Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/20/2000 01:20 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 35 - REPEAL BRADY ACT Number 1001 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 35, relating to requesting the United States Congress to repeal the "Brady Handgun Protection Act". RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, primary sponsor of HJR 35, provided information similar to what she had presented with the sponsor statement at the last committee meeting. She said Representative Coghill had introduced HJR 35 because he feels that government is placing unfair restrictions on responsible citizens by failure to act responsibly in enforcing existing laws. Ms. Moss told members that the Virginia police, for example, make about 400 arrests per year, more than the federal government does nationwide, as the federal government prosecutes fewer than one in 1,000 violators. MS. MOSS reported that in 1996, the [federal] General Accounting Office released figures that indicated President Clinton had exaggerated by 65,000 the number of persons denied permission to purchase guns in 1997; he had said there were 69,000, but in reality there were about 3,000. In 1997 and 1998, 6,000 students were caught with illegal guns at schools, but only 13 were prosecuted. Furthermore, a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article earlier this year had pointed out that there are 700,000 physicians in this country, with 120,000 accidental deaths caused annually by physicians. In contrast, there are 80 million gun owners, with 1,500 accidental deaths. MS. MOSS said the message that Representative Coghill is trying to give to Congress is that if the laws are not being enforced, then there is no compelling reason to restrict a United States citizen from the right to keep and bear arms. [Citizens'] Second Amendment rights are being infringed upon. The right to privacy is being infringed upon. The right to protect oneself and one's family is being infringed upon, based on non-enforcement of laws. Number 1120 CHAIRMAN KOTT said his only initial question concerned page 1, line 14, where it says the Brady Act basically violates the provisions of the Second Amendment. "Are we suggesting," he asked, "that Congress passed an unconstitutional bill?" MS. MOSS said she thinks that would be Representative Coghill's perception. There is a court case, Texas v. Emerson, now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth [Circuit], appealing a federal court decision that the Second Amendment is, indeed, an individual right, not a group right, as has been inferred in the past from the use of the word "militia." Number 1162 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what the effect would be if the federal government were to repeal the Brady Bill. Would the background checks be gone? MS. MOSS said the background checks would not be eliminated because they were an addition to federal law after passage of the Brady Act. The Brady Act was passed in 1968; it was amended in 1994, 1996 and 1998. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what would happen if Congress repealed the Brady Act, as HJR 35 requests. MS. MOSS said it is her understanding that the National Instant Checks System (NICS) was passed as separate legislation, and if the Brady Act were to be repealed, the NICS would remain in place. Number 1185 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked what would change. MS. MOSS explained that repeal of the Brady Act would remove the restrictions on what type of guns could be possessed. It would also eliminate provisions that now prevent people who have been convicted of misdemeanors from owning guns. In response to a question by Representative Croft, she clarified that persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors now are prevented from owning guns. She further clarified that the Brady Act restricts ownership of certain types of guns, including some categories of assault weapons. She said many of the guns used in Alaska in the past for hunting are considered semi-automatic weapons. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT summarized his understanding that prior to the Brady Act, restrictions on gun ownership applied only to convicted felons, not to those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. He asked whether anything else would be changed by repeal of the Brady Act. MS. MOSS answered that her understanding is that repeal of the Brady Act would eliminate everything except for the instant check. Number 1253 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pursued clarification of "everything." He said he thought that at various times, Congress had prohibited "various categories of things," but all of those prohibitions have been "rolled into" the Brady Act, so this [HJR 35] would wipe them all out. MS. MOSS affirmed that. She also pointed out that there has been some misconception about the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its place in gun laws. She said the NRA was instrumental in putting together some of the language for NICS, and the NRA was never opposed to the instant check. In response to Representative Croft's inquiry, Ms. Moss said the NRA supports HJR 35. Number 1290 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were additional questions, or if anyone else wished to testify. There being no response, he announced that public testimony was closed on HJR 35. Number 1353 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move HJR 35 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered and HJR 35 was moved out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|