SB 136-LIMITATIONS ON FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS  3:42:21 PM CHAIR HUGHES announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 136, "An Act relating to firearms and other weapons restrictions." 3:42:37 PM SENATOR ROBERT MYERS, speaking as sponsor, stated that SB 136 seeks to clarify what sort of restrictions can and cannot be imposed during a disaster declaration on the ability to own and operate firearms. He noted that this issue came up in Anchorage in the context of essential services. The bill effectively says that a state agency or municipality may not use a disaster declaration as the basis for imposing new firearms rules. He deferred further introduction to his staff, Michaella Anderson. 3:44:30 PM MICHAELLA ANDERSON, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, reported that seven states mandated the complete or partial closure of firearms stores or ranges during the pandemic because they were deemed nonessential. SB 136 seeks to prevent that from happening in Alaska. She referred to the sponsor statement for SB 136 that read as follows: Governors of the United States may declare a state of emergency in the event of a disaster. These declarations generally provide expansive police powers to regulate states during emergency situations to protect the public health and safety. While these police powers are usually granted by the state constitution, state statutes clarify and define the extent of the emergency authority granted during an emergency declaration. Thus, state legislatures can create reasonable regulations to define and establish the restrictions on constitutional rights that may or may not be justified in times of emergency. It is the goal of SB 136 to clarify the extent of the emergency authority granted during an emergency declaration in regard to the Second Amendment and to prevent the unnecessary infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. SB 136 establishes that notwithstanding a declaration of a disaster emergency, neither the state or a municipal agency may not forbid the possession, use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, ammunition, or other weapon for personal use. In addition, SB 136 also establishes that the closure and limitation of commerce under the police powers of the governor must be equally applied to all forms of commerce, and prevents undue restrictions of businesses associated with firearms and public shooting range facilities. It is the duty of the state legislature to clarify the extent of the emergency authority granting restrictions on constitutional rights during an emergency declaration. SB 136 provides clarification that neither the state or municipal agencies may unnecessarily infringe upon Alaskan citizens right to keep and bear arms. 3:45:16 PM MS. ANDERSON summarized the sectional analysis for SB 136 that read as follows: Section 1.  Adds new sections to Article 5 of AS 44.99. a) Establishes that notwithstanding a disaster emergency declared under AS 26.23.020, a state or municipal agency may not impose the following: a. Forbid the possession, use, or transfer of a firearm, a firearm accessory, ammunition, or other weapon for personal use. b. Order the seizure or confiscation of a firearm, a firearm accessory, ammunition, or other weapon for personal use. c. Limit the quantity or place other restrictions on the sale or service of firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition, or other weapons for personal use. d. Unless the closure or limitation applies equally to all forms of commerce within the jurisdiction, close or limit the operating hours of the following: i. An entity engaged in the sale or service of firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition, or other weapons for personal use, or ii. An indoor or outdoor shooting range. e. Suspend or revoke a permit to carry a concealed handgun issued under AS 18.65.700, except as provided in AS 18.65.735 and 18.65.740; or f. Refuse to accept an application to carry a concealed handgun, provided the application contains the information required under AS 18.65.710. b) Establishes that this section does not apply to the possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, ammunition, or other weapon by a person who is prohibited from legally possessing a firearm, a firearm accessory, ammunition, or other weapon under state law. c) Establishes that a person may bring a civil action in superior court if the person is adversely affected by a violation of (a) of this section, and the person is the following: a. Qualified under state law to possess a firearm, a firearm accessory, ammunition, or other weapon; or b. A membership organization consisting of two or more individuals eligible under (1) of this subsection that is dedicated in whole or in part to the protection of the rights of persons who possess or use firearms or other weapons. d) Notwithstanding AS 09.17.020(f) - (h), a prevailing plaintiff under (c) of this section may recover. a. The greater amount of actual economic damages or punitive damages in the amount of three times the plaintiff's attorney fees. b. Court costs; and c. Attorney fees. e) Defines "State or Municipal Agency" to include the following: University of Alaska or a department, institution, board, commission, division, council, committee, authority, public corporation, school district, regional educational attendance area, or other administrative unit of a municipality or of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of state government, and includes employees of those entities. Section 2.  Repeals AS 44.99.500(g)(1) which is the definition of a firearm accessory. MS. ANDERSON advised that the definition of a firearm accessory is in the new Sec. 44.99.595. 