HB 351 - CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS;WEAPONS POSS. Co-chair Pearce directed that CSHB 351 (Fin)am (efd add) be brought on for discussion and noted that file material consists of the bill transmitted by the House, the Senate State Affairs version, three fiscal notes, a list of groups supporting the bill, an analysis of both the House and Senate State Affairs versions, a sponsor statement, policy briefing, and various articles. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, sponsor of the legislation, came before committee. She noted that the bill was extensively rewritten as it made its way through the House, and additional changes were effected by Senate State Affairs. She attested to support for the legislation which she said balances the issue and provides that law abiding citizens will be able to carry concealed weapons for self-defense, after having taken training to ensure that they are knowledgeable about the firearm. Senator Kerttula asked who would provide required training. Representative James explained that the bill presently calls for provision by private industry, per approval by the department. Discussion followed between Senator Kerttula and Representative James regarding the type of container needed for transport of a firearm. PORTIA BABCOCK, Senate State Affairs committee aide, came before committee to provide a section-by-section analysis of bill provisions and changes effected by Senate State Affairs: Sec. 1. Allows a permit to carry a concealed weapon as an affirmative defense to possession. Sec. 2. Provides that transport of a firearm in a closed container designed for transporting firearms does not constitute carrying a concealed weapon. Sec. 3. The Senate State Affairs bill effected a change clarifying the difference between a loaded and unloaded firearm. The Dept. of Public Safety has no opposition to the change. Sec. 4. Makes provisions for permits to carry concealed handguns and delineates criteria an applicant must meet to receive a permit. Fingerprints must be taken by individuals qualified by the department to take fingerprints. Language in the House bill required action on applications for permits within 30 days of receipt of background information. The Senate bill requires approval or rejection within 15 days of receipt of "permit eligibility information." The House bill provided for licensing for three years while the Senate version provides for a five-year license. The Senate bill adds a requirement that the holder complete a full handgun training course every five years. The House bill required only a refresher course for alternate renewals (every six years). Ms. Babcock pointed specifically to statutory citations on page 4 of both the House and Senate versions and explained that they relate to misdemeanor offenses. If one or more of those misdemeanors is committed by an applicant within five years immediately preceding application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the applicant will not qualify for the permit. The Senate bill also adds subsection (5) language requiring that the applicant not have been "convicted of two or more class A misdemeanors of this state or similar laws of another jurisdiction within the five years immediately preceding the application. The Dept. of Public Safety has no problem with the addition. In response to a question from Senator Kerttula, Ms. Babcock advised that illegally carrying a concealed weapon constitutes misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree, a class A misdemeanor. Ms. Babcock referenced interaction with the Dept. of Health and Social Services regarding access to mental health records, alcohol treatment program records, etc. That discussion lead to development of Senate State Affairs language at page 5, subsections (14) and (15). Speaking to information which must be contained within the application to carry a concealed handgun, Ms. Babcock noted a change in the Senate bill at page 5, line 15, whereby the applicant must provide information concerning the city and state of each place the applicant has resided in the five years immediately preceding application. That allows the Dept. of Public Safety to check misdemeanor records for the previous five years. Ms. Babcock next directed attention to page 6, line 1, and noted that the Senate bill changes language relating to permit eligibility from "may" to "will." Subsection (b) at the top of page 6 was part of previous House versions of the bill although it was not included in the version transmitted to the Senate. Senate State Affairs reinserted provisions prohibiting demand for information beyond that set forth on the application, including information on firearms owned by the applicant. Referencing provisions relating to demonstration of competence with handguns, Ms. Babcock explained that the House bill, in describing the weapon, referred to type and size. Senate State Affairs did not feel that was clear. Language was thus changed to refer to action, type, and caliber. A permittee may carry as a concealed handgun only the caliber of the action type for which the permittee has demonstrated competence, or any lesser caliber