HOUSE BILL NO. 400 An Act relating to disasters and confiscation of firearms. Vice Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-LS1543\L, Luckhaupt, 3/01/06, as the version of the bill before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. 10:21:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, spoke to the bill. He commented that HB 400 addresses the right of people to keep and bear arms to insure the security of a free state. He noted the chaos following Hurricane Katrina, where various government agencies made systematic attempts to sweep New Orleans clean of guns, even if it meant entering the homes of law abiding gun owners. Representative Coghill stated that National Guard, federal, state, or local law enforcement personnel should not be allowed to confiscate lawfully owned and lawfully carried firearms. HB 400 would make it a Class A felony for any person to knowingly confiscate, attempt to confiscate, or order the confiscation of a firearm during a disaster emergency. The bill would insure that the government not do this during a time when those citizens may need their firearms the most. 10:25:51 AM Co-Chair Meyer pointed out the zero note accompanying the bill. Co-Chair Chenault asked about inclusion of the language: "A person would forfeits any office of governmental position", and asked if that was legal. Representative Coghill replied that was the intent, however, at this point, it would be a civil action. He understood there was an amendment, making it a criminal action. Representative Coghill advised that he concurred with both the attached amendments. 10:28:18 AM BRIAN JUDY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION (NRA) REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, testified in support of HB 400. He echoed concerns voiced by Representative Coghill regarding what had happened in New Orleans. The bill would clarify that during a state of disaster, lawfully owned firearms could not be seized from law-abiding citizens. Additionally, it would make accountable, any person knowingly confiscating firearms. He urged support for the bill. Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment #1. (Copy on File). Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Representative Hawker spoke to the grammatical change made by the amendment. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted. 10:31:27 AM Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment #2. (Copy on File). Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Representative Hawker explained the proposed change. Page 1, Line 7-10, the amendment deletes all material and would insert Section 26.23.205, regarding confiscation of firearms. That section provides for due process to be exercised if the person was convicted, their office would be forfeited. The amendment would raise the bar from simple presumption and would require the burden of proof of a criminal standard. 10:35:51 AM Vice Chair Stoltze acknowledged the tough standard of conviction. Representative Hawker referenced the original version, which forfeited anything without regard to the contractual contract. He did not know how it could presently interface. He speculated that there is a provision, if convicted, there would be consequences. The amendment provides the form to properly address the consequence. He spoke to automatic forfeiture. 10:37:36 AM Representative Hawker mentioned his uncomfortableness with the motion. Representative Holm asked about language in Amendment #2, Line 7, "the color of law" and that affect. DEAN GUANELLI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, pointed out that was a "term of art" and exists in the federal civil rights law and a couple other places in Alaska Statute. It reflects that the person doing the act was under the cover of some lawful authority. Representative Holm asked if it meant under the umbrella of their position. Mr. Guanelli replied that it means that they profess to have lawful authority. Representative Kerttula mentioned the example of the National Guard; they would be protected because they are under orders. Mr. Guanelli responded that the question would be if that person believed that it truly was a lawful order. It would be no different than if a superior officer orders someone to assault a person. The people must decide for themselves whether to obey. Representative Kerttula asked when it would be lawful to confiscate guns. Mr. Guanelli said if a crime is being committed, then it is lawful. Each circumstance must be weighed separately. 10:44:56 AM Representative Kelly wondered if the language "disaster emergency" should be "disaster" or "emergency". Mr. Guanelli opined that was correct. He further clarified that the governor declares a disaster-emergency. Representative Hawker emphasized that this is a very sensitive issue. The amendment is intended to address a disaster emergency situation resulting in looting. An officer may need to secure firearms to protect citizens and would not have to forfeit his/her job until having gone through a court procedure. It would be a way to protect officers acting in good faith. Co-Chair Meyer asked Mr. Guanelli for an opinion on the amendment. Mr. Guanelli replied that he was comfortable with it. 10:49:32 AM Representative Coghill commented that his intent was to guarantee a law-abiding citizen their right to bear arms. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted. 10:50:11 AM Representative Hawker pointed out that the Department of Law does not anticipate increased prosecutions due to the passage of HB 400. Representative Hawker MOVED to REPORT CS HB 400 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying zero note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 400 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Department of Military & Veterans Affairs.