Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/28/2018 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 | |
| HB75 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 75-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
1:03:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 75, "An Act relating to gun violence protective
orders; relating to the crime of violating a protective order;
relating to a central registry for protective orders; relating
to the powers of district judges and magistrates; requiring
physicians, psychologists, psychological associates, social
workers, marital and family therapists, and licensed
professional counselors to report annually threats of gun
violence; and amending Rules 4 and 65, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration."
1:03:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, advised
that the bill creates "gun violence protective orders," and
offered that she sponsored this legislation due to some of the
instances that have occurred in the district she represents.
She advised that Leroy Lawrence was killed last year on his 17th
birthday by a stray bullet, and another young person, Precious
Alex, was killed in her sleep by a stray bullet. These are some
of the public safety challenges that have taken place in the
neighborhoods she represents, and she has long been looking for
solutions for gun violence prevention. Most people agree that
the vast majority of gun owners are lawful gun owners and are
not the individuals who cause concerns to society about owning
guns. Society is worried about two categories of people, those
folks who are criminals and are involved in gangs or drugs and
so forth, and those folks experiencing mental illness and may be
a danger to self or others. She explained that HB 75 does not
really get at the criminals because she is still looking at
avenues to address that piece of the problem. This legislation,
she explained, is a policy alternative that references the group
of individuals who are experiencing mental illness and could
commit a crime or be a danger to self or others.
1:05:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered that other states have implemented
these gun violence protective orders. For example, the State of
Connecticut implemented this policy and it has been shown to
reduce the number of suicides, which is of interest to Alaska
due to its high rates of suicide. On a personal level, she
related that her brother committed suicide, and for two-years
prior to his death, he was in serious crisis. He was very
unhappy about his interactions with law enforcement and he
talked about committing violent acts. As a family member, she
said, his state of mind was incredibly difficult and because she
did not have any good tools, she stayed with him to convince him
that that was not the right thing to do. The only sense of
relief she has is that in the end he only took his own life and
no one else's life. From that perspective, she related, a
policy alternative such as HB 75 is about empowering family
members to be a part of the solution. Oftentimes, it is the
family members who see the deterioration of a family member over
a period of time because they are closest to that individual.
Family members are looking for a tool and this legislation could
be an important prevention tool.
1:07:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to the handout titled, "House Bill
75: Gun Violence Protective Orders," aka "Extreme Risk
Protection Orders" aka "Red Flag Laws." She explained that
these protective orders are temporary in nature and limited in
scope. This legislation focuses on those people causing
concern, and it is consistent with maintaining a person's Second
Amendment rights as this bill is a temporary removal of
firearms.
1:08:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to the handout and explained that
essentially three types of protections orders have been created.
She turned to the standard Gun Violence Protection Order (GVPO)
and explained as follows: this protective order can be
petitioned by an immediate family member, which includes spouse,
child, step-child, parent, step-parent, or a peace officer; the
evidence standard is clear and convincing evidence, which is a
high standard to meet in order to prove this person is a danger
to self or others; the duration of the protective order is six-
months, which is the longest period of time for the three
options; the family member or peace officer must reasonably
believe the person is a danger to self or others; and, that
individual can petition the court for a hearing and ask for
reconsideration or modifications to that protective order.
1:09:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to the "Ex Parte" protective order
and advised as follows: the immediate family member and a peace
officer can petition for the protective order; the evidence
standard is the preponderance of evidence; it expires 20-days
after issuance unless it was dissolved earlier by the court at
the request of either the petitioner or the respondent; and the
individual poses a significant danger to themselves or others.
1:10:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to the "Emergency" protective order
and advised as follows: only a peace officer can petition the
court for a protective order; it is a preponderance of the
evidence standard; and, it expires 72-hours after issuance
unless dissolved by the court earlier, but only at the request
of the petitioner - the respondent does not have an option to
request a shortening of the duration of that protective order.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained as follows: the bill is limited in
scope, both in the people this legislation would apply and it is
only immediate family members or a peace officer can access it;
the high standard of clear and convincing evidence and the
preponderance of evidence; it is temporary in nature; and
individuals do have access to petition the court to request
changes, with the exception of the emergency protective order.
1:11:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed to the language below the table
located on the handout, and paraphrased as follows:
SURRENDER OF FIREARMS: The respondent must surrender
to a local law enforcement agency or sell to a
firearms dealer all firearms and ammunition that the
person possesses, owns, or has within the respondent's
custody or control within 24 hours of receipt of the
protective order.
RETURN OF FIREARMS: When the protective order expires,
the law enforcement agency shall return the firearms
or ammunition to the respondent. Prior to being
returned, any firearms or ammunition surrendered to a
law enforcement agency shall be retained by the law
enforcement agency until the expiration of the gun
violence protective order.
TEMPORARY HEALTH REPORTING: The bill requires
reporting of serious threats conveyed to a health care
provider during the year of gun violence against a
reasonably identifiable victim. The reporting may not
include any personally identifiable information. This
would result in one report in 2019 and this section is
repealed February 1, 2020.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the expectation is that soon
after the protective order is issued, the person would respond
and turn over their firearms. She pointed to the section
regarding the return of firearms and advised that when the
protective order expires, "the law enforcement agency shall
return the firearms or ammunition to the respondent." The
intention of the bill is that the person, once the crisis
situation passed, would lawfully have possession of their
firearms again. She related that this bill is aimed at a crisis
situation to give a family member a tool that could protect
themselves or others because they believe the person will cause
someone harm.
[CHAIR CLAMAN listed the individuals online available for
questions.]
1:13:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that this discussion is long overdue
in many ways. He referred to [AS 18.65.815(a)], Sec. 6, page 3,
[lines 12-14], wherein an immediate family member or peace
officer must present their belief that the respondent is a
danger to self or others, and noted that "an immediate family
member" is defined under [Sec. 7, page 8, lines 4-5], which read
as follows:
In AS 18.65.815-18.65.840 "immediate family
member" means a spouse, child, stepchild, parent, or
stepparent.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP suggested that the committee may want to
incorporate more of the domestic violence section because it is
more inclusive of long term spousal-type relationships,
boyfriends, or girlfriends, who may be in a great position to
assess the mental frame of mind of the person.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her appreciation for that suggestion
and she welcomes that option as a possibility. In the other
states, there have been more broad definitions as to who can
petition the court and she wanted to start as small as possible.
Although, it would be appropriate through conversation to add to
that but to make sure it is something that people feel
comfortable cannot be abused. That is an important issue, she
described, that there is not an opportunity for someone to
misuse this bill as it is actually limited to crisis situations
for safety reasons.
1:15:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that he agrees with everything
Representative Tarr pointed out as to the language being used in
an abusive manner. He noted that because the language is
focused on the firearm and taking it away based on something
someone said or their actions, "this tool has to be removed from
their life." He suggested possibly requiring a mental health
competency hearing as something that would further show the
justice system that the goal is to do more than just take away
their ability to kill self or others, but to also help them get
better as quickly as possible and find the true mental health
issue. He asked whether Representative Tarr would accept some
type of a mental health competency risk analysis included in
this language. He pointed out that the bill takes away a
significant liberty, and the committee does not want the
respondent to go next door and "continue to carry out what
they're going to do."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that she welcomes that suggestion
and working with Representative Kopp because she would like to
look into the particulars of how that might work. She noted an
earlier conversation regarding the state's involuntary
commitment statutes and determining where this language blends
or meets up.
1:17:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that the goal is decreasing
violence and domestic violence, wherein weapons, such as a car,
can be used for harm. She agreed that the committee does not
want something that is intended for good, such as this bill, to
be misused by an angry girlfriend or boyfriend "just to get guns
away from somebody." She referred to [AS 18.65.820], page 4,
lines 8-9, which read as follows:
(a) An immediate family member of a respondent
or a peace officer who reasonably believes ...
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD requested the definition of "reasonably
believes."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that she included this language in
the table in order to compare those and determine whether it is
the appropriate language. The "reasonably believes" language in
this section pares up with the preponderance of evidence, as to
how to understand what standard would have to be met so that it
could not be misused. The preponderance of evidence is actually
more than 50 percent likely, there has to be some behaviors and
other things that would lead someone to believe that the person
is a danger. She referred to [AS 19.65.820], page 4, lines 11-
13, which read as follows:
(a) ... that the respondent poses a significant
danger of injury to self or others by possessing,
owning, purchasing, or receiving a firearm, that less
restrictive alternatives have been tried and were
ineffective, ...
