Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/16/1994 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 16, 1994
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Gail Phillips
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson
Rep. Jim Nordlund
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 24: "An Act extending the maximum period of probation
after conviction."
HEARD AND HELD
SB 220: "An Act amending schedule IA of the schedules of
controlled substances applicable to offenses
relating to controlled substances to add the drug
methcathinone, commonly identified as 'cat.'"
HEARD AND HELD
SB 322: "An Act repealing the requirement that an oil or
gas lease sale be held during the calendar quarter
for which scheduled under the leasing program and
repealing related allowable delays for certain oil
and gas lease sales under the Alaska Land Act; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SB 316: "An Act relating to commercial fishing penalties."
HEARD AND HELD
SJR 39: "An Act relating to the individual right to keep
and bear arms."
HEARD AND HELD
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL FINKELSTEIN, Aide
Senator Dave Donley
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Bldg., Room 11
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Position Statement: Testified on SB 24 on behalf of
prime sponsor.
C.E. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
Position Statement: Testified on SB 24 and SJR 39.
JOHN QUEBBEMANN, Intern
Senator Johnny Ellis
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Bldg., Room 9
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
465-4534
Position Statement: Testified on CSSJR 39 on behalf of
prime sponsor.
GERALD L. GALLAGHER, Director
Division of Mining
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107016
Anchorage, AK 99510-7016
Position Statement: Testified on SB 322.
JIM BECKER
Bristol Bay Fishermen
P.O. Box 240522
Douglas, AK 99824-0522
586-1900
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
DAVE THOMPSON, Aide
Senator Rick Halford
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Bldg., Room 111
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
465-4958
Position Statement: Testified on SB 316 on behalf of
prime sponsor.
SAM DANIEL
P.O. Box 833
Girdwood, AK 99587
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
(Spoke via teleconference)
JACK FOSTER, JR.
Sand Point, AK 99661
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
(Spoke via teleconference)
DAVID WHITMIRE
P.O. Box 2481
Homer, AK 99603
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
(Spoke via teleconference)
GIOVANNI TALLINO
Kodiak Island Sport Association
P.O. Box 4496
Kodiak, AK 99615
Position Statement: Supported SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
WILLIAM WOOD
P.O. Box 3622
Palmer, AK 99645
Position Statement: Supported SB 316.
(Spoke via teleconference)
DAN HASTINGS
P.O. Box 3324
Soldotna, AK 99669
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
(Spoke via teleconference)
KONRAD SCHAAD
53198 McNeil Pl.
Homer, AK 99603
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
(Spoke via teleconference)
ROSELEEN (SNOOKS) MOORE
41980 Kachemak Dr.
Homer, AK 99603
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
(Spoke via teleconference)
INGRID JACOBSEN II
Sand Point, AK 99661
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
(Spoke via teleconference)
DAN HENNICK
40345 Waterman Road
Homer, AK 99603
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
(Spoke via teleconference)
ALVIN OSTERBACK, Mayor
City of Sand Point
Sand Point, AK 99661
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
(Spoke via teleconference)
JERRY McCUNE, President
United Fishermen of Alaska
211 4th St., Suite 112
Juneau, AK 99801
586-2820
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
HUGH MALONE, Lobbyist
Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association
2517 David St.
Juneau, AK 99801
364-2932
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316.
LOUIS MENENDEZ
Assistant District Attorney
Department of Law
155 South Seward St.
Juneau, AK 99801
586-5242
Position Statement: Testified on SB 316. Opposed
passage of the bill without further
evaluation.
COLONEL BILL VALENTINE, Director
Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection
Department of Public Safety
5700 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99507-1225
269-5509
Position Statement: Testified on SB 316.
DAVE OSTERBACK
Sand Point, AK 99661
Position Statement: Opposed SB 316
(Spoke via teleconference)
PORTIA BABCOCK, Committee Aide
Senate State Affairs Committee
Senator Loren Leman's Office
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Bldg., Room 113
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Position Statement: Testified on SJR 39.
W.J. HALLERAN, JR.
P.O. Box 92342
Anchorage, AK 99509
Position Statement: Supported SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
DAN DAVIS
P.O. Box 1285
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Position Statement: Supported SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
GENE OTTENSTROER
P.O. Box 1059
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Position Statement: Partially supported SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
JOE SCHOENER
891 Ridgetop Road
North Pole, AK 99705
Position Statement: Supported the original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
LADD McBRIDE
P.O. Box 83567
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
CLARENCE BAYSINGER
P.O. Box 96
Nenana, AK 99760
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
LARRY PETTY
Century Club
P.O. Box 56114
North Pole, AK 99705
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
FRANK TURNEY
702 Turney Ct. Rd.
Fairbanks, AK 99712
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
ROBERT ANDERSON
P.O. Box 2625
Kodiak, AK 99615
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
MARK CHRYSON
Gun Owners of America
2140 Wolverine Circle
Wasilla, AK 99654
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
DOUG MILLARD
P.O. Box 870351
Wasilla, AK 99687
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
MIKE CHRYST
P.O. Box 872488
Wasilla, AK 99687
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
LOUIE R. MARCH
P.O. Box 686
Seward, AK 99664
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
HELEN I. MARCH
P.O. Box 1331
Seward, AK 99664
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
DANIEL J. FICKLE
P.O. Box 1331
Seward, AK 99664
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
WESLEY JONES
HCR 64, Box 535
Seward, AK 99664
Position Statement: Testimony read by LOUIE MARCH.
