Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120

03/25/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved CSHB 251(JUD) Out of Committee
Moved Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 408(JUD) Out of Committee
<Bill Hearing Rescheduled from 03/24/10>
             HB 408 - MISCONDUCT INVOLVING WEAPONS                                                                          
1:50:57 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR RAMRAS announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  408, "An  Act relating  to misconduct  involving                                                               
1:51:46 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR RAMRAS [moved  to adopt] the committee  substitute (CS) for                                                               
HB  408,  Version  26-LS1459\K, Luckhaupt,  3/24/10,  as  a  work                                                               
draft.   There  being  no  objection, Version  K  was before  the                                                               
1:52:10 PM                                                                                                                    
JANE  PIERSON, Staff,  Representative  Jay  Ramras, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, presented  HB 408 on  behalf of the  House Judiciary                                                               
Standing Committee,  which is  chaired by  Representative Ramras.                                                               
She directed  attention to  the following  changes:   The phrase,                                                               
"do not apply  to a person if",  has been added in  Section 1, on                                                           
page  1, line  6,  and page  2,  line  4; and  in  Section 2,  AS                                                               
11.61.200(a)(12)  was added  to  those statutes  to be  repealed.                                                               
She said  Version K would  return full  gun rights to  those with                                                               
pardons, set-asides,  or to  those who have  gone 10  years since                                                               
being let off from a felony.                                                                                                    
CHAIR RAMRAS reviewed  that the committee had  discussed during a                                                               
prior hearing  that unless there  is a perfect  alignment between                                                               
state and federal law, then  the federal law preempts people from                                                               
getting their full rights back.   He asked Ms. Pierson if that is                                                               
the gist of the alignment that the bill would reestablish.                                                                      
MS. PIERSON answered that is correct.                                                                                           
1:53:40 PM                                                                                                                    
BRIAN  JUDY,  Lobbyist,  National Rifle  Association  of  America                                                               
(NRA),  urged support  of HB  408.   He attempted  to assure  the                                                               
committee that HB  408 would not restore firearms to  felons.  He                                                               
said it is  already the policy of the State  of Alaska to restore                                                               
firearm rights to former offenders.   The right to possess rifles                                                               
and shotguns  is restored upon their  release from incarceration,                                                               
while the  right to  possess handguns is  restored if  the person                                                               
receives a  pardon, set-aside, or  "by operation of law  after 10                                                               
years  from  their unconditional  discharge."    With a  person's                                                               
right  to possess  a  handgun  comes his/her  right  to carry  it                                                               
openly  anywhere in  the state.   However,  carrying a  concealed                                                               
handgun  after a  pardon,  set-aside, or  the  10-year period  is                                                               
limited to home  property and lawful outdoor activity.   He noted                                                               
that 95 percent or more of  a person's rights are restored by the                                                               
state.   Currently the  only real restriction  in current  law is                                                               
that a person who has had  his/her rights restored cannot cover a                                                               
handgun.    He  noted  that   a  former  offender,  upon  his/her                                                               
unconditional discharge  is also  given back voting  rights, jury                                                               
rights, and the right to hold public office.                                                                                    
MR.  JUDY  said  that  because of  a  technical  and  complicated                                                               
interaction  between state  and federal  law and  a U.S.  Supreme                                                               
Court decision, Caron v. United  States, persons who have had all                                                             
these  rights restored  by  the  State of  Alaska  are still  not                                                               
recognized  as having  any  rights restored  for  the purpose  of                                                               
federal law,  and they can be  prosecuted under federal law.   He                                                               
stated  that the  U.S.  Supreme  Court, in  the  Caron v.  United                                                             
States  decision,  held that  an  all  or  nothing test  must  be                                                             
applied, and  that any state's  weapons limitation  activates the                                                               
Uniform Federal ban on possessing any  firearms at all.  In other                                                               
words, unless  Alaska restores 100  percent of a  person's rights                                                               
related to  bearing arms, and  treats that person like  any other                                                               
law  abiding  citizen  who  never lost  rights,  then  under  the                                                               
federal law,  the person  has no  rights.   Because the  State of                                                               
Alaska imposes this slight restriction,  under federal law, these                                                               
individuals  have no  firearms rights  whatsoever, he  clarified.                                                               
The intent  of the  bill is to  facilitate the  implementation of                                                               
existing  state policy  and to  allow persons  whose rights  have                                                               
been restored by the state to  exercise those rights and not have                                                               
them  extinguished  by the  federal  government  - to  create  an                                                               
alignment between state and federal law.                                                                                        
1:56:44 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. JUDY said  there are two existing limitations  on persons who                                                               