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that in addition to meeting that
preponderance of evidence standard, a petitioner would have to
show that they have, in fact, tried other things and they were
unsuccessful and; therefore, are asking the court for what would
be considered a more restrictive measure by preventing them from
being in possession of firearms for that period of time.
1:20:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she would like to echo the concerns
of Representative Kopp in that she does not want to put a judge
who may or may not be qualified to perform mental health
evaluations in that situation. An evaluation from a mental
health professional is worthy, and it sounded like
Representative Tarr was supportive of that idea, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reiterated that that is a welcomed
suggestion and she will look into how it would work.
1:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that in the event there is a
mental health issue and someone is angry, they will use other
tools besides firearms, such as a car or a knife. This
legislation must be used globally and not solely focused on
firearms, and she asked whether the mental health issue is
addressed in this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied that there is not a requirement for
a mental health competency hearing at this time; however, she
reiterated that she has had conversations regarding the
involuntary commitment statutes. The intention would be to
determine how these two issues meet or whether there is a gap
because it is an opportunity to determine someone's mental
health status and get them into a treatment program or something
similar. She said she certainly does not want to miss that
opportunity from this particular policy in determining how it
might work and whether there is a way to blend that into the
procedure here and maintain a person's rights and due process.
1:21:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the document titled, "House
Bill 75: Gun Violence Protective Orders" and noted that the gun
violence protective order (GVPO) read that the standard is
"clear and convincing evidence," except under the heading
"Danger to Self or Others" is the phrase "reasonably believes."
Reasonably believes, she commented is probably the preponderance
of evidence, and preponderance of evidence is 50 percent plus
one fraction; therefore, the language appears to be
inconsistent.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to [Sec. 6, AS 18.65.815(a)(b),
page 3, lines 12-26] and answered that this language reads:
"reasonably believes poses a significant danger and immediate
danger" and she explained that the language is there in order to
have this conversation, but in that particular section of the
bill, the clear and convincing evidence standard must be met.
Subsection (a) [page 3, lines 12-18] is with regard to who can
petition the court if they reasonably believe the respondent is
a danger to self or others. Subsection (b) [page 3, lines 19-
26] discusses how the court would issue the order and the court
would use the clear and convincing evidence standard. She
reiterated that it is a bit broader in terms of who can apply
and they would reasonably believe the person was a danger, but
in order for the court to issue the protective order it would
have to use the clear and convincing evidence standard.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised Representative LeDoux that the proceeding
under HB 75 is a contested proceeding and the person petitioning
to have the firearms taken away and the respondent would be
entitled to appear at that proceeding. The court must find that
the petitioner's belief that the respondent may harm self or
others is reasonable. After the respondent testifies that they
are not a danger and it is unreasonable to believe their guns
should be taken away, the court must rule under clear and
convincing evidence. Whereas, he explained, the ex parte
protective order by its very definition is ex party and the
respondent is not present for that hearing. The big issue is
not whether the belief was reasonable, but whether the
petitioner has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the
person is a risk, he said.
1:25:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the respondent meeting this
standard of proof and asked why they would not be in API or
another private facility for that amount of time.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that one of the challenges is a
capacity issue where there is not the capacity in some of these
facilities to take these individuals, so it is not as easy as
simply showing up and advising that someone needs to be
involuntarily committed. Currently, she explained, due to the
lack of capacity at API, a lot of these individuals end up in
emergency rooms. Oftentimes they have to wait several days
before they are assessed because the emergency room does not
have the appropriate staff to perform the assessment to lead to
the involuntary commitment. This conversation needs to be
overlapped with what is going on in health care because there
are certainly gaps there, which is why she wants to review where
this legislation ends and where it meets up with the involuntary
commitment statute, she offered. For example, she said, the
emergency protective order is an immediate danger and perhaps
that person should appropriately be transitioned into a secure
facility where they cannot harm self or others. Under the GVPO,
this person may be someone who is normally medicated but has
gone off their medications and it may not be appropriate to put
that person into a secure facility. This situation may be more
of a matter of getting that person into an appropriate health
care provider to re-evaluate their situation and get them back
on medication that will stabilize whatever mental health problem
they may be experiencing. There is a bit of grey area in what
kind of mental health challenges some people may be experiencing
as to whether they would best be served with their primary
health care provider versus someone who is more clearly a danger
to self or others, she said.
1:27:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered concern that the language self or
others may get out of control because someone could say that the
clinically depressed person may be a danger to self but not to
others. She asked whether the committee was willing to take the
right to bear arms out of the hands of everyone who is diagnosed
with clinical depression. She noted her belief that if that is
the result, it would be an incentive for people to not seek
psychiatric help for depression.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that in the case of these gun
violence protective orders, the petitioners can only be
immediate family members or peace officers. Therefore, the
privilege of privacy with health care providers would remain the
same, and the health care provider is not an individual who can
petition the court to try to have firearms removed. She
stressed that it is not her intention to interfere with a
person's relationship with their health care provider, and in
the event of that concern, it should be looked at carefully.
1:30:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered that he was intrigued by
the involuntary commitment standards and how that relates to the
standards set forth in this legislation for a gun violence
protective order. He referred to AS 18.65.820(a), page 4, lines
12-13 [previously typed] and asked what those less restrictive
alternatives would be in reality.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that in the conversations she has had
so far, it centered mostly around voluntarily giving up firearms
and someone not wanting to voluntarily participate, with the
alternative of petitioning the court for a legal option to
remove the firearms.
CHAIR CLAMAN added a personal note in connection with
Representative LeDoux question about the intersection between
depression and mental illness. Years ago, he offered, a friend
of his was an active gun enthusiast and hunter and he spent
Sunday morning with the gentleman trying to get better at
hitting the target with a 44-magnum pistol. Chair Claman said
that his friend's wife died several years ago and the gentleman
was severely depressed. He did not need to be institutionalized
but he was severely depressed, and there were no court orders.
A group of his friends recognized the severity of the
gentleman's depression and due to these tough times for him,
they would like him to agree to remove the guns from his house,
and he agreed. That, he said, is an example of someone who is
not suitable for commitment, but it was not suitable for the
gentleman to have access to the guns.
1:33:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 75.
1:33:16 PM
DOCTOR AMY BARNHORST, Psychiatrist Professor, University of
California Davis Medical Center, advised that she works in the
Psychiatric Crisis Unit in Sacramento and she is the portal to
the involuntary mental health care system, which is often the
pathway for firearm prohibitions based on mental illness, and
often for treatment of people deemed to be dangerous to
themselves or others. Oftentimes, when there is a mass
shooting, as in the recent past, there is a big focus on the
mental health system as a mechanism for preventing violence.
She referred to the question as to how a mental health
evaluation might play into this gun violence protection order,
and she explained that the mental health system has a hard time
helping a lot of the people who are at risk for mass shootings
and mass violence, mostly because the majority of these shooters
do not actually have a treatable mental illness and they do not
qualify for involuntary admission due to dangerousness.
Oftentimes, she explained, these people are brought to the
emergency mental health care system by law enforcement with
their knowledge there is no pathway for them in the criminal
justice system until they have committed a crime. In truth, she
related, there is not much the system can do for them either. A
gun violence protection order fills that gap in between the
criminal system and the mental health system to at least remove
gun access from those potentially dangerous people. She
commented that it is nice to think that the mental health system
would be able to do something about them, but it has a hard-
enough time treating the people they do have with severe mental
illness. Dr. Barnhorst pointed out that most community violence
is not committed due to mental illness, it is committed due to
the other factors at play with those people who do commit
violence.
DR. BARNHORST offered her awareness of Alaska's quite high
suicide rate, particularly by firearms, and related that most of
the five states with a similar type of court order found that an
order was used more in cases of suicide than in its cases of
violence. Truth be told, she said, the majority of firearm
deaths in the United States are actually suicides with a ratio
of approximately two-to-one to homicides. The reality is that a
gun violence protective order can be an effective tool for
people who do not meet the criteria for involuntary commitment
but are still at risk for suicide. Friends and family can
identify [the changes in a person's behavior] and involve the
legal system and separate these people from the most lethal
method of suicide that exists and possibly save lives. The
question of a mental health evaluation as part of the gun
violence protection order is not necessary because it would not
offer another pathway that does not already currently exist.