Supported SJR 39.
ROBERT WISEMAN
P.O. Box 2741
Soldotna, AK 99669
Position Statement: Supported CSSJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
ROBERT MEYER
P.O. Box 945
Sterling, AK 99672
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
RAY HALLEY
P.O. Box 1751
Valdez, AK 99686
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
DON CHASE
P.O. Box 1515
Valdez, AK 99686
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
LARRY PETTY
P.O. Box 56114
North Pole, AK 99705
Position Statement: Supported SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
CHUCK SERRA
7724 Brentwood
Anchorage, AK 99502
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
NEIL CAMERON
3514 W. 40th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99517
Position Statement: Supported SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
SALLY CHRYST
P.O. Box 872488
Wasilla, AK 99687
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
JEANNE PHIPPS
P.O. Box 544
Delta Junction, AK 99727
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
LEON CHYTHLOOK
P.O. Box 2741
Soldotna, AK 99669
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
(Spoke via teleconference)
Several people submitted written testimony which was
retained in the bill files. They attended teleconferences,
but due to time restraints on the teleconferencing network,
were not given time to testify. Those people are as
follows:
PAUL D. PETTY
P.O. Box 36
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
LEIGH DENNISON
P.O. Box 873
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
BRUCE GROSSMAN
P.O. Box 1284
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
ALLEN G. AVINGER
P.O. Box 354
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Position Statement: Supported original form of SJR 39.
OLIVER (BUD) BURRIS
Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association
P.O. Box 70669
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Phone: 474-0437
Position Statement: Supported CSSJR 39.
JEANNE EVERHART
P.O. Box 81269
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Position Statement: Supported SJR 39.
DOUG EVERHART
P.O. Box 81269
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Position Statement: Supported SJR 39.
RONALD L. SCHWAB
P.O. Box 327
Ester, AK 99725
Position Statement: Supported SJR 39.
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 24
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND MAXIMUM PERIOD OF PROBATION
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY,Little
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/93 21 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/93
01/11/93 21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 21 (S) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/02/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/02/94 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/04/94 2678 (S) JUD RPT 3DP 1NR
02/04/94 2679 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED
(DPS)
03/01/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
03/01/94 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/02/94 3026 (S) FIN RPT 4DP 2NR 1DNP
03/02/94 3026 (S) ZERO FNS PUBLISHED (LAW, COURT,
CORR)
03/02/94 3026 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)
03/14/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM
03/16/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/22/94 3317 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/22/94
03/22/94 3318 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/22/94 3319 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/22/94 3319 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 24
03/22/94 3319 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LITTLE
03/22/94 3319 (S) PASSED Y19 N- A1
03/22/94 3324 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/23/94 2923 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/23/94 2923 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/11/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/13/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/14/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/15/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 220
SHORT TITLE: ADD "CAT" TO SCHEDULE IIA DRUG LIST
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) ELLIS,Little; REPRESENTATIVE(S)
Navarre
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/94 2451 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/93
01/10/94 2451 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2451 (S) STA, JUD
02/09/94 (S) STA AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM
02/09/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/94 2824 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
02/14/94 2824 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB & CS PUBLISHED
(DPS, LAW)
03/14/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/15/94 3212 (S) JUD RPT 5DP (STA)CS
03/15/94 3212 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DPS, LAW)
03/18/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM
03/18/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/24/94 3344 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/24/94
03/24/94 3347 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/24/94 3348 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/24/94 3348 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/24/94 3348 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
220(STA)
03/24/94 3348 (S) PASSED Y16 N- E1 A3
03/24/94 3353 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/25/94 2959 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/25/94 2959 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
03/25/94 2985 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): NAVARRE
04/05/94 3124 (H) STA RPT 4DP 1NR
04/05/94 3124 (H) DP: VEZEY, ULMER, B.DAVIS,
G.DAVIS
04/05/94 3124 (H) NR: OLBERG
04/05/94 3124 (H) -2 PREVIOUS SEN ZERO FNS
(DPS,LAW) 2/14
04/05/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/05/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/13/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/14/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/15/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 322
SHORT TITLE: DELAYS OF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2832 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2832 (S) RES, FIN
02/22/94 (S) RES AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
02/22/94 (S) RES AT 03:00 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
02/23/94 2944 (S) RES RPT 3DP 1NR
02/23/94 2944 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED
(DNR)
02/23/94 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
02/23/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/24/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
02/28/94 2989 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE
02/28/94 2990 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO CS
(DNR)
02/28/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
02/28/94 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/01/94 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/01/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/09/94 3105 (S) RULES RPT 4CAL 1NR 3/9/94
03/09/94 3118 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/09/94 3118 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/09/94 3124 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY LITTLE
03/09/94 3125 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y9 N11
03/09/94 3125 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FLD
Y11 N9
03/09/94 3125 (S) THIRD READING 3/10 CALENDAR
03/10/94 3152 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 322
(FIN)
03/10/94 3152 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
03/10/94 3153 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE
03/10/94 3153 (S) Lincoln NOTICE OF RECONSID
ERATION
03/14/94 3197 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