have  otherwise had  their rights  to  possess firearms  restored                                                               
that  are  not imposed  on  persons  who  have never  lost  their                                                               
rights.    The  first  relates  to  a  person's  right  to  carry                                                               
concealed, which is  in AS 11.61.200(g)(2) and  would be repealed                                                               
by HB  408.  The second  limitation is that a  person whose right                                                               
to  bear firearms  has  been  otherwise restored  would  be in  a                                                               
position of  having to raise  an affirmative defense to  a charge                                                               
of either possessing a concealable  firearm or carrying a firearm                                                               
concealed.    Mr. Judy  said  the  bill  proposes to  repeal  the                                                               
prohibition  on carrying  a concealed  weapon, because  in effect                                                               
that  is  contained  within  the   prohibition  on  possessing  a                                                               
concealable  firearm.   In other  words, he  clarified, a  person                                                               
cannot carry  a concealed weapon without  already possessing that                                                               
weapon.   Repealing  AS 11.61.200(a)(12)  and (f)  and (g)  would                                                               
leave just  the prohibition  on possessing  a firearm  capable of                                                               
being concealed.   The bill would further propose  to "change the                                                               
affirmative  defend  for  that  crime   to  an  exception."    By                                                               
alleviating  those two  limitations  and  treating persons  whose                                                               
rights have been restored in the  same manner as persons who have                                                               
never lost their  rights, HB 408 would solve  the problem created                                                               
by the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court decision.                                                                              
MR. JUDY, in conclusion, offered  the NRA's hope that legislators                                                               
can  move beyond  the  perceived stigma  of  "giving firearms  to                                                               
felons,"  which  is   not  being  done  here,   and  realize  the                                                               
legitimacy of allowing persons who  have long ago paid their debt                                                               
to society  to finally  attain the  restoration of  their rights,                                                               
which  are   already  provided  by   the  State  of   Alaska  but                                                               
extinguished  because  of  the   interaction  between  state  and                                                               
federal law, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision.                                                                               
CHAIR RAMRAS  mentioned that  something similar  was accomplished                                                               
in the realm of a "minor  consuming" bill, only in that case, the                                                               
state was out of alignment with the federal government.                                                                         
MR. JUDY confirmed that HB  408 would create an alignment between                                                               
the state and federal government.                                                                                               
2:01:33 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR RAMRAS noted  that Representative Stoltze had  brought up a                                                               
concern regarding reciprocity with eight other states.                                                                          
MR. JUDY opined that there should  not be a concern because there                                                               
are already differences between  various states' statutes related                                                               
to  this  issue, but  many  states  already recognize  all  other                                                               
states' permits.   The only  potential problem, he  surmised, may                                                               
be  where a  state  has conditional  recognition,  in which  that                                                               
state will recognize  another state whose laws  are comparable to                                                               
its own.   He explained that  those states may have  a problem if                                                               
their  issuance  rules  do  not  permit a  person  who  has  been                                                               
convicted of a  felony [to get a gun permit].   He indicated that                                                               
there  are  eight such  states,  including  Arizona and  Montana;                                                               
however,  he  noted that  Montana  will  issue permits  to  those                                                               
people whose rights  have been restored.  The  other seven states                                                               
that fall into the  two criteria - will not issue  a permit for a                                                               
felony  and   only  recognize  states  with   comparable  laws  -                                                               
currently recognize  Montana's permits.   He concluded,  "So, the                                                               
other state  ... that  does what  we're proposing  to do  here is                                                               
recognized by  virtually every state  out there,  including those                                                               
states that have conditional recognition."                                                                                      
2:04:17 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON asked  whether,  under HB  408, an  Alaska                                                               
State  Trooper or  Alaska certified  local  police officer  would                                                               
"follow state  law ... under  these circumstances."   Further, he                                                               
asked  if, under  408, a  federal law  enforcement officer  could                                                               
approach someone in  the state and arrest them  for violating the                                                               
federal law.                                                                                                                    
MR. JUDY said  the point of the proposed legislation  is to align                                                               
Alaska's  law with  federal  law.   Under  HB  408, Alaska  would                                                               
recognize 100 percent of a  person's rights regarding arms, thus,                                                               
the federal government would completely recognize those rights.                                                                 
CHAIR RAMRAS disclosed  that Bill Satterberg has  done legal work                                                               
for him and is a friend.                                                                                                        
2:06:20 PM                                                                                                                    
