Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/17/1996 10:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 338 - CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT AMENDMENTS The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was HB 338. CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in Valdez, Walter Wood. Number 1915 WALTER WOOD said he was here to testify on the liberalization of the permit. He said the present restrictions were too severe. He said it was insulting to be treated like a second class citizen by the police department. He said he did not apply because it was tough so he gave up. He said the amendments were on the right track and with a few modifications the bill would be more acceptable. He further said he objected to the local option provision. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Harlan Knudson. Number 2028 HARLAN KNUDSON, President, Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association, stated he opposed HB 338. Hospital and Nursing Homes really did not want a concealed handgun inside. He further asked the committee members to consider the Association's proposed amendment that would add hospitals and nursing homes to the list of places a concealed handgun was prohibited. Number 2086 CHAIR JAMES said the amendments allowed places to post a notice. Number 2112 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if the posting of the notice would have the same affect as if it were in a statute. CHAIR JAMES replied, "yes." She said it gave a choice. It gave a choice to those areas that felt threatened such as rural areas. Number 2143 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN wondered if it would have the same force of a law. Number 2147 CHAIR JAMES replied, "yes," it was in statute. Number 2161 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested specific language in the law because she was concerned about possible confusion. Number 2180 CHAIR JAMES said it was in the original bill. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai, Richard Hubley. Number 2222 RICHARD HUBLEY said he was concerned about the proposed off-limit places. He asserted, the off-limit areas created safe zones for the criminal. He wondered about the permittee that found himself in an off-limit place and asked what he would do with the handgun. That, he said, needed to be addressed further. The criminal did not care about the restrictions, but the licensee was only out to protect himself and his family. He said he did not see a reason for the restrictions and further clarifications were needed. Number 2328 CHAIR JAMES agreed with Mr. Hubley's testimony, and suggested giving the bill implemented one year ago a little more time to educate the public that permitees were law abiding citizens, and to keep the gun concealed to prevent distress. She said the restrictions would not stop a criminal. She further stated the bill needed to be sold better to establish credibility. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kodiak, Giovanni Tallino. Number 2401 GIOVANNI TALLINO said the permit regulations needed to be changed. He stated the cost was too high and prevented those that needed it the most from obtaining a permit, such as single women. He said most restaurants in Kodiak served alcohol and was concerned he could not take his concealed handgun to those places to protect his family. He further said there were teachers that drove many miles to and from school and asked why they should be deprived of their protection. He said 4,000 permits had been issued and of those 4,000 only .002 percent had been revoked. He suggested looking at 4,000 driver licenses and the misuses and abuses out of those 4,000 licenses. He said the bill had already been sold. TAPE 96-18, SIDE B Number 10 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Tallino if he would be comfortable with a provision that precluded a person from carrying a concealed weapon while drinking. Number 20 MR. TALLINO replied, "he certainly would be." He said alcohol and firearms did not mix in any given case. He stated, if he was drinking, he should leave his gun and car at home. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Fairbanks, Glen Eiler. Number 41 GLEN EILER said he was in favor of HB 338. The only people the bill would regulate were law abiding citizens, and there was already a law in place to prohibit people from committing crimes with a handgun. He felt a list of prohibited places would tell a criminal that everyone there was unarmed. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kodiak, Karleton Short. Number 123 KARLETON SHORT said he agreed with Mr. Tallino that a person should be able to bring a concealed handgun into an establishment that sold alcohol, but not allowed to drink. He asserted, a person that carried a concealed weapon, should not drink, period. A concealed weapon on school grounds was acceptable as long as the person did not leave the vehicle. He further said the fee should be lowered because it was hard for some people to afford the license. He also said the classes were expensive. He cited the state of Florida showed it was a means to lower crime. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Homer, Roy Hoyt, Jr. Number 199 ROY HOYT, JR. said he was a 35 year resident of the state. He said the fees were reasonable and he did not think they should be lowered to the extent the state subsidized it. He said he agreed with the application process, and stated the restrictions should be relieved. He further wondered why there was a fee for reciprocity as long as the other state's program was equivalent to Alaska's. He said the current program was good and he did not want it diluted. He further suggested a one year residency eligibility. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Glennallen, Ed Knoebel. Number 311 ED KNOEBEL said he was a 35 year resident of Glennallen. He suggested reducing the cost. He said a military card was the best form for the identification process. