Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/27/2003 08:01 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2003
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to concealed handguns."
- MOVED CSSSHB 177(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act allowing certain roadside memorials to be placed within
the right-of-way of a state highway."
- MOVED CSHB 127(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Establishing a task force to make recommendations regarding a
new design for the official seal of the State of Alaska.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 177
SHORT TITLE:CONCEALED HANDGUNS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/07/03 0467 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/07/03 0467 (H) STA, JUD
03/14/03 0540 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/14/03 0540 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/14/03 0540 (H) STA, JUD
03/17/03 0567 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAHLSTROM, HOLM
03/24/03 0623 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GATTO
03/27/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 102
SHORT TITLE:CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CROFT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/14/03 0215 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/14/03 0215 (H) STA, JUD
02/19/03 0257 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GATTO
03/13/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/27/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 127
SHORT TITLE:ROADSIDE MEMORIALS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WHITAKER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/26/03 0304 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/26/03 0304 (H) TRA, STA
03/06/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/06/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/06/03 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/07/03 0463 (H) TRA RPT 3DP 2AM
03/07/03 0463 (H) DP: FATE, HEINZE, HOLM; AM:
KOHRING,
03/07/03 0463 (H) MASEK
03/07/03 0464 (H) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
03/27/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SSHB 177; testified
during the hearing on HB 102.
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison
to the National Rifle Association (NRA)
and the Institute for Legislative Action
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions on
SSHB 177; on behalf of the NRA, testified in support of the
concept of HB 102.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SSHB 177;
testified as sponsor of HB 102.
LORI BACKES, Staff
to Representative Jim Whitaker
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 127 to the committee on behalf
of Representative Whitaker, sponsor.
RACHELLE DOWDY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 127 and the
amendments adopted today.
SANDY GILLESPIE
POSITION STATEMENT: Her testimony in support of HB 127 was read
by Rachelle Dowdy.
JIM EDE
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 127.
ASA DOWDY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 127.
BARBARA DOWDY, Member
Fairbanks Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 127 as amended.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-30, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. Representatives
Weyhrauch, Holm, Seaton, and Gruenberg were present at the call
to order. Representatives Dahlstrom, Lynn, and Berkowitz
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 177-CONCEALED HANDGUNS
Number 0040
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 177, "An Act relating to
concealed handguns."
Number 0099
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZ, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
SSHB 177, told the committee this straightforward legislation
removes an amendment from statute that was enacted last year
with respect to reciprocity agreements with other states for
carrying concealed weapons; that amendment, although presumed to
be innocuous, had caused other states to not accept [Alaska's
concealed weapon laws] because they aren't compatible with their
own. Furthermore, SSHB 177 adds language to direct the
department to work towards reciprocity agreements with other
states.
Number 0294
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison to the National Rifle
Association (NRA) and the Institute for Legislative Action, told
the committee he was testifying on behalf of both. He said on
the surface this appears to be a substantive change, but is
really a technical change. The intent is to open up the
recognition of Alaska concealed weapon permits by other states.
Mr. Judy noted that the previous year's SB 242, carried by
Senator Robin Taylor, would basically say that Alaska recognizes
permits from all other states; it also would make other changes,
with the idea of trying get more states to recognize Alaska's
permits. He continued:
The more that Alaska recognizes, the more we're going
to be able to have Alaska permits recognized in those
other states because of a lot of the reciprocity
agreements. So that's the intent of this bill, and it
does it in two ways. First of all, it requires the
Department of Public Safety [DPS] to enter into
reciprocity agreement[s]. Now, this commissioner has
already, pretty actively, started doing that. We just
want to codify it, so it's in place for the future.
I've talked to them about this. They don't have a
problem with that. They did ask that there be one
amendment, which we don't have a problem with. And
that amendment would be to clarify -- because it does
say that the DPS shall enter into reciprocity
agreements with other states. Now, there are some
states, like Washington, for instance, that doesn't
recognize other states' permits. So, they're not
going to enter into a reciprocity agreement. So DPS,
just as a technical issue, doesn't want to be forced
to make agreements with states that aren't going to
make agreements with them. So, they asked if we would
be willing to do that, and we indicated yes.
The other thing this bill does is, it repeals the
language that Representative Stoltz is talking about
that was added on to SB 242 at the very end of session
last year. ... There was a concern raised on the floor
that people who had had a permit revoked or denied in
Alaska could go outside the state, get a permit in
another state, and then come back in and have that
permit recognized in the State of Alaska.
Number 0513
MR. JUDY continued:
One of the points of that bill was to get Texas to
recognize Alaska permits. There was another provision
in the law that Alaska said was more restrictive than
their recognition law, so they wouldn't recognize
Alaska. Well, we didn't think that the amendment was
going to cause us any problems. We didn't think it
was an issue; we think it's highly unlikely that
anybody who has a permit denied or revoked in this
state is going to travel out somewhere else, get a
permit, and then carry in Alaska. But we didn't think
it was an issue, didn't think it would cause a
problem, so we accepted the amendment.
MR. JUDY referred to a handout in the committee packet that
relates to the Texas Department of Public Safety's refusal to
recognize Alaska permits because, technically, Alaskan law
regarding recognition is more restrictive than the Texas law.
He remarked, "If you repeal this language, it's going to
automatically open the door for Texas to recognize Alaska, and
probably some other states, too."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if [the bill] would reduce Alaska's
requirements to those of Texas.
MR. JUDY answered no; Alaska currently recognizes permits from
all other states. He said Texas is refusing to enter into
agreement because Alaska "puts this ... proviso on the
recognition of other states." He said it would be unlikely that
an Alaskan would travel to Texas to get a Texas permit and then
attempt to carry it in Alaska.
Number 0670
MR. JUDY said there are only 35 denials and revocations each
year in Alaska. He said, "Most of those are going to be for
issues that are going to prevent a person from being issued a
permit in another state." He said the bottom line is that
[SSHB 177] won't provide a substantive change to Alaska law and
won't create problems, but will open the door for recognition of
Alaska permits in other states. In response to a question by
Representative Gruenberg, he said the reason for the change in
Section 1 was because of the Texas letter refusing reciprocity.
Number 0717
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't interpret the letter in
the committee packet, written by Thomas A. Davis, Jr., dated
June 28, 2002, as saying that. He referred to a portion of the
letter that read: "After reviewing both statutes, we are trying
to determine if Alaska will recognize all licenses issued by
Texas. For instance, if Texas and Alaska were to enter into a
reciprocity agreement, would Alaska recognize the following
Texas concealed handgun licenses". Representative Gruenberg
said this raises a number of questions, but doesn't say Texas
won't recognize reciprocity with Alaska because of the current
amendment to AS 18.65.748; it simply asks a question.