03/14/94 3197 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO
3/15/94
03/15/94 3217 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y18
N- E1 A1
03/15/94 3218 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE
03/15/94 3227 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/16/94 2825 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/16/94 2825 (H) OIL & GAS, JUDICIARY
03/21/94 (H) O&G AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/21/94 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/23/94 2934 (H) O&G RPT 4DP 1NR
03/23/94 2934 (H) DP: KOTT, SITTON, G.DAVIS,
GREEN
03/23/94 2934 (H) NR: OLBERG
03/23/94 2934 (H) -PREVIOUS SEN ZERO FN (DNR)
2/23/94
04/11/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/13/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/14/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/15/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 316
SHORT TITLE: FISHING VIOLATIONS:FINES/BURDEN OF PROOF
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD,Jacko,Kerttula,Miller,
Frank,Pearce
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2831 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2831 (S) RES, FIN
03/02/94 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH
RM 205
03/03/94 3056 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 4NR SAME TITLE
03/03/94 3056 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS
PUBLISHED (LAW)
03/15/94 (S) FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
03/16/94 3240 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 2NR (RES)CS
03/16/94 3240 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS PUBLISHED
(DPS)
03/16/94 3240 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES TO CS
(LAW)
03/16/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/16/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/16/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
03/24/94 3344 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3CAL 2NR
3/24/94
03/24/94 3350 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/24/94 3350 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/24/94 3350 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY ADAMS
03/24/94 3350 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y3 N12 E1 A4
03/24/94 3351 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/24/94 3351 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
316(RES)
03/24/94 3351 (S) PASSED Y13 N2 E1 A4
03/24/94 3351 (S) Kerttula NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
03/28/94 3379 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
03/28/94 3380 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15
N4 E1
03/28/94 3380 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/29/94 3037 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/29/94 3037 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/15/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SJR 39
SHORT TITLE: RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/10/94 2450 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/10/94 2450 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
01/21/94 (S) STA AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH
RM 205
01/21/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/24/94 2579 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1NR
01/24/94 2579 (S) FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED (GOV)
01/29/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/04/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211
02/04/94 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/07/94 2717 (S) JUD RPT 4DP
02/07/94 2718 (S) PREVIOUS FN (GOV)
02/15/94 2858 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 1NR
02/15/94 2858 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE PUBLISHED
(DPS)
02/15/94 2858 (S) PREVIOUS FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
02/15/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
02/16/94 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/94 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/01/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/02/94 3029 (S) RULES RPT 4CAL 1NR 3/2/94
03/02/94 3032 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/02/94 3032 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/02/94 3032 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 39
03/02/94 3034 (S) (S) ADOPTED LETTER OF INTENT
Y15 N4 A1
03/02/94 3035 (S) MOTION TO RETURN TO 2ND/AM 1
WITHDRAWN
03/02/94 3035 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
03/02/94 3036 (S) Duncan NOTICE OF RECONSID
ERATION
03/03/94 3064 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
03/03/94 3064 (S) (S) ADOPTED LETTER OF INTENT
Y16 N3 E1
03/03/94 3065 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y16
N3 E1
03/03/94 3066 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/04/94 2597 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/04/94 2597 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/15/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-59, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Committee was called to order at 1:07
p.m. on April 16, 1994. There was no quorum present.
Chairman Porter announced that the committee would take up
SB 24 first, then SB 220, SB 322, SB 316, and CS SJR 39.
The bills would be heard again on Monday, hopefully with a
quorum, in order to take action. Testimony on SB 316 and
SJR 39 was heard via teleconference.
SB 24 - EXTEND MAXIMUM PERIOD OF PROBATION
Number 041
MICHAEL FINKELSTEIN, Legislative Aide to Senator Dave
Donley, Prime Sponsor of SB 24, reported having received
several letters of support and no letters in opposition of
SB 24. He explained that the bill simply extends probation
from five to ten years. The Sentencing Commission
recommends this extension, which is part of Governor
Hickel's anti-crime package.
Number 055
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Finkelstein to explain, for the
record, what the benefit of the extension of time would be.
MR. FINKELSTEIN replied that the judges would be given more
discretion and other sentencing options. They are limited
to five years probation right now, and it would be a good
option for judges to be able to increase that time, as
opposed to longer prison sentences.
Number 069
REP. GAIL PHILLIPS questioned the zero fiscal note, since
there must be costs involved, assuming the cost of
controlling probation for ten years would be double that of
five years. She asked for a response from the Departments
of Corrections and Public Safety.
Number 078
MR. FINKELSTEIN stated that there would be no increase in
cost for the first five years during the implementation
process, and after that, the fiscal impact would be hard to
determine. The cost could actually be less, since it may
result in less people in jail. The cost of probation may
increase, but it might be offset by the lower cost of having
fewer people in prison.
Number 110
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that this would only affect
sentencing occurring after the law is enacted; and the daily
costs of probation are minuscule compared to the daily cost
of the alternative - incarceration.
Number 131
C.E. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public
Safety, answered Rep. Phillips' questions regarding costs to
the Department of Public Safety. He believed the costs
would fall upon the Department of Corrections. He explained
that it makes more sense to maintain some amount of control
after a person is released from prison, as opposed to
starting the whole process over again.
Number 158
CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the discussion on SB 24.
Number 165
SB 220 - ADD "CAT" TO SCHEDULE IIA DRUG LIST
Number 178
JOHN QUEBBEMANN, Intern, Senator Johnny Ellis', Prime
Sponsor of SB 220, urged the committee to support the bill
including "CAP" and described the process of concocting
illegal "designer" drugs, listing some of the ingredients.
