I want to thank Julie and I sing the Senate Judiciary Secretary who makes sure we have
a transcript of our meetings when Jude Augustine from the Genoa LAO who make sure
we sound.
I think Jude is new to our adventures.
Welcome.
At this time we remind committee members in all those in the room to please silence your cell phones present today
We have first and welcome to the committee senator tilton
Senator stevens
My vice chair senator keel and myself senator claiming we have a quorum to conduct business our first
And only item of on our agenda today is Senate bill 136 firearm financial privacy sponsored by senator krunk
This is the first hearing the bill on the Senate Judiciary Committee here to present the
bill, and I would note that Senator Tobin has also joined us at 131.
Here to represent the Bill of Senator Cronk and his staff, Paul Menke, online in a
veil for questions is Tracy Rina from the Division of Banking and Securities, Senator
Cronke.
Mr. Menkey, please come forward, put yourselves on their record, you may begin your presentation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
We're thankful for having it here in this year, you know,
and just being able to hear the bill.
Senate Bill 136 is the title as an act relating
to the privacy of firearm transactions relating
to discrimination against firearm retailers
by financial institutions and payment networks relating
to their disclosure of financial records
by Financial Institutions and Payment Networks.
Over the past decade,
There have been instances in lower 48 and even in Alaska, and there's actually a letter attached to shows in
Alaska where certain financial institutions and states have looked to require firearm codes to
identify, merchant spires, in all transactions involved with firearms. These financial
institutions in payment networks have used the presence of these codes
And in some cases, outright decline lawful transactions involving firearms, which is discriminatory
and blatant infringement are right to keep and bear arms.
The right-to-keep and bare arms is highly valued by the people of Alaska in 1994.
That year, Governor Tony Nosed was elected almost three-quarters of all Alaskans voted
in favor of ballot measure one, was clarified and strengthened the individual rights to
keep-and-bear arms, Article 1, Section 19 of the Alaska State Constitution states a
in Malaysia being necessary to security of a free state.
The right of people to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed.
This individual right and keeping bear arm should not
be denied or infringe by the state or political subdivisions
of the State.
SB 136 would bolster Alaska's rights to privacy and
keep in bear arms by enacting statutory provisions to prevent financial institutions and
payment card networks from discriminating against law abiding citizens and retailers from engaging in lawful commerce and their exercise or second amendment rights.
And with that, I have my staff Paul Minkie that can go over the sectional analysis.
Any questions for Senator Clark before we get the Sectional Analysis?
Senator Stevens.
Thank you, sir.
I agree with the bill.
It makes a lot of sense, but I think it's good to get on the record.
What are those instances in Alaska where folks have been denied either the use of credit
card or the banks have worked against them having their privacy rights?
looks like January 2026 from Donna Anthony and she goes into great explanation of her
business and how it affected her business. And some of this transaction stuff might not affect
places like sports or the warehouse,
but it's really detrimental to small businesses
where they're putting a, like for her,
she used an example of a $10,000 charge that was denied,
so that really affects small business.
So, I mean, if you have time,
I would go over it, but I think you guys
may all have a copy of that email,
so you could look at that.
I appreciate it.
But I just think for the public record,
so folks know what we're talking about here.
It might be good to specify those instances if we can't.
Thank you, Chair Klaman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
For the record, my name is Paul Manki and I'm staff to Senator Mike Cronk.
Through the chair to senator Stevens.
So the letter that is detailed, this is just one instance, and
I will just highlight it really quick.
So in this instance a woman by the name Donna Anthony, who's a.
a small business owner in Alaska had conducted some training and some firearms training up on the
North Slope in Alaskan and because of the presence of a firearm code in that transaction she had
been declined. They tried to make a transaction for $10,000 to go towards
her business but that was declined and she tried
to work through that with the payment card network and according to her the
payment cart network did not really give her a straight answer of the reason of
why she was decline but she suspected that it was due to the
presence of a firearm code and she had worked with our Senator Sullivan at the federal level
to get this remediated and after what I believe is quite a bit of time she, with the help
of Senator Solvin's office, was able to this resolved and the $10,000 charge was credited
to her account.