The gun violence protection order is a tool to be used for those
people who do not fit neatly within the mental health system or
the criminal justice pathway and those people will not
necessarily benefit from acute or crisis mental health
treatment. These people would not be prohibited from owning
firearms via the traditional mental health pathways. She
stressed that this a great opportunity to fill a void there.
1:36:53 PM
JANICE SWIDERSKI, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America,
advised that she has lived in Alaska for 22-years and currently
lives in Anchorage. She related that she is a member of the
national grassroots organization, "Moms Demand Action for Gun
Sense in America," and its members are respectful of the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and it is also united in
the belief that common-sense regulations go hand-in-hand with
that Second Amendment right. Everyone deserves to live in a
country where their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness is protected, and this legislation is one of those
common-sense solutions that can help protect the safety and
security of all Alaskans without infringing on anyone's Second
Amendment rights. On a personal level, she advised that she is
supportive of how HB 75 would help reduce the incidents of
suicide by gun in this state. Many years ago, her father's only
sibling shot and killed himself with a gun and she experienced
the trauma that a tragic suicide can inflict on a family and,
unfortunately, far too many Alaskan families experience this
trauma with its suicide rate among the highest in the country.
As Representative Tarr mentioned, loved ones and law enforcement
are often the first to see the warning signs when a person is in
crisis, and this legislation would give them a way to protect
that person from making an impulsive deadly decision. Studies
have shown that 90 percent of the people who attempt suicide
with a gun will die, and in total contract to that study, 90
percent of the people who attempt suicide by another method will
survive and the majority of those survivors do not make another
attempt. Gun users are not more suicidal or have more intent,
they simply have access to a particularly deadly method of self-
harm in a time of crisis. These tragedies are preventable.
Research found that variations in suicide rates across the
states are due primarily to the variations in the availability
of firearms, not by differences in mental health, and the
availability of firearms is clear in this state where "so many
of us are gun owners." She said that she strongly urges all of
the House of Representatives members to support HB 75 to save
lives and help ensure that no family has to experience the
tragedy her family experienced. If her family had had access to
a tool such as HB 75, her dear uncle, a World War II combat
veteran, might have lived out his life to the fullest in a
manner he truly deserved, she related.
1:40:08 PM
SAM TRIVETTE, Juneau Suicide Prevention Coalition, advised that
he and his wife have been involved with the Juneau Suicide
Prevention Coalition for 9-plus years due to the unfortunate
loss of their son to suicide 10.5 years ago, by firearm, and
since that time, he and his wife have received extensive
training involving these issues. The State of New Hampshire has
done an excellent job of not taking away a person's right to own
firearms, and instead helped them keep their guns safer which
resulted in a much-reduced suicide rate, and HB 75 is a rational
approach. Having worked as a peace officer and in corrections
in Alaska for 30-some years before he retired, he said he knows
a tremendous amount about domestic violence and all of the other
kinds of violence with guns. He noted that he had guns in his
house his entire life, up until his son died, and stressed that
trying to force people to undergo a mental health evaluation
before considering the possibility of removing a gun does not
work. Mental health clinicians are swamped and, he explained, a
person won't see a clinician for some period of time and if one
becomes available, many times the evidence is not there that
will allow the clinician to perform a diagnosis on the spot
quickly. This legislation is a way to remove guns quickly and
efficiently, and in the event the clock could be turned back
10.5 years, he said he would have moved for the "very important"
ex parte protective order. He described this as excellent
legislation that may need tweaking, and he referred the sponsor
to the great research from the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS).
1:43:48 PM
HALEY McKINLEY advised she is an 18-year old registered voter
from Anchorage who recently organized a "walk-out" at West
Anchorage High School in protest of the perpetuation of gun
violence in the United States, and she is an active member of
local activist groups relating to this subject. Most recently,
she noted, she has been working on the planning and organization
of the "Sister March for Our Lives" rally planned in the State
of Florida. Ms. McKinley offered support for HB 75 because the
safety of civilians and students is more important than allowing
dangerous individuals access to firearms, thereby, posing a
considerable threat to herself and those she cares about. As a
student, this issue is of particular importance and she pointed
to the events which occurred in Parkland, Florida two weeks ago
today. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is located in
an incredibly safe community and its students and staff were all
trained as to Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate
(ALICE), just as the students are trained at her own high
school. Regardless of these facts, she pointed out that the
Parkland, Florida shooting is presently the deadliest school
shooting to ever occur at a high school in the United States
surpassing the Columbine High School shooting in casualties.
Now, more than ever, (audio difficulties) no amount of practical
training or the support of safety in a given community is enough
to not be caught up in a shooter situation, and the only
solution is to take legal measures to keep firearms out of the
hands of dangerous people. She reiterated her support for HB 75
because she believes it is the strongest guarantee of the safety
of herself, her peers, and the community at-large.
1:46:19 PM
JASON KEDY, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in Alaska, advised
that as he sees kids of all ages traveling to and from the area
schools, he considers himself fortunate to witness firsthand the
next generation taking their formative steps toward being the
future leaders of our great state. However, in the wake of the
recent numerous reports of gun violence, there is an added tinge
of concern in searching to find ways to protect our most
valuable and beloved resources, our children. He stated that HB
75 is a decisive and comprehensive step toward safe-guarding the
vulnerable populations and a step toward stemming the epidemic
of gun violence in Alaska. A hallmark of Alaska is its tight-
knit community kinship and the ability of these communities to
work together to create common-sense solutions for everyday
problems, he said. When a person is in crisis, he pointed out
that close family members and law enforcement often are the
first to see these warning signs, and HB 75 would connect and
empower communities to take immediate and decisive action while
also respecting civil liberties and due process. The message is
clear, community members throughout Alaska desire a prompt and
decisive response to its dilemma of gun violence, and it is his
belief, he said, that HB 75 is a common-sense measure for
Alaskans. Oftentimes, when tragedy strikes, whether it is a
suicide or a shooting, people look to the family members and law
enforcement as having some responsibility. This legislation now
gives family members and law enforcement the ability to take
immediate and responsive action to defuse a dangerous situation,
and he asked the committee to support HB 75, empower Alaskan
communities, and improve public safety across the state.
1:48:19 PM
STELLA TALLMON advised that she is a sophomore at Juneau-Douglas
High School (JDHS), is a member of the JDHS student counsel, and
she supports HB 75. Earlier this month there was a shooting at
a high school in Parkland, Florida and 14 kids, "just like me"
were murdered, but she said that she is inspired by the courage
of the shooting survivors for speaking up and advocating for gun
laws because that is what is needed right now in the United
States. The legislature must pass laws to prevent guns (audio
difficulties) and HB 75 is a step in the right direction. She
pointed out that each time a school shooting takes place "we say
never again" but the "never again" will only happen if law
makers take action to prevent these lethal weapons. These
dangerous weapons need to be abolished from our 21st century
society of which they have no place. As an American, she said,
she should not feel scared to go to school, "but I am scared.
I'm scared that someone will come into my school and kill me, or
my two other sisters, or my friends with weapons that they
should not possess." She urged the committee to vote in support
of HB 75 because Alaska needs stricter gun laws, and she asked
the committee to do the right thing and secure a safer future
for Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Ms. Tallmon whether it would be
wise to place metal detectors in schools because criminals are
not law-abiding citizens and they may steal a gun when theirs
has been taken away ...
CHAIR CLAMAN interrupted Representative Reinbold and pointed out
that Ms. Tallmon is a high school student and she does not need
a long-detailed question.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Ms. Tallman would support
better security on the school campuses, more cameras, and
possibly armed guards.
MS. TALLMAN responded that that would be appropriate but the
main issue here is getting the guns out of the hands of the
people who should not have guns.
1:51:10 PM
SUZANNE COHEN advised that she is a 26-year resident of Juneau
and represents four generations of her family. She related that
her grandmother was an expert and an award-winning markswoman,
her father served in the military, her husband and sons enjoy
going out to the shooting range for some father-son "blam blam"
time, and one of her sons is an avid hunter in Southeast Alaska.
