SB 174-REG. OF FIREARMS/KNIVES BY UNIV. OF AK  4:04:38 PM CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would SENATE BILL NO. 174, "An Act relating to the regulation of firearms and knives by the University of Alaska." 4:05:35 PM SENATOR PETE KELLY advised there was a conflict between the Board of Regents policy, the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and Alaska's Statutes. In 2003, he related, under House Bill 102, it became legal to have a concealed carry in this state. He described it as a blanket legislation. He said that subsequent to that law, the University of Alaska put into policy that concealed carry was not allowed, put up red signs advising that no one could have a gun on campus, and there was a campus- wide restriction on the carrying of weapons. He stated that the state constitution is specific about the right to keep and bear arms in the State of Alaska, and it is more strongly specified than the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the State of Alaska reads that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Currently, he said, there are 150 campuses in the United States allowing concealed carry, and eight states put that into specific legislation. This legislation was originally drafted to mirror a piece of legislation that had gone through the process a couple of years ago. The University of Alaska pointed out their concerns and, he noted, that a couple of unique concerns involved the fact that the university deals with domestic violence disputes, employee and student disputes, investigations of those disputes, assaults, and it has dormitories. Changes were made in the bill allowing the university to restrict weapons in specific areas where the university handles disputes, and that the firearms must be secure in the dormitories. Essentially, he explained, the legislation makes it so the university has to be in line with other places in the state. Alaskans have the right to defend themselves and, he described the current university policy as a red sign saying bad guys don't carry weapons here, which does not meet any test it would put forward to provide safety, if that is its intent. He related that it unduly restricts the constitutional rights of Alaskans and it does not have the authority to do that, because the authority rests within the legislature and the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. That is essentially what this bill does, he said. 4:10:10 PM SENATOR KELLY reiterated that this bill recognizes that Alaskans have the right to keep and bear arms. He explained that a motivation for the legislation was the San Bernardino shooting, and multiple shootings in the United States over the past few years. Since 1955, all but two of the mass public shootings in the United States have happened in gun free zones. When a person that normally has the right to defend themselves is told that they cannot defend themselves in these areas they become soft targets for the bad guys. He related that one of the items on the shooters plan, at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) shooting, was that it was a gun free zone. He said, with regard to the Century movie theater in Aurora, Colorado shooting, there were eight other theaters in that city, but that particular theater was posted as a gun free zone. The choices made by the people who will do violence do it in places where they do not have people shooting back, they don't want to be interrupted in their mission by people defending themselves and, he commented, that many of those people will ultimately commit suicide. He opined the University of Alaska has made itself a large target, not only for people who are unstable, but also members of ISIS that have gained more and more strength in the country. When ISIS comes to Alaska, the sponsor wants to be certain Alaskans are prepared, and able, to defend themselves, and are not breaking the law when they carry out their "god given right," he said. He stated that the University of Alaska is against this bill on, probably, a philosophical basis, or it does not think it is able to manage a citizenry carrying out its constitutional rights. He noted the university's complaint that it is not able to restrict someone's right to carry if they are a threat to themselves or others, and said that currently exists in law, under a Title 47 hold. Senator Kelly advised Chair LeDoux that he had to leave ... 4:14:28 PM CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that while she realizes he is a busy man, there are three questions she would like to ask. She referred to secured guns in the dormitories, and asked why that would not be constitutionally prohibited because the dormitories are the student's living area. She referred to the Senate Finance Committee zeroing out the fiscal note, and asked for the rationale. She then referred to letters from the public pointing out that people with guns are not allowed in the Juneau Capitol Building where the legislature resides. The public has asked why the people working at the University of Alaska have to deal with people with guns when they are not allowed in the legislative building. 4:15:32 PM SENATOR KELLY responded, with regard to the dormitories, the bill reads that people must keep the weapon in a lockbox with a self-locking mechanism. CHAIR LEDOUX asked what good is having the gun in a lockbox if someone breaks into the dormitory. 4:15:47 PM SENATOR KELLY answered that the bill provides that a person either has it on their person, or it's in a lockbox. It would be against the rules for a person, leaving their dormitory for a long period of time, to leave it in there where it could be stolen. The idea is that with responsible gun ownership, certain things are wired into gun owners, such that the person has control of their weapon or has secured their weapon. Although, he related, the gun can remain in the lockbox if they are going shopping, or gone for a short period of time. Senator Kelly said he does not want people leaving their guns in their dormitories for a long period of time. CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the gun has to be in a lockbox if a person is in their room in the dormitory, or whether it is alright if they are in their room with the gun. SENATOR KELLY replied that the gun has to be on their person or in the lockbox, which is basic responsible gun ownership. SENATOR KELLY referred to zeroing out the fiscal note and offered that other states had put forward large fiscal notes, but those fiscal notes were never funded because they were not necessary. He offered that the red signs do not work, but areas where the university is investigating a domestic violence situation in a certain room, it is reasonable for the university to restrict weapons from that area. He described it as a simple matter that does not require wands and magnetic metal detectors, "it allows them to restrict in that manner." Similarly, he noted, courts do not allow weapons and the courts have magnetic metal detectors, but he does not feel that is necessary for the university because it will not be dealing with heightened levels of criminality that the courts deals with on an hour-by-hour basis. 4:18:23 PM SENATOR KELLY referred to the difference between the university and legislators [and restricting people with guns], and responded that this bill is not about the legislature. If there is a desire for another bill, he commented that he just might sponsor that bill. This bill is regarding the university campus and he unsure about adding it to the bill because there may be complications he is unaware of at this late date, he remarked. 4:18:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the lockbox idea and asked whether it would be in a student's room or on the main floor, and whether a lockbox is like a safe. SENATOR KELLY advised that the lockbox would be in the student's room, and a lockbox is similar to a safe except it is smaller. Although, he explained that a safe could be used because the gun would be even more secure. He further explained that the lockbox is safer, and the bill specifies that it must be made of metal. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the Constitution of the State of Alaska providing a greater right to possess arms than the Constitution of the United States, and asked whether he is aware of any Alaska Supreme Court case making that finding. SENATOR KELLY advised that he is mostly tracking court cases for the Alaska Supreme Court where there has been an argument that the right to keep and bear arms is a general right in Alaska. When reading the Constitution of the State of Alaska on this matter, it reads that it is an individual right, he said. 4:20:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975), involving marijuana where the court found there was a greater right to privacy than in the federal constitution, and asked whether he was aware of an Alaska Supreme Court case that makes a similar finding. SENATOR KELLY said, no. 4:20:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to his statement regarding the constitutional right to bear arms, and asked whether a homeowner has the right to tell his dinner guests that guns are not allowed in the house and to leave them in the car. SENATOR KELLY responded that that issue is not contemplated in this bill, this involves the university. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said that he asked the question in terms of Senator Kelly's conception of the right to bear arms and how it weighs on other constitutional rights. He then reiterated the question and asked whether the neighbor can say that guns are not allowed in his house, and whether that would be within his constitutional right to tell the guest to put the gun in the car. SENATOR KELLY responded that the property owner, absolutely, would have the right to say that guns are not allowed in his home. CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that the neighbor's house is not a public building. