Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/24/2016 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB174 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 24, 2016
1:40 p.m.
1:40:12 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Kelly called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
ALSO PRESENT
Joe Byrnes, Staff, Senator Pete Kelly; John Sonin, Self,
Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jo Heckman, Chair, University of Alaska Board of Regents,
Fairbanks; Michael Hostina, UA General Council, Fairbanks;
Matt Cooper, UA Associate General Council, Fairbanks; Karen
Spaleta, Self, Fairbanks; Dana Kinzy, Self, Fairbanks;
Victoria Smith, Self, Fairbanks; Ginny Redmond, Self,
Fairbanks; Joanna Young, Self, Fairbanks; Helena Buurman,
Self, Fairbanks; Regine Hock, Self, Fairbanks; Chris Carr,
Self, Fairbanks; Aurora Roth, Self, Fairbanks; Bob Bird,
2nd Amendment Task Force, Nikiski; Cheryl Tuttle, Self,
Nikiski; Joe Kashi, Self, Sterling; Shauna Thorton, Self,
Kenai; Bruce Shultz, University of Alaska Anchorage,
Anchorage; Greg Stoddard, Self, Anchorage; Butch Moore,
Self, Big Lake; Mike Coons, Self, Palmer; Ed Martin, Self,
Cooper Landing; Chelan Schreifels, Self, Anchorage; George
Pierce, Self, Kasilof; Ross Mullins, Self, Cordova; Scott
Jermone, Self, Fairbanks; Michael Raywalt, Self, Anchorage;
Jonathan Taylor, President, Union of Students, Student
Government President, Anchorage; Rob Clift, AK Libertarian
Party, Anchorage; Ceezar Martinson, Self, Anchorage; Dan
Bellerive, Self, Anchorage; Genevieve Mina, Self,
Anchorage; Mike Smith, Self, Anchorage; Zachary Cherry,
Self, Wasilla; Leighan Gonzales, Self, Anchorage; Stacey
Lucason, Self, Anchorage; Paul Swetzof, Self, Anchorage;
Grayson Spiller, Self, Anchorage; Edward Burk, Self,
Anchorage; Carl Kancir, Self, Anchorage; Cindy Moore, Self,
Big Lake.
SUMMARY
SB 174 REG. OF FIREARMS/KNIVES BY UNIV. OF AK
SB 174 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 174
"An Act relating to the regulation of firearms and
knives by the University of Alaska."
1:40:56 PM
Co-Chair Kelly stated that there would be individuals on
line and available for testimony and to answer questions
about the bill.
1:41:11 PM
AT EASE
1:41:32 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Kelly explained that the committee would consider
the bill and then hear public testimony.
Vice-Chair Micciche made a motion to adopt the Senate
Education Committee version of the bill, which was the
version of the bill that was before the committee [a motion
was not needed to consider CSSB 174(EDC), Version N].
Vice-Chair Micciche asked to hear a review of the recent
changes to the bill.
Senator Bishop asked for the version of the bill.
Co-Chair Kelly clarified that the bill being considered was
version N.
1:42:56 PM
JOE BYRNES, STAFF, SENATOR PETE KELLY, discussed the
changes between version H and version N, the Committee
Substitute (CS) for SB 174 (EDC). He referred to page 2,
lines 3 through 12 of the bill:
(b) The Board of Regents may not regulate the
possession, ownership, use, carrying, registration,
storage, or transportation of concealed handguns or
knives, except
(1) in a manner identical to state law;
(2) when the behavior of a student or an employee
demonstrates that the student or employee poses a
risk of harm to self or others;
(3) in student dormitories or other shared living
quarters;
(4) in university facilities where health
services, counseling services, or other services
related to sexual harassment or violence are
provided;
(5) in university facilities during adjudication
of staff or student disciplinary issues; or
(6) in restricted access are as under (c)(3) of
this section.
Mr. Byrnes noted that some exceptions to subsection (b)
were incorporated after recommendations from the University
of Alaska Board of Regents. He referred to subsection (d)
on page 2, lines 24 through 26:
(d) The University of Alaska shall establish a process
to allow a person who is prevented from carrying a
concealed handgun or knife under (b)(2) of this
section to regain the ability to carry a concealed
handgun or knife on university property.
Mr. Byrnes continued to discuss the bill, noting that on
page 3, transition language was removed that had given the
Board of Regents 30 days following the effective date to
implement conforming policies.
