Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/13/1996 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
February 13, 1996
3:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Sharp, Chairman
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice-Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Jim Duncan
Senator Dave Donley
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 217
"An Act relating to eligibility for the longevity bonus; and
providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 221
"An Act naming Mountain View Road in Gustavus."
SENATE BILL NO. 266
"An Act relating to the Creamer's Field Goose Classic."
SENATE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 217 - See State Affairs minutes dated 2/1/96.
SB 221 - No previous senate committee action.
SB 266 - No previous senate committee action.
SB 177 - See Joint Senate/House State Affairs minutes
dated 10/5/95 and 1/23/96.
WITNESS REGISTER
Connie Sipe, Director
Division of Senior Services
Department of Administration
3601 C St., Ste. 380, Anchorage, AK 99503-5984¶(907)563-5654
POSITION STATEMENT: representing Governor-prime sponsor SB 217
Alison Elgee, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200, Juneau, AK 99811-0200¶(907)465-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: representing Governor-prime sponsor SB 217
Harry Jenkins
210 10th Ave., Fairbanks, AK 99701¶(907)456-4905
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217
Emma Warwick
518 Fulton Ave., Fairbanks, AK 99701¶(907)456-5188
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217
Nancy Mendenhall
1907 Yankovich Rd., Fairbanks, AK 99709¶(907)479-2786
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217
Joe Montgomery
1048 Beech Lane, Anchorage, AK 99501¶(907)272-9339
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217, except for Section 3
Gordon Guffey
1241 Denali St., No. 101, Anchorage, AK 99501¶(907)276-1110
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217
Eva Johnson
2233 Knoll Circle, Anchorage, AK 99501¶(907)277-4082
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217
Donald Barnett
1516 Birchwood St., Anchorage, AK 99508¶(907)279-4069
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217
John Gibbons
Anchorage Pioneer Home, Anchorage, AK ¶(907)276-3414
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217, except for Section 3
Joe Lawlor
P.O. Box 1133, Homer, AK 99603¶(907)235-7943
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 217
Lois Irvin
167 Bayview Ave., Homer, AK 99603¶(907)235-7172
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 217
Robert Gore
119 Austin St., #911, Ketchikan, AK 99901¶(907)225-6949
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217
Ed Knoebel
P.O. Box 84, Glennallen, AK 99588¶(907)822-3208
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 217, supports Section 3
Holly Hollis
P.O. Box 870675, Wasilla, AK 99687¶(907)376-3524
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 217
Doris Bacus
716 Mission Road, Kodiak, AK 99615¶(907)486-5119
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 217
Glen Hanneman
3370 Davis Road, Fairbanks, AK 99709¶(907)479-6686
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217
Betty & Robert Hufman
1018 Galena St., Fairbanks, AK 99709¶(907)474-0549
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217
Robert Thibideau
1616 Glacier Ave., Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 217
Sandy Burd, Aide
Senator Fred Zharoff
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶(907)465-3473
POSITION STATEMENT: representing prime sponsor of SB 221
Alison Gordon, Aide
Senator Steve Frank
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶(907)465-3709
POSITION STATEMENT: representing prime sponsor of SB 266
Brett Huber, Aide
Senator Lyda Green
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶(907)465-6600
POSITION STATEMENT: representing prime sponsor of SB 177
Caroline Lombard, Aide
Senator Randy Phillips
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶(907)465-4949
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 177
Ann Ringstad, Aide
Senate State Affairs Committee
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶(907)465-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 177
Gary Hayden, System Director
Alaska Marine Highway System
3132 Channel Dr., Juneau, AK 99801-7898¶(907)465-8827
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 177
Bob Provost, Lobbyist
Inland Boatman's Union/Pacific
231 S. Franklin St., Juneau, AK 99801¶(907)586-8200
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 177
Vernon Marshall, Lobbyist
National Education Association - Alaska
114 2nd St., Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 177
ACTION NARRATIVE
SSTA - 2/13/96
SB 217 INCOME LIMITS FOR LONGEVITY BONUS
TAPE 96-12, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN SHARP called the Senate State Affairs Committee to order
at 3:35 p.m. and brought up SB 217 as the first order of business
before the committee. The chairman noted that the committee did
not yet have a quorum, but would start by taking testimony. He
asked Ms. Sipe to repeat information from the overview of SB 217
for the benefit of persons listening via teleconference. That
overview was given during the February 1, 1996 Senate State Affairs
Committee meeting.
Number 015
CONNIE SIPE, Director, Division of Senior Services, Department of
Administration, synopsized information from the overview given
during the February 1, 1996 meeting of the Senate State Affairs
Committee.
Number 165
SENATOR LEMAN asked if it is easily identifiable on tax forms which
income from native corporations is taxable and which isn't.
MS. SIPE responded it is broken down as to what is taxable and what
isn't.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if non-taxable income from native corporations
would count toward the income limits specified in SB 217.
MS. SIPE responded she cannot speak for the governor on whether it
is intended that income be counted toward the income limits in SB
217. She needs to speak to the Governor's Legislative Office
regarding clarification on that question.
Number 180
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration,
added that, as the bill is currently written, the portion of the
native dividend distribution that is not taxable for federal tax
purposes would not be calculated in the income calculation for
purposes of longevity bonus eligibility.
CHAIRMAN SHARP commented that it would take an amendment to put
that item in the same classification as non-taxable interest and
gifts.
