CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 24(JUD) "An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a person has a right to be." 9:14:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, introduced HB 24 and explained that it addressed concerns from Alaskans related to self- defense. The bill allowed people the right to use deadly force to protect themselves or their family members. He pointed out language on page 2, line 3 stating "in any other place where a person has a right to be." He expressed concern with the statute's statement that a person had the duty to retreat in a self-defense situation. The statute's justification clauses would not be altered. He mentioned past discussion regarding gang violence, alcohol abuse, sexual assaults. The bill's purpose was to add the language "any place where you have the right to be." He pointed out that the House Judiciary Committee added the word "other" following a discussion that a person already had the right to self-defense if in a home, residence or place of business. He mentioned a letter sent from the Attorney General regarding the bill and his opinion that the rights of Alaskans should not be put before the rights of the courts. 9:17:59 AM Senator Dunleavy stated that the bill was self-explanatory. Co-Chair Meyer noted that a lot of time was spent with the bill in the judiciary committee. He understood that the bill was introduced last year and wondered where the bill died. Representative Neuman replied that the bill died in the Senate Finance Committee. 9:18:42 AM Co-Chair Meyer asked if the judiciary committee's concerns had been addressed. Representative Neuman responded that the judiciary committee reviewed the legislation extensively and passed the bill. 9:18:57 AM Senator Olson noted that Connecticut passed multiple laws on gun control following a school shooting. He wondered how Alaska could justify an opposite course. Representative Neuman responded that the issue was one of self-defense and Alaskans supported the concept. He noted that Alaska laws currently allowed the use of deadly force to protect in the event of an incident. The difference presented in the legislation is the opportunity to protect oneself prior to an incident. 9:20:19 AM Senator Olson understood that the law allowed one to use deadly force when in the home. He interpreted that HB 24 allowed the use of deadly force outside of the home. Representative Neuman answered in the affirmative, HB 24 allowed the same rights anywhere a person had a right to be in Alaska. He repeated that the justification clauses would remain unchanged. 9:20:53 AM Senator Olson stated a great difference between being in one's home versus elsewhere. He inquired how one might justify the use of deadly force outside of the home. Representative Neuman responded that he justified the right for Alaskans to protect themselves. He mentioned court cases where defense attorneys claimed that the criminals were innocent because the victimized Alaskan did not do everything possible to retreat. The rights that Alaskans had to protect themselves in their homes ought to extend to areas outside of the home. 9:22:31 AM Senator Dunleavy noted that the issue addressed self- defense rather than guns. He provided a hypothetical scenario and noted that self-defense might include using a gun, knife or even a rock. 9:23:09 AM Co-Chair Kelly inquired about the letter from the Attorney General. 9:23:22 AM REX SHATTUCK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, clarified that the Attorney General's letter mentioned by Representative Neuman was drafted for last session's version of the bill, HB 80. 9:23:42 AM Senator Hoffman inquired how it would be interpreted if a person protecting themselves was breaking another law with a concealed weapon. Representative Neuman replied that the current Alaska laws did not require a person to have a concealed weapons permit. He added that the justification clause addressed the issue. 9:24:46 AM Senator Bishop assumed that the Attorney General's opinion was still good today. Representative Neuman responded that the only difference between HB 80 and HB 24 was the addition of the word "other" by the judiciary committee. 9:25:32 AM JOSHUA DECKER, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference) testified against HB 24. He explained that the bill did not address the self- defense doctrine. Alaskans always had the right to use deadly force when threatened with imminent injury. He explained that HB 24 lowered the duty to retreat. If the bill was enacted, then where ever an Alaskan had a legal right to be would not require retreat prior to using deadly force. He stated that written testimony was provided to committee members listing multiple examples where retreat was possible, but would not be required under HB 24. He stated ACLU's position that the bill would not increase safety for Alaskans. 