03/27/2017 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY

         SB  69-MISCONDUCT INVOLVING WEAPONS 5TH DEGREE                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:35:54 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 69.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:37:31 PM                                                                                                                    
BRIAN  JUDY, Senior  State Lobbyist,  National Rifle  Association                                                               
(NRA), voiced  concern with  SB 69. He  discussed the  NRA's view                                                               
that the  existing language in AS  11.61.220 regarding misconduct                                                               
involving   weapons  in   the   fifth   degree  is   problematic.                                                               
Specifically, it is  the language dealing with  the possession of                                                               
concealed weapons.  The bill doesn't  resolve those  concerns, it                                                               
simply  takes   the  existing   language  regarding   carrying  a                                                               
concealed deadly weapon and extends it to inside a vehicle.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
He  said it  is the  view of  the NRA  that the  notification and                                                               
seizure  provision in  the bill  basically requires  a person  to                                                               
surrender  their  Fourth  Amendment rights  by  exercising  their                                                               
Second  Amendment   rights.  He  maintained  that   the  existing                                                               
statutory language  "when contacted by  a peace officer"  is very                                                               
broad and doesn't require the officer  to have a lawful reason to                                                               
detain  the  person. The  NRA's  view  is  that there  should  be                                                               
reasonable  suspicion  or  probable cause  of  unlawful  activity                                                               
before the process is  triggered. Regarding immediately informing                                                               
the peace  officer of a firearm  in a vehicle, the  NRA's view is                                                               
that it  requires an  individual to  disregard a  peace officer's                                                               
initial  request or  command in  order to  first state  that they                                                               
have a  firearm in the  vehicle. "That's a recipe  for escalating                                                               
an otherwise peaceful encounter,"  he said. Regarding securing or                                                               
seizing   the   firearm,  it   is   the   NRA's  view   that   it                                                               
inappropriately encourages the handling  of the firearm and makes                                                               
the situation more dangerous.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. JUDY said  there are also due process concerns  with SB 69. A                                                               
person may  not be aware  that they  are required to  inform, and                                                               
they may not be aware that a  firearm is in the vehicle. The bill                                                               
also raises the  question of what happens when a  passenger has a                                                               
firearm  in a  vehicle. He  posited  that people  who aren't  law                                                               
abiding aren't going to comply  with the notification requirement                                                               
even  if they're  aware of  the law.  He cited  the US  v. Haynes                                                               
ruling to support  the position that those  individuals could not                                                               
be prosecuted under the provisions of the bill.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  JUDY advised  that he  is working  with counsel  at the  NRA                                                               
headquarters  on language  to  narrow the  contacted  by a  peace                                                               
officer language,  the immediately  inform, and  to do  away with                                                               
the seizure requirement.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:46:07 PM                                                                                                                    
EARNST PRAX,  representing himself, Fairbanks,  Alaska, testified                                                               
in opposition to  SB 69. He said the bill  is needless policy for                                                               
the following reasons: 1) it  entraps otherwise innocent Alaskans                                                               
by criminalizing  their failure to  disclose legal behavior  to a                                                               
police  officer; 2)  it  has the  potential  of reducing  officer                                                               
safety by  escalating traffic stops;  and 3) it furthers  the law                                                               
enforcement  bias that  the public  is to  be feared  rather than                                                               
trusted which does not engender good will among the public.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
He agreed with  Mr. Judy's testimony and  discussed those points.                                                               
He   questioned   how  the   new   language   would  affect   law                                                               
enforcement's search  and seizure powers. He  emphasized that the                                                               
legislation isn't needed because  police officers can already ask                                                               
if there  is a  firearm in  the car. He  concluded that  the data                                                               
does  not support  the  notion that  SB 69  is  needed to  ensure                                                               
police officer safety.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR COGHILL requested he submit his testimony in writing.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. PRAX agreed.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:53:45 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR COGHILL stated that he would hold SB 69 in committee.