MS. ELGEE responded that is correct.
Number 200
HARRY JENKINS, testifying from Fairbanks, asked how the Division of
Senior Services could state in a letter of January 17, 1996 that SB
217 would only affect 8% of Alaska's seniors, if they do not know
seniors' income? He disagrees with items (lines) 19-31 on page 2,
invading the right of privacy. Also, if this will be administered
on the honor system, why not write that in the bill? Mr. Jenkins
stated that there also seem to be two different effective dates in
the bill: one in Section 6 and one in Section 7. He thinks the
bill ought to be rewritten and thrown in the wastepaper basket.
Number 220
EMMA WARWICK, testifying from Fairbanks, stated that since the
State of Alaska has already passed a bill phasing out the longevity
bonus program, further restrictions will only add more bureaucracy
to the system. This would negate any planned savings. The
longevity program was implemented to repay pioneers in some way for
their many contributions to the development of Alaska. Ms. Warwick
believes it would be gross discrimination to place an income
restriction on receipt of this recognition. All should be treated
equally, and the trend towards socialism terminated.
Number 240
NANCY MENDENHALL, stated that SB 217 would change the whole idea of
the program. She is bothered a great deal, because she thinks this
would reward someone who didn't save money when they were younger.
She also has a question about income from native corporations.
Some of that income is taxable, and some is not, and she couldn't
quite understand all of the statements that were made. Under SB
217, the longevity bonus program becomes a needs-based program, and
what she considers to be another welfare program.
Number 258
CHAIRMAN SHARP clarified that a 1099 is sent out by native
corporations listing which income is taxable and which is not. So
that could be determined.
Number 263
JOE MONTGOMERY, testifying from Anchorage, stated he is unhappy
with SB 217. When the longevity bonus program was implemented, it
was truly a longevity bonus. It is not a welfare program. We do
not feel that receiving a longevity bonus should be based upon
one's income. He thinks implementation problems with SB 217 have
been underestimated. He understands the budget problems, but if
cuts have to be made, why not take $25 or 10% or some other percent
off per month. Let the phase-out program run it's course.
Number 285
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Montgomery how he felt about Section 3 of
SB 217, which relates to qualification based on physical presence
in the state.
Number 298
MR. MONTGOMERY responded that adjustments could be made to presence
requirements. He thinks 180 days might be excessive. He would
have no objection to that length of time being modified.
Number 310
GORDON GUFFEY, testifying from Anchorage, stated that by placing a
cap on eligibility to receive longevity bonus benefits, SB 217 has
placed those remaining eligible to receive the bonus in the status
of receiving welfare. This bill strays so far from the original
intent of longevity - recognizing the contribution of Alaskan
pioneers in the development of Alaska, that it no longer deserves
to be called a longevity bonus. Rather than passing SB 217 into
law, the legislature should abolish the longevity bonus program
altogether, transfer the funds from that program to the welfare
department, and allow that department to distribute those funds as
welfare.
Number 326
EVA JOHNSON, testifying from Anchorage, stated she would rather see
the longevity bonus program phased out than turned into a welfare
program.
Number 333
DONALD BARNETT, testifying from Anchorage, stated the longevity
bonus program is nothing more than a welfare program now, and he is
adamantly opposed to this whole thing the way it is.
Number 344
JOHN GIBBONS, testifying from the Anchorage Pioneer Home, stated he
objected to SB 217 for previously stated reasons. It departs from
the original concept of a longevity bonus. He doesn't see how SB
217 is different from requiring showing income when applying for a
pioneers' home. If you really want to balance the budget, why
don't you work towards reestablishing the personal income tax. It
is a fair tax, and we would be able to recover some of the wages of
non-resident workers. He has no complaint about the 90-day
allowable absence period. He stated that if SB 217 is passed, you
might as well change the name of the Pioneers' Homes to the Old
Folks' Homes, because the pioneers will have long since departed.
Number 360
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Gibbons to clarify whether he thought 180
days would be a good amount of time for allowable absences from the
state.
MR. GIBBONS replied that he thinks 180 days is overstating the
case, unless the absence is for a medical reason.
Number 375
JOE LAWLOR, testifying from Homer, stated he strongly supports SB
217. The program was originally begun to help people stay in
Alaska, for those who needed assistance. When we had all the oil
money, we could kind of live wild on the hog, but that oil money is
going. So both the intent of the bill and also Section 3 he
supports. We have too many people who don't need the money and are
spending their time out of the state.
LOIS IRVIN, testifying from Homer, stated she supports SB 217.
Number 394
ROBERT GORE, testifying from Ketchikan, thinks the longevity bonus
program has helped keep an old, married couple out of the pioneer
home. Elimination of the bonus is a very reasonable and
comprehensive phase-out plan. That plan is very agreeable to the
pioneers and the local elderly people in Ketchikan. We would like
to continue on that route, and don't see the need for the income
cap, to turn this program into a needs-based program. Mr. Gore
thinks that would set up a lot of unnecessary expense to determine
who is eligible and who wouldn't be eligible. He has heard that SB
217 would probably require the creation of another division or
office to check eligibility. Mr. Gore stated those are his
complaints against SB 217, and he hopes it is considered with care
before it is thrown away. He thinks SB 217 is very harmful.
ED KNOEBEL, testifying from Glennallen, stated he supports Section
3 of SB 217. He asked if social security would be counted towards
the income limits in SB 217.
