Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

03/26/2018 07:00 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

Audio Topic
07:00:43 PM Start
07:01:15 PM HB75
08:32:42 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Please Note Time Change --
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
             HB  75-GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS                                                                          
7:01:15 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the only 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 passed gavel to Vice Chair Kreiss-Tomkins and                                                                      
presented the committee substitute.                                                                                             
7:01:51 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that the committee substitute is labeled                                                                 
30-LS0304\R, Martin, 3/26/18, and paraphrased the sectional                                                                     
analysis as follows:                                                                                                            
     Section 1.                                                                                                                 
     AS 11.56.740(a)  Violating a protective order.                                                                             
     Makes  violating a  gun  violence  protective order  as                                                                    
     described in section 7 a Class A misdemeanor.                                                                              
     Section 2.                                                                                                                 
     AS 11.56.740(c)  Violating a protective order.                                                                             
     Adds the definition of a  gun violence protective order                                                                    
     created  in section  7 to  the list  of definitions  in                                                                    
     Alaska's criminal code.                                                                                                    
     Section 3.                                                                                                                 
     AS 12.35  Search and Seizure.                                                                                              
     Adds  a  new  section  to AS  12.35  allowing  for  the                                                                    
     warrantless  seizure of  a firearm  from an  individual                                                                    
     believed  to  be  dangerous,   with  reference  to  the                                                                    
     procedures in  AS 18.65.815  18.65.845 in  the event of                                                                    
     such a seizure.                                                                                                            
     Section 4.                                                                                                                 
     AS   18.65.530(a)      Mandatory   arrest  for   crimes                                                                    
     involving  domestic violence,  violation of  protective                                                                    
     orders, and violation of  conditions of release. Allows                                                                    
     a peace officer  to arrest a person, with  or without a                                                                    
     warrant, who violates a gun violence protective order.                                                                     
     Section 5.                                                                                                                 
     AS  18.65.540(a)      Central  registry  of  protective                                                                    
     Adds a  conforming amendment to existing  powers of the                                                                    
     Department  of  Public  Safety to  add  this  to  their                                                                    
     existing   central   registry   for  a   gun   violence                                                                    
     protective order.  The registry must include,  for each                                                                    
     protective  order,  the  names of  the  petitioner  and                                                                    
     respondent, their  dates of  birth, and  the conditions                                                                    
     and  duration of  the order.  The Department  of Public                                                                    
     Safety shall  retain a record  of the  protective order                                                                    
     after it has expired.                                                                                                      
     Section 6.                                                                                                                 
     AS  18.65.540(b)      Central  registry  of  protective                                                                    
     Adds a  conforming amendment to existing  powers of the                                                                    
     Department of  Public Safety  to take  reasonable steps                                                                    
     to report that the  order, modified order, or dismissal                                                                    
     is entered  into the central  registry within  24 hours                                                                    
     after being received.                                                                                                      
     Section 7.                                                                                                                 
     Amends AS 18.65  to add seven new  sections. The likely                                                                    
     use of  the gun  violence protective order  starts with                                                                    
     an ex parte order under Sec. 18.65.820:                                                                                    
     Sec.  18.65.820.    Ex  parte  gun violence  protective                                                                    
     Allows  a peace  officer  to request  an  ex parte  gun                                                                    
     violence protective order. If  the court finds that the                                                                    
     petition  establishes probable  cause  to believe  that                                                                    
     the  respondent is  a dangerous  individual, the  court                                                                    
     shall  ex parte  and without  notice to  the respondent                                                                    
     issue a protective order. Defines  how that order would                                                                    
     be created.  Following the ex  parte order  and service                                                                    
     of  the  order, a  contested  or  20-day hearing  would                                                                    
     Sec. 18.65.815  Gun Violence Protective Orders.                                                                            
     Allows  a  peace  officer  to file  a  petition  for  a                                                                    
     protective order against a respondent if they                                                                              
     reasonably believe  that the respondent is  a dangerous                                                                    
     When a  petition for a  protective order is  filed, the                                                                    
     court shall schedule a hearing  and provide at least 10                                                                    
     days'  notice to  the respondent  of  the hearing.  The                                                                    
     notice  of the  hearing must  inform the  respondent of                                                                    
     the  option  to  waive  the hearing.  The  notice  must                                                                    
     inform the  respondent that if the  respondent does not                                                                    
     appear  at the  hearing, the  respondent will  have six                                                                    
     months to  request a  hearing regarding  the protective                                                                    
     order.  A protective  order issued  under this  section                                                                    
     expires six months after it  is issued unless dissolved                                                                    
     earlier  by the  court  at the  request  of either  the                                                                    
     peace officer  or the respondent  after notice  and, if                                                                    
     requested, a  hearing. A protective order  issued under                                                                    
     this  section   shall  prohibit  the   respondent  from                                                                    
     possessing,    owning,   purchasing,    receiving,   or                                                                    
     attempting  to   purchase  or  receive  a   firearm  or                                                                    
     If  the  court issues  a  protective  order under  this                                                                    
     section,  the  court  shall direct  the  respondent  to                                                                    
     surrender  to the  appropriate law  enforcement agency,                                                                    
     sell  to a  firearms  dealer, or  deliver  to a  court-                                                                    
     approved third  party all firearms and  ammunition that                                                                    
     the respondent possesses or owns  within 48 hours after                                                                    
     receipt of the order.                                                                                                      
     Sec.   18.65.825.      Modification  of   gun  violence                                                                    
     protective order.                                                                                                          
     Allows the  peace officer or the  respondent to request                                                                    
     modification  of  the  gun violence  protective  order.                                                                    
     Describes how to modify the order.                                                                                         
     Sec.   18.65.830.       Surrender   of   firearms   and                                                                    
     Allows   the  court   to   order   the  respondent   to                                                                    
     temporarily   surrender  or   sell  all   firearms  and                                                                    
     ammunition   within  48   hours  of   receipt  of   the                                                                    
     protective   order.  When   the  protective   order  is                                                                    
     terminated  or  expires,  the  law  enforcement  agency                                                                    
     shall  notify   the  respondent  that  return   of  the                                                                    
     firearms or ammunition to the respondent is available.                                                                     
     Sec.  18.65.835.     Service   of  process;  forms  for                                                                    
     petitions  and  orders; fees;  warnings;  notification;                                                                    
     and  pending civil  or criminal  actions. Requires  the                                                                    
     Alaska  Court  System to  prepare  forms  to file  this                                                                    
     protective   order,  without   charging  filing   fees.                                                                    
     Establishes that violating the  order is a misdemeanor,                                                                    
     punishable by  up to  one year  of incarceration  and a                                                                    
     fine of  up to $25,000.  Clarifies that  the respondent                                                                    
     is not entitled to  court appointed counsel employed at                                                                    
     the public's expense to contest the order.                                                                                 
7:06:58 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that under  Sec. 18.65.830, in the  event the                                                               
20-day order  is a contested  hearing, the respondent  would have                                                               
48-hours to turn in  their guns if so ordered.   In the event the                                                               
hearing is ex parte, a warning would not be required because the                                                                
officer would have already seized the guns.                                                                                     
CHAIR CLAMAN continued paraphrasing the sectional analysis as                                                                   
     Sec.  18.65.840.     Notification  of  law  enforcement                                                                    
     Requires the  court to notify local  law enforcement of                                                                    
     the order so it can be enforced.                                                                                           
     Sec. 18.65.845.  Dangerous Individual                                                                                      
     Defines a definition of a  dangerous individual for the                                                                    
     purposes  of  filing  a petition  for  a  gun  violence                                                                    
     protective order.                                                                                                          
     Section 8.                                                                                                                 
     AS 22.15.100    Functions and powers  of district judge                                                                    
     and magistrate.                                                                                                            
     Adds  a  conforming  amendment to  existing  powers  of                                                                    
     district  judges   and  magistrates   to  be   able  to                                                                    
     administer this  new gun violence  emergency protective                                                                    
     Section 9.                                                                                                                 
     AS  22.35.030      Records  concerning  criminal  cases                                                                    
     resulting in acquittal or dismissal.                                                                                       
