Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/27/2001 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 16-OPPOSE CANADIAN FEE TO TRANSPORT FIREARMS Number 1220 CHAIR COGHILL announced the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16, urging President Bush, the United States Department of State, and the United States Congress to intervene and negotiate with the government of Canada to reconsider the imposition of a fee to transport firearms through Canada. Number 1263 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD came forward to testify as prime sponsor of HJR 16. He described HJR 16 as a simple resolution about fairness and equity. Many Alaskans pass through Canada, especially going between Southeast and Southcentral Alaska, and there is a $50 fee for transporting a firearm any time they cross the border. The fee [covers any additional crossings within 60 days], but when Canadians come into the United States, they don't have to pay a fee. "We [in HJR 16] are urging President Bush to negotiate with the Canadians to treat us fairly," he said. Number 1353 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that in her district, this [issue] is crucial because of the Stikine River that people are going up all the time throughout the year. The Canadian requirement creates a very difficult situation because those people aren't going to come up [to Juneau] to take a firearms safety course and pay the $50 "before they leave my little island and take a boat up the river." This [Canadian policy] has a huge impact in her district, and she supports HJR 16. Number 1405 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that HJR 16 speaks to two issues, filling out a nonresident firearm declaration form and paying the $50 fee. He asked Representative Crawford if he wanted to consider putting something in the first few lines about the declaration form, as only the fee is mentioned there. Number 1437 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD thought it would be very objectionable to the Canadians if U.S. citizens didn't fill out the declaration; it seems to him that the Canadians' biggest concern is that people leave their guns in their cars when in Canada, and the guns might be stolen. For that reason, they want to know exactly what is being carried through. He thought it was only the fee that needed to be addressed. As Representative Wilson had said, he wants to make it easier for people to cross the border in places where there are not checkpoints. "We need an accommodation also for air travel, for private planes. " That's part of our law to have a gun [in a plane] as survival gear," he explained. Number 1515 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked for clarification" So this bills speaks specifically to the fee, not necessarily to the declaration form?" REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he would rather not have to fill out the form, but thought the Canadian government would never agree to that. Number 1535 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that on page 2, line 11 of HJR 16, there is reference to both the declaration and the fee. He asked if Representative Crawford wanted to delete that reference to the declaration. Number 1575 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD looked at that line and confirmed that both the declaration and the fee were mentioned there. He conferred briefly with staff, and then explained that the reference to the declaration was left in to allow the president to include it in negotiating with Canada. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he had just wanted to call the sponsor's attention to [that mention of the declaration], and that he "can live with it however you want to do it." REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said the specific mention had been discussed extensively and he had thought it was taken out. Number 1651 CHAIR COGHILL observed that including the reference to the declaration would allow the United States to negotiate on-site inspection issues. It might be appropriate to include the reference so that it can be part of the integral discussion. "That's all we're asking to do is to bring it up for ... discussion, as I understand the resolution," he said. He thought its inclusion would give the resolution more impact. Number 1694 REPRESENTATIVE FATE said because HJR 16 is trying to pave the way for negotiation, [it might be wise to look at] line 11, page 2, where there are two adjectives, "onerous" and "burdensome". "It may be burdensome; I'm not sure it's onerous; and which one are you talking about, the declaration or the fee?" he asked. He thought, "You can point to the things that they're doing to us, but when you get too descriptive ..., I think it takes away a little bit from ... this legislature and the prestige that we enjoy." REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied, "If the representatives from North Pole and Fairbanks would like to change the wording, I wouldn't be adverse to it." Number 1769 REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he would like to delete the word "onerous," but not "burdensome." There is no question that the Canadian policy is burdensome. "That's not a descriptive term that belittles; it's just a descriptive term that states the fact." REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked that he thought the $50 fee was onerous, but he would be glad to remove the word. REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied, "If that's onerous, what about the ... $250 that's required to get across the border ...? You have to show that you have that [much money]. That's burdensome." He added that he is in concurrence with Representative Crawford's goals because the Canadian policy is burdensome, and he thinks the Canadian government may have gone "a bit overboard" and that the $50 fee should be negotiated. Number 1824 REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to amend HJR 16 by removing "onerous". Number 1837 CHAIR COGHILL observed that the word "onerous" also appears on page 2, line 5. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON added that it would be necessary to remove two words, both "onerous" and the following "and". Number 1873 CHAIR COGHILL agreed that she was correct, and that both words would need to be deleted from both line 5 and line 11. Hearing no objection, he declared that HJR 16 was thus amended. Number 1881 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if any other states have similar fees for Canadians crossing into them. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS answered, "Not to our knowledge." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON raised the question of including some mention of the declaration in the title, wondering if that might [provide additional leverage] in negotiations. She emphasized that she didn't want to "mess it up," and was just raising the question. CHAIR COGHILL said from the chair's perspective, he thinks the message is clear enough, and that changing the title was not necessary. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said a good deal of time had been spent on the title, and drafters thought it was fine as it is. Number 1992 REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that a declaration of firearms had been required for many years, "so we're not talking about something that's new here as far as the declaration of the firearms is concerned." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if any change had been made in the form that those crossing the border must complete. She couldn't remember having to fill out any papers. REPRESENTATIVE FATE described the "small things" one had to do when taking firearms into Canada, explaining, "There simply was no fee attached to that declaration." CHAIR COGHILL noted that although the discussion was pertinent to the declaration, it was not pertinent to HJR 16. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON wanted to know if the paperwork was new along with the $50. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD did not know if the declaration form had been changed in January when the $50 fee was imposed, but he assured her that a form had been required in the past when people took firearms through Canada. Number 2149 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved to report HJR 16, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. CHAIR COGHILL discovered that there was a witness in the room who had wished to testify. Number 2174 ROD ARNO, Lobbyist, Alaska Outdoor Council, expressed the Alaska Outdoor Council's support for HJR 16. The only thing he wished to add was a suggestion that in negotiating, it might be proposed to charge Canadians for bringing golf clubs across the border into the United States. [Laughter] CHAIR COGHILL added that there are many other trade and other reciprocal agreements between the United States and Canada, "so this is a really good and genuine request." Number 2233 CHAIR COGHILL, hearing no objection, declared that CSHJR 14(STA) was moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|