Number 441
MS. SIPE responded social security is counted to the degree it's
taxable under federal law. At this point, I think the limit on
social security is $25,000. Above that would be taxable.
MR. KNOEBEL also suggested passing a school tax.
Number 449
HOLLY HOLLIS, testifying from Matsu, asked if adjusted gross income
is income described in a 1040, or if it means gross income period.
CHAIRMAN SHARP replied it refers to adjusted gross income as
described in the 1040 form.
MS. HOLLIS thinks a total allowable absence of 90 days should be
enough, except for medical reasons. She thinks recognition should
be given to the contributions seniors have made to the state. The
longevity bonus, no matter how much it is, is all spent in Alaska.
SB 217 departs from the original concept of a longevity bonus by
making another classification of our citizens. She thinks a state
income tax should be reestablished - she knows that people from
outside who work in Alaska send their money outside, because she
used to work in a post office. She suggested that if reductions to
the longevity bonus are made, they be uniform.
Number 480
DORIS BACUS, testifying from Kodiak, asked what happened to the
lawsuit. She stated she's talked to a lot of people in Kodiak, and
many of them feel that the longevity bonus should be done away
with. They feel that it's not right that a lot of the Native
Alaskans who've lived here all their lives are denied, when
immigrants who've lived here a year and a day are getting longevity
bonuses.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked the status of the lawsuit Ms. Bacus
mentioned.
CHAIRMAN SHARP replied that the state has filed their briefs.
MS. SIPE added that the judge must make a decision by May.
SENATOR LEMAN asked the name of that case.
MS. SIPE responded it is Magert v. Sipe.
SENATOR LEMAN commented Ms. Sipe will become famous.
MS. SIPE stated that they were supposed to sue the commissioner,
but it got her.
Number 497
GLEN HANNEMAN, testifying from Fairbanks, stated he objects to
tampering with the longevity bonus program, particularly since it's
already in phase-out mode. This bill could throw a monkey wrench
into the system. He doesn't like the stigma of means testing. It
sounds like welfare. He supports the position of the Pioneers'
Grand Igloo, which unanimously opposes SB 217. He also objects
because the marriage section seems to contain some discrimination.
Letting the administrator establish regulations scares him. Mr.
Hanneman would like to know how much savings are expected from SB
217, and what the costs will be to implement the legislation.
Overall, he thinks it is a bad bill, and recommends do not pass.
Number 516
CHAIRMAN SHARP pointed out that there are fiscal notes on SB 217.
The fiscal notes show savings, but the administration claims there
will be no additional costs due to SB 217. There is an estimated
$6,000,000 savings in the longevity bonus program and $1,900,000
savings in the SSI program.
Number 526
BETTY HUFMAN, testifying from Fairbanks, stated she opposes SB 217.
Ms. Hufman read a statement from her husband Robert opposing SB
217. The statement said the term "longevity bonus" is a misnomer.
SB 217 would convert the present program into a bastardized welfare
program. Let the phase-out program run its' course. In the event
SB 217 is passed, they believe a new state mini-IRS department will
be instituted just for those people remaining in the program.
Please recommend do not pass on SB 217. Ms. Hufman recommends that
SB 217 be put on hold until the outcome of the lawsuit. She thinks
tracking income of applicants could cost the state much more money
than the program would save. Ms. Hufman thinks allowing 180-day
absences from the state is too liberal.
Number 552
SENATOR DUNCAN clarified that Section 3 is not liberalizing the
amount of time people are allowed to stay out of state; it is
actually making it more difficult to be out of the state. The
administration is proposing that instead of being able to come back
in to the state once every 90 days and continue to be eligible, if
you are absent for a cumulative of 180 days, an applicant would
lose their eligibility. He wanted to make sure that was clear, and
that he didn't confuse people.
CHAIRMAN SHARP added that was also how he understood it.
Number 565
ROBERT THIBIDEAU stated that the total population in the state is
615,900. Of that figure, about 29,000 are senior citizens. The
longevity bonus program has about 25,500 participants. He has the
feeling that the reason why there already appears to be about 3,500
people eligible who are not participating in the longevity bonus
program, is because they have enough money and they don't want to
be bothered with the restrictions. In respect to turning this
program into a welfare program, if there's anything that seniors
dislike hearing, it's that they are welfare people. Seniors are a
very proud people. They think - maybe others don't, but they think
they contribute a lot to the state, in the past and presently. The
state is very fortunate in having a very small senior population.
If Alaska had the same burden that California, New York, or
Minnesota has, and the programs that they offer their seniors,
you'd be scratching your head.
TAPE 96-12, SIDE B
MR. THIBIDEAU continued, stating that the senior population
contributes so much in Alaska, that a dollar amount can't even be
put on it. Our mere presence is a stabilizing influence. He
doesn't think the State of Alaska would want to go back to a period
when only 2-3% of the population was 65 and over.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that, since there were no more witnesses to
testify and no more comments from committee members, SB 217 would
be set aside until interest is shown in hearing it again.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated he is not interested in SB 217.
Number 572
SENATOR DUNCAN stated he has no interest in the bill as written,
but he thinks the section dealing with absences from the state is
worthy of discussion by itself. That might have some impact on the
total cost of the program. He wondered if the committee would want
to consider introducing legislation containing just that portion of
SB 217.