     Amends  AS  22.35.030  to  add  a  new  subsection  (b)                                                                    
     stating that the Alaska Court  System may not publish a                                                                    
     court  record of  an  ex parte  protective  order on  a                                                                    
     publicly available website.                                                                                                
7:08:26 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  CLAMAN  explained that  the  uncontested  ex parte  orders                                                               
would not  be placed  on CourtView,  the contested  hearing would                                                               
appear on  CourtView if a person  was found, at that  hearing, to                                                               
be dangerous.                                                                                                                   
CHAIR CLAMAN continued paraphrasing the sectional analysis as                                                                   
     Section 10.                                                                                                                
     Indirect  Court Rules  Amendments    Lists court  rules                                                                    
     that are  affected by the  bill relating to  court fees                                                                    
     and the process for issuing protective orders.                                                                             
     Section 11.                                                                                                                
     Conditional Effects   Sections  1-9 of this legislation                                                                    
     only  take  effect  if Section  10  gets  a  two-thirds                                                                    
     majority vote of each house  of the Alaska Legislature,                                                                    
     which is required by art.  IV, sec. 15, Constitution of                                                                    
     the State of Alaska.                                                                                                       
     Section 12.                                                                                                                
     Provides for an effective date of October 1, 2018.                                                                         
CHAIR  CLAMAN  explained  that  the effective  date  was  at  the                                                               
request  of   the  Alaska  Court   System  because   it  required                                                               
additional time  to prepare the  necessary forms and  comply with                                                               
this particular law, should it pass.                                                                                            
7:09:22 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN  noted that  the three largest  changes in  CSHB 75,                                                               
are  that  Version D  allowed  that  individuals, basically  non-                                                               
police  officers,  could  apply  for a  gun  violence  protective                                                               
order.  Version  R allows that only peace officers  can apply for                                                               
the  gun violence  protective  order, but  the  public can  voice                                                               
their concerns to  police officers.  Also, he  offered, Version D                                                               
prohibited  ownership of  weapons, and  Version R  only prohibits                                                               
possession  and purchasing,  it would  not prohibit  someone from                                                               
owning weapons.   Essentially, he  explained, the state  does not                                                               
want to get  into the process of prohibiting  someone from owning                                                               
guns because when that order  expires, the person would still own                                                               
those same guns.  The third  change specifically allows that if a                                                               
police officer encounters an individual  believed to be dangerous                                                               
and is  in possession of guns,  the police officer can  seize the                                                               
guns without a warrant.   Subsequently, and within 72-hours after                                                               
seizing that weapon, the police officer  would have to file for a                                                               
gun  violence  protective order  to  explain  why the  guns  were                                                               
seized and submit that report to the court.                                                                                     
7:11:34 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN  moved to adopt  CSHB75, labeled 30-LS0304\R  as the                                                               
working document.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  objected because  he needed more  time to                                                               
review  the   new  committee  substitute  before   beginning  the                                                               
timeline on amendments, he said.                                                                                                
7:12:19 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that the  State of Indiana gun violence                                                               
protective  order  law  withstood  the  court's  scrutiny  [under                                                               
Redington v.  Indiana, 992  N.E.2d 823],  and Version  R contains                                                               
considerably more due process protections.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  commented that she would  have preferred                                                               
more time in order to review Version R.                                                                                         
VICE  CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  offered  his  understanding that  the                                                               
committee will  be working with Version  R for a while  in moving                                                               
7:13:31 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX commented  that she  sure liked  Version R                                                               
better than Version D.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES commented  that she  appreciates the  work                                                               
that went  into Version R because  she had had an  opportunity to                                                               
get her "two cents in" and the version was tailored nicely.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection.                                                                                
7:14:03 PM                                                                                                                    
A  roll call  vote was  taken.   Representatives Reinbold,  Kopp,                                                               
Stutes, LeDoux, Kreiss-Tomkins  and Claman voted in  favor of the                                                               
adoption  of  CSHB  75,   labeled  30-LS0304\R.    Representative                                                               
Eastman voted  against it.  Therefore,  CSHB 75 was adopted  by a                                                               
vote of 6-1.                                                                                                                    
VICE CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS passed the gavel back to Chair Claman.                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 75.                                                                                  
7:15:24 PM                                                                                                                    
STELLA  TALLMON, Sophomore,  Juneau-Douglas  High School  (JDHS),                                                               
advised that she  is strongly in favor  of HB 75 because  it is a                                                               
huge step  in the right direction  in ensuring a safe  future for                                                               
citizens and  students like herself.   She thanked Representative                                                               
Tarr for  bringing this legislation forward  because recently her                                                               
peers across  the country have  been speaking out about  the need                                                               
for  more  gun control  in  our  nation.   Through  the  national                                                               
student walkout and the March for  our Lives, the public has been                                                               
shown that  students are "sick and  tired" of being scared  to go                                                               
school due to school shootings  and regular lock-down drills that                                                               
have  become the  norm.   She advised  that Alaska's  legislature                                                               
could provide  as many mental  health programs as it  desires and                                                               
put metal  protectors in  every school,  but that  wouldn't solve                                                               
the problem that  guns do the killing  in the end.   The State of                                                               
Alaska's  current gun  laws do  not ensure  domestic tranquility,                                                               
they do not  provide for the common defense, they  do not provide                                                               
for  general  public  welfare.    Most  of  all,  she  described,                                                               
Alaska's laws do  not ensure the blessings of  liberty to receive                                                               
a public education  and not get shot in school  for ourselves and                                                               
our posterity.   She said  that she  speaks for thousands  of her                                                               
peers across the state when she  says, "enough is enough."  It is                                                               
time to  pass common sense gun  laws in Alaska, and  to please do                                                               
the right thing for  the future and vote in favor of  HB 75.  She                                                               
expressed that,  "We're saying  never again,  and we  really mean                                                               
7:16:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD noted  that  Ms.  Talimon had  testified                                                               
that "you  represent a lot of  kids" and asked whether  she has a                                                               
resolution, whether it  was from her classmates  or something she                                                               
worked on in school.                                                                                                            
MS. TALIMON remarked "Actually yes."   She advised that she is on                                                               
the  Student  Council  and  it  organized  the  National  Student                                                               
Walkout  a  couple of  weeks  ago  wherein hundreds  of  students                                                               
attended with community  support.  She stressed that  many of her                                                               
peers  have advised  her that  they  support gun  control in  the                                                               
state and in the nation.                                                                                                        
7:17:21 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether  teachers are involved, and                                                               
how many school shootings have taken place in Alaska.                                                                           
MS.  TALIMON responded  that teachers  are not  involved in  this                                                               
because  it is  the students  that are  coming together,  and she                                                               
could not  recite the number  of school shootings in  Alaska, but                                                               
there was  one in Bethel.   She  expressed that there  are school                                                               
shootings in the nation almost every  week and it is not safe for                                                               
7:17:56 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD related  that 21-years  ago there  was a                                                               
school shooting in Bethel and  asked whether she could recall any                                                               
other school shootings in Alaska.                                                                                               
MS.  TALIMON  reiterated that  she  could  not recall  any  other                                                               
school shootings in Alaska.   Except, she stressed, Alaska should                                                               
play its part as a state  within the United States to promote gun                                                               
control because this is what many of her peers believe is right.                                                                
7:18:37 PM                                                                                                                    
NOAH WILLIAMS advised that he  represents an over-looked angle of                                                               
this issue, which  is gun suicides.   There is a lot  of focus on                                                               
the gun violence  against others aspect, but the  majority of gun                                                               
deaths  in  the country  are  self-inflicted.   This  legislation                                                               
would not  solely allow  for the  confiscations of  people's guns                                                               
who are a threat to others,  but also themselves.  He opined that                                                               
the language will save a lot  of lives that society does not see,                                                               
and he  noted that it is  difficult to collect statistics  on the                                                               
lives saved  from measures such as  HB 75.  He  guaranteed that a                                                               
lot of students have  been set on edge by the  events of the last                                                               
year, and he  is one.  He  related that, previously, he  was in a                                                               
state of despair  and if he had  had access to a  gun he probably                                                               
would have taken his own life.                                                                                                  
7:20:37 PM                                                                                                                    
KERRI WILLOUGHBY  advised that  she has lived  in Alaska  for 15-                                                               