WILLIAM  R.  SATTERBERG, JR.,  Attorney  at  Law, Satterberg  Law                                                               
Offices,  Fairbanks, Alaska,  testifying  on  behalf of  himself,                                                               
told  the committee  he has  worked as  an attorney  going on  34                                                               
years, and  he related  that 33-40 percent  of his  work involves                                                               
criminal defense, while the rest is  civil defense.  He said last                                                               
spring  a  client   plead  no  contest  to   a  felony  suspended                                                               
imposition  of  sentence  (SIS).   Regarding  the  term  SIS,  he                                                               
explained that  if a  person has  committed a  crime, there  is a                                                               
mechanism available in criminal  statute that allows the person's                                                               
conviction to  be set aside  if he/she complies with  the court's                                                               
conditions of probation.   He explained this  means that although                                                               
the  person  was  convicted,  the  sentence  was  never  imposed;                                                               
therefore, the  person is not  a convicted  felon.  He  said that                                                               
particular  mechanism  has  been  used   for  years,  and  it  is                                                               
beneficial  in  restoring  rights  to those  who  committed  non-                                                               
violent crimes.                                                                                                                 
MR.   SATTERBERG   said    the   aforementioned   client,   after                                                               
successfully completing his probationary  period, went to pick up                                                               
his weapons,  which had been  held for safekeeping by  the Alaska                                                               
State Troopers, and  he was told the Alaska  State Troopers could                                                               
not return the  weapons to him because he was  a convicted felon.                                                               
Mr. Satterberg said the man lives  in the Bush and relies heavily                                                               
on his  weapons for  subsistence living  and protection,  but was                                                               
told  the state  would be  breaking federal  law if  it gave  his                                                               
weapons back to him.                                                                                                            
MR.  SATTERBERG said  there are  many people  in Alaska  who have                                                               
committed drug  offenses, for example,  and have paid  their debt                                                               
to society,  but cannot get  their weapon rights back  because of                                                               
an interpretation that  the Department of Law is  putting on "the                                                               
statute  that began  last April."   He  mentioned letters  he had                                                               
written  to Attorney  General Dan  Sullivan  and Deputy  Attorney                                                               
General  Richard  Svodony  [included  in  the  committee  packet]                                                               
explaining why the  interpretation of the federal  law was wrong;                                                               
however, he said  because of a bureaucratic  roadblock nothing of                                                               
note  happened as  a  result  of the  letters.    He stated  that                                                               
[Version K]  solves the  problem, and  he said  he wholeheartedly                                                               
supports  it.    He  expressed   his  hope  that  there  will  be                                                               
reciprocity regarding  concealed carry,  and he revealed  that he                                                               
is a  concealed carry permit  holder.   However, he said  even if                                                               
there  is  no reciprocity  with  the  7 other  states  previously                                                               
referenced,  there are  still far  more citizens  in Alaska  that                                                               
need to have their firearm rights returned to them.                                                                             
2:10:56 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SATTERBERG,  in response  to Representative  Gatto, clarified                                                               
that an SIS  is "a legal fiction  of sorts."  He  said the person                                                               
is  technically  convicted  for  the  period  of  time  that  the                                                               
probationary  period  is outstanding,  but  since  a sentence  or                                                               
judgment  of conviction  is never  imposed, the  person is  never                                                               
really  convicted.   In  response  to  a follow-up  question,  he                                                               
clarified  that the  SIS is  not  the judgment;  the judgment  is                                                               
imposed at sentencing,  but ceases to exist at  the conclusion of                                                               
the SIS period.   He said there are some  people who should never                                                               
have their rights restored, but  he indicated that SIS people are                                                               
not among them.                                                                                                                 
2:13:08 PM                                                                                                                    
RON  STERLING  had his  testimony  read  by Wayne  Anthony  Ross,                                                               
Attorney at Law, as follows:                                                                                                    
     My name is Ron Sterling.   A few years ago I applied to                                                                    
     buy  two   firearms  and  was   denied  by   the  mixed                                                                    
     background  check.   This  denial  stems  from a  legal                                                                    
     problem I  had when I was  18.  My younger  brother was                                                                    
     found  by  an Alaska  State  Trooper  in possession  of                                                                    
     illegal drugs  and told  the trooper  that he  got them                                                                    
     from my room.  My  father allowed the Trooper to search                                                                    
     my bedroom, where  he found one ounce  of marijuana and                                                                    
     a few  pills.   The Trooper stated  that I  was selling                                                                    
     drugs, but  I told  him that I  was not  selling drugs.                                                                    
     My dad  told me not to  lie to the Trooper.   This went                                                                    
