Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/10/2014 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB200 | |
| SB176 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 203 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 176-REG. OF FIREARMS/KNIVES BY UNIVERSITY
2:14:02 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 176. "An Act
relating to the regulation of firearms and knives by the
University of Alaska." This was the third hearing.
2:15:16 PM
HANS RODVIK, Intern, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, advised that the sponsor has been
considering the concerns of the university. He and his staff
were working on ways to balance public safety interests versus
the fundamental right to keep and bear arms and the right to
privacy guaranteed in the Alaska Constitution. To that end, a
forthcoming committee substitute (CS) would narrow the bill to
precisely focus on concealed carry. He expressed hope that this
would diffuse some of the concerns and the notions that 16-year-
olds would carry long guns on campus. He stressed that there was
never any intent to have open carry on campus; the intent is to
improve public safety by providing adults on public campuses the
same form of defense they have throughout the rest of Alaska.
2:17:20 PM
CHAD HUTCHISON, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, advised that he is an attorney and
UAF alumni. He restated the intent of SB 176 and the fundamental
rights involved and noted that Alaska is one of the few states
that has the fundamental right to privacy built into the state
constitution. He explained that when the question is fundamental
rights, the standard used by the court system is strict
scrutiny. That means that the University of Alaska has to show
that their restriction is necessary to a compelling state
interest and that it is the least restrictive alternative.
MR. HUTCHISON said the University of Alaska analysis touches on
that point and the Board of Regents' policy incorporates it in
Chapter 02.09.020(D) when it specifically states that the
University's compelling interest is what is at stake. To explain
what that means, he paraphrased the standard set forth in the
2007 State v. Planned Parenthood case: "If the individual right
proves to be fundamental, then strict scrutiny applies."
MR. HUTCHISON said the University of Alaska policy can only
withstand constitutional scrutiny if it provides the least
restrictive alternative. University officials will have to
answer that question. Everyone acknowledges that the university
has a compelling interest in ensuring public safety and the
safety of its students, but the second part of the analysis must
also be done. If firearms are restricted on campus, is the least
restrictive alternative used?
MR. HUTCHISON said he didn't know if the university had brought
forward least restrictive alternatives but he would suggest
concealed carry training/safety courses and permits related to
carrying concealed handguns. In order to restrict firearms, the
burden is on the University of Alaska to follow the constitution
and create a policy that is the least restrictive among the
alternatives.
2:23:12 PM
BOB BIRD, representing himself, Nikiski, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 176. He advised that he has been a public school
teacher for 40 years and an adjunct instructor at the community
college where he frequently takes classes. Every time he sees
the signs at the entrance prohibiting weapons on campus he feels
insulted because he's read the state constitution. He took issue
with a previous statement and asserted that the university's
mission is to educate, not to protect. He wants to protect
himself because protection by others soon morphs into
restriction. He suggested the legislature draft a bill to defend
students who don't comply with the university firearms policy,
because that policy is out of compliance with the state
constitution.
DREW LEMISH, President, Union of Students, University of Alaska,
Anchorage, testified in opposition of SB 176. He said the bill
fixes something that isn't broken and puts every person on
campus at risk. He relayed that as a student he doesn't feel
secure sitting alongside somebody with a firearm or knowing that
any of the 10,000 people on campus every day could walk into his
office with a gun. He asked the committee to consider why people
should be able to walk into his university office with a gun if
they can't walk into legislator's offices with a gun. He urged
the committee not to pass the bill.
2:27:52 PM
MATTHEW KIRBY, West Coast Regional Director, Students for
Concealed Carry, La Miranda, California, stated that passing SB
176 will compel the University of Alaska to comply with state
law. He expressed hope for a nation-wide adoption of laws to
protect the ability of citizens to defend themselves in any
circumstance in which their lives may be threatened. While no
law can ensure the safety of citizens in every circumstance, the
provisions of SB 176 are a prudent addition to Alaska law. The
bill is consistent with the finding that average citizens can be
trusted to use their firearms responsibly in self-defense
scenarios. Of the 206 university campuses that allow students
and faculty to carry concealed weapons, there has been no
discernible increase in violent incidents.
2:30:49 PM
JOHN ASPENES, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said he
is a retired professor of engineering at UAF who opposes the
unrestricted carry of firearms on University of Alaska campuses
for the following reasons: UAF has an armed police force, there
is little crime on campus, many high school age and younger
students are on campus year around, the university acts in a
parental role of many college-age students who are immature and
live in a stressful environment, there will be unintended
consequences such as accidents or crimes committed in the heat
of passion, there is no compelling reason to allow unrestricted
or concealed carry firearms on the UA campuses. He urged the
continued restriction of firearms from all UA campuses.
2:32:42 PM
YOUNGER OLIVER, representing herself as a UAA student,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 176. She said
the current policies have been effective since they were
implemented. The Board of Regents is the governing body that
knows the most about what is happening on UA campuses and should
therefore have the authority to develop and implement policy.