1:45:02 PM
JO HECKMAN, CHAIR, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA BOARD OF REGENTS,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), thanked Co-Chair Kelly for
the changes recently introduced to the bill. She thought
that without the amendments, the bill would prevent the
University from responding to common, specific, and serious
problems on University property. She pointed out the
distinction that University regulation did not extend into
the community or private homes, but rather only applied to
situations and people for which the University was
responsible. She emphasized the difference between the
University and municipalities and the state. She relayed
that the University must intervene daily in conflicts and
must manage how thousands of students and employees
interacted. University policy and regulation was the only
way to achieve such intervention. She summarized that the
University had asked for amendments in six areas to address
specific known problems:
1. When a student or employee demonstrated a risk to harm
of self or others.
2. In student dormitories and other shared living quarters.
3. In University facilities housing health and counseling
services, or other services related to sexual harassment or
violence.
4. During adjudication of staff or student disputes, or
disciplinary issues.
Ms. Heckman considered that while the latest version of the
bill generally addressed the first four issues, it omitted
the adjudications of disputes and therefore left two
additional areas the University believed regulation was
needed.
1:48:30 PM
AT EASE
1:49:41 PM
RECONVENED
Ms. Heckman continued to list the six areas of concern:
5. Parts of facilities used for dedicated programs for pre-
school, elementary, junior high, and secondary students.
6. Concealed carry permits.
Ms. Heckman elaborated that the board believed that a
student or employee carrying a concealed weapon in
University common areas should have some training and
knowledge of gun safety and applicable law, as well as be
subject to a criminal background check.
Ms. Heckman summarized that the first five requested
amendments involved situations in which concealed carry was
criminalized under current law. She asked why the
University should not be unable to regulate similar
situations administratively. She thought that regulations
had value, even if they were not always followed by
students or employees. She pointed out that even criminal
law did not prevent all crimes from occurring. Ms. Heckman
stated that University policy allowed the University to
take preventive action when it became aware of a violation,
as well as formulate a prompt response to conduct that
posed a threat of harm. She referenced a report to the
National Rifle Association by the National School Shield
Task Force.
1:51:48 PM
Ms. Heckman (for the Board of Regents) respectfully
requested that the aforementioned amendments be included.
She thought the amendments were essential to management of
the known issues the board had identified, and to
effectively govern the University consistent with the
board's constitutional mandate. She referred to memos that
had been sent to Co-Chair Kelly and Senator Maguire. She
conveyed that she had numerous phone calls and emails from
students, faculty and staff with concerns about the bill.
She shared that she was married to a retired Alaska State
Trooper, and as such had firearms as part of her life. She
felt it was important to ask for consideration of the
amendments if the bill was to move forward.
Senator Bishop referenced subsection (d) on page 2,
starting on line 24:
(d) The University of Alaska shall establish a process
to allow a person who is prevented from carrying a
concealed handgun or knife under (b)(2) of this
section to regain the ability to carry a concealed
handgun or knife on university property.
Senator Bishop asked about the protocol for regaining the
ability to carry a handgun or knife on university property.
MICHAEL HOSTINA, UA GENERAL COUNCIL, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), explained that generally if the amendments
were to restrict the possession of firearms, it would be
part of a disciplinary process (or a student care team
process) with procedures that were already established. He
furthered that any preliminary sanction or restriction that
was imposed was already subject to review, and the
University would simply incorporate review of any
restriction involving weapons within the same process.
1:55:33 PM
AT EASE
1:56:48 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Byrnes reviewed the sectional analysis for the bill
(copy on file):
Section 1
It is the findings and intent of the legislature that
the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected
under Art. 1, Sec. 19 of the Alaska Constitution, that
the University Of Alaska Board Of Regents may not
abridge that right, and the legislature reserves to
the state the authority to regulate firearms.
Section 2
Amends AS 14.40 (The University of Alaska and the
Community Colleges statutes) affirming the authority
to regulate firearms and knives is reserved to the
state, the Board of Regents may not regulate firearms
and knives except
1. In a manner identical to state law
2. When the behavior of a student or an employee
demonstrates that the student or employee poses a
risk of harm to self or others
3. In student dormitories or other shared living
quarters
4. In university facilities where health
services, counseling services, or other services
related to sexual harassment or violence are
provided
5. In university facilities during adjudication
of staff or student disciplinary issues
The Board of Regents may adopt and enforce policies
regulating the open carry of firearms and knives,
restricting the discharge, and prohibiting the
possession in restricted access areas.
The University is prohibited from creating a database
or registry of persons who possess firearms on campus.
The University must establish a process allowing a
person, who is prevented from carrying a concealed
handgun or knife (after being determined by the
University to be a threat to themselves or others), to
regain the ability to carry a concealed handgun or
knife on university property.
The University is immune from civil liability for
policies enforced under this section.
Senator Bishop asked about the last sentence of the
sectional analysis, and wondered how stringent the
provision was. He referred to court cases in which
individuals were injured and seeking damages.