Oh, I'm sorry, for the record Paul Maki to the committee if I may go through this sectional analysis, please, okay.
So section one amends AS06.90 to add a new section.
AS 06. 90.20 that would prevent financial institutions and
payment networks from discriminating against firearm retailers or customers.
by declining lawful card transactions based on the merchant's status as a firearm retailer,
limiting or declining to do business with a customer, potential customer or merchant
for lawful firearm transactions, charging higher transactions or interchange fees for
lawful firearms transactions.
Taking an action against customers or merchants with the intention to impede engagement in
lawful transactions involving firearms, evolving a firearms accessory or component or ammunition.
It establishes statutory provisions that prevent the disclosure of financial records collected in violation of this section.
Give the Attorney General the ability to investigate alleged violations of AS44.99.515.
Create in Section 2 of This Bill.
And upon finding a violation,
States that the Attorney General may file an action to enjoined and
joined continued violations of AS44.99.515 after 30 days.
It establishes a maximum fine of $10,000 for knowingly violating AS44.99.515
and legally obligates the court to award the Attorney General or
Petitioner full reasonable attorney fees and any other remedy the Court deems appropriate if their action prevails.
And it also provides several definitions in AS06.90.020 for ammunition,
department, disclose, financial institution,
financial record, firearm code.
firearm retailer, knowingly, payment card, and payment network.
Section 2 amends AS44.99 by adding a new section, AS 44.
99.515 to prohibit with the exception of records kept during a criminal investigation or
as otherwise required by law.
A person, the state or a political subdivision of the State from knowingly keeping or
causing to be kept a list, record or registry of privately owned firearms or
owners of private owned fire arms.
And just a quick note that this does not apply to private citizens who would wish to
keep a List of their own personal firearms.
And then section three amends the uncautified law of the state of Alaska by adding two indirect court rule amendments that change rule 65 and rule 82 of
the Alaska rules of civil procedure.
And section four establishes a conditional effect for AS06.90.020G and AS 06.900.020I enacted in section one requiring a two thirds vote of each body for sections three A and three B to take effect.
questions. Senator Tobin, I think.
Thank you. Thank You, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to our first hearing of Senator Judiciary for the year.
Thank for bringing this legislation. I have a few questions that I know that my office has also reached out to you on, and then a
few others about just ensuring that we are making, we're providing for
the public safety on this list of legislation, so I,
I Know one that, We had talked about a little bit is but domestic violence shelters and I
know you're working on an amendment.
Regarding to that, we know that there are many folks who are very concerned about folks
who have been accused or even adjudicated of domestic violence and those shelters may
keep a list to protect the clients that they are serving.
Can you talk a little bit about the amendment that you're working on to kind of close that
particular public safety loophole?
And we are happy to continue working with your office if this is not a satisfactory remedy
to you.
But after reaching out to Ledger Legal, there was some concern that it would prevent those
domestic violence shelters from creating a list.
So the work order that we put in would remove the or a person from the records, and it
would just apply it to financial institutions and payment card networks, just to limit it
to the state, political subdivision of the State and financial institution.
and pay my card outwards.
Follow?
Thank you and my follow-up to that is and I'm thinking about an instance that
has happened at my own old high school where a young student knowingly brought
a firearm onto campus and there has been some concern about the school
keeping any list of a student who might have potentially violated the no fire
arms on school grounds and if that student transferred schools how would
they provide that information to another district so the the concern I have is
also under that political subdivision as our schools are part of our political
So that's just another concern I have around public safety.
Okay, further record Paul, thank you through the chair to Senator Tobin.
Thank you for that question.
I'm if I may direct the committee's attention to page four, line 13.
So it says except for records kept during the regular course of a criminal investigation and prosecution or is otherwise required by law.
So I believe that that might.
to cover that concern of if there was a student that had brought in a firearm or
had violated any type of law, whether it be no firearms in schools or another thing.
That political subdivision being the school or being a police department or even the financial
institution would be able to keep and provide those records to law enforcement for investigation.
Thank you, I just want to share we got that on the public record.
Senator Keel.