MR. JUDY drew attention to the response from DPS back to Texas,
a fax written by Lieutenant Julia P. Grimes that says under
certain circumstances Alaska will not recognize the Texas
permit. As a result, Texas had responded - but not in writing -
that it wouldn't enter into reciprocity with Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized that nothing in writing
confirms Texas's response or says Alaska needs to amend its
statute. He explained:
It seems to me that it was an entirely reasonable
thing to amend it as Alaska did - that we don't want
to license people, you know, have people come back to
us, trying to get around - like you have some reason,
as a felony, conviction, or something - and then they
go to another state, get licensed there, and then say
you've got to recognize it here. That would
circumvent the Alaska law, and it would not be good
public policy to allow that kind of a person to get a
permit here. I can't imagine that would be something
that Texas would not allow.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he'd like to know, on the record,
who said this and what authority that person has. He indicated
he thought the stated response didn't sound logical.
MR. JUDY said, "I agree with you."
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ asked if there is any state in which a
person with a felony could possess a concealed-carry permit.
Number 1034
MR. JUDY told Representative Gruenberg that Texas is being "very
bureaucratically nitpicky." He continued:
You're right; this sounds like a reasonable
restriction, which is why we didn't have a problem
with it when it was offered. Like I said, we felt
that it was highly unlikely that one of these
individuals - one of these 35 people a year that is
either revoked or denied - is going to go to another
state and to try to circumvent that law, particularly
when they can carry openly in Alaska. And I think
it's about as likely that a Texas permit is not going
to be recognized by Alaska. But that's the reality.
MR. JUDY, in response to questions from Representative
Gruenberg, said he hasn't spoken to [Mr. Davis], who has
corresponded with Ms. Grimes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Ms. Grimes was present. He
emphasized that he would like more proof than "double hearsay"
that there is a problem to be solved before [the legislature]
repeals what he considers an important protection in Alaska law.
Number 1161
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there are reciprocity agreement
problems with any state other than Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered, "We're trying to enhance the
reciprocity agreements with all states." He noted that Texas
has concealed-carry permits. He opined that many Alaskans
travel to Texas and probably have a good reason to feel they
need a concealed-carry permit in some of the venues there.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON alluded to a list labeled "PERMIT ISSUANCE
CRITERIA FOR STATES WHICH ISSUE CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS TO NON-
RESIDENTS (As compared to Alaska's qualifications)," included in
the committee packet. He pointed out that Texas isn't on that
list. He asked if [Texas] has requirements similar to Alaska's.
MR. JUDY clarified that the list he'd provided shows only the
eleven states that issue permits to nonresidents, which Texas
doesn't do. Thus an Alaskan wouldn't go to Texas to get a Texas
permit. He continued as follows:
See, the argument was that without this language that
we're suggesting be repealed, an Alaskan who's had a
permit, denied or revoked, can travel to another state
and be issued a permit by another state. Now, there's
only eleven states that issue to nonresidents. And
for your information and trying to raise the comfort
level, I provided you with the issuance criteria for
those eleven states. Four of them you can take off
right now, because they're not going to issue: you
either have to have a business in that state, you have
to have a local background check. So, of those
eleven, four really aren't a possibility.
So, in reality, there are seven states out there that
an Alaskan could go to be issued a nonresident permit.
And if you look at the criteria in those seven states,
they are generally as restricted, if [not] more
restricted than Alaska. So, the chance of an Alaskan
who's had a permit denied or revoked, you have two
issues: What's the chance they're going to go out of
state to try to get another permit? I would suggest
that it's pretty remote. But if they do go to one of
those seven states, what's the chance that they're
going to issued a permit, if they don't qualify for a
permit in Alaska? It's virtually impossible.
Number 1346
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he appreciates that, but the
discussion is about reciprocity agreements. He asked Mr. Judy
if he had the requirements for a concealed-handgun permit in
Texas.
MR. JUDY said not immediately available, but it's not relevant
to this debate. He clarified that Alaska recognizes Texas
permits under existing Alaska law. He said, "What we're simply
trying to do under this bill is, if we repeal that language,
then it will take away the restriction that's imposed by Alaska
on the recognition of Texas permits." Repealing that language
will automatically open the door for Texas to enter into a
reciprocity agreement with Alaska. He clarified that [SSHB 177]
will allow the recognition of Alaska permits in Texas. He added
that this is a bill to benefit Alaskan concealed weapon permit
holders.
Number 1438
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, referred to
the two aforementioned letters [between Mr. Davis and Ms.
Grimes]. He said it seems they establish what the problem is
that Representative Stoltz's bill tries to correct. He said
he'd attempted during the past summer in his office to get to
the bottom of this. He said Mr. Davis, in his letter, asks
Alaska what it would do in three hypothetical situations; that
part read as follows [original punctuation provided, but format
changed]:
1) if the Texas licensee is currently eligible for a
Texas license, but not an Alaska permit and has never
applied for an Alaska permit;
2) if the Texas licensee is currently eligible for a
Texas license, but not an Alaska permit and has had an
application in Alaska rejected or had a permit revoked
or suspended by Alaska;
3) if the Texas licensee is currently eligible for a
Texas license and an Alaska permit but applied for an
Alaska permit when he was not eligible and was
rejected, or had an Alaska permit revoked because he
was not eligible at the time.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the first of three is "an okay
situation," but the other two are problematic for the very
reason this bill corrects. He referred to the beginning of the
third paragraph of the response [faxed] letter from [Ms. Grimes]
of DPS, which read, "We would not recognize a Texas permit under
the other two circumstances you listed. Based on the language
of our new law, no reciprocity agreement is needed."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he hadn't spoken with Mr. Davis, but
had spoken with Ms. Grimes, with the Texas NRA representative,
and with Brian Judy, among others. He mentioned the root of the
problem regarding the hypothetical [situations] posed.
Referring again to the letters, he said the third
[correspondence, not available] is Texas saying that based on
Alaska's response to the first letter, it will not do a
reciprocity agreement with Alaska.
Number 1583
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned that conclusion and
suggested the possibility that [Texas] would find, because of
the unique wording of the Alaska law, that it would still have
reciprocity. He explained:
A person wants to get a permit in Texas, but they were
not eligible in Alaska; ... that's at least a
possibility. That wouldn't necessarily cause Texas
not to enter into a reciprocity ... agreement in
Alaska. I would like to have a definite answer to
that question, because this is just kind of
preliminary discussion.
Number 1620
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Judy if Ms. Grimes actually
held a conversation with Mr. Davis and whether Mr. Davis
definitely said Texas wouldn't enter into a reciprocity
agreement with Alaska. He asked if [Mr. Davis] has the
authority to make that decision and if he got a legal opinion to
that effect, or whether his response was a preliminary, off-the-
cuff response.