CHAIRMAN SHARP agreed with Senator Duncan.
SSTA - 2/13/96
SB 221 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD - GUSTAVUS
SENATOR SHARP brought up SB 221 as the next order of business
before the Senate State Affairs Committee and called the first
witness.
SANDY BURD, Aide to Senator Fred Zharoff, prime sponsor of SB 221,
stated that SB 221 was introduced at the request of the residents
of Gustavus. Senator Zharoff received a petition with 121
signatures and a letter from the community association.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there were any questions regarding SB 221.
Hearing none, the chairman asked the pleasure of the committee.
Number 553
SENATOR DUNCAN made a motion to discharge SB 221 from committee
with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated SB 221 was discharged
from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual
recommendations.
SSTA - 2/13/96
SB 266 CREAMER'S FIELD GOOSE CLASSIC
Number 550
SENATOR SHARP brought up SB 266 as the next order of business
before the Senate State Affairs Committee and called the first
witness.
Number 545
ALISON GORDON, Aide to Senator Steve Frank, prime sponsor of SB
266, stated that SB 266 would amend current law to include the
Friends of Creamer's Field among those who could operate and
administer a goose classic. A goose classic is a game of chance in
which the participant has an opportunity to win a cash prize for
guessing the closest time of arrival of the first goose to
Creamer's Field. Currently, the Fairbanks Montessori Association
is the only group that may operate and administer a goose classic.
This association has found that with their small, volunteer group,
it has not been able to put on a classic. Subsequently, there has
never been a goose classic in Fairbanks. The Montessori
Association and Friends of Creamer's Field have worked to form a
contract in which the two organizations would put the classic on
together. SB 266 would also allow either group to operate the game
separately, if one should decide not to take part. The department
supports this legislation.
Number 535
CHAIRMAN SHARP mentioned that the Friends of Creamer's Field is a
fairly large group working towards preserving the field, which is
a refuge. The chairman asked the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated he is opposed to gambling.
SENATOR DONLEY stated he also votes against gambling bills.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no motion to discharge, said he would let
the sponsor lobby committee members.
SSTA - 2/13/96
SB 177 CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT AMENDMENTS
Number 525
SENATOR SHARP brought up SB 177 as the next order of business
before the Senate State Affairs Committee and called the first
witness.
Number 518
BRETT HUBER, Aide to Senator Lyda Green, prime sponsor of SB 177,
informed the committee that after reviewing concerns and comments
made regarding SB 177, Senator Green has worked on the version of
the bill before the committee today. Mr. Huber thinks it is
important to note that testimony in previous committee meetings was
supportive of a reduction of permit fees, the removal of
limitations on where permittees are allowed to carry, and the
allowance of reciprocity agreements with other states. He also
asked that it be remembered that permittees are law-abiding
Alaskans. Mr. Huber thinks it is important to differentiate
between law-abiding citizens' proper use of a firearm, and the
concerns associated with other improper uses.
Number 506
MR. HUBER outlines the changes from version G. Section 3 requires
that DPS provide applicants with the laws and regulations
pertaining to the concealed handgun program. Section 6 puts some
misdemeanor offenses that would disallow a person from obtaining a
permit, or be grounds for revocation of a permit back in the bill.
Committee members should have in their bill packets a list of the
retained misdemeanor offenses. The list reflects the misdemeanants
in the current program which involve acts of violence against a
person or misuse of weapons. Section 8 of the bill restores the
requirement to display physical competency and to qualify with a
handgun specific to action type. Section 12 restores the
prohibition of concealed carry inside school buildings, state court
houses, law enforcement facilities, correctional facilities, as
well as those places prohibited by federal law. Section 14 removes
the prohibition on derringers and miniature handguns as weapons
allowable for concealed carry. Those are the changes contained in
the committee substitute.
Number 493
SENATOR LEMAN asked Mr. Huber if any thought has been given to
having the department prepare a layman's version of the statutes
for distribution to permit applicants and permittees. Also, he is
concerned that a $65 fee might not adequately cover costs. He
doesn't want this program to become subsidized.
Number 476
MR. HUBER responded to the first question. Currently, as part of
the concealed handgun permit process, applicants are required to
take a course; four hours of that course work deals directly with
the laws and regulations relating to concealed carrying. So we
believe applicants should be able to develop an understanding of
the law at that time. As to the second question, Senator Green has
requested from DPS a breakdown of the costs associated with SB 177.
Senator Green is continuing to explore with DPS what that level
needs to be. It is certainly not the intent of the sponsor to have
the program subsidized by other funds, but also not to have program
receipts from the program subsidizing other programs.
Number 460
SENATOR LEMAN commented that one of the best things put in the
first law on concealed carrying was the application fee cap. But
he thinks that a $65 fee is probably too low. He would like to see
what the costs actually are. A better number would probably be
about $95. But he would really like to get that information.
Number 450
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute for SB 177.
Number 444
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated the State Affairs
Committee substitute for SB 177 has been adopted.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated he has several proposed amendments to
offer. The first has to do with his concern over concealed weapons
on school grounds and school buses. We should leave the law the
way it is, so one amendment puts the legislation back to the
original law. The other amendment deals with posting a sign on a
premises forbidding concealed weapons. Senator Phillips thinks the
property rights of a person - under SB 177, would he be prohibited
from preventing a person from carrying a concealed weapon in his
home?
