SB 189-CONCEALED WEAPON: PARDONS/SIS  9:15:12 AM CHAIR MENARD announced the consideration of SB 189. 9:15:31 AM SHARON LONG, Staff to Senator Charlie Huggins, Alaska State Legislature, said SB 189 allows felons who have received a pardon or a set-aside after a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) to possess concealed firearms with no restrictions. There are many citizens who have faltered in the past, paid their debt to society, and turned their lives around. We acknowledge their rehabilitation and welcome them back. Sometimes felons only have partially-restored civil rights. Some go through an arduous clemency process and receive a pardon. "Others, due to youthful indiscretions and other mitigating factors, are deemed by the courts to be worthy of an SIS and receive a set-aside." It is to the few who are worthy of a pardon or SIS to whom this legislation is directed. The intention is for these individuals to regain their right to bear arms. 9:17:00 AM CHAIR MENARD surmised that the bill will allow people who have received pardons and set-asides under Alaska law to possess guns under federal law. MS. LONG said, "That was the instructions to the drafters." Mr. Luckhaupt is here, and he understands how federal and state laws intertwine, and how they have, in some places, conspired to prevent people with pardons in Alaska from regaining their concealed weapons rights. JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, said the intent is to resolve the U.S. Supreme Court case that said a restriction under state law prevents a felon, who has received a restoration of rights, from possessing firearms. He spoke with someone in the hall and "they now believe that this doesn't do that even though this was something they seemed to think would work." Last year Mr. Luckhaupt spoke with ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms], and "this seemed to satisfy their concerns." "I guess that's something we'll explore." 9:19:41 AM SENATOR FRENCH said he has filed a bill on this general topic. It is one of the more mystifying and difficult areas of the law to work through. He appreciates the expertise of Mr. Luckhaupt and the NRA [National Rifle Association]. It is important to get it right the first time. He asked if he could get a letter from ATF or from the relevant federal authorities for guidance. 9:20:58 AM MR. LUCKHAUPT said ATF was not willing to put anything on paper last year. It seems to be a floating standard. There are different views on how the law will be interpreted. It would be worth the effort to contact ATF for some answers. "But as of now, we don't have any definitive answers; we're just kind of left trying to interpret what they may do." Senator French's bill and this bill meet Caron [Caron v. United States]. "Senator Huggins's bill restricts where they're going to the people who receive pardons and set-asides and not for the 10-year lapse of time felons. And your bill reaches all of them." It is attempting to meet Caron for all felons in Alaska. SENATOR FRENCH asked if Mr. Luckhaupt can go to the relevant passage in Caron and give it to the committee. Is there one little part that explains the legal problem? MR. LUCKHAUPT said Caron dealt with a Massachusetts law that permitted felons to possess long guns but not handguns. Caron was not a good person. He had various run-ins with the law over 30 years. The federal government got word that he had long guns. Under federal law he wasn't entitled to possess any guns. Massachusetts law did not allow felons to ever have the right to possess handguns except on their own property. The federal government said that prevents him from receiving his rights to generally possess firearms. Federal law allows felons to get their federal rights back once the state has restored their full and complete rights -- with no restrictions. The way most states do it, including Alaska, is to provide restoration rights to people who receive a pardon or a set-aside, "but we also, by lapse of a period of time, give felons their rights back." That's what happened in Massachusetts, but it was limited to long guns. The U.S. Supreme Court said that because it was not a full and complete restoration of rights, a felon's right to possess handguns was limited, therefore there isn't a corresponding right under federal law. 9:25:19 AM SENATOR FRENCH said that seems to be the question: "Whether or not you've had a full and complete restoration of your rights." The NRA stance is that any restriction under state law is going to trigger a ban under federal law. Is that where we are? MR. LUCKHAUPT said, "I think that's where they are, and I don't read Caron that far." But people can differ. CHAIR MENARD said she wants to work on this next year due to time constraints. 9:26:40 AM BRIAN JUDY, Alaska Liaison, National Rifle Association, Anchorage, said it is the existing policy in Alaska to provide a restoration of rights to these individuals - either through a pardon, set-aside, or through the lapsing of a significant amount of time. The federal government recognizes that restoration. The key is that it has to be a complete restoration, and there have been court cases since the Caron decision and interpretations by the ATF and the FBI. According to the NRA, if these individuals don't have the exact rights of other individuals, it isn't a full and complete restoration for the purposes of federal law. This bill will go part of the way for those with pardons and set-asides. Although it is state policy for rights to be restored after a ten-year lapse, they would clearly not have their rights restored under this bill. NRA attorneys look at it as incomplete because it remains an affirmative defense. It's presumptively illegal for these people to have a handgun, and they will have to mount the defense. They can be arrested, incarcerated, and then have to defend themselves. That doesn't happen to other individuals, so it isn't a complete restoration of rights. NRA supports the concept of the bill, but it doesn't go as far as intended. 9:29:09 AM SENATOR FRENCH said it is sticky. There are two prohibitions regarding a felon's handgun rights. "One is subsection 1 of the statute that we're amending," which says a person can't knowingly possess a firearm capable of being concealed -- a handgun. "That would be a handgun in your home." "The subsection that we're amending, though, is different from that one. It says you can't knowingly possess a firearm that is concealed on your person." How does fixing the concealed gun statute cure the problem if there is a parallel, broader statute? MR. JUDY said that is a good question. NRA believes that is the problem. Addressing the affirmative defense for carrying a concealed gun goes part of the way. Not only does that need to be addressed, but "you also need to change the affirmative defense to and exception for the carrying concealed prohibition and for that separate mere possession of a handgun." There are two separate offences and two sections providing affirmative defenses. The affirmative defense for the concealed gun is more extensive, but unless the conditions are narrowed and it is changed from an affirmative defense, it is not a full and complete restoration. 9:31:39 AM CHAIR MENARD said she wants to take the time to get it right. CARL THOMAS, representing himself, said he supports SB 189. He was convicted of a nonviolent felony. His rights were restored in every way except when he attempted to buy a new firearm. He was denied by [indecipherable] after voluntary appeals to them. The reason he was denied the right to buy a firearm was case law: Caron v. United States. Alaska state law restricts what a felon can possess, so he is considered to be federally prohibited. Since his case was set aside and all rights restored, he should be able to purchase firearms. It is an infringement of his rights. CHAIR MENARD held over SB 189.