Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/20/2006 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB29 | |
| SB200 | |
| SB253 | |
| SB254 | |
| SB255 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 253 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 254 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 200(JUD) am
An Act relating to defense of self, other persons,
property, or services.
DAVE STANCLIFF, STAFF, SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, stated that
SB 200 was introduced to allow individuals to protect
themselves and others from violent crimes. Based on a
Florida Statute hailed as the "Castle Law", SB 200 allows
force or deadly force as a legally available option under
certain circumstances where life, property, and the welfare
of others is at risk.
Mr. Stancliff noted the provision excluding the use of force
for any reason against law enforcement officers, emergency
services personnel and/or those assisting in official
duties.
2:42:32 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze said he had heard concerns voiced
regarding the time after exercising the "doable force", the
person being prosecuted. Mr. Stancliff declared that was
motivation for the bill and the front section includes
exceptions.
2:44:35 PM
Representative Hawker asked about the legal precedence of
the language on Page 3, removing "duty to retreat" and
replacing it with "leaving the place of encounter". Mr.
Stanclif deferred to the Department of Law.
SUSAN PARKS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, addressed the change in terminology on
Page 3, stating that the Department did not believe it would
raise concerns regarding legal precedent. In working with
the Sponsor, they attempted to make the self-defense laws
easier to understand. Previously, she thought it was more
difficult to get lawyers and jurors to understand
phraseology. She stated the Department was involved in the
drafting the bill.
2:48:30 PM
Ms. Parks noted the Department supports the rewrite. She
offered to answer questions of the Committee.
Representative Kerttula referred to the section on immunity
and asked if the person was acting in true self-defense and
the other person turned out to be an off-duty peace officer,
how would that be resolved. Ms. Parks stated the Department
had not been involved in drafting that portion. She added
it would be left to the jury to decide the immunity or
liability. The plaintiff would not automatically be liable
or immune.
2:50:26 PM
Representative Kerttula referred to the section addressing
gangs; she thought there was justification available for
self-defense written into Section 2. In that section, an
individual might not be able to use the justifications.
Ms. Parks stated that section pertains to "shoot outs". The
Sponsor attempted to carve out situations when a person was
engaging in criminal type behavior, when self-defense would
not apply. She referred to Subsection 4, (a,b,c,d). The
intent is meant to help innocent people and not those
involved in criminal acts.
Representative Kerttula requested clarification regarding
new gang members, who may not have committed criminal acts
and could use that self-defense justification. Ms. Parks
pointed out that current law precludes it; if one is
involved in such risky behavior, they stand the risk of the
violent response.
Representative Kerttula referred to Page 2, Subsection C,
Line 24, suggesting they might have a history of violence,
but not committing the crime, merely responding to the
conduct of others. Ms. Parks offered to follow up on that
conversation.
2:55:05 PM
Representative Hawker observed that Section 2, Subsection 4,
was difficult language to understand. He pointed out that
in (D), one might not claim self-defense if that person,
possessed an illegal weapon.
Ms. Parks acknowledged that was correct; she pointed out
cases in which, felons, who had no legal right to carry a
concealed weapon, end up in a confrontation and then claimed
self-defense.
2:57:14 PM
Representative Hawker referred to (D) and the illegal nature
of the weapon as a result of the felony conviction. He
asked about the circumstances of registered firearms and if
the individual could use the self-defense justification.
2:58:27 PM
Ms. Parks replied the original restriction had been broader.
Under federal law, those involved in domestic violence could
possess weapons; many Alaskans do own weapons.
3:00:12 PM
Representative Holm noted the reference to "first
responders" and asked if that included military or other
sections of government. He asked how that related to a
person wanting to protect themselves, "from the government"
taking property.
3:01:42 PM
Ms. Parks referred to Section 1, which creates immunity from
civil liability. She pointed out that subsection merely
prevents the immunity from becoming automatic.
Specifications leave the decision to the discretion of a
judge.
3:02:40 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze noted the arduous process the bill has
gone through during other committee discussions.
3:03:18 PM
Mr. Stancliff mentioned amendments made to the bill during
the committee process. The bill does not provide license to
shoot someone for stealing property. Each case would be
weighed on terms regarding "reasonably necessary force".
The intent is to provide individuals, the ability to defend
their life and property.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the Sponsor had supported changes.
Mr. Stancliff acknowledged that amendment which the National
Rifle Association (NRA) does not agree with, however, the
overall intention of the bill has remained intact to the
satisfaction of the Sponsor.
3:07:10 PM
Representative Hawker expressed appreciation for the process
the bill has moved through. He referred to the provision on
Page 2, the possession of an illegal weapon, resulting in a
felony conviction. He thought it created a loophole and
asked why the provision was limited to instances of felony
conviction. Mr. Stancliff provided a hypothetical situation
of a person owning a shotgun and making the decision to use
it to protect their home. In that process, they would open
themselves up to prosecution for possession.
3:10:04 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze reiterated, is the bill as effective
with the changes made in previous committees. Mr. Stancliff
responded that it is impossible to cover all hypothetical
situations and that the sponsor is "comfortable" with the
current form.
3:11:04 PM
Representative Weyhrauch indicated concern that if an
individual used an illegal weapon, they no longer could
claim self-defense.
3:11:38 PM
Representative Hawker asked for the Sponsor's response to a
proposed change on Page 2, adding a period after the word
"possess", eliminating "conviction for a felony". Mr.
Stancliff thought the change could make the justification
"unusable".
3:13:02 PM
Representative Hawker thought that loophole, provides an
opportunity for a misdemeanor domestic violence perpetrator,
to use the clause. Mr. Stancliff said it could be
considered a friendly amendment.
3:14:10 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze commented that technical matters should
not be dealt with "hastily". He suggested taking the time
necessary to work it out, since House Finance is the last
committee of referral.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that if the bill were held, it would
provide the time for needed discussion.
3:15:59 PM
SB 200 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|