HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE April 15, 2000 9:15 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Joe Green Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Bill Hudson Representative Scott Ogan MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Beth Kerttula Representative Hal Smalley SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Robin Taylor COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 294(JUD) "An Act relating to the possession of concealed handguns and to concealed handgun permits." - MOVED HCS CSSB 294(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 444 "An Act relating to nongovernmental activities of state agencies, including the University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 444(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 294 SHORT TITLE: CONCEALED HANDGUNS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 3/21/00 2678 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 3/21/00 2678 (S) JUD 3/27/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211 3/27/00 (S) -- Rescheduled to 3/29/00 -- 3/29/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211 3/29/00 (S) Heard & Held 3/29/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 4/03/00 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211 4/03/00 (S) Moved CS(Jud) Out of Committee 4/03/00 (S) MINUTE(JUD) 4/04/00 2854 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP SAME TITLE 4/04/00 2854 (S) DP: TAYLOR, TORGERSON, HALFORD 4/04/00 2854 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 4/06/00 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203 4/06/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 4/10/00 2949 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR AND 2 OR 04/10/00 4/10/00 2951 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 4/10/00 2951 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 4/10/00 2951 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 4/10/00 2951 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 294(JUD) 4/10/00 2951 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 E1 4/10/00 2952 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 4/11/00 3010 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP 4/11/00 3011 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 4/12/00 3072 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 4/12/00 3072 (H) STA, JUD 4/13/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/13/00 (H) Heard & Held 4/13/00 (H) MINUTE(STA) 4/15/00 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 444 SHORT TITLE: STATE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 4/06/00 2889 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 4/06/00 2889 (H) STA, FIN 4/11/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/11/00 (H) Heard & Held 4/11/00 (H) MINUTE(STA) 4/13/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 4/13/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 4/15/00 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER DAVID HUDSON, Lieutenant Program Manager for the Alaska Concealed Handgun Program Department of Public Safety PO Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered questions regarding SB 294. BRIAN JUDY, Alaska Liaison of the National Rifle Association (NRA) Sacramento, California POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 294. PATRICK McKEEN Delta Junction, Alaska 99737 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 294. MIKE CARLSON Delta Junction, Alaska 99737 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 294. DANIEL DAVIS PO Box 1285 Delta Junction, Alaska 99737 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 294. DICK BISHOP, Vice President Alaska Outdoor Council PO Box 73902 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 294. PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Aide to Senator Lyda Green Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 125 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 294. DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Safety PO Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 294. ANNETTE DEAL, Researcher to Representative John Cowdery Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 204 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 444. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-35, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Green, Whitaker, Hudson, and Ogan. Representatives Kerttula and Smalley were absent. SB 294-CONCEALED HANDGUNS Number 0069 CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 294(JUD), "An Act relating to the possession of concealed handguns and to concealed handgun permits." DAVID HUDSON, Lieutenant, Program Manager for the Alaska Concealed Handgun Program, Department of Public Safety (DPS), testified via teleconference from Seattle, Washington. He said he has been in charge of the program since the fall of 1998 and is not familiar with how it progressed five years prior; however, he does know some history in regard to the legislation initiated in 1995. He said this program has been very successful, as everyone has testified, in view of the fact that there are people out there who are competent, qualified and mentally prepared to carry a concealed handgun in Alaska. He noted that he has seen or tracked all the various violations of laws in the last year and a half in regard to this program. He cannot recall any criminal act that was initiated in regard to a concealed handgun permit that was carried by authorized concealed handgun permit holders. Rather, people have been arrested for other reasons and have had concealed handgun permits legally in their possession, whereupon the concealed handgun permit was revoked. He indicated that recently a person was charged with failure to identify him/herself as a permit holder with a handgun in possession when contacted by law enforcement. Number 0410 LIEUTENANT HUDSON said Alaska has a good, valid, working program based on legislation put forth in 1995, and regulations that were appended to legislation since that time have been very workable. He informed the committee that SB 294 has become an issue because the public perceives DPS as slow to process a permit or a renewal. He remarked that he understood that the program in 1995 was revenue-based, which it still is. Although there were expectations that possibly 25,000 people might come forward to obtain a handgun permit almost immediately, that did not happen. About 5,000 people came forward almost immediately to obtain a handgun permit, and that has created problems for the department today. Because the program is revenue-generated, DPS did not maintain a staff throughout the years; consequently, there was no large staff to handle