years, she is a financial  planner, a mother, and is representing                                                               
herself and other mothers.   Ms. Willoughby advised that her six-                                                               
year old son  attends Harborview Elementary School  in Juneau and                                                               
she is  one of the millions  of Americans who know  that thoughts                                                               
and prayers  are not  enough.   As law  makers, she  pointed out,                                                               
Alaskans  are counting  on them  to  make the  needed changes  to                                                               
protect  our children  from violence  in school.   She  urged the                                                               
committee to please support CSHB 75.                                                                                            
7:21:52 PM                                                                                                                    
HOLLY  HANDLER,  Attorney,  advised  that she  is  testifying  on                                                               
behalf of herself  and her family, and she is  the mother of twin                                                               
nine-year  old boys.   As  a mother  of children  in school,  she                                                               
advised  that active  shooter drills  are a  regular part  of her                                                               
family's   conversation   and    are   part   of   parent/teacher                                                               
conferences.  As  a constituent, she stated, she  not here asking                                                               
the committee to fix gun violence  in one day or one session, but                                                               
she  hopes that  legislators  will  consider HB  75  as one  step                                                               
toward  making  our  communities  and   schools  safer.    As  an                                                               
attorney, she  explained, part  of her  practice is  to represent                                                               
women in  domestic violence  protection hearings  and one  of the                                                               
scariest  conversations she  has  to have  with  clients is  that                                                               
after receiving a domestic violence  protective order, which is a                                                               
piece  of paper,  to discuss  safety planning.   There  have been                                                               
situations where an enraged boyfriend,  ex-partner, or spouse may                                                               
react to  the protective  order by  coming to  their home  with a                                                               
gun.   Oftentimes, she related, the  protective orders themselves                                                               
do not include provisions calling  for the forfeiture of weapons,                                                               
and  she has  clients who  are  terrified each  night that  their                                                               
former  partner  will  shoot  them.     Even  after  obtaining  a                                                               
protective order, and despite this  piece of paper in their hand,                                                               
they  are  terrified  of  their  former  partner  coming  in  and                                                               
shooting  them, she  reiterated.   Clearly, she  pointed out,  it                                                               
does not  have to happen in  our communities to be  afraid of it,                                                               
it doesn't  have to happen down  the street to be  afraid of such                                                               
situations because society  knows it happens in our  country.  It                                                               
is known that one of the  problems is that there are insufficient                                                               
protections in  place, and as  a mother and a  concerned citizen,                                                               
she asked the committee to please support CSHB 75.                                                                              
7:24:08 PM                                                                                                                    
JASMINE  LEREMIA, Senior,  Petersburg High  School, advised  that                                                               
she is in  support of HB 75  because it is one step  in the right                                                               
direction  concerning   gun  control   safety  laws   in  Alaska.                                                               
Although,  she related,  she would  like to  see a  bill directly                                                               
concerning  mental  health  issues  within  the  state,  such  as                                                               
helping  aid and  diagnose those  individuals with  severe mental                                                               
illnesses.   Throughout the  years in  the nation,  many children                                                               
have been  subjected to  mass murders at  the hands  of unchecked                                                               
rage and aggression,  not to mention that Alaska  has the highest                                                               
rate of  suicides per capita in  the nation.  She  noted that she                                                               
considers herself  lucky to live  in Alaska where  mass shootings                                                               
are not the norm, but she does not  want to wait for the day that                                                               
those shootings  are the  norm.   It is her  belief that  CSHB 75                                                               
could help  lead Alaska and other  states to a safer  future, and                                                               
she urged legislators to pass this legislation.                                                                                 
7:25:16 PM                                                                                                                    
ABBY HARDIE, Senior, Petersburg High  School, advised that she is                                                               
in support  of CSHB 75 because  it is a common-sense  measure for                                                               
public  safety,  especially  when considering  the  high  suicide                                                               
rates and domestic  violence rates in Alaska.  In  view of recent                                                               
and tragic school  shootings within the United  States, the March                                                               
for our  Lives and  student walkouts, she  opined that  this bill                                                               
would  be  a safeguard  in  ensuring  the  feeling of  safety  in                                                               
schools.  As a student, she  said that she previously always felt                                                               
safe  in school  with her  peers  and teachers  until the  recent                                                               
events in  the nation, and  now changes  should be made  so every                                                               
student feels  safe in the years  to come.  She  pointed out that                                                               
her school  has regular lock-down  drills because these  cases of                                                               
school shootings seem  so commonplace now.  As  to mental health,                                                               
she opined  that CSHB 75  is a step  forward in providing  a more                                                               
preventative measure  for public  safety and awareness  of mental                                                               
health, and  who should be  considered extreme risks.   She urged                                                               
the committee  to pass this  legislation for public safety  as it                                                               
does not  infringe on Second  Amendment rights  and it will  be a                                                               
step  in the  right  direction for  students  and general  public                                                               
7:26:39 PM                                                                                                                    
JOSEPH SCHLANGER  advised that  he represents  himself and  he is                                                               
against this legislation.   He opined that there does  need to be                                                               
some protection for the victim and  "that is already in there for                                                               
the protective order,"  in that a person cannot  possess a weapon                                                               
if they  have a protective  order against  them.  He  referred to                                                               
the Constitution  of the State of  Alaska, Art. 1 Sec.  14, which                                                               
read as follows:                                                                                                                
     The right of the people  to be secure in their persons,                                                                    
     houses  and   other  property,  papers,   and  effects,                                                                    
     against unreasonable  searches and seizures,  shall not                                                                    
     be  violated.   No  warrants  shall  issue,   but  upon                                                                    
     probable cause,  supported by oath or  affirmation, and                                                                    
     particularly describing  the place to be  searched, and                                                                    
     the persons or things to be seized.                                                                                        
MR. SCHLANGER said,  "You've got in there that  the peace officer                                                               
can  in there  and --  basically go  in there  with a  warrant --                                                               
without a warrant,"  and he asked whether that  language could be                                                               
changed.   He opined that  it is a violation  of Art. 1  Sec. 19,                                                               
which read as follows:                                                                                                          
     A  well-regulated   militia  being  necessary   to  the                                                                    
     security of  a free state,  the right of the  people to                                                                    
     keep  and  bear  arms  shall   not  be  infringed.  The                                                                    
     individual right  to keep  and bear  arms shall  not be                                                                    
     denied  or  infringed  by  the  State  or  a  political                                                                    
     subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]                                                                                   
MR.  SCHLANGER commented  that "You  guys"  are instituting  this                                                               
bill because they are over-reacting  about a school shooting.  He                                                               
opined that the people on the  side of the school shooting do not                                                               
want to hear what the other side  has to say, which has been seen                                                               
by the main  stream media and the State of  Alaska.  The governor                                                               
came out and  said that he is  with the students and  "he is with                                                               
this, with  taking our  guns.  That's  exactly what  the students                                                               
are  talking about  is wanting  to take  our weapons  from us  to                                                               
protect us."                                                                                                                    
7:29:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR CLAMAN, after  ascertaining that no one  wished to testify,                                                               
closed public testimony.                                                                                                        
7:30:07 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  offered  his understanding,  regarding  the                                                               
concerns of  the last testifier,  wherein any time the  term "gun                                                               
control"  or other  language is  heard, often  that means  solely                                                               
curtailing Second Amendment rights to  keep and bear arms.  That,                                                               
he  commented,  always  greatly   concerns  him  as  he  strongly                                                               
believes  that the  Second Amendment  was not  solely written  to                                                               
provide for  a military.   Ultimately,  he explained,  the Second                                                               
Amendment was to protect the  people from a tyrannical government                                                               
if necessary,  and that right is  unique to the United  States of                                                               
America.   It is  a false  dichotomy, he  pointed out,  that this                                                               
debate about gun violence often  boils down between those who own                                                               
guns  and  those  who  do  not  approve of  guns,  and  it  is  a                                                               
superficial argument.   The people who own guns  also deeply love                                                               
and care about children, and  oftentimes the message is that that                                                               
is not true.   He said that he is not  interested in limiting the                                                               
freedoms of  law abiding and  non-dangerous citizens,  and during                                                               
his  23 years  in  law  enforcement in  Alaska,  he enforced  the                                                               
provision of domestic violence  sexual assault protective orders,                                                               
which  are far  more limiting  than CSHB  75.   Domestic violence                                                               
protective orders forcibly  remove a person from  their own home,                                                               
forcibly remove their property and  vehicles, and if the court so                                                               
orders, the person's  firearms.  He offered that  those laws have                                                               
been  on the  books  for many  decades to  keep  people alive  in                                                               