MR. JUDY replied, "That's my understanding." He said he has
been addressing the issue for at least three or four years; as
the state liaison for Alaska, one of the things he is trying to
do is work for Alaskan firearms owners. The whole issue of
weapons permits, reciprocity, and recognition is a big one
because people with permits want to be able to "carry" in other
states when they travel. In order to serve his membership, he
said, he is trying to get Alaska's permits recognized in as many
other states as possible.
MR. JUDY highlighted what he called another glitch in the law:
until last year, Alaska only recognized out-of-state permits for
120 days. That is what SB 242 was trying to correct, he said,
adding that it was the "hook that Texas was hanging their hat
on." He continued as follows:
So, we repealed that. And at the eleventh hour, this
language was suggested because of this concern that
was raised, and we felt, "Okay, well that's not a
problem." But in reality - and I don't have it in
writing - ... if you go look at the Alaska DPS web
site, there's no reciprocity agreement between Alaska
and Texas. And the reality is, it's because of the
fact that there's that restriction, then, as
Representative Croft pointed out: a couple of these
hypothetical scenarios would cause Alaska not to
recognize a Texas permit. That's the reality. This
bill fixes that.
Number 1785
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that the bill's title is "An act
relating to concealed handguns," whereas it really relates to
reciprocity agreements with other states to carry concealed
handguns. He asked Representative Stoltz if it might be a
problem to have such a broad title.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ responded that he doesn't think so. He
added, "I would be happy if there was an outburst of pro-Second
Amendment activity in both bodies that did more pro-gun stuff on
this."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "Is there any way to get any of that
testimony ... nailed down [regarding] this issue between Texas
and Alaska, at least to move it aside so it's not a concern?"
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ said yes. He noted [Representative
Gruenberg] is also a member of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
Number 1918
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would not oppose [moving
SSHB 177 from committee]. He asked if Mr. Judy would coordinate
a discussion between Mr. Davis and any legislators who want to
participate before the bill is heard in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee. He said an expert in Alaska law is needed.
He continued as follows:
It doesn't say, on the face of our law that you want
to repeal, why people would not be eligible in Alaska.
But if they're not eligible because they're convicted
felons, et cetera, et cetera, that would probably be
consistent with Texas. And it may very well be that
this thing can be cured without this particular
legislative fix. I certainly have no problem with
Section 2 in the bill, and I just want us to really
know what we're doing here.
MR. JUDY responded that he'd be happy to work through
Representative Gruenberg's office to address the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants the issue clear on the
record.
Number 1985
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ began discussion of a possible amendment.
He asked Chair Weyhrauch if the current committee wished to
address the technical change in Section 2 regarding reciprocity.
MR. JUDY clarified that it would be something along the lines of
the following: "The department shall enter into [reciprocity]
agreements with other states that are authorized [to enter] into
agreements." He explained that DPS had raised the concern
regarding the requirement that it enter into agreements with
other states, when some states don't enter into agreements.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ said, for example, that the department
wouldn't be making [agreements] with California or New York,
which don't have concealed-carry permits.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the current language [in
SSHB 177] is sufficient from the department's point of view.
MR. JUDY replied that [the department] had asked for a slight
modification so that it isn't mandated to enter into agreements
with states that don't enter into agreements.
Number 2098
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Stoltz to confirm that this
discussion follows a suggestion from DPS.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ said yes. He said the bill illustrates
the laws of unintended consequences. He said he wouldn't want
the department to have to use its resources to try to help an
Alaskan get a permit in another state where it isn't possible to
do so.
Number 2128
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the department would like
language added that would read, for example, "if the other
states have laws that permit this".
MR. JUDY responded, "Something along those lines."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered the following conceptual amendment: On
page 1, line 13, after the word "states", insert "that have the
legal authority to enter such agreements".
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZ commented, "I see nodding from the man on
my left and all around the room."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the foregoing conceptual
amendment would be added to a committee substitute. He
clarified that [lines 13-14, with the inclusion of the
conceptual amendment] would read as follows:
(b) The department shall enter into reciprocity
agreements with other states that have the legal
authority to enter such agreements so that permittees
may carry concealed handguns in those other states.
Number 2240
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report SSHB 177, as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection,
CSSSHB 177(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HB 102-CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS LEGAL
[Contains discussion of SSHB 177]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act relating to concealed deadly
weapons."
Number 2295
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
told Chair Weyhrauch he appreciates that both SSHB 177
[sponsored by Representative Stoltz] and HB 102 are being heard
on the same schedule because they "were born out of the same
frustration." He said he has seen two or three concealed-carry
bills during his short time in the legislature. He said his
involvement on the bill includes working on the reciprocity
issue over the summer, trying to talk to the Texas Department of
Public Safety, participating in "the debate that led to the
amendment that we're being forced to correct in the prior bill,"
and meeting with Representative Stoltz on [SSHB 177]. He said
he'd left the meeting with Representative Stoltz thinking that
"this was entirely too complicated and too restrictive of
Alaskans' right to keep and ... bear arms."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he'd told Representative Stoltz at
that time that he would draft something modeled on Vermont's
law, which is unrestrictive and allows [its residents] to bear
arms. He indicated no significant problems had resulted in
Vermont, which has a very low crime rate. Representative Croft
reported that Representative Stoltz had said [Vermont's
concealed-carry law] fits with "our Alaskan character and our
specific and very definite constitutional right to keep and bear
arms." Unlike the U.S. Constitution, Alaska's constitution says
it's an individual right. Representative Croft said he knows
that the purposes behind [Alaska's] restrictions regarding
"concealed carry" are all done with the best motives, but he
just doesn't believe "we need to second guess our citizens in
that way."
Number 2440
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said although a person may think that
Vermont's law might create a problem of transients from nearby
high-crime states coming into Vermont, that hasn't been
Vermont's experience. He opined that Alaska, situated next to
restrictive Canadian gun laws along one side and having water
around the rest of the state, should have been the state to
start "this experiment" first.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned getting out of "a constant,
somewhat condescending" discussion of the particulars of
allowing people to carry a weapon inside, rather than outside,
their purses or coats. He stated, "The more these details stood
as impediments to the individual right of Alaskans to keep and
bear arms, the more I questioned the entire premise of these
laws." He said he is presenting for the committee's
consideration that "we can trust our citizens more than that."
Number 2526
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the intent of the bill is to get rid
of the requirement that a person has a permit. Currently, he
noted, permit holders must tell someone at a private residence
that they are entering with a concealed [weapon], at which point
the resident might refuse entry or just be aware of the
information. Permit holders, when stopped by a police officer,
have the obligation to tell the officer if they are "carrying
concealed." He said, "Both of those are reasonable provisions
in deleting the permit requirement. We accidentally, in the
first draft of this bill, deleted those two requirements."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that the amendments are available
[included in the committee packet]. He said he would like for
somebody carrying concealed, after the passage of this bill, to
have all the requirements that a permit holder had before. He
clarified, "If it was illegal for you to carry a gun before, it
would be under this bill. We simply eliminate the requirement
that you get this government permit."
