SB 136-LIMITATIONS ON FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS  3:33:33 PM CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 136 "An Act relating to firearms and other weapons restrictions." [This was the second hearing, public testimony was noticed, and CSSB 136(CRA) was before the committee.] 3:34:11 PM SENATOR ROBERT MYERS, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of SB 136, refreshed the committee's recall of the bill. He explained that SB 136 seeks to ensure that rules related to the ownership or use of firearms do not change based on a disaster declaration at either the state or municipal level. 3:35:16 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how the possession or use of illegal firearms would be treated, should the bill pass. SENATOR MEYER answered that the bill does not change any rules relating to firearms, so an illegal firearm would still be illegal if the bill were to pass. Similarly, the bill does not propose to change the law prohibiting a felon from possessing or using a firearm. SB 136 simply says that new firearm rules cannot be created by executive authority when there is a disaster declaration. CHAIR SHOWER summarized that SB 136 would only be in effect during the limited window of a disaster declaration. SENATOR MEYER agreed that was correct. 3:36:17 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that the definition of "firearm" in AS 11.81.900 talks about things that use propulsion such as guns and shotguns, but it is not specific. It does not talk about a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches or a machine gun that someone may not have a license to carry. He asked if that might compromise the bill. SENATOR MEYER replied he did not believe so. The definition is intentionally broad and it does not change what is or is not prohibited. The goal is to clarify that an executive authority may not use the powers granted under a disaster declaration to impose additional firearms rules. He acknowledged that the legislature would still have the authority to change rules during a disaster declaration. 3:37:50 PM MICHAELLA ANDERSON, Staff, Senator Robert Myers, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, added that the term "additional rules" is defined as anything that removes Second Amendment rights. This includes forbidding the use and carry of firearms and closing gun and ammunition stores or firing ranges. CHAIR SHOWER offered to invite the Department of Law to a future meeting if there were follow-up questions. 3:38:38 PM CHAIR SHOWER opened public testimony on SB 136. 3:39:12 PM JOHN SULLIVAN representing self, Douglas, Alaska referenced [page 2], line 9 and offered his understanding that the bill allows someone to carry and shoot a gun in both emergency and non-emergency situations, regardless of whether they can legally possess a firearm. He mentioned hurricane Katrina and the people on the bridge in New Orleans and restated that SB 136 says that anybody is able to carry a gun in an emergency. He said that is the "beef" he has with SB 136. SENATOR COSTELLO said she understands the language on page 2, line 9 to say the opposite. She read the new Sec. 44.99.510 (b): (b) 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 SENATOR COSTELLO suggested the legal drafters comment on this subsection because it is an important part of the bill and should be clarified. CHAIR SHOWER concurred with her interpretation and said he would hold the bill if the attorneys were not available. 3:44:16 PM JAKE MCGUIGAN, Managing Director for State Affairs, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Massachusetts, testified in support of SB 136. He stated that NSSF is the trade association that represents manufacturers, distributors, and retailers in the firearms industry. He thanked the sponsor for introducing the bill to address the issue that has arisen the last two years, which is retailers and shooting ranges being required to close based on state or local emergency declarations. Texas is a good example. It has strong preemption laws but local governments, including in the Houston area, shut down firearms retailers and shooting ranges during COVID-19 lockdowns. NSSF supports SB 136 because many states did not deem the firearms industry essential during the pandemic, so people who were trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights were prevented from doing so. Some states forced the issue by shutting down the state background check system. He highlighted that about 40 states declared the firearms industry essential during the pandemic, but that left 10 states that restricted both Second Amendment rights and firearm retailers' ability to conduct business. MR.MCGUIGAN highlighted that the firearms industry is now open nationwide and gun sales have broken records. Over 13 million people became new gun owners over the last two years. He surmised that the number would have been even higher if people had been able to exercise their Second Amendment right in those 10 states. He reiterated support for SB 136. 3:47:57 PM HOWARD APPEL, representing self, Ninilchik, Alaska, testified in support of SB 136. He shared an observation he made when he was visiting his son in Washington state during the pandemic. Every time he passed by a particular gun shop it had a line of people outside that extended past three storefronts. His son attributed it to the restrictions that the City of Seattle imposed on firearms businesses. He noted that churches were also closed, but liquor stores and bars remained open. That made no sense; thus his support for SB 136. 