Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

03/14/2018 01:00 PM JUDICIARY

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 3:00 pm --
+= HB 75 GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+ HB 355 FIRE;FOREST LAND; CRIMES;FIRE PREVENTION TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
              HB 75-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:52:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 75, "An  Act relating to gun  violence protective                                                               
orders; relating  to the crime  of violating a  protective order;                                                               
relating to  a central registry  for protective  orders; relating                                                               
to  the  powers of  district  judges  and magistrates;  requiring                                                               
physicians,   psychologists,  psychological   associates,  social                                                               
workers,   marital   and    family   therapists,   and   licensed                                                               
professional  counselors  to  report   annually  threats  of  gun                                                               
violence;  and amending  Rules 4  and 65,  Alaska Rules  of Civil                                                               
Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN advised  that his first set of  questions relates to                                                               
constitutional   questions  and   he  invited   Dario  Borghesan,                                                               
Department of Law to answer questions related to the bill.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:53:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked Mr. Borghesan  to provide his  perspective on                                                               
HB 75  as currently drafted,  and whether it violates  the Second                                                               
Amendment of  the Constitution of  the United States, and  if so,                                                               
to describe those constitutional issues.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:53:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DARIO BORGHESAN,  Assistant Attorney General,  Opinions, Appeals,                                                               
& Ethics Section, Civil Division  (Anchorage), Department of Law,                                                               
answered that under  Heller v. District of Columbia  554 U.S. 570                                                             
(2008), the  United States  Supreme Court  ruled that  the Second                                                               
Amendment protects  an individual's  right to possess  a firearm.                                                               
The Supreme  Court has not  weighed in on the  (indisc.) standard                                                               
for judging whether  a firearm law is consistent  with the Second                                                               
Amendment.    He pointed  out  that  without that  guidance,  the                                                               
federal circuit  courts have mostly  upheld the various  types of                                                               
firearm restrictions,  such as laws prohibiting  convicted felons                                                               
and  people with  domestic violence  convictions from  possessing                                                               
firearms.   He opined that there  is no decision reviewing  a law                                                               
exactly  like HB  75,  and  of course,  until  the United  States                                                               
Supreme Court weighs  in again on Second  Amendment standards, it                                                               
is  unknown whether  HB  75 is  constitutional  under the  Second                                                               
Amendment.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN offered  that similar  laws have  been passed,  but                                                               
they are not  identical to what is proposed  in this legislation.                                                               
He pointed  to the States  of Indiana, Washington  State, Oregon,                                                               
California,  and  Florida,  which  have  passed  a  gun  violence                                                               
protective  order  bill,  and  asked whether  any  of  those  gun                                                               
violence  protective order  components had  been challenged  on a                                                               
constitutional basis.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. BORGHESAN answered  that the State of  Indiana's gun violence                                                               
protective order law, which was  the oldest, was challenged under                                                               
the  Constitution  of the  State  of  Indiana equivalent  to  the                                                               
Second Amendment, and it was upheld.   He opined that none of the                                                               
more recent laws passed in  the states mentioned by Chair Claman,                                                               
have  been challenged  or at  least have  resulted in  a judicial                                                               
decision.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:55:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  surmised that  the State of  Indiana case  has been                                                               
published and it could be  reviewed while the committee continues                                                               
to review this bill.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. BORGHESAN responded that Chair Claman was correct.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked whether any  portion of the State  of Indiana                                                               
law was held  on constitutional issues or was  the entire statute                                                               
approved.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. BORGHESAN opined that the entire statute was upheld.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN asked  Nancy Meade,  Alaska Court  System (ACS)  to                                                               
explain the  current statutory  process and  procedures regarding                                                               
domestic  violence protective  orders and  how this  proposal for                                                               
gun  violence protective  orders compares  or contrasts  with the                                                               
current process.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:57:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
NANCY  MEADE, General  Counsel, Administrative  Staff, Office  of                                                               
the Administrative  Director, Alaska Court System,  answered that                                                               
the  gun violence  protective order  as  envisioned by  HB 75  is                                                               
clearly modeled  and drafted similarly  to the  existing statutes                                                               
on  both domestic  violence protective  orders,  and the  state's                                                               
other  categories  of  stalking  and  sexual  assault  protective                                                               
orders.   She commented that  those are "lumped together"  in the                                                               
statutes as there  are two procedures for  obtaining a protective                                                               
order.   She explained  that there are  three available  types of                                                               
protective orders for  domestic violence, similar to HB  75.  The                                                               
first protective order is an emergency  order, and in HB 75 it is                                                               
found on page  4, beginning at line 26,  [AS 18.65.820(b)], which                                                               
is modeled  closely on the  domestic violence language  with some                                                               
important distinctions that  she would point out.   The emergency                                                               
protective orders  are only good  for 72-hours and they  can only                                                               
be filed  by a peace  officer.   In the domestic  violence world,                                                               
this  type of  protective  order  is extremely  rare  as in  some                                                               
years, there are  five, or three, or one.   The second protective                                                               
order is  a short-term 20-day  protective order, which is  in the                                                               
domestic violence  stalking sexual assault  found in HB  75, page                                                               
4, lines 7-25  [AS 18.65.820(a), HB 75, she explained.   A short-                                                               
term  order is  ex parte,  meaning  that a  petitioner files  the                                                               
order and the  respondent is not present at the  hearing and does                                                               
not participate  in the hearing  at all.  For  domestic violence,                                                               
if  the court  finds  probable  cause that  a  crime of  domestic                                                               
violence  had  occurred  and  it was  necessary  to  protect  the                                                               
petitioner from more domestic violence,  the court must find by a                                                               
preponderance of  the evidence that  the crime happened,  and the                                                               
court can then issue that domestic violence protective order.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:59:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  explained  that  the  difference  here  for  the  gun                                                               
violence protective  order is basically  the burden of  proof and                                                               
the  finding.     She  referred  to  page  4,   lines  11-14  [AS                                                               
18.65.820(a)], and  advised that this language  matters mostly to                                                               
the court  when issuing an ex  parte order.  The  court must find                                                               
by  a  preponderance  of  the   evidence,  the  following:    the                                                               
respondent  poses  a significant  danger  of  injury to  self  or                                                               