volatile domestic  violence situations  and due process  has been                                                               
afforded.    He  related  that   he  likes  the  fact  that  this                                                               
legislation moves toward a time-proven  model of protecting folks                                                               
from violence.  Unique to CSHB  75, he explained, is that a crime                                                               
need not  have occurred.   He  related that  if someone  posts on                                                               
Facebook  several  times that  they  want  to be  a  professional                                                               
school  shooter, but  they have  not directly  depicted a  place,                                                               
time, or victim,  it is hard for the current  protective order to                                                               
work.    This   legislation  allows  that  some   action  can  be                                                               
undertaken  before tragedy  strikes,  for  example, when  someone                                                               
manifests verbal language or behavior  that they have [a violent]                                                               
intent and they  possess a firearm, makes them  likely to inflict                                                               
harm to self or others.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  explained that as  to due process, if  it is                                                               
an ex  parte order,  within 72  hours a  hearing is  ordered, the                                                               
person is notified and they must  respond to the court, a hearing                                                               
is  then  set  within  ten  days,  and  the  judge  will  make  a                                                               
determination based  on all of  the facts, sworn  statements, and                                                               
circumstances.   He opined  that this  process closely  mirrors a                                                               
current tool in  the law that is actually  much more restrictive.                                                               
Under this  legislation, at any  point, the court can  reject the                                                               
order if  the judge did not  believe the allegations rose  to the                                                               
level  of  the  dangerous  person  definition  provided  in  this                                                               
legislation, he said.                                                                                                           
7:35:18 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  stated that when people  makes statements or                                                               
post online  that they intend  to cause  harm but leave  out, for                                                               
example, the identity  of the victim and the time  and place, the                                                               
committee  does not  want to  stand by  and wait  for victims  to                                                               
stack up before  taking any action.  As a  parent of children who                                                               
have gone  through the  school system,  he wants  law enforcement                                                               
to, at  least, have the necessary  tools.  Version R  allows that                                                               
only  public  safety professionals  can  request  a gun  violence                                                               
protective  order  because  they  are  trained  to  look  at  the                                                               
evidence and facts in the law,  and what rises to probable cause,                                                               
he commented.  He described this  as a possible tool to implement                                                               
and put the  state in a better position to  protect our youth and                                                               
someone known to be suicidal  and obtain a protective order until                                                               
that storm  had passed.   Suicide, he  described, is  a permanent                                                               
solution to  a temporary  problem and  most school  shooters were                                                               
looking for  a permanent  solution to  a temporary  insanity they                                                               
were  experiencing in  their  life.   He  reiterated  that he  is                                                               
pleased  to  see  that this  closely  mirrors  domestic  violence                                                               
protective orders, which are far  more liberty restricting in the                                                               
law than this gun violence protective order.                                                                                    
7:37:26 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD noted  that  no one  wants  guns in  the                                                               
hands of  dangerous individuals with  the possibility  of harming                                                               
self  or others.   The  concern  is gun  free zones  and a  large                                                               
majority of mass shootings have been in gun free zones.                                                                         
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised that  HB 75  does not  create any  gun free                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD responded  that  when confiscating  guns                                                               
from  a household,  business, and  so forth,  technically it  can                                                               
create a gun free zone.                                                                                                         
CHAIR CLAMAN explained  that this bill would only  take guns away                                                               
from an individual.  He  reiterated the earlier testimony wherein                                                               
if two  individuals lived in  a house  and the order  removed the                                                               
guns from one person, that would  not remove all of the guns from                                                               
the house.   He pointed out that for the  other individual living                                                               
in the  house with a  gun, they may  choose to have  someone else                                                               
keep their guns.  This order,  in and of itself, would not create                                                               
such a gun free gun zone, he offered.                                                                                           
7:38:53 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that if  there was only one gun                                                               
in the  house and that  gun was confiscated, the  household would                                                               
not be able  to self-defend.  She related that  she simply wanted                                                               
on the record that some  people could argue that this legislation                                                               
could  be creating  gun free  zones, and  it could  also help  in                                                               
certain situations by taking away the guns.                                                                                     
CHAIR  CLAMAN, in  response  to  Representative Reinbold,  stated                                                               
that the committee is aware  that Alaska probably has the highest                                                               
per capita gun possession in the country.                                                                                       
7:39:47 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  advised that  guns do nothing  alone and                                                               
they do  not harm anyone, it  is because the person  has a heart,                                                               
mind, soul,  physical, and mental  breakdown.  She  asked whether                                                               
[laws], other  than the State  of Indiana, have shown  a dramatic                                                               
reduction in suicides  or murder, and whether  law enforcement is                                                               
in favor of this tool.                                                                                                          
7:40:51 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GERAN TARR,  Alaska State  Legislature, responded                                                               
that the State  of Indiana gun violence protective  order law was                                                               
passed  in 2005,  and the  law in  the State  of Connecticut  was                                                               
passed in  1999.  Within the  State of Connecticut, that  law has                                                               
proven  to reduce  the number  of suicides  and it  can link  the                                                               
number of  guns confiscated.  She  opined that for every  11 guns                                                               
taken  away,  one   death  was  prevented.     According  to  the                                                               
testimony, she noted that it  is difficult to extrapolate whether                                                               
preventing  that individual  from hurting  themselves also  meant                                                               
preventing  them from  harming another  person because  those two                                                               
events  happen   frequently,  especially  in  domestic   type  of                                                               
incidents  where   someone  kills  the  family   and  then  kills                                                               
themselves.   Interestingly,  she offered,  the State  of Indiana                                                               
related  that a  high  percentage  of the  folks  do  not try  to                                                               
retrieve  their firearms  once the  protective order  has expired                                                               
and  they chose  to let  law enforcement  have their  guns.   She                                                               
acknowledged that  that is a  different sort of evidence,  but it                                                               
shows  that  people have  realized  or  chosen afterwards  to  no                                                               
longer possess firearms.   The States of  Washington, Oregon, and                                                               
California recently  passed a gun  violence protective  order law                                                               
and those states  are in the data gathering phase.   The State of                                                               
Washington passed the  law via a citizen initiative  in 2016, the                                                               
State of  California passed  its law  in 2015,  and the  State of                                                               
Oregon law passed last year, she advised.                                                                                       
7:42:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  whether  there  are any  official                                                               
statistics such as the Uniform Crime  Report in this regard.  She                                                               
then  asked  the  opinions  of peace  officers  and  whether  the                                                               
Anchorage Police  Department (APD) and the  Alaska State Troopers                                                               
(AST) are in  favor of this legislation.  She  commented that she                                                               
found  it "pretty  intimidating" that  without a  search warrant,                                                               
law enforcement  can "dig into  people's stuff" and  remove their                                                               
guns, and that "they are putting them in harm's way."                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR answered  that the  sponsor's office  worked                                                               
with the  Department of  Law (DOL),  Department of  Public Safety                                                               
(DPS),  and there  have been  conversations  with the  APD.   She                                                               
remarked that she was unsure she  was the best person to speak on                                                               
their behalf.  Representative Tarr  referred to the indeterminate                                                               
fiscal  note  and  pointed  out   that  DPS  does  not  know  how                                                               
frequently  this tool  would be  used  so it  cannot predict  how                                                               
often it  would retrieve and  secure the firearms, as  opposed to                                                               
the  person  voluntarily  relinquishing  their  guns.    The  DPS                                                               
advised  the  sponsor that  the  guns  would  be removed  by  two                                                               
officers and  it stressed that  an officer  would not be  sent on                                                               
that call alone,  she advised.  Until such a  policy is in place,                                                               
it is difficult  to know whether it would be  used once per week,                                                               
month, or year, she said.                                                                                                       
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the  Department of Public Safety (DPS) is                                                               
not  available  tonight,  but  he   had  had  conversations  with                                                               
representatives  from the  APD  and  one of  the  changes in  the                                                               
adopted  committee substitute  [Version R]  was requested  by the                                                               
APD.  Under the  original version of HB 75, if  an ex parte order                                                               
was  issued,  typically two  officers  were  sent to  serve  that                                                               
order, which is similar to  a domestic violence protective order.                                                               
In the event the gun violence  protective order was served on day                                                               
one and the person advised that  they were not turning over their                                                               
guns,  a warrant  would be  necessary, whereby  a full  SWAT team                                                               
would  arrive with  a search  and  seizure warrant  to seize  the                                                               
guns.   The request  from APD  was that if  it was  serving these                                                               
protective orders, it wanted the  authority to remove the weapons                                                               
