
incidents ended by unarmed civilians. Therefore, good people
without guns, actually had more successful endings in active
shooter incidents than good guys with guns. On the other hand,
she commented, Alaska has a suicide problem and its college
students are not exempt. During the last two years, there have
been 18 suicide attempts at UAA alone, and likely some of them
would have completed if they had access to a firearm, because
suicide attempts with a firearm are almost always fatal. She
opined that by increasing student access to firearms, especially
in the dorms, there is a real risk more students will be enabled
to take their own lives, and that risk is not worth a less than
one percent chance of a good guy with a gun ending a mass
shooting that may, or may not, ever occur.
5:48:17 PM
ROBIN SMITH said she opposes the bill. She offered that if she
knew someone in the classroom had a gun, it would impact how she
acted and that she would hesitate to approach the person or
engage in a conversation. Particularly, she related, not a
divisive conversation, and it would have a chilling impact on
their dialogue. Unfortunately, she remarked, guns are
everywhere and society has not found a way to prevent
individuals with mental illness, violent histories, or criminal
histories, from accessing guns. She indicated that this bill
buys into the myth that a good guy with a gun could resolve a
shooting incident earlier than the police response. She
referred to an FBI report, released in 2014, which counters that
myth, and written by a special operations military person who
had recently retired. She related that he said, "There are
groups of individuals, special operators both military and law
enforcement, who train for years to be good at close quarters
shooting. Shooting with discernment, keeping your head clear,
and making snap decisions before you pull the trigger, all while
being shot at by the enemy. After dedicating their lives to
being good operators in those extreme circumstances, even those
professionals make mistakes." In some cases, she said, a good
guy with a gun can neutralize the threat and help save lives,
but it doesn't happen often. She related that people need to
know it is a fallacy to believe that the everyday gun owner can
be expected to make all of the right choices in a dangerous,
fast moving situation like a mass shooting with high powered
weapons. She referred to the FBI report offered by the previous
witness that the [shootings] took place at schools because the
shooters were associated with the schools, and not because they
were gun-free zones. She remarked that in many cases [the
shooter] did not know that they were gun-free zones. She asked
that the committee oppose this bill.
5:51:28 PM
CAROLINE STORM, Alaska PTA Advocacy Committee, described this
bill as, effectively, overreaching from the legislature to the
Board of Regents. She opposes this bill, she said, because the
Board of Regents believes this legislation is unsafe for its
campuses, and the legislature does not have the right to make a
decision for the people who know what life on campus is all
about.
5:52:34 PM
PATRICK RACE advised he lives in Juneau and described himself as
"another soft target" testifying against this bill. While
listening to the sponsor's testimony, he said he was amazed the
sponsor had no relatable statistics and relied entirely on
anecdotes about "dudes with crowbars." He said he has a
computer science degree from UAF, and is the third generation in
his family to graduate from Alaska's university system. He
described his freshman roommate as an unstable, unhealthy young
man who pulled a knife on him in the heat of the moment. He
noted that he was unsure whether he would be testifying today if
the roommate had instead pulled a handgun. Mr. Race related
that he is concerned about what is being created here with no
upside to it, except the possibility of increased campaign
funding. This bill begs the question of whether the University
of Alaska is violating the Constitution of the State of Alaska,
and he reminded the committee that this is a question for the
courts. It shouldn't be settled through a patchwork quilt of
legislation, one bill for the university, another bill for the
Capitol Building, and another bill later on down the road for K-
12, and he asked that the committee discard this bill.
5:54:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Race to describe the
incident during his freshman year.
MR. RACE responded that his roommate fancied himself as a "mob
boss" kind of guy, he watched a lot of "Good Fellas" type of
entertainment, listened to Frank Sinatra, and had knives and
probably guns, but not in their room. They got into an argument
over a Nintendo game, and as young men are wont to do, it
escalated into shoving. Eventually the roommate pulled out a
knife and threatened to slit his throat while he was sleeping,
he described. Mr. Race said he started down the hallway and due
to the noise, many people were in their doorways. He then ran
past the crowd, the crowd closed in behind him [blocking the
roommate], and he moved into a different room after the
incident. The incident he described is not uncommon, he pointed
out, there are many fights and violence on campus that is not
reported, there is a lot of drinking, events happen, there is a
lot of miscommunication, and introducing guns into this
environment will not help anyone. If this bill is passed out of
committee and someone kills someone, the committee will have to
live with that. He offered the scenario of someone coming at
him with a knife, and "I pull out a gun, now I've killed him.