Mr. Byrnes clarified that the language had been requested
by the University of Alaska General Counsel. He deferred
the question about the utility of the provision in
protecting the University from lawsuits.
Mr. Hostina concurred with Senator Bishop, and stated that
one could not preclude litigation. He thought the language
would go some way toward reducing damage awards in state
court, but would perhaps not prohibit civil rights actions
and potential damages in federal court. He thought there
were potential ramifications that might stem from the
failure to adopt regulations or prohibit firearms under
certain circumstances if people were injured as a result.
2:00:38 PM
Mr. Byrnes clarified that the UA General Counsel had
provided a memo dated February 23, 2016 (copy on file) that
discussed the immunity provision in writing.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the University had to deal with
the issue of liability if an individual slipped on
University property in the wintertime.
Mr. Hostina answered in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy asked about other potential liability
issues such as sharp objects and car accidents.
Mr. Hostina confirmed that the University was charged with
responsibility for day to day interactions with people on
campus in a way and to an extent that was not the case for
other entities such as the state or municipalities.
Senator Dunleavy referred to lines 5 and 6 on page 2 of the
bill:
(2) when the behavior of a student or an employee
demonstrates that the student or employee poses a risk
of harm to self or others;
Senator Dunleavy asked how the demonstration of risk was
determined, and who would make the determination.
Mr. Hostina stated that whenever there was employee
relation issues, student discipline issues, or student
self-harm issues; there were human resources officials,
student disciplinary officials, or student care and service
team officials who evaluated the situations and made
determinations as to a course of action. The same processes
would be used to make the determinations in question, and
the review of the processes would apply to any review of
the interim measures.
2:03:16 PM
Senator Dunleavy addressed lines 13 through 15 on page 2:
(c) The Board of Regents may adopt and enforce
policies
(1) regulating the possession, ownership, use,
carrying, registration, storage, and transportation of
openly carried firearms and knives;
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the bill passed and concealed
carry of firearms was allowed, but a student accidentally
allowed the gun or knife to be viewed; what would prevent
the University from stating that the student violated the
open carry regulation.
Mr. Hostina stated that the scenario would constitute a
violation, because the definition of concealed carry
required that the weapon not be observable without being
removed from its container. He continued that even under
current policies, there were few conflicts with individuals
bringing weapons on campus. The police department would
approach individuals, inform them of the policy, and ask
them to remove the weapon to another location that was
permissible. He was unsure of how a University response
would be different in the case Senator Dunleavy was
describing, unless the disclosure was intentional or
involved a threat.
Senator Dunleavy wanted to ensure that if an individual
intended to follow the law but unintentionally showed the
weapon, a teacher could not bar the student from returning
to the classroom.
Mr. Hostina thought the scenario was theoretically
possible, and suspected that common sense would prevail.
2:05:48 PM
Co-Chair Kelly stated that the problem he was trying to
address was that the University had restricted an explicit
constitutional right. He asserted that the University had
to have legitimate authority to do so, and it was his
opinion that it did not. He continued that the current
restriction did not achieve its purpose. He asserted that
some would argue that many provisions of the bill went too
far in favor of the University's policies, and that the
committee had tailored the bill to accommodate the
uniqueness of the University. He discussed changing to bill
to include positions requested by the University. He
expressed that politics was the art of compromise.
Co-Chair Kelly discussed people being shot in areas where
there were restrictions on handguns, and used an example of
a recent shooting in San Bernardino, California. He
mentioned a shooting at Umpqua State College in Oregon, and
a related court case. He listed additional sites of mass
shootings. He alleged that criminals targeted areas where
concealed carry of firearms was prohibited. He questioned
the efficacy of using signage to prohibit criminals from
carrying weapons. He wanted Alaskans to be able to defend
themselves and exercise their constitutional right.
2:10:50 PM
Co-Chair Kelly stated that it was his intention to go
through an amendment process or develop a new committee
substitute. He wanted to address the subject of college
dormitories and put an associated provision in the bill. He
was concerned about potential removal of individuals who
were a danger to themselves or others, and mentioned a
Title 47 hold.
Vice-Chair Micciche discussed the fiscal note [FN 1], and
read from the analysis section on page 2:
In Idaho, the institutions projected spending $3.7
million in expenses to increase campus security
following the passage of the law allowing concealed
carry.
Vice-Chair Micciche questioned the accuracy of the
comparison to Idaho and asked if the Idaho law had been
executed.
MATT COOPER, UA ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNCIL, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), stated that the Idaho law had been
enacted, but did not think the state had information
related to any increased expenditures as a result of the
law. He had looked at various campuses that allowed
concealed carry, and reported expenses ranging from $3.7
million to estimates of over $50 million. He reiterated
that the numbers were estimates, and thought the first step
after the law was enacted would be to engage a consultant
or create a study to develop policy and procedures.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked if Idaho was used as an example
because it was more similar to Alaska than other states.