While her family members are not strangers to guns or gun
ownership, all of her family agrees that increased gun control
is needed. This legislation is a common-sense piece of
legislation and, she pointed out, if there is one thing in this
gun debate that people seem to agree on, it is that homicidal or
suicidal people should not have access to firearms. Alaska has
"very relaxed" gun regulations and it also has the highest gun
death rate per capita in the entire country, it is almost double
the national average. This legislation gives law enforcement a
manner in which to decrease that number of deaths and, she noted
that if this bill had been law two years ago, it is probable
that the Florida airport shooting by war veteran Esteban
Santiago would have been prevented. (Audio difficulties) it is
quite possible that two weeks ago the Parkland, Florida shooting
would have been prevented. She stressed that suicide in Alaska
is responsible for over 75 percent (audio difficulties), and
this bill gives a tool to families and law enforcement to save
the lives of those people who are a danger to themselves. She
commented that this legislation will not avert every gun death,
but even if it reduces the deaths by one-half, or one-quarter,
that would be an amazing accomplishment and it would be a huge
help to the individuals, families, and communities of the people
suffering with mental health issues.
1:53:23 PM
SALLY DONALDSON advised that she lives in Juneau and supports HB
75, and urged the committee to also support HB 75. Alaska is
able to say that it has not experienced a school shooting since
the Bethel shooting, 21-years ago, when the principal and a
student were killed. It is possible, with this legislation,
that those deaths may not have taken place, it is also possible
that Alaska could reduce its suicide rate by a great deal and
also reduce domestic violence shootings. She urged the
committee to support this legislation because she believes that
everyone in the room wishes to keep Alaska's school shootings to
zero, after 1997. She expressed that she would like Alaska to
reduce its horrific suicide rate, and for Alaska to join the
five other states that have passed laws related to gun violence,
as follows: the States of Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon,
Washington, and California. Gun violence protection orders are
not the only methods available to reduce this violence, but it
is something in the state's immediate possession right now and
it could pass this session.
1:55:24 PM
SALLY RUE advised that she is testifying on behalf of her
husband, Frank Rue, and herself, and they have been residents of
Juneau over 40-years. She mentioned that they are gun owners
and hunters, and they both grew up in households with guns.
From personal experience, many communities and friends know how
often this violence occurs wherein people have access to a gun
and they are either suicidal or are lashing out to harm others.
She described this as an important piece of legislation that can
fill that gap and give family members and law enforcement
something legally constructive to keep the person suffering from
a crisis, their family members, their friends, and other members
of the public safe. Personally, she offered, her husband's
family suffered a suicide wherein his depressed cousin had a gun
and killed himself leaving a wife and two young sons. (Audio
difficulties) far too many friends have faced the heartbreak of
their children killing themselves. It is true that many things
can be weapons, but when a gun is involved there is a high rate
of the success of suicide, this bill is a win for everyone, it
is limited in scope, it is temporary in nature, and it offers an
important tool in a moment of crisis to do something positive,
she remarked.
1:58:09 PM
LUANN McVEY advised that she is a retired Juneau school teacher,
and she believes that HB 75 is "a really good start," in terms
of gun regulations for Alaska. It is pretty obvious, she said,
that when families and law enforcement become aware that a
person is a threat to self or others, that the person has no
business having a gun. It is society's responsibility to remove
guns from those who endanger themselves and others, and she
asked that the committee support HB 75 with whatever small
changes need to be made.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked that when people know someone is a
danger to self or others, whether their car keys should be taken
from them, or pills taken away so they cannot overdose. She
asked whether Ms. McVey would support those types of efforts.
MS. McVEY responded that this bill is correct in placing the
emphasis on guns because guns can do so much damage to so many
people, and guns are so successful when used. As for the
others, such as a car or pills, to her those are sidelines, the
guns are the issue and HB 75 is correct to address guns, she
remarked.
CHAIR CLAMAN warned Representative Reinbold that this is not a
chance to argue with the witness, but she could ask a question.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that she believes it is a mental
health issue.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that this is an opportunity for the
public to testify, of which the committee would like to hear,
and not be engaged in the debate that will take place after
public testimony is closed.
2:00:47 PM
RICHARD STEELE advised that he owns two rifles, he is a hunter,
and he recently received a permit for a moose at Berner's Bay of
which he is very excited. He said that his father-in-law has
had a camp at Pybus Point since 1961, and they have never had an
incident because no loaded guns are allowed in the cabin. He
remarked that he wonders whether in that, microcosm of society
in the cabin group, what would happen if they applied these same
rules wherein if someone was a danger to self or any of the
hunters, they would immediately take the weapons (audio
difficulties).
2:01:59 PM
KARLA HART advised that she strongly supports this bill as it is
the first step in dealing with mental health and violence in
America. This first step is before the legislature and she
urged the committee to pass this legislation and concurrently
start working toward other bigger successes for the safety in
schools and in America.
2:02:35 PM
JOHN SONIN, Civilized Humanity, advised that he represents
Civilized Humanity and there is a problem when it comes to
Alaska's suicide rate and its domestic violence issues. A
weapon of any sort, he described, can be an impulsive exhilarant
which can finalize the disarray a person may be suffering at
that moment. This is a mental health issue and, he pointed out
that undiagnosed schizophrenia and manic depression is a mental
health issue which is pretty rampant throughout society,
"especially when you have this craziness going on in the White
House." This legislation is the first step, and society needs
to irradiate, as much as possible, all of the impulsive devices
that society has in its hands to self-annulation. The suicide
rate in Alaska is awful and guns are a large part of that rate
and also throughout the country. He referred to the issue of
raising kids on video games and commented that they think it is
a toy. He asked the committee to support this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Mr. Sonin to explain more about
video games.
MR. SONIN answered that he was shocked and saddened to notice in
his dumpster that there was a box for a Play Station 3 Assault
Weapon Extension. He opined that the person shoots at the video
screen, and real people in an urban environment are shooting
drug lord minions that are real people on the screen and
children play with an assault rifle. He asked whether that is
"how to raise your kids."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that she raised two boys who spent
a lot of time on video games and it is her belief that the
discussion should be broader. She asked whether he would agree
with her statement.
MR. SONIN responded that the issue of education and raising
children with respect and love is what society must live by in
order to remain a civilized society. That respect and love for
each other is not being re-enforced by the amusements the
marketplace has determined sells, so they are popular. When it
comes to the video games and when he saw the box of an assault
weapon extension, he was thrown for a loop. (Audio
difficulties). When it comes to guns, there is a problem
pinpointing guns as the problem. He offered a personal story
wherein his father was a World War II veteran, he raised six
children, and he had a problem with drinking. One night, when
Mr. Sonin was not at home, his father pulled out a gun thinking
he was being attacked in the house. Mr. Sonin heard about this
event from his brothers and sisters, and he asked whether the
committee could imagine what sort of consequences that would
have been had his father fired the gun. It was at that point
that his father took the gun to the local police department and
they held it for the family, he related.
2:08:35 PM
DIEULEVEUT BIRINGANINE advised that she is the student body
president at Service High School and that recently Service High
School lost a student who committed suicide with a friend's gun.
This event has caused low morale at school lately and (audio
difficulties) to show support toward the students who died
during the Parkland, Florida shooting. She advised that she
personally organized the walk-out, and that currently students
are scared of what is next. Most students, she explained, are
afraid and tired of the violence, and the only people who are
really targeted are students, beginning with the Columbine High
School shooting to this recent Parkland, Florida shooting.
Students are worried about their brothers and sisters moving
into high school, and she described this legislation as the
first active step toward this issue and she supports this bill
because it is pointed toward reducing gun violence. It is about
lives and not really about (audio difficulties) because as
someone said, a person can use a car and hurt lives but (audio
difficulties). Voting on this bill is thinking about the lives
that are on the line, and not really about who holds a gun and
who does not hold a gun. This legislation is about helping
people who (audio difficulties) who did have access to a gun and
he just took the opportunity and "there goes another life." She
asked the committee to support HB 75.