How does that change my life?"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN responded that Mr. Race's life would be
changed by being alive.
MR. RACE agreed that he is alive, and fortunately has not had to
murder anyone.
5:56:31 PM
BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Lobbyist, National Rifle Association,
State of California Assemblyman, said he has a lot to unpack in
two minutes, and he is the Alaska liaison for the Alaska
National Rifle Association speaking in support of SB 174. He
said that self-defense is a fundamental right and under existing
law there is an arbitrary line, on one side of that line is a
law abiding adult, age 21 years and older, that can choose to
carry a firearm for self-protection on one side of the line, but
they can't on the other. He explained that this bill is about
not removing that line, but shrinking the line tremendously,
shrinking the gun-free zone that is currently in effect. He
referred to the question asking the university what it is doing
now, and he said the university is not doing anything. He
continued that if it is not doing anything now, then nothing
will change in allowing law abiding adults to choose to provide
a means of self-protection. He said it will not create the
tremendous, disastrous, catastrophic, situation the committee
has heard.
MR. JUDY said that this issue comes down to emotion versus facts
and, he described "the emotion is pretty astounding in this
committee room and I appreciate your indulgence." Gun free
zones have proven to be a public policy failure, and every mass
killing has happened in a so-called gun free zone. He remarked
that criminals do not obey gun free zones, they are only
respected by law abiding citizens. He said that the reality of
designating an area as a gun free zone, doesn't create a gun
free zone, it creates an area where only the victims will be
disarmed.
5:58:31 PM
MR. JUDY referred to the eight states discussed in previous
testimony, and said there is not a problem. This may, or may
not, make campuses safer, but the evidence is that it won't make
campuses more dangerous. He noted that the committee has heard
dire predictions of catastrophe, and said it didn't happen in
1993 when Alaska passed the concealed weapon permit law, or when
Alaska went permit-less carry, or in 2013 when Alaska passed a
"no duty to retreat" bill. He commented that these same
arguments are heard each time a bill passes in other states and
the campuses are not becoming dangerous areas. There was
testimony regarding Alaska's tremendous fiscal problems, and he
commented that if there are security issues associated with
irresponsible people and their firearms, that's a problem now
and the money needs to be spent, under the current
circumstances, because this bill is not going to make the
situation any worse. The states that have chosen to pass laws
and allow law abiding adults to carry a means of self-protection
haven't experienced any problems. Mr. Judy suggested a negative
fiscal note associated with this bill because it will
dramatically shrink the area the university will have to enforce
a gun free policy, and he urged no amendments to SB 174.
6:00:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether he was saying that by
dramatically shrinking the authority of the university to
control a campus, it will save the university millions of
dollars.
MR. JUDY disagreed, and he said he did not say it would save the
university millions of dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN argued that Mr. Judy said it should have a
negative fiscal note, and he asked for an estimate of how much
the committee should think about in his view of the estimated
negative fiscal note.
MR. JUDY replied "I don't know, a dollar, five dollars, a
thousand dollars?" He said in the State of Idaho, the
observation by the legislature was that the fiscal note was
unfounded and bloated. He opined that the fiscal note should be
zero, and the bill should be passed out.
6:02:43 PM
STEVEN SAMUELSON said he supports the bill due to the reasons
previously stated, and he could see how having guns on the
university campuses could be contentious. Although, with the
fiscal notes, this bill pertains to people who are already
responsible gun owners who want to know that they can have their
concealed weapon on a campus with adults. Alaska, through
history, has held strong on access to guns due to subsistence
rights and personal use rights, and he described this as just
another level. He advised that he briefly attended UAA and was
more afraid of the moose keeping him in his car than someone
potentially having a gun on campus. He then mentioned that he
had been in the areas of Moses Lake, Washington, and New Town,
Connecticut, at the time of the shootings and they were eye
openers. He opined that Governor Frank Murkowski moved to
permit-less concealed carry and nothing came of it.
6:05:08 PM
ALYSE GALVIN advised she has children who have taken classes at
the University of Alaska Anchorage, (UAA), and described them as
bright children younger than 18 years of age. She expressed
that she would not allow her children on campus if it allows
guns so freely, and opined that many parents agree with her.