Mr. Cooper answered in the affirmative, and stated that
Idaho was also on the lower end of the spectrum with regard
to estimated costs of implementing concealed carry on a
college campus.
2:14:19 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked about the University's insurer,
and wondered if it had quantified the increase to insurance
premiums in the event that the bill was passed. He found it
interesting that the right to legally carry in a facility
would incur a higher cost.
Mr. Cooper stated that the University had contacted its
insurance company, and the company stated that the effect
on insurance premiums was dependent upon the final
composition of the bill, as well as what the University did
in response to the bill. He discussed secure access points,
which he thought might be an item of consideration for the
insurance company. He was unsure of the calculations that
were considered by the insurance company in determining
rates.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked if there was potential for
increased costs or a certainty of increased cost.
Mr. Cooper was unsure, but stated that the insurance
company had indicated that the bill would likely have some
effect on cost.
Co-Chair Kelly referred to controlled access areas, and
asked how the areas were currently secured.
Mr. Cooper explained that there were differences according
to the type of area. Some areas were sensitive areas on
campus secured with card locks. He was not aware of
specific security in place for student services areas other
than controlled single access.
Co-Chair Kelly asked how the bill would change the method
for dealing with the aforementioned areas, and wondered
about the cost.
Mr. Hostina explained that after the bill was passed, even
if the University became aware of an armed person in a
domestic violence situation seeking to enter a counseling
or medical center, it could not say the individual was
violating policy. Rather, the University would have to
allow the individual to enter those areas. Under current
University policy (since it was posted) it was possible to
prohibit individuals from bringing weapons into the areas.
He concluded that to be able to restrict weapons from the
areas after the passage of SB 174, the University would
have to establish the restricted access areas.
2:18:49 PM
Co-Chair Kelly read subsection (c)(3) on page 2:
[The Board of Regents may adopt and enforce policies]
(3) prohibiting the possession of firearms or
knives in the restricted access area of
university buildings;
Mr. Cooper thought that the issue pertained to what areas
were defined as restricted access, and the definition
referred to areas where visitors were screened. He thought
that the term "screened" would need to be further defined.
Co-Chair Kelly thought that the bill provided the
flexibility to determine what kinds of screening to employ.
He did not think it would cost a great deal of money.
Senator Dunleavy asked if there was limited possession of
firearms allowed on campus.
Mr. Hostina shared that currently it was possible to
possess firearms on campus if retained in vehicles, at
authorized events, or in secure storage.
Senator Dunleavy asked if signage was currently effective
for the limited scope of firearm possession on campus. He
wondered at the multi-million dollar cost on the fiscal
note.
Mr. Hostina thought the difference was signified by the
lack of policy, and with the implementation of SB 174 there
would be a need to establish restricted access areas. He
discussed consequences of violating restricted access areas
if the bill were to pass.
2:22:04 PM
Senator Dunleavy continued to discuss signage, policy
change, and the potential cost of implementing restricted
access areas on campus. He suggested that individuals
brought weapons on campus already.
Mr. Hostina interpreted that the bill required that the
University establish a restricted area. He discussed
compliance with the law in order to enforce prohibition of
firearms in restricted access areas.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the campus could put up a sign
similar in cost to the signs that were already in
existence.
Mr. Hostina discussed the need establish a secure point
beyond which visitors were screened, which was more than a
sign.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked about the consequence for
carrying a firearm into a campus building under current
laws and regulations.
Mr. Hostina stated that generally a student was given an
opportunity to place the firearm in secure storage or in a
vehicle. If the action persisted, it would result in
disciplinary sanctions (administrative sanctions) through
the University.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked about the consequence for a non-
student carrying a firearm in the University system.
Mr. Hostina stated that the initial response to such an
action would be the same as for a student: the University
police would respond, inform the individual of the policy,
and give them an opportunity to place the weapon in a
secure storage or vehicle. If the individual were to
decline, the individual would face an administrative
process, potentially barring them from campus.
Vice-Chair Micciche compared the scenario of a student
carrying a firearm on campus versus a non-student carrying
a firearm on campus, and pointed out that a student had
more to lose from the situation than a non-student. He
questioned the lack of disincentive for the non-student;
whereas the student had real consequences to face. He was
unsure that prohibition of firearms on campus made the
environment safer.
2:26:05 PM
AT EASE
2:28:24 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Olson asked about ongoing costs of $800,000 as
listed on the fiscal note. He asked if other universities
in the United States had similar laws that governed
university campuses.