Number 435
MR. HUBER responded that in discussions with the Department of Law
and several attorneys who deal with firearms issues, homeowners
would not be precluded from prohibiting anyone from entering their
property for any reason.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if it would prohibit other
establishments from prohibiting concealed carrying on their
premises.
Number 430
MR. HUBER thinks it would be the same on that. Establishments
controlled by an individual could, as long as it doesn't breach
some other rights of the individual, or show just cause, disallow
people from entering your establishment on a variety of criteria.
Number 425
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS read the language on page 6, Section 12,
paragraph (9). He thinks that if the owner of a building, house,
or facility does not want concealed carrying, the property rights
would supersede the concealed carrying rights. He does not see the
need for deleting the section restricting where permittees can
carry; that is why he is offering an amendment. His three concerns
are: carrying on school buses and school grounds, prohibiting
property owners from posting prohibitions on carrying concealed,
and carrying in nursing homes.
Number 383
SENATOR DONLEY thinks everyone is concerned about the misuse of
firearms, but he thinks what Mr. Huber was trying to explain is
that concealed carrying on premises where the property owner is
opposed to it is really a private matter between the property owner
and the permittee. Under existing law, that situation would be a
violation, so the state would intervene. Senator Donley thinks it
is clear that property owners would still have the authority to ban
concealed weapons from their property, it just wouldn't be
violation of state law if permittees violated property owner's
posted prohibition. Unless the order to leave the premises is
based on some other illegal discriminatory criteria, that order
would be within the rights of the property owner.
MR. HUBER added that what Senator Donley just stated is basically
the sponsor's position on the committee substitute: by removing
those provisions, it does not prohibit property owners from
precluding who they want to either enter or not enter their
premises. Currently, it is a misdemeanor for a permittee to
inadvertently enter an establishment with a posted prohibition. He
feels it places an undue burden on permit holders.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if people could carry a concealed
weapon onto a vessel of the Alaska Marine Highway System. He
thinks last years' bill was adequate. The only problem he sees is
with the current fees. The only complaints he has heard is with
the fees.
Number 335
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that at the hearing in Anchorage in October
there was a lot of testimony on the problem that once people were
permitted, they had to keep removing their concealed weapon to go
into many places. If federal law precludes carrying a concealed
weapon, which it does in airport loading and unloading areas-
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS interrupted and asked why we are deleting
financial institutions, such as a bank. Most banks have armed
guards.
Number 325
SENATOR DONLEY replied that at the hearings this summer there was
a lot of testimony from business owners that when they bring their
deposits to the bank, they have to leave their weapons in the car.
This causes two problems: they have no protection in the bank
parking lot, and they are afraid that the weapon in the car is a
target for theft.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that the most vulnerable place for being
attacked is in parking lots.
Number 316
SENATOR LEMAN asked if federal law precludes carrying a weapon into
a bank.
SENATOR DONLEY does not think so.
Number 313
SENATOR DUNCAN noted that he agreed with Senator Phillips on this
point, which is unusual. He remembers the floor debate on the
first concealed carrying legislation. It seems to him that the
best thing to do would be to post in advance. He hasn't heard of
people getting rolled in bank parking lots. Bank robberies usually
happen in the bank, not out in the parking lot. He thinks we are
overreaching, and he will support Senator Phillips.
Number 285
SENATOR DONLEY replied that by removing this section, nothing
prohibits posting. Property owners can still post: no weapons
allowed. It's just that the enforcement would be based on a
trespassing dispute, or some private cause of action, rather than
a crime.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated then that the burden would be on the
property owner, rather than the permittee. Why should that burden
be on the property owner?
SENATOR LEMAN and SENATOR DONLEY stated it was currently on the
property owner.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that property owners can post anything they
want. For example: no shirtless, no backpacks, no sandals. So
people do restrict that.
SENATOR DUNCAN commented that maybe we should have them shirtless,
then they couldn't have a concealed weapon.
Number 263
MR. HUBER wanted committee members to remember that SB 177 does
not preclude anyone from flying in the face of good weapon use:
someone can still enter a premises if they choose to conceal a gun
and are not a permittee. We are talking about the most law abiding
citizens. No permit has yet been revoked because of misuse of the
weapon.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that is probably because of the way
the law is today.
SENATOR DUNCAN commented that is a good reason to keep it that way.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated his biggest concern isn't permittees, it's
someone carrying who isn't a permittee.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked what the public policy is behind
allowing for people to have concealed weapons on a school bus, or
even on school grounds. Aren't we sending the wrong message to the
kids? He just can't accept that.
CHAIRMAN SHARP thinks a school district could prohibit that. A
school district would have the right to post anything they want,
just like any other business. At least that is his understanding.
Number 237
SENATOR DONLEY informed the committee that he was the author of the
law that currently bans guns from school grounds. He asked how the
concealed carrying law would interplay with that ban.
MR. HUBER responded that is addressed in Section 1 of SB 177. It
corresponds with Section 6, which provides an affirmative defense
to AS 11.61.210, that prohibits weapons on school grounds. The
reason for school grounds, is to accommodate people dropping off or
picking up people on school grounds. If a permittee drives past a
school, they are guilty of a misdemeanor.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if anyone has been convicted of that.
MR. HUBER replied not that he knows of.
Number 218
SENATOR DONLEY stated the law banning weapons on school grounds
specifies that guns have to be encased and put away before people
can come on school grounds.