Campuses are a stressful environment and students sometimes
threaten professors and other students. Allowing students to
bring weapons to campus is a bad idea and could cause bad things
to happen. A better idea is to focus on preventing crime on
campus. Now she can report a student who is carrying a weapon on
campus, but if SB 176 passes neither she nor the police will be
unable to do anything until a crime has been committed. UAA also
has childcare facilities on campus and these children would be
vulnerable. She urged the committee to review SB 176 and hold it
in committee.
CHAIR COGHILL assured Ms. Oliver that state law regarding
childcare facilities would stand.
2:35:07 PM
VICTORIA DANIELS, representing herself as a UAS student, Juneau,
Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 176. She said that in the
role of student government senator she has been reaching out to
students, staff, and faculty about SB 176, and a majority of the
groups have spoken out against the bill. The general consensus
is that the bill would create a safety issue. The university's
primary priority is education and allowing guns on campuses
shifts the focus to public safety. Another concern is that K-12
students are hosted on campus. The coalition of student leaders
and the student government have both taken a stand in opposition
to SB 176 and she would like the committee to consider those
views when voting.
2:36:38 PM
LANCE ROBERTS, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 176. He asserted that the only thing
the university policies have been effective in doing is to teach
students that the constitution is a meaningless document, that
it's okay for people to take away their constitutional rights,
that only bad guys can do anything, and that they should wait
for somebody to defend them instead of defending themselves. He
cautioned against teaching fear and encouraged teaching students
to defend themselves and stand up for their neighbor. The police
aren't omnipotent; the best defense is for good people to be
armed. He refuted the argument that K-12 students on university
campuses are vulnerable. He pointed out that K-12 students walk
through the rest of the community that extends the right to bear
arms to its citizens, and it hasn't presented any special
problem. He encouraged the committee to advance SB 176 and give
university students the opportunity to learn what it means to be
given responsibility and exercise it appropriately.
2:39:43 PM
CALLIE CONERTON, UAS student government senator, Juneau, Alaska,
said she was speaking on behalf of the students of the
University of Alaska to discuss SB 176 and the students' views.
She advised that when the coalition of student leaders discussed
the bill with students, over 70 percent voiced opposition. The
coalition does not believe the bill is beneficial or necessary.
The university is a place of education and not the place for
guns. Students also find it scary that a person can carry a gun
without permits or training. Both UAA and UAF have daycare
facilities but families don't feel safe bringing their children
to a campus that allows concealed carry weapons. She said the
university is committed to the safety of its students, staff,
and visitors and she stands behind the university, the student
government at UAS, and the coalition of student leaders in
opposition to SB 176.
2:41:40 PM
LORA VESS, Ph.D., representing herself, said she is an assistant
professor at UAS who is strongly opposed to SB 176. She does not
oppose the owning or using guns but does not believe that
institutions of higher education are the appropriated setting to
wage a battle over rights to possess firearms. Students who are
struggling to find their adult identity and develop a sense of
self don't need the complication of a potentially explosive
variable in this transition period. She advised that she is a
graduate of Virginia Tech and had friends on campus the day of
the shooting. That act of gun violence was horrific, but it
didn't reverse her position regarding firearms on college
campuses. It made her aware of the complexity of the factors
that shape criminal action.
SB 176 is not reflective of the systematic understanding of the
roots of violence on university campuses. Rather, it is
ideologically driven with a narrow conceptualization of freedom
and liberty that has nothing to do with the operation and needs
of Alaska's universities or the safety of students and other
people on campus every day, she said. Amending the bill to
concealed carry does not alleviate any concerns, even with a
four-hour safety course. That is less time than students expect
to study for an exam and their life or the lives of others
doesn't depend on passing that exam. She urged the committee to
support the University Of Alaska Board Of Regents in their
opposition to SB 176.
JAENELL MANCHESTER, representing herself as a UAF student,
Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that the current policies implemented
by the Board of Regents are more than adequate to safely
regulate firearms on campus. She highlighted that Alaska has
some of the highest suicide by firearm rates in the nation. This
is not an unrecognized concern on UA campuses, but SB 176
potentially removes the university's ability to proactively act
against depressed and volatile individuals, she said. The
International Review of Law and Economics found a strong
positive affect of gun prevalence on suicide. She said that SB
176 will increase access to firearms on campus and this will not
be a benefit to students, particularly those with a mental
illness.
2:46:32 PM
CHUCK GREEN, Second Amendment Task Force, Anchorage, Alaska,
stated support for SB 176 and agreement with most of the
testimony on 3/5/14. He explained that the task force, working
in conjunction with Students for Concealed Carry, became
involved in this issue in 2009. The first organized activity was
a campus demonstration in spring 2010 in order to gain an
audience with the Board of Regents or start a legal action.