Mr. Quebbemann relayed that Senator Ellis would be in favor
of the bill.
REP. JAMES asked if there was some way to change the
statute, making similar concoctions illegal, if the intent
was for mind altering drugs.
CHAIRMAN PORTER, in discussion with DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER
and JOHN QUEBBEMANN, brought up the fact that proof of
intent for using the concoctions as drugs would be rather
difficult, since some precursors are everyday household
items obtained from hardware stores, such as battery acid
and "Draino".
CHAIRMAN PORTER then concluded the discussion of SB 220.
Number 328
SB 322 - DELAYS OF OIL & GAS LEASE SALES
JERRY GALLAGHER, Director of the Division of Mining,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that this bill
was introduced by the Senate Resources Committee. He
explained that if the last two sentences were deleted from
the current law, AS 38.05.180c, more flexibility would
result. This current law requires the department to
complete oil and gas lease sales within 90 days of when they
are put on a two year schedule. If the sale is not
completed within that 90 day period, it falls off the
schedule and DNR is forced to start over. Sometimes sales
are delayed by court challenges. In other instances, more
time should be allowed for public comment. He said SB 322
deletes the last two sentences, allowing the program to run
properly. Mr. Gallagher assured the committee that DNR is
in support of the bill, and urged them to move it out of
committee when a quorum is present.
REP. PHILLIPS and MR. GALLAGHER discussed the importance of
passing the bill, the lack of opposition, and the
possibility of an immediate effective date.
Number 398
REP. JAMES speculated about the history of the statute. She
presumed the reason for the statute was so that the
commissioner did, in fact, have these lease sales, and the
opportunity for lease sales would not have been missed
because of some delinquent or mislead commissioner; which
has not proven to be the case. She showed support for the
bill, believing the intent, at the time the statute was
written, was meant for problems that no longer exist.
Number 418
MR. GALLAGHER agreed with Rep. James, reminding the
committee of the "Mean Green" area of statute, stemming from
the late 1970's when people feared that an evil green
environmental commissioner would delay oil and gas sales.
That has not happened and is not expected to become a
problem, since the pressure to maintain the leasing program
exists.
Number 427
CHAIR PORTER asked questions of Mr. Gallagher regarding
bids, and requested clarification of what takes place in the
current given 90 day period. Chairman Porter then concluded
the hearing on SB 322 and announced SB 316 to be the next
bill up for hearing via teleconference.
Number 485
SB 316 - FISHING VIOLATIONS/FINES, BURDEN OF PROOF
JIM BECKER, a Bristol Bay fisherman, expressed his concerns
that the line in Bristol Bay is too restrictive, and the
LORAN management of that line is unpredictable. He said he
has no problem with those people in extreme violation who
are blatantly over the line, being heavily fined or having
their boats taken away; but the unclear line gets in the way
of the average fisherman just trying to make a living, as
does a fine for setting nets a couple of minutes early. A
couple of those small violations should not result in
someone losing their privilege to fish.
Number 530
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked DAVE THOMPSON from Senator Halford's
office to describe the bill.
Number 531
DAVE THOMPSON, Aide, Senator Rick Halford, Prime Sponsor of
SB 316, explained the bill, saying that it amends an
escalating schedule for suspension and for eventual
forfeiture of commercial fishing privileges, as well as the
license itself. It amends 16.05.722 which doubles the
potential maximum allowable fines. It amends the elementary
burden commercial fishermen must satisfy in order to rebut
the presumption that fish found on board in the fishing
vessel have been taken illegally. Burden of proof has been
increased from the preponderance of evidence to clear and
convincing standard. He said he finds the declining fine
amounts for the 90 repeat offenders disturbing. Mr.
Thompson then proceeded to explain the difference between
"preponderance of evidence" and "clear and convincing."
Number 643
REP. PHILLIPS had concerns over the fluctuation of accuracy
in the technological measuring devices.
Number 660
MR. THOMPSON agreed that the LORAN equipment does have
calibration problems and is not always accurate.
Number 681
REP. JAMES suggested charging repeat offenders a double
fine, and discussed other types of fines and their affects
on fishermen with MR. THOMPSON, and REP. PHILLIPS. She
expressed the need to come up with a fair compromise that
would not deplete the livelihood of such an offender.
CHAIRMAN PORTER then accepted oral testimony via
teleconference, beginning with Anchorage.
Number 690
SAM DANIEL, an Anchorage commercial fisherman, opposed SB
316. He blamed the problem on the repeat offenders. He
urged lawmakers to consider some other means of enforcement
rather than taking away fishing licenses, which results in
the fishermen losing their operations if they are to be out
of business for a year. He felt the bill is not an
effective management tool.
Number 804
JACK FOSTER from Sand Point strongly opposed the bill.
Number 836
DAVID WHITMIRE, a fisherman from Homer, strongly opposed the
bill, informing listeners that those 90 violations received
by repeat offenders was a small amount, considering the
number of permits that were issued (2850), and also
considering the number of opportunities each permit holder
has to commit such violations.
TAPE 94-59, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. JAMES commented that this was not a black and white
situation.
Number 012
GIOVANNI TALLINO, President, Kodiak Island Sport
Association, which has over 400 members, urged the committee
to let the people vote on SJR 39 (wrong bill).
Number 060
WILLIAM WOOD, Palmer, strongly supported SB 316.