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta Junction, Bernard Goodno. Number 398 BERNARD GOODNO said he opposed HB 338 on constitutional grounds. He cited Marbury vs. Madison that said the United States Constitution was the supreme law of the land. Therefore, a law that did not conform to the Constitution was not a law. He called this a deception. He also cited the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution that said the right to a trial by jury was the foundation of common law. He alleged HB 338 could be thrown out of court. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta Junction, Gene Ottenstroer. Number 466 GENE OTTENSTROER said HB 338 was unconstitutional and was opened up for a Title 42 lawsuit. He said the bill contained too many rules and regulations. He cited Hitler in Germany started with concealed handguns followed by a registration for all types of weapons then complete confiscation. He also cited in Canada all guns needed to be registered. He asked if the United States was next? He stated, behind the agenda, was a United Nation rule that did not allow handguns. He stated, this issue was not just about handguns, but about an attack on the Constitution. He asked if the Fourth Amendment was next, for example? Number 569 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied Mr. Ottenstroer's assertions were not founded. He said he understood his concerns, but the committee was trying to expand his rights and not take them away. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai, Ray Carr. Number 620 RAY CARR said he was an instructor and favored the changes to HB 338. He said 20 percent of interested students decided not to take the class when they discovered they violated the law if they carried a concealed gun to a restaurant that served liquor, for example. He said he did not support drinking while carrying a concealed weapon. He said the closer Alaska could get to the state of Vermont's law, the better. CHAIR JAMES called on Barbara Cotting to explain the amendments to HB 338. Number 730 BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Jeannette James, said it was discovered that determining where a place was prohibited by federal law was more difficult than expected. She referred the committee members to the federal statutes that cited it was prohibited on airlines and some federal parks. Number 829 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked which national parks were prohibited. Number 860 MS. COTTING replied: for example, Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Sitka National Historical Park, the former Mt. McKinley National Park, Glacier Bay National Monument and Katmai National Monument. MS. COTTING read Amendment F.1 "adds the condition that a licensee carrying a concealed handgun in a licensed restaurant or bar may not consume intoxicating liquor, and further that a licensee carrying a concealed handgun anywhere may not be impaired by alcohol." Testimony substantiated that a licensee would be willing to give up alcohol for the privilege of carrying a weapon. Number 948 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to adopt Amendment F.1 for discussion. There was no objection. Number 958 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said a permittee could drink alcohol before entering an establishment, and wondered about the level of impairment. He said testimony indicated one should not drink, period, while carrying a concealed weapon. Number 994 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated currently, in statute, a person could carry a gun as long as he was not intoxicated. He agreed alcohol and firearms did not mix and wondered about prescription drugs such as cold medicines that impaired judgements. He stated there should be some exclusions. Number 1090 CHAIR JAMES said everyone she had talked to agreed that no alcohol was the level of acceptance. The level of intoxication was not always evident, she stated. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER interjected, "in public." CHAIR JAMES replied it could not be enforced within an individual's home. The goal of Amendment F.1 was to prohibit consumption of alcohol while carrying a concealed weapon. Number 1188 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied a car was a more dangerous weapon than a gun. He cited more people were injured by a car in automobile accidents. He said he agreed with the Amendment F.1, and suggested further amending it to define impairment as it was defined for drinking while driving an automobile. CHAIR JAMES wondered about an individual entering a premise already under the influence. Number 1265 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if Amendment F.1 said, one could not be under the influence at any time and any where. CHAIR JAMES replied, "that's the intent." She stated if a person took medication that advised against driving he should not carry a concealed weapon either. She stated it was a judgement call and would be hard to put into law. Number 1310 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she agreed with Representative Ogan and Chair James regarding alcohol consumption and carrying a concealed handgun. She said it was the bottom line and it should be very clear that one should not drink while carrying a concealed weapon. Number 1345 CHAIR JAMES wondered how to define the level of intoxication as Representative Porter mentioned. Number 1355 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said because it was difficult, that was why the law should state, clearly, drinking was not allowed while carrying a concealed weapon. Number 1375 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said language should be drafted to address a measurement of time to take care of a person that consumed alcohol in the privacy of his own home. Number 1400 CHAIR