2:12:04 PM
AMOS KISSEL offered his belief the HB 75 is a great bill because
it targets the "bad guys with guns" and not the "good guys with
guns." The line between the good guys and the bad guys is
always changing, and the amazing thing about this legislation is
that it recognizes this issue because the forfeiture of firearms
only exists between two weeks and six months. Meanwhile, he
said, felons are required to avoid firearms for ten years. He
noted a strong desire to become trained in firearms one day so
he can protect his family and community, and he would not like
this right taken away from anyone with an interest in protecting
others. However, he noted that he has witnessed times when he
and others lose control and do not recognize the dangerous
symptoms of mental illness taking over. This legislation
creates safer communities recognizing that anyone can go through
such a mental breakdown at any point in life, and just as
quickly receive the treatment they need to recover. He remarked
that being served this protective order asking someone to
surrender their firearms is a major wake-up call, it also
provides an incentive for the person to get help and overcome
the issues that led to the protective order being issued in the
first place. There are people who may believe that false
accusations will result in the justice system taking away their
firearms; however, he pointed out, society should have complete
faith in the justice system's ability to recognize cases where
false accusations are placed on the respondent. The courts do
not take the issue of protective orders lightly and it makes
every effort to ensure that a protective order is not issued
frivolously, and that the several options had been exhausted.
Thereby, he advised, a mentally healthy person has nothing to
fear from false accusations as it would never stand up under the
scrutiny of the judge, and hearsay alone is never anything to
fear being used against a person in the court. He noted that
the most intelligent criticism of HB 75 is that it would be an
undue burden to those who live a subsistence hunting lifestyle,
and in this case a forfeiture of firearms would mean they could
no longer put food on the table. However, this bill does not
say that and it is a "fake news interpretation," he opined. The
critics must realize that the state's justice system works and
its courts are 100 percent responsible when handling a complex
case involving a subsistence hunter and a potential victim of
gun violence. This is a great bill because it also requires
mental health professionals to report threats of violence
against potential victims, he expressed.
2:14:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that oftentimes felons end up with
guns anyway and asked whether sometimes it is better to alienate
the felon because they have already broken the law and will find
guns.
MR. KISSEL advised that he did not know what Representative
Reinbold meant about "alienate the person" ...
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD clarified "isolate."
MR. KISSEL said that he did not know how that would work, but
this is a wake-up call because when a protective order is
served, that is a message to the person that they are doing
something wrong and the system is involved. Whether that person
chooses to work with the system or go against the system, that
is not anything that can be controlled, he pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that sometimes when a person is
bound and determined to hurt their spouse in a domestic violence
situation it would appear that the course of action would be to
remove the person from the situation until they are able to calm
down.
MR. KISSEL commented that that would be for the courts to decide
because it is his understanding that when a protective order is
issued, it automatically triggers that the person must turn the
firearms into law enforcement within 24-hours or sell them to a
licensed dealer. He pointed out that the other situation where
a person needs to be removed, that is a completely different
subject as far as he understands.
2:17:21 PM
KATE WOOL described herself as a concerned citizen, a mother of
future generations, and offered support for HB 75. She advised
that three-years ago, concerned parents spearheaded the start of
an existing national campaign called "Asking Saves Kids (ASK)"
at her daughter's elementary school. The premise of the
campaign is for parents to ask other parents, before sending
their child to someone's house, whether there is an unlocked gun
where their child plays. Parents are communicating a potential
threat and creating a dialogue with one common goal, keeping
their children safe. An unlocked gun is risky for a child, even
deadly, just like a gun in the hands of an unstable person is a
risk to everyone, even deadly. Communicating that risk to the
right people creates a dialogue of care and concern whether it
is for a child's play date or a family member in need of help,
she said. The Alaska campaign has been a success because it
brings people together with one common goal, and HB 75 can
experience the same type of success. She said she supports this
legislation because it is an incremental step in gun safety that
implements a system of prevention and care to help decrease the
risk of suicide, violence, and even death for Alaskans and their
families. Within the past six months she has had two close
friends with family members and loved ones commit suicide, and
this bill might have helped them. She thanked the committee for
always working hard to make Alaska a better and safer place for
all of its citizens.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he appreciated the
testifier's op-ed in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner.
2:19:59 PM
TALIA JOHNSON described HB 75 as an "amazing bill," and a step
in the right direction because she is sick and tired of being
scared to go to school on certain days due to what might happen,
especially when students can take guns from their parents or
from anyone who has a gun. While she realizes this bill will
not end all gun violence, she knows it will make a change.
Clearly, she said, the laws against murder do not stop murders,
but HB 75 is an amazing bill at such a difficult time. This
legislation will make a change whether it is large or small, and
it is a great idea to give someone the ability to go to court
and offer testimony against those people who should not have
guns. She asked the committee to support HB 75.
2:21:54 PM
JAYNE ANDREEN advised that she is a private citizen testifying
with background information (audio difficulties). Ms. Andreen
offered testimony as follows:
Back in the early 1990s, I was the director of the
domestic violence program in Homer. And, I remember
getting a phone call at home on a Sunday afternoon
from one of the doctors in town who said, (audio
difficulties) mental health contacted you, and I said,
"No, why?" There was a man who had presented himself
to the ER over the weekend who said that his wife had
left him, he blamed our agency, and he was afraid that
he was going to try to kill us, me, and my staff. He
agreed to a voluntary assessment up at API. They sent
him off, but we were supposed to be notified. I was
supposed to be notified because we had an open
facility and what was I going to do to protect my
staff? Now, one of the things I learned is that
because it was voluntary, he was actually back in town
48-hours later. I didn't have the 72-hour period of
time that I thought. I also met with the police and
the mental health director and they both went "Well,
you know, he presented. It seemed okay." And, I told
the police officer "Go back and check your records,
there is a long history with this man with weapons."
They went back, he checked, he called up and said,
"Jane, I'm so sorry, you do have to take immediate
action." The man's wife in this ... there was a 24-
hour period there that things were really crazy. She
called me and she said, "I have access to all of his
guns, he has a lot of guns. Can I ... I called the
police, they said they could hold them but they would
have to give them back to him as soon as he asked.
Can I throw them in the harbor?" And, I said, "I
cannot advise you to do anything with his property.
What would be best is if you could follow the legal
channels." Now, since that time, I know that there
have been improvements to the law in terms of what can
be done. But, I think that this is a classic example
of the type of situation, whether or not it is about
domestic violence, he recognized that he had a
problem. But, that did not remove the danger that was
there for myself, and for my staff, and for anybody
else that he might have targeted. So, I just ... this
has been resonating through my head as I've sat here
listening to this testimony. And, I just ... anything
that we can do to help people avoid doing things in a
state of crisis, in a state of emotion, in the state
of whatever, I think would be really beneficial for
Alaska.
2:24:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what happens when there are five
adults in a house and one person is unstable, but all of the
guns are taken from the mentally healthy people due to that one
mentally unhealthy person at the time. The mentally unstable
person steals a gun and comes back and there is no way for the
four people to defend themselves. She commented that sometimes
guns are necessary for self-defense and asked whether a better
option rather than law enforcement is having a combination safe.
MS. ANDREEN responded that a person could come up with all sorts
of scenarios and it is important to have the discussions about
different possible perspectives. Except, when reading of the
Parkland, Florida shooting she thinks about the people who had
taken him out of the goodness of their hearts and did not
realize his history in terms of potential mental illness. The
family set up the safety factors, they made him get a gun safe,
they made him give them the key, and it was her understanding
that he asked twice for the key, once they said yes, and once
they said no. Unfortunately, they did not know he had kept his
own key so he had his own access anyway, she said. This bill,
she described, is as much about the types of situations in
school shootings as it is about suicide prevention. She said
she lost two first cousins to suicide by firearm, and she does
not want any family to have to go through that tragedy.
2:27:03 PM
ANNA FRASER advised that she is a junior at Thunder Mountain
High School and she supports HB 75 because it is sad that
schools have to practice "school shooter drills" the same way
they practice fire drills. She reminded the committee that
Thunder Mountain High School had a school shooter threat and
over 70 percent of the students skipped school because they were
afraid of being shot at school.
2:27:56 PM
JOSH QUINTO described that he is a senior at Thunder Mountain
High School and offered support for HB 75. He pointed to an
earlier discussion about bringing metal detectors into the
schools, and after many conversations with classmates, they all
agree that that is not a good solution. Although, he said it
can help find concealed weaponry but what is to stop someone
from simply walking straight through the metal detector and not
caring and it is only effective when it is a targeted attack and
not when the person just wants to kill a bunch of people.
Taking away a person's ability to have that gun should be a
better solution. He said he will not be attending high school
much longer but he does not want to have to worry about his
younger siblings or any of his classmates going to school any
longer. It is just not right, he expressed.
2:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether he had researched the
effectiveness of metal detectors.
MR. QUINTO responded that he had researched the issue and for a
while he was looking into the effectiveness of TSA. Evidence
found that TSA has not been fully effective because a study was
performed where TSA missed 95 percent of the threats "they threw
at them." The reason for the requirement to take off our shoes
[when going through TSA] is because it missed a shoe bombing.
It is basically "security theater" which can help deter, but for
someone who is mentally ill and doesn't care about security
theater, it is not effective.
2:29:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that when someone goes through a
metal detector [with a gun] it could put people on better alert,
and for anything to help protect the children in the schools, a
metal detector is a good step.
MR. QUINTO answered that he understands wanting to have
heightened awareness, but with the heightened awareness can also
come fear and an inability to focus. When he is at school, he
should not have to have a heightened awareness for someone
coming in and shooting him, he should be able to go to school
and learn and not have to worry about someone threatening his
life, he expressed.
2:30:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the period of time
after the Parkland, Florida shooting and before Mr. Quinto was
aware of this piece of legislation and asked him to relate the
conversations that took place at Thunder Mountain High School
between his peers that organically evolved in terms of a means
to prevent what happened in Florida, at Thunder Mountain High
School.
MR. QUINTO responded that those types of conversations were a
bit rare. Although, many of his friends in his AP Government
class talked about having background checks, those with prior
felonies, and taking away the right to have a firearm from
certain people. Those people who abide by the laws and do not
pose a threat to anyone can have their guns, go shooting, have
their fun, and live off subsistence, but certain people with
mental illnesses who have shown to commit violent crimes with
these guns should have them taken away, he said. A big argument
for his statement is in the constitution, wherein the
constitution had laws about slaves and now those laws are gone
because society realized those laws were wrong. Therefore, the
constitution is not "rock solid" in its beliefs. Society's
beliefs have changed over the centuries and its laws need to be
able to change with those beliefs, which is why he supports this
bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN warned Representative Reinbold that he does not
want the discussion to go down the line of different views on
the constitution, and the committee appreciates Mr. Quinto's
views.
2:33:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that in a perfect world, possibly
a student would not need to be aware [of a threat] in their
classroom. She asked whether he feels he needs to be aware [of
a threat] on the streets, and in public, and commented that the
best self-defense is awareness. She referred to his statements
about mental health and asked whether judges should receive
training [in diagnosing mental health] or whether it is a
physician's role to diagnose mental health issues before the
guns are taken.
MR. QUINTO answered that judges trained in the law should not
have to be able to diagnose someone, which is why there are
doctors trained in the mental health system. A person could be
referred to a doctor to be evaluated, and he reiterated that he
does not see why judges should have to diagnose someone.
2:34:44 PM
JEAN CHANG advised that she is a resident of Eagle River, she
supports this legislation, and she is an alumnus from the
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida where
the mass shooting took place. It is her belief that the shooter
committed this heinous crime because he was mentally ill and he
had access to an AR-15 assault rifle and other firearms. She
pointed out that the combination of his volatile and violent
psychological history and his access to firearms enabled him to
kill 17 people and injure dozens of others at her school.
Speaking as someone who personally witnessed the effects of this
tragedy, she believes that the citizens of the State of Alaska
and especially its vulnerable students would benefit from this
bill. This legislation facilitates, for law enforcement,
concerned family members, and medical professionals, the ability
to question and assess whether a person poses a danger to
students and society. She offered her hope that the committee
supports this bill.
2:36:43 PM
DAVID NEES commented that there had been "lots of good
testimony," but he questioned the necessity of this legislation.
He referred to Sec. 6, [AS 18.65.815(b), page 3, lines 19-21],
which read as follows:
(b) When a petition for a protective order is
filed, the court shall schedule a hearing and provide
at least 10 days' notice to the respondent of the
hearing and of the respondent's right to appear and be
heard, either in person or through an attorney.
MR. NEES offered concern regarding the 10-day waiting period
from the time someone requests a protective order until the
person actually appears in court. He referred to AS
47.30.700(a), which read as follows:
Initiation of Involuntary Commitment Procedures
(a) Upon petition of any adult, a judge shall
immediately conduct a screening investigation or
direct a local mental health professional employed by
the department or by a local mental health program
that receives money from the department under AS
47.30.520 - 47.30.620 or another mental health
professional designated by the judge, to conduct a
screening investigation of the person alleged to be
mentally ill and, as a result of that condition,
alleged to be gravely disabled or to present a
likelihood of serious harm to self or others.
MR. NEES pointed out that this statute allows that a judge
immediately evaluates so it has an easier path in, and it has
the shorter wait time of 48-72-hour "time out" at which point
the person would have no access to guns. He opined that if the
committee blends the intent of this bill with current law it
could achieve the goal of some "time out" when people are in a
state of crisis. He pointed out that this legislation is not as
restrictive as current law, and it needs to be fine-tuned
because he does not see the necessity of a bill when there is
already a law on the books.
2:38:32 PM
MADELINE SCHOLL advised that she has lived in Alaska for 28-
years, she is a concerned Alaskan, and a local member of "Moms
Demand Action for Gun Sense in America." At every opportunity,
she said that she is a volunteer for gun safety, a "Sandy Hook
Promise" supporter, and she supports HB 75. Alaskans are all
too aware of the epidemic of gun deaths by suicide in this
beloved state and how it disproportionally affects rural
Alaskans and members of the military. This legislation would
reduce the number of deaths by suicide in Alaska by providing a
method for limiting a suicidal person's access to firearms. She
pointed out that nine out ten suicide attempts with a gun result
in death, whereas, as other testifiers have testified today,
most suicide attempts by other means, such as a car or pills, do
not always result in death. In fact, she advised, most of those
often do not make a second attempt. Ms. Scholl testified as
follows:
I, personally, wish this bill had been a state law in
May of 2008, when a very good friend of mine, Nick,
took his own life with a gun during a moment of
personal crisis. He was 21-years old, studying music
education at UAS, where we met, and was loved by many
friends and family who filled the Great Hall at UAS
for his memorial service.
And, this year marks the 10th anniversary of his death
and the heartache of losing him is felt just as deeply
as it was 10 years ago. And, if HB 75 had been law at
that time, Nick's immediate family or a law
enforcement officer could have petitioned the court
for one of these Red Flag orders, which this bill
calls the Gun Violence Protective Order. And, the
court could have reviewed all of the evidence and
testimony of both parties, and under this bill, to
temporarily take away a person's gun, a judge would
have to find by clear and convincing evidence that a
person is dangerous, or if the matter is an immediate
emergency, by a preponderance of the evidence.
In Nick's case, a judge could have deemed him an
immediate danger of harming himself or others and
could have required Nick to temporarily forfeit any
firearms in his possession. And, Nick's life could
have been saved, and that's all I'm saying. And,
isn't the possibility, just the possibility, that this
bill could save even just one person's life, or deter
them from committing suicide with a gun, and even if
they end up, you know, finding a weapon and other
means, we should make it harder for them to access
firearms.
2:41:44 PM
MICHELLE PUTZ advised that she only uses guns for all the
reasons Alaskan's own guns, such as hunting, protection from
bears, and for fun. She offered that she had a "lady shooting
party" on her 40th birthday, so no one can claim that she does
not support the Second Amendment. She said that she
appreciates, supports, and urges the committee to support this
legislation and to even provide more protection under HB 75.
Ms. Putz testified as follows:
A short story, my cousin, known to the family to be
somewhat unstable was ... the family told law
enforcement several times that he was unstable, they
didn't do anything about it. He eventually ... no one
knows how he got the gun, but he got a gun, shot his
mother - killed her, set the house on fire, and
essentially put himself out there to be shot by the
police.
So, it's affected me personally, and so I really want
to not just urge you to do this but consider doing
even more. Including ... you know, to protect
Alaskans and Americans by banning high capacity
magazines, expanding background checks to all, banning
the sale of assault rifles and (indisc.), and doing
whatever you can. I think that it is about the guns.
2:43:09 PM
ELIZABETH TOMPSON advised that she supports this legislation.