Number 092
DAN HASTINGS, a commercial fisherman in Kenai, opposed the
bill, feeling that the penalties would be too stiff for the
offense.
Number 155
[INAUDIBLE NAME], a 20 year Bristol Bay fisherman, believed
the bill to condemn people to being guilty until proven
innocent, and also has the potential of taking away the
livelihood of fishermen.
Number 200
KONRAD SCHAAD, Homer fisherman, spoke in opposition to the
bill he described as being short-sided, specifically with
the use of the LORAN, a unit which is supposed to be
accurate (or inaccurate) up to 200 meters, depending upon
the weather. He claimed that there is a gray zone in which
fishing violations are issued. Mr. Schaad strongly believed
that the real problem was lack of boundary definition and
suggested creating a line made up of physical buoys.
Number 277
REP. PHILLIPS acknowledged KONRAD SCHAAD'S line suggestion
as being a reasonable solution.
Number 296
ROSELEEN (SNOOKS) MOORE, Homer, said she has fished
commercially for 34 years and expressed concerns about the
militaristic attitude of the Fish & Game officers, and also
about the fact that fishermen sometimes feel compelled to
take action that may jeopardize their lives, just to avoid a
fine.
Number 343
INGRID JACOBSEN, Sand Point commercial fisherman of 15
years, opposed the bill which appears to presume offenders
guilty until proven innocent. Ms. Jacobsen objected,
specifically, to the language "clear and convincing burden
of proof."
Number 388
DAN HENNICK, Homer, a 38 year commercial fisherman,
suggested giving Public Safety more funding to better
enforce existing laws. He objected to increasing fines and
believed most violations to be unintentional, not
deliberate.
Number 450
ALVIN OSTERBACK, Mayor of the City of Sand Point, viewed the
bill as being backwards regarding "innocent until proven
guilty."
Number 515
GERALD McCUNE, Juneau, testified on behalf of the United
Fishermen of Alaska in opposition to SB 316. He gave
examples where "preponderance of evidence" was used to issue
violations against fishermen while he believed "clear and
convincing evidence" would have been a more fair scale of
judgement. He suggested the committee consider an interim
task force.
Number 572
HUGH MALONE, Lobbyist, testified on behalf of the Kenai
Peninsula Fishermen's Association, who oppose SB 316.
Number 598
LOUIS MENENDEZ, Assistant District Attorney in Juneau,
stated that he has quite a bit of experience in Kenai and
Anchorage prosecuting fish and game cases, and working with
fish and game protection officers. He suggested that
perhaps a better way to deal with this problem would be to
increase enforcement, not fines. He believed this complex
issue requires more evaluation before passing the bill.
Number 693
REP. PHILLIPS, REP. JAMES and MR. MENENDEZ discussed the
need for either more enforcement officers on the line, or
the establishment of a physical boundary line. Mr. Menendez
displayed lack of faith in the idea of increasing the fines.
Number 799
CHAIRMAN PORTER and MR. MENENDEZ discussed the legal
definition of acting "negligently."
Number 828
REP. JAMES expressed distress over the feeling that any
amount of enforcement would not stop the fishermen from
violating the regulations.
TAPE 94-60, SIDE A
Number 000
COLONEL BILL VALENTINE, Director, Division of Fish and
Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety, agreed
with Mr. Menendez that it would be nice to have a protection
officer behind every bush out at Bristol Bay, but he
believed it was not meant to be. He said that Fish & Game
supports the bill. He believed that whatever they do will
not provide a deterrent. The fishermen violate regulations
right in front of the Fish & Game officers while they are
working on other cases. The officers cannot keep up, no
matter how many people they put on the line. He explained
that this bill allows for a judge to take action to suspend
a permit after the second offense, which may deter some from
deliberate violations.
Number 031
CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed that SB 316 not only raises the fine
to add a deterrent, but at the same time changes the
standards of proof on these presumptive areas from
preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing.
Number 107
COLONEL VALENTINE made comments about a great deal of
testimony being made regarding the doubling of fines. He
said the only place that a maximum penalty case occurs is in
Bristol Bay, which costs $3,000 on the first offense.
Places like Southeastern and the YK-Delta charges run from
$100 to $1,000, depending upon the magistrate, the judge, or
the recommendation of the Department of Law. Maximum
penalties for violations are not currently requested from
the court by the Department of Public Safety.
Number 139
REP. PHILLIPS spoke about the fact that it is probably
physically possible to mark the line and requested an
opinion of COLONEL VALENTINE.
Number 147
COLONEL VALENTINE replied that after having spent 23 years
as a "fish cop" and having spent one year as a commercial
fisherman, he thinks that a physical line would be the best
solution; especially in a fishery as intense and short
served as Bristol Bay is. If the line were to move around a
little, so be it, the line would be defined where it is
marked, and would not be subject to the jitter of the LORAN,
nor sun spots.
Number 150
REP. PHILLIPS spoke in favor of clearly marking the line.
Number 155
CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the discussion of SB 316, followed
by a short break.
Number 200
REP. PHILLIPS requested that the Department of Law be
present for comment and question when the bill was brought
back up on Monday; and she also requested that the hearing
be heard via teleconference.
CHAIRMAN PORTER concurred.
Number 210
DAVID OSTERBACK from Sand Point was not in favor of the
bill, as he said it threatens the livelihood of many
fishermen.
CHAIRMAN PORTER reminded meeting attenders that SB 316 would
be heard again on Monday. He then continued on to SJR 39.