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN agreed, and he referred to the comparison between the Alaska Court System, which has taken the position that it can bar weapons from the public courthouse, he asked why it is not within the university's right, as the owner of that public space, to make these same determinations. He further asked how the university differs from the court system. SENATOR KELLY responded that there is somewhat of a wall between the legislature being able to impose rules on the courts, although, there is some authority to do that, but there is a separation of powers between the legislature and the court. The right to keep and bear arms has evolved over time. The right of the court to say that the court is in session and guns are left outside the courthouse has been part of the American culture, and it is accepted by gun advocates. He noted he is unaware of anyone that supports guns in the courtroom due to the criminal nature, contentious nature, and adversarial nature of court. 4:23:36 PM JOE BYRNES, Staff, Senator Pete Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, referred to the fiscal note and advised that the University of Alaska requested $1.3 million because it referenced the same amount as the University of Idaho system had requested in order to implement its campus carry system. The State of Idaho legislature never funded the University of Idaho's request, and he said, "they found that the fiscal note, and I think we feel likewise to the fiscal note, on -- the university has offered on SB 174, um ... it was an attempt to oppose the bill." Although, he said, the University of Idaho system did implement long over- due security changes. Currently, he commented, all of the University of Alaska campus security forces are armed, and are actual peace officers. He questioned, why allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns on campus would require a sudden increase in security if the university currently believes its policy adequately protects its campus. He then offered to go through the sectional of the bill. CHAIR LEDOUX asked that he focus on the most important aspects of the bill. 4:25:44 PM MR. BYRNES agreed, and referred to Section 1, page 1, lines 6- 10, which read as follows: FINDINGS AND INTENT. The legislature finds that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right under art. 1, sec. 19, Constitution of the State of Alaska, and may not be abridged by the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska. The legislature reserves to the state the authority to regulate firearms, except as specifically provided in AS. 14.40.173. MR. BYRNES advised it adds the findings and intent language to uncodified law. MR. BYRNES advised that Sec. 2 amends the University of Alaska Community College statutes under Title 14, and makes explicit that the authority to regulate firearms and knives is reserved to the state, except as provided in statute, the Board of Regents may not regulate firearms and knives. He explained that the Board of Regents may regulate, through this legislation, includes: open carry firearms; restricting the discharge of firearms on land where there is a reasonable likelihood people, animals, or property will be in jeopardy; the possession of firearms or knives in posted restricted access areas, defined as an area beyond a secure point where visitors are screened and does not include common areas of ingress and egress open to the public; and may include university designated rooms where sexual assault, sexual harassment, or domestic violence are investigated and victim assistance is provided; and in university-designated rooms during adjudication of staff and student disciplinary issues and disputes. He continued that the Board of Regents may regulate the carrying of firearms in dormitories or shared living quarters; however, those regulations must require that the handgun is either carried on the person or secured in an owner provided lockbox. Persons living in dormitories must declare to the university their intention to store a weapon in their dormitory room. He noted that the university may privately collect and store that information for no more than one year, and use it for making housing decisions for students who have expressed they do not want to share a dormitory room with a person who possesses a firearm. 4:27:38 PM MR. BYRNES explained that the sponsor is trying to balance the rights of students who wish to carry their right to privacy, and the rights of students not desiring to share their dormitory room with a person possessing a firearm. Furthermore, he advised, the bill prohibits the following: the university creating a database or registry of persons who possess a firearm on campus; requiring permission before a person may possess a firearm on campus; or adopting implied consent policies on campus. The bill also contains a civil liability immunity section that states the university is immune from civil liability for any act or omission resulting from a policy or regulation adopted or enforced under this section of law. He offered that the University of Alaska requested that provision. MR. BYRNES explained that Sec. 3, adds an effective date for the bill of August 1, 2016, to address the university's concern for enough time to promulgate conformed regulations before the upcoming semester. He then listed individuals available to answer questions. 4:29:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed to his reference about restricted access areas, and asked where it is located within the bill itself. 4:29:35 PM MR. BYRNES responded that restricted access areas are mentioned on page 2, line 16, and are defined on page 4, lines 3-5. He explained that the restricted access area is a secure point beyond which visitors are screened, and does not include areas of common ingress and egress open to the public. He noted that this exact language is also found in Title 29, Municipal regulation of firearms statutes, because municipalities are not allowed to regulate firearms beyond what is found in the law, but are allowed to erect these restricted access areas. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised that he spoke with friends who had hunted since they were young children, and also trusted police officers. He advised that his hunting friends, one of which had taken a marksmanship course at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, advised that stress can affect aim, and the police officers advised that in high stress and dangerous situations it is difficult to identify hostiles versus friendly people. He then referenced Senator's Kelly's comments regarding several mass shootings and opined that the clear implication is that this is seen as legislation that will advance the right to self-defense. He asked what precedence exists of attempted mass killings, cut short by intervention from everyday people who may carry concealed weapons, and that their actions directly resulted in a better outcome. MR. BYRNES responded that he does not have a study at his disposal, although, he offered that FBI statistics indicate that retaliating people have an overwhelmingly better chance of getting out of their ordeal better than if they didn't retaliate. Although, he acknowledged, that statistic didn't have examples of how the people retaliated. Anecdotally, he said, there are many cases where armed citizens have de- escalated situations by having a gun. He pointed out that when it comes to violence on campus and the fear that more armed persons on campus will cause an increase in violence or increase in suicide, that burden of proof rests with people who wish to deny the right to begin with. He said that in all of the concealed carry campuses there has not been a marked increase in violence or suicide. Therefore, he commented, the evidence shows that, overall, this would not be an issue. 4:36:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the active shooter training provided at the Capitol Building, and noted that the basic take away was that defensive retaliation is appropriate. He said he agrees there has probably not been an increase of gun violence or suicides on campuses adopting concealed carry, but he would like to know what insurance companies think in evaluating the risks, and how it may, or may not, affect policies, which is a market based test. 4:37:56 PM MR. BRYNES answered that he does not have any actuarial analysis from insurance providers, but there has not been an increase in violence. He added that the four instances that occurred have been accidental discharges from irresponsible use with non-life threatening injuries. He commented that concealed carry is for the self-defense of the person who is carrying, and not to protect other people. He advised that the sponsor does not contemplate or encourage creating amateur armed swat teams roaming around campuses to take out the bad guys in mass shooting, and described it as irresponsible behavior. In many situations, he commented, where a person has been threatened, the mere brandishing of a gun may have de-escalated that situation, and currently on campus that is not allowed. CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that Europe does not have concealed carry due to stringent gun control laws, and it is highly unlikely the people in Brussels or Paris were carrying guns. Alaska, she said, has a fairly broad concealed carry law and Alaska could be the only area a study could take place. 4:41:24 PM CHAIR LEDOUX turned to Michael Hostina, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and noted that, currently, guns are not allowed on campus, but Alaska has a broad concealed carry law in general. She asked how he would know whether someone is carrying a gun, because they are not required to go through metal detectors and they are not frisked. 