Number 2626
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT brought attention to Amendment A.1, labeled
23-LS0515\A.1, Luckhaupt, 2/20/03, which read:
Page 1, lines 3 - 8:
Delete all material.
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 11.61.220(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of misconduct
involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person
(1) knowingly possesses a deadly weapon,
other than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive
weapon, that is concealed on the person and when
contacted by a peace officer fails to immediately
inform the peace officer of that possession;
(2) knowingly possesses a loaded firearm on
the person in any place where intoxicating liquor is
sold for consumption on the premises;
(3) being an unemancipated minor under 16
years of age, possesses a firearm without the consent
of a parent or guardian of the minor;
(4) knowingly possesses a firearm
(A) within the grounds of or on a parking
lot immediately adjacent to a center, other than a
private residence, licensed under AS 14.37, AS 47.33,
or AS 47.35 or recognized by the federal government
for the care of children;
(B) within a
(i) courtroom or office of the Alaska Court
System; or
(ii) courthouse that is occupied only by
the Alaska Court System and other justice-related
agencies; or
(C) within a domestic violence or sexual
assault shelter that receives funding from the state;
or
(5) possesses or transports a switchblade
or a gravity knife.
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "11.61.220(a)(1), 11.61.220(b),
11.61.220(e), 11.61.220(h)"
Insert "11.61.220(b)"
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment A.1 adds back in
the "permit" requirement which was previously deleted. In
response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch, he clarified that A.1
addresses [the issue of informing a police officer of possession
of concealed weapon].
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT brought attention to Amendment A.2 [labeled
23-LS0515\A.2, Luckhaupt, 3/14/03], which read:
Page 1, lines 3 - 8:
Delete all material.
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 11.61.220(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person commits the crime of misconduct
involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person
(1) knowingly possesses a deadly weapon,
other than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive
weapon, that is concealed on the person within the
residence of another person unless the person has
first obtained the express permission of an adult
residing there to bring a concealed deadly weapon
within the residence;
(2) knowingly possesses a loaded firearm on
the person in any place where intoxicating liquor is
sold for consumption on the premises;
(3) being an unemancipated minor under 16
years of age, possesses a firearm without the consent
of a parent or guardian of the minor;
(4) knowingly possesses a firearm
(A) within the grounds of or on a parking
lot immediately adjacent to a center, other than a
private residence, licensed under AS 14.37, AS 47.33,
or AS 47.35 or recognized by the federal government
for the care of children;
(B) within a
(i) courtroom or office of the Alaska Court
System; or
(ii) courthouse that is occupied only by
the Alaska Court System and other justice-related
agencies; or
(C) within a domestic violence or sexual
assault shelter that receives funding from the state;
or
(5) possesses or transports a switchblade
or a gravity knife.
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "11.61.220(a)(1), 11.61.220(b),
11.61.220(e), 11.61.220(h)"
Insert "11.61.220(b)"
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment A.2 addresses [the
issue of informing the resident of possession of a concealed
weapon]. He said, "If the committee decided to do both, the
drafters would have to put a '(1)' and a '(2)' there and join
them." He indicated he didn't know if the committee would
choose both; thus he'd had them drafted as separate amendments.
Number 2700
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his assumption that
Amendment A.1 would have to be amended to only apply if the
defendant is aware that he/she is speaking to a police officer,
because the officer could be under cover. Referring to
[existing language in paragraph (1)] of both Amendments A.1 and
A.2, he asked whether the term "deadly weapon" includes more
than a concealed handgun. For example, could it include a pipe
bomb or machine gun?
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered that he believes the definition of
"deadly weapon" is broader. He admitted that it may be an
issue, although unintended. He said it was his intent that
people be able to carry firearms without the restriction.
Number 2797
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked for confirmation that a pipe bomb, for
example, is already illegal to possess.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the crime is called "misconduct
involving weapons in the fifth degree," and is a broad crime
crafted to include any kind of a concealed deadly weapon.
Number 2835
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that there are persuasive
attorneys on the committee, because he initially concurred with
Representative Gruenberg's comments but now agrees with Chair
Weyhrauch. He continued as follows:
If it's independently illegal, as I think a pipe bomb
and, I'm fairly sure, a sawed-off shotgun ... would
be, then it doesn't matter, I guess, so much whether
... [it's] concealed or not; it's just illegal to
possess. And we aren't affecting the federal or state
prohibitions on what you can and can't carry. We're
simply eliminating ... the distinction of it being
under your jacket or outside of it.
Number 2869
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked Representative Croft if
[Vermont's concealed-carry law] has affected its crime
statistics.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered that [Vermont's crime rate] is one
of the lowest in the nation; however, that may be attributed to
a lot of different factors. He opined that the important thing
is that [Vermont's] decision to allow its citizens to "carry
concealed" freely didn't [cause the crime rate to go up]. He
said, "It may be one of those things that is a measure of
respect that you treat your citizens. And that may have
benefits that [are] hard to quantify."
Number 2934
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said these are crimes under other
statutes, as well. He asked, "This is a misdemeanor, is it not,
Representative Croft?"
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered, "I believe so."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained, "It provides the prosecution
with the charging option. And it's important to keep it on the
books properly." He mentioned a discussion yesterday with
Representative Stoltz and said, "We wanted to keep the
prosecution to have as many charging options as they can."
TAPE 03-30, SIDE B
Number 2999
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if this bill would [make it illegal]
for a person out hunting to fail to immediately reveal to an
Alaska Fish & Game Department (ADF&G) protection officer that he
is carrying a concealed hunting knife. He pointed out that a
sheath knife wouldn't be defined as an ordinary pocket knife.
Number 2980
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZ, Alaska State Legislature, responded
that it isn't even a "concealed carry" status. He related his
belief that it would be "concealed carry in the field."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered his belief that there is an
exception in the current concealed-carry [law], and said, "We'd
certainly want it here for outdoor recreational activity." He
said he thinks when a person is in the field, it is a different
situation. However, he gave an example of the person getting
into a car and driving through a metropolitan area; at that
point, he noted, the person would probably be violating the law
if the [weapon] was still concealed. He said, "They have tried,
at least, to address this recreational activity idea. We'll
check to make sure that before, and in the changes we make in
the bill, ... it stays there."