Mr. Byrnes related that over 150 different college campuses
had elected to allow some form of concealed carry of
firearms on campus. He listed the eight different states
that mandated public universities allow for concealed carry
on campus: Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon,
Utah, Wisconsin, and Texas.
Senator Olson asked if the other universities had costs
similar to what was listed on the fiscal note for SB 174.
Mr. Byrnes answered in the negative, and specified that the
University of Idaho did not spend the amount of money that
it had anticipated to spend. He did not have additional
figures on spending by other universities.
Senator Olson asked about private universities that might
have similar open carry policies.
Mr. Byrnes was not aware of specific private institutions
that allowed for concealed carry of firearms. He continued
that part of the aforementioned 150 college campuses were
private institutions that had allowed for concealed carry
on campus.
2:31:37 PM
Co-Chair Kelly reiterated that there were 150 university
campuses that allowed for concealed carry of firearms, none
of which had a resultant act of violence. He thought that
alcohol on campus had caused more deaths than the topic
being discussed, and thought it was possible that the bill
could save lives in the future. He suggested that
universities were reluctant to dispel the college culture
of drinking.
Senator Bishop asked if it would be permitted for an
individual to carry a stun gun if the bill were to become
law.
Mr. Byrnes clarified that the definition of "firearms" in
the bill did not include stun guns.
Senator Bishop asked if an individual could currently carry
a stun gun on campus, or after the bill was passed.
Mr. Hostina clarified that current University policy did
not prohibit carrying stun guns on campus, and he did not
think the bill would change the policy.
Senator Dunleavy commented that a recent court decision in
Massachusetts had struck down a law that banned stun guns,
and thought it would set a precedent.
2:35:04 PM
KAREN SPALETA, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill in any form. She was a gun owner
and employee of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).
She thought the concept that law abiding citizens with guns
could stop criminals with guns was a fallacy. She discussed
statistics from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) that
indicated in 33,000 people died in firearm deaths in 2013,
502 of which were from mass shootings. She compared the CDC
statistic to the 57,000 people in the United States that
died of flu and pneumonia during the same time period. She
thought that the bill concerned a policy choice rather than
a constitutional right as alleged. She discussed the Second
Amendment, and referenced an opinion by former United
States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
2:36:45 PM
DANA KINZY, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), opposed
SB 174. She was an employee of UAF. She was concerned about
individuals possessing firearms in moments of high emotion.
She discussed her personal history of losing her father to
gun violence. She wondered about possible amendments to the
bill that might cover special circumstances and protect
employees whose jobs involved volatile issues. She argued
that universities were a place where stressors were
abundant. She discussed the student population and the
pressures they faced. She thought she would seek work
elsewhere if the bill passed, where a firearm would not add
volatility to the atmosphere.
2:39:33 PM
VICTORIA SMITH, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. She stated she was a UAF alumna,
staff member, and current student. She recounted her
personal experience with gun violence. She discussed the
environment of certain areas of the university which
engendered strong feelings, and thought the addition of
firearms would endanger people. She mentioned the high
rates of substance abuse, sexual assault, and suicide in
the state.
2:41:32 PM
GINNY REDMOND, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. She discussed her work as
Director of Student Support Services at UAF, and relayed
that she had received her undergraduate and graduate
degrees there. She discussed high-stress situations which
many students found themselves in, and was concerned about
her safety and the safety of her employees if the bill were
to pass. She recounted that there was no time in her years
of employ at UAF that she wished a gun were present. She
discussed her work environment. She mentioned the idea of a
gun registry on campus. She commented on the budget
shortfall at the university, and thought the bill would add
an additional financial burden.
2:44:30 PM
JOANNA YOUNG, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. She was a student and an
employee at UAF. She discussed the significantly lower
incidence of shootings in her home country of Canada. She
opined that UAF would be a much less desirable place to
attend if concealed carry of firearms were allowed.
2:46:04 PM
HELENA BUURMAN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. She was a former student and
present staff member at UAF. She recounted a mass shooting
in Great Britain that was followed by firearm restrictions.
She discussed the law enforcement officers on campus. She
viewed any weapons in the workplace (beyond law
enforcement) to be a liability. She discussed budgetary
issues at the University.
2:47:58 PM
REGINE HOCK, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. She was a teaching and research
professor at UAF. She was concerned that free discussion of
controversial issues could no longer take place if
individuals did not feel safe. She recounted teaching large
classes of young students who were often frustrated by
grades and other pressures. She mentioned having students
with obvious psychological challenges, and had also
observed students who were intoxicated and on drugs. She
was dismayed at the possibility of students with such
issues coming to her class with weapons. She observed that
none of the proposed amendments to the bill had effect on
individuals teaching and supervising students. She alleged
that the passage of the bill would cause her to reconsider
her employment at UAF. She thought that most people did not
support the bill.