4:42:07 PM MICHAEL HOSTINA, General Counsel, clarified that weapons are permitted on campus under certain circumstances and students may have their weapons stored in secure storage. There are various events on campus to which weapons may be carried, such as gun shows, the rifle team where people may check in and check out their weapons, and people in faculty and single housing are permitted to store weapons. Weapons are not permitted in the dormitories and concealed carry is not generally permitted on campus. He explained that the university becomes aware of someone carrying a weapon when they act in an inappropriate manner, such as threatening someone, demonstrating their weapon, or the weapon is mishandled and falls out. When the university becomes aware of a person carrying a gun it takes steps to administratively remove those weapons from campus. 4:43:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the restricted access areas listed in the bill and asked his understanding of what the university would be required to do, to create those areas. MR. HOSTINA responded that a sign is not sufficient to establish a restricted access area, and currently the university, by policy, may limit weapons in areas such as, a disciplinary hearing or an investigative meeting. With the passage of this bill, the university would not be able to enforce a policy unless it had established a secure point beyond which visitors are screened. In order to regulate weapons in those areas, the university would have to establish the restricted access area and, he said, that's the definition of a restricted access area. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether that involves metal detectors or a guard sitting at the secure access point using a hand wand to check for weapons. MR. HOSTINA answered that that is not clear and, he pointed out the best way to set up the university's restricted access area is not clear. Therefore, he explained, the fiscal note has an expense associated with it, which is now limited to the cost of a security analysis. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the university could have a secure access point, without having something different, screening for weapons. Or, he asked, would the university have to have something that screens for weapons to make it qualify as a restricted access area. 4:45:49 PM MR. HOSTINA opined that someone disadvantage by the university's enforcement of a restricted access area, that did not include some type of screening, would certainly have an argument that the university had not complied with the law. The university's ability to enforce requires it to establish some form of secure point, and some form of screening, otherwise it will not be able to enforce that aspect of the law. 4:46:29 PM CHAIR LEDOUX noted that, currently, the university basically does not allow any guns on campus, and asked why it does not have a wand to test everyone. She then asked why, if the university is now allowing guns on campus, that people would have to go through the wand exercise. Clearly, she pointed out, a good portion of the university is in Fairbanks and there must be many people carrying guns in Fairbanks. MR. HOSTINA replied that he does not know whether that is the case or not, or whether it is more likely in Anchorage, or not. CHAIR LEDOUX interject that the university doesn't know whether a person is carrying because a wand is not used; therefore, if it is so important to check everyone, why isn't the university using the wands now. MR. HOSTINA explained that it is a matter of being able to respond when the university becomes aware of an issue. Currently, he said, if the university becomes aware of someone violating its policy, the university can do something about it. Under this bill, the university would not be able to do something about someone carrying on campus unless the university had established a restricted access area. He pointed out that the bill establishes a restricted access area to prevent weapons from being involved in adjudications or investigations. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether, currently, the university is involved in investigations of sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and providing victim assistance. MR. HOSTINA responded that the university is involved in investigations and assistance on a daily basis. He explained there are issues such as, sexual harassment, sexual assault, other assaults, student disciplinary issues, staff disciplinary issues, disputes involving student grades, and removal from programs. Those adjudications and investigations take place on a daily basis on the campuses of the university, he reiterated. 4:48:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that, under this bill, the university would be required to create something akin to the courthouse wherein people are screened prior to entering the courthouse. He said that under this bill, the university would no longer assume people were obeying the rules of the campus and not carrying weapons. MR. HOSTINA agreed. CHAIR LEDOUX asked why the university would currently assume that people are not carrying weapons just because a sign is posted that says "no guns." She continued that the courthouse does not assume that people do not have guns. MR. HOSTINA opined that the university does not assume that people do not have guns, but it does let people know that that is the policy of the university. The university can ask them to declare whether they have a firearm, and can ask them to remove it from the campus. Alternatively, he noted, with younger people who carry, many may be responsible, but there will be some who will brag to their friends or roommates [about the gun], or possibly try to intimidate someone. Currently, when the university becomes aware of that [behavior], it can take action. Although, he said, that would not be the case under this bill, it would have to occur in a secure area. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification that if someone was brandishing a gun, intimidating, or showing off, asked whether anyone would have any recourse, or whether that become the new norm. MR. HOSTINA asked whether that was a question for the university. CHAIR LEDOUX answered yes, because he is the general counsel for the university. MR. HOSTINA responded that, under SB 174, if someone was brandishing a gun there may be an issue of some type of threat, assault, or intimidation. There is a difference between a criminal and university proceeding, and the university could conduct an administrative proceeding if someone were intimidating someone with a weapon, he said. 4:52:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that a person can intimidate without having a gun, and whether currently the university would act if someone was intimidating someone else on the campuses. MR. HOSTINA replied, absolutely. He then asked Chair LeDoux whether he could offer brief remarks because there may be a misapprehension that the university is in direct opposition to this bill, which is not the case. The university is seeking an amendment to this bill to manage firearms in specific situations, and it does not believe the current language allows it to do that effectively. CHAIR LEDOUX agreed, opened public testimony, and advised Mr. Hostina that he could testify. 4:53:26 PM MR. HOSTINA advised that the Board of Regents is seeking six amendments to SB 174, the Senate Education Standing Committee Substitute included four of the amendments sought by the Board of Regents, and this bill only includes two and creates additional issues. He pointed out that the amendments sought by the university are grounded in existing state policy and existing state law. Those amendments would apply to situations similar to those situations in state law or under legislative policy where weapons are prohibited. For example, he advised that weapons are precluded under state law in the Capital Building, concealed carry is precluded for people under the age of 21, concealed carry in residences without the express permission of an adult resident, loaded firearms in places where intoxicating liquor is served, possession in childcare facilities, possession in court system facilities, possession in domestic violence and sexual assault shelters, and possession in schools from pre-school through secondary school. These existing policies in law, he explained, are constitutional for the reasons Antonin Gregory Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States noted in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which involved sensitive places for government property, and were based on sound public policy. For the same reason, the University of Alaska's amendments, would be constitutional, they wouldn't criminalize conduct, are narrowly tailored to achieve the same public safety goals, would not exclude weapons from campus, but the amendments would permit the Board of Regents to manage specific high conflict, high risk situations common on its campuses. He mentioned there are two problems the current language of SB 174 creates, such that it does not adequately address secure storage of handguns and does not address storage of rifles or knives. It also technically allows concealed carry of rifles, as well as open carry of knives. 4:56:05 PM MR. HOSTINA referred to risk of harm to self or others, and noted previous testimony offered that Title 47 takes care of that. He said that Title 47 is a high threshold to meet, because it involves committing someone involuntarily to a hospital and essentially imprisoning them. It happens rarely, he said it is not a useful tool for the university to use in dealing with students and employees, and it simply is not a good way to go when dealing with a student population the university is trying to help and support, or an employee population. He referred to the testimony regarding mass shootings on campuses, and noted that those are still fairly rare events, but suicide in Alaska is not a rare event. He explained that suicide is one of the leading causes of death among persons 15-24 years of age, and referred to the memorandum he provided to the committee earlier. Suicide attempts by firearms are a more successful means because people can't change their minds after the trigger has been pulled. The university believes that the time to act is when behavior indicates a risk of harm to self or others, and that Title 47 does not provide an effective answer. He said the university would appreciate an amendment allowing it to deal with this as the Senate Education Standing Committee [Version N] provided. 