JAMES replied she did not want to get into the measurement issue. She said a law that specifically stated no alcohol consumption in public while carrying a concealed weapon was needed. She said the enforcement was another issue, and it was not a problem until there was a problem. Then, a level of measurement would be necessary. Number 1478 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said intoxication and consumption were of common knowledge, therefore, an expert was not needed to testify in court, for example. The Supreme Court ruled that it was normal knowledge. Number 1523 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if the .1 and .08 intoxication levels were not necessary based on the Supreme Court ruling. Number 1544 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied it was the weight of the testimony that guided the decision. He said it would be tough to get a conviction without a breathalizer test, but not impossible. He stated, the exception to expert testimony, was on the state of sobriety in general terms. Number 1601 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the amendment implied a dual standard because it only addressed "while" in the establishment and not "before" or "after." He suggested replacing the amendment with "cannot be intoxicated" language. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said one could not consume alcohol while in public and while carrying a concealed weapon. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said a person could get drunk in his own home and become a menace. Number 1657 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied there were laws that prohibited possessing a firearm while intoxicated. He agreed there was a potential problem, but he did not know how far the committee members wanted to go to try to solve it. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Gakona, Alan Lemaster. Number 1788 ALAN LEMASTER cited a commercial pilot was not allowed to fly if he consumed alcohol within a 24 hour period. He suggested using that type of limit as a precedence. Number 1817 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied it was eight hours for a general aviation license. MR. LEMASTER said his only reference was with a commercial pilot. He stated the enforcement, however, was difficult. Number 1865 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said normal consumption would dissipate within eight hours according to general aviation. He said it was a reasonable basis and could be carried forward in HB 338. Number 1925 CHAIR JAMES suggested putting Amendment F.1 aside to work on it further in the next committee of referral - the House Judiciary Committee. Number 1942 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed with Chair James as long as it was clearly understood that the committee members wanted language that prohibited alcohol consumption while carrying a concealed weapon. Number 1963 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he did not object to adopting Amendment F.1. CHAIR JAMES said she had a problem with the language and would rather address this issue in the next committee - the House Judiciary Committee. Number 2006 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if Amendment F.1 allowed a person carrying a concealed weapon into a bar. She said she was not concerned about the person carrying, but the intoxicated patrons. She cited she knew friends in Juneau who had been attacked at a bar and walked home. She stated, a part of her believed, it was a shame they did not have a gun on them. Representative Robinson further stated she thought the committee members agreed, and testimony supported, it was dangerous to carry a concealed weapon into a bar. Number 2265 CHAIR JAMES replied the testimony from Palmer indicated there was not a restaurant that was not also a bar. She said she had been to restaurants in that area and she knew that was not true, however. She cited Alaska had a varied population and wondered if in the bush more people carried a weapon "outside" of their person as opposed to concealed. She said, if there was a way to keep the criminals out, then there was no need for a concealed handgun, but it was not guaranteed, therefore, a person had a right to protect himself. Number 2393 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER cited his favorite restaurant in Anchorage was Club Paris where the front was a bar and the back was a restaurant. Therefore, if he were a permittee he could come in the back door but not the front door. He stated that did not make a lot of sense. Number 2443 CHAIR JAMES asked, if the committee members agreed in concept, that a permittee could not consume alcohol while carrying a concealed weapon, and stated there was disagreement about whether a permittee could carry a concealed weapon into a bar. It might be necessary to define a bar to come to a consensus. TAPE 96-19, SIDE A Number 22 CHAIR JAMES said Amendment F.1 would not allow a permittee to carry into a bar that was not an eating establishment. The concern, however, was that an eating place was just as much of a bar in many cases. Number 55 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered about the perception of an establishment. She cited a restaurant at Hatcher's Pass in Palmer where one could get a drink and a hamburger. She also cited the Triangle Club in Juneau where one could get a drink and a hot dog, but it was clearly a bar. Number 118 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained the restaurant at Hatcher's Pass had a definite side that was a restaurant and a definite side that was a bar. However, he cited Humpy's Great Alaskan Alehouse in downtown Anchorage that did not differentiate between the restaurant and bar. After a certain time period, it turned into a major bar scene, he said. Number 172 CHAIR JAMES asked the committee members, if they wanted to vote on Amendment F.1 or set it aside? Number 