3:49:49 PM AOIBHEANN CLINE, Northwest Regional Director, National Rifle Association (NRA), testified in support of SB 136. She stated that SB 136 does not change firearms laws in Alaska. Prohibited persons would still be unable to possess firearms during an emergency. The bill simply states that firearms businesses cannot be infringed under the color of an emergency declaration. This protects Alaskans' right to self-defense, firearms, ammunition, and shooting ranges when there is an emergency declaration. She said the bill is in response to real life examples of restrictions based on emergency declarations from across the country. She recounted that the NRA sued Los Angeles County after it deemed firearms businesses were not essential. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that unconstitutional. She restated that SB 136 simply protects firearms businesses and Alaskans' Second Amendment right to access firearms during an emergency declaration. 3:51:57 PM} ANN GIFFORD, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, stated that she is a retired attorney who opposes SB 136, in part because it is broader than restrictions on firearm businesses. She directed attention to subsection (a)(1) on page 1 that forbids the possession or use of a firearm. The concern is that this would tie the hands of the governor and other state leaders during the chaos of a disaster when it is not clear what action these leaders might need to take. For example, curfews and other limitations on people's activities are needed when Alaska experiences an earthquake, tsunami, or large fire. Limiting individuals' use of firearms in a specific area is one of the time and place restrictions on Second Amendment rights that has been recognized as constitutional. It is the kind of action a government might need to take to maintain public order and safety. She opined that ruling those options out would be a mistake because it is not possible to anticipate all the ways they may be needed. She urged the committee not to pass SB 136. CHAIR SHOWER asked if it would improve the bill to delete the word "use" on page 1, paragraphs (1) and (2). MS. GIFFORD said yes, but the talk about any kind of rule that forbids possession or use of a firearm is the greatest concern. CHAIR SHOWER suggested she send any other thoughts on the bill to senatestateaffairs@akleg.gov. 3:55:01 PM MARIAN CLOUGH, representing self, Auke Bay, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 136. She stated that as a mom, a grandma, and a gun owner she does not believe SB 136 is about protecting gun ownership. Rather, it is about giving special privileges to gun dealers. She opined that it also invites endless and distracting legal battles. She pointed out that government is supposed to protect citizens during disasters and she questions how guaranteeing gun stores and ranges the right to stay open helps in the event of fires, tsunamis, landslides, or volcanic eruptions. She asked if gun stores should remain open if there were armed riots. She offered her belief that in an epidemic as contagious as Omicron and lethal as Ebola, the only hope would be the strictest of protocols with only essential facilities such as grocery stores and medical facilities remaining open. By contrast, SB 136 would mandate that gun shops and ranges remain open even if they were super-spreaders. She urged the committee to ensure that state and municipal agencies have the ability to respond to disasters, unencumbered by the political agendas of interest groups. She asked the committee not to pass SB 136. 3:57:08 PM ANNETTE MARLEY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that as a mother and public health professional she was asking the committee to oppose SB 136. It makes no sense to preemptively force the governor and local communities to keep shooting ranges and gun stores open during an emergency declaration, she said. Measures to protect public safety are needed during emergency situations, not a special law that prohibits the regulation of guns. She opined that undermining government authority to take such measures set the stage for usurping other authorities. She suggested the committee instead focus on legislation that prepares for emergencies, through advanced food security, emergency shelters, and improving the state's public health system. She said SB 136 does not merit passage. 3:59:03 PM CHAIR SHOWER closed public testimony on SB 136. 3:59:09 PM At ease 4:00:05 PM CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting. SENATOR COSTELLO referenced earlier testimony and urged the committee to ask Legislative Legal Services to clarify that the language on page 2, lines 9-11 states that a person who is not allowed to possess a gun will not be able to possess a gun during an emergency declaration under SB 136. CHAIR SHOWER asked the sponsor to request Legislative Legal Services and the Department of Law review the bill in light of the questions that were raised and respond to the committee in writing. 4:01:29 PM SENATOR HOLLAND shared that he was living in Louisiana during hurricane Katrina and he saw that the police were not prepared to document property ownership so it could be returned. He noted that murders were also committed in the city during that time. He said that is the other side of the story and he believes that disarming citizens during times like that is something to consider. CHAIR SHOWER mentioned that some of his friends who were members of the guard and serving in the city at that time have some horrific stories about what happened. SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether art. III, sec. 20 of the Alaska Constitution on martial law would supersede the statute. 4:02:51 PM SENATOR MEYER replied the bill is not about martial law, but he believes those provisions in the state constitution would override SB 156. He committed to follow up to make sure that was correct. 4:03:22 PM CHAIR SHOWER held SB 136 in committee.