4:58:19 PM MR. HOSTINA explained that Amendments 2 and 3, involve health, counseling services, or other services, related to sexual harassment or violence located within the facilities used for adjudication of student and employee disciplinary issues or disputes. The university appreciates that this bill allows it to establish restricted access areas to address weapons in these areas, but doing so will involve some expense. He said, the issue will have to be addressed to create those restricted access areas, and make the rules enforceable as disputes are being adjudicated, or dealing with people possibly involved in domestic violence or sexual assault. 4:59:09 PM MR. HOSTINA advised that the fourth amendment is regulation in student dorms and other shared living quarters. To be clear, he explained, the university is not seeking authority to regulate single family dwellings or individual apartments, but rather in shared living quarters. He advised that the discussion is concreate living, RA's manage these areas, and impose discipline. The dormitories themselves and shared apartments involve shared facilities, such as bathrooms and lounges. He referred to allegations that the university has few students under the age of 21, and clarified that 40 percent of the students in the dorms are over 21. Therefore, there will be a mix of people legally permitted to conceal carry, and those who are not. He pointed out there are transient visitors in dorms, the rooms are sometimes frequently visited by other students, alcohol is present, and allowing concealed carry in dorms and other shared housing results in concealed handguns and knives being accessible in a volatile environment, unlike any private residence. He said the lockbox portion of the bill provides that the students provide their own lockboxes, it is not clear how that will solve a problem since lockboxes have to be installed and the bill does not provide for that. The bill also does not provide technical specifications for lockboxes, some of which are easily defeated with a paperclip or simply dropping them upside down. On the other hand, he commented, installing quality lockboxes in every room is a complex and expensive issue. He noted that another issue in this area is that the committee substitute appears to inadvertently provide for storage of long guns in university housing, it doesn't make any provision allowing the university to require secure storage of long guns in university housing. He asked that the committee amend this bill to allow the university to regulate weapons in shared housing and dormitories. 5:01:46 PM MR. HOSTINA explained that the fifth amendment involves K-12 dedicated programs on campus, it does not include K-12 students occasionally being on campus, visiting a museum, or happening to walk across campus. This amendment relates to dedicated programs, and is a narrow amendment that only applies to portions of the facility used for K-12 dedicated programs, and only while the program is occurring. He explained that these all involve programs where the university assumes the role of a parent or guardian, and does not bear any resemblance to public places where children just happen to be present and accompanied by their parents. He advised that the ability to regulate in these areas, where dedicated K-12 programs are going on, would be consistent with current law on K-12 property. It would avoid potential accidents, and the university would be able to apply the same standard of care for K-12 as is the case on K-12 property. 5:03:06 PM MR. HOSTINA related that due to the nature of the university premises, it believes that a conceal carry permit is useful. He point out that of the eight states requiring a public university to allow concealed carry, six require a permit, and two of those require an enhanced concealed carry permit. He reminded the committee that the university operates in close quarters, classrooms, laboratories, libraries and other communal space, and related it is appropriate that students have some training and knowledge about gun safety and applicable law. The permit would also exclude certain individuals with criminal convictions, including class A misdemeanors for domestic violence or stalking, from carrying concealed weapons on campus. He noted that the university asks the committee to adopt the Senate Education Standing Committee Substitute for SB 174 in place of the version passed by the full Senate, and to also include the two additional amendments which provide for regulation for K-12, and a permit. 5:04:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether insurance will rise in any manner if this bill passes. MR. HOSTINA replied that insurance companies often give insurance company type answers to that question. The university is self-insured for the first $2 million in claims against the university. The university's excess carrier indicated it will let the university know the impact of this bill when the final bill is in place, and the policies and regulations of the university are in place, after the bill is passed, he said. 5:05:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether he had spoken with other universities in jurisdictions where similar legislation was passed, and if so, how that affected their insurance premiums. 5:05:29 PM MR. HOSTINA said he was unsure whether the university asked about insurance premiums with other universities, although, it has asked about increased costs. He opined that the University of Idaho implemented screening procedures for its stadiums and added additional police. He referred to the earlier comment that all three of the University of Alaska campuses have armed police forces, and clarified that the Southeast campus does not have a police force. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked why a person should be required to have a permit to carry on campus if they are not required to have a permit walking down the street. MR. HOSTINA responded that the university has specific responsibilities for its students and employees on its campuses, in the event it doesn't respond when someone behaves irresponsibly, liability may result. Whereas, municipalities are not responsible for certain events taking place on public streets. 5:07:12 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether part of the bill exempts the university from liability. MR. HOSTINA agreed that part of this bill does exempt the university, except "lawyers live for finding ways around provisions like that under certain civil rights actions." While it would prevent simple negligence type claims, it is not a guarantee, he said, CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there is any guarantee there wouldn't be claims brought against a municipality when someone is walking down a street. MR. HOSTINA responded that in terms of a shooting incident, the municipality wouldn't ordinarily be subject to a claim. Obviously, he pointed out, if the police were called and they failed to respond, or responded inappropriately, a claim could arise but not the simple event itself. Whereas, he stated, on a university campus the university would likely be viewed as somehow responsible for failing to ensure safety. 5:08:37 PM MR. HOSTINA, in response to Chair LeDoux as to whether he was aware of any other university being dinged for that, answered the University of Alaska was dinged many years past, in a negligence action. He agreed with Chair LeDoux that the bill exempts the university from negligence actions. 5:09:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the fiscal note describing a need for a consultant to estimate what is necessary to create a secure area, and asked reason Mr. Hostina could not provide a ballpark range. MR. HOSTINA explained that, at this point, the university believes it best to not attempt a guess. In terms of the university trying to be fiscally restrained, it would be best to obtain professional advice on how to arrange sensitive areas involved in issues, such as investigation and disciplinary actions, to minimize the cost, potentially, of establishing secure restricted access areas, he explained. 5:11:13 PM MAC COOPER, Associated General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, University of Alaska, responded that the university's rough estimate on the cost of a metal detector ranges from $5,000 - $10,000 per unit - with wands costing a few hundred dollars per unit, and a full-time security guard at approximately $50,000 - $80,000 per year. The University of Kansas is addressing the secured access issue in response to a law effective in July, 2017. The University of Kansas advised if it secured every building in its system, it would be beyond its financial means to do so. Mr. Cooper remarked that the University of Kansas is currently preparing the same type of study to determine what buildings and areas of buildings should be secured. 5:12:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER made a point of order that the committee is far afield from debating the bill, and offered to make a motion to zero out the fiscal note. CHAIR LEDOUX advised the conversation is allowed to continue, and subsequent to public testimony, the fiscal note debate can take place. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he would hold his questions until the fiscal note debate so the public would have a chance to testify. CHAIR LEDOUX noted the public testimony list is fairly long, and asked Mr. Cooper whether he would be available tomorrow. MR. COOPER said he would be available tomorrow. CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony, and advised she is limiting testimony to two minutes per person to allow time for all witnesses. 