187 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, if he understood, the committee members wanted to preclude the consumption of alcohol at any time while carrying a concealed weapon in public and any time after a permittee had been drinking in private. He suggested including the eight hour provision that general aviation followed. Number 172 CHAIR JAMES said the committee members agreed with the above statement by Representative Porter. Number 260 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, "no." There was a redundancy that was not necessary. He said, if the eight hours was included, the other part was not necessary. Number 284 CHAIR JAMES replied it was two separate things - consuming alcohol while at a restaurant, and having consumed alcohol before attending the restaurant. Number 323 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied it did not matter where the permittee consumed the alcohol - at a restaurant or at home - because it was within eight hours. Number 337 CHAIR JAMES responded, "that is a point." The committee did agree and language would have to be drafted accordingly. Number 345 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said Amendment F.1 wiped out the eating establishment. It was a moot point if the eight hour criteria was used, he stated. Number 364 CHAIR JAMES agreed with Representative Green. She further stated the other issue was whether or not a permittee could be in a bar that concerned Representative Robinson. She said she did share that concern with her, however. She wondered about the rest of the committee members, if they also shared her concern. Number 393 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if a bar owner could post a notice? Number 405 CHAIR JAMES replied, "he could." He might not want to, however. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if he had the option? CHAIR JAMES replied, "he had the option." She further stated a notice told a criminal he did not have any opposition. Number 443 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if a female permittee holder would have to carry a "fanny pack" to conceal the weapon while in a bar. He was concerned about it lying around while dancing, for example. Number 479 CHAIR JAMES replied, "there were other places to carry it, Representative Green." REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON responded she hoped most people were smart and did what they were suppose to do, but agreed with Representative Green, that a weapon concealed in a purse was dangerous. Number 520 CHAIR JAMES replied if a woman was to protect herself, a concealed weapon in her purse was the least favorable place to carry it. Number 537 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered, if a permittee carried a weapon into a bar and someone tried to hurt him, could he use it. CHAIR JAMES replied, "absolutely." CHAIR JAMES announced the House State Affairs Committee would not be discussing HJR 51 today due to time constraints. Number 595 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON withdrew her motion. Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked about a conceptual amendment, and wondered if a committee substitute would need to be drafted. CHAIR JAMES responded, "yes." The Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Porter, understood the concerns of the House State Affairs Committee members. Number 620 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON announced she wanted a committee substitute before it left the House State Affairs Committee. CHAIR JAMES said a committee substitute was necessary, but this issue would not be included. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she preferred to deal with all the issues first then draft a clean committee substitute before it left the House State Affairs Committee. Number 653 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said there was a consensus. He moved to accept a conceptual amendment to Amendment F.1 to disallow the consumption of alcohol at any time in public, if a permittee was carrying a weapon, and that he may not appear in public with a concealed weapon, if he had consumed alcohol within eight hours. Number 720 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN reiterated the first part was not necessary because, if a permittee had consumed alcohol within eight hours, he could not consume in public. Number 730 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he did not disagree with Representative Green's statement. However, sometimes it was necessary to put more information into law. He was not concerned about being technically correct. Number 746 CHAIR JAMES suggested, when the committee substitute was drafted, she would run it by the committee members before moving it to the next committee of referral. Number 776 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he agreed as long as the language was clear. He was concerned it would be so confusing that it would not mean anything. He said if the eight hours added to it rather than detracted from it, that was fine. Number 801 CHAIR JAMES said she would put it on the agenda again next week and suggested moving forward. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was an objection to the amendment to Amendment F.1. Hearing no objection, it was so moved. Number 896 MS. COTTING said Amendment F.2 added the clause "while school is in session." Number 923 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered, if the concern was about parents dropping their children off at school and picking them up at school, and stated by definition alone that was enough to indicate school was in session. Number 948 CHAIR JAMES said she agreed with Representative Porter. She explained Amendment F.2 addressed the concern in Fairbanks where the gun shows were held in the high school. She stated they would have to carry their guns in a suitcase, and she was not comfortable with that. She cited she was not comfortable carrying her handgun in a closed bag because she felt vulnerable, and there were laws that addressed carrying a concealed weapon on or about a person. Number 1028 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied the municipality of Anchorage changed the law from "on or about your person" to "on your person." Number 1101 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered about the shooting ranges at schools, and further asked how the law passed last year addressed that issue. Number 1117 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied there was a provision that allowed the permission of the principal or the person in authority over the premise to decide. That allowed people to bring a weapon into and out of schools to gun shows. He reiterated "while in session" was not necessary. He said the committee members discussed a person may drive in an automobile onto the grounds with a concealed weapon, but he may not disembark. Number 1160 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered about sporting events on school grounds. He cited during the summer in Palmer baseball and soccer games were on school property. CHAIR JAMES responded, "you don't carry your concealed when you do that." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER also replied, "it was against the law now, Scott." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded, "I realize that." CHAIR JAMES announced the consensus of the committee members that they did not want to move Amendment F.2 now. Number 1230 MS. COTTING explained Amendment F.3 was a conforming amendment that removed a section which conflicted with the list of misdemeanors in the bill. CHAIR JAMES announced Amendment F.3 was now Amendment F.2 for clarification. Number 1300 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if Amendment F.2 put it back to the bill that was passed last year? Number 1308 MS. COTTING explained Amendment F.2 put it back to listing the specifics that would disqualify a person. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the list had been altered? MS. COTTING replied, "somewhat." The list presented Tuesday, February 13, 1996, was now included in the committee substitute (CS 9-LS1157/F) which showed the misdemeanors deleted. She referred the committee members to page 3 and page 4 of CS 9-LS1157/F. CHAIR JAMES announced they were not violent type misdemeanors. Number 1539 MS. COTTING further explained they were misdemeanors that dealt with violence and weapon offenses. CHAIR JAMES suggested moving forward. She stated Amendment F.4 was now Amendment F.2 because Amendment F.3 was not adopted. She read Amendment F.2 added back the right to post signs prohibiting concealed handguns on the posted premises. Specification for the signs were already in the concealed handgun law. Number 1627 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to adopt Amendment F.2. Hearing no objection, it was so adopted. The record reflected Amendment F.5 now was Amendment F.3 for clarification. Number 1655 MS. COTTING read Amendment F.3 reduced the penalty from a class B misdemeanor, a criminal penalty, to a violation for carrying a concealed handgun into a prohibited area. She referred the committee members to Section 12, item (c) and read, "in addition to any other penalty provided by law, a person who violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor." That meant a person who carried a concealed weapon into a posted premise would still be guilty of a class B misdemeanor, but in other instances where it was inadvertently carried, and it was not posted, they would not be guilty of a misdemeanor, but of a violation. Number 1699 CHAIR JAMES cited at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) she noticed the sign upon leaving the building. She again said the semantics were a problem and wondered what would a permittee do with his weapon at the door. The university did not want to prevent a person from carrying a concealed weapon, but it also did not want a weapon in the classroom. The sign was in the wrong place, therefore, a permittee would not know he was carrying a weapon into a prohibited place, therefore, a class B misdemeanor was severe. Number 1812 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the testimony indicated permitees were law abiding citizens, and supported Amendment F.3. He said ignorance was not a justifiable offense, but in some situations, exclusions were necessary. He asked if a violation was grounds for a permittee to lose his permit? Number 1883 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was more concerned about a reckless permittee holder. Number 1932 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Porter what the penalty was for a class B misdemeanor? Number 1940 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied a class A misdemeanor was a maximum $1,000 fine and one year in jail. Therefore, a class B misdemeanor was something less than that. He was not sure, however. Number 1960 CHAIR JAMES asserted a class B misdemeanor was not fair. Number 2009 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, in any event, there was the possibility to present the case in court. Number 1997 CHAIR JAMES responded Representative Porter had more faith in the courts than she did. Number 2015 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he agreed with the amendment. He further said this country had a diverse background and cited many people did not speak English, but were law abiding. He wondered about those individuals inadvertently breaking the law. Number 2054 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to adopt Amendment F.3. Hearing no objection, it was so adopted. Number 2068 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Chair James about the fee level. CHAIR JAMES replied it would probably be around $100.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|