     on for  a long period of  time until I finally  gave up                                                                    
     that  I would  agree to  whatever they  wanted.   I was                                                                    
     arrested many months later  and charged with possession                                                                    
     with intent to sell.   I retained an attorney who, even                                                                    
     though I told  him I wasn't guilty,  at trial persuaded                                                                    
     me to plead guilty.  He  told me I would get probation,                                                                    
     and that at some point my  record would be clean.  This                                                                    
     happened with the State of Alaska.                                                                                         
     I've gone  to the  State Trooper headquarters  on Tudor                                                                    
     Road  and  gotten  a background  check  to  coach  high                                                                    
     school and American League in  baseball at Service High                                                                    
     School.   My  background and  check from  the State  of                                                                    
     Alaska shows  no criminal record.   After  being denied                                                                    
     by the next  people, I retained the law firm  of Ross &                                                                    
     Miner to  contest my case.   My attorney filed  to have                                                                    
     my record  expunged.  This  was approved  without being                                                                    
     contested.  After this court  approval, I again applied                                                                    
     and was  again denied  the right to  purchase firearms.                                                                    
     The  NICS [National  Instant Criminal  Background Check                                                                    
     System] stated  that it  is perfectly  legal for  me to                                                                    
     own, possess,  or use firearms  for any  legal purpose,                                                                    
     but because  the State of  Alaska didn't state  that it                                                                    
     was okay for me to  purchase firearms, they're going to                                                                    
     continue  to   deny  me  the  right   to  purchase  any                                                                    
     firearms.  This  is incredibly twisted logic,  as it is                                                                    
     legal for me  to have a firearm, but illegal  for me to                                                                    
     purchase one.                                                                                                              
     I am 58  years old.  I lived in  Soldotna for 11 years;                                                                    
     sold a  home; bought and  paid for a home  in Anchorage                                                                    
     where I  currently live with my  wife of 26 years.   We                                                                    
     have raised two  sons and a daughter.   I've worked the                                                                    
     same  job for  36 years,  paid my  taxes, and  voted in                                                                    
     every  election.   I work  with the  football staff  at                                                                    
     Soldotna  High  School  for  five   years  and  was  an                                                                    
     assistant  coach for  Soldotna  High School  basketball                                                                    
     team  for three  years.   I also  coached for  Soldotna                                                                    
     Little  League for  five years,  (indisc.) Rabbits  for                                                                    
     five  years,  and  Service  High  School  and  American                                                                    
     League  in baseball  for two  years.   I served  on the                                                                    
     executive   board   of    the   Anchorage   Independent                                                                    
     Longshoremen Union for  12 years.  By any  measure I am                                                                    
     a  good citizen  and  to  be in  a  position where  the                                                                    
     federal  government  can  continue to  penalize  me  40                                                                    
     years   after  the   fact,  using   twisted  Alice   In                                                                  
     Wonderland  logic,  is  a folly.    I  would  certainly                                                                  
     appreciate any  and all  help that you  can give  me in                                                                    
     this manner.                                                                                                               
     Sincerely, Ron Sterling                                                                                                    
2:16:40 PM                                                                                                                    
WAYNE  ANTHONY  ROSS,  Attorney  at  Law,  Ross  &  Miner,  Inc.,                                                               
estimated  that in  his  42 years  of practice,  he  has had  six                                                               
clients  that have  been affected  by  the federal  inconsistency                                                               
with Alaska  law.  He said  Mr. Satterberg has had  such clients,                                                               
and he  said he is  sure there  are hundreds of  others similarly                                                               
affected.  He urged the committee to support HB 408.                                                                            
MR.  ROSS,  in  response  to Representative  Herron,  said  under                                                               
present law,  Alaska State Troopers  and police officers  can use                                                               
federal law  to arrest someone  merely for possession of  a rifle                                                               
or  a shotgun.    He said  HB 408  should  correct that  problem,                                                               
because federal  law recognizes people's rights  to own firearms,                                                               
provided they  have gotten  their full  rights restored,  and the                                                               
proposed legislation would make that happen.                                                                                    
2:20:06 PM                                                                                                                    
ANNE  CARPENETI,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  Legal  Services                                                               
Section,  Criminal Division,  Department  of Law  (DOL),   stated                                                               
that DOL has a concern with  the bill because it believes that by                                                               
changing these  provisions from an affirmative  defense to making                                                               
the  law  not  apply  to  these people  will  make  it  extremely                                                               