2:50:05 PM
CHRIS CARR, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. She relayed that she was a graduate
student at UAF. She shared that she was a gun owner and gun
enthusiast, but thought guns needed to be treated with
respect. She discussed a school shooting in Columbine,
Colorado. She thought the bill would increase accidental
shootings and knee-jerk violent actions. She recounted her
experiences with gun violence and suicide and thought that
having guns readily available would increase harmful
incidences.
2:52:27 PM
AURORA ROTH, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. She was born and raised in
Fairbanks and her parents were professors at UAF. She
attended graduate school at UAF, and thought it was a safe
environment. She thought there were few violations of the
existing gun policy at UAF. She mentioned the high rates of
gun deaths and suicide in the state. She encouraged the
committee to increase funding for mental health services
and gun safety education in the state.
2:54:09 PM
BOB BIRD, 2ND AMENDMENT TASK FORCE, NIKISKI (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He was a
long-time adjunct faculty at Kenai Peninsula College. He
thanked the legislature for trying to restore a
constitutional right. He discussed recommended actions in
the event of a campus intruder. He thought that it was not
only guns that created violence. He referred to a faculty
training regarding an intruder alert. He discussed a
hypothetical situation in which he was required to defend
himself. He discussed individuals bringing guns on campus
despite the restrictions. He thought America was quickly
becoming a police state. He thought police protection was
an illusion, and thought progressives in the country had
become fascists.
2:58:11 PM
CHERYL TUTTLE, SELF, NIKISKI (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. She was a student and employee at
the University, and was Student Union President at Kenai
Peninsula College. She was concerned that many students
were subject to powerful emotions on campus and that the
presence of guns might escalate danger.
2:59:39 PM
JOE KASHI, SELF, STERLING (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. His child was a University student.
He stated that he had no ideological agenda. He had
represented many individuals in his law practice. He
pointed out that weapons were prohibited in the legislative
information office, and thought it was similarly
appropriate to prohibit weapons on campus. He asserted that
college students were less practical than others. He
thought the university leadership was comprised of many
retired career military officers who were experienced in
the use of weapons, and thought they were strongly opposed
to the bill. He referenced studies on reaction times in an
active shooter scenario and extrapolated that armed
ordinary citizens would not be of use. He discussed the
risk of identifying the perpetrator in an active shooter
situation where multiple individuals were carrying guns. He
suggested looking at recommendations from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
3:02:36 PM
JOHN SONIN, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the bill.
He did not understand the motivation for the bill. He
thought the bill was inane. He discussed the importance of
education, and thought that the state should be spending
money by investing in the future through education. He
discussed suicide and was concerned about knee-jerk
reactions if guns were present.
3:04:47 PM
SHAUNA THORTON, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. She was a university student. She
thought concealed carry permits were easy to obtain in
Alaska. She pointed out other locations such as banks and
the legislative information offices that did not permit
weapons on the premises. She expressed concern for
identifying victims and perpetrators in an emergency if
multiple individuals were carrying a gun. She expressed
concern for staff, faculty, and students. She discussed
trainings at the University.
3:07:44 PM
BRUCE SHULTZ, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the bill. He
was the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA). He discussed his
work, which included oversight of on-campus residential
communities, physical and mental health services, student
activities, and the student code of conduct. He recounted
situations on campus that included verbal and physical
assaults, harassment, suicide, and intoxication; and
thought that such situations could have easily escalated in
the presence of firearms. He referred to the current
firearms policy on University campuses. He discussed the
student suicide rate and thought the bill would have an
adverse effect. He related his personal experience with gun
violence. He recounted that he and his staff had responded
to 19 student suicide attempts and 29 incidents of suicide
ideation. He considered that the bill would affect
retention rates as well as effective teaching and learning.
3:10:32 PM
GREG STODDARD, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He thought the committee should
vote to uphold the constitutional right to bear arms. He
did not see any fiscal problems associated with the passage
of the bill. He discussed an active shooter training on
campus. He thought the board of regents had overstepped its
bounds in prohibiting firearms on campus. He discussed
previous changes to the firearms policy. He thought there
should be no permit required for a firearm, but did not
object to required training.
3:14:18 PM
BUTCH MOORE, SELF, BIG LAKE (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. He recounted that his daughter had
been murdered by her boyfriend. His daughter had been a
student at UAA. He reported that in 2014 there had been 145
gun deaths in the state, and 79 of the deaths had been
suicides. He continued that the majority of the suicides
had been individuals aged 18 to 26. He wanted to find out
how many gun deaths there were on college campuses. He
thought suicide was a larger concern in the state than mass
shootings. He did not think the legislature should put guns
in the workplace of University staff when they did not
allow guns in legislative offices. He discussed a
hypothetical scenario regarding young people with guns in
an emotional situation.