others   by  possessing   a   firearm;   that  less   restrictive                                                               
alternatives  had been  tried  and were  not  effective; and  the                                                               
petitioner certified  in writing  that the  efforts, if  any, had                                                               
been made  to provide notice  to the  respondent.  The  key words                                                               
being, "if any," because in  the domestic violence world there is                                                               
typically  not  great efforts  to  notify  the respondent,  which                                                               
leaves basically two findings that must  be found by the court by                                                               
a preponderance of the evidence  for these protective orders.  To                                                               
contrast  that  with  domestic violence,  the  findings  for  the                                                               
short-term order is probable cause and  it is a higher burden for                                                               
the  gun  violence  protective  orders,  she  said.    The  third                                                               
protective order  is the long-term  order described on page  3 of                                                               
HB 75.  In the domestic  violence world, she explained, the long-                                                               
term  protective order  is  for one-year,  and  the gun  violence                                                               
protective  orders  would  be  in   effect  for  six-months,  she                                                               
explained.    Thereafter,  someone could  file  another  petition                                                               
shortly before  the protective order  expired and seek  to extend                                                               
the  order,   which  sometimes   happens  in   domestic  violence                                                               
protective orders.  Under HB 75,  the finding that matters to the                                                               
court is  on page 3,  lines 22-24 [AS 18.65.815(b)],  wherein she                                                               
advised, the court  must find clear and  convincing evidence that                                                               
the respondent  is a  danger to  self or  others by  possessing a                                                               
firearm in order to issue the  protective order.  She pointed out                                                               
that the gun  violence protective order standard is  a bit higher                                                               
than  the standard  for  long-term  domestic violence  protective                                                               
orders  where there  must  be a  preponderance  of the  evidence,                                                               
which is  thought to be more  than 50 percent assurance  that the                                                               
crime of domestic violence had occurred.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:02:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  explained  that  with  domestic  violence  protective                                                               
orders and  also sexual assault  and stalking  protective orders,                                                               
the petitioners almost invariably  apply for both simultaneously.                                                               
The court  immediately holds the short-term  hearing, without the                                                               
respondent  present,  and  may  issue that  20-day  order.    The                                                               
respondent  must have  10-days'  notice of  the  hearing, and  at                                                               
least 10-days  later the  court holds a  long-term hearing.   The                                                               
court may or  may not issue that long-term  protective order, she                                                               
related.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:03:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  commented  that  this  legislation  takes                                                               
property  rights   away  from  people,   which  must   have  some                                                               
constitutional  implications.    She  asked  whether  this  would                                                               
require counsel, and if so, there  is probably a fiscal note from                                                               
"somebody who is going to show up with a fiscal note."                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  responded  that  she  did  not  know  the  answer  to                                                               
Representative LeDoux's question.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  BORGHESAN answered  that he  would not  be able  to offer  a                                                               
definitive   answer,  and   he   opined  that   it  appears   the                                                               
representation  by  counsel  is  not  always  required  before  a                                                               
deprivation  of  property.    Except,  he  offered,  due  to  the                                                               
intersection between  the deprivation of property  and the Second                                                               
Amendment  rights, the  Department  of Law  (DOL) "couldn't  know                                                               
that for certain."                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:04:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  stated that  she would  like an  answer to                                                               
her question, or at least the best possible answer.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Mr.  Borghesan could offer more detail                                                               
on the question.  He then noted  that some years ago there was an                                                               
Alaska Supreme  Court case  that dealt with  the question  of the                                                               
right to counsel.  One of  the issues was whether a certain level                                                               
of  fine alone  was enough  to trigger  the right  to counsel  or                                                               
whether jail  time had  to be part  of the  potential punishment.                                                               
He opined that in that older case,  and at that point in time, it                                                               
was  determined  that a  certain  level  of  fine was  enough  to                                                               
trigger a  right to  counsel.   He noted that  his memory  may be                                                               
unclear.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:05:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  added that  no matter the  opinion of  whether counsel                                                               
was required in these cases,  she said she could envision certain                                                               
circumstances in  which a judge might  say that that is  a right.                                                               
It could  be that the legislature  wants to deal with  this issue                                                               
here  and determine  whether it  wants counsel  to be  appointed.                                                               
The  problem being,  that if  no entity,  such as  the Office  of                                                               
Public Advocacy,  is charged  in its  statute to  provide counsel                                                               
when  a  judge determines  that  counsel  is  due, there  is  the                                                               
question of  who pays  and who provides  counsel.   She suggested                                                               
that possibly the committee would want to clarify that issue.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:06:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. BORGHESAN replied  that the Department of Law  (DOL) would be                                                               
happy  to  provide a  more  detailed  analysis of  Representative                                                               
LeDoux's question  as to whether  counsel would be required  in a                                                               
gun violence protective  order hearing, and he  will provide that                                                               
written analysis  at a later  date.  He  added that he  does know                                                               
whether  there are  some decisions  of the  Alaska Supreme  Court                                                               
that  specify the  level of  sanctions  it takes  to trigger  the                                                               
right  to counsel,  and he  will provide  a written  response, he                                                               
said.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:07:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN noted  his  interest in  the cases  where                                                               
there  may not  be a  right to  counsel, and  he assumed  in that                                                               
case, the  discussion was about  an individual  who is pro  se if                                                               
they  don't have  their  own  counsel.   He  asked  Ms. Meade  to                                                               
contrast the  burden of proof  to demonstrate someone's  level of                                                               
competence  to represent  themselves  in court  in  this type  of                                                               
hearing  versus  their  level  of competence  to  own  their  own                                                               
firearms.   Which  one  is  more difficult  to  prove, he  asked,                                                               
because  it appears  that if  this action  is successful  and the                                                               
person is deemed not to be  competent enough to own firearms, are                                                               
they competent enough to defend themselves legally.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  pointed out  that  protective  order proceedings  are                                                               
civil in  nature and  they are not  criminal cases,  thereby, the                                                               
criminal triggers for  having court appointed counsel  are not at                                                               
play here.   For example,  in domestic violence  protective order                                                               
hearings, the  respondent is  not entitled  to a  court appointed                                                               