Number 252
SJR 39 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that a copy of the CS was
currently being circulated throughout the legislative
offices, and asked PORTIA BABCOCK to present SJR 39 and
describe the CS.
Number 287
PORTIA BABCOCK, Committee Aide to the Senate State Affairs
Committee, explained that SJR 39 was introduced by the
Senate State Affairs Committee from numerous requests that
it be passed through the legislature so that it could be
voted on in the 1994 general election. She said this idea
has been an issue, primarily since 1983, when an attorney
general's opinion was written by JOE GELDHOFF, which sort of
set off a lot of Alaskans, making them uneasy, because the
opinion interpreted exactly what Article 1, Section 19
means.
MS. BABCOCK said at this time there is no Alaska supreme
court interpretation of exactly what Article 1, Section 19,
means, because it has never been challenged and has never
been considered by the supreme court. She stated this
clarification is strongly supported by Senator Leman, who
wished to apologize for not introducing it himself. He
would encourage passage of as clear and concise language as
can possibly be put before the voters so they can understand
exactly what they would be voting on, and also to keep in
line with fairly clear, direct language in the constitution.
MS. BABCOCK said SJR 39 passed out of the Senate with a vote
of 16 to 3. The bill presently before the House Judiciary
Committee clarifies an individual right to keep and bear
arms. Ms. Babcock said it is the opinion of Senator Leman
and many others throughout the state that Article 1, Section
19, as is, right now, with what is identical to the second
amendment of the federal constitution, does currently
guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. This
should guarantee that right, in Senator Leman's opinion, as
well as in many others', (including the supreme court's) in
cases in the late 1800's and up into the 1930's, which is
the last time the federal supreme court actually heard a
case involving the second amendment. At that time, the
supreme court's interpretation was that this is a state, as
well as an individual right or protection, for individuals
to bear arms, and challenges to that at lower court levels,
or the interpretations of attorneys, attorney generals, and
other opinions, but it has never been viewed differently at
the court or supreme court level. With no state supreme
court case law to look at, it is difficult to decide what
our supreme court would do. No one really knows how they
would interpret it, or what they think Article 1, Section
19, actually means. Some cases have been brought up by our
own Department of Law in reference to other cases in other
states. Their concern is that passing this amendment will
somehow abrogate laws that are currently on the books or
that may be in the future.
MS. BABCOCK said Senator Leman does not believe that to be
true. He believes this should change absolutely nothing,
because the way the second amendment reads right now, in our
current language, it does guarantee the individual right to
keep and bear arms. With a compelling government or state
interest, laws have been upheld under language very similar
to this language proposed in SJR 39, as well as under more
strict language, as in our current constitution; and also,
more strict and explicit constitutions are found in other
states. Laws have been consistently upheld, regulating
felon and possession laws, prohibiting minors and juveniles
from being able to possess weapons up to a certain age, not
allowing weapons or firearms on school grounds or in
schools. A lot of these have been challenged and they have
been upheld.
MS. BABCOCK said the only case where the felon and
possession law was partially upheld and partially struck
down was in Colorado. Their constitutional language was
more explicit than what is being proposed in SJR 39. That
language states "the right of no person to keep and bear
arms in defense of his home, person, or property or in aid
of a civil power, when adhered to a legal setting, shall be
called into question." And so it is strictly stated that
the person has the right to defend themselves, to keep and
bear arms in defense of self, home, family and state. The
only time it was a question was when the court ruled that
someone who had been convicted of a felony had been released
and was back out, not on parole, and it was illegal for
them to possess a firearm in the state of Colorado. The
court said, "You can possess a firearm if it is an
affirmative defense for them to prove they were in
possession of that weapon to defend themselves, their
family, home or state; but they did uphold the felon
possession law. That is the only case. It has been
challenged in other states and they have all been upheld.
MS. BABCOCK said that Senator Leman, as well as most of the
people she has heard testimony from (which is about 1500
people statewide and thousands of letters and petitions -
she has a box of petitions that she chose not to distribute
because she didn't want to waste the paper), and she has
over 8,600 signatures in support of SJR 39 as well as HB 351
(they are both on the petition). So, in the opinion of
Senator Leman, this should have no affect on how a court
would interpret this, and the language we currently have
already protects the individual right. And most people feel
very secure with that. It was only after this opinion was
written in 1983 that they started questioning whether they
actually had an individual right to bear arms under Article
1, Section 19, of our state constitution as well as the
federal constitution, second amendment. When that was
brought into question, people wanted this clarified to say,
"This is what we think it means. We want to be able to vote
on this, and tell the courts very clearly what we mean and
what we think the constitutional language for the right to
keep and bear arms means and want the chance to vote on
that." That was the reason for introducing SJR 39. Ms.
Babcock then announced that she would be willing to answer
questions or address the CS.
Number 415
REP. PHILLIPS requested an analysis between the two be made
by Ms. Babcock.
Number 420
MS. BABCOCK explained that the proposed judicial CS would
change the title, first of all. On line 4 of the title, it
inserts "unreasonably", and then on line 5 after "state" it
adds the last 2-1/2 sentences of language: "and
establishing that the expanded right to keep and bear arms
does not change the level of judicial scrutiny applicable to
the review laws relating to reference." She said that
changes the title.
Number 435
REP. PHILLIPS requested that Ms. Babcock address that
language and Senator Leman's feeling on the subject.