all the renewals and applications as they came through. Now, five years later, initial permit holders who had applied immediately are all due for renewal; hence the department's staff of one full-time clerk and one half-time clerk are overloaded in support of the program. The many renewals have created a burden on the staff as well as much distress to the public because the department is not able to respond to processing permits or renewals as quickly as applicants would like. Number 0598 LIEUTENANT HUDSON noted that one reason for SB 294 was due to slowdown of the process; it was also introduced with the idea of trying to increase reciprocity of Alaskan concealed handgun permits across the nation. He explained that someone had testified that before he took over the program there were 11-17 states from which Alaska would accept handgun permits. When he took over the program, he had evaluated the laws as they existed and had reviewed handgun rules information as provided by state program managers across the nation, from which he was able to gather information and evaluate based on Alaska's "as strict as compliance." He indicated that consequently he had determined that not many states met the criteria established by the Alaska legislature, and only Texas had a program at least as strict as Alaska's. Texas had copied Alaska's handgun program after reviewing it, and the two states' regulations are almost the same. Number 0752 LIEUTENANT HUDSON remarked that he would like to address the twofold issue of reciprocity and better service to Alaskans in regard to renewal of and application for permits. He reminded the committee that several issues in SB 294 will be valid for the department. For instance, in the renewal process currently, a clerk from the department has to take a thumbprint from the individual who is renewing his/her handgun permit; that requires a clerk's time in each of the post detachments and detracts from other duties. Additional time and energy is required when the thumbprint has to be evaluated by someone in the department. The DPS believes that the department would better serve the public if the thumbprint requirement could be eliminated. He added that he has not seen any problem with thumbprints for renewals that have already been done, and he does not believe that it will be a future issue, based upon what the department has observed. Eliminating the thumbprint requirement is a valid way by which the renewal process could be expedited. LIEUTENANT HUDSON discussed another issue arising out of the permit application process. The current requirement of a sworn statement under a perjury statute means that an applicant must obtain a notarized statement. However, he believes there is no need to require a sworn statement because under Alaska Statute, Title 28, the motor vehicle registration law, when a person signs the back of the vehicle registration it says that a person who lies could be charged with unsworn falsification. He suggested DPS could modify its handgun application to include the same stipulation as Title 28, which would make it easier for the public and eliminate a little bit of work for renewals. Number 0905 LIEUTENANT HUDSON mentioned that a major issue is competency. He indicated the competency requirement was established in 1995; although he is not sure how it got worked into that program, it certainly has proven valid. He likened [not having to prove handgun] competency to obtaining a driver's license without ever stepping behind the wheel of a car and demonstrating driving competency. Although initially there were many certified [firearms] instructors for the concealed handgun permit program, three or four seem to do the most instruction; he has spoken with them in the last several weeks and with their students, in order to get a feel for how they are doing. LIEUTENANT HUDSON said it is best stated by Joe Nava from Fairbanks, who in an e-mail had indicated he has trained about 2300 students. Lieutenant Hudson had asked whether Mr. Nava had ever had a problem with a person not being able to get a handgun permit based on Alaska's competency standard; Mr. Nava had responded that none of his students had ever failed to qualify on their first try because he takes the extra time to have the students shoot the weapons. Lieutenant Hudson commented that all of the other instructors with whom he had spoken - who had trained thousands of people in Alaska - feel the same way; therefore, there is no issue that people are not becoming qualified based on the competency requirement, and instructors feel that competency is extremely important. Whether [proof of] competency is required by law or not, the instructors had indicated that they would still require it from their students. LIEUTENANT HUDSON said many people seem to think that eliminating competency from the program is a panacea for reciprocity agreements with states across the nation; however, he thinks such thinking is a terrible mistake because people look at Alaska's program statutes and evaluate [the program] on that basis. If it is assumed that Alaska instructors will require competency and yet it is not stated in Alaska Statute, then another state is not going to be able to review Alaska's law and say, "These folks require competency and so do we; therefore, we will grant reciprocity." He recognized that unfortunately there are probably some instructors who would eliminate competency no matter what, if it were not required by statute, and so Alaska could potentially have people who are carrying firearms who have not demonstrated competency. Number 1082 LIEUTENANT HUDSON observed that there seemed to be a little confusion about action and caliber type. The law reads that a person has to demonstrate competency with the largest caliber weapon or action type that the person is going to carry. However, some instructors tell students to qualify with a .44 Magnum revolver and a .45 semi-automatic pistol because that allows the student to carry any lesser caliber or action type. He explained that no one has to qualify with a .44 Magnum revolver or a .45 semi-automatic pistol. If a person is small or light - or has small hands - and wants to carry a .32 or a .22, then that is all he/she needs to shoot. If smaller persons never want to carry a .44 Magnum in their belts or a .45 semi-automatic in their purses, they would be well within the standards of the law, and it will not be an issue. LIEUTENANT HUDSON indicated that he thinks Alaska is doing a disservice [to its citizens] by viewing reciprocity as only allowing a person from another state to carry a firearm in Alaska. He emphasized that Alaska should worry about in what states Alaskans can carry firearms instead. The way SB 294 is written will not overcome the