lawyer.    In  the  vast  majority of  cases,  in  the  long-term                                                               
hearing, no counsel is present  for either party even though they                                                               
are allowed to  hire counsel but almost never hire  counsel.  She                                                               
added that  for the gun  violence protective order, the  judge is                                                               
not making a competency determination,  competency is a different                                                               
set of  issues the judge  would review.   Whereas, for  the long-                                                               
term  order  here, the  judge  would  want clear  and  convincing                                                               
evidence  that the  person  is  a danger  to  self  or others  by                                                               
possessing firearms.   She said that she recognizes  there may be                                                               
some interplay about mental stability  or a mental state but, she                                                               
opined,  there would  be  different  facts at  play  there.   For                                                               
example,  in   a  competency  proceeding,  doctors   and  medical                                                               
professionals  are involved  and  that would  not necessarily  be                                                               
true in these gun violence protective order proceedings.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:10:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  said "in  these types of  hearings" would                                                               
Ms. Meade say that competency hearings are most likely ...                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  interjected that when Representative  Eastman says,                                                               
"these types of hearings," Ms.  Meade had offered three different                                                               
types of  hearings and asked him  to clarify the type  of hearing                                                               
within which  he was referring.   A competency hearing is  a very                                                               
different  hearing than  a  domestic violence  hearing  or a  gun                                                               
violence protective order hearing, he remarked.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN clarified  that  the type  of hearing  is                                                               
where someone would  potentially lose the right  to possess their                                                               
firearms.   He  asked  whether  there is  an  expectation on  Ms.                                                               
Meade's  part that  a significant  number of  competency hearings                                                               
would be involved in furthering  this process or would competency                                                               
hearings probably not be a significant occurrence.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE reiterated  that she  would not  anticipate competency                                                               
hearings  because  those  hearings  are  for  criminal  cases  to                                                               
determine whether  a defendant is competent  to defend themselves                                                               
without  an  attorney   in  a  criminal  action.     She  further                                                               
reiterated that  under HB 75, where  it is a civil  action, there                                                               
would  not  be a  determination  as  to  whether the  person  was                                                               
capable  of  expressing  themselves  appropriately  in  order  to                                                               
defend  themselves  and  opined  that   these  do  not  tie  into                                                               
competency hearings.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:11:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  noted that  in the event  this protective                                                               
order is  granted and someone is  to turn in their  firearms, but                                                               
they  do not  turn  in their  guns.   At  that  point, he  asked,                                                               
whether it might  move into a criminal matter  where a competency                                                               
hearing might be appropriate.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  replied that  in the  event the  person does  not obey                                                               
that court  order, it could  be that law enforcement  initiates a                                                               
criminal   complaint  for   violating  the   provisions  of   the                                                               
protective order, and this bill  adds that violating one of these                                                               
protective  orders   is  a  crime   as  well.     Therefore,  law                                                               
enforcement could  initiate a criminal action  against the person                                                               
for failure  to follow  a protective  order and  that would  be a                                                               
whole separate  criminal action.   Perhaps,  in that  case, there                                                               
could be competency issues or  perhaps not because there are only                                                               
competency issues  when the person wants  to represent themselves                                                               
or there is a dispute regarding their competency.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:12:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES surmised  that  a  person's gun  ownership                                                               
could be  at risk if  they have  a domestic violence  order filed                                                               
against them.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  responded that Representative  Stutes was  not exactly                                                               
correct because she was only  trying to compare the existing laws                                                               
on domestic  violence to this  brand-new gun  violence protective                                                               
order.    Another testifier  had  advised  that  if a  person  is                                                               
convicted of  a crime of  domestic violence, their  gun ownership                                                               
rights come into play.  She  reiterated that these are not crimes                                                               
whatsoever,  these  are  simply  civil protective  orders  and  a                                                               
district  attorney is  not involved.   This  is a  citizen versus                                                               
citizen  to get  protective  orders and  they  are not  criminal.                                                               
This  discussion is  not  about  being convicted  of  a crime  of                                                               
domestic violence  and possible  gun ownership issues  that might                                                               
come into play.   As to domestic violence  protective orders, she                                                               
explained that under statute, if  a woman, for example, says that                                                               
her brother committed a crime  of domestic violence and therefore                                                               
she wants  to be  protected.  In  the civil arena,  if a  gun was                                                               
used or is alleged to have been  used, or if the judge finds that                                                               
a gun was  used during that crime of domestic  violence, it could                                                               
be that  the domestic violence  protective order might  read that                                                               
the person  cannot have firearms.   She pointed out that  that is                                                               
not  terribly common  and it  can  only happen  at the  long-term                                                               
hearing phase and not the earlier  phase.  Ms. Meade related that                                                               
that information  might be merely  confusing and not  as relevant                                                               
to  these   protective  orders,  which  would   be  solely  about                                                               
firearms.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:15:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN,  in response to Representative  Reinbold, explained                                                               
that people  from the  Department of Law  (DOL) are  available to                                                               
discuss  other matters,  and   Ms. Meade  is available  solely to                                                               
compare and contrast the domestic  violence protective order with                                                               
the gun violence protective order.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   REINBOLD  said   she  has   questions  regarding                                                               
amending the  Alaska Rules  of Civil Procedure,  Rules 4  and 65,                                                               
and the  Alaska Rules of  Administration, Rule 9, located  in the                                                               
title of the bill.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE advised  that those are indirect  court rule amendments                                                               
and  opined  that  they  are not  terribly  consequential.    She                                                               
pointed out that the bill  indirectly amends Rule 9 because under                                                               
HB 75, no  filing fee shall be charged to  a petitioner who files                                                               
for a  gun violence protective order.   The Alaska Rule  of Civil                                                               
Procedure  4   has  to  do   with  the  service  of   process  on                                                               
individuals.   This bill reads  that law enforcement  shall serve                                                               
any order upon  the respondent and therefore that  is an indirect                                                               
amendment  of that  court rule  and not  terribly troubling,  she                                                               