immediately, and  if the person  did not surrender  their weapons                                                               
it would be a violation of  the gun violence protective order and                                                               
allow for an arrest at that  time.  Thereby, he offered, it would                                                               
be  tailored  to  make  this   similar  to  a  domestic  violence                                                               
protective  order in  terms  of the  procedure  when serving  the                                                               
order.   He  advised that  an  effort will  be made  to locate  a                                                               
representative from APS  or the Alaska State  Troopers to provide                                                               
further testimony at the next hearing.                                                                                          
7:46:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD requested that  a representative from the                                                               
Juneau  Police  Department  (JPD),  APD,  and  the  Alaska  State                                                               
Troopers   testify.     She   added  that   she   would  like   a                                                               
representative who  is able  to speak on  behalf of  each entity,                                                               
not just  one person testifying  and "being  told what to  say by                                                               
the majority  or the governor."   She referred to [Section  3. AS                                                               
12.35.200(c)] page 2, lines 30-31, which read as follows:                                                                       
         (c) Nothing in this section authorizes a peace                                                                         
     officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if                                                                      
     a warrant would otherwise be required.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD asked  the breadth  of that  warrantless                                                               
CHAIR CLAMAN referred  to Sec. 12.35.200(c) and noted  that it is                                                               
a limited exception  to the warrant requirement.   The main point                                                               
is that when  law enforcement is presented with  an individual it                                                               
believes  is dangerous,  to act  right  then and  not spend  time                                                               
going to  the courthouse to  obtain a  warrant.  Today  there are                                                               
many occasions when an officer can  act to seize a weapon without                                                               
a warrant.   He referenced  the State of Indiana  case [Redington                                                               
v. Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 823],  which was previously distributed to                                                               
the committee, and  offered that it describes a  challenge to the                                                               
warrantless seizure of weapon.  The  facts of the lawsuit are, he                                                               
explained, [Robert E. Redington] was  sitting in a parking garage                                                               
watching  a  nightclub  across  the way  and  he  was  apparently                                                               
watching  for  someone  to  exit  the nightclub.    [Due  to  the                                                               
previous acts  of Mr.  Redington], the  officers believed  it was                                                               
appropriate  to seize  the firearm  without  obtaining a  warrant                                                               
from the court in that instance, he explained.                                                                                  
7:48:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP commented  that  this legislation  basically                                                               
puts into  statute what has  been performed in practice  for many                                                               
decades.   In  the  event law  enforcement  observed a  dangerous                                                               
situation, for  example, someone  threatening to kill  their "old                                                               
lady," or  blow the head off  of their boss, and  law enforcement                                                               
saw  the  handgun  on  the  counter,  it  would  be  beyond  poor                                                               
judgement to leave  that person and that firearm  together at the                                                               
same time.  He pointed out  that law enforcement would remove the                                                               
firearm  for  safekeeping,  write  a report,  send  it  into  the                                                               
District  Attorney's Office,  and  chances are,  the  gun may  be                                                               
released back  to the person the  following day.  He  pointed out                                                               
that law  enforcement frequently  makes judgment calls  based on,                                                               
"should that person and that  firearm be still together after I'm                                                               
no longer  present?"  That type  of situation would be  under the                                                               
warrantless seizure, he said.                                                                                                   
7:50:07 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to  Section 3, page 2, beginning                                                               
line 17,  and asked what  Version R  allows that was  not allowed                                                               
under Version D.                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  explained that Version  R allows peace  officers to                                                               
do what  they are already  doing, and  it provides a  process and                                                               
procedure  that was  not  required previously.    He referred  to                                                               
Representative  Kopp's scenario  and explained  that the  officer                                                               
having seized the  weapon would need to go to  court and file the                                                               
request for  a gun violence  protective order.   He noted  that a                                                               
crime  had  not been  committed,  but  the  process is  that  law                                                               
enforcement  seizes the  weapon, files  the paperwork  creating a                                                               
record of  the circumstances, and  the court considers  the facts                                                               
and evidence to make its determination.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  offered appreciation  for the time  limit of                                                               
72-hours wherein the gun would  not be sitting in safekeeping for                                                               
two  weeks because  the  officer was  unsure  whether the  person                                                               
continued to  be dangerous.   Protections for  gun owners  are in                                                               
place  because hard  timelines are  built into  Version R  versus                                                               
simply  the   judgement  of  law  enforcement   or  the  District                                                               
Attorney's Office as  to how long they would like  to see the gun                                                               
in safekeeping.   He  reiterated that more  due process  is built                                                               
into this legislation that ensure  rights are protected on either                                                               
7:52:05 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  summarized  her previous  questions  as                                                               
follows:   where this  has been proven  to reduce  crime; request                                                               
for FBI statistics;  whether this bill creates  any liability for                                                               
the state  if people  have their  guns seized  and are  unable to                                                               
self-defend;  whether this  legislation creates  gun free  zones;                                                               
federal, state, and  local police officers' input;  and she would                                                               
like to see the fiscal notes for this bill.                                                                                     
7:52:55 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR,  in response to a  request for clarification                                                               
from  Representative  LeDoux, said  there  are  a total  of  five                                                               
states which have enacted these  laws, but she had focused mainly                                                               
on  the  States of  Indiana  and  Connecticut because  those  two                                                               
states passed  their laws  in 2005 and  1999, respectively.   She                                                               
pointed out  that those laws  have been  in place long  enough to                                                               
research whether  there was evidence  that the law was  abused or                                                               
whether  there was  case law.   She  related that  throughout her                                                               
research she  did not locate where  the law had been  abused, and                                                               
there was one lawsuit regarding the warrantless seizure issue.                                                                  
CHAIR  CLAMAN  noted that  the  State  of  Florida passed  a  gun                                                               
violence protective order law within the past three weeks.                                                                      
7:54:03 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX requested statistics  in two categories, as                                                               
follows: the number  of people injured or killed  with guns prior                                                               
to, and  after, the passage of  the law in the  States of Indiana                                                               
and Connecticut; and the number  of suicides prior to, and after,                                                               
the passage of the law in  the States of Indiana and Connecticut.                                                               
She  related  that she  would  like  to  see whether  there  were                                                               
substantial reductions in either category.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  referred to  a one-page  comparison document                                                               
titled  "Gun   Violence  Protection   Order  [contained   in  the                                                               
committee  packet]  as  to  the  Alaska  proposal  prior  to  the                                                               
committee substitute  and the States of  Indiana and Connecticut,                                                               
where information  was provided about  the retrieval of  the guns                                                               
and suicides.  She pointed out  that information came from a more                                                               
comprehensive  report  that  discusses  all  of  those  different                                                               
points and she would provide that report to the committee.                                                                      
7:55:32 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the  left side, bottom row of the                                                               
comparison  titled "Gun  Violence  Protection  Order" which  read                                                               
"Research  on  success  of  policy:"  and  explained  that  after                                                               
enactment of the State of Connecticut  law, it was found that for                                                               
every ten  to eleven-gun removal  cases, one suicide  was averted                                                               
which was an  estimated 72 averted suicides.  Under  the State of                                                               
Indiana law,  the court  retained firearms in  63 percent  of the                                                               
cases, dismissed  29 percent of  the cases, and  most individuals                                                               
did not request return of their firearm.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE   LEDOUX   described   that  information   as   an                                                               
interesting statistic, but it does  not show whether crimes using                                                               
firearms, hurting self or others with guns, had an effect.                                                                      
7:56:35 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR,  in response to Chair  Claman, described the                                                               
document  being  discussed  as   a  document  comparing  the  gun                                                               
violence protective  order statutes in the  States of Connecticut                                                               
and Indiana to the proposal  under consideration for Alaska.  The                                                               
comparison is in  terms of: who can file; length  of time; mental                                                               
health  language  included  in the  legislation/law;  warrantless                                                               
seizure; seizure  of another person's  guns; and research  on the                                                               
success  of  policy.   She  explained  that this  comparison  was                                                               
drafted  in  response  to  several  questions  asked  during  the                                                               
initial hearings and some of  the language listed on the document                                                               
was  incorporated into  Version R,  so there  are protections  in                                                               
there.   For example, she  said, the  State of Indiana  law read,                                                               
and she paraphrased as follows:                                                                                                 
     Instructions  to determine  whether  the individual  is                                                                    
     defined  as 'dangerous'  includes, but  is not  limited                                                                    
     to,  whether the  individual (A)  has a  mental illness                                                                    
     that  may  be  controlled  by medication  and  has  not                                                                    
     demonstrated a pattern  of voluntarily and consistently                                                                    
     taking  the  individual's  medication while  not  under                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR then  referred  to the  paragraph above  the                                                               
provision and paraphrased as follows:                                                                                           
     Having previously been in a mental health facility.                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained  that neither of those  can be used                                                               
to  "establish  someone's  mental  health in  themselves."    For                                                               
example, she said, those provisions  have been added into Version                                                               
R to include stronger language.   The asterisk points to a report                                                               
titled  "DEVELOPMENTS IN  MENTAL HEALTH  LAW -  The Institute  of                                                               
Law, Psychiatry & Public Policy  - University of Virginia, Volume                                                               
36, Issue 2, Summer 2017."   She explained that that is where the                                                               
data  was pulled  involving the  research on  the success  of the                                                               
policy and  it is  a lengthy report  with much  more information.                                                               
Representative Tarr agreed  to provide the committee  with a copy                                                               
of the report.                                                                                                                  
7:58:36 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  commented  that critically  missing  from                                                               
this is  that under the  State of Indiana,  it does not  show the                                                               
crime  rate with  guns, the  number of  people injured  or killed                                                               
with  guns, and  the number  of  suicides, before  and after  the                                                               
enactment of  the law.   She further  commented that she  did not                                                               
believe it goes to whether the statute is working.                                                                              
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the gun violence was cut in half.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she  would like to see whether                                                               
it  cut   the  gun  violence   at  all,  which  is   the  missing                                                               
7:59:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR advised  that  the lengthy  report had  been                                                               
distributed to the members, and  the development in mental health                                                               
is part of the  packet.  She turned to page 17  of the report and                                                               
noted  that  it  mentions   experience  under  temporary  firearm                                                               
removal statutes.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR  explained  that the  report  discusses  the                                                               
States of Connecticut and Indiana,  and how many cases were heard                                                               
during the first two years, patterns, and so forth.                                                                             
CHAIR CLAMAN explained  that the report was  distributed by email                                                               
because it was too lengthy to print for everyone.                                                                               
CHAIR CLAMAN,  in response to Representative  Reinbold's question                                                               
about fiscal notes,  advised that they had  been distributed some                                                               
time ago and they are posted online.                                                                                            
8:00:37 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  offered interest in how  it was calculated                                                               
that for every  ten to eleven-gun removal cases,  one suicide was                                                               
averted.   For  example, in  1998  there were  50 suicides  using                                                               
guns,  and in  2013 there  were less  than that  number, and  the                                                               
increase  in  population would  make  a  difference.   She  asked                                                               
whether there  was a  determination that less  guns were  used in                                                               
suicides and  what that  did for  the suicide  statistics overall                                                               
because  if people  were killing  themselves under  other methods                                                               
then she questioned that information.                                                                                           
8:01:55 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD  commented  that   she  was  unsure  the                                                               
committee had seen fiscal notes  for Version R, and whether there                                                               
were changes in the fiscal notes.                                                                                               
CHAIR CLAMAN  opined that  it is  not the  practice to  issue new                                                               
fiscal notes when there are new committee substitutes.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  REINBOLD referred  to a  previous comment  that a                                                               
committee  member  did  not  want any  deterrent  for  people  to                                                               
receive mental health  assistance.  She commented  that this bill                                                               
is better  in that regard,  and referred  to CSHB 75,  Version R,                                                               
[Section 7,  Sec. 18.65.845(b)] page  9, lines 4-7, which read as                                                               
          (b) The fact that  an individual has been released                                                                    
     from a mental  health facility or has  a mental illness                                                                    
     for   which   the   individual  has   been   prescribed                                                                    
     medication  does not  determine that  an individual  is                                                                    
     dangerous for purposes of AS 18.65.815-18.65.845.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD  related that  that was important  to put                                                               
on  the  record.    The  committee might  want  to  hear  from  a                                                               
prescribing  psychiatrist  for an  overview  of  which drugs  are                                                               
highly prescribed and more dangerous, she said.                                                                                 
8:04:03 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN referred  to the  University of  Virginia                                                               
study and  asked whether  these numbers  of people,  for example,                                                               
saved from  suicide or  gun violence also  take into  account the                                                               
individuals who  became victims  of crime  in their  own defenses                                                               
after they lost access to their firearms.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded  that there was no  evidence in the                                                               
documents she researched.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether  that issue was  taken into                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE TARR (audio difficulties),  but she would say that                                                               
she spent quite of bit of  time trying to find any information or                                                               
evidence that these  [laws] were abused in any manner  or had any                                                               
negative  outcomes and  she has  yet to  find any  information of                                                               
those issues, she reiterated.                                                                                                   
8:05:32 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked Nancy  Meade, Alaska  Court System,                                                               
whether there is any manner in  which to anticipate the degree of                                                               
frequency the  courts might grant  these gun  violence protective                                                               
orders requested under Version R.                                                                                               
8:05:53 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY  MEADE, General  Counsel, Administrative  Staff, Office  of                                                               
the Administrative Director, Alaska  Court System, responded that                                                               
she could  not predict how many  cases would come, but  as to the                                                               
three types of domestic violence  protective orders, one type can                                                               
be filed by a law enforcement  officer.  The other two protective                                                               
orders  are short  term  and long-term  that can  be  filed by  a                                                               
household  member, and  the domestic  violence protective  orders                                                               
filed by law enforcement are  not terribly common.  When domestic                                                               
violence  protective orders  are  requested,  they are  carefully                                                               
reviewed by  a judicial officer  and, just like  everything else,                                                               
those  filed by  law enforcement  have a  higher grant  rate than                                                               
those filed by household members, she offered.                                                                                  
8:07:01 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  Ms.  Meade to  describe the  other                                                               
types of documents  law enforcement might request  from the court                                                               
with some degree of regularity, other than search warrants.                                                                     
MS. MEADE commented  that that is better question  for someone in                                                               
law enforcement  to answer,  but she  knows that  law enforcement                                                               
officers can file criminal complaints  that the district attorney                                                               
will  then pursue  in different  areas.   She added  that certain                                                               
types  of   peace  officers  and  probation   officers  can  file                                                               
petitions to revoke probation on a regular basis.                                                                               
8:07:45 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  Ms.  Meade to  describe how  often                                                               
courts  will  grant  search  warrants  which,  he  assumed,  were                                                               
requested by law enforcement as is this bill.                                                                                   
MS. MEADE  responded that she  would have  to review the  data in                                                               
order to answer and she would forward that information.                                                                         
CHAIR  CLAMAN  noted  that   police  officers  will  periodically                                                               
request search warrants to seize  blood regarding a driving while                                                               
under the influence (DWI) case.                                                                                                 
8:08:24 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP  explained that  every state's  Department of                                                               
Public  Safety tracks  assaults with  firearms and  suicides with                                                               
firearms and  turns the information  into the FBI for  its annual                                                               
report on  crime to the  nation, the  Uniform Crime Report.   The                                                               
report  should offer  whether there  was  any appreciable  impact                                                               
with  this law.   He  said he  appreciates that  the standard  of                                                               
probable cause  is used, as that  is the standard with  which law                                                               
enforcement is  familiar when  establishing whether  a particular                                                               
fact  or circumstance  exists.   He referred  to Section  7, Sec.                                                               
18.65.820(a), page 5, lines 2-7, which read as follows:                                                                         
     If  the  court  finds  that  the  petition  establishes                                                                    
     probable  cause to  believe that  the  respondent is  a                                                                    
     dangerous    individual,    that    less    restrictive                                                                    
     alternatives have been tried  and were ineffective, and                                                                    
     that the police  officer has certified to  the court in                                                                    
     writing the  efforts, if  any, that  have been  made to                                                                    
     provide notice  to the respondent,  the court  shall ex                                                                    
     parte  and without  notice to  the  respondent issue  a                                                                    
     protective order.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP  noted  that  the  bill  refers  to  a  less                                                               
restrictive  alternative  as to  the  long-term  orders, and  the                                                               
court  asks  whether  any   less  restrictive  alternatives  were                                                               
undertaken.  He  said that he appreciates that  the witnesses are                                                               