difficult to  prosecute anybody for  being a felon  in possession                                                               
of a  firearm - even  people who have not  had 10 years  pass by.                                                               
Currently, the  defendant has  the burden  of proving  that those                                                               
circumstances exist.   For example, she  said, if a person  has a                                                               
prior offense, for  which he/she received a pardon,  then that is                                                               
information that  is uniquely in  the possession of  that person.                                                               
[Under HB  408], DOL would  have to disprove beyond  a reasonable                                                               
doubt that the  person did not have  a pardon or an  SIS that was                                                               
set aside.                                                                                                                      
2:22:59 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. CARPENETI,  in response to  Chair Ramras, offered  an example                                                               
in which, under current law, a  person charged with being a felon                                                               
in  possession  would bring  forth  evidence  of  a pardon.    In                                                               
response  to a  follow-up question  from Chair  Ramras, she  said                                                               
drug offenders  and others  in that  milieu get  guns one  way or                                                               
another - not necessarily legally -  and if they are found with a                                                               
gun by a police officer, and  the state wanted to prosecute them,                                                               
the state would have to prove that  they did not get a pardon for                                                               
the underlying offense for which they were convicted.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  GATTO  asked, "Isn't  it  impossible  to prove  a                                                               
MS. CARPENETI  responded that that  is the  department's concern,                                                               
that  the information  that  a person  has a  pardon  is in  that                                                               
person's possession,  and he/she should  be able to  come present                                                               
that information to  the court.  The same applies  to an SIS, she                                                               
relayed.    She  said  she   thinks  the  department  would  have                                                               
information  about an  SIS for  a conviction  in Alaska,  but not                                                               
necessarily  from  other states.    In  response to  a  follow-up                                                               
remark from  Representative Gatto,  Ms. Carpeneti said  by saying                                                               
that  these  provisions  do  not  apply  to  a  person  in  these                                                               
circumstances, the person would have  no duty to come forward and                                                               
say, "I was pardoned."                                                                                                          
CHAIR RAMRAS asked for suggestions on  how to make it possible to                                                               
"create this accommodation" without  compromising the work of the                                                               
MS.  CARPENETI   indicated  that  finding  such   suggestions  is                                                               
difficult, because the  state is dealing with  federal law, which                                                               
is  supreme  over state  law.    She said  she  does  not have  a                                                               
suggestion  at  this  point,  but  the  department  is  certainly                                                               
willing  to work  with  the  bill sponsor.    She emphasized  the                                                               
difficulty of this area of law.                                                                                                 
CHAIR RAMRAS concluded  then, that this is a  policy call whether                                                               
to  come up  with a  mechanism  to restore  rights for  convicted                                                               
felons who  have paid  their debts  to society  and then  have to                                                               
deal  with the  burden of  proving  pardons and  SIS claims  from                                                               
those from other states.                                                                                                        
MS.  CARPENETI  replied  that under  Version  K,  the  department                                                               
believes  that  it   would  have  to  "disprove   that  beyond  a                                                               
reasonable doubt."                                                                                                              
2:27:56 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. ROSS offered  his understanding that if a  person is arrested                                                               
and charged  with being a  felon in possession, then  the defense                                                               
would be:   "I'm not a felon in possession;  it's not against the                                                               
law for me to  do it."  He said he does  not understand the logic                                                               
behind the  argument of the department.   He said if  a person is                                                               
charged, he/she  comes up with a  defense; it should not  have to                                                               
be an affirmative  defense, because "the average  person does not                                                               
have to  come up with an  affirmative defense."  He  stated, "But                                                               
certainly if anyone is charged, they're  going to have to come up                                                               
with a  defense, they just  don't have  to prove their  aspect of                                                               
the  defense."    He  indicated  that  it  is  the  roll  of  the                                                               
prosecutor  to  prove  that  the   charges  against  someone  are                                                               
2:29:18 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SATTERBERG concurred  with Mr. Ross that anytime  there is an                                                               
affirmative  defense,  the burden  of  persuasion  shifts to  the                                                               
other side  to have to  come forward  with evidence to  prove the                                                               
allegations.  He  said when the affirmative defense  is made such                                                               
that a person  must provide proof of "the following,"  there is a                                                               
failure  to  realize that  that  person  is still  being  charged                                                               
initially.   The  government, under  constitutional law,  has the                                                               
burden  of  proof  beyond  reasonable   doubt;  however,  if  the                                                               