She asked whether the legislature was, currently, in a place
where it listens to people from out-of-state, and allows those
people to tell Alaskans what to do, or will the legislature
listen to the people of Alaska. She said that, up until now,
the state has been good at dictating its own future and she is
hopeful the state is not moving to a new place. It is
important, she pointed out, to recognize that children younger
than 18 years of age are frequently on campus taking classes and
in dorms. She remarked that having a gun in a lockbox is not
the same as a gun in a safe. Alaskans believe they should be
able to hunt and do the things important to them as Alaskans,
and the Alaskan hunters she knows use a gun safe. She pointed
out that the entire amount of time spent on this bill rather
than the state's big problem is a concern, and she opposes the
bill.
6:07:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that the legislature addresses
many issues and frequently experts from out-of-state testify.
MS. GALVIN stated she appreciates that experts would sometimes
testify, but that is different from paid lobbyists.
CHAIR LEDOUX related that the committee offers the opportunity
for people from all over to testify, and noted the mail she has
received from Alaskan is tilted toward favoring this bill rather
than opposing this bill.
6:08:58 PM
BUTCH MOORE advised that in 2014 there were 145 gun deaths in
Alaska, and none of those deaths occurred on college campuses.
He said his daughter, Bree, was murdered, in 2014, by her
boyfriend, she was a 20-year old UAA student, and her boyfriend
was 21 years old. Within the majority of the 145 gun deaths in
2014, 79 percent were suicide, and the majority of all of those
were ages 18-26. The sponsor of this bill does not have any
statistics that Alaska has a problem. Mr. Moore said within his
research of mass shootings in Alaska, he could not find a mass
shooting in Alaska until he researched back to 1984, at Manly
Hot Springs. Alaska does not have a problem with guns on campus
and this bill is not necessary. He advised that Bree Moore was
proficient in the use of all weapons, was an active sporting
shooter, and he supports the country's Second Amendment rights.
If this bill passes, the young adult who turns 21 years old can
walk into Fred Meyer and buy a handgun having had no training.
He stressed that guns for people with no education on the use of
guns is not needed in Alaska's communities which is a community-
wide safety concern. He stressed this bill is not needed to
protect Alaskan's constitutional rights, and to let the bill die
in committee to protect the kids. He continued that a person
has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being
shot on a college campus in the United States.
6:12:25 PM
MIKE NEWBERN, Assistant Director of Public Relations, Buckeyes
for Concealed Carry, National Rifle Association, said he is in
support of the campus carry bill, then referred to previous
testimony advising this bill will not make college campuses any
safer, and responded that it could not be said that SB 174 will
make campuses any less safe. He related that shootings in the
street did not happen when Alaska passed the concealed carry
bill in 1993, and the same for the State of Ohio in 2004. The
State of Ohio recently "got restaurant carry" and people were
worried about blood pouring out of the bars where alcohol is
served, and that hasn't happened. He mentioned a Texas A&M
University study found no increase in crime with respect to
campus concealed carry. He said Texas just passed a law, and
other universities are coming up with policy to deal with campus
conceal carry. He advised the working group at the University
of Texas, Austin found no instance of violence with respect to
campus conceal carry. He then referred to the comments
regarding the ability to recruit students and/or faculty and/or
staff. Admittedly, he offered, there have been a couple of
faculty members in Texas who left, but the administrator that
came to Texas from Utah when it enacted its conceal carry law in
2006, Michael Young, is currently the President of the Texas A&M
University who said that initially in Utah there was some uproar
when they got campus concealed carry in 2006, but in 2008-2011
the University of Utah saw record enrollment. The concerns
regarding not being able to recruit students, faculty, or staff
doesn't play out, and neither do the predictions of violence.
6:15:14 PM
TOM BOUTIN advised he is speaking for himself and that he
supports the bill because it is good legislation for the world
that Alaska finds itself in today. Gun free zones appear to
encourage crime, and encourage nuts cases causing mayhem, he
said.