3:18:10 PM
MIKE COONS, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He referred to comments by the
previous testifier and thought many of the aforementioned
145 gun deaths in the state were criminal in nature. He
referred to Vice-Chair Micciche's comments on page 2 of the
fiscal note, regarding expenditures in Ohio. He had called
the Ohio State Legislature and found that the state had not
funded increased security and the university had not
requested additional funding. He discussed requests for
increased security on the fiscal note and analyzed the
current security components in the University system. He
remarked that individuals opposing the bill feared their
fellow man.
3:21:44 PM
ED MARTIN, SELF, COOPER LANDING (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He read an excerpt on fear of the
unknown and irrational fear. He thought people that opposed
the bill did not have self-esteem and confidence in their
lives. He thought people might feel safe within academia.
He discussed parenting and personality. He thought that if
students were showing up drunk in school, they should be
removed from campus.
3:24:41 PM
CHELAN SCHREIFELS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to the bill. She was a UAA School of
Engineering alumni. Her daughter was a student at UAA, and
had suffered a gunshot wound. She was a gun owner. She
discussed university crime statistics, which were largely
related to drugs and alcohol. She was concerned that
volatility of student emotion in combination with firearms
would be problematic. She discussed groups in opposition to
the bill. She thought the bill jeopardized public safety,
and took issue with the additional expenses that would be
incurred if the bill passed.
3:28:08 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, SELF, KASILOF (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. He thought individuals carrying
guns would intimidate students. He discussed alcohol use at
colleges.
3:29:32 PM
ROSS MULLINS, SELF, CORDOVA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. He believed the bill was a
manifestation of the NRA. He thought that such ideas were
destroying society. He thought the bill would do nothing to
ensure the safety or future intellectual development of
students.
3:30:49 PM
SCOTT JERMONE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. He was a UAF graduate student,
and a hunter and gun owner. He thought the bill would
inhibit the free flow of ideas by creating an atmosphere of
fear and intimidation. He asserted that college students
were untrained and could not react the way a police officer
could react in an emergency. He thought the bill would
jeopardize the recruitment of quality faculty, staff, and
administrators.
3:31:49 PM
MICHAEL RAYWALT, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He referred to comments
about firearms on campus by previous UA President Pat
Gamble. He discussed mass shootings in schools. He thought
university police forces were unable to be effective in an
active shooter scenario. He referred to the settlement that
the State of Virginia had offered to families of the
victims of a shooting at a university. He discussed police
response time statistics. He thought lives could be saved
if more individuals were armed, and referred to mass
murders that were prevented by armed citizens. He referred
to statistics that crime rates had dropped in areas where
more individuals had permits. He emphasized that the bill
would allow concealed carry of weapons, thereby others
would have no knowledge of the weapon, and the individual
would be required to receive training. He thought gun-free
zones were attractive to criminals.
3:36:40 PM
JONATHAN TAYLOR, PRESIDENT, UNION OF STUDENTS, STUDENT
GOVERNMENT PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. He thought the University had a
compelling interest to heavily regulate firearms on campus.
He alleged that university faculty in Texas and Kansas were
being told to change curriculum content to avoid
inflammatory topics that might incite violence. He
discussed the likelihood of an armed student deterring an
armed criminal, and mentioned a shooting at a college in
Oregon. He thought the ubiquity of guns on campus
contributed to a negative educational environment.
3:39:37 PM
ROB CLIFT, AK LIBERTARIAN PARTY, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He relayed
that the Alaska Libertarian Party examined all pieces of
proposed legislation to determine if it would extend or
curtail individual liberty, and he thought SB 174 did the
former. He discussed the concealed carry of firearms
outside the university setting. He claimed to be carrying a
weapon at his present location in the legislative
information office. He thought the issue was about rights,
and that a ban on campus was anomalous. He referred to
recent amendments to the bill as "barnacles."
3:41:51 PM
CEEZAR MARTINSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. He referred to the
constitution and the right to bear arms. He thought that
the University's current policy on firearms was illegal. He
thought there were students and faculty on campus who were
currently carrying concealed weapons despite the ban. He
thought that the policy prohibiting guns on campus did not
create safety. He mentioned other campuses and states that
had legalized concealed carry, and noted there had been no
measurable increase in gun-related violence. He thought
there had been a decrease in certain crimes on college
campuses that allowed for concealed carry of firearms. He
thought that the arguments against the bill were based on
fear. He questioned the fiscal note from the University. He
thought that other states had demonstrated that there was
not a significant cost to universities by allowing
concealed carry of firearms.