Not having a copy of that amendment you described in front of me, the question that I had come up with would be whether the bill is written or perhaps the amendment fixes it would prevent a financial institution from offering benefits or incentives.
A piece of legislation here that's going to stop Brownells from giving me points when I buy 8-pound kegs of powder.
Does the bill with that amendment fix that problem?
For the record, Paul Mankey, through the chair to Vice Chair Keel, I'm uncertain if the
bill would necessarily impede that obligation from we have our office had a meeting with Mr.
Apologize Scott Talbot representing the electronic transaction association and they are still as far as the payment company
Payment networks are concerned. What they collect is they'll collect the transaction ID and then it'll it will have an amount
So if they had points per se if you were to buy
firearm part of firearm or firearm parts or ammunition that you'd still be able to get those
I don't believe that those companies collect
exactly like an itemized list of what was purchased.
I apologize.
Senator Q.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So with my Alaska Airlines visa that a lot of people have,
when I log on, I can choose, they want.
They have contracts with vendors of various kinds and they want me to still
opt into the the Papa John's pizza discount every time I buy pizza from
their particular Papa john's because I'm sure they have a financial arrangement.
So they they definitely have more information than just what kind of
company it is because they don't give me a discount of Domino's. So the question
Other than process or facilitate a payment card transaction, it sounds like it's going to get in the way of my sportsman's warehouse account.
Am I missing something?
Um, for the record, Paul, thank you through the chair to Vice Chair Keel.
I am unsure of that answer, and if it would be okay, we can get back to the committee with a response on that.
Thank you.
Thank.
Senator Tobin.
Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman.
And a little bit similar to Senator Keel's question.
I'm looking on page three lines, 18 through 20, around the definition of finance institution.
And I am curious because I don't know if this falls underneath that particular federal deposit insurance corporation about insurance.
companies, or potentially your estate plan and your lawyer facilities,
my husband has some very expensive firearms that he has bought recently,
much to the chagrin of our bank account. And we want to ensure that those are
willed and gifted to our dependents and to
our beneficiaries, and so those institutions particularly
our insurance provider and also, our home insurance
provider, and, also our estate planning attorney and
department, keep a list of all the firearms that we have.
And I want to ensure that this would not impede the ability to keep those lists
not necessarily on our person or in our own, but in these financial institutions and
in this insurance liability so that something did happen to our
home as we experienced a fire early on.
We'd be able to recoup the costs.
I have an answer that may suffice, but if not, I'm happy to follow up with legislative legal and get a memo to hopefully clarify that.
But I would like to direct the committee's attention to line 17 on page 4.
So it says this subsection does not apply to an owner of a privately owned firearm who keeps or causes to be kept a list, record, or registry of the owner's own firearms.
Private firearm owner contracts a an estate attorney or an insurance company and
Voluntarily gives that information over that would be the person causing to be kept a record of that of those firearms
So I believe that wouldn't be a concern, but I can reach out to the lego and clarify that for you senator
Thank you, thank you that would be very helpful as I particularly think about when those particular firearms are in the transfer process or
pro-weight process.
There is no technical owner as they're going through a legal dynamic and so you wouldn't want those to get lost in
the me-lu of what happens when unfortunately people pass away.
Senator Keel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have it. What I think I hope is an easy one, but it's just sort of a mechanical question on your definition of ammunition.
It lists all the component parts of the ammunition, does it need to list loaded rounds?
Because they're not in there, and people often just buy a box of loaded ammo.
I I am unsure of that if that would if this definition would not suffice already loaded ammunition
I would assume because it contains all those parts, but not it doesn't explicitly say a loaded ammo
So I wouldn't have to clarify that for you senator. Thanks
Thank you, thank you mr. Chairman
And so my question really is around, and I'm looking at the section, again, on page four, line 14, where it talks about criminal investigation and prosecution and albeit I am married to a federal investigator, I don't actually know how investigations start.
providing any sort of documentation or paperwork that are looking at patterns of behavior.
And from what I have been able to glean from the internet that sometimes those merchant
category codes are used to track whether someone is purchasing a large amount of rounds or
firearms and planning potentially to do some very large-scale harm.