said.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  about Alaska  Rules of  Procedure                                                               
65.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  advised that she  had forgotten exactly how  that rule                                                               
read, but  it is an indirect  rule amendment that usually  is not                                                               
terribly troubling.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:17:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD referred  to  Sec.  3 [AS  18.65.530(a),                                                               
page 2, lines 16-17, which read as follows:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
          (a) Except as provided in (b) or (c) of this                                                                          
      section, a peace officer, with or without a warrant,                                                                      
     shall arrest a person ...                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD requested  an  example of  why there  is                                                               
probable cause.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded  that this is a better question  for DOL, but                                                               
an officer  can arrest someone  or ask  for an arrest  warrant if                                                               
they have probable  cause to believe a crime  had been committed,                                                               
or if  they see a  crime.  There  are exceptions, wherein  if the                                                               
peace  officer  has  probable  cause  to  believe  that  domestic                                                               
violence  has  occurred,  or  the   person  violated  a  domestic                                                               
violence protective order,  or a condition of  release in certain                                                               
cases, they are  allowed to arrest without a warrant.   That, she                                                               
explained,  is long  existing  language in  the  law wherein  the                                                               
legislature's  intent was  that those  cases ought  to have  more                                                               
immediate responses by law enforcement.   She deferred to the DOL                                                               
on that question.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:19:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD referred  to  Sec.  6. AS  18.65.815(a),                                                               
[page 3, lines 12-14], which read as follows:                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
       (a) An immediate family member or a peace officer                                                                        
        who reasonably believes that the respondent is a                                                                        
     danger to self or others ...                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  asked  the  definition  of  "reasonably                                                               
believes."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE answered  that Sec. 6 is  the meat of the  bill and the                                                               
long-term protective  order.   She then referred  to [Sec.  6. AS                                                               
18.65.820, page  4, beginning  line 7] and  said that  the short-                                                               
term protective  orders "so this is  -- this is it."   The person                                                               
who  "reasonably  believes"  is  not  anything  the  court  would                                                               
enforce or ensure because anyone  can file anything and the court                                                               
can reject the filing.  She referred  to Sec. 6, page 3, line 13,                                                               
and opined  that the  legislature does not  intend for  people to                                                               
file for  these protective orders  frivolously or  without basis.                                                               
This language shows the legislature's  intent that only immediate                                                               
family members  should request gun violence  protective orders if                                                               
they reasonably believe this person is a danger, she explained.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:20:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that  the definition of family does                                                               
not include a girlfriend or boyfriend.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  replied  that  the  bill  defines  "immediate  family                                                               
member" which does not include a boyfriend or girlfriend.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:21:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered concern  that there is a loophole                                                               
for abuse and  asked how to ensure that  "reasonably believes" is                                                               
not abused and protect a person when  they may not be a danger to                                                               
self or others.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  responded that  the court  cannot protect  people from                                                               
filing  frivolous  cases, someone  might  file  for a  protective                                                               
order  without  a  reasonable  belief  other  than  for  a  noble                                                               
purpose,  and this  law does  not  stop that  from taking  place.                                                               
Although,  she advised,  it does  provide for  a hearing  and the                                                               
hope is that  the judge handling the case would  sift through the                                                               
evidence,  or whatever  is presented  at the  hearing, or  in the                                                               
petition, and  make the  proper decision  based on  the evidence.                                                               
She  said she  suspects  that  a good  number  of the  protective                                                               
orders will  be denied,  but there are  no repercussions  for the                                                               
filer.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:23:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  referred to  [Sec. 6. AS  18.65.815(b)] page                                                               
3, line 21-23, which read as follows:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
            (b) ... If the court finds by clear and                                                                             
     convincing evidence that the respondent is a danger to                                                                     
     self or other ...                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP, in  response  to Representative  Reinbold's                                                               
question, asked  Ms. Meade  to define  the "clear  and convincing                                                               
evidence standard" and what the  court would have to be convinced                                                               
of in order to meet that standard.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE answered  that there  is not  a magic  number for  the                                                               
different  standards of  proof.   Typically, a  "preponderance of                                                               
evidence" is more  likely than not, which means  over 50 percent.                                                               
For criminal  convictions, the jury  is supposed to  be convinced                                                               
"beyond a reasonable doubt."  She  commented that no one likes to                                                               
put a  number of  that and  she did  not know  whether it  was 90                                                               
percent sure or  99 percent sure, but beyond  a reasonable doubt.                                                               
Somewhere  in the  middle, is  "clear  and convincing  evidence,"                                                               
which is more  than 51 percent and probably not  90 percent.  The                                                               
judge must  have more  evidence than in  a regular  civil matter,                                                               
for example, and the judge then  has to make the finding that the                                                               
person  is a  danger to  self  or others  by possessing,  owning,                                                               
purchasing, or receiving  a firearm.  She said  that she imagines                                                               
it  would  be a  very  fact  laden  hearing with  the  petitioner                                                               
offering,  for example,  some  of the  threats  they heard,  some                                                               
steps the  person took,  and issues with  alcohol that  come into                                                               
play, because it would be a factual determination.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:24:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  asked Ms. Meade  whether she would  say that                                                               
that the "clear  and convincing standard of  evidence" means that                                                               
something is more substantially likely to be true than not.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE replied that that was a fair definition.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:25:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN  noted  that the  "clear  and  convincing  evidence                                                               
standard"   is  defined   in  the   Alaska  Civil   Pattern  Jury                                                               
Instructions.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded that she was unaware of that fact.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  offered that  if he was  correct, his  office would                                                               
make a  copy and distribute it  to the committee before  its next                                                               
hearing.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
4:25:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP referred  to  [Sec.  6. AS  18.65.825(a)(1)]                                                               
page 5, lines 16-17, which read as follows:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
             (a)(1) ... if the court finds that the                                                                             
      request is meritless on its face, the court may deny                                                                      