5:13:32 PM KEN LANDFIELD related that he occasionally takes classes at the Katchemak Bay campus of the Kenai Peninsula College, and shared the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article VII Section 3, which read: The University of Alaska shall be governed by a board of regents. The regents shall be appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. The board shall, in accordance with law, formulate policy and appoint the president of the university. He shall be the executive officer of the board. MR. LANDFIELD said that beyond the Board of Regents and the president of the University of Alaska, there are chancellors responsible for their respective campuses, not to mention various branches with their own directors and respective administrations. He asked whether these officials and administrations are not the proper avenue for establishing university policy in general, and in particular. While there is a state policy allowing concealed carry statewide, he related that weapons are not allowed in public places, such as the legislature and the court system. He suggested that this legislation is a clear case of state government overreach and questioned why, in the face of a crippling budget crisis, the legislature is spending precious time on an expensive, non- urgent, non-issue, outside of its constitutional jurisdiction. He asked that the bill not be enacted. 5:16:45 PM The committee took an at-ease from 5:16 p.m. to 5:28 p.m. 5:28:54 PM ERIN HOOD said he is testifying on his own behalf, teaches at the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), and opined that one of the main justifications for this bill is righting some sort of constitutional wrong. Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska was amended in 1994 to confer broader gun rights, he said, and then read the instruction to voters, "This amendment 'quote' would not overturn or invalidate state laws restricting access of possession of firearms in school building." Therefore, people voting in 1994 were told this amendment was still in accordance with banning firearms in school buildings. He said he would read from an Alaska Supreme Court decision, as follows: "In limited respects as, 'quote,' the Board of Regents is, 'quote,' co-equal rather than subordinate to that of the executive or legislative arms of government." That language "in the constitution," implies that there should be deference to the Board of Regents with regard to policies within the University of Alaska's campuses. He explained that the University of Alaska, Board of Regents voted nine to two against this bill, and in working at the university and talking with students, staff, and administrators, the nine to two vote is representative of the amount of support the bill has on campus, with approximately 80 percent against the bill, he remarked. He pointed to the idea of government overreach and related that the people of King Cove are angry and disrespected because they can't build a road to the airport because the federal government is ignoring their particular concerns and overruling them. The university campus is overwhelmingly against this bill and its concerns are being ignored. From a practical standpoint, the focus has been almost entirely on school shootings, 30,000 shootings in the United States every year, of those, two-thirds are suicides, one-third are homicides, and less than one percent are justifiable homicides. Therefore, there is no reason to think that by putting guns on campus will doing anything except increase suicides and homicides, he related. 5:32:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked the subject he teaches at UAS. MR. HOOD responded, Environmental Science. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to his statement that the students on campus are 80 percent ... MR. HOOD interjected that that is his personal opinion after speaking with student and other staff about guns and hunting, and opined that the support is almost negligible between staff, the administration, and students. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether his opinion is primarily based upon students in the environmental science classes. MR. HOOD advised that he teaches all majors in his introductory education classes. CHAIR LEDOUX referred to his statement that he has no reason to believe this bill will do anything other than increase suicides and homicides, and asked whether he was familiar with the other schools that have now initiated the guns on campus system. She opined there has been no uptick in homicides or suicides. 5:33:42 PM MR. HOOD answered that only 8 states out of [50] allow guns on school campuses, and school shootings and justifiable homicides are a tiny fraction of the total number of shootings in the United States. He remarked that it is more important to ask why 42 states do not want guns in their school, and to consider, in this budget crisis, whether the legislature wants to attract students from out-of-state, and to consider parents being told guns are in the dormitories where people are drinking. 5:34:50 PM SALLY RUE said she is a long-time resident of Alaska, is speaking on her own behalf, and urged the committee to oppose this bill. She offered that she grew up in a hunting family, is a gun owner, has enjoyed hunting and passing on the tradition to her children, and she is not against guns. Although, she pointed out, she is against the legislature forcing the Board of Regents to allow guns almost everywhere on campus. Currently, the university allows weapons on campus in a reasonable manner that is not in conflict with the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Restricting firearms in government buildings and schools has been recognized by the courts, and the Alaska legislature, as presumptively lawful and outside the scope of constitutional protections. The right to bear arms is not the same as the right to carry arms all of the time and anywhere. This bill is trying to address a problem that does not exist, she opined. Alaska's university system is first and foremost a place of learning where students, faculty, and staff need to feel safe to freely discuss ideas and explore differences. She described it as a place where young people are growing into adults, where they experience the ups and downs of adolescence and young adulthood. This often includes experimenting with alcohol and drugs, navigating romantic relationships and breakups, and sometimes dealing with a mental health crisis. The students live in dorms and close quarters where friction can occur, and mixing firearms into this volatile environment does nothing to increase safety, and does everything to make it inevitable there will be avoidable tragedies. Alaska has the highest rates of suicide, gun violence, and sexual assault in the nation, and there is no evidence this bill will do anything to lessen that and, it could likely worsen it. During this time of Alaska's budget crisis, the university is facing huge cuts to its budget, cutting academic programs and up to hundreds of faculty positions and, she remarked, this legislation would divert even more resources from academics and student support. Alaska and the Alaska legislature face momentous choices this session that will determine the future health and welfare of the entire state, she said. This bill is not needed, potentially harmful to Alaska's young people and the university system, and does nothing to focus on its biggest issues. She urged the committee to oppose SB 174. 5:37:59 PM FRANK RUE said he lives in Juneau, and is a long-time Alaskan hunter and gun owner. He related that he is aware of a suicide that took place because the gun was left unlocked, and once the decision is made to pull the trigger it can't be un-pulled. Allowing concealed weapons on campus will not make campuses safer, but rather more depressed suicidal students will have the means to kill themselves, and firearms will be readily available at that moment of no return. He commented that rather than students being hungover and seeking help from a counselor there will be more dead students. The same is true, he noted, for those moments when a student is angry about being dumped by their girlfriend or given a bad grade by a professor. He opined that rather than an incident of assault or harassment, counseling, and/or legal proceedings, there will be dead girlfriends and faculty. The same runs true for someone drunk on alcohol and a fight. He pointed out that the most promising students and faculty are the people likely to go elsewhere due to the presence of concealed weapons on the University of Alaska's campuses. He advised that the same is happening elsewhere in the country where weapons on campus legislation is passed. For example, he pointed out that the dean of the highly touted University of Texas Architecture School left Texas to become the Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Design School in large part, because the newly passed Texas law allowed concealed guns on campus. He pointed to the sponsor's remark to people with the same above decisions, "Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out the door," or words to that effect, he said. He related that most people, who care about the University of Alaska system, disagree with that sentiment, and agree that Alaska keeping its best students and faculty will improve the experience and education for all students. He related that President Mark Hamilton remarked, as follows: "The 10 percent free tuition to 10 percent greatest highest students was the one thing that made the -- increased the academic rigor of the university because now you had the very best students in Alaska." Mr. Rue reiterated that, that one thing alone raised the academic standards of the university, and he opined that this bill will drive some of those students away. 5:40:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to his mention of other universities enacting these laws, and asked whether those state schools saw a change after they added the concealed carry provisions in terms of students applying to go to those schools. MR RUE answered that he was not aware of any. 5:41:19 PM CHAIR LEDOUX referred to his concerns about dead girlfriends, dead boyfriends, suicides, and so forth, and pointed out that many students live off campus. The university doesn't make it a condition of attending UAA, UAF, UAS, that no students are able to live off campus and have guns. She advised she does not see the distinction between living on campus and living off campus. MR. RUE opined that situations can evolve quickly. He offered the scenario of people drinking in dorms, suddenly they are pushing each other, and a fight breaks out. Students are in close proximity to each other in a dorm, which is far more volatile than someone living in a house five miles off campus, he opined. 