After an administrative hearing, a decision was made to go
through university channels to remedy the situation. However,
efforts to reason with the Board have been unsuccessful.
Addressing previous comments questioning the responsibility of
youth, he said he has taught kids as young as eight years old
how to shoot and was struck with the seriousness with which they
approached the subject. He also pointed out that middle and high
school kids living in the Bush often carry guns to school.
Concerns about accidents are valid, but motor vehicles are more
dangerous than firearms and 16-year-olds are allowed to drive.
MR. GREEN discussed news reports of violent or potentially
violent incidents that were stopped by armed citizens. According
to one estimate, as many as 2 million crimes a year are stopped
by armed citizens. Some of the incidents were in Alaska. He
suggested the committee consider in the deliberations of SB 176
that federal law already prevents mental patients from owning
weapons. He further suggested that the committee support the
bill because individuals shouldn't have to ask permission to
exercise their rights.
2:50:48 PM
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Student Regent, said she was speaking on
behalf of the 34,000 students in the University of Alaska System
that she statutorily represents. She advised that she has
received an outcry of student responses to SB 176 and about 70
percent don't support the bill as written. The largest concern
is the protection of the learning environment because the bill
as currently written wouldn't allow a professor to remove a
student from the learning environment if they were using a
weapon in an inappropriate or distracting manner. Other concerns
include high suicide rates, consumption of alcohol and other
mind altering substances, and the high stress environment of the
university that sometimes causes people to act differently. The
rest of the concerns can be summed up in the "wisdom of 20
somethings." They make mistakes and they're learning, but the
university is a fairly safe environment in which to make those
mistakes. She questioned the wisdom of allowing increased access
to a tool that could allow making mistakes in a way that would
haunt an individual for the rest of their life or potentially
shorten their life.
2:53:07 PM
DAVID NOON, representing himself, said he is an associate
professor and chair of the Social Sciences Department at the
University of Alaska Southeast. As an educator, he can think of
very few things more detrimental to the university mission and
his mission as a teacher than SB 176. It promises to raise the
likelihood that gun violence will occur throughout the campus.
He agreed with the previous speaker that there are a great many
compelling reasons to limit the availability of firearms on
campuses. Young people between the ages of 18 and 24 are vastly
more likely than other-age cohorts to drink excessively, to
suffer from mental illness, and to commit violent gun crimes.
There are horrific exceptions, but college campuses are among
the safest places for 18-24 year olds to gather. Statistics from
the U.S. Justice Department bear this out. The likelihood of
being a victim of a violent crime is about 20 percent less on a
college campus than elsewhere. Campus living is also safer; 7
out of 8 university students who are victims of violent crimes
are victimized off campus. Ninety percent of the violence
committed against college students takes place off campus. He
said the logic of the bill is to make the universities safer,
but it's an ideological search for a solution that lacks an
empirical problem that can be identified. He said he wouldn't
want to trust any of his past or present students with his
safety in a stressful, violent situation. He doesn't trust his
employers on every question, but he does trust them to design
policies that allow him to teach in the safest possible
environment. He said he doesn't trust an assembly of legislators
to design or eradicate those policies and would urge defeat of
the bill.
SENATOR DYSON asked if he trusts legislators and the
administration to dictate which of the Bill of Rights will be
abridged.
MR. NOON answered, "Certainly." He added that he also trusts the
Board of Regents who are familiar with the working lives of
students, faculty and staff to design policies that keep people
safe.
TASHA HANSEN, representing herself, Juneau, Alaska, said she is
a student at UAS. She discussed the Board of Regents' policy
that allows weapons on campus so long as they are locked in the
trunk of a car. The problem for her is that she's in a
wheelchair, she wants to carry a firearm for self-protection,
and she doesn't have a car. She stressed that it's a matter of
personal safety to be able to carry a weapon for self-defense.
3:00:33 PM
SCOTT GELLERMAN, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that he's read SB 176 and the sponsor statement and is in full
agreement with both. The constitutional question is sufficient
grounds to pass the bill. The concerns regarding unsafe,
unlawful, and irresponsible carry are unfounded and based on
fear and anxiety rather than factual data. He surmised that the
majority of individuals who would choose to carry on campus if
this bill passes are already participating in lawful and
responsible carry while they're off campus. He doesn't
anticipate any detectible change in day-to-day activities on
campus should this bill pass. SB 176 is about rights, not
misguided fear, he concluded.
3:02:16 PM
CHAIR COGHILL held SB 176 in committee for further
consideration. Public testimony was open.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Written Testimony / Supporting Documents.zip |
SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB200-LAW-CIV-03-07-14.pdf |
HRLS 4/13/2014 2:00:00 PM SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRLS 4/13/2014 2:00:00 PM SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| Supporting Document.pdf |
HRLS 4/13/2014 2:00:00 PM SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| UA Legal Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 3/10/2014 1:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |