Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: We are live.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee this Wednesday morning, March eleventh. We're turning our attention to h six zero six. A little bit of an introduction. So the this is an amendment. We usually would be looking at the bill as introduced, but given the short time that we have before crossover, given the limited time that we have to address this particular bill, I'm having Eric, our legislative counsel, go over a draft amendment, a proposed amendment from me that does a couple things, and Eric will get into this a little bit further. But we've received a lot of emails and a lot of concern. I've had discussions with Chris Bradley and others regarding some of the sections that seem problematic and may have something to them, but really would take a lot more time to get right. So I've struck from this amendment strikes a section related to industry accountability and also strikes language related to machine guns, which frankly are heavily regulated by the federal government. So felt that that was okay to do that. So it's really simplified this bill a lot and it has three main components that our legislative council will go over and we'll have testimony on those parts. We've had a lot of requests, a lot of emails on this from all sides, and the focus has been on those sections that have been taken out, but not entirely. My intention is at this point not to have actually a public hearing on that, but I'm going to be having all those emails put into our public record so that they will be there. They'll be considered as written testimony so everybody's voices will be heard. And I have been receiving a lot of emails on this, and I appreciate the attention to this. So with that, I will turn it over to Eric. Thank you for being here, Eric.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You bet. Good morning, everybody.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Good morning.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Counsel here this morning, as the chair said, to walk the committee through a proposed amendment to h six zero six, h six zero six being an act relating to firearms procedures. So as the chair said, the the proposed amendment that you're looking at in front of you essentially strikes a couple of sections from the bill as it was introduced and rewrites another section. So in the big picture, there's a couple strikes a couple of sections, rewrites another one. I'll get into more detail of that as I go through it, but that kind of gives you a flavor of it, the difference, before we look at the substance. And there's a number of different sections, as you can sort of glean from the title