5:42:49 PM CALLIE CONERTON, Student Government President, University of Alaska Southeast, advised she is a student at the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), and serves as student government president, and as the statewide coalition of student leader's vice-chair. She commented that there are multiple reasons she opposes SB 174, campus is no place for guns. Contrary to what the committee has been told, there are fiscal impacts and Alaskan students cannot afford it. Major stakeholders from the university, including its president, the Board of Regents through the school faculty have opposed this dangerous and expensive legislation. A campus is no place for guns because, especially in dorms, guns and alcohol leads to impaired judgement about whether to shoot a gun, and impairs the aim when firing. A Columbia University study found that one-half of United States students binge drink or abuse illegal or prescription drugs. She said there is also an elevated risk for a firearm suicide as it is a one-shot deal and suicide attempts with guns are more successful than other suicide attempts. Alaska has huge problems with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) which also leads to depression in students, people age 18-20 represent 4.4 percent of the total United States population but those people commit 17 percent of all gun homicides. Some students may be responsible gun owners; however, there are often situations where they are in close proximity with students who do not have the knowledge or responsibility of gun handling and think of guns as a toy. Two weeks after the State of Idaho passed a bill allowing guns on campus, during class a professor literally shot himself in the foot accidentally, and she questioned whether Alaska wants that in its lecture halls and classrooms. She pointed out that students will end up paying for guns on campus, and with the current budget crunch it is irresponsible to pass a bill that will cost students money. She asked the committee to vote no on SB 174, and asked whether a responsible gun owner at a party will lockup the gun, or continue playing beer-pong. 5:45:57 PM JENNIFER McCLUNG, Instructor, University of Alaska Anchorage, said she is an instructor at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), and is opposed to the bill, because one of the premises on which the bill was written is false. The FBI released a study of active shooter incidents in the United States between 2000-2013, including shootings in schools, movie theaters, business districts, commercial areas, gun free zones, and areas allowing concealed weapons. The study found that less than one percent of active shooter events were resolved by an ordinary citizen with a firearm. She continued that out of 160 incidents, over a 14 year period, only one was stopped by a good guy with a gun. In contrast, that study stated that 21 incidents ended by unarmed civilians. Therefore, good people without guns, actually had more successful endings in active shooter incidents than good guys with guns. On the other hand, she commented, Alaska has a suicide problem and its college students are not exempt. During the last two years, there have been 18 suicide attempts at UAA alone, and likely some of them would have completed if they had access to a firearm, because suicide attempts with a firearm are almost always fatal. She opined that by increasing student access to firearms, especially in the dorms, there is a real risk more students will be enabled to take their own lives, and that risk is not worth a less than one percent chance of a good guy with a gun ending a mass shooting that may, or may not, ever occur. 5:48:17 PM ROBIN SMITH said she opposes the bill. She offered that if she knew someone in the classroom had a gun, it would impact how she acted and that she would hesitate to approach the person or engage in a conversation. Particularly, she related, not a divisive conversation, and it would have a chilling impact on their dialogue. Unfortunately, she remarked, guns are everywhere and society has not found a way to prevent individuals with mental illness, violent histories, or criminal histories, from accessing guns. She indicated that this bill buys into the myth that a good guy with a gun could resolve a shooting incident earlier than the police response. She referred to an FBI report, released in 2014, which counters that myth, and written by a special operations military person who had recently retired. She related that he said, "There are groups of individuals, special operators both military and law enforcement, who train for years to be good at close quarters shooting. Shooting with discernment, keeping your head clear, and making snap decisions before you pull the trigger, all while being shot at by the enemy. After dedicating their lives to being good operators in those extreme circumstances, even those professionals make mistakes." In some cases, she said, a good guy with a gun can neutralize the threat and help save lives, but it doesn't happen often. She related that people need to know it is a fallacy to believe that the everyday gun owner can be expected to make all of the right choices in a dangerous, fast moving situation like a mass shooting with high powered weapons. She referred to the FBI report offered by the previous witness that the [shootings] took place at schools because the shooters were associated with the schools, and not because they were gun-free zones. She remarked that in many cases [the shooter] did not know that they were gun-free zones. She asked that the committee oppose this bill. 5:51:28 PM CAROLINE STORM, Alaska PTA Advocacy Committee, described this bill as, effectively, overreaching from the legislature to the Board of Regents. She opposes this bill, she said, because the Board of Regents believes this legislation is unsafe for its campuses, and the legislature does not have the right to make a decision for the people who know what life on campus is all about. 5:52:34 PM PATRICK RACE advised he lives in Juneau and described himself as "another soft target" testifying against this bill. While listening to the sponsor's testimony, he said he was amazed the sponsor had no relatable statistics and relied entirely on anecdotes about "dudes with crowbars." He said he has a computer science degree from UAF, and is the third generation in his family to graduate from Alaska's university system. He described his freshman roommate as an unstable, unhealthy young man who pulled a knife on him in the heat of the moment. He noted that he was unsure whether he would be testifying today if the roommate had instead pulled a handgun. Mr. Race related that he is concerned about what is being created here with no upside to it, except the possibility of increased campaign funding. This bill begs the question of whether the University of Alaska is violating the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and he reminded the committee that this is a question for the courts. It shouldn't be settled through a patchwork quilt of legislation, one bill for the university, another bill for the Capitol Building, and another bill later on down the road for K- 12, and he asked that the committee discard this bill. 5:54:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Race to describe the incident during his freshman year. MR. RACE responded that his roommate fancied himself as a "mob boss" kind of guy, he watched a lot of "Good Fellas" type of entertainment, listened to Frank Sinatra, and had knives and probably guns, but not in their room. They got into an argument over a Nintendo game, and as young men are wont to do, it escalated into shoving. Eventually the roommate pulled out a knife and threatened to slit his throat while he was sleeping, he described. Mr. Race said he started down the hallway and due to the noise, many people were in their doorways. He then ran past the crowd, the crowd closed in behind him [blocking the roommate], and he moved into a different room after the incident. The incident he described is not uncommon, he pointed out, there are many fights and violence on campus that is not reported, there is a lot of drinking, events happen, there is a lot of miscommunication, and introducing guns into this environment will not help anyone. If this bill is passed out of committee and someone kills someone, the committee will have to live with that. He offered the scenario of someone coming at him with a knife, and "I pull out a gun, now I've killed him. How does that change my life?" REPRESENTATIVE LYNN responded that Mr. Race's life would be changed by being alive. MR. RACE agreed that he is alive, and fortunately has not had to murder anyone. 