examined under oath.  The State  of Indiana law requires that the                                                               
person whose firearm  is removed must petition the  court to have                                                               
it returned, and under Version R,  when the order expires the gun                                                               
is returned to the  respondent, he said.  In the  event it is the                                                               
ex parte order,  the firearm is returned to  the respondent after                                                               
20-days unless the court had dissolved  the order sooner.  In the                                                               
event it is  the long-term order, when the order  expires in six-                                                               
months, the firearm is returned  to the respondent.  He described                                                               
this  provision as  a good  thing  because if  the respondent  is                                                               
truly still dangerous, society does  want law enforcement to have                                                               
to  go  back to  court  and  advise the  judge  that  it needs  a                                                               
continuing order and have to prove  its case all over again.  The                                                               
default  should be  that the  respondent  receives their  firearm                                                               
back again when the order  expires, rather than filing a petition                                                               
and having  a court date  set.  He  opined that as  the committee                                                               
goes through this  legislation, it will receive  clarity from the                                                               
requested testifiers about data points and public safety.                                                                       
8:11:21 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked  the   sponsor  how  a  "dangerous                                                               
individual" is treated under current law.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  asked Representative  Eastman to  refine his                                                               
question a  bit about the  circumstances because it is  an overly                                                               
broad  question.   There  are  many factors,  such  as,  is it  a                                                               
domestic  dispute, is  the person  in  a public  place, are  they                                                               
threatening  people, do  they have  a weapon,  and so  forth, she                                                               
8:12:16 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  surmised that  this legislation  does not                                                               
require a whole lot of scenarios,  it just requires the person to                                                               
be "a dangerous person."                                                                                                        
CHAIR   CLAMAN  interjected   that  Representative   Eastman  was                                                               
misrepresenting  the  definition  of "dangerous  person"  in  the                                                               
bill.  The  statute specifically proposed under  [Section 7, Sec.                                                               
18.65.845(a), page 8, lines 24-26], read as follows:                                                                            
         (a) For purposes of AS 18.65.815-18.65.845, an                                                                         
      individual is considered dangerous if the individual                                                                      
          (1) an immediate risk of personal injury to                                                                           
     self or others; or                                                                                                         
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that  Representative Eastman's suggestion that                                                               
it is ambiguous is just not true.                                                                                               
8:13:04 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN referred  to Sec.  18.65.845(a), page  8,                                                               
line  26], and  the word  "or," and  noted that  suddenly someone                                                               
does  not have  to be  an  immediate risk,  they can  just be  "a                                                               
risk,"  and that  he  is discussing  the "a  risk"  part of  that                                                               
requirement.   In  the  event a  person is  a  risk, a  dangerous                                                               
individual, and they  come into contact with  law enforcement, he                                                               
asked how law enforcement would treat them under current law.                                                                   
CHAIR  CLAMAN advised  Representative Eastman  that his  question                                                               
could be addressed by a  public safety official, and his question                                                               
is not within  the scope of questions the bill  sponsor should be                                                               
asked to answer.                                                                                                                
8:13:49 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN    referred   to   [Section    7,   Sec.                                                               
18.65.845(a)(B)], page 9, lines 1-3, which read as follows:                                                                     
                    (B)   is  the   subject  of   documented                                                                    
     evidence that  would give rise  to a  reasonable belief                                                                    
     that the  individual has a  propensity for  violence or                                                                    
     unstable conduct.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked why  the phrase  "unstable conduct"                                                               
was chosen.                                                                                                                     
CHAIR CLAMAN  advised Representative  Eastman that  this language                                                               
is patterned after the law in  the State of Indiana, and the best                                                               
source to answer his question would  be to read the case from the                                                               
State of Indiana [Redington v. Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 823].                                                                        
8:14:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Chair  Claman to described "unstable                                                               
CHAIR CLAMAN  urged Representative Eastman  to read the  State of                                                               
Indiana case.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why  the "unstable conduct" language                                                               
was chosen.                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  CLAMAN  reiterated  that  this  section  of  the  bill  is                                                               
patterned after the State of Indiana law.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked  someone to provide the  cite to the                                                               
CHAIR  CLAMAN  advised   that  the  State  of   Indiana  law  was                                                               
distributed to the committee.                                                                                                   
8:15:28 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether  there is a  definition for                                                               
"unstable conduct" somewhere in statute.                                                                                        
CHAIR CLAMAN answered, "No."                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked who is going to define that phrase.                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN reminded  Representative Eastman  that part  of the                                                               
role of the statutes is not  to define every single word of every                                                               
single statute because  that is the purpose of a  dictionary.  He                                                               
opined that  "unstable conduct" is  defined as  common knowledge,                                                               
and it has  some common parlance within law  enforcement which is                                                               
something  the court  would  look at  and  consider the  specific                                                               
facts of the case.                                                                                                              
8:15:57 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP added that  the entire section Representative                                                               
Eastman referred to  must be read in context, and  he referred to                                                               
Section 7, page 8, lines 24-31  and page 9, lines 1-3, which read                                                               
as follows:                                                                                                                     
          Sec.  18.65.845.  Dangerous   individual.  (a)  an                                                                  
     individual  is considered  dangerous if  the individual                                                                    
               (1) an  immediate risk of personal  injury to                                                                    
     self or others; or                                                                                                         
               (2)  a risk  of  personal injury  to self  or                                                                    
     others in the future and the individual                                                                                    
                    (A) has  a mental illness for  which the                                                                    
     individual  has  been  prescribed medication  that  the                                                                    
     individual   has   demonstrated   a  pattern   of   not                                                                    
     voluntarily  and consistently  taking  while not  under                                                                    
     supervision; or                                                                                                            
                    (B)   is  the   subject  of   documented                                                                    
     evidence that  would give rise  to a  reasonable belief                                                                    
     that the  individual has a  propensity for  violence or                                                                    
     unstable conduct.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  KOPP   explained  that   paragraph  (1)   is  the                                                               
immediate risk;  paragraph (2) is the  risk to self or  others in                                                               
the future;  and subparagraphs  (A) and  (B) are  the qualifiers.                                                               
The qualifiers  of subparagraphs  (A) and  (B) are  predicated in                                                               
paragraph (2),  "a risk of personal  injury to self or  others in                                                               
the  future".    He  offered  that  the  difference  between  the                                                               
immediate risk would  be when someone makes the  direct threat of                                                               
harm  to self  or others  specifically, the  future risk  is when                                                               
they  post  online,  "I'm  going  to  be  a  professional  school                                                               
shooter."   In  the event  one  of the  mental health  qualifiers                                                               
attach,  that  would  give  rise   to  the  dangerous  individual                                                               
definition  coming  into  play.    It  refers  to  mental  health                                                               
facilities and  mental illness in  this section and  he suggested                                                               
that a mental health official comment on the section.                                                                           
8:18:00 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed  to "a risk of  personal injury to                                                               
self  or others  in the  future" and  remarked that  "the future"                                                               
language appears  to be  broad.   He asked  whether there  is any                                                               
case law  that would  pare that  down, for  example, thirty-days,                                                               
three months, or  six months.                                                                                                   
CHAIR  CLAMAN pointed  out that  obviously there  is no  case law                                                               
interpreting this  in Alaska  because it would  be a  new statute                                                               
that has  not yet been  applied in  Alaska and he  reiterated the                                                               
reference to  the State of  Indiana case  law.  These  are issues                                                               
wherein  judges   would  apply  their  usual   good  judgment  in                                                               
determining the circumstances, he remarked.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  suggested that  rather than focusing  on the                                                               
descriptive  language  Representative  Eastman had  referred,  to                                                               
instead  focus on  the high  standard  of evidence  that must  be                                                               
proved for  probable cause or  clear and convincing  evidence, of                                                               
which the judge must apply in assessing the danger.                                                                             
8:19:38 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  referred  to  [Section  7,  amending  AS                                                               
18.65.835(b)(2)], page 8, lines 10-11, which read as follows:                                                                   
        You are not entitled to court-appointed counsel                                                                         
     employed at the public's expense to contest the order.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked  where in the bill  it provides that                                                               
a person is not entitled to court-appointed counsel.                                                                            
CHAIR CLAMAN  asked Representative Eastman to  recall the earlier                                                               