Number 2887
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to [existing statute in
paragraph (1) of Section 1 of both Amendments A.1 and A.2],
which read: "knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other than an
ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon, that is concealed
on the person". He said many people who aren't hunting wear
sheath knives. He said he doesn't think the intention is to say
that only ordinary pocket knives are now permissible to possess
without being charged with a crime [for not revealing the
carrying of a concealed weapon]. He said, unfortunately, there
are circumstances when officers are unreasonable. He asked
[Representative Croft] to "tighten up that language."
Number 2815
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT cited AS 11.61.220(b)(2), current law that
will not be changed, which reads:
(2) actually engaged in lawful hunting, fishing,
trapping, or other lawful outdoor activity that
necessarily involves the carrying of a weapon for
personal protection;
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT remarked, "So they've at least tried to
address the specific [issue] that you talked about." Agreeing
with Representative Seaton's general point regarding who is
going to determine when [the language in statute] "necessarily"
is involved, he said it sounds as though both he and
Representative Seaton "would like to err on the side of the
right."
Number 2670
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Section 3 of the bill repeals
statutes including AS 18.65.755(a)(1). That paragraph, with the
surrounding statutory language, read as follows:
(a) A permittee may not possess a concealed
handgun
(1) within a residence, other than the
permittee's residence, unless the permittee has first
obtained the express permission of an adult residing
there to bring a concealed handgun within the
residence; and
(2) anywhere a person is prohibited from
possessing a handgun under state or federal law.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said repealing paragraph (1) would allow a
person to possess a concealed handgun in a residence and not
obtain the permission of an adult residing there.
Number 2603
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, "You have to eliminate the
distinction between permittees and ordinary citizens if you're
going to take this step. And it's the reason, then, that we
have Amendments [A.1 and A.2], to add it back as a crime for a
person to carry a deadly weapon." He referred to [the proposed
added language in A.2], which read as follows:
within the residence of another person unless the
person has first obtained the express permission of an
adult residing there to bring a concealed deadly
weapon within the residence;
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the more he listens to the committee's
questions, the more he thinks there is [language in the bill] to
clean up. He explained that the reason the word "permittee"
should not be used is because people are now allowed to "carry
concealed" without a permit. He said "person" [should be used]
in its place, which is what Amendment A.2 does.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about adopting the amendment as a proposed
committee substitute (CS) and then working on it.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT reminded members that Amendments A.1 and
A.2, although similar, address two different things. They could
be adopted together or just one could be adopted. He
recommended the former action.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested that the previously stated issue
regarding the use of "concealed handgun" rather than "deadly
weapon" be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed to do that before the next meeting.
Number 2530
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt a conceptual amendment
incorporating both Amendment A.1 and Amendment A.2. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2453
BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison to the National Rifle
Association (NRA) and the Institute for Legislative Action, said
HB 102 is "really shifting gears" from the concealed weapon
permits bill [SSHB 177] by "doing away with that whole process."
He said he doesn't think it's inconsistent to discuss the two at
the same time. He told members:
While the NRA has supported the concealed weapon
permit law - as evidenced by [HB] 177, we're
continuing to improve upon it. At the same point in
time, philosophically, we don't believe that ... law-
abiding citizens should have to get permission from
the government to be able to provide a means of self-
protection. And, essentially, the concealed weapon
permit process puts a price tag on people's ability to
provide a means of self-protection.
As was pointed out, in Alaska you don't need to get
that permission if you're going to carry openly. You
can carry openly in Alaska, loaded, unloaded,
anywhere. You can also carry concealed in Alaska,
without a permit, if you're engaged in a lawful
outdoor activity necessarily involving the use of
firearms for self-protection.
This, basically, would expand that just a little bit
to say anytime, even if you're ... not engaged in a
lawful activity but you're carrying a firearm for
self-protection, you should be able to do so without
having to go through the bureaucracy, get a permit,
pay the fee, ... et cetera.
Essentially, what it comes down to is: you can carry
a firearm anywhere in plain view in Alaska, but if you
put on a coat when it's cold and you cover that
weapon, then you have to go through all this
bureaucracy. And it really doesn't make sense.
The Vermont experience has been talked about. Crime
is at the bottom of the barrel in that state; it just
doesn't cause a problem. Montana is similar. In 99.8
percent of Montana, you don't need a permit to carry
concealed; you only need a permit to carry concealed
in Montana if you're ... within city limits. And in
Montana, crime is very low. There's just not a ...
problem.
Law-abiding citizens are the only ones getting permits
right now. This would allow them to carry without
that permit. Criminals right now are carrying
concealed weapons, regardless of the permit law, and
they're going to continue to do so.
We heard a lot of horror stories in 1994, when the
concealed weapon permit law was first proposed. We
heard that there was going to be blood running in the
streets, there were going to be shootouts in
Anchorage. It was quite amazing to hear. It didn't
surprise us because we had heard that in all the other
states that proposed concealed weapon permit laws. As
in all those other states, it didn't take place.
Number 2315
MR. JUDY referred to a graph included in the committee packet.
He explained that it shows violent crime [in Alaska], and
indicated the position of the line at the point when the
concealed weapon permit law took effect. He noted [on
individual graphs] that crime dropped in the following areas:
violent crime, robbery, and aggravated assault. He continued:
Now, as Representative Croft indicated, I'm not going
to try to claim that that was because, all of a sudden
we had a concealed weapon permit law. But whatever
the reason, the passage of the concealed weapon permit
law not only didn't cause all the horrors that were
predicted, but crime went down. And I would suggest
that ... the horror stories that you will likely hear
about are not going to take place. I can't predict
that crime's going to continue to drop precipitously
as it has, but one can only hope that it will continue
to approach those levels in Vermont.
Number 2268
MR. JUDY discussed training as follows:
The last point I want to make is on training. I'm
sure we're going to hear that this is a terrible
proposal because people aren't going to be subjected
to mandatory training. Well, again, it doesn't make
sense that ... law-abiding citizen ... who can
lawfully own or possess a firearm can carry openly
anywhere in Alaska and they're not subjected to
mandatory training. But if you want to wear a coat
and cover your firearm, all of a sudden you have to
take this expensive course and go through this
bureaucracy. I would suggest that it's not really
necessary.
There are 43 states that issue concealed weapon
permits. Those states have a wide range of training,
from no training in the State of Washington to very
restrictive. And Alaska's among the more restrictive.
The State of Washington's a good example, aside from
the Vermont experience. In Washington, there are
approximately 250,000 concealed weapon permits issued.
They don't require training. There ... is not a
problem, training-related or otherwise, with concealed
weapon permit holders in Washington.
The empirical evidence from every state, regardless of
the level of training, is that these people who are
carrying firearms for self-protection are exercising
their constitutional right and their natural right to
provide a means of self-defense in a responsible ...
manner.