5:56:31 PM BRIAN JUDY, Senior State Lobbyist, National Rifle Association, State of California Assemblyman, said he has a lot to unpack in two minutes, and he is the Alaska liaison for the Alaska National Rifle Association speaking in support of SB 174. He said that self-defense is a fundamental right and under existing law there is an arbitrary line, on one side of that line is a law abiding adult, age 21 years and older, that can choose to carry a firearm for self-protection on one side of the line, but they can't on the other. He explained that this bill is about not removing that line, but shrinking the line tremendously, shrinking the gun-free zone that is currently in effect. He referred to the question asking the university what it is doing now, and he said the university is not doing anything. He continued that if it is not doing anything now, then nothing will change in allowing law abiding adults to choose to provide a means of self-protection. He said it will not create the tremendous, disastrous, catastrophic, situation the committee has heard. MR. JUDY said that this issue comes down to emotion versus facts and, he described "the emotion is pretty astounding in this committee room and I appreciate your indulgence." Gun free zones have proven to be a public policy failure, and every mass killing has happened in a so-called gun free zone. He remarked that criminals do not obey gun free zones, they are only respected by law abiding citizens. He said that the reality of designating an area as a gun free zone, doesn't create a gun free zone, it creates an area where only the victims will be disarmed. 5:58:31 PM MR. JUDY referred to the eight states discussed in previous testimony, and said there is not a problem. This may, or may not, make campuses safer, but the evidence is that it won't make campuses more dangerous. He noted that the committee has heard dire predictions of catastrophe, and said it didn't happen in 1993 when Alaska passed the concealed weapon permit law, or when Alaska went permit-less carry, or in 2013 when Alaska passed a "no duty to retreat" bill. He commented that these same arguments are heard each time a bill passes in other states and the campuses are not becoming dangerous areas. There was testimony regarding Alaska's tremendous fiscal problems, and he commented that if there are security issues associated with irresponsible people and their firearms, that's a problem now and the money needs to be spent, under the current circumstances, because this bill is not going to make the situation any worse. The states that have chosen to pass laws and allow law abiding adults to carry a means of self-protection haven't experienced any problems. Mr. Judy suggested a negative fiscal note associated with this bill because it will dramatically shrink the area the university will have to enforce a gun free policy, and he urged no amendments to SB 174. 6:00:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether he was saying that by dramatically shrinking the authority of the university to control a campus, it will save the university millions of dollars. MR. JUDY disagreed, and he said he did not say it would save the university millions of dollars. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN argued that Mr. Judy said it should have a negative fiscal note, and he asked for an estimate of how much the committee should think about in his view of the estimated negative fiscal note. MR. JUDY replied "I don't know, a dollar, five dollars, a thousand dollars?" He said in the State of Idaho, the observation by the legislature was that the fiscal note was unfounded and bloated. He opined that the fiscal note should be zero, and the bill should be passed out. 6:02:43 PM STEVEN SAMUELSON said he supports the bill due to the reasons previously stated, and he could see how having guns on the university campuses could be contentious. Although, with the fiscal notes, this bill pertains to people who are already responsible gun owners who want to know that they can have their concealed weapon on a campus with adults. Alaska, through history, has held strong on access to guns due to subsistence rights and personal use rights, and he described this as just another level. He advised that he briefly attended UAA and was more afraid of the moose keeping him in his car than someone potentially having a gun on campus. He then mentioned that he had been in the areas of Moses Lake, Washington, and New Town, Connecticut, at the time of the shootings and they were eye openers. He opined that Governor Frank Murkowski moved to permit-less concealed carry and nothing came of it. 6:05:08 PM ALYSE GALVIN advised she has children who have taken classes at the University of Alaska Anchorage, (UAA), and described them as bright children younger than 18 years of age. She expressed that she would not allow her children on campus if it allows guns so freely, and opined that many parents agree with her. She asked whether the legislature was, currently, in a place where it listens to people from out-of-state, and allows those people to tell Alaskans what to do, or will the legislature listen to the people of Alaska. She said that, up until now, the state has been good at dictating its own future and she is hopeful the state is not moving to a new place. It is important, she pointed out, to recognize that children younger than 18 years of age are frequently on campus taking classes and in dorms. She remarked that having a gun in a lockbox is not the same as a gun in a safe. Alaskans believe they should be able to hunt and do the things important to them as Alaskans, and the Alaskan hunters she knows use a gun safe. She pointed out that the entire amount of time spent on this bill rather than the state's big problem is a concern, and she opposes the bill. 6:07:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that the legislature addresses many issues and frequently experts from out-of-state testify. MS. GALVIN stated she appreciates that experts would sometimes testify, but that is different from paid lobbyists. CHAIR LEDOUX related that the committee offers the opportunity for people from all over to testify, and noted the mail she has received from Alaskan is tilted toward favoring this bill rather than opposing this bill. 6:08:58 PM BUTCH MOORE advised that in 2014 there were 145 gun deaths in Alaska, and none of those deaths occurred on college campuses. He said his daughter, Bree, was murdered, in 2014, by her boyfriend, she was a 20-year old UAA student, and her boyfriend was 21 years old. Within the majority of the 145 gun deaths in 2014, 79 percent were suicide, and the majority of all of those were ages 18-26. The sponsor of this bill does not have any statistics that Alaska has a problem. Mr. Moore said within his research of mass shootings in Alaska, he could not find a mass shooting in Alaska until he researched back to 1984, at Manly Hot Springs. Alaska does not have a problem with guns on campus and this bill is not necessary. He advised that Bree Moore was proficient in the use of all weapons, was an active sporting shooter, and he supports the country's Second Amendment rights. If this bill passes, the young adult who turns 21 years old can walk into Fred Meyer and buy a handgun having had no training. He stressed that guns for people with no education on the use of guns is not needed in Alaska's communities which is a community- wide safety concern. He stressed this bill is not needed to protect Alaskan's constitutional rights, and to let the bill die in committee to protect the kids. He continued that a person has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being shot on a college campus in the United States. 6:12:25 PM MIKE NEWBERN, Assistant Director of Public Relations, Buckeyes for Concealed Carry, National Rifle Association, said he is in support of the campus carry bill, then referred to previous testimony advising this bill will not make college campuses any safer, and responded that it could not be said that SB 174 will make campuses any less safe. He related that shootings in the street did not happen when Alaska passed the concealed carry bill in 1993, and the same for the State of Ohio in 2004. The State of Ohio recently "got restaurant carry" and people were worried about blood pouring out of the bars where alcohol is served, and that hasn't happened. He mentioned a Texas A&M University study found no increase in crime with respect to campus concealed carry. He said Texas just passed a law, and other universities are coming up with policy to deal with campus conceal carry. He advised the working group at the University of Texas, Austin found no instance of violence with respect to campus conceal carry. He then referred to the comments regarding the ability to recruit students and/or faculty and/or staff. Admittedly, he offered, there have been a couple of faculty members in Texas who left, but the administrator that came to Texas from Utah when it enacted its conceal carry law in 2006, Michael Young, is currently the President of the Texas A&M University who said that initially in Utah there was some uproar when they got campus concealed carry in 2006, but in 2008-2011 the University of Utah saw record enrollment. The concerns regarding not being able to recruit students, faculty, or staff doesn't play out, and neither do the predictions of violence. 