Ms. Tompson then described a situation in Petersburg years ago
where someone at the Harbor Master Shack was angry and said they
were going to "go kill a bunch of people," and law enforcement
locked down all of the schools and her daughter was there. She
related that since she was a little kid, she knew that when
someone is in the airport to not make bomb jokes because
security will descend upon the person and they will not make
their flight. She said that people need to be responsible for
the words they speak and if someone says they are going to go
kill a bunch of people, there should be something the people who
heard the comment can do to help prevent that from happening,
and this legislation gives Alaskans something they can do in
those situations. She supports giving Alaskans tools to step in
when someone is clearly in a mental crisis to make sure they
don't hurt themselves or any other person, she offered.
2:44:45 PM
GENEVIEVE MINA advised she is a UAA student, a lifelong
Anchorage resident, and is in support of this legislation. She
commended Representative Tarr for recognizing that these types
of gun limitations are necessary while knowing that Alaskans
feel strongly about gun rights, and she acknowledged her
ignorance as to firearm terminology and gun sales. She stressed
that she wants effective evidence-based solutions and that she
can speak to these specific gun violence protective orders Ms.
Mina offered testimony as follows:
My father was a gun owner, he was diagnosed with
depression, which my family knew about. And, 10-years
ago he sat on the couch with a gun in his hand, my mom
walked in and he pointed the gun at her but did not
shoot. He, instead, shot himself in front of the
woman he married with his children at home on
Thanksgiving Day.
A gun made his split-second decision permanent. Any
suicide is horrific and terrifying, but I believe that
suicide by gun is by-far the worst. No other method
is as jarring, as easy, as instantaneous, as loud, as
bloody, and as effective. And, according to a 2016
report by the ADN, about 80 percent of gun deaths in
Alaska in 2014 were not by homicides or mass
shootings, but suicide. I quote, " Alaskans are more
than twice as likely to commit suicide with a gun as
the average American, 68.9 percent of all suicides
involved a gun."
As much as Alaskans love the Second Amendment, suicide
by gun is the biggest elephant in the room in our gun
debate. If passed, HB 75 would do more than mitigate
suicides or homicides, it could prevent a son from
delivering the worst news to his aunts and uncles, it
could repair the trauma of a daughter growing up to be
threatened by loud noises, and it could prevent a mom,
a lifelong nurse, from being forced to use her own
profession to save her husband. I urge the committee
to pass HB 75. I thank you for your time.
2:46:49 PM
PAIGE HODSON advised that she is a 56-year resident of Alaska,
wife, mother of three, a hunter, and a gun owner. She listed
her advocacy involvements as follows: she has been involved in
advocacy for abused women and children as a court-appointed
special advocate (CASA) volunteer; ran and operated national and
statewide support groups for domestic violence victims facing
custody challenges by their children's abusers; and a national
and state speaker on those issues. She urged the committee to
support HB 75. Last year, as she was preparing a speech for
educators and mental health professionals at UAA on these
issues, two mothers seeking to leave their abusers were killed
by guns, one in Anchorage and one in Fairbanks. She pointed out
that the Anchorage mother had a short-term protective order and
was in the midst of divorce; and there were three hostage police
standoff situations involving guns, two in Anchorage, one in Big
Lake. These events all involved victims who were mothers and
some with their children present, and all of the perpetrators
had criminal histories including domestic violence. Nikolas
Jacob Cruz, a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School in Parkland, Florida, killed 17 people, and prior to that
tragic event had multiple contacts with the Anchorage Police
Department for domestic violence perpetrated against the mother
and child. She advised that he had strangled the mother on two
occasions but was only charged with criminal mischief and
property damage misdemeanors, and he was put into a diversion
program and an anger management program. In the event this man
had been properly charged with a felony and prosecuted, he may
never had been able to possess a gun. The FBI agents with whom
"he brought an ammo clip to and talked about CIA plots," could
have used their type of law to remove his guns in the midst of a
clear mental health breakdown when the rest of the process
failed. She related that last spring, a 69-year old veteran
showed signs of mental decline to his family, neighbors, and his
psychiatrist, in the months leading to his death during an arms
standoff with police on the Anchorage Hillside. The death of
that man and the injuries to the two police officers could have
been prevented with an extreme violence protective order, such
as this. Common threads among mass shooters, she explained, are
previous histories of domestic violence, and it should be no
surprise that the same people who harm families also attack
total strangers. Oftentimes, it is the close family members
that see the first red flags in behaviors such as suicidal
ideation and threats of harm to self and others. This bill
would prevent senseless tragedies in Alaska and the nation, and
she hopes this legislature will be the leaders in that nation to
strengthening its laws on domestic violence and child abuse,
including common-sense measures to prevent gun violence, she
said.
2:49:54 PM
EILEEN FOYLE-SAFT advised she has been an Anchorage resident for
35-years, she looks forward to growing older in Alaska, and she
taught in the primary grades in the Anchorage School District
for the last 27-years. She related that she is honored to be an
educator and she remains proud of the fine citizens the school
districts produce and continue to teach. Many of the citizens
within which she has interacted have expressed a need to address
gun violence in America, the school shootings have become
America's national tragedy and its attention is commanded in
many areas. A significant area can be addressed now through the
passage of HB 75, as it is clearly a common-sense response to
the gun violence epidemic sweeping across schools and cities.
Guns must not be readily available for unstable people who are a
danger to themselves and others, she urged the committee to pass
this common-sense bill that promotes responsible gun ownership.
2:51:11 PM
KARA HOLLATZ advised that she is a lifelong Alaskan having grown
up in Juneau and returned after college and taught Kindergarten
before becoming a stay-at-home mom to her children. She advised
that the State of Connecticut enacted a similar law in 2013, and
researchers estimate that for every 10.5 guns collected under
this law, one person was stopped from taking their own life.
The State of Connecticut estimates that by removing guns from
high risk people, it may have prevented up to 100 suicides.
Currently, she said that she worries when sending her children
to school and she wants to see changes to the gun laws so she
feels that her children are at least safer. This legislation
appears to be a good first step as it is well known that
countries with more gun laws have less gun violence. She then
quoted Albert Einstein, as follows:
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those
who do evil, but because of those who look on and do
nothing.
MS. HOLLATZ urged the committee "not to look on" but to instead
protect those who need help even though not everyone can be
protected from everything. However, she related that if this
legislation saves one life, the legislature has done something,
and she asked the committee to support HB 75.
2:52:44 PM
DANA DARDIS advised that she supports HB 75, and although there
are many steps to be taken, this is a good first step in
protecting the public, and it does not infringe on Second
Amendment rights. Many mass shooters have a history of
depression, domestic violence, or other violent behaviors, she
pointed out, and it is time to pay attention and take meaningful
steps to protect Alaska's communities and all of America's
citizens. She asked the committee to please be brave and "do
the moral thing."
2:53:33 PM
JENNIFER COLLIN advised that she has been a proud Alaska
resident since 2002 and is the mother of two young boys. She
related that she is in strong support of HB 75, to establish gun
violence protective orders in Alaska, and she commended
Representatives Tarr, Sponhnholz, and Drummond's efforts to
prevent future violence. As a mother of two young boys, she
said she is terrified to know that they could become victims of
a shooting at school, a place that should be safe and
nourishing. Her kindergartener asked what they were preparing
for during the lock-down drills, and it breaks her heart to have
to explain the reason. It is her belief that her child should
be able to attend school without the threat of being murdered by
an active shooter, and this legislation is the least that can be
done to reduce this threat. It has been shown that in the
school shootings, including the recent mass murder of innocent
children and teachers in Parkland, Florida, the vast majority of
the shooters showed signs of their intentions before committing
these horrific acts. Gun violence protective orders such as HB
75 are critical tools in preventing gun violence before it
happens because it empowers families to intervene when they see
signs of violent behavior. These orders mirror the same effect
of the judicial process of domestic violence and several other
protection orders. When there is documented evidence that a
person is threatening to harm themselves or others, families and
law enforcement can petition the court to temporarily suspend
that person's access to firearms. She expressed that she is
proud to support HB 75, and she urged the passage of this bill
because it is time to demand a clamp in gun violence.
