HOUSE BILL NO. 24 "An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a person has a right to be." 2:44:31 PM Vice-Chair Neuman stated that HB 24 added the language "in any other place where a person has the right to be" they have a right to defend themselves. He remarked that Alaskans had the right to defend themselves, without worrying about how the court may see their actions. 2:45:51 PM REX SHATTUCK, AIDE, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, explained that Alaska Statutes already recognize that we have a right to use deadly force to protect our family, person, and property. HB 24 further clarifies that right exists not only in our home but also in any other place that we have a right to be. This legislation clarifies the individuals' right to stand their ground and not second guess the consequence of protecting their family or self. HB 24 strengthens the legal recognition of a basic human right to defend oneself, by sending a message to the Judiciary and Law Enforcement that it is the criminal who has the duty to retreat. Mr. Shattuck stated that federal law, "Stand Your Ground" and "No Duty to Retreat" governed the United States federal case law in which self-defense was asserted against the charge of a criminal homicide. He referred to the 1895 Supreme Court ruling of the Beard vs. US case. That case included a ruling with the language that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "did not provoke the assault, and had the time reasonable grounds, and in good faith believe that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great body harm, was not obligated to retreat, nor to consider where he safely retreat to, but was entitled to stand his ground. He also referred to a Minnesota case, "State vs. Gardner." In this case, a man was acquitted for killing man who had attempted to kill him with a rifle. The judge for that case explained that the doctrine of "retreat to the wall" or "duty to retreat" had its origin in medieval England, before the general introduction of guns. The judge stressed that the "duty to retreat" had general regard to the general use and type weapon. Representative Thompson wondered how many other states had similar laws like the proposed legislation. Mr. Shattuck replied that there were more than 17 states that had a similar law, but deferred to Mr. Judy for a more accurate count. Representative Thompson wondered if the bill would enable a person to use deadly force to protect a victim of a crime. Mr. Shattuck responded that the statutes already make provisions for that concern. 2:53:16 PM BRIAN JUDY, SENIOR STATE LIAISON, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), stated that HB 24 was important self-defense legislation. He explained that it would provide that a law abiding person, who was justified in using deadly force in self-defense, had no duty to retreat from an attack from any place a person had a legal right to be. He reiterated that the person must be justified in using deadly force. He felt that the opposition to the bill ignored the point that the person could only use deadly force for a justifiable reason. He explained that existing Alaska law already provided that there was no duty to retreat, if a person, who was justified, was on premises which the person owns or leases, or in a building where they work. He stressed that a person would be required to retreat, if they were in any other location. He remarked that there were currently two considerations that a person must take into account: 1) Justification, which was the primary and most significant consideration; and 2) Retreat, which was much less significant. He felt that the only time "retreat" becomes a consideration is once a person felt justified in using deadly force in self-defense. He stressed that the legislation would only amend the subsection (b) AS 11.81.335. He remarked that all of the statutes detailed the legal framework for what constitutes "justification." He felt that it was critical to review the details of "justification" in order to understand what the existing requires for a person to claim "justification." He explained that a person may use deadly force in self- defense, only if a person reasonably believed that the use of deadly was necessary for self-defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, or robbery. He noted that a person must satisfy, under Alaska case law, both a subjective and an objective standard. Mr. Judy shared that Alaska statute also outlined a list of activities that specifically preclude a person from claiming justification: if a person was engaged in mutual combat; if a person provoked the other's conduct; if the person was the initial aggressor; or if the person was involved in gang activity. 3:01:40 PM Mr. Judy stated that the NRA believed that the legislation would reduce the cost of criminal prosecution, because the bill did not change the primary requirement that a person using deadly force in self-defense must have justification. He stressed that the bill did not change what constitutes "justification." He stressed that once the prosecution determined that there was justification, the provisions of the bill allowed for the charges to be dropped. Vice-Chair Neuman thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He reiterated Mr. Judy's points related to justification. He stressed that the bill stated that individuals should have the same rights that they have at home or at work, while at any place a person has a right to be. HB 24 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.