Number 440
MS. BABCOCK explained that on page 2 similar change is on
lines 3, 4 and 5. Senator Leman opposes this change, as
well as the other changes, seeing a problem with setting a
bench mark for courts to try and interpret in the future,
because there is no judicial level of scrutiny of weapons
laws to look at right now. The level of scrutiny the court
will use is almost impossible to judge when there are no
cases to look at, and nothing by which to set a bench mark.
People who are going in to vote on this would have no idea
what this means. She does not think this bill is necessary,
since there is nothing to look back on to understand what
exactly this means. The supreme court is going to look at
the constitutional language, and they are going to decide
whether these laws are constitutional or not, based on their
interpretation of the law, and under the constitution. She
does not think this gives them enough guidance from the
legislature for them to understand what we are talking
about. The language is not clear to the voter. The bill is
not written as an absolute.
Number 493
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Babcock, if the bill is written as
"not an absolute," why would it be offensive to add the one
word that would guarantee that it is not an absolute?
Number 508
MS. BABCOCK explained that the reason most people, as well
as the Senator, would find the word "unreasonably" to be
unnecessary, is that they are worried about the courts using
that word unreasonably to mean any law that has any positive
justification, rather than proving a compelling governmental
interest. She said, we do want high standards. People that
believe we do have the right to keep and bear arms have a
philosophical constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as
law abiding citizens. What they are worried about, is that
the word "unreasonably" is a term that they feel could be
abused by the court.
Number 520
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that Deputy Commissioner Swackhammer
would explain the other side to that point of view.
Number 522
REP. JAMES asked MS. BABCOCK whether or not other states
have this particular language in their constitutions.
Number 530
MS. BABCOCK responded affirmatively. She said the two
states have very similar language, which is also very
similar to language already in our constitution.
Number 620
C.E. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public
Safety, said the department agrees with the idea of the
right to bear arms, yet they are trying to predict how the
supreme courts will interpret the language.
Number 663
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Dep. Comm. Swackhammer to discuss the
standard of review suggested in the CS.
DEP. COMM. SWACKHAMMER understood the level of judicial
scrutiny as having to do with the compelling state's
interest. They believe that the proposed language in the
title will not change that level of review.
Number 672
REP. JAMES and REP. PHILLIPS interjected thoughts proposing
the idea that, perhaps, changing this language, in effect,
changes nothing. If it is upheld by the federal
constitution; i.e., if a case went to supreme court, it
would then be subject to the federal language anyway.
Number 710
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the interpretation of this
amendment would not go to the supreme court, unless a
federal issue is involved. It would stop at the state
supreme court, who would have ultimate jurisdiction. He
said he could not imagine a case of this nature being a
federal issue; therefore the case would not go to the
federal level. He then described the three general
standards of review used by the supreme courts when looking
at due process considerations, which are: 1) the Compelling
Interest Standard, which basically means that this is the
highest standard of review, when related to the individual's
right versus the state's right. Under this standard, the
court has to establish that the state has compelling
interest in this field in order to impact an individual's
right; 2) the Rational Basis Standard, which says, "If the
state can show any rational basis for this infringement,
then it is legal, and then the individual's right is gone;
and 3) the Sliding Scale Basis (which is what Alaska's
supreme court has adopted) which balances off the compelling
interest versus the rational basis, making a decision in the
middle. What this provision says is that we are telling the
supreme court we like the fact that you are going to make
decisions in the middle, and we do not want to change that.
If the original version is adopted, this will tell the
supreme court to use a higher standard of review than they
are currently using. The testimony stating that this would
confuse the supreme court is not exactly an appropriate
characterization.
Number 745
REP. JAMES suggested that it appears the title, where it
says that "establishing the expanded right" (and she was of
the opinion that the committee was wanting to just restate
the existing right) that if the language were left the way
it is in the original bill, and the second part were put in
there, then it would do more to meet their needs than it
does now with the change, because she did not think that
when "unreasonably" is put in there that it does change it.
REP. JAMES said that it is expanded, it is an expanded
right, and that is the problem. She said, we are not trying
to expand the right, we are trying to just assert the right
that we think we already have. We can talk about this at a
later time when we have the Department of Law here.
Number 750
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that, as was testified to right
now, the only law in the books is the attorney general's
opinion that says there is no individual right to keep and
bear arms in the state of Alaska. Consequently, he said, we
are recognizing that when we say we are expanding that, and
we would like to expand that to recognize the individual
right to keep and bear arms.
Number 760
REP. PHILLIPS asked which attorney general wrote the
opinion, and when.
MS. BABCOCK replied that it was Joe Geldhoff who wrote the
opinion in 1983, which is only that -- an opinion; it has
absolutely no authority at all.
Number 764
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that we need to remember that the
attorney general's opinion is in effect until it is
superseded by law, or challenged.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for teleconference testimony.
Number 777
W.J. HALLERAN, JR., via teleconference from Anchorage, spoke
out in favor of passing SJR 39.
Number 787
DAN DAVIS, of Delta Junction, urged the committee members to
promote the bill.
Number 804
GENE OTTENSTROER, of Delta Junction, agreed with SJR 39,
except for the clause about a regulated militia.
Number 807
JOE SCHOENER, North Pole, expressed belief that the word
unreasonably neutralizes the bill... (continued on other
side of tape)
TAPE 94-60, SIDE B
...and the bill needs to stay in its original form.
