HB 69 - EXEMPT FIREARMS FROM FEDERAL REGULATION  1:32:25 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 69, "An Act exempting certain firearms and firearm accessories in this state from federal regulation; providing criminal penalties for federal officials who enforce or attempt to enforce a federal law, regulation, rule, or order regulating certain firearms and firearm accessories in this state; and providing for an effective date." [Included in members packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 69, Version 28-LS0290\N, Strasbaugh, 2/4/13.] 1:32:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor - referring to the Alaska State Constitution, and to the Second Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - explained that the intent of HB 69 is to assert the state's rights and to protect Alaskans' rights to keep and bear arms, and is being introduced [in anticipation of] memorandums and legislative proposals that could be issued by the President based on recommendations submitted by a workgroup formed to address gun violence and which were announced on January 16, 2013, and which are intended to help keep firearms out of the wrong hands. He offered his understanding of what some of those recommendations entailed, such as making schools safer and increasing access to mental health services. However, he warned, any forthcoming legislative proposals based on those recommendations could affect citizens' Second Amendment rights as well as states' [Tenth Amendment] rights. 1:35:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 69, Version 28-LS0290\N, Strasbaugh, 2/4/13, as the working document. The committee took a brief at-ease. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. 1:36:48 PM TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State Legislature, explained on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Chenault, that HB 69 would alter the statute [addressing State policy, declarations, and requirements concerning certain firearms not in interstate commerce and not subject to federal regulation - AS 44.99.500 -] enacted in 2010 via House Bill 186. Section 1 of Version N would add legislative findings to uncodified law; specifically, Section 1's paragraph (1) contains some language from Texas legislation, and its paragraph (2) duplicates some of the findings added to uncodified law via the aforementioned 2010 legislation. Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Version N would add the words, "possessed in this state or" to AS 44.99.500(a), (b), and (d), respectively. Section 5 of Version N would add new paragraphs (f) and (g) to AS 44.99.500 that read: (f) A federal statute, regulation, rule, or order adopted, enacted, or otherwise effective on or after January 1, 2013, is unenforceable in this state by an official, agent, or employee of this state, a municipality, or the federal government if the federal statute, regulation, rule, or order attempts to (1) ban or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or a magazine of a firearm; or (2) require a firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered. (g) An official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce a federal statute, regulation, rule, or order unenforceable under (f) of this section that is adopted on or after the effective date of (f) of this section is guilty of a class C felony and may be punished as provided in AS 12.55. MR. WRIGHT noted that several people throughout the state requested that a violation under the bill be changed to a class C felony, and thus Section 5 now contains that change. Section 6 of Version N, he went on to explain, would add to uncodified law a provision stipulating that Section 5's proposed new subsection (f) is retroactive to January 1, 2013, and Section 7 of Version N provides for an immediate effective date. He mentioned in conclusion that HB 69 is similar to Wyoming legislation currently moving through the process. 1:39:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to Section 6, questioned why Section 5's proposed new AS 44.99.500(f) would be retroactive. MR. WRIGHT explained that the sponsor wanted to ensure that the bill applied to any memorandums and legislative proposals that result from the aforementioned workgroup's recommendations, which, again, were announced on January 16, 2013. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that making that provision retroactive could create what he termed an ex post facto problem because it would result in criminalizing behavior that was legal at the time it occurred. MR. WRIGHT referred to a memorandum from Legislative Legal and Research Services dated January 22, 2013, that said in part: Section 6 of the bill makes retroactive to January 1, 2013, the legislature's declaration in proposed AS 44.99.500(f) (sec. 5 of the bill) that certain actions are unconstitutional. ... However, retroactive laws that have the effect of imposing criminal penalties on conduct that precedes the enactment of the law are ex post facto laws that are forbidden by both the federal and state constitutions. The committee took an at-ease from 1:44 p.m. to 1:46 p.m. MR. WRIGHT relayed that in light of that information, the sponsor might consider eliminating the retroactive aspect of the bill in order to avoid that ex post facto problem. He ventured that such a change wouldn't be hard to effect. 1:50:16 PM KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), concurred that HB 69 could easily be changed to that effect. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT expressed favor with HB 69. 1:51:45 PM BOB BIRD, mentioning that he was mobilizing support for HB 69 on the Kenai Peninsula and that he'd provided the committee with written testimony, offered his belief that there are limits to the federal government's power and that the federal government should have this fact pointed out to it. He then referred to [memorandums from Legislative Legal and Research Services dated January 16, 2013, and January 30, 2013, as well as to the aforementioned January 22, 2013, memorandum]; expressed disagreement with the drafter's conclusions outlined therein; offered some historical information; and expressed his fear that [any forthcoming legislative proposals based on the aforementioned workgroup recommendations] could result in his firearms, ammunition, and associated equipment being confiscated by the federal government. 2:02:17 PM ELAINA SPRAKER, Clinic Director, Women on Target; Clinic Director, Teens on Target, Friends of NRA, after mentioning the mission of the two programs she directs, offered her belief that HB 69 would help protect Alaskan's Second Amendment rights and [help the state defend against] federal overreach, shared some historical information, and indicated concern regarding [any forthcoming legislative proposals based on the aforementioned workgroup recommendations]. 2:08:08 PM WES NEWCOMB expressed appreciation for anything that could be done to ensure that citizens' gun rights aren't taken away. 2:09:11 PM AARON BUSCHE-VOLD said he fully supports HB 69 and Version N's proposal to make a violation under the bill a class C felony. 2:09:37 PM DAVID LEE paraphrased the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and said he supports HB 69 100 percent. 2:10:24 PM SCOTT HAMANN, referring to Version N's proposed class C felony penalty for federal officials, agents, and employees, opined that it's important to include that level of penalty in HB 69, regardless that some may view it as the biggest problem with the bill, so that people will know that "we're serious about this." 2:11:29 PM MIKE COONS, after offering some historical information, asked whether under HB 69, state law enforcement officers would be able to arrest federal officials, agents, and employees. In conclusion, he said he applauds what the bill's sponsor is doing and fully endorses it. 2:17:08 PM ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), said that the AOC supports HB 69 very strongly and supports [Version N's] increased penalty. Referring to [Article I, Section 19, of] the Alaska State Constitution and to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he asked that the bill be passed from committee. 2:18:34 PM LARRY SLOAN said he supports HB 69. After referring to a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Otis McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al., and to potential conflicts with provisions of the U.S. Constitution, he surmised that "this issue" would require further litigation. 2:20:49 PM HAL SMITH, M.D., mentioning that he's an emergency room physician who's seen his share of gun violence, characterized HB 69 as blatant and unnecessary nose-thumbing at the federal government. Referring to firearm-related deaths and massacres that have occurred since [the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001], he suggested that rather than broadly challenging the federal government on "this issue," the legislature should instead focus on finding ways to support reasonable laws that would keep firearms away from the wrong people. In conclusion, he said he opposes HB 69. CHAIR KELLER, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 69. He mentioned that the bill would be held over to allow the sponsor time to address [the issue of retroactivity] via a forthcoming committee substitute (CS). REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, mentioning that she's provided members with articles regarding low gun-violence rates in Alaska, offered her belief that a one-size-fits-all approach by the federal government regarding gun legislation won't work in Alaska, and characterized protecting people's right to keep and bear arms as incredibly important to Alaska. CHAIR KELLER relayed that HB 69 would be held over [with the motion to adopt Version N as the working document left pending].