And so I'm curious if you've talked to law enforcement about how this might impede their
a terrible event being considered by an entity or a person.
Through the chair, Senator Tobin, we haven't, but obviously that's a question we can gladly ask.
Senator Keel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So going back to page two in the attorney general.
I guess I was a little caught by surprise when the bill gives the Attorney General the power to investigate a violation of Alaska law.
Pretty sure that's a general power of the attorney general.
Is there a reason that we want to put it here in section C?
Leave that section E.
Oh E, thank you, my notes went right over the letter.
All right.
I'd seen he and I thought wait a second page two line 16. Is there a reason we need to put it there?
For the record Paul Mankey through the or two vice chair keel
I'm a sure and i believe Nancy Mead from the Alaska court system is present in the room and might be able to answer that question or clarify that
It sounds like a call for Ms. Mead or is this
Fishery committee meetings is there anything on this topic in which you can provide any insight or observation or comments
Thank you to the chair for the record Nancy me general counsel for The Alaska court system
I was here to explain any questions about the court rule changes, but
with respect to The question by senator vice chair keel
I understand your point that perhaps that does not need to be written in the statute.
I guess I would defer to the drafters as to why they put that in there.
You're correct to my knowledge.
The Attorney General can investigate any suspicion of a crime.
It seems to flow from D to E that.
Somebody kind of says to the eight attorney general that they think there's a violation
I suppose he could just say if the attorney General finds an
Violation without saying they may investigate since that's assumed
But I would I will defer to The drafters as to why it says exactly that
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, Ms. Mead. Yeah, I was
Similarly, sort of was going to follow up on the, giving a person the ability to go to court if they believe they've been the victim of a violation of state law.
And again, that's my general assumption is that a
person can go court, if think a company or a financial services provider has broken state
law and they are harmed.
Through the chair to Senator Keill, I would agree with that,
that somebody can always sue the state for something they think the State did illegally or inappropriately.
This does make it particularly explicit with this type of cause of action.
And I don't know if the drafters think that's necessary or not.
Senator Q, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
While we have you here, Ms. Mead, I was going to ask the sponsor, but I'm sure it's more appropriate to you.
Can you would you be willing to lay out for me what the differences are from the existing court rules to the court rule has changed here?
through the chair, device chair Keel.
Sure, I am looking on page four at the section three
has the two indirect court rule amendments.
And what I see on lines 25 and 26
is an indirect change in rule 65.
Rule 65 is the civil rule having to do with injunctions.
Usually when a party needs an injunction,
a preliminary injunction in particular,
there's some sort of emergency or some
right away to prevent somebody from doing something or forcing them to do something and joining them.
And those go into effect as soon as the judge issues them typically, that's what the rule is about.
This bill, however, says if you flip back to page two, lines 28 through 30.
It does not take effect for 30 days.
So that's how this bill modifies the normal court rule
and how injunctions work.
The legislature may choose to do that.
You just need the majority vote.
That is your policy call.
If you want to make that indirect change to the rule,
it's not something that we would change the court rules.
It's just this odd situation doesn't follow
the formal procedure.
Similarly, if you look at subsection B on page four.
So just for a matter of clarity.
If I'm suing today and seeking an injunction to say stop polluting, stop lighting this
water.
This pollutant get into the stream.
That injunction typically would say, Stop immediately.
If the injunction was granted, we'd essentially
be giving the financial institution 30 days to fix it.
To the chair, yes, that is the modification to the rule,
that it would not be immediate.
Because the statute trumps the rules in that regard
if it passes by the required vote.
Okay, and then the second court rule changes to rule 82 and I'm looking at page four lines 29 through 31.
Rule 82 is our civil rule about attorney's fees.
So typically a losing party has to pay a portion.
of the winning party's attorney's fees depending on where in the case at what procedural stage
of case it ended and there's a chart basically in Rule 82 about how much you can recover
what percentage of actual fees.
However, this bill would change that in these causes of action and that change appears
which says the court shall award the attorney general or a petition or whoever brought the suit
if they win full reasonable attorney's fees. So that's unusual in law. Usually you just get
a portion but a statute can say that and it would just have that indirect change to rule 82.