     the request without a hearing ...                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  asked  Ms.  Meade to  discuss  the  court's                                                               
ability  to   make  determinations  on  the   possible  frivolous                                                               
complaints that were mentioned earlier.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE answered  that this  provision comes  into place  with                                                               
modifications of an  existing protective order.   In that regard,                                                               
she  explained, if  a protective  order  has been  issued by  the                                                               
court involving the short-term and  long-term protective order, a                                                               
request can be  made for modification.  Most  often, she related,                                                               
the  request  for  modification will  come  from  the  respondent                                                               
asking  to, at  least, let  them have  a gun  because they  are a                                                               
security guard,  or it  was affecting  their employment,  or they                                                               
are in  the military, or for  some other reason.   This provision                                                               
reads  that  a  court  would  have to  hold  a  hearing  on  that                                                               
modification  request  within  20-days after  the  respondent  or                                                               
petitioner requested the modification.   Except, she said, if the                                                               
court  finds that  the request  to modify  the existing  order is                                                               
meritless, the court does not have to hold a hearing.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:27:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP asked  that  if a  protective  order is  not                                                               
under modification and a request is  made by a peace officer or a                                                               
family member,  could the  court still find  that the  request is                                                               
meritless on its face and not  proceed forward if the standard of                                                               
proof under HB 75 is not met.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE responded that when a  petition is filed, the court can                                                               
deny  the petition,  which often  happens with  domestic violence                                                               
protective orders.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
4:27:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked  whether Ms. Meade had  statistics on domestic                                                               
violence protective orders and the  number of times in which they                                                               
are granted, and not granted.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  responded that  she does  have the  statistics, except                                                               
they are  not in  a format  to submit to  the committee,  and she                                                               
could briefly explain the statistics.   Ms. Meade reiterated that                                                               
the short-term hearing  is held immediately and in  many cases in                                                               
Anchorage  it is  within one-half  an  hour, or  within hours  in                                                               
other locations.   The rate in which the court  does indeed issue                                                               
that  domestic   violence  protective  order  is   between  50-60                                                               
percent,  some  locations  happen  to   have  a  higher  rate  of                                                               
granting.  Generally, she offered,  that one-half of the domestic                                                               
violence  protective orders  are granted.   With  respect to  the                                                               
long-term order,  the grant rate is  approximately 20-23 percent.                                                               
The  reason  being  that  for   "a  huge  number  of  times"  the                                                               
petitioner does not  show up because the  parties have reconciled                                                               
or decided not to request a further protective order.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  surmised that the  lower rate includes  when people                                                               
come to  court for a  contested hearing  and it is  rejected, but                                                               
also in cases in which someone  filled out the form, checked both                                                               
boxes, and  did not  show up for  the long-term  protective order                                                               
hearing.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  agreed, and  she said  that the  20-23 percent  is the                                                               
grant rate, and other things  can take place including dismissal,                                                               
drop, or denial.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:29:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   asked  that  in  a   domestic  violence                                                               
protective  order  situation, what  happens  with  the burden  of                                                               
proof  if a  petitioner  filed a  gun  violence protective  order                                                               
against a respondent  and they did not appear at  the hearing, is                                                               
the clear and convincing evidence  simply whatever the petitioner                                                               
had  offered.   In  the event  the respondent  did  not have  the                                                               
ability to  take time off  from work and believed  the protective                                                               
order to  be frivolous,  would the respondent  have to  appear at                                                               
the hearing  in order to maintain  his right to own  firearms, or                                                               
would the judge simply look at the evidence.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE reiterated  that there  are two  different burdens  of                                                               
proof, it  is the  preponderance of the  evidence for  the short-                                                               
term order, and  clear and convincing evidence  for the long-term                                                               
order.   As to  the short-term order,  the respondent  is usually                                                               
not present and,  in all likelihood, there would be  little to no                                                               
evidence to  controvert what the  petitioner had stated  in their                                                               
petition under  oath, and  they are sworn  in when  they testify,                                                               
she explained.   As to  the long-term  hearing, the court  has to                                                               
find by clear  and convincing evidence, and it  would behoove the                                                               
respondent  to  attend  the  hearing  because  it  is  a  factual                                                               
determination.   In the event  only one side offers  evidence, it                                                               
would be  easier for the judge  not to find any  counter evidence                                                               
because the  respondent was not  there to present  that evidence.                                                               
She reiterated that  it is a factual determination  based on what                                                               
is presented to the court.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
4:31:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  whether  Ms. Meade  had ever  found                                                               
that with  domestic violence  protective orders,  it is  simply a                                                               
rush  to  the  courthouse  for whichever  warring  party  arrives                                                               
first.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE  answered  that  there are  stories  in  that  regard,                                                               
wherein a  number of domestic  violence protective orders  can be                                                               
abused  by some  couples  and some  individuals.   Possibly,  she                                                               
commented, that is  why there is an approximate  50 percent grant                                                               
rate, and the court deals with those situations as they arise.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:32:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   asked  how  often  the   court  ends  up                                                               
adjudicating two people who both filed for protective orders.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE replied that it does  happen and she does not have data                                                               
on  the  frequency,  but  from   conversations,  she  knows  that                                                               
sometimes there are more or  less simultaneously filed petitions.                                                               
She opined  that the statute  reads something about  dealing with                                                               
them one  at a  time, there  cannot be  dueling petitions  in the                                                               
same proceeding.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:33:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX surmised  that a  court could  conceivably                                                               
deal with the first petition  that was filed five-minutes earlier                                                               
on an  ex parte basis and  the person who filed  a petition five-                                                               
minutes later "wouldn't get to be there for the first one?"                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE  responded that she  does not  know the answer  to that                                                               
question.   In the event the  person was standing outside  of the                                                               
courtroom door waiting  for their hearing on  their own petition,                                                               