2:55:35 PM
BRUCE EDWARDS commented that "a bunch of women are calling in
with prepared statements, it looks like a conspiracy to me." He
related that the problem in the Butte area is that everyone he
knows that was unarmed is now dead, and the ones that were armed
are normally still alive. Enforcement of the existing laws is
needed, not more gun laws, and he described that this
legislation is just more gun confiscation, "I can tell, it's all
over the country, you know." He said that this legislature
needs to push those people back, and enforce the law, and have
the people evaluated who are actually doing the threatening. He
commented that the judge cannot be trusted who does not know
this person, he will just sit in there and go along with
whatever. "Some woman call in, say she got slapped in the face,
take all her guns away, it ain't gonna work," he offered. He
stated that all "we're lookin at is a conspiracy to take our
guns away." He said that "If you look at Florida, same thing,
all over the place, they're shooting the place up, they're
running railroad trains, we almost lost a senator in our river."
He asked what a person is to do, "you gonna take a pressure
cooker, let's register all the pressure cookers, let's register
all the machetes, let's register this that, the bombs,
everything, black powder, whatever, not gonna work." This
legislation won't work and it is another "touchy feely, make it
look good, and all these women are gonna call in, and it just
not gonna work. We gotta do the corrective actions."
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that Representative Tarr's office has
received 65 letters and emails in support of HB 75.
2:58:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 75, with the caveat that in the
event only one person wished to testify, he would re-open public
testimony.
2:58:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to [AS 18.65.835(b)(1)], page 7
line 1, which read as follows:
(1) "Violation of this order may be a
misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year of
incarceration and a fine of up to $10,000"; and
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that generally speaking, he is
not particularly in favor of adding new laws but this
legislation may a good new addition. He noted that once this
new law has been established and the protective order issued,
the penalty is one year in jail and up to $10,000 fine. He
asked whether that is really what someone needs who is a danger
to self or others and whether that will that satisfy the problem
this legislation is trying to solve by putting someone in jail
and fining them up to $10,000.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that the provision is consistent
with a class A misdemeanor in terms of the amount of jailtime,
and not following the provisions of the protective order is a
class A misdemeanor. Consequences need to be in place to ensure
that people will follow through with the provisions of the
protective order issued by the court, she pointed out.
3:00:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that there is a 10-day notice for
the respondent to respond to the person bringing the protective
order. He offered concern that when dealing with someone who is
suicidal or a danger to self or others, wouldn't that simply
give the person 10-days' notice to either commit suicide or do
some other evil deed. Also, at the point this hearing comes up
might that not be a trigger to get the person to a point of
decision and carry out the very thing society does not want the
person to accomplish.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that it is difficult to predict
how any individual would behave under these circumstances. She
referred to [Sec. 6, AS 18.65.815(b)] page 3, lines 19-26, which
read as follows:
(b) When a petition for a protective order is
filed, the court shall schedule a hearing and provide
at least 10 days' notice to the respondent of the
hearing and of the respondent's right to appear and be
heard, either in person or through an attorney. If
the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that
the respondent is a danger to self or others by
possessing, owning, purchasing, or receiving a
firearm, regardless of whether the respondent appears
at the hearing, the court may order the relief
available under (c) of this section. The provisions
of a protective order issued under this section are
effective for six months unless earlier dissolved by
the court.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that the hearing provides at least
10-days' notice to the respondent, and farther down the page, it
read as follows:
(b) ... regardless of whether the respondent
appears at the hearing, the court may order the relief
available under (c) of this section.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that if the concern is, that if the
respondent attended that hearing, that would somehow trigger
some other kind of behavior, she answered that that issue may be
addressed through the above-provision wherein the hearing can
take place without the respondent. In the event it was that
serious, the petitioner might want to consider the ex parte
order that could be addressed more quickly. There are three
protective orders set up, and three different standards as to
the dangerousness of the respondent, which is why she included
the language in the table of the handout depicting the
difference. The protective orders begin where the petitioner
reasonably believes the respondent is a danger to self or
others; the ex parte language is that the respondent poses a
significant danger, which happens more quickly; and the
emergency order is that there is an immediate danger. Those
three options, hopefully, would accommodate the different sets
of circumstances relative to the concerns of the respondent's
behavior, she said.
3:02:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that it appears the sponsor is
creating an unhappy medium because there is a certain amount of
time involved which will not really help the situation where
someone actually is a danger to self or others because there is
plenty of time for them to be that danger to self or others.
Currently, he said, there is a process for involuntary
commitment which effectively takes someone's firearms away from
them, but this bill does not go through the rigorousness of that
process. He asked how to resolve the fact that someone is being
taken through a legal process that is designed to demonstrate
that the person is a danger to self or others, but then they are
supposed to defend themselves, yet there would be a question as
to whether they were competent to stand in their own defense.
He described that the sponsor is almost arguing that they are
not competent.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that this issue had been discussed
earlier in some of the examples wherein a person shows different
signs of mental health challenges that cause someone concern but
they do not meet the standard of involuntary commitment.
Perhaps, she advised, in that circumstance the family member is
focused on getting them into a primary care provider, having
assessments performed, determining a diagnosis, and getting them
on medication if necessary. There are two different
circumstances Representative Eastman is highlighting, she
explained, where the right outcome is that the person is
appropriately placed in a secure facility, and another right
outcome is that a secure facility does not necessarily meet the
needs of the person but given their mental state it is
recognized that they are in a crisis situation and this is a
safety measure. Hopefully, she said, it is a preventative
safety measure and possibly nothing would happen, but it gives
the family member time to access the person's appropriate health
care and try to address their needs.
3:05:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how this legislation would work
mechanically if more than one person lived in the household,
such as college age students living together, and a protective
order was issued against one of those students, except there
were still many guns in the house owned by the other roommates.
She further asked whether all of the guns "have to go", which
appears to be problematic for the other roommates. Although,
she questioned, if everyone's guns could remain, how could this
bill work at all under those circumstances.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that it is specific to the
respondent in this case and only their firearms would be
removed. Under this legislation, only immediate family members
or peace officers can petition the court, and she would hope
that if the immediate family members are petitioning the court
due to concerns about safety to self and others, that the
roommates would take the precautionary measure of securing their
firearms so that individual did not have access. The language
is specific to possess, own, or receive, but only for that
particular individual.
3:07:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that one family member could petition
the court, but it does not necessarily read that the person is
living with that family member. She said that she pointed out
that issue as a mechanical problem.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that the bill can only address
lawful possession of firearms and if the individual would
basically be stealing firearms, whether from a family member or
someone else, that would be unlawful possession because those
would be stolen firearms. This bill does not address what
happens in the circumstance of unlawful possession, and instead
addresses the lawful possession by that individual during this
time of crisis and preventing a gun tragedy.
3:08:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered a clarifying statement as to [Sec.
6, 18.65.815(b)] page 3, line 24, whereas the language is in the
permissive in that "the court may order the relief available
under (c) of this section." He explained that it provides the
court flexibility in innumerable situations of complexity as to
how this would work mechanically. The courts are positioned to
deal with domestic violence type orders which are similar, such
that a person will not use or possess firearms because of an
incident. It was his opinion, he said, that as long as the
court has flexibility to address these situations, it does not
stop the purpose of the bill.
3:09:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the various terrorist
attacks and asked how law enforcement will know where all of the
guns are located, whether people turned in all of their guns to
law enforcement, and whether this bill is actually a registry.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that this issue has been discussed
at length because under this legislation, if the person does not
voluntarily relinquish their firearms, a peace officer would
remove the guns, which is where Representative Eastman's
question comes in if they don't follow the lawful order allowing
removal of those guns. She advised that it will never be known
whether every firearm has been removed, and this is not a
registry or an attempt at creating a registry. She reiterated
that she has been looking for policy alternatives that get to
the problem and offer something that would be a solution. This
legislation addresses a crisis situation but it is temporary in
nature so it recognizes that the person can recover from the
crisis and then take lawful possession of their firearms again.
She said she has not put forward a policy creating a registry
because she does not think a registry would be effective at
reducing gun violence, and that is not the intent of the bill.
[HB 75 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB075 ver D 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Sponsor Statement 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Sectional Analysis 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article - Five States Allow Gun Seizures 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article - Missouri Case 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Supporting Document-The Trace Article - ERPOs Reduce Suicides 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Supporting Document-Sandy Hook Promise Letter 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Supporting Document-Sandy Hook Promise Letters (Part 1) 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 1) 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Fact Sheet 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Fiscal Note DHSS-EPI 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |
| HB075 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.28.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 75 |