HOUSE BILL NO. 80 "An Act relating to self defense in any place where a person has a right to be." 9:57:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, SPONSOR, discussed that Alaska statute provided the right to use deadly force to protect family, person, and property. House Bill 80 clarified that the right applied to the home and in any place a person had a right to be. The bill clarified an individual's right to protect their life and the lives of their family. The proposed legislation strengthened the legal recognition of a human's basic right for self-defense and placed the responsibility of retreat on the perpetrator. He relayed that 18 states had introduced similar legislation; HB 80 closely followed language suggested by the other states which was included in member packets. Representative Wilson asked whether the bill forced people to retreat. She referred to email correspondence that had expressed concern about the issue. Representative Neuman responded that currently the duty to retreat was included in Alaska statute, but it was being examined in the judicial system. The bill put the ability into the hands of the individual responsible for making a "split-second decision" and protected their rights. Representative Wilson asked whether an attempt to retreat would still be required or whether a person could stand their ground without worrying about being prosecuted. She shared that constituents in her community wanted to be able to protect their families and did not want to be faced with making a decision to retreat in an emergency situation. Representative Neuman replied that there was a justification clause in statute that specifically stated how self-defense could be applied; however, the duty to retreat language was somewhat vague. He explained that the bill worked to clarify a person's ability to stand their ground. Representative Gara believed that the current law only required a duty to retreat in situations that would allow an individual to retreat safely. He did not want to provide individuals with the right to shoot someone in all cases. He wondered what the standard would be if there was no duty to retreat even in cases where safe retreat would have been possible. Representative Neuman responded that AS 11.81.330 specifically listed situations in which self-defense was justified, including the use of force with mutual combat, and against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first and second degree, abuse of a minor, and robbery in any degree. The statute also stated that a person may not use deadly force under the section if a person knew that "with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others being defended, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area." He thought it was up to the judicial branch to provide interpretation on when deadly force could or could not be used. The goal of the bill was to clarify that a person did not have to second guess their right to self- defense. 10:03:21 AM Representative Gara wanted to ensure that fair standards existed that did not allow a person to shoot someone for no good reason. He stated that the law was circular because there was a duty to not shoot a person if it was possible to safely retreat, but the bill allowed a person in safety to shoot a person. He thought the other circumstances in which a person was not allowed to shoot someone were most likely listed somewhere in statute that had not been provided. He wanted to ensure that a definition was included in statute. Co-Chair Stoltze asked Representative Neuman to make the materials he was reading from available to the committee at future hearings on the bill. Representative Neuman responded in the affirmative. He clarified that the bill did not attempt to change any existing justification clauses; full justification was still required for a person to use deadly force. Representative Gara asked whether the justification clause was under AS 11.81.330. Representative Neuman responded in the affirmative. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the Department of Law (DOL) and Department of Public Safety (DPS) would be active participants in the next committee hearing on the legislation. Representative Gara wanted to also hear from the Public Defender Agency. Co-Chair Stoltze responded that Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender was available for questions via teleconference, but the committee would discuss the bill more thoroughly at the next hearing. Vice-chair Fairclough asked to hear from DOL regarding the proposed two new full-time attorney positions listed in its fiscal note. She asked the department to provide information that supported the fiscal note. Representative Guttenberg wondered whether the bill would have changed the outcome of any specific situations if it had been implemented in the past. He did not know whether the bill made life safer or more complex. Representative Neuman did not believe there would be changes in past convictions. He asked for clarification on the question. Representative Guttenberg wondered about the impetus for the bill and whether specific incidents had occurred in the past that the bill could have helped. Co-Chair Stoltze notified the sponsor that he could provide the committee with an answer at the next meeting on the bill. He believed that the purpose of the bill was to reduce the amount of prosecutions related to self-defense. He reiterated that he would talk to DOL. 10:08:39 AM Representative Wilson asked how the 1,155 cases in 2010 that were listed in the fiscal note were relevant to the department's calculation of costs. She wondered whether there were past cases that may not have been prosecuted if the bill had existed at the time. Co-Chair Stoltze replied that the committee would get the answer from DOL and DPS. Vice-chair Fairclough asked the sponsor to provide a definition for self-defense in Alaska statute. She thought it would help to clear up members' questions about the benefit of the legislation. Representative Joule referenced the state's law that gave people the right to conceal a weapon. He wondered how the bill would impact a person carrying a concealed weapon without a permit who acted in self-defense in a place they had a right to be. Co-Chair Stoltze responded that there was currently a dual system that allowed individuals with or without a permit the right to carry a concealed weapon in most circumstances. Representative Neuman answered that a person could not use a handgun for deadly force if they did not have the legal right to have a handgun. The bill did not protect a person that was not legally permitted to have a handgun, such as felons and other. HB 80 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.