she  was  unsure  how  the judicial  officer  would  handle  that                                                               
situation.   She  offered that  the statute  she had  referred to                                                               
simply  read  that the  court  may  not grant  protective  orders                                                               
against the  petitioner and  the respondent  in the  same action.                                                               
She  opined  that she  unsure  whether  a  judge would  tell  the                                                               
parties to come into the courtroom  and talk it out and the judge                                                               
would then determine who deserved the protective order.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:34:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD offered  a scenario  where a  protective                                                               
order takes  place under HB  75, wherein a  man had a  Super Bowl                                                               
party, had  been drinking, his team  lost, and he was  grumpy and                                                               
angry.  At that time, someone  believed the person was possibly a                                                               
danger to  self or others,  so the protective order  was granted,                                                               
and law  enforcement confiscated  all of the  guns in  the house.                                                               
The home is now a gun-free  zone, the person is robbed that night                                                               
and there was  no way for that family to  defend themselves.  She                                                               
asked  Ms.  Meade  to  explain whether  there  is  any  liability                                                               
because  "the speech  on Saturday  night, I  heard 98  percent of                                                               
homicides were in gun-free zones."                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that the topic  of whether or not one of                                                               
these protective orders  creates a gun-free zone  is actually not                                                               
how the bill read, and that is  a question to be addressed by the                                                               
DOL.  Ms.  Meade could answer questions  about the circumstances,                                                               
but as to  the gun-free zone topic, he was  unsure that this bill                                                               
creates the gun-free zone Representative Reinbold had described.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what the  liability to the state is                                                               
if the legislature creates a gun-free zone.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE referred to HB 75  [Sec. 18.65.830] page 5, lines 27-31                                                               
through  page 6,  line 1,  and responded  that if  the protective                                                               
order is issued, the person must turn in their guns within 24-                                                                  
hours,  which  is  a  bit  different  from  someone  seizing  the                                                               
person's guns.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:36:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  said  that   "it  says  without  notice                                                               
they're going to take them."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE commented that in  any event, the person must surrender                                                               
their  guns within  24-hours.   As  to Representative  Reinbold's                                                               
question  regarding  liability,  typically judges  have  judicial                                                               
immunity  if they  act  within the  scope of  their  duties in  a                                                               
manner that  is not blatantly unreasonable,  judges are protected                                                               
from individual liability.   As to whether someone  could sue the                                                               
state,  she  said she  did  not  feel  qualified to  answer  that                                                               
question.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD added  that  "Let's just  say they  went                                                               
walking  outside, they  don't have  guns  to protect  themselves,                                                               
they got attacked by  a bear."  She said her  point was the right                                                               
to defend themselves.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out  that Representative Reinbold's question                                                               
was  more about  the  constitutional right  discussion that  took                                                               
place with the  attorney general and this line  of questioning is                                                               
beyond the scope of what the court system is here to address.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MEADE answered  that she  does not  have an  opinion on  the                                                               
constitutionality,  or the  risks, or  the liability  involved in                                                               
Representative  Reinbold's  scenario.   She  commented  that  the                                                               
court system is neutral on HB 75.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:38:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  surmised that if someone  living in rural                                                               
Alaska  was to  receive this  protective order  against them  and                                                               
their firearms  were confiscated, and  they were eaten by  a bear                                                               
or a wolf, the state would incur no liability.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MS. MEADE deferred to the Department of Law (DOL).                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that Representative  Eastman was  well beyond                                                               
the areas within which the  committee had requested comments from                                                               
the court system.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
4:39:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  asked whether  anyone would  be testifying                                                               
to explain how the  bill may work in practice.   She said she was                                                               
trying  to   determine  whether,   when  someone   receives  this                                                               
protective order,  they specify  by serial  number how  many guns                                                               
are in the house, the type,  or the make, because it appears that                                                               
all the person has  to do is come back and  say that "he's gotten                                                               
rid of all of the guns."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that depending  on what is accomplished today,                                                               
the committee could continue these  discussions on Friday because                                                               
these  questions may  be better  directed to  law enforcement  or                                                               
organizations involved with domestic violence issues.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Stacie Kraly to  respond to how a gun violence                                                               
protective  order  relates to  a  civil  commitment motion  under                                                               
Title 47.   He noted  that he  is particularly interested  in the                                                               
following: who decides whether a  person meets the legal standard                                                               
for    civil     commitment;    what     is    the     role    of                                                               
psychiatrists/psychologists and  others in the  civil commitment;                                                               
and  whether that  plays a  part in  the gun  violence protective                                                               
orders under HB 75.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:41:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STACIE  KRALY,   Chief  Assistant  Attorney   General,  Statewide                                                               
Section  Supervisor,  Human   Services  Section,  Civil  Division                                                               
(Juneau), Department of Law, opined  that there is not a parallel                                                               
as  to this  particular statute  in the  sense that  they do  not                                                               
interact with each other.   She explained that a civil commitment                                                               
can  only be  granted in  the State  of Alaska  when a  person is                                                               
suffering  from   a  diagnosable  mental  illness,   through  the                                                               
Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel  of Mental Disorders (DSM), and                                                               
it has been alleged that they are  a threat to self or others, or                                                               
that they are  gravely disabled, both of which  are defined under                                                               
Title 47.30.   In the context  of a civil commitment,  there is a                                                               
two-pronged  approach  not  unlike the  protective  order  issue.                                                               
There is the ex parte phase  where an individual suffering from a                                                               
mental illness meets the criteria of  threat to self or others or                                                               
is gravely  disabled.  She  explained that any individual  in the                                                               
State of Alaska  can contact the judicial officer  on-call at the                                                               
courthouse and present evidence to  that officer as to whether or                                                               
not an ex  parte order should be granted, and  most generally the                                                               
contact to  the court is  by a community mental  health provider.                                                               
The ex  parte order  is a time-limited  order for  72-hours which                                                               