SENATOR DUNCAN stated that is not a requirement with SB 177.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS thinks that area should be looked at. He is
having a difficult time accepting that provision.
Number 200
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he would probably go along with adding school
grounds back into SB 177. On page 6, line 6, take out "or" leave
a comma in there and put "junior high, secondary school, or school
bus". He can see the logic to that. School grounds, passing
through, dropping people off, picking people up, he would hate to
see that specifically prohibited, except by the school district.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the sponsor has thought about simply making
an exception for picking up and dropping off, rather than a blanket
exception for school grounds.
MR. HUBER responded that was discussed. But the problem with that
is there are other reasons to go to the school, perhaps to drop off
a pair of tennis shoes that your child forgot, perhaps it's playing
basketball after hours with your children
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Senator Phillips if he wanted to discuss his
amendments.
Number 165
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated his first amendment would delete the
reference to school buildings, on the grounds, school parking lot,
or school bus. It also inserts, "or while participating in a
school sponsored event. Basically, it would bring the committee
substitute back to what the current law is, in terms of schools.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he has a problem with that one.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt amendment #1.
CHAIRMAN SHARP objected to adoption of amendment #1. The chairman
asked if there was any further discussion.
SENATOR DONLEY commented he wished the committee had language
before it that would allow pickups and deliveries.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated that would address most of the concerns he
heard at the committee meeting in October.
The chairman called the roll on the motion.
Adoption of amendment #1 failed, with a vote of 1 yea, 3 nays, 1
absent. Voting for adoption was Senator Phillips. Voting against
adoption were Senators Sharp, Leman, and Donley. Senator Duncan
was absent.
Number 115
SENATOR DONLEY suggested a conceptual amendment to SB 177. It
would extend the exception for concealed weapons to the act of
delivering or picking up from a school. If someone was dropping
off someone else's sneakers or something, he would want to include
that. So he wouldn't limit it to just delivering or picking up
children. The building, grounds, and school buses would be off
limits.
Number 103
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked what the law was concerning
unconcealed weapons on school grounds.
SENATOR DONLEY replied they are banned.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS said, "And yet we want to allow concealed
weapons on school grounds."
SENATOR DONLEY responded that state law allows encased weapons on
school grounds.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted you can also have encased weapons on school
grounds if you're going to a shooting range in the school.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that the only difference here is that a
permittee wouldn't have to unload or encase their weapon to deliver
and pick up. But if you went on to the school grounds for other
purposes- you couldn't go in the building with it, you couldn't go
on a school bus, you couldn't hang out in the school parking lot
with it. You could just deliver and pick up. That would be his
conceptual amendment.
SENATOR LEMAN stated he doesn't object to that conceptual
amendment, but he wonders if that is covered now under federal law.
What is the federal law concerning school grounds?
Number 068
MR. HUBER responded that federal law has been struck down because
of interstate commerce. So state law is the only law in place
prohibiting that.
SENATOR LEMAN stated he doesn't have any objection to that. His
concern is the person who is "hanging out".
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there was any other discussion on the
conceptual amendment. Hearing none, he asked if there was any
objection to the conceptual amendment.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS objected. If the law says, right now,
unconcealed weapons, exposed, is prohibited by law on school
grounds, unless they're unloaded and encased - in this situation
we're talking about the possibility of a loaded gun, concealed, and
allowed to be on school grounds.
SENATOR DONLEY stated it would be allowed only for the purposes of
picking up and delivering something.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS said he doesn't know why anyone would want
to do that.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked the secretary to call the roll.
The conceptual amendment passed with a vote of 3 yeas, 1 nay, and
1 absent. Voting for amendment are Senators Sharp, Leman, and
Donley. Voting against the amendment is Senator Phillips. Senator
Duncan is absent.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there are any other amendments.
SENATOR LEMAN stated he had an amendment.
TAPE 96-13, SIDE A
Number 001
SENATOR LEMAN made a motion to adopt amendment #2. He explained
that amendment #2 would reinsert certain misdemeanors that have
been taken out of the committee substitute. He believes that if a
person commits these misdemeanors, they should have to wait five
years before being able to obtain a permit.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there was discussion on the amendment.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if there was any comment from the sponsor.
Number 030
MR. HUBER responded it was the sponsor's attempt to use the
criteria of acts that include violence to another person or misuse
of weapons. Senator Leman's list seems to leave out the most
questionable of the misdemeanors that were in the original law.
Number 039
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there is objection to amendment #2.
Hearing none, he stated that amendment #2 was adopted.
Number 045
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS offered amendment #3. This specifies that
a permittee may not carry a concealed weapon into- and it reinserts
paragraphs (4-12). He offered the amendment for institutions such
as the Mary Conrad Center. This would just bring the committee
substitute back to current law.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS moved amendment #3.
CHAIRMAN SHARP objected for the purposes of discussion.
SENATOR LEMAN asked what amendment #3 would do.
SENATOR DONLEY replied it just seems to restore the status quo,
with the exception of the addition of prohibition for a business,
hospital, or nursing home.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that would take care of the Mary
Conrad Center's concerns.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if it wouldn't also delete paragraphs (4-12).
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS said no, it reinserts them. The current
bill deletes it. All he is doing is to reinsert it.