obstacles to reciprocity because SB 294, in eliminating the competency requirement, puts the words "similar to" in its place. He reminded the committee that when he sees "similar to" in regard to "successfully complete some type of handgun or firearm safety course," for example, he then has to evaluate other states to determine if they are "similar to" and "successfully complete some type of handgun or firearm safety course." LIEUTENANT HUDSON noted that in Florida a person can fill out a form, send in information and obtain a Florida concealed handgun permit. He recognized that Florida also says that one thing a person can do to obtain a permit is send a copy of the person's military DD214 (Department of Defense form). He does not think that anyone would disagree with him that SB 294's requirements are not met by completing military service and receiving a DD214, he said. He has more than 27 years of military service and yet never carried a firearm, although he was trained to use one; consequently, just because he was in the military and he has a DD214 to say that he has "successfully completed ... a course" is a stretch. He stated that Alaska does not want to take a program that has demonstrated success - and that citizens are comfortable with - and detract from it in that fashion. LIEUTENANT HUDSON reiterated that SB 294, as written, will not get Alaska where it wants to go. He recalled that Senator Taylor had wanted to propose an amendment that would allow Alaskans to carry their concealed handguns in other states and then Alaska would allow [citizens of] those states to carry [concealed weapons] in Alaska. He said true reciprocity means "I'll give you mine if you'll give me yours." He suggested it is imperative that Alaska do something to allow Alaskans to carry firearms in other states if they are licensed and so choose. He commented that Alaskans call him to ask him in what states they can carry their permits. LIEUTENANT HUDSON explained that even though the National Rifle Association (NRA) web page lists which states recognize Alaska permit holders, he, as program manager, cannot attest to that or put it on the Alaska Concealed Handgun Permit Program web site because Alaska has no agreements with those states. He commented that the sergeant in charge of the program in Arizona said that he would like to have a letter from Lieutenant Hudson saying that Alaska would accept the Arizona permit, and Arizona would give Alaska a comparable letter. However, the department has not written that letter, and SB 294, Section 13, as worded does not allow the department to do so. Lieutenant Hudson indicated he had proposed an amendment for this statute to say Alaska would accept another state's permit if that state accepted Alaska's permit, which would allow Alaska's citizens to obtain the best service. Number 1593 BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison for the National Rifle Association (NRA), testified via teleconference from Sacramento, California, in support of SB 294. He said he is speaking on behalf of NRA members who live in Alaska and noted that there are various issues in SB 294. He explained that the technical change as suggested by the legislative council to delete the sworn statement requirement is fine, and Lieutenant Hudson apparently does not have a problem with that change. MR. JUDY commented that there are a number of process efficiency issues that Lieutenant Hudson had talked about, and he assumes that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) is receptive to them in addition to the thumbprint, the sworn statement, trooper participation in courses, allowing previous photos for renewal and replacement, extending the period for renewal, and extending the validity of expired permits if the renewal process is delayed. He mentioned that all of these are good amendments and would serve to make the process efficient. MR. JUDY indicated three substantive changes in addition to the above are being made by SB 294. He noted that the first substantive change - and probably one of the issues that was paramount in causing this legislation to be brought forward - is clarification of the requirements for recognizing other states' permits. When SB 141 became effective in 1998, he believes it was the legislative intent that quite a number of states with issuance programs similar to Alaska's would be recognized in the state, he said. After the law became effective, a list was promulgated by DPS that included 17 states wherein permits from those states would be recognized in Alaska; then, at some point subsequent to that, staff changes occurred. MR. JUDY observed that the initial list was apparently repealed, and up until just recently no state was recognized. He said such restrictive recognition was not intended by the legislature, and current language allows a person to make an interpretation along any lines. He reiterated that a person can make an interpretation fairly broad along the lines of what was intended with the 17 states or come up with a list of zero if every state was required to have a sworn application and the exact arbitrary competency standards. He said someone could go through the law and make it so that no states are recognized, just as the situation is today in Alaska. MR. JUDY suggested that if it is clarified that permits from other states that have truly comparable programs are recognized in Alaska, then more people will be "carrying" in Alaska, which is not a bad thing. He explained that studies have shown that when law-abiding citizens do carry a permitted concealed weapon, crime is lowered because criminals realize that law-abiding citizens can counteract and defend themselves. He further commented that if Alaska recognizes more permits from other states, then Alaskans will automatically have the ability to carry in other states because many states recognize permits from states that recognize their permits. Number 1844 MR. JUDY acknowledged that there are problems, as Lieutenant Hudson had described, with a program that requires written agreements between states. He emphasized that he has had much experience dealing with many states and with many different types of reciprocity or recognition programs. He had found that whenever a statute is written that allows states to sit down together and work out a deal for reciprocity, nothing happens. He cautioned the legislature against doing that type of system here because he thinks that the end result will be a recognition system that recognizes no states, as Alaska does today. MR. JUDY suggested that the best type of program would be like Idaho's, where they just recognize permits from other states, period; as time goes on, more states that pass concealed weapon permit laws result in more