Senator Keel, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, we wanted to get you into the session and
top fighting shape here.
A question maybe to the sponsor, the way this is drafted to
the full reasonable attorney's fees run both ways.
If a financial institution wins, do they get their full
reasonable attorneys fees, or is this a one way full fee?
It looks like it's a one-way thing, to be honest with you, but we can definitely make sure of that.
But yes, the way I read it, it looks that's one way.
So, Mr. Mayor, my initial thought would be if we're going to do full attorney's fees,
it probably ought to either bear their own risk and cost, or everybody ought
to bear the loser pays risk.
rather than it only going one direction.
That seems a little out of balance to me.
And I'll follow up with that question
for either Ms. Mead or Senator Cronk or senator Cronks' staff.
Can you give us an example of some of the other types
of cases that specifically allow full attorneys fees
as opposed to the standard schedule attorneys' fees?
Like, and the reason the question is sort of what?
what makes this particular, I'm not undermining the importance of firearms,
but why whatever that small group of matters in which we're allowing full
attorneys fees, how does this fit within the rubric in the vast majority of cases
where there are no full attorneys' fees but just a scheduled amount?
To the chair,
I would have to do some research to respond to that question.
It is not common in statute to provide for full
Always reasonable though attorneys fees, and I could look that up
Senator Tobin, thank you.
Thank you, Senator Kline.
We've got a little bit of head just on that one.
Oh no, that thank-you, as I often defer to the lawyer in the room, you will have more articulate questions than I may be able to ask.
So my question to you Ms. Meade as well is while you're doing that research, can you help us understand if incentivizing in one direction creates a circumstance where you might see folks use it as a
Oh, I I just I want to stay away from the word of like incentivizing action or incentivize folks to make claims that they
Would not necessarily otherwise claim has this played out in other situations where you've seen the the full
The the full reasonable attorney fees be provided does this create that dynamic through the chair to the senator Tobin?
I understand the question that would not be something that we would have data on
Unfortunately, I don't know if I'll even be able to get anecdotes, but I will I'd do my best. Thank you
Don't see other questions. I had a couple of questions
As a background, and I remember talking to a cup
A couple of folks involved in some tech industry features,
and I said, so what really do they
know from my credit card records,
and how much information is really out there,
and, how many is out in the commercial world,
and what, and the general answer was,
you don't really want to know because they have a whole bunch
more information than you would be comfortable with,
and it's not just about firearms.
magazine online and suddenly I see an ad pop up for yogurt. I'm thinking why is it
yogurt but then the yogurt keeps showing up and it must be because somewhere in
all this information that they have on me and they know either the websites I've
looked for or the things I bought they no I buy yogurt with some frequency and
I think and I don't really care whether I have yogurt or not but there's a part
of me that's thinking am I really crazy about the notion that somebody out there
And I guess that's one of the questions I, I wonder about the privacy interests seem
pretty important on more things than just firearms in my senses that there's a whole
bunch of that stuff out there that I'm not crazy about it and I think we have a great
right to privacy in the last year but I am not sure it's doing much about what they
know about my credit card purchases, and that is kind of an abstract question but what,
If they're getting all this information about a bunch of other stuff that we buy why should we be?
Treating firearms differently than everything else
Through the chair, I just believe there's you know for me obviously we it's just
Data that I feel could be really used against certain people and to interrogate them, you know
And obviously we have people that are pro to a and there's lots of people are not and they don't care
About your individual rights and stuff like that and and we're just trying to make sure
People that our to A are are NOT specifically targeted out and any you
Know unfairly treated or you can have
many different things through it.
It's a hard question to ask,
because I totally understand what you're asking there,
but I just, the gun issue is a big issue.
It is obviously important to many people,
and I think that's the highlight of this bill,
is to make sure that people don't get to share
that information around,
and they shouldn't know that in formation.
I don' t think the general public should know
how many guns anybody owns,
it's up to them as long as they're keeping them.
keeping them at home, and they're not harming people.
That information could be used in many different ways
if people knew that, so a purpose of the bill.