6:15:14 PM TOM BOUTIN advised he is speaking for himself and that he supports the bill because it is good legislation for the world that Alaska finds itself in today. Gun free zones appear to encourage crime, and encourage nuts cases causing mayhem, he said. 6:15:56 PM JENNIFER GLENN, Volunteer, Alaska Chapter, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, advised that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is a grass-roots movement of American parents in Alaska, and across the country, fighting for public safety measures respecting the Second Amendment and reducing gun violence. She advised that she and her husband own several guns, but she is opposed to this bill. In the event the bill becomes law, Alaska would join the ranks of only two other states that currently force colleges to allow all permit holders to carry guns on campus. She described the bill as assuming that anyone carrying on campuses will be a responsible gun owner; however, it is known that not all of those carrying a concealed weapon, or have a gun, are responsible gun owners. She asked how a student, rooming with another student, would know how responsible their roommate is, and whose responsibility it becomes when that gun owner takes it upon themselves to step into a dispute using their gun. She opined that SB 174 assumes many things. Amy Thompson wrote an article for the Journal of American College Health, entitled "Reducing firearms related violence on college campuses-police chiefs' perceptions and practices," which states that 89 percent of university police chiefs oppose policies that allow guns on campuses. The student community also echoes this sentiment wherein, "79 percent have said that they would not feel safe if faculty, students, or visitors, were allowed to bring concealed guns on campus." She said she attended UAF and graduated at UAA, and had there been a law allowing guns on these campuses, she would have considered attending another university or going to an online program. While working at the Municipality of Anchorage, at a recreation center, a shooting occurred. Thankfully no one was injured, but her experience tells her that arming citizens to protect other citizens is not an answer to this problem, she related. She opined that this bill goes against common sense when everyone knows often there is a mix of alcohol, drug use, and highly stressful situations on campus and dormitory rooms. She urged the committee to vote no. 6:19:13 PM MIKE COONS said he is speaking as a member of the NRA and requested extra time because the "anti-gun crowd" gets extra time. He related there has been testimony that First Amendment rights, freedom of speech, will be infringed upon because teachers and students will be afraid to discuss controversial subjects with students due to fear they may be carrying a concealed firearm. He said he does not agree, and argued that the university has free speech zones, or the only place views considered non-politically correct, based on the liberal intolerance by faculty and student body, are allowed. He said, the assumption is that no person, unless they are liberals, can contain themselves in debating the issues of the day and, he said that is an affront to him and any American who values freedom of speech. Alcohol and drugs are another red herring, and he advised it's against the law to use a firearm while intoxicated. In the event he were a student, he said he would take grave offense to the attack that students are a bunch of drunks and illegal drug users that can't contain themselves. He described mental health as a huge red herring that paints students as not being able to handle stress, and he takes grave offense for the vast majority of students who are responsible and can control themselves. Continued talking points are just that, all based on the far left anti-gun organizations lies and innuendos, and the left has a long history of continuing the lies to make the truth, he said. In this case, as well as many others, the truth is the truth and change is not. He continued that gun locks are safes, they are biometric and rapid tap codes, secure and paperclips do not gain access. Gun free zones have deaths of 12 or greater on the average, and guns allowed zones have two. He said that Virginia Tech paid out $11 million in punitive damages, and not (indisc.) that anywhere close in insurance. 6:22:26 PM DANIEL BELGRIZE, University of Alaska Anchorage, advised he is a veteran, a senior in the justice program at UAA, an active member in numerous student clubs, and is speaking on behalf of over 50 members of UAA's Greek Life Organizations, and over 100 veterans who have expressed support for this bill. The Constitution of the State of Alaska guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms will not be denied or infringed upon by the state or political subdivisions of the state. Article VII, Section 3, states that the Board of Regents may formulate policy for the university and, he noted, the qualification of "in accordance with the law" is vital, and there is no higher law in Alaska than its constitution. MR. BELGRIZE referred to the inquiry regarding defense of gun use, and said the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recently stated that defense of gun use is (indisc.) with its estimates ranging from 500,000 to 3 million occurrences annually, compared to less than 500,000 violent crimes involving firearms. The CDC has also consistently found lower injury rates among gun using victims compared with victims who have used other self- protective strategies. He advised there is a budgetary interest in this bill and that is to guarantee and protect the state from potential lawsuits for the violation of rights guaranteed under the constitution. 6:24:06 PM CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether Mr. Belgrize is the Daniel Belgrize she knows. MR. BELGRIZE agreed. 6:24:35 PM RYAN SHERWIN-ALAKAYAK, Student, University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), said he is a life-long Alaskan, student at UAA, and has devoted his life to serving his community. He pointed out that the testimony heard from the opposition tends to focus on firearm issues, while the real focus of the bill supports the Constitution of the State of Alaska. Alaskans should uphold those values and rights. He noted that firearm violence exists today, and the policies being made do not necessarily affect the people committing crimes with firearms - the policies affect people who do follow the laws. A person desiring to use a firearm on campus will do so regardless of the law, but folks, like himself, who do carry firearms will tend to veer away from carrying on campus. He said he supports Mr. Belgrize's testimony and supports SB 174. 6:27:11 PM HANS RODVIK said he is a UAA alumni, and in 2014 assisted Senator Coghill in spearheading the efforts, of Senate Bill 176, to correct the wrong of the University of Alaska, Board of Regents' policy which is an unconstitutional unlawful policy. He related that Senate Bill 176 did not pass in 2014, and he is testifying in full support of SB 174. He described this as a fundamental right of self-defense of which has been echoed by a couple of different folks today. He said there has been fearmongering testimony tonight on behalf of folks who think that law abiding adults over the age of 21, currently carrying all around Alaska, are going to become unlawful criminals, drug users and alcoholics when they cross that line on a university campus. He opined that many alumni, veterans, and students take offense to that [idea], and asked whether the Board of Regents is telling veterans they don't have the right to carry for self- defense, even though they served this country. He closed by saying he fully supports the bill and hopes it passes out tonight. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN thanked Mr. Rodvik for his service. 6:29:54 PM CEEZAR MARTINSON, Student, University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), advised he is a student at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), and is in support of this legislation. He referred to the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article I, Section 19, which read: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994] MR. MARTINSON advised that it is clear the UAA policy is in direct violation of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and illegal given the fact it does not have the statutory authority to restrict the ability to concealed carry on campus. Furthermore, he suggested, the hyperbole testimony is complete nonsense with regard to the fact that eight other states, and 150 private universities, allow concealed carry on campus. Mass violence has not been seen, he related, nor has issues of inter- student or inter-faculty violence. The reality is that this is common sense legislation bringing the university back under the rule of law. He said he supports the legislation, and asked the committee to protect his Second Amendment rights. 6:31:33 PM KELSI PULCZINMS, Student, University of Alaska Anchorage, said she is a student at UAA, and is speaking on her own behalf. She voiced her support of SB 174, and advised that she is an adult and that just because she is a student, her constitutional rights should not be infringed by the Board of Regents who have no constitutional authority to do so. She referred to the testimony of a mother concerned about her underage children being on campus with firearms present, and stated that she is sure her children are also present in Alaska's communities where adults responsibly and legally carry every day, with no issues. She described it as a fearmongering argument and stated that if the mother is uncomfortable with her underage children being around firearms, her children should not be in the community at all because people carry every day. She related that she strongly supports this bill and encouraged the committee to do so, as well. 6:33:21 PM LAURA MIKO said she is testifying in opposition to this bill and on her own behalf. She said she is a UAF alumni, UAF employee, and has worked both in student housing and on the main campus where students are in crisis mode. She pointed out that when people go to college there are many different things going on with them, good and bad. Sometimes, especially with mental health issues, things happen where guns should not be, she pointed out. She related that on a populated campus, if something should happen, there is a whole system in place for lock down, and SB 174 is telling people to, basically, be vigilantes. In those instances, with many people trying to handle the situation, it will confuse police and law enforcement who is actually the offending person, which can contribute to more cross-fire and more injuries. She appreciates that she lives in a state where guns can be carried in public, but she does not think a college campus for education is an appropriate place. Especially, she said, because there may be spiteful debates and conversations in classrooms with people "who might be packin." CHAIR LEDOUX, after ascertaining that no one further wished to testify, closed public testimony. [SB 174 was held over.]