allows  an individual  to be  held at  a designated  treatment or                                                               
evaluation facility,  such as Alaska Psychiatric  Institute (API)                                                               
in  Anchorage  or Bartlett  Regional  Hospital  in Juneau.    The                                                               
person,  she related,  is held  up to  72-hours and  the 72-hours                                                               
does not include weekends or holidays  by statute.  In the event,                                                               
during those  72-hours, the person  stabilizes to the  point that                                                               
they  are no  longer  gravely disabled  or a  threat  to self  or                                                               
others,  or it  is determined  that the  person is  not suffering                                                               
from  a mental  illness,  by law  the person  is  required to  be                                                               
released from the hospital.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
4:43:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  explained that  during those  72-hours, the  person is                                                               
evaluated every  24-hours by the  community mental  health system                                                               
and  evaluated   by  the  psychiatrist   or  the   mental  health                                                               
professionals in  which the  person was  admitted.   During those                                                               
24-hours,  if  at  any  point   the  person  fails  to  meet  the                                                               
commitment criteria, the person must  be released by statute.  In                                                               
the event, during those 72-hours,  it is determined that a person                                                               
is not stabilizing and the  person meets the commitment criteria,                                                               
a 30-day  petition can be filed.   She explained that  the 30-day                                                               
petition must  be signed  by two  mental health  professionals as                                                               
defined in  statute, one  of whom  must be  a psychiatrist.   The                                                               
court is then  petitioned by stating that the  person is mentally                                                               
ill, is  at risk  of hurting  self or  others, and/or  is gravely                                                               
disabled.   That petition  then leads  to an  evidentiary hearing                                                               
before a  superior court judge  or a magistrate  judge, depending                                                               
on the person's  location, the person is appointed  counsel and a                                                               
robust evidentiary  hearing ensues.  The  standard for commitment                                                               
at  that point  is  clear  and convincing  evidence,  which is  a                                                               
higher level  of evidence that  the commitment criteria  was met.                                                               
In the  event the commitment  criteria was met, the  person would                                                               
be  committed for  up to  30-days.   She said  that at  any point                                                               
during  the 30-days  the person  stabilizes and  no longer  meets                                                               
that criteria  wherein the person  is no longer  gravely disabled                                                               
and is no longer  a threat to self or others,  the person must be                                                               
released from  the hospital.   As time progresses and  the person                                                               
does not stabilize,  a petition can be filed,  before the 30-days                                                               
is up, for a 90-day commitment  which is the exact same standard,                                                               
although, the person  is entitled to a jury trial  at that point.                                                               
At the end of the 90-days, a  petition can be filed for a 180-day                                                               
commitment  subject  to judicial  review  and  jury trial.    The                                                               
person has received  appointed counsel during the  process of the                                                               
30-day commitment and forward, she explained.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
4:45:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked Ms. Kraly  to compare the  difference between                                                               
Title  47  civil  commitment, and  competency  evaluations  under                                                               
Title 12.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY  responded that  the  Title  12 competency  evaluation                                                               
process is found under AS  12.47.100, which Ms. Kraly paraphrased                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     A defendant  in a criminal  proceeding who as  a result                                                                    
     of mental disease or defect  is incompetent because the                                                                    
     defendant  is  unable  to  understand  the  proceedings                                                                    
     against the  defendant or to assist  in the defendant's                                                                    
     own defense  may not be tried,  convicted, or sentenced                                                                    
     for  the  commission   of  a  crime  so   long  as  the                                                                    
     incompetency exists.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS.  KRALY added  that  within  that context,  the  issue can  be                                                               
raised that  the person  is incompetent to  stand trial  on their                                                               
behalf or  through appointed counsel,  or the court can  say that                                                               
it sees  some red flags  and it wants  the person evaluated.   In                                                               
the event that happens, the  individual is evaluated to determine                                                               
whether  they are  competent to  stand trial.   It  does not  tie                                                               
into, in any way, shape, or  form, a Title 47 determination until                                                               
it is  determined, by  a medical evaluation,  that the  person is                                                               
incompetent to  stand trial because  they do not  understand what                                                               
is going  on and they  cannot assist in  their own defense.   The                                                               
statute contemplates that the person is  sent to API for a period                                                               
of time in  order to restore their competency,  and if competency                                                               
is restored,  the person  can be  charged with  the crime  and go                                                               
through the  criminal proceedings.   In  the event  competency is                                                               
not restored and  it is determined, after a  period of evaluation                                                               
and  attempts to  restore competency,  that competency  cannot be                                                               
met, the  individual is either  released from  API or there  is a                                                               
provision  that  could  then,  by statute,  trigger  a  Title  47                                                               
evaluation.   The  statute  does  indicate that  if  a person  is                                                               
determined not to be competent  and they cannot be restored, that                                                               
it is  a per  se finding  that the person  suffers from  a mental                                                               
illness  and  they  meet  the   initial  standards  for  a  civil                                                               
commitment.   Which,  at  that  time, then  triggers  all of  the                                                               
processes  she  previously  identified  in  terms  of  the  court                                                               
appointment, the  evidentiary hearing, and the  person must still                                                               
establish all  of the  other predicates  for a  civil commitment,                                                               
she said.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:48:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX   asked  whether  all   civil  commitments                                                               
require a diagnosis of mental illness.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  responded that the standard  is that a person  must be                                                               
suffering from a  mental illness, be a threat to  self or others,                                                               
or gravely disabled.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:48:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  offered a scenario of  someone walking out                                                               
on a  high bridge and threatening  to jump off of  the bridge but                                                               
is saved by  law enforcement by grabbing the person.   There must                                                               
be some  period of  time in  which they  are committed  without a                                                               
diagnosis   of  mental   illness   because  it   is  presumed   a                                                               
psychiatrist is not standing there with the police, she related.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY agreed that Representative  LeDoux was correct, and she                                                               
explained that during the 72-hour  ex parte phase, there is still                                                               
a predicate that the petitioner has  probable cause to believe  a                                                               
person is suffering  from a mental illness.  It  may have been an                                                               
acute depressive  episode and the  person had not  been diagnosed                                                               