3:46:10 PM
DAN BELLERIVE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He stated that he was a student at
UAA, a veteran and a member of many clubs. He thought the
bill was in aid of protecting constitutional rights and
referred to Article 1, Section 19 of the Alaska
Constitution, which pertained to the right to bear arms.
3:47:08 PM
GENEVIEVE MINA, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. She was student at UAA and
intended on pursuing graduate education there. She was
concerned about how the bill would affect her future years
on campus. She discussed the State of Texas, and the
possibility of instructors at the University of Houston
having to change their curriculum in order not to discuss
controversial topics that may lead to strong emotions. She
thought that the bill could stifle intellectual freedom and
put students at risk outside the classroom. She mentioned
alcohol and drug abuse. She discussed the fiscal note and
anticipated costs to the University.
3:49:53 PM
MIKE SMITH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in support of the bill. He was a military veteran and
employee of UAA. He discussed his work with students and
training that staff had received for active shooter
situations. He discussed the constitutional right to keep
and bear arms. He referenced arguments against the bill. He
thought that his comments would not be well received by his
colleagues.
3:51:58 PM
ZACHARY CHERRY, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He was a student at UAA
and a military veteran. He thought that the University had
infringed upon his rights. He did not agree that there was
a major safety concern associated with the bill.
3:53:31 PM
LEIGHAN GONZALES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to the bill. She was concerned about
her safety as a student. She discussed her personal
struggles. She related that the potential for guns being
allowed on campus made her want to attend school elsewhere.
She asked the committee to consider the fiscal impact of
the bill. She discussed another institution that had passed
a similar law that resulted in increased insurance
premiums, and thought the cost would be passed on to
students.
3:57:15 PM
STACEY LUCASON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. She was a student member of the
board of regents, but was not testifying as a
representative of the board. She thought it was important
to discuss the role of the board in managing the
University, and urged the committee to consider the
question of how to balance the role of the board with the
rights of Alaskans.
3:59:06 PM
PAUL SWETZOF, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He referred to a mass shooting in
Newtown, Connecticut; and thought there may have been a
different outcome if there had been firearms carried by
staff at the school. He referred to testimony of a previous
speaker and discussed the right to bear arms. He read an
excerpt from the Alaska Constitution pertaining to the
individual right to keep and bear arms. He pointed out that
the University was a political subdivision of the state,
and thought it was in conflict with the constitution by
prohibiting firearms. He referred to previous dialogue with
an attorney for the University. He stated that he would
bring a firearm on campus if he so desired, and thought the
University had no right to prohibit it.
4:02:52 PM
GRAYSON SPILLER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He was a student and felt
that he was being denied his constitutional right to keep
and bear arms. He discussed the eventuality of a terror
threat on campus. He discussed emergency response time. He
discussed student support for the bill.
Co-Chair Kelly handed the gavel to Vice-Chair Micciche.
4:04:21 PM
EDWARD BURK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He discussed personal
protection and relayed that he was a veteran. He discussed
arguments against concealed carry in general. He thought
there was a lack of statistics to demonstrate that law-
abiding citizens had been led to commit gun crimes in an
atmosphere with more firearms. He questioned the board of
regents' right to implement policies that were inconsistent
with state law. He asked the committee to pass the
legislation and give his children (students at UAA) the
freedom to protect themselves.
4:07:23 PM
CARL KANCIR, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in favor of the bill. He wondered if the bill
would allow all people to carry a concealed weapon on
campus. He thought the bill allowed people to carry a
concealed weapon without fear of being penalized.
Vice-Chair Micciche clarified that his role was to hear
testimony rather than to interpret the law, but he stated
that he had the same understanding.
Mr. Kancir gave an example that his current firearm he
could shoot nine people within three seconds. He recounted
a personal story of carrying guns in his vehicle. He
discussed the ability of campus police to distinguish
between a student with a firearm and a perpetrator in an
active shooter scenario.
4:10:15 PM
CINDY MOORE, SELF, BIG LAKE (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the bill. She relayed that her daughter
was a UAA student and had been killed by gun violence. She
did not believe that youth always had the knowledge and
good judgement required to responsibly carry concealed
weapons. She discussed high-risk behaviors on campuses that
she considered to be predictive of violence. She thought
that normal conflicts could be exacerbated to include
greater violence if more firearms were present. She
discussed the rate of gun deaths in the year that her
daughter was killed. She suggested it was a fallacy to
infer that guns were needed to protect students from mass
shootings. She discussed the efficacy of armed students in
a gunfight.
4:14:23 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Micciche discussed the schedule for the
following day and noted that the meeting was cancelled.
SB 174 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
4:14:41 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:14 p.m.