SENATOR DONLEY stated the result of this amendment would be to keep
all the current prohibitions, but also add, nursing homes,
hospitals, and businesses.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated he did get a request from Providence
Hospital in Anchorage for this provision.
SENATOR DONLEY said it is kind of like a double-negative.
CAROLINE LOMBARD, Aide to Senator Phillips, stated that basically,
everything that's been capitalized would still be deleted.
Number 107
SENATOR DONLEY stated this amendment deletes this language from SB
177. It's a double negative, so you're back to the status quo.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that on page 2, the language specifies
insertion of (4). Why are you inserting-? You see what I'm
saying, on page 2?
CHAIRMAN SHARP commented you don't want that if we're going to have
the deletion.
SENATOR LEMAN stated it is getting confusing to him on page 2 with
the insert. Insert, on lines 12-14-
MS. LOMBARD interjected that is still excluded, so those would not
be inserted.
Number 130
SENATOR DONLEY said, "So you want to allow people to still carry
concealed weapons to the airline terminal, to a vessel on the
marine highway, and in a financial institution."
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS said he did not want that. This is
misdrafted. The intent is to bring back the marine highway system
and airline terminals.
Number 150
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS moved amendment #3 with that understanding.
SENATOR LEMAN asked, "Which understanding."
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS replied that basically he wants to go back
to the original law, which includes passenger loading or unloading
areas of an airline terminal and vessels of the Alaska Marine
Highway System. So what we really should do is get rid of that
bracket. I do not want to delete paragraphs (6 & 7).
SENATOR LEMAN clarified that Senator Phillips just wanted to add
new language in paragraphs (17-20).
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS replied that is correct.
SENATOR DONLEY asked about paragraph (9).
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS responded he wants to leave paragraph (9)
in.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Senator Phillips wanted to leave it in the
law, or leave it as a deletion.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS replied he wants to leave it the way it is
in current law.
SENATOR LEMAN commented that means we take it out.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he understands the first page. You get down
to insert, and he thinks all you would want to do is have a revised
paragraph (9). The rest of it wouldn't be applicable.
SENATOR LEMAN said, except for line 30, also. That's an insertion.
Number 175
ANN RINGSTAD, Committee Aide, Senate State Affairs Committee,
interjected, "3 and 30."
SENATOR LEMAN stated that 3 is in the deletion.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that the request he made to the
attorney was to leave everything alone, and add nursing homes and
hospitals. That is all he asked.
SENATOR DONLEY added that it might be easier to just make an oral
motion.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS offered a conceptual amendment. The
amendment is to leave the law the way it is-
CHAIRMAN SHARP interjected, "Leave the law, not the cs."
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS replied, "The law."
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS continued, saying add paragraph (7), which
would include institutions like the Mary Conrad Center and
Providence Hospital.
Number 192
SENATOR DONLEY asked Senator Phillips if the language on line 30
was important to him.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked what it would mean.
SENATOR DONLEY replied he does not know what it means. He is not
proposing the amendment.
CHAIRMAN SHARP thinks federal law takes precedence anyway.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS said to just delete that. He thinks the
chairman is correct.
Number 200
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he could go for adding: business, hospital,
nursing home.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there was any other discussion on the
motion. Hearing none, the chairman stated he objected to the
motion and asked the secretary to take the roll.
Amendment #3 failed, 1 yea, 3 nays, and 1 absent. Voting for the
amendment was Senator Phillips. Voting against the amendment were
Senators Sharp, Leman, and Donley. Senator Duncan was absent.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS commented that SB 177 is so bad now, that he
doesn't even think he wants to improve it.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there are any other amendments to come
before the committee.
SENATOR DONLEY asked where SB 177 goes next.
CHAIRMAN SHARP replied SB 177 goes to Judiciary, then Finance. The
chairman called witnesses to testify.
Number 225
GARY HAYDEN, System Director, Alaska Marine Highway System, stated
opposition to SB 177, because it would allow the carrying of
weapons onto marine highway vessels, which is contrary to current
Alaska Marine Highway System policy. The current policy is that
people are allowed to either keep their weapons locked in their
cars, or check their weapons with the purser. People are so used
to doing that, that some people even check in their sheath knives
with the purser. The purser gives the weapon owner a claim ticket,
and the owner picks the weapon up at the end of the voyage. There
are a lot of security reasons why we have that policy. It seems to
be working.
Number 240
SENATOR DONLEY asked if there is anything in existing law
prohibiting the marine highway system from adopting regulations or
policies that would conform to their current policy.
Number 245
MR. HUBER responded that he does not know of anything, but that
question is better posed to counsel.
SENATOR DONLEY almost thinks that the marine highway system could
go ahead and do that on their own.
CHAIRMAN SHARP would think so also. If a private person can post,
he would think a public facility could post rules and regulations
in the terminal.
SENATOR DONLEY and CHAIRMAN SHARP think the Judiciary Committee
could probably explore that.
Number 255
BOB PROVOST, lobbyist for Inland Boatman's Union/Pacific, informed
the committee that the IBU/P represents most of the employees on
the marine highway system. He stated he supports Mr. Hayden's
testimony. As far as inconveniencing permittees, Mr. Provost does
not think those circumstances apply on the marine highway system.