3:46:40 PM CHAIR HUGHES recalled that when the governor issued a mandate early in the pandemic that closed all but essential businesses, marijuana shops and alcohol venders were allowed to remain open, but places that sold firearms had to close. She asked if that mandate was statewide at least for a while. 3:47:22 PM SENATOR MYERS offered his understanding that when the state listed essential businesses, hunting and fishing supply stores were deemed essential and were allowed to remain open. However, the definitions were not consistently interpreted in the implementation. For example, to be classified as a hunting supply store, a certain square footage of the store had to be dedicated to firearms and firearms materials such as ammunition. Stores that sold firearms exclusively were allowed to remain open but stores such as Cabela's and Sportsman's Warehouse were ordered to close by the municipality. SENATOR MYERS said multiple complaints were filed against multiple stores that did not close and each time the municipality contacted the store and came to resolution. SB 136 would flip the burden of proof and instead of a store having to prove to a municipality that it was allowed to stay open, the municipality would be required to prove to the store that it had to close. The bill states that a store that sells firearms may be closed if the closure applies to all forms of commerce in the jurisdiction. He cited the example of a Sportsman's Warehouse and a Target located next to each other; they are either both open or both closed. 3:49:36 PM CHAIR HUGHES summarized that it was a state mandate that municipalities interpreted differently. She asked if the Municipality of Anchorage was the only entity that used the different interpretation. SENATOR MYERS replied the Municipality of Anchorage was the only one his office heard about. CHAIR HUGHES referenced the language in paragraph (4) on page 1, lines 13-14 and asked him to confirm that this does not address essential versus nonessential businesses. It is that closures would apply uniformly to all commerce in the jurisdiction. SENATOR MYERS answered that is correct. CHAIR HUGHES turned to invited testimony. 3:50:47 PM AOIBHEANN CLINE, Northwest Regional Director, National Rifle Association (NRA), Fairfax, Virginia, on behalf of the tens of thousands of NRA members in Alaska, spoke in strong support of SB 136. She stated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 19 of the Alaska Constitution provide that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. SB 136 aims to protect that right by preventing a state or municipal agency from limiting these rights based on a disaster declaration. She said the bill is a response to events stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. MS. CLINE maintained the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected Anchorage based businesses under the municipality's "Hunker Down" Emergency Order EO-03. The issue was centered in Anchorage during this pandemic, but the NRA believes that without this legislation any municipality could be next. SB 136 ensures that firearm related businesses, shooting ranges, and the right to keep and bear arms are not unjustly singled out for any political reason. She cited District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 in which the United States Supreme Court found mandatory storage locking requirements were unconstitutional because it rendered firearms impossible to operate in order to exercise the core Second Amendment right of self-defense. MS. CLINE described SB 136 as a narrowly tailored solution to the specific problem of restrictions on firearms under an emergency declaration and urged support. 3:54:13 PM CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 136. 3:54:27 PM ANNE CAULFIELD, Volunteer, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Juneau, Alaska, stated that as a mother, grandmother, and retired school counselor she was deeply concerned that SB 136 would restrict public universities and school districts from setting firearm policies. It would also prevent local authorities from intervening to temporarily restrict access to firearms for a person at risk for suicide or domestic violence. She relayed that as a school counselor she worked with children daily who were exposed to domestic violence including the deadly situations when a firearm was involved. This is a reality for many children. She said children who witness family members killed or seriously injured by firearms are affected by this trauma their entire lives. She emphasized that such tragedy does not need to happen if law enforcement is able to take a reasonable approach to temporarily restrict firearms when someone is in danger of hurting themselves or others. MS. CAULFIELD offered her belief that Juneau's local officials, mayors, and police chiefs were best equipped to understand local crime and how to best address it. She urged the committee to not take away their ability to keep all citizens safe and instead ensure that Alaska has safe communities. 3:56:44 PM LUANN MCVEY, Member, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Douglas, Alaska, echoed the testimony of Anne Caulfield as a mother, grandmother, and retired teacher. She stated opposition to SB 136 and pointed out that the state already has a strong preemption law that keeps local authorities from overriding the state policy on firearm regulation. She questioned the reason for narrowing that law and stopping schools and other entities from protecting against gun violence. She said young people use alcohol, sometimes to excess, and the resulting increased aggression and impaired judgement may affect a decision about whether to use a gun to solve a problem. She emphasized that guns do not belong on college campuses and state legislatures should not make colleges less safe by limiting the ability of a university to set firearms policy. MS. MCVEY cited the findings of the nonprofit organization Everytown for Gun Safety, which found that for 20 million students attending colleges and universities, an average of 10 homicides occur each year. She said having more guns on campus increases the likelihood of more shootings but is not likely to prevent mass shootings. She emphasized that SB 136 was not needed and urged the committee to hold the bill in committee. 