Number 2189
MR. JUDY continued:
The NRA supports training on a voluntary basis. We're
the group that instructs the instructors. The
instructors right here in Alaska who are providing the
screening courses are, in most cases, I would suspect,
NRA-certified ... instructors. So, we support
training. We don't believe it should be mandated. We
support the concept of HB 102, and we urge your
support. Thank you.
Number 2158
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated a technical inconsistency.
He referred to AS 18.65.750(d) and said, "We are repealing
Section 750 entirely." He said [that section] dealt with
possession and display of the permit. Subsection (d) defines
the term "contacted by a peace officer", he noted. He said
because Amendment A.1 was adopted, the phrase "contacted by a
peace officer" is reinserted. He offered a technical amendment
to reinsert the statutory definition, since the concept is now
back in the bill.
Number 2100
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks that is a good point which
bears further consideration. Mentioning points made earlier by
Representatives Seaton and Gruenberg and that two amendments
had, in effect, been adopted, Representative Croft said he wants
to take a second look at some of the more technical aspects. He
said he is still comfortable "with the policy direction."
Number 2060
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [in reference to his previously stated
amendment] asked that "that phrase" be defined.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that he'd heard no objection and that
the foregoing technical amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that also repealed would be
AS.18.65.770, which read as follows:
Sec. 18.65.770. Access to list of permittees by peace
officers.
The department shall compile a list of permittees in a
manner that allows immediate access to the information
by peace officers. The list of permittees and all
applications, permits, and renewals are not public
records under AS 40.25.110 - 40.25.125 and may only be
used for law enforcement purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Representative Croft and
Mr. Judy, for example, would speak with the Department of Public
Safety to find out if the department, for any legitimate reason,
needs to retain that section in law.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he would.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 102 would be held over.
HB 127-ROADSIDE MEMORIALS
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 127, "An Act allowing certain roadside memorials
to be placed within the right-of-way of a state highway." [In
packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 23-
LS0299\I, Utermohle, 3/21/03.]
Number 1906
LORI BACKES, Staff to Representative Jim Whitaker, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 127 on behalf of Representative
Whitaker, sponsor. She explained that HB 127 merely seeks to
allow Alaskans the right to express their grief for the loss of
a loved one with as little governmental interference as
possible. When a person dies on an Alaskan highway, sometimes
family and friends place items at the location of the accident
to memorialize the individual. These memorials serve the
following two purposes: to pay tribute to the deceased and to
help warn other travelers of the potential tragedy associated
with dangerous driving. These memorials are seen throughout the
country and the globe.
MS. BACKES pointed out the committee packet includes an informal
study conducted by the Texas Department of Transportation. The
study reviews how some other states handle this issue. Among
those states surveyed, most allow roadside memorials officially
or unofficially in various forms. Historically, Alaska's
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has
ignored these personal memorials. However, about two years ago
the state-sponsored memorial sign program was created; with it,
DOT&PF gave notice to Alaskans that personal memorials would no
longer be tolerated, and thus the roadside memorials would be
removed if not taken down by a date certain. In response to
this, the mother of a young lady who was killed by a drunk
driver in the Fairbanks area circulated a petition requesting
that the state continue to allow the personal roadside
memorials. The petition contains 244 signatures.
MS. BACKES pointed out that such memorials aren't restricted to
automobile accidents. She said this is a phenomenon that won't
be stopped, and thus Representative Whitaker believes it's wise
to establish a program through which roadside memorials are
allowed yet controlled. Ms. Backes noted that she has had
several in-depth conversations with representatives from the
DOT&PF and that she believes the majority of the concerns have
been addressed in the proposed CS [Version I].
Number 1701
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt CSHB 127, Version 23-
LS0299\I, Utermohle, 3/21/03, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes and
then immediately removed his objection.
[Version I was treated as adopted.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports the legislation
generally. However, he expressed concern with subsection (f)
[page 2]. He posed a situation in which a fairly large roadside
memorial falls into the roadway and causes an accident; voicing
concern about the broad immunity, he said the state should have
some responsibility for that. Furthermore, a memorial could be
placed on the road if snow on the ground made it difficult to
see where the roadside ended, for example, and he said he'd like
for the state to have some responsibility if the sign is
actually placed in the road and causes an accident.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM referred to page 1, line 10, which specifies
that roadside memorials "must not interfere with the use of the
highway, with other uses of the right-of-way"; he questioned why
Representative Gruenberg's concern would be a problem. He
pointed out that DOT&PF must be informed before [a roadside
memorial is erected].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is a requirement that
the individual erecting the roadside memorial inform DOT&PF in
advance.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, line 1 [paragraph (2),
"inform the department of the location of the memorial"].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the language doesn't
require it in advance.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he suspects that the requirement to not
interfere and to inform DOT&PF places the onus on the state to
recognize the location of the roadside memorial.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his desire to have some time
limit regarding notification to the department. He suggested
language specifying that the department must be notified within
48 hours of placement of the roadside memorial.
Number 1365
MS. BACKES said she didn't believe Representative Whitaker would
have any problem with the aforementioned language. However,
reporting to the department within 48 hours may be a little on
the short side, especially since most of these memorials are
spontaneously put in place within hours of the accident.
Furthermore, these memorials are often in response to extreme
grief and distress. Ms. Backes suggested that perhaps
notification within a week or two would be more appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG announced that he would offer an
amendment in which [notification to DOT&PF] would need to occur
within five days. Representative Gruenberg said he didn't want
to absolve the department from taking reasonable action to
remove [a memorial] that is in the roadway. He stressed the
need to hold the department to a normal tort standard. He
specified that he is concerned with regard to the ultimate
responsibility.
MS. BACKES said DOT&PF already has the responsibility to take
care of hazards in the roadway and maintain the roadways free of
hazards. She said she wasn't sure that the sponsor would agree
to reasonably require DOT&PF to respond to a hazard such [as one
created from a roadside memorial].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that he didn't want to lower
the responsibility. He referred to page 2, lines 10-12, the
sentence, "The state is not liable for damage to, or for damage
or injury resulting from the presence of, a memorial in the
right-of-way of a state highway." He said it provides complete
immunization and changes the law on that subject.
MS. BACKES highlighted the following from AS 44.80.070:
When the state, or a department or agency of the state
that has control over a highway or vehicular way or
area, permits a portion of the highway or vehicular
way or area, as defined under AS 28.40.100, to be used
for a special purpose, the state is not subject to
legal action or recovery of damages for injury arising
out of, or in any manner connected with the special
purpose use.
MS. BACKES said [the drafting attorneys] in Legislative Legal
and Research Services are of the opinion that the aforementioned
statute already addresses this. The language in the proposed CS
is almost redundant, she added, but was included in order to
further allay the concerns of DOT&PF.