states recognizing Idaho's permits. He again proposed that if Alaska followed Idaho's example, Alaskan permit holders would eventually be recognized in many states. MR. JUDY said a second issue is deletion of the unused and unconstitutional municipal opt-out provisions. Currently, cities and municipalities can put an issue on the ballot to prohibit concealed carrying [of handguns] in their municipalities. He commented that only one municipality had attempted to opt out in the last seven years, which was rejected by a 3-1 margin. In addition, Article 1, Section 19, of the Alaska State Constitution provides that the individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed upon by a political subdivision of the state; therefore, he suggested that if a city opted out down the road, the option would very likely be thrown out [of court]. He indicated the current law would be cleaned up if the opt-out provision were deleted. Number 1981 MR. JUDY addressed the deletion of the competency requirement. He maintained that the NRA is the foremost advocate of safe and responsible firearms use, having had an education and training division in place since the 1930s; he feels that the training is very good. He reminded the committee that it should be offered and provided on a voluntary basis since the NRA does not believe that statutory mandates are necessary. He added that it is interesting to look at the range of states that allow concealed carry[ing of handguns], including Vermont, which does not even require a permit to carry a concealed weapon; Washington, which has no training requirement; Utah, which requires familiarity but does not require "live fire"; and Alaska, which does require "live fire." He said empirical evidence from all of these states is exactly the same in that there is no problem with law-abiding citizens. MR. JUDY said anybody can lawfully carry [a firearm] openly in Alaska right now. No permit, fees, background check or training course is needed. He said the NRA's intent when pushing this legislation to create a concealed weapon permit law many years ago was that if a person can carry [firearms] openly, he/she should be able to [carry firearms] concealed. He suggested it is not logical or practical to have additional restrictions on people who are voluntarily going through backgrounds checks, fingerprinting and licensing. He commented that ideally no training requirement would exist, as is already the situation in other states, where it works. He mentioned that the people who are carrying [handguns] know how to use them, and Lieutenant Hudson had said nobody has ever failed to qualify [for a handgun permit]. He suggested that a government-mandated training course is nothing more than an unnecessary obstacle. He urged the committee to support SB 294. Number 2140 PATRICK McKEEN testified via teleconference from Delta Junction in agreement with SB 294. He said he firmly believes that people should show some type of competency before obtaining their permits, and although he had much experience before obtaining his permit, it had done him no harm to go through the course and learn something new. He pointed out that there are major differences between the actions of a revolver and a semi- automatic, and people who know how to use one don't necessary know how to use the other. He specified that he would like the differences between semi-automatic and revolver to remain noted in SB 294. Number 2180 MIKE CARLSON testified via teleconference from Delta Junction in support of SB 294. He indicated that he would like to be able to carry [a handgun] in other states because he does a lot of traveling and anything that can be done to lessen the burden of obtaining a permit in other states should be considered. He mentioned that if Alaska has to accept other states' permits, he would like to see that done here in order to carry [a handgun] in other states. Number 2228 DANIEL DAVIS testified via teleconference from Delta Junction in agreement with SB 294. He remarked that he has a "concealed carry" permit and appreciates having it. The training that he went through was part refresher and part new, and he appreciates the training he received. He noted that his training had been with Mr. Joe Nava, who is an excellent instructor and has an excellent attitude. He said he agrees with testimony that day and appreciates Lieutenant Hudson's positive attitude towards the program. He said he travels occasionally in other states and, like Mr. Carlson, would like the opportunity to carry [firearms]. He indicated that he just likes the option in Alaska but feels that there is a greater need to carry [firearms] in other states; he would like to see reciprocity so that he can do so. Number 2298 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), a state affiliate of the NRA, said his association supports SB 294 and thinks five years' experience in implementing the law has provided the basis for needed improvements in the law. He noted that since Alaska's "concealed carry" law was implemented, the rates of several types of violent crimes have declined significantly; he suggested that this affirms the law's appropriateness. He also suggested that SB 294 carries technical cleanup to a logical conclusion: ensuring that law-abiding citizens can obtain a concealed carry permit with minimum requirements. MR. BISHOP indicated it is appropriate that SB 294 makes clear the standards for recognizing concealed carry permits from other states. He is concerned about the issues that Mr. Judy raised, he said, in that the legislature may get into a "black hole" in trying to effect written agreements with other states, and that should be taken into consideration when reviewing amendments to SB 294. He said no opportunity for delay should be provided in reaching agreements with other states as far as reciprocity goes. Number 2403 MR. BISHOP recognized that competency standards is an interesting issue. He said all responsible citizens want to make sure that people who carry firearms, whether concealed or not, are well enough versed in firearm safety that they are not a hazard to themselves or others. He added that SB 294 provides that the required course has to be approved by DPS, and it does include the NRA personal protection course, a very good course that is the basis for much of the instruction now; therefore, he does not see the need for additional requirements of competency. He suggested competency could be deleted and requirements simplified for people without sacrificing the assurance otherwise provided in statute for safety, knowledge and ability in the use of firearms. He said that with some of these amendments, Alaska can have a safe, sound and workable "concealed carry" law, and the NRA does appreciate the