People are generally on ferries for a couple hours to three or four
days. In the summer time, the ferries carry a lot of passengers,
and many people do not stay in staterooms. There are people
sleeping all over the ferry, from the solarium, to the lounges, to
the hallways. If someone legally carrying a handgun is sleeping on
deck, they don't have a secure place to put that handgun. We have
a lot of children who travel with their families in the summer
time, and in the winter time we have school teams travelling. He
is concerned that a child might come across a handgun, and the door
would be opened for a mishap. He is not saying permittees are
dangerous-these people are licensed to carry handguns, there is no
problem there, but he just sees the potential for a mishap if these
firearms are not secured in a safe place. There is a long history
of safe transportation on the ferries, so the concern for someone
getting robbed on the ferry-really that would be very rare.
Therefore, Mr. Provost does not think the concern for personal
safety really applies on the ferry. IBU/P would feel really
uncomfortable that there might be a possibility for mishaps.
Number 295
CHAIRMAN SHARP does not think there are any laws prohibiting
rifles, shotguns, or any other type of weapon onto a ferry. The
Alaska Marine Highway System has the regulations that shut it down,
and the chairman thinks the system could still do that with
concealed carry permittees. He does not think the concealed weapon
law gives permittees the right to carry their weapon in any areas
any more than it does the owner of a rifle or a shotgun, if you
have regulations posted that it is against the law on the ferries.
MR. PROVOST responded he does not know.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if persons are allowed to have
unconcealed weapons on the ferries.
MR. PROVOST responded, "No." If the weapon is locked in the
passengers vehicle, that is no problem. There are surveillance
cameras on the car deck. He has worked on the ferry system for 18
years. As a purser, he has had policemen travelling with their
families on vacation check their handguns. It is standard
procedure and has worked well over the years.
Number 316
SENATOR LEMAN suggested that if the marine highway system's policy
has been in place for so many years, then he doesn't think SB 177
would change that policy. He is of the same opinion as the
chairman: deleting this does not prevent the system from having
that regulation.
Number 325
MR. PROVOST replied that, as far as the legal ramifications, he
does not know. If it's state law that they're allowed to carry
their concealed weapons, he doesn't know how far reaching that
would be.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked that the Judiciary Committee determine that
the Alaska Marine Highway System still has the right to deny
carrying of firearms. He does not believe they belong off the car
deck and out of the car either.
Number 333
SENATOR DONLEY suggested adding a note to the bill referral to the
Judiciary Committee asking that they examine that question. The
law is, that the presumption is, that the citizens have the right
to keep and bear arms, and then we refine that. You can carry any
weapon you want, as long as it's in the open. The exception to
that is if you get a concealed carry permit, then you can carry
concealed. But there are still some places where you won't be able
to carry any weapon at any time, whether it's concealed or in the
open. How all these things interplay, would be a good question for
the Judiciary Committee.
Number 346
VERNON MARSHALL, Lobbyist, NEA - Alaska, stated his concern had
been partially addressed. That concern related to school grounds.
Schools are experiencing some increase in violent activity, and
NEA's position is that schools should be gun-free areas. We were
going to ask that the current definition in Chapter 11 be kept,
which defines school grounds as building structure, athletic
playing field, playground, parking area, and basically the land
that contains the real property of the school as areas where
concealed carrying would be prohibited. That is current law. For
the safety of children and of the public, it is wise to not - and
we're not trying to address whether a permittee is a good citizen
or not. We assume folks are good citizens, because they got the
permit. We are concerned about those who don't have permits. But
having guns on campus is not good public policy, and we're opposed
to that. Mr. Marshall stated he was pleased to see Senator
Phillips amendments.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked that Judiciary look at the conceptual language
that the State Affairs Committee tightened up.
Number 372
SENATOR DONLEY stated that if it is drafted correctly, it should
maintain all the current bans anywhere described, the only
exception would be going to and from for picking up and dropping
off. In the next committee we could narrow the debate to whether
that should be allowed, or not.
MR. MARSHALL thought that basically, you would encase the gun and
unload the weapon.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that is under existing law. The exception
here would be that permittees would be allowed to pick up and drop
off. Under the conceptual amendment permittees wouldn't have to
unload or encase. That would be the only difference now in SB 177.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that would exclude loitering and everything
else.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there were any other amendments. Hearing
none, he asked the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR LEMAN suggested reporting the bill, as amended with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
MS. RINGSTAD noted that there is a negative fiscal note from DPS
and a zero fiscal note from LAW.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that there has been testimony that this
program would not be subsidized.
SENATOR LEMAN wanted a message sent to the Finance Committee to
look at the upper limit, the dollars. And a note to Judiciary on
these others-all of those things accompanying it.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if part of the motion to move the bill was to
ask the Judiciary Committee to examine the issue of the authority.
SENATOR LEMAN and CHAIRMAN SHARP replied, "Yes."
CHAIRMAN SHARP added, "And to ask Finance to make sure it isn't a
subsidized activity."
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if there were any other comments. Hearing
none, the chairman asked if there was objection to moving the bill
with accompanying fiscal notes from committee. Hearing none, SB
177 was discharged from the Senate State Affairs Committee.
SSTA - 2/13/96
SB 221 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD - GUSTAVUS
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked that a motion be made to move out the
accompanying zero fiscal note to SB 221.
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion to discharge the zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated the zero fiscal note
would accompany SB 221 out of the Senate State Affairs Committee.
Number 407
CHAIRMAN SHARP adjourned the Senate State Affairs Committee at 5:35
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|