Number 0915
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned to subsection (f) on page 2. He
posed a situation in which there is an accident close to the
site of a roadside memorial. If the individual claims to have
been distracted by the memorial, would the liability be
transferred from that individual to the person who placed the
memorial on the roadside?
MS. BACKES replied no. She said the statute requires that
drivers have the responsibility to not drive negligently and not
be unduly distracted by things on the road; if there was an
accident in which an individual claimed to have been distracted
by a roadside memorial, she was certain it would have to be
argued in court. She went on to say there is no intention for
the individual placing the memorial on the roadside to assume
the responsibility for someone having an accident, unless the
memorial directly interfered with the safety of the road.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if subsection (f) accomplishes that
or means that the individual placing the memorial on the right-
of-way bears the sole risk and liability for damage and injury
resulting from the presence of the memorial.
MS. BACKES responded that if it can be proven that the cause of
the accident was the roadside memorial, the liability would then
be on the individual who placed the memorial on the roadside.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned to AS 44.80.070 and related
his understanding that it applies to someone who has some type
of permit and who has negotiated with the department to obtain
permit. The aforementioned is a different situation from that
of an individual placing a memorial on the roadside who might
not have even notified the department for a significant period
of time.
Number 0623
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to the default provision
regarding liability, if subsection (f) is deleted.
MS. BACKES reiterated that Legislative Legal and Research
Services has said AS 44.80.070, "Liability of state under
special use permits", would solve that. In regard to
Representative Gruenberg's concern, Ms. Backes said a special-
use permit doesn't necessarily have to be a written permit. She
emphasized that placement of a roadside memorial in the middle
of the road would be nonconforming and thus would fall outside
the bounds of the allowed special use under HB 127.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ opined that if any discussion of
liability was deleted, the same rules of liability that apply
elsewhere would apply in this instance. Therefore, he suggested
that subsection (f) could be deleted.
MS. BACKES said Representative Whitaker wouldn't have a problem
with the deletion of subsection (f), which was inserted to
address DOT&PF's concerns with regard to its liability to an
individual in an accident with regard to a roadside memorial.
Furthermore, the department was concerned with its liability,
should its maintenance equipment accidentally [destroy] a
roadside memorial. If the committee chooses to delete
subsection (f), she suggested considering inclusion of some
language specifying that the state isn't responsible for damage
to a memorial.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if Ms. Backes would suggest that the
committee retain the last sentence of subsection (f).
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ agreed that [the first sentence of
subsection (f) could be deleted as well as] the disjunctive
clause, "or for damage or injury resulting from the presence
of,". Therefore, subsection (f) would read as follows: "The
state is not liable for damage to a memorial in the right-of-way
of a state highway."
MS. BACKES related that Representative Whitaker fully expects
that DOT&PF will take care not to damage these memorials.
Therefore, she suggested including the word "inadvertent".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that at some point, one has to
count on the discretion of people. Furthermore, if one reviews
the budget, one discovers that there isn't going to be any
highway maintenance anyway, and thus it shouldn't be a problem.
Number 0138
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH related his understanding that subsection (f)
was included so that any damage arising from a memorial wouldn't
make the state liable.
MS. BACKES agreed, but reiterated the opinion of the Legislative
Legal and Research Services Division that AS 44.80.070 addresses
the matter also.
Number 0075
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 1, on page 2, to delete the first sentence of
subsection (f) and amend the second sentence of subsection (f)
such that it would read, "The state is not liable for damage to
a memorial in the right-of-way of a state highway." There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned attention to the term "temporary
memorial" on page 1, line 7.
TAPE 03-31, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. BACKES explained that the language "temporary" wasn't
intended to refer to any specific timeframe but rather to mean a
structure that was not permanent. She related that
Representative Whitaker is reluctant to try to insert any
timeframe for which these roadside memorials can remain in
place.
Number 0080
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered [Amendment 2]:
Page 2, line 1, after "memorial"
Insert "within seven days of placement of the
memorial"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG specified that the purposed is so that
[DOT&PF] will know the roadside memorial exists and can make
arrangements to protect it and ensure that it's not in the
right-of-way.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that there being no objection,
[Amendment 2] was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 2, lines 21-
23, and asked if the [department's removal of a roadside
memorial] would be a cumbersome procedure.
MS. BACKES answered that DOT&PF hasn't indicated that the
[removal of roadside memorials identified as an unauthorized
encroachment] would be problematic. In further response, Ms.
Backes said she didn't know the procedure; however, from
discussions with DOT&PF she has gathered that when DOT&PF crafts
the regulations specifying the restrictions on the placement of
these memorials, the intent is that DOT&PF will have a procedure
for removal. The procedure would involve contacting the sponsor
of the memorial in order to provide an opportunity for the
sponsor to correct any problem associated with safety or
maintenance. If the problem isn't corrected in a reasonable
amount of time, DOT&PF will remove it.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that the language on page 2, lines
21-23, refers to AS 19.25.230-19.25.250, which speaks to
political signage. Notice of removal is provided via a
certified letter. If the [sign] isn't removed, the department
may remove it at any time. Furthermore, the cost of removal can
be billed to the person that was supposed to move it.
Number 0433
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to how the grieving family would
know about these provisions. Has there been any thought that
the funeral home would issue paperwork specifying the procedures
and contacts for placing a roadside memorial?
MS. BACKES answered that although there isn't such a provision
in the legislation, in conversations with DOT&PF it has come out
that West Virginia has a similar program to that proposed here.
West Virginia posts guidelines for these types of memorials on
its web site. Ms. Backes related that the Fairbanks Chapter of
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has said it would be
willing to distribute pamphlets to families in this circumstance
or to funeral homes. Furthermore, the department felt that
being able to post something on its web site would be
appropriate.
Number 0583
RACHELLE DOWDY noted her support of HB 127 and the amendments.
Ms. Dowdy provided the following testimony:
Standard roadside signs equal statistics. This is
fine, but Alaska has the worst drunk driving record in
the nation. We have to remind drivers that this is
personal: it happened here, to this person, to this
family, to this community, to someone who is loved -
not just a statistic.
Heather's friends stopped to add flowers to her marker
one day, and a motorist stopped. She said she had a
history of drinking and driving. She thought, "It
would never happen to me," but this marker enlightened
her and caused her to change her habits. It got
personal; it moved beyond statistics. Would a
standard, state sign have this effect? I don't think
so. Does Alaska want to be known for a lack of human
interest, such human interest replaced with mere
statistics?
I have lived in Alaska my entire life. We thrive on
our individuality up here, our freedom to express
ourselves, both individually and as a community. Do
we really want to summarize our personal loss and our
shameful national record in identical blue and white
statistics? I don't.