testimonies from  several people, including the  opinion from the                                                               
attorney general, that  in a civil proceeding such  as this, just                                                               
as in a  domestic violence protective order  proceeding except in                                                               
a very  limited set  of circumstances,  there is  not a  right to                                                               
court-appointed  counsel.   This provision  simply requires  that                                                               
the  notice provided  to the  respondent specifically  state that                                                               
they  are not  entitled  to court-appointed  counsel, he  pointed                                                               
8:20:39 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  asked  whether, under  this  bill,  that                                                               
could be changed  to allow that the respondent is  eligible for a                                                               
court-appointed  counsel to  defend themselves  against this  new                                                               
CHAIR CLAMAN  reminded Representative Eastman of  prior testimony                                                               
wherein the  committee was advised that  to add to the  duties of                                                               
the  Public   Defender  Agency  and  provide   counsel  in  these                                                               
circumstances, which  is not a  criminal case or a  child custody                                                               
matter,  would require  a  change to  the  statute regarding  the                                                               
Public Defender Agency, which would bring with it a fiscal note.                                                                
8:21:18 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX  referred to  [Section 7,  Sec. 18.65.845],                                                               
pages 8-9 [previously typed] and  paraphrased as follows: "a risk                                                               
of  personal injury  to  self or  others in  the  future and  the                                                               
individual has a  mental illness which they are  not taking their                                                               
medicine   for."     Representative  LeDoux   then  referred   to                                                               
subparagraph  (b)   and  paraphrased,  "or  is   the  subject  of                                                               
documented evidence that  could give rise to  a reasonable belief                                                               
that the  individual has  a propensity  for violence  or unstable                                                               
conduct."   She asked whether  the word should read  "and" rather                                                               
than "or?"                                                                                                                      
CHAIR  CLAMAN   noted  that  prior  to   drafting  the  committee                                                               
substitute, there  had been specific interest  in the individuals                                                               
who  may actually  have a  propensity  for violence  and are  not                                                               
diagnosed  as mentally  ill.   According  to previous  testimony,                                                               
some  people may  be  quite stable  and quite  angry  and have  a                                                               
history of inflicting violence while angry, he noted.                                                                           
8:22:53 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX offered  concern about  the person  with a                                                               
mental  illness who  is not  taking their  prescribed medication,                                                               
because  simply not  taking the  medication does  not necessarily                                                               
mean they will  commit a violent act.  Clearly,  she offered, the                                                               
person with documented  evidence would give rise  to a reasonable                                                               
belief  that the  individual  has a  propensity  for violence  or                                                               
unstable conduct  makes sense  in and of  itself.   She commented                                                               
that she was unsure that  simply removing a person's guns because                                                               
the psychiatrists said the person  is supposed to take medication                                                               
and they are not taking the medication,  is up in the air.  There                                                               
is a  lot of  disagreement about some  of these  medications, she                                                               
CHAIR CLAMAN  commented that subsection  (a) must be read  in the                                                               
context of the  overarching subparagraph (A) that it  is not just                                                               
that the  person is off  of their  medication, but that  they are                                                               
off their  medication and  there is  either clear  and convincing                                                               
evidence  or probable  cause evidence  that  they are  a risk  of                                                               
personal injury to self or others.   A person simply being off of                                                               
their  medication and  talking  "wacky"  does not  get  to a  gun                                                               
violence  protective order,  there  must  be additional  evidence                                                               
that the  person is  at risk  of harm  to self  or others  in the                                                               
future.  He added that the dangerous factor must be included.                                                                   
8:24:48 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX commented  that the  future is  a nebulous                                                               
concept and  while it  makes perfect  sense to  have an  ex parte                                                               
basis if someone is flinging a  gun around and saying crazy stuff                                                               
that they  are going to  blow up everyone  is one thing,  but the                                                               
future is  another thing, is  it a week or  a year from  now, she                                                               
CHAIR CLAMAN  responded that the  original concerns  offered were                                                               
about  the  potential abuse  of  a  domestic violence  protective                                                               
order, which is  why the [Version R] language  allows that solely                                                               
police officers  can apply for  a gun violence  protective order.                                                               
He  related that  he  will  do his  best  to  have public  safety                                                               
officers  testify  at the  next  hearing.    He opined  that  the                                                               
reassurance is that  if a person advises a police  officer that a                                                               
person  may  be dangerous  in  six  months  when "such  and  such                                                               
happens,"  the police  officer would  advise that  they had  more                                                               
pressing needs  on the docket  right now.   The requirement  of a                                                               
public  safety officer  being the  applicant and  the requirement                                                               
that the  officer convince  a court, makes  it unlikely  that the                                                               
officer will  request an order for  something a long time  in the                                                               
8:26:37 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR noted  that for  purposes of  evaluating the                                                               
future, the gun  violence protective order expires at  the end of                                                               
the six-month period.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  LEDOUX  commented  that Representative  Tarr  had                                                               
offered a good point.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that in order  to tease out how it is a                                                               
"two  way  so it's  not  the  immediate  risk," she  referred  to                                                               
paragraph (2), it is the risk  in the future.  She explained that                                                               
there is one  pathway for the person with the  mental illness not                                                               
taking their medications, and the  other is unstable conduct.  At                                                               
least in the  research she performed, she said, the  way it might                                                               
work  is that  family members  approach law  enforcement about  a                                                               
family member because often they see  a pattern of concern and re                                                               
hopeful their  family member will  get back on  their medications                                                               
and   stabilize.     Concerned   family  members   have  a   good                                                               
understanding of the timeline of risk  due to the pattern of that                                                               
family member's behavior as to  how quickly they will deteriorate                                                               
when they  are not medicated  for their mental  health condition,                                                               
she explained.                                                                                                                  
8:28:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered that  his question could be                                                               
taken  up   another  time   or  offline,   and  he   referred  to                                                               
Representative  David   Guttenberg's  bill  [HB  355]   when  the                                                               
committee  went down  the rabbit  hole  as to  the definition  of                                                               
peace officer.   The term  "peace officer"  is listed on  page 2,                                                               
line 18  and page 3,  lines 23 and 31,  of which is  an important                                                               
concept in  HB 75.   He asked whether  there is a  definition for                                                               
peace  officer that  this bill  is tethered  to that  makes clear                                                               
whether  it is  the Alaska  State Troopers  and what  is normally                                                               
thought of as a peace officer.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR advised  that she  spent some  time on  this                                                               
very  discussion  wherein some  language  in  the bill  read  law                                                               
enforcement  versus  peace officer.    She  explained that  peace                                                               
officer is the  generally used term in statute  to describe local                                                               
police, state troopers, or Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO).                                                                
8:29:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN noted  that specifically  spelled out  in                                                               
this  bill is  language that  if  it is  an ex  parte order,  the                                                               
information will  not be available  to the public  via CourtView.                                                               
He asked why  the sponsor left it open that  an individual who is                                                               
subject to a  six-month gun violence protective  order would have                                                               
their information  available for  the public wherein  someone who                                                               
may want  to steal from  their home  could identify that  they do                                                               
not have any weapons.                                                                                                           
CHAIR CLAMAN  pointed out that HB  75 has nothing to  do with the                                                               
scenario  of  trying  to  identify   houses  without  guns.    He                                                               
explained  that  the intention  was  to  be consistent  with  the                                                               
domestic  violence  protective  orders  which  are  available  on                                                               
CourtView, and to  provide protections for those  who are subject                                                               
to an ex  parte order.  Hence,  he pointed out, they  do not have                                                               
the opportunity  to contest  that proceeding so  it would  not be                                                               
available on CourtView.   The information listed  on CourtView is                                                               
only when there is a  contested proceeding and the respondent has                                                               
their due  process opportunity to  proceed as they wish,  that is                                                               
the  only  information that  would  be  listed on  CourtView,  he                                                               
8:31:01 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented  that she has is  an issue with                                                               
the definition  of "dangerous  individual," and  that medications                                                               
"are gonna  be the  end all,  be all" when  a lot  of medications                                                               
have  serious side  effects and  can actually  cause violence  or                                                               
suicidal thoughts.   She related that she is glad  it is defined,                                                               
but this is a slippery slope.                                                                                                   
[HB 75 was held over.]                                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB075 Work Draft Committee Substitute ver R 3.26.18.pdf HJUD 3/26/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Sectional Analysis ver R 3.26.18.pdf HJUD 3/26/2018 7:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Supporting Document-Public Comment (Part 4) 3.26.18.pdf HJUD 3/26/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 75
HB075 Opposing Document-Public Comment (Part 3) 3.26.18.pdf HJUD 3/26/2018 7:00:00 PM
HB 75