government  is going  to charge  somebody with  being a  felon in                                                               
possession of  a weapon, the  government should be  in possession                                                               
of the evidence it needs to  prove that case.  He interpreted the                                                               
testimony of  Ms. Carpeneti to  mean that  the state is  going to                                                               
charge  the  person, then  make  that  person come  forward  with                                                               
evidence to disprove  the state's charge.  He said  it is rare in                                                               
our society's system  that a person has to come  forward with any                                                               
proof; the person has constitutional  rights to remain silent and                                                               
the government  has the  requirement to  prove the  person guilty                                                               
beyond a  reasonable doubt.   He said  "our" position is  that if                                                               
the state does  not have its facts in order,  it should not bring                                                               
forth  charges in  the  first  place.   He  concluded, "If  we're                                                               
talking  about aligning  things up  with federal  law again,  the                                                               
problem is if  you don't do it  this way, you're going  to find a                                                               
disjoint between  the federal  law and the  state law,  and we're                                                               
right back to the problem that started this."                                                                                   
2:31:01 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. CARPENETI noted that under  current law, the fact that person                                                               
had a pardon is an affirmative  defense, and under Alaska law, an                                                               
affirmative defense is  one that the defendant has  the burden of                                                               
proof of  establishing.  On the  other hand, she said,  a defense                                                               
is a defense  that the state has to disprove  beyond a reasonable                                                               
doubt.  She  offered self-defense as an example of  defense.  The                                                               
bill  would change  Alaska law  from affirmative  defense to  say                                                               
that the  prohibition against carrying  concealed does  not apply                                                               
to a person  with a pardon.   She said that is an  unusual way of                                                               
drafting  [law], and  DOL's  position is  that  that, in  effect,                                                               
makes  it a  defense that  the  state has  to disprove.   So,  in                                                               
bringing a charge  of felony possession, the state  would have to                                                               
be prepared, as Mr. Satterberg  said, to disprove that the person                                                               
got a pardon,  and that pardon might have come  from any state in                                                               
the Union.                                                                                                                      
CHAIR RAMRAS  said this is a  policy call.  He  indicated that he                                                               
understands the  concerns of  the state,  but does  not empathize                                                               
with  the  department's  position,   because  of  the  compelling                                                               
stories he has  heard from Alaskans who have paid  their debts to                                                               
society and cannot get their gun rights back.                                                                                   
2:34:14 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. CARPENETI  said she understands the  confusion regarding this                                                               
issue, but the concern of the  department is, for example, that a                                                               
drug dealer who  has been convicted of an  unclassified felony is                                                               
still carrying  a concealed weapon,  even though that  is against                                                               
the law, and  if he is charged with being  a felon in possession,                                                               
the state would  have to prove that he was  not pardoned in other                                                               
states, which would be a difficult burden of truth.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO  indicated that  he cannot envision  a judge                                                               
saying, "We have to  do a lot of work on every  one of you guys."                                                               
He  said the  judge  would  simply make  a  ruling; however,  the                                                               
attorney  may say  the ruling  is  out of  order.   He asked  Ms.                                                               
Carpeneti if that is the scenario that is of concern.                                                                           
MS. CARPENETI answered  that a judge must follow  the law adopted                                                               
by the  legislature.  She  said the department's concern  is that                                                               
"saying that it does not  apply to people in these circumstances"                                                               
would  "make it  part of  the case  in chief  for us  to have  to                                                               
disprove."   She  offered her  understanding that  Mr. Satterberg                                                               
had just said as much.                                                                                                          
2:35:58 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  RAMRAS, after  ascertaining  that no  one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, close public testimony on HB 408.                                                                                      
2:36:13 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON moved  to  report  the proposed  committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB 408,  Version  26-LS1459\K,  Luckhaupt,                                                               
3/24/10,  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                               
the accompanying  fiscal notes.   There being no  objection, CSHB
408(JUD)  was   reported  from   the  House   Judiciary  Standing                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB408 Proposed CS version K 3.24.10.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 408
01 SB60 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 60
02 SB60 Bill L&C CS v. S.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 60
03 SB60 Sectional Analysis.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 60
04 SB60-2-1-021010-LAW-N.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 60
01 HB251 Proposed CS version E.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 251
02 HB251 Sponsor Statement.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 251
03 HB251-1-1-031110-CED-N.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 251
04 HB251-2-1-031110-DOT-N.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 251
05 HB251 version R.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 251
06 HB251 Support documents.pdf HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 251