MS. DOWDY noted that this weekend she was driving the Parks
Highway, where she saw one of the proposed state signs. In
order to see and read the sign, Ms. Dowdy said she had to pull
to the side of the highway. However, if she has seen a
memorial, Ms. Dowdy said, she has known what it means and hasn't
had to stop and read it.
Number 0843
SANDY GILLESPIE had her testimony read by Rachelle Dowdy as
follows:
I support HB 127. Roadside memorials are visible on
many of Alaska's highways and roads. These markers
play a significant role in recognizing and
acknowledging the humanity all of us share. When
still a Fairbanks resident, I heard about a family of
five killed by a drunk driver on the Glenn Highway
just outside of Anchorage. Each time I drive into
Anchorage, I see their memorial and think of that
family. I never met them; I don't remember their
names. But I wish them well. I acknowledge their
lives and deaths. I think of the people left behind
who love them.
I think of other specific sites: two along the
Richardson near Eielson Air Force Base; two on Chena
Hot Springs Road near Fairbanks; two on Minnesota
Drive in Anchorage; one on Northern Lights [Drive]
near the Anchorage airport. The last one names
"Brother" and "Daddy" as the person or persons [killed
there]. In passing these sites, to name just a few, I
have not been distracted from driving. I see the
markers as I see the landscape, but the images travel
with me. [It] makes me more human.
My 17-year-old sister-in-law was killed by a drunk
driver in Fairbanks. The family put up a memorial on
the Old Steese Highway for Heather Dowdy. People
driving by regularly have stopped at a nearby turnout
and told us how the site has impacted them. A
grandmother told us how her very young grandson asked
about Heather. Grandma explained what happened, and
the child refers to Heather by name. Another person
told us that she ... used to drive after drinking; she
no longer does because this memorial made real to her
what the consequences can be.
In Oregon last year, I saw the official road signs
that marked traffic deaths, including drunk-driving
deaths. I like those signs also. I think we have a
right to know and should know every spot where a drunk
driver has killed or injured someone. I think we
should have signs that say how many people have been
killed at various sections of highway by drunk
drivers, just like we have signs on the Glenn
[Highway] saying how many moose have been killed
there; [it's] good, but not as important as people.
The official signs are about statistics and
documentation and a condemnation of a system that does
not adequately deal with drunk drivers in our state.
I want those signs also. But they do not replace the
memorials, the signs that make us aware of and able to
care about the people we have never met who have died
on the roads we drive every day.
Number 1082
JIM EDE noted his support of the [DOT&PF] regulations governing
roadside memorials as well as the program to clean up these
memorials. Mr. Ede said people's sentiment with regard to these
roadside memorials only last for a few days, after which these
memorials in the right-of-way become unsightly. Furthermore,
these memorials are very distracting to motorists. Moreover,
Mr. Ede charged that these many of these memorials are illegal
due to the attached religious symbols that reside on public
property. There are many court cases relating to the illegality
of religious symbols on public property. Mr. Ede highlighted
that the state could lose federal highway funds if it doesn't
abide by the federal regulations. He suggested that the
committee obtain an opinion from the attorney general before
moving forward with this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that religious symbols can be
found on public property in this country's national cemeteries.
Number 1388
ASA DOWDY informed the committee that he has had the privilege
of having a memorial up for his daughter [who was killed by a
drunk driver]. Mr. Dowdy announced his support of HB 127. He
noted that he and his family have benefited from the roadside
memorial established for his daughter. These roadside memorials
provides [the family] a focal point while promoting safe
driving. These roadside memorials are a cheap way in which to
honor loved ones and inform the public of safety. Mr. Dowdy
said he appreciated the [DOT&PF's] signs for those who don't
have the ability or will to establish a roadside memorial, but
he felt [HB 127] provided a choice of expression. In response
to a comment by Representative Gruenberg, he said HB 127 was
introduced before the Dowdy family became involved.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested the legislation could be
known as the "Heather Dowdy bill" in her honor.
Number 1540
BARBARA DOWDY, Member, Fairbanks Chapter of Mothers Against
Drunk Driving (MADD), began by noting her support of HB 127 as
amended. She informed the committee that her daughter, Heather,
was killed September 30, 2000, at 3:00 in the afternoon by a
drunk driver. Although it has been two-and-a-half years since
Heather was killed, Ms. Dowdy emphasized that [the family]
hasn't forgotten the issues or the memorial they placed [on the
roadside] for her.
BARBARA DOWDY took exception to an earlier statement indicating
that someone would stop grieving within two days. She noted
that there are two roadside signs on the New Steese Expressway
that she passes every day and those signs make no impact. In
fact, after nine months of passing these signs, she had to have
someone point them out for her to notice them, whereas people
see roadside memorials. Furthermore, roadside memorials become
a focal point for grieving. Although a small minority of people
believe the crosses are problematic with regard to the
separation of church and state, she said, there are no legal
grounds because these crosses are being put in place by the
families, not the state.
BARBARA DOWDY opined that a cross has become more than a
religious symbol, since it is now a national icon and symbol of
respect for someone who has died. She said she didn't see how a
memorial to her daughter could infringe on anyone else's rights,
and she asserted her right to place the cross and flowers to
commemorate her daughter.
BARBARA DOWDY turned to the issue of federal highway funds'
being tied to design and construction. She said federal highway
funds have nothing to do with maintenance. These memorials seem
to be a maintenance issue, although the families and friends of
the deceased are maintaining these memorials and thus no state
funds are used for the memorials' maintenance or construction.
Therefore, the state is saved $500 for every memorial. She
opined that passage of HB 127 will make the roadside memorials
legal and thus the threat of losing federal funds a nonissue.
MS. DOWDY closed by reading the last paragraph of the an article
entitled "Roadside Memorials: Marking Journeys Never Completed"
found in the Tombstone Traveler's Guide by Chris Tina Leimer,
which reads as follows:
But, for many people, that can't replace the healing
balm of roadside memorials. Roadside memorials are
folk art created out of love and grief. Unfettered by
regulations or cost, they are creative acts,
restorative acts in the face of destruction. They
allow the remembrance to be matched with the death:
the death happened in public; the memorial may need to
be public, in the very venue that is so intimately
connected with the deceased, the place where he died.
And since the death was sudden, unexpected, and maybe
senseless but not unique, roadside memorials let
people know that a particular person, an individual,
was alive. They say, "We will not let you die
unnoticed; you are valuable; you deserve to be
remembered." And they invite the world to join in.
MS. DOWDY urged the committee to pass HB 127 [as amended].
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN announced his strong support of this
legislation. He related his belief that it's a disgrace for
DOT&PF to disallow the appropriate memorials.
Number 1830
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CSHB 127, Version 23-
LS0299\I, Utermohle, 3/21/03, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 127(STA) was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|