as a schizophrenic for the last  15-years of their life.  In that                                                               
context,  she  explained,  the premise  is  that  the  petitioner                                                               
advises  the court  that  it  is their  belief  that this  person                                                               
suffers  from  a  mental  illness   and  they  are  a  threat  to                                                               
themselves because they  were threatening to commit  suicide.  At                                                               
that point,  she noted, an ex  parte order is granted  and within                                                               
that provision, there is a  72-hour period not including weekends                                                               
and holidays,  to evaluate whether  there truly is  a significant                                                               
mental illness and  that the person is still a  threat to self or                                                               
others.   She  pointed out  that  there is  that initial  72-hour                                                               
phase wherein  the person can  be evaluated by a  psychiatrist to                                                               
determine whether the person needs to be further hospitalized.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
4:50:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX asked  what  happens  if the  psychiatrist                                                               
determines that a person is a  threat to self or others, but they                                                               
are not mentally ill.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  responded that that  situation does happen as  not all                                                               
civil  commitments  and  petitions for  commitment  are  granted.                                                               
Sometimes, she explained, they are  granted despite the fact that                                                               
a  person may  have  a  diagnosis of  a  mental  illness but  are                                                               
determined to  not be gravely  disabled.  The judge  can evaluate                                                               
and  determine that  the person  is not  suffering from  a mental                                                               
illness and  thus, there  is no  basis within  which to  commit a                                                               
person under this statute, she said.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
4:51:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a  finding could be made that                                                               
someone  posed  a  threat  to  self but  they  are  not  actually                                                               
mentally ill.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY replied that she believes  a finding could be made, and                                                               
the person is released.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:51:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD related  that if  weekends and  holidays                                                               
are not included, these people  could be civilly committed for 5-                                                               
6 days.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  responded that Representative Reinbold  was correct in                                                               
that  the individual  could be  in the  hospital for  up to  five                                                               
days,  but a  civil commitment  finding, a  30-day petition,  has                                                               
significant   collateral    consequences   to    an   individual.                                                               
Therefore, she explained,  the idea is to  avoid individuals from                                                               
being  civilly  committed and  to  provide  individuals with  the                                                               
opportunity  to recognize  the  issues in  their  lives and  make                                                               
their  own voluntary  decisions about  treatment and  commitment.                                                               
For example,  she said, in the  event the full 72-hours  were not                                                               
given  to a  person,  or a  person  comes in  on  Friday and  the                                                               
hearing is on Monday, the person  is not given the opportunity to                                                               
stabilize  to   the  point  that  they   avoid  these  collateral                                                               
consequences of  a civil commitment,  which could  have long-term                                                               
impacts on their employment and so forth.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:53:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD pointed  out that  she has  known people                                                               
who  were "put  into "McLoughlin"  and  they cut  off from  their                                                               
families which triggered distress,  anxiety, sleep disorders, and                                                               
so forth.   She  asked how  to define  the standards  of mentally                                                               
ill.                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  responded that mental  illness is defined  through the                                                               
Diagnostic Manual  (DSM) 5th  version, which  is a  compendium of                                                               
diagnoses that have been evaluated  and peer reviewed by a myriad                                                               
of   mental   health   professionals,   psychiatrists,   doctors,                                                               
clinicians, and so forth, who  have identified what constitutes a                                                               
mental illness.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
4:55:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD offered  that  "some  research shows  80                                                               
percent  of diagnoses  are  wrong," and  some  of the  acceptable                                                               
behaviors today were  considered mentally ill 50-years  ago.  She                                                               
asked whether "there is going to be  a standard or is it a moving                                                               
target" where there  are options to change the  definition by the                                                               
government.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. KRALY  answered that the  standard for mental illness  is the                                                               
standard that applies  to civil commitments under AS  47.30.  She                                                               
opined that  she does  not believe HB  75 contains  a requirement                                                               
that the  person be identified  as mentally ill.   This is  not a                                                               
mental  illness  standard, it  is  a  threat  to self  or  others                                                               
standard, so mental  illness does not play into  whether this gun                                                               
violence protective order can be granted.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:56:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN offered  a  scenario  where a  protective                                                               
order  was granted  incorrectly and  the person  should not  have                                                               
been issued  the order in  the first  place, or the  person fixed                                                               
whatever  was  wrong  and  the protective  order  was  no  longer                                                               
necessary.  He  asked how hard it  is for the person  to have the                                                               
protective order quashed.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out to Representative Eastman that as to a                                                                 
gun violence protective order or a domestic violence protective                                                                 
order, Ms. Kraly does not have expertise on that subject.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
4:57:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she is more interested in                                                                  
the definition of mental illness and would speak with Ms. Kraly                                                                 
after the close of this hearing.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[HB 75 was held over.]                                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB355 ver J 3.14.18.PDF HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Sponsor Statement 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 4/2/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Sectional Analysis ver J 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Explanation of Changes ver D to J 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Supporting Document-Expanded One Pager 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Supporting Document-Alaska Fire Chiefs Support Letter 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB355 Fiscal Note DNR-FSP 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 355
HB075 ver D 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Sectional Analysis 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Sponsor Statement 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article - Five States Allow Gun Seizures 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article - Missouri Case 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-The Trace Article - ERPOs Reduce Suicides 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Sandy Hook Promise Letter 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Sandy Hook Promise Letters (Part 1) 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 1) 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fact Sheet 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fiscal Note DHSS-EPI 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 2.28.18.pdf HJUD 2/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 3.12.18.pdf HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Opposing Document-Public Comment (Part 1) 3.12.18.pdf HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 3) 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-NYT Opinion - Mental Health System Can't Stop Mass Shooters 3.12.18.pdf HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 2) 3.12.18.pdf HJUD 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/12/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Sandy Hook Promise Letters (Part 2) 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Opposing Document-Public Comment (Part 2) 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB355 Supporting Document-Alaska Fire Chiefs Letter 3.14.18.pdf HJUD 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 355