of the same action type. The department shall approve the personal protection course offered by the National Rifle Association and any other handgun course that tests the applicant's (1) knowledge of Alaska law relating to firearms and the use of deadly force (2) familiarity with the basic concepts of the safe and responsible use of handguns; (3) knowledge of self-defense principles; and (4) physical competence with each action type of handgun the applicant wishes to carry under the permit. Senator Kerttula asked how competence would be demonstrated and approval garnered in rural areas. Representative James voiced her understanding that most individuals carrying concealed weapons in rural Alaska would be protected under existing law. That is not going to change. She further pointed to options allowing communities to opt out of concealed weapon permitting. Representative James further voiced her belief that, upon passage of concealed weapon legislation, more handgun courses by which an individual may demonstrate competence would become available to a wider number of people in both urban and rural areas. Ms. Babcock stressed that, under present law, an individual can carry a concealed weapon if involved in a lawful outdoor activity. Senator Rieger pointed to Senate language stating that the department "shall approve the protection course offered by the NRA," noted that it represents a change from the House version and asked why it was included. Ms. Babcock said it was inserted at the request of certified instructors who now offer personal protection courses sponsored by the National Rifle Association. It is intended to provide a measure of comfort to instructors who fear they might not be approved in deference to a state-sponsored or alternative program. Pointing to page 6, line 29, Ms. Babcock noted that the Senate bill removes House language relating to refresher courses and substitutes completion of a handgun course every five years. At page 7, line 11, Senate State Affairs established a cap on fees. Thirty-four states have some form of concealed weapon permitting system with fees set in statute. The fee for Alaska is established at $125 with a renewal fee not to exceed $50. Those costs are in addition to the cost of the personal protection course, the cost of fingerprinting, pictures, etc. Alaska's fees are at the higher end of the spectrum. Page 7, lines 17, contains provisions and criteria for permit renewal, including a $25 late fee. A new subsection (d) at page 8 applies restricted information provisions for the original application to renewal as well. Ms. Babcock next spoke to provisions allowing for suspension rather than revocation of permits. She further pointed to language at page 9 relating to revocation of the permit if a permit holder is convicted of two class A misdemeanors within a five year period. Pointing to page 9, line 24, Ms. Babcock noted a language change from "The department, and its officers and employees, are not liable" to "The state, and its officers and employees, are not liable." The court system requested the change since the Dept. of Public Safety is not the only state agency that will be dealing with permits and permittees. That language was included in an earlier House bill but was not in the version transmitted to the Senate. The House bill provides that failure to carry the concealed weapon permit and proper other identification when carrying a concealed weapon constitutes a class B misdemeanor. Senate State Affairs changed that to a violation. House legislation provides that failure of a permittee to inform a peace officer that the permittee is carrying a concealed weapon when the permittee is contacted by police constitutes a class B misdemeanor. The Senate bill changes that to a class A misdemeanor. Pointing to language allowing a peace officer to secure a handgun, Senator Rieger asked if that means the gun could be taken away. Ms. Babcock answered affirmatively, advising that it could be "secured" for the duration of contract between police and the permittee. A peace officer could not take the handgun and not give it back if the permittee is not arrested or taken into custody. Provisions are intended to assist peace officers in situations where they feel uncomfortable. Senator Rieger asked if an individual would be required to yield an unconcealed weapon to an officer as well. Ms. Babcock said she did not know. Senator Rieger voiced concern that, under bill provisions, a peace officer might be required to return a concealed weapon to an individual who continues to be agitated following a confrontation. C. W. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Public Safety, came before committee in response to the question. He explained that a police officer would take the weapon, regardless of whether it is concealed or not, if the officer believes the gun holder is dangerous to himself, herself, or other people. A permit holder who refuses to surrender his or her concealed weapon when requested to do so by a police officer could be arrested for violation of a class A misdemeanor. Ms. Babcock next directed attention to page 10, line 21, and noted reinsertion of language from earlier House versions of the bill. It prohibits the carrying of a concealed weapon into a courthouse or courtroom unless the permittee (A) is a judge; or (B) has been authorized to possess a concealed handgun by a judge presiding at the courthouse or courtroom. Co-chair Pearce asked why judges were singled out. Ms. Babcock explained that language was lifted from Florida statutes. It responds to increased instances of weapons brought into courthouses and threats against judges and prosecutors. End, SFC-94, #78, Side 2 Begin, SFC-94, #80, Side 1 Ms. Babcock next attested to additional areas where possession of a concealed handgun is prohibited, noting specifically: state and federal offices and offices of political subdivisions, airline terminals, a vessel of the Alaska marine highway system, financial institutions, etc. She also noted that municipalities or established villages could prohibit possession of concealed handguns through opt-out provisions of the legislation. Page 11, lines 12 through 21, speak to misuse of permits and penalties therefor. The Senate bill splits out and places in separate subsections language relating to penalties for displaying an expired permit and possession and display of a suspended or revoked permit. Those displaying an expired permit are guilty of a violation with an associated $100 fine while display of a suspended or revoked permit constitutes a class A misdemeanor. Discussion followed between Senator Jacko, Representative James, and Ms. Babcock regarding application of the proposed bill to fish camps, etc. Ms. Babcock noted need to review the definition of "established village" in present law. Opt-out provisions at page 12, line 16, speak to both municipalities and established villages. Ms. Babcock referenced new Senate language at page 12, lines 13 - 15, relating to a municipal preemption. She explained that state law would apply unless prohibited by the municipality through the opt-out election. Senator Jacko asked if the reverse approach had been considered whereby a municipality would have to opt-in to allow the carrying of concealed weapons. Ms. Babcock said that while that approach was considered, it became evident it would be impractical in that every municipality or established village would have to have an election. That was neither popular nor feasible and did not provide for uniform state law. Directing attention to page 13, line 30, Ms. Babcock referenced the meaning of "derringer" and said that the definition was included at the request of the Dept. of Public Safety. The Senate State Affairs bill provides for an effective date of October 1, 1994. The effective date of the House version is January 1, 1995. Discussion followed between Senator Rieger and Ms. Babcock regarding definitions relating to derringers and miniature handguns as well as competency testing for firearms. Ms. Babcock advised that the National Rifle Association course consists of 12 hours of classroom time plus two, two-and-a- half hour instruction periods at the shooting range. In response to further questions from Senator Rieger, Ms. Babcock summarized Senate changes to the House bill as: 1. Clarification of what type of firearms permittees will be allowed to carry (action, type, and caliber). 2. Narrowing the description of permit eligibility. 3. Changing the permit approval or denial period from 30 to 15 days. She stressed that this time period is flexible. When an application is received, the department must submit the applicant's fingerprints for tracking within 5 days of receipt of the application. Once information from the computerized record search is received, the department has 15 days to respond. 4. Removal of misdemeanor driving offenses as a cause for permit suspension or revocation. 5. Rewording and clarification of sections relating to mental health and alcohol program involvement by permittees. 6. Requiring the retaking of the entire handgun competency course every five years for renewal rather than a refresher course every six years. 7. Establishment of caps on fees. Ms. Babcock stressed that the department is required to charge only for the actual cost of processing the application. She then voiced her hope that the cost would be less than the $125 cap. 8. The narrowing of information required of the applicant. 9. Addition of the municipal preemption. 10. Change of the effective date to October 1, 1994. Senator Kerttula attested to concerns raised by a grocery store owner that, under the proposed bill, he would be forced to carry a weapon because shoplifters could be carrying concealed weapons. He further attested to worries associated with permittees who might carry concealed weapons into bars and other areas where alcohol is involved. Deputy Commission Swackhammer explained that being in possession of a firearm in an establishment that is selling alcoholic beverages for retail is against current law. Co-chair Pearce called for additional questions on the legislation. None were forthcoming at this time. She then advised of a number of people who wished to testify on the bill and directed that it be HELD for further discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:35 a.m.