9:27:25 AM Senator Olson noted that anyone with a knife could kill as fast as a gun and inquired why a person would not wish to be ready to shoot when threatened with a knife. Mr. Decker agreed and stated that the law allowed a person faced with that threat to use deadly force. The difference with HB 24 was that a person could shoot a person holding a knife who was standing one block away. With that distance, a person could safely retreat. 9:28:29 AM Senator Olson noted that if he was threatened with a knife, his thoughts were not on retreating, but were on protecting his family if the offender was a "stone's throw" away. Mr. Decker replied that if an offender were a stone's throw away, then current law would allow a person to use deadly force to protect themselves. He stated that his letter cited an example in Houston Texas where a similar law increased gun play. He referenced the letters of support in the packet. 9:30:27 AM Senator Olson interjected that he had a different opinion. He did not wish for a person to incur large legal bills because they were threatened. 9:31:00 AM Co-Chair Kelly recalled an article about police training and stated that a person with a knife who was 20 feet away would be able to kill someone before he was able to draw a gun. He derived from the article that the zone around a person that required protection was larger than expected. He disagreed with opinions expressed by ACLU attorneys. 9:32:09 AM Senator Dunleavy opined that there was an assumption in Mr. Decker's statement that everyone was fit enough to run away. He noted that a handicapped person would not be able to outrun an attacker. An elderly person might also have difficulty retreating. 9:33:38 AM Representative Neuman stated that in the cases that Mr. Decker was referring, it would not have been legal to use deadly force because of Alaska's justification clauses. He added that line 6 and 7 of the bill ensured that a person must believe that the use of deadly force was necessary. 9:35:02 AM Mr. Shattuck stated that the bill addressed self-defense. In each case, the Attorney General would be obligated to review the case and a jury would determine whether self- defense was utilized in accordance with the law. 9:36:12 AM Representative Neuman recalled that Commissioner Masters from Department of Public Safety testified that the bill would not change the department's investigation process. He added that testimony from Department of Law stated that the process would remain the same regarding prosecution. 9:37:26 AM Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony. He observed that the bill had a zero fiscal note and wondered why the bill came to finance. He trusted the judiciary committee and he supported the bill. 9:38:06 AM AT EASE 9:38:51 AM RECONVENED 9:38:54 AM Senator Olson inquired what would happen if a person shot someone on their porch after receiving a complaint about loud noise. He queried how the bill would deal with that situation. Representative Neuman replied that the neighbor who approached the porch with the complaint would be considered an initial aggressor under the justification clauses. If the person listening to the loud music felt threatened, then he would be able to protect himself under current Alaska law. 9:40:22 AM Co-Chair Kelly understood that the current statute defined the person complaining about the music as the aggressor. 9:40:30 AM Senator Bishop noted that he did not oppose the bill, but that he respected the comments of those who did. He noted that it was big decision to take a person's life and that he would do anything personally to retreat rather than taking someone's life. He disagreed that gun play would increase or be encouraged as a result of the bill. 9:42:14 AM Senator Dunleavy clarified that the bill was not a gun bill. The bill simply allowed Alaskans to feel safe protecting themselves against aggressors, no matter where they were. 9:43:01 AM Senator Olson queried a hypothetical question about hunters trespassing on someone's property and the property owner shooting the hunters. He inquired how the bill would deal with that scenario. Representative Neuman responded that the bill would still be prosecuting in the same way. He observed that under the hunting scenario, the property owner would not be reasonable in thinking that his life was in danger. 9:45:19 AM Senator Olson noted that in this particular situation, one boy was killed and the other was paralyzed. He inquired if the bill would protect the shooter. Representative Neuman responded no because the shooter could not prove that he thought his life was in danger. 9:46:00 AM Co-Chair Kelly stated that the bill was a "collapsed" version of the statutes. The statutes did not allow the aggressor to shoot a person that was trying to get away. 9:46:45 AM Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT CSHB 24 (JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 9:47:08 AM HB 24 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with four previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1(ADM), FN2(ADM), FN3(LAW), and FN4(DPS). 9:47:10 AM AT EASE 9:51:43 AM RECONVENED