provision in the law that assures that people who are permitted to carry concealed [firearms] will not be precluded from doing so in municipalities. Number 2487 CHAIR JAMES explained that she believed that the original law, which recognized the NRA personal protection course as the course, automatically meant firing and showing competency. She noted that the cooperativeness of the DPS is an advantage to the legislature, she said, but she does not want to be caught unaware if a new administration comes in and is not so understanding. Chair James recalled that the previous administration had objected to the original "concealed carry" law but said it is easier for the legislature now because there is history to refer to now in regard to such laws. She emphasized that she would like to have the firing provision included in the courses; otherwise, she fears that someone might not learn firing because it takes a little more time. She mentioned that in order to cut costs, some courses may charge the same money and yet put people through quickly, short-circuiting the firing portion, if it is not required by law. CHAIR JAMES indicated that the handgun license need not show what the permittee is qualified to carry because people are not going to carry a firearm that they are not qualified to shoot. She asked Mr. Bishop if he would object if competency were required as part of the handgun course. She emphasized that it would not be a requirement of people coming from another state. Number 2622 MR. BISHOP replied that the NRA would not object to a competency requirement if the scope or definition of competency were clear. He asked what competency would require; how specific it would be; how restrictive it would be; and whether it would require, as it does now, different actions and calibers. He acknowledged that identifying action and caliber is an advantage regarding people who are minimally familiar with various kinds of firearms; those subjects are covered well in such a course as Joe Nava's. He suggested that if the requirement of competency remains open- ended in statute, then there is room for much difficulty because the administration will take a very conservative view in order to ensure that nothing goes haywire with the program. Number 2677 CHAIR JAMES agreed with Mr. Bishop. She said she liked the classes because the most important part is learning when it is proper to brandish a gun, and how to do it. People do not know the law, and it is very important to know when the concealed weapon can be used; however, her instinct tells her that there have not been problems with people who "carry concealed" doing wrong things. She said the good results tell her that people who want to "carry concealed" either already know how to use a gun or are planning to know how to use a gun; she indicated her belief that those people are not going to go out in public without knowing how to use their guns. CHAIR JAMES suggested the competency requirement is not necessary at all; however, the problem is getting support from the administration to obtain this kind of legislation. She reiterated that the more history available regarding the concealed carry law, the more support it generates. If she were to support changes regarding competency, it would be only to gain public acceptance. She asked Mr. Bishop if it has been cumbersome, inefficient or a burden to comply with the "concealed carry" law as written. Number 2778 MR. BISHOP replied that it is his impression that the "concealed carry" legal requirements have not been a burden in terms of Alaskans being able to obtain a concealed carry permit. However, the difficulty seems to come in comparing the requirements of Alaska to those of other states. CHAIR JAMES said she understood that. She suggested it is not necessary to indicate what action type and so forth on a permit because she believes that a person will carry a gun that he/she knows how to use. Having passed the test and obtained the license is enough for her. She noted that she has an amendment that would leave in competence with handguns as part of the course but that does not define what that means, and she thinks that should tell instructors that they must do something. Number 2854 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bishop if he would agree with the statement that competency has more to do with judgment than how a person aims a gun. MR. BISHOP replied yes, although he thinks that people have to have some basic exposure and instruction as to the appropriate ways to handle firearms. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he believed gun control meant being able to hit what a person shoots at. MR. BISHOP answered that he thought it was like beauty, "in the eye of the beholder." Number 2894 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that he has viewed competency as accuracy and being able to shoot what a person is aiming at. He wondered if the committee was ready to discuss the amendments. CHAIR JAMES replied yes and reminded the committee that Amendment 1 had been passed at the last committee meeting on 4/13/00; however, a full quorum was lacking [then], so she wanted to present Amendment 1 again for full committee consideration. Amendment 1 read as follows: Page 6, lines 13-14: Delete "shall be submitted under oath and" Insert "[SHALL BE SUBMITTED UNDER OATH AND]" Page 6, line 22: Delete "and" Page 6, line 23: Delete "[(5)]" Insert "[AND (5)]" Page 6, line 23, following "AS 18.65.720": Insert "; and (5) the warning listed in AS 18.65.710(a)(6)" PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Aide to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State Legislature, explained that Amendment 1 was to confirm other changes made in SB 294 deleting the sworn oath requirement from the application and renewal. She noted that the sworn oath requirement was burdensome. TAPE 00-35, SIDE B Number 2977 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 to SB 294. There being no objection, it was adopted. Number 2943 CHAIR JAMES announced there are some conceptual amendments to discuss; they are a result of conversations with DPS and some of the concerns she has heard. She labeled the first of those conceptual Amendment 2. She explained that it conceptually places the requirement for demonstrated competence with handguns back into SB 294. She commented that it was just a selling point with her. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested the amendment should say either the "successful completion of a handgun course" - which he likes and would not like to see totally lost out of SB 294 - or "demonstrated competence with handguns." He mentioned that demonstrated competence is probably almost the same thing as successful completion but, of course, it would be a bona fide, certified or qualified training. He indicated that he knew many people who he would like to make certain take a training course. Number 2852 CHAIR JAMES reassured Representative Hudson that the amendment [Amendment 2] does not remove that language from SB 294. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the amendment does take out the "successful completion of a handgun course" if .... CHAIR JAMES replied that the amendment does not take out the language because on page 3, lines 16 and 17, that paragraph is there to exclude "competence with a handgun" and add in "the successful completion of a handgun course" instead, but that "competence with handguns" is already somewhere else in SB 294. Number 2837 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 for purposes of discussion; he mentioned one of the "deletes" on lines 16 and 17, page 3. He noted that he liked what Representative Hudson had said; he agreed that if "successful completion of a handgun course or competence with handguns" were written in the amendment, that would give DPS a little "wiggle room" for reciprocity. He emphasized the importance of reciprocity, and he concurred with testifiers who want to carry firearms in other states, where he himself feels less safe than in Alaska and would therefore like to carry firearms himself. MS. PARKER indicated Amendment 2 deletes the change "successful completion of a handgun course," but said she was not sure if the sponsor intended to define "competency." CHAIR JAMES replied no and said Amendment 2 means that courses are to remain as they are in current law, not to allow somebody to come in and give a shorter course that does not include everything that the course has now. She mentioned that DPS is going to certify the current course anyway, but she is not sure DPS can do that if such authority is not written into SB 294. Number 2790 MS. PARKER remarked that if it is the intent of the committee to leave the law exactly the way it is, then other changes need to be made, which probably can be done conceptually. CHAIR JAMES affirmed that the intent is to let competency [standards] remain as written. She added that the committee does not want action type and caliber to be part of the license. MS. PARKER observed that if the committee wanted to write in "submits evidence of successful completion of a handgun course" or "provides demonstration of competency with handguns," as Representative Hudson had mentioned, and to leave SB 294 the way it was, that would need to be defined or it would be defined by DPS regulations. She stated that if the foregoing is the intent, then her explanation is the way to make the change; the other option is to write in "competence with handguns" and define that in statute but not require action type and caliber. Number 2691 CHAIR JAMES said she understood and believes that Representative Hudson read Amendment 2 as taking out the course and putting in competency. She suggested Representative Hudson would like to have it read "either/or," not realizing that Amendment 2 does not do away with the course. She said she does not want to do away with the course either, so having the course or competency is acceptable. She explained that in this particular case it is understood what the committee is going for. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN mentioned that he had suggested that Amendment 2 read "successful completion of a handgun course," which is already in the law, or "competence with handguns as provided in AS 18.65.715," so the committee can do one or the other. He indicated he had asked for some testimony from the administrator of the program as to whether those words would help with reciprocity. He emphasized that he is looking for a way to address the concerns of those who are worried about "competency" remaining in SB 294 and ensuring better reciprocity with other states. He remarked that if Amendment 2 accomplishes what he wants, he would be very supportive and thinks it would win support on the House floor. Number 2596 LIEUTENANT HUDSON indicated that he is afraid that if the language were to read "successful completion of a handgun course or competence with handguns," that might create some confusion as to demonstrating competency unless DPS writes a regulation that requires "demonstration of competence" versus what it is now. He agreed that such a regulation would allow people who were firearms instructors in the past or shooters to exempt themselves from actually taking the firearms course since the course talks about the laws and "use of force" policy. Nevertheless, he emphasized that he is afraid that if "or" is written in, then competence would have to be redefined to mean knowledge of the law as well as competence, because competence probably can be a mental attitude but also involves an accuracy issue in being able to hit whatever a person is aiming at. Number 2516 CHAIR JAMES clarified that she meant SB 294 to keep Alaska's requirements in this state exactly as they are except to drop action type and caliber on the handgun license. She emphasized that she had not wanted to affect reciprocity in SB 294. She remarked that if other people do not do it as Alaska does, that is not a real problem, but she wants Alaska to keep its current requirements. MS. PARKER suggested it does not matter what Alaska's requirements are because the statute requires four things that other states must meet to carry [firearms] in Alaska and be recognized by Alaska. She stated her understanding that the committee's intent in presenting Amendment 2 was to maintain the handgun course exactly the same way except for action type and caliber requirements. She recognized that the NRA personal protection course has always required "live fire" and that the students have shot on the range before SB 294 ever appeared. She said she had spoken with the bill sponsor about Amendment 2, and he did not think it was necessary but would not oppose it. Number 2428 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if language could be written in Amendment 2 that would say "pass a handgun course equivalency of the NRA" because the NRA course has competency. CHAIR JAMES voiced her understanding that such a phrase had been written into the original law and she thought it was still there, in which case she thought the committee was already protected. MS. PARKER responded that the law says that the department shall approve a handgun course, including the personal protection course offered by the NRA, if the course tests the applicants. Then the law lists four requirements: knowledge of Alaska law, familiarity with the basic concepts of the safe and responsible use of handguns, knowledge of self-defense principles, and physical competence