And then the other query, which is follow up
on the questions that Senator Keel,
I think was asking about the attorney in general,
but a little bit different.
I generally agree with his suggestion
that the Attorney General has the authority
to investigate whatever they want to investigated.
because it's a violation of state law, but I'm wondering, at some level,
this is by having all these specific provisions, including the full attorneys fees,
it suggests that the attorneys general should have a higher duty to investigate violations
of this particular law than other particular laws, and it sort of at the top of my list with.
Resource issues in all levels state government. I'm quick to say they should be investigating the murders and the rapes and
The crimes and if that means they don't have the resources to necessarily pursue a
financial institution and I
Again, I'll leave that to them
But one of my concerns is just specifically adding the attorney general in this mix as opposed to private
Individuals who have their right to bring action
Does that start?
Prioritizing how the Attorney General spends their time that might not be the priorities that some would have for their for where they spend time
Thank you for the record Paul Mankey to the chair
I
Think I understand your question and and obviously we don't want these this case deals with a lot of civil matters
So this would be an award in it in a civil
ish manner although it would be investigated by the intern in general and I
don't want to
impugned my boss here, but I don't think that the murders
impuning anyone, so don t worry about that.
But I do t think we want the murderers and the rafes,
and those types of serious crimes to take precedent,
but when it comes to the civil matters,
I believe that because this is dealing with not only
Alaskans constitutional rights to keep and bear arms,
but also the constitutional right for privacy,
that this might have a higher case in terms of civil
matters.
Let's see any other questions
There are a number of questions that we you can get back to us the other the
Other thing I would note I don't see many comments at all from any the banks or any of the credit card companies
Have you shared this bill with them? Do they have are they okay with it?
Do I have any concerns?
For the record Paul making to chair Klayman. Yes, we have been in contact with a few we've um
We've actually had quite a bit of contact with Yuri Morgan, the lobbyist on behalf of the Alaska Bankers.
And I believe that they have some comments.
It was, I know they had some critiques or some concerns over the bill, but they also, he did not finalize any sort of letter of support or opposition or neutrality to the Bill.
So if the committee would like, we can reach out to them to see if they would be willing to finalise one of those.
I encourage you to reach out and we'll also try to
reach down to them because actually something that has
impact on financial institutions.
I would like to see either their support,
their non support or their
non opposition as the case may be.
And for the record upon me, if I may, Chair Klayman,
we have had a meeting with Scott Talbot
on behalf of the Electronic Transaction Association.
Their opinion was neutral on the bill from our meeting.
There was no letter or formal thing
and that was sent to our office or was shared with us.
But just from understanding of their meeting,
they did not want to have to.
apply unique merchant codes to several different industries, whether or not it's firearm.
So they did not want to have to.
For instance, if it was a healthcare provider, the example that was provided to us was they
did want not have distinguish a pediatric doctors from, let's say, an abortion clinic.
That was the, that is the examples given to
us, but they said that this bill would not really affect that.
It would just keep them from.
Provide statutory limits against them provide like having to distinguish a small general firearm retailer from a a sportsman store, so
Thank you
Senator Tilton welcome. Thank You mr. Chairman. Yes, I'm
I actually just have a comment and just for transparency,
I want you to know that I was the companion bill
on the House side, carried that,
and that also I would also like for a transparency
to let you know
that Donny Anthony is a constituent of mine
and also a very good friend,
and I have heard of the incident that did happen with her,
and it is an occurrence that is quite concerning.
Did she finally get paid in the end?
She did.
Okay.
I don't see any other questions, any final comments from Senator Cronkery, your office, before we set the bill aside?
Do the chair, I just want to thank you guys for hearing the building, and we will address the great questions that you
guys have and see if we can satisfy all the questions for everybody.
But yeah, thank for that time.
Obviously, the first committee meeting of the year, we've got there.
So, Thank you.
We'll hold the bill for a further review of this time, and we're going to adjourn for the day.
Our next meeting will be on Wednesday, January 28th at 1.30 PM.
Our Next meeting on Monday,
January 26th is canceled and with that we stand adjourned.
The time is now 2.06 PM