Number 009
LADD McBRIDE, Fairbanks, expressed concerns over the third
rescheduling of the teleconference. He spoke in favor of
passing SJR 39 in its original form and keeping it simple.
If the commissioner is for it, he said, he is against it.
Number 041
CHAIRMAN PORTER apologized for the inconvenience of
rescheduling the meeting and explained the reason for the
rescheduling (committee members were called to the floor).
Number 049
CLARENCE BAYSINGER, Fairbanks, spoke in favor of SJR 39
without the CS.
Number 077
FRANK TURNEY of Fairbanks showed support of passing the bill
without the CS.
Number 110
ROBERT ANDERSON of Kodiak supported the bill in its original
form, feeling skeptical of the word "unreasonably" which he
felt leaves the bill open to too much interpretation.
Number 158
MARK CHRYSON, State Field Coordinator of Gun Owners of
America, Wasilla, was in favor of SJR 39 in its original
form, believing that the word "unreasonably" will create
unreasonable voters in the reelection.
Number 173
DOUG MILLARD, Wasilla, supported the bill without the word
"unreasonably."
Number 200
MIKE CHRYST of Wasilla, President of [inaudible] ... Against
Government [inaudible], said he comes in contact with
hundreds of people. Of those people, nobody is in
opposition to the bill, but they do oppose the term
"unreasonably."
Number 232
LOUIE MARCH of Seward supported passing SJR 39 in its
original form, feeling it should be voted on by the people.
He also thought that the "federal government" should be
added to Article 1, Section 19, line 11, where the bill
states that, "The individual right to keep and bear arms
shall not be denied or infringed upon by the State or a
political subdivision of the State."
Number 310
HELEN MARCH, Seward, spoke in support of SJR 39 in its
original form.
Number 320
DANIEL FICKLE, Seward, spoke in support of passing SJR 39 in
its original form, and putting it up for the people to vote
on.
Number 330
WESLEY J. JONES' testimony was read by LOUIE MARCH via
teleconference from Seward, which consisted of a three page
document written by J. Neil Schulman entitled, "English
Usage Expert Interprets 2nd Amendment." Basically, this
article grammatically dissects a particular sentence,
proving the interpretation of the sentence to have only one
absolute meaning, as long as the reader has full
understanding of proper English usage.
MR. JONES' point was, though the intent of the wording in
the bill is clear, unfortunately, many people do not fully
understand English construction and usage, therefore
language to clarify the meaning of the current state
provision would be advantageous to those people.
Number 389
MR. JONES supported moving SJR 39 out of committee.
Number 390
ROBERT WISEMAN, Soldotna, supported the bill excluding the
CS, having fears that the bill would make him subservient to
those that would disarm him. He believed SJR 39 would
alleviate some of those fears. It would allow a lot of
people to send a message that the law-abiding citizens of
Alaska believe very strongly in these basic rights.
Number 420
ROBERT MEYER, Sterling, supported the bill excluding the CS,
in order to protect citizens' rights against a tyrannical
government.
Number 448
RAY HALLEY of Valdez supported the bill, excluding the CS.
Number 470
DON CHASE of Valdez supported the bill without the CS.
Number 500
LARRY PETTY of Fairbanks supported the bill without the CS.
Number 514
CHAIRMAN PORTER defended insertion of the word
"unreasonably", stating that it is a word that is in the
fourth amendment, addressing reasonable searches and
seizures, and it is a word that is a derivative of the
supreme court, and there is quite a bit of case law on it.
He does not think it is something that would take anybody by
surprise. Chairman Porter said that if people feel secure
against "unreasonable searches and seizures", the
"unreasonable" infringement of your firearm should not be
too much of a detriment.
Number 523
CHUCK SERRA, a Viet Nam combat veteran, via teleconference
in Anchorage, wanted the committee to pass the bill in its
original form so people can vote on the issue.
Number 570
NEIL CAMERON, Anchorage, spoke in support of SJR 39.
Number 590
SALLY CHRYST of Wasilla supported SJR 39, excluding the CS.
She also complained of the unreasonable amount of time she
had to wait to testify.
Number 593
CHAIRMAN PORTER apologized for her waiting to testify. He
explained that he reasonably tried to read the list of those
wishing to testify, and she was not on the list. He asked
if there were any others wishing to testify who were
unreasonably omitted.
Number 600
JEANNE PHIPPS, Delta Junction, supported the bill, excluding
the word "unreasonably."
Number 630
LEON CHYTHLOOK of Soldotna spoke in support of the bill,
excluding the CS.
Number 648
NEIL CAMERON, Anchorage, spoke again, this time complaining
of the lack of allowance of testimony via teleconference, in
general.
Number 675
CHAIRMAN PORTER apologized once again, explaining that the
constitution limits the amount of time the legislature can
meet, resulting in the committee meetings being allowed a
limited amount of teleconference time.
CHAIRMAN PORTER also explained that the goal of the
committee is to obtain as much public testimony as possible
in the limited time allotted, and expressed appreciation to
Mr. Cameron for his testimony this time.
CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the hearing, scheduling resolution
of the hearing on Monday, April 18. He said it would be a
"listen only" teleconference meeting.
Number 692
CHUCK SERRA, Anchorage, spoke again, this time commending
Chairman Porter for hearing this bill and expressed hopes of
it moving out. He also commended Chairman Porter for
getting SJR 39 heard.
The House Judiciary Committee was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|