6:15:56 PM
JENNIFER GLENN, Volunteer, Alaska Chapter, Moms Demand Action
for Gun Sense in America, advised that Moms Demand Action for
Gun Sense in America is a grass-roots movement of American
parents in Alaska, and across the country, fighting for public
safety measures respecting the Second Amendment and reducing gun
violence. She advised that she and her husband own several
guns, but she is opposed to this bill. In the event the bill
becomes law, Alaska would join the ranks of only two other
states that currently force colleges to allow all permit holders
to carry guns on campus. She described the bill as assuming
that anyone carrying on campuses will be a responsible gun
owner; however, it is known that not all of those carrying a
concealed weapon, or have a gun, are responsible gun owners.
She asked how a student, rooming with another student, would
know how responsible their roommate is, and whose responsibility
it becomes when that gun owner takes it upon themselves to step
into a dispute using their gun. She opined that SB 174 assumes
many things. Amy Thompson wrote an article for the Journal of
American College Health, entitled "Reducing firearms related
violence on college campuses-police chiefs' perceptions and
practices," which states that 89 percent of university police
chiefs oppose policies that allow guns on campuses. The student
community also echoes this sentiment wherein, "79 percent have
said that they would not feel safe if faculty, students, or
visitors, were allowed to bring concealed guns on campus." She
said she attended UAF and graduated at UAA, and had there been a
law allowing guns on these campuses, she would have considered
attending another university or going to an online program.
While working at the Municipality of Anchorage, at a recreation
center, a shooting occurred. Thankfully no one was injured, but
her experience tells her that arming citizens to protect other
citizens is not an answer to this problem, she related. She
opined that this bill goes against common sense when everyone
knows often there is a mix of alcohol, drug use, and highly
stressful situations on campus and dormitory rooms. She urged
the committee to vote no.
6:19:13 PM
MIKE COONS said he is speaking as a member of the NRA and
requested extra time because the "anti-gun crowd" gets extra
time. He related there has been testimony that First Amendment
rights, freedom of speech, will be infringed upon because
teachers and students will be afraid to discuss controversial
subjects with students due to fear they may be carrying a
concealed firearm. He said he does not agree, and argued that
the university has free speech zones, or the only place views
considered non-politically correct, based on the liberal
intolerance by faculty and student body, are allowed. He said,
the assumption is that no person, unless they are liberals, can
contain themselves in debating the issues of the day and, he
said that is an affront to him and any American who values
freedom of speech. Alcohol and drugs are another red herring,
and he advised it's against the law to use a firearm while
intoxicated. In the event he were a student, he said he would
take grave offense to the attack that students are a bunch of
drunks and illegal drug users that can't contain themselves. He
described mental health as a huge red herring that paints
students as not being able to handle stress, and he takes grave
offense for the vast majority of students who are responsible
and can control themselves. Continued talking points are just
that, all based on the far left anti-gun organizations lies and
innuendos, and the left has a long history of continuing the
lies to make the truth, he said. In this case, as well as many
others, the truth is the truth and change is not. He continued
that gun locks are safes, they are biometric and rapid tap
codes, secure and paperclips do not gain access. Gun free zones
have deaths of 12 or greater on the average, and guns allowed
zones have two. He said that Virginia Tech paid out $11 million
in punitive damages, and not (indisc.) that anywhere close in
insurance.
6:22:26 PM
DANIEL BELGRIZE, University of Alaska Anchorage, advised he is a
veteran, a senior in the justice program at UAA, an active
member in numerous student clubs, and is speaking on behalf of
over 50 members of UAA's Greek Life Organizations, and over 100
veterans who have expressed support for this bill. The
Constitution of the State of Alaska guarantees the individual
right to keep and bear arms will not be denied or infringed upon
by the state or political subdivisions of the state. Article
VII, Section 3, states that the Board of Regents may formulate
policy for the university and, he noted, the qualification of
"in accordance with the law" is vital, and there is no higher
law in Alaska than its constitution.
MR. BELGRIZE referred to the inquiry regarding defense of gun
use, and said the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recently
stated that defense of gun use is (indisc.) with its estimates
ranging from 500,000 to 3 million occurrences annually, compared
to less than 500,000 violent crimes involving firearms. The CDC
has also consistently found lower injury rates among gun using
victims compared with victims who have used other self-
protective strategies. He advised there is a budgetary interest
in this bill and that is to guarantee and protect the state from
potential lawsuits for the violation of rights guaranteed under
the constitution.