3:58:48 PM ANN GIFFORD, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, stated she was a retired attorney who had personal experience with some of the issues SB 136 addresses because of past work with Alaska school districts and local governments. She described SB 136 as a poorly thought out bill that would establish bad policy and create legal chaos. She highlighted that the sponsor said the bill is to ensure that state and local agencies do not create new firearm rules during an emergency, but the language in the bill is much broader. It essentially seeks to prohibit any municipality, school district, or university or any state or local agency from regulating the use or possession of a firearm in any way. She pointed out that this conflicts with several existing laws. Like other constitutional rights, the right to bear arms is not unlimited because guns do not belong in some places. She pointed out that Alaska courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have long recognized that it is legitimate for governments to restrict carrying of guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. She pointed out that emotions can run high when people talk to the legislature or local assembly and they can also run high in schools over grades and treatment by other students. Removing guns from these places helps protect everyone in these facilities. She further pointed out that the kinds of places and occasions where guns should not be allowed can vary so what makes sense in Anchorage may not be appropriate in Sitka. She expressed hope that the committee would not approve SB 136 that removes all local control on such an important topic. 4:00:59 PM SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON joined the committee meeting. 4:01:45 PM MICHAEL FINDLAY, Director, Government Relations-State Affairs, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Washington, DC, stated that NSSF is the trade association for most manufacturers, retailers, and gun ranges in the nation and he was speaking in strong support of SB 136. He said that after listening to the opposition testimony, he believes it is important to distinguish that SB 136 is about limiting a governor's ability to deem the firearm industry as nonessential in a crisis. During the pandemic NSSF saw that for political reasons some governors decided not to follow the guidance from the White House. Gun ranges, retailers, and the firearm manufacturing industry were deemed essential, but these were not always included in governor declarations. MR. FINDLAY maintained that SB 136 simply says that a governor may not treat the Second Amendment as nonessential. Thus people should be afforded the opportunity to exercise these rights to protect their families during times of crisis. On behalf of NSSF, he reiterated strong support for SB 136. 4:03:53 PM CARRIE HANSON, Volunteer, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Soldotna, Alaska, stated that as a lifelong Alaskan who has witnessed many instances when guns were not used responsibly she was testifying to ask the committee to oppose SB 136. She said too many Alaskans die each year from gun homicide, gun suicide, or unintentional shootings. She pointed out that the state has the highest rate of gun deaths in the country and that over 66 percent of the gun deaths in the state are by suicide. This is more than double the national average. She further pointed out that guns are the leading cause of death for Alaskan children and teens and that 2010 to 2019 the rate of gun deaths in Alaska increased more than 19 percent. MS. HANSON said it is clear that the gun crisis in Alaska is getting worse and the legislature should respond with reasonable steps to lower the rate of gun deaths. However, a blanket preemption is not necessary because there is already a law that governs the municipal regulation of firearms. She cited an instance in Soldotna two years ago when a man unintentionally discharged his weapon while in a coffee shop and hit his wife. She emphasized that guns do not belong in every public place and note that states that have allowed guns on college campuses now struggle with the safety and economic consequences. She said the fact that insurance companies view guns on campus as a huge liability helps explain why they are not a good idea. She highlighted that a guns on campus bill in West Virginia was estimated to cost $11 million to implement, and asked the committee to refrain from passing SB 136 from committee. 4:06:33 PM HEATHER KOPONEN, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated appreciation for the testimony opposing SB 136 from Caulfield, McVey, Gifford, and Hanson and offered her belief that it should be weighted more heavily than testimony from Cline with the National Rifle Association and Findlay with the National Shooting Sports Foundation because they profit financially from passage of the legislation. She refuted the claim that firearm stores are essential business. While it may be essential for somebody who is hunting to be able to buy ammunition, she said it is not essential to make money from weapons that cause severe injury and death. She said the bill is more about broadening the strength of gun lobbyists and her belief is that their interpretation of Second Amendment rights in the context of SB 136 is dubious. She urged the committee not to hold the bill. 4:08:50 PM CHAIR HUGHES closed public testimony on SB 136. She encouraged any interested party to send written testimony to scra@akleg.gov. CHAIR HUGHES held SB 136 in committee.