with each action type of handgun that the applicant wishes to carry under the permit and the maximum caliber. Number 2381 CHAIR JAMES asked whether SB 294 does the above. Number 2353 MS. PARKER replied that SB 294 removes number 4 under Section 7 and then writes in "successful evidence of completion of a handgun course." CHAIR JAMES agreed and said SB 294 removes "the certificate must state the action type and caliber of handgun," and she does want that left out. People have to obtain a permit for whatever handguns they want to carry, but SB 294 does not say that they are qualified in any particular action or caliber on their licenses. She said maybe Amendment 2 is not needed. MS. PARKER reminded the committee that SB 294 does say that the course has to be approved by DPS. She suggested perhaps the committee would feel more comfortable by writing in "successful completion of a handgun course which includes live fire on a range," which would make it clearer that the intent was to include that requirement in the course. CHAIR JAMES said she is almost convinced that Amendment 2 is not needed. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed that it is not needed. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt conceptual Amendment 3 to SB 294(JUD), which read: Delete lines 7-9, page 6 (This deletes section 8 of the bill, removing any appearance of state employees on state time competing with commercial trainers.) Number 2230 CHAIR JAMES noted that SB 294 says "a member of the Alaska state troopers may participate in or conduct handgun courses," and one problem here is that DPS has already taken the position that people can do that on their own time. She noted that the existing administration agrees that a state trooper on his own time may train someone else, but she feels nervous after having suffered with DPS administration before the present DPS administration; therefore, she would like to leave the language in SB 294 but DPS would like to have it removed. Number 2178 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, explained that the "concealed carry" law went into effect in 1995, and troopers then were allowed to teach firearms instruction classes on their own time. He reminded the committee that in certain parts of the state, the trooper is the only person available to teach, so DPS would not object; however, he does not believe it needs to be in statute. MR. SMITH commented that he certainly does not want any implication that state employees might, on state time, be in competition with private instructors, and does not see the need for it in statute. He suspects that there is always the potential with the change of administrations that someone might decide that it is a bad idea, he said, but by that time there will have been at least eight years of this program. He prefers that the trooper stipulation not be in statute because he would hate for one of his troopers to come to him and quote statute saying that it was legal for the trooper to make money instructing in firearms on state time. CHAIR JAMES asked if a trooper could instruct in firearms off duty. Number 2144 MR. SMITH replied that "off duty" could be written in, but he sincerely does not see the need for it. He prefers that nothing regarding troopers working be put in statute. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the only reason someone might want to keep the wording is for areas of the state where there might not be a certified firearms instructor and residents might like to be able to carry concealed [firearms]. He conceded that Mr. Smith had a point in that these people could do this on their own time, after hours, if they wish. CHAIR JAMES noted that conversation at an earlier meeting indicated that SB 294 would allow the troopers to get some revenue. She explained that the administration does not want the troopers to be doing this and charging for it as troopers employed by the state. Number 2048 MR. SMITH commented that the money probably would never get to the department, so he just does not think it is a reasonable approach. He reminded the committee that the department would potentially be competing with private-sector folks if that were the case, and presumably the person would be doing that on duty. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned that if the committee is concerned about troopers moonlighting, the phrase "volunteer to" could be added on line 8, page 6, after the word "may"; that way, the trooper in some cases would be able to train people. He indicated that he does not see the fear or concern of this tainting the public view of the trooper. CHAIR JAMES requested Mr. Smith's response to the volunteer idea. Number 1963 MR. SMITH agreed that all of what Representative Hudson said is true; however, Mr. Smith does not think it needs to be in statute because the troopers have done very well off duty for the past five years. He informed the committee that he had absolutely no understanding of where the notion of a trooper working on state time came from, unless some trooper did not want to do it and had claimed that his bosses would not let him do it. He emphasized that no one has ever called him and asked him if a trooper could do this. Number 1931 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if there are troopers who teach a firearms course when they are off duty. MR. SMITH replied that he believes there are troopers who teach. LIEUTENANT HUDSON acknowledged that he does know troopers who have taught the concealed handgun permit course. For example, Trooper J.J. Johnson in Nome and Sergeant Bartellini in Bethel have taught the firearms course in their areas. Lieutenant Hudson added that he has assisted in classes across the state on his own time, as indicated by the deputy commissioner, and always accepts an opportunity to stand in front of a crowd of people who are positive toward law enforcement. Training by troopers has been done and is being done, and there is no reason why it will not continue if there is a need. CHAIR JAMES said her experience with the DPS administration has been good, and DPS wants lines 7-9, page 6, deleted; she thinks the committee should remove those lines. Number 1860 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN offered his view that SB 294 is saying that an Alaska State Trooper is a qualified instructor. He noted that if Representative Hudson's language is added - "may volunteer to participate in or conduct handgun courses" - then SB 294 is sanctioning troopers as instructors in remote parts of Alaska where there are no other instructors. CHAIR JAMES asked whether the proposed wording would prevent the trooper from getting paid for performing instruction. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that he thought so. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER explained that his point was that if these people are already getting paid for training on their own time, why keep them from doing that? He suggested the language should just be deleted, leaving a system in place that works. CHAIR JAMES asked whether there was any objection. There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON offered conceptual Amendment 4 to SB 294(JUD), which read: Amend AS 18.65.748 to read: A person holding a valid permit or license to carry a concealed handgun from another state or political subdivision of another state is a permittee under AS 18.65.700(a) for purposes of AS 18.65.700-18.65.765, if the person has not been in Alaska for more than 120 consecutive days; provided that the state or political subdivision of the state that issued the permit or license recognizes a valid Alaska Concealed Handgun Permit issued under AS 18.65.700. The Alaska State Troopers shall make a determination as to which states will be recognized in Alaska and provide that list to every law enforcement agency within the state. (This amendment will serve to increase reciprocal agreements with other states and afford the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to have their permits recognized when they are in jurisdictions outside Alaska.) Number 1757 MS. PARKER pointed out that the sponsor opposes this amendment unless some minor changes are made: insertion of a new subsection (b) on page 8, line 5, after (4); the addition of "permit holders from other jurisdictions ... (a)" on page 7, line 23, Sec. 18.65.748; and on page 8, line 5 at the end of "records search", the addition of "or". MS. PARKER explained that the sponsor of SB 294 is trying to provide two options: one for reciprocity and one for recognition. That recognition is the same for permit holders from other states after providing four clear requirements that other states must meet: a fingerprint check, completion of the firearm safety course, being 21 years of age, and being eligible to possess a firearm under federal law. She indicated another option is that a person could be recognized under reciprocity on page 8, line 5, new subsection AS 18.65.748(b), by inserting "will be given reciprocity with Alaska and provide" instead of "which states will be recognized." Thus, SB 294 will have a section for reciprocity and recognition that will give Alaska the broadest availability of permit recognition both in Alaska and in other states. She emphasized that the sponsor supports these changes. Number 1620 CHAIR JAMES directed members to page 8, line 3, and quoted: "(3) successfully complete some type of handgun or firearms safety course; and." She asked if it would be possible for someone to come to this state, perhaps from Washington state, without having qualified in a handgun course. MS. PARKER replied that it would be allowed if there were a reciprocity agreement with Alaska. However, if Washington state, for example, does not require a handgun safety course of its permit holders, then the person with a Washington permit would not qualify to carry [a concealed handgun] in Alaska under SB 294. CHAIR JAMES remarked that Alaskans cannot carry in Washington, then. MS. PARKER answered not necessarily because the right to carry [firearms] depends upon whether Washington accepts Alaskan permits, and that is up to Washington. Number 1551 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt the suggested changes. CHAIR JAMES directed members and Lieutenant Hudson to page 7, line 23, where it says "permit holders". She noted that a subsection (a) is added; and on page 8, line 5, at the end of "criminal records search", an "or" is added, and after paragraph (4), a subsection (b) is added, which reads as follows: A person holding a valid permit or license to carry a concealed handgun from another state or political subdivision of another state is a permittee under AS 18.65.700(a) for purposes of AS 18.65.700-18.65.765, if the person has not been in Alaska for more than 120 consecutive days; provided that the state or political subdivision of the state that issued the permit or license recognizes a valid Alaska Concealed Handgun Permit issued under AS 18.65.700. The Alaska State Troopers shall make a determination as to which states will be recognized in Alaska and provide that list to every law enforcement agency within the state. Number 1422 LIEUTENANT HUDSON said it sounds as if it will increase reciprocity for Alaskan citizens, and it sounds like something the department would like to do. CHAIR JAMES asked whether there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 4 was adopted. Number 1381 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move CSSB 294(JUD), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 294(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. HB 444-STATE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 444, "An Act relating to nongovernmental activities of state agencies, including the University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." [HB 44 was sponsored by the House Rules Committee, chaired by Representative John Cowdery.] Number 1299 ANNETTE DEAL, Researcher to Representative John Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, offered to explain changes in Version H, the new proposed committee substitute (CS). REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB 444, version 1-LS1177\H, Bannister, 4/13/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, proposed CSHB 444, Version H, was before the committee. Number 1257 MS. DEAL explained that the original bill had included a paragraph on page 5, lines 6-10, which specified that the competitive field bidding process would be used if and when an agency decided to hire a private person to perform an activity. This paragraph has now been deleted from the proposed CS. She mentioned that all language that pertains to the University of Alaska was deleted because the university does not fall under the executive branch and has a very progressive attitude towards identifying outsourcing possibilities. She indicated that paragraph (e) under the "Challenge and appeal" section, found on page 4, line 9, was modified to include allowance for a person to appeal a decision to a superior court. She informed the committee that the allowance already applied, but it becomes clear that everyone has a constitutional right to go to court by adding this language. Number 1124 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move CSHB 444, version 1- LS1177\H, Bannister, 4/13/00, out of committee with individual recommendations and no fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 444(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.