6:24:06 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether Mr. Belgrize is the Daniel Belgrize
she knows.
MR. BELGRIZE agreed.
6:24:35 PM
RYAN SHERWIN-ALAKAYAK, Student, University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA), said he is a life-long Alaskan, student at UAA, and has
devoted his life to serving his community. He pointed out that
the testimony heard from the opposition tends to focus on
firearm issues, while the real focus of the bill supports the
Constitution of the State of Alaska. Alaskans should uphold
those values and rights. He noted that firearm violence exists
today, and the policies being made do not necessarily affect the
people committing crimes with firearms - the policies affect
people who do follow the laws. A person desiring to use a
firearm on campus will do so regardless of the law, but folks,
like himself, who do carry firearms will tend to veer away from
carrying on campus. He said he supports Mr. Belgrize's
testimony and supports SB 174.
6:27:11 PM
HANS RODVIK said he is a UAA alumni, and in 2014 assisted
Senator Coghill in spearheading the efforts, of Senate Bill 176,
to correct the wrong of the University of Alaska, Board of
Regents' policy which is an unconstitutional unlawful policy.
He related that Senate Bill 176 did not pass in 2014, and he is
testifying in full support of SB 174. He described this as a
fundamental right of self-defense of which has been echoed by a
couple of different folks today. He said there has been
fearmongering testimony tonight on behalf of folks who think
that law abiding adults over the age of 21, currently carrying
all around Alaska, are going to become unlawful criminals, drug
users and alcoholics when they cross that line on a university
campus. He opined that many alumni, veterans, and students take
offense to that [idea], and asked whether the Board of Regents
is telling veterans they don't have the right to carry for self-
defense, even though they served this country. He closed by
saying he fully supports the bill and hopes it passes out
tonight.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN thanked Mr. Rodvik for his service.
6:29:54 PM
CEEZAR MARTINSON, Student, University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA),
advised he is a student at the University of Alaska Anchorage
(UAA), and is in support of this legislation. He referred to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article I, Section 19,
which read:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The
individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be
denied or infringed by the State or a political
subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]
MR. MARTINSON advised that it is clear the UAA policy is in
direct violation of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and
illegal given the fact it does not have the statutory authority
to restrict the ability to concealed carry on campus.
Furthermore, he suggested, the hyperbole testimony is complete
nonsense with regard to the fact that eight other states, and
150 private universities, allow concealed carry on campus. Mass
violence has not been seen, he related, nor has issues of inter-
student or inter-faculty violence. The reality is that this is
common sense legislation bringing the university back under the
rule of law. He said he supports the legislation, and asked the
committee to protect his Second Amendment rights.
6:31:33 PM
KELSI PULCZINMS, Student, University of Alaska Anchorage, said
she is a student at UAA, and is speaking on her own behalf. She
voiced her support of SB 174, and advised that she is an adult
and that just because she is a student, her constitutional
rights should not be infringed by the Board of Regents who have
no constitutional authority to do so. She referred to the
testimony of a mother concerned about her underage children
being on campus with firearms present, and stated that she is
sure her children are also present in Alaska's communities where
adults responsibly and legally carry every day, with no issues.
She described it as a fearmongering argument and stated that if
the mother is uncomfortable with her underage children being
around firearms, her children should not be in the community at
all because people carry every day. She related that she
strongly supports this bill and encouraged the committee to do
so, as well.
6:33:21 PM
LAURA MIKO said she is testifying in opposition to this bill and
on her own behalf. She said she is a UAF alumni, UAF employee,
and has worked both in student housing and on the main campus
where students are in crisis mode. She pointed out that when
people go to college there are many different things going on
with them, good and bad. Sometimes, especially with mental
health issues, things happen where guns should not be, she
pointed out. She related that on a populated campus, if
something should happen, there is a whole system in place for
lock down, and SB 174 is telling people to, basically, be
vigilantes. In those instances, with many people trying to
handle the situation, it will confuse police and law enforcement
who is actually the offending person, which can contribute to
more cross-fire and more injuries. She appreciates that she
lives in a state where guns can be carried in public, but she
does not think a college campus for education is an appropriate
place. Especially, she said, because there may be spiteful
debates and conversations in classrooms with people "who might
be packin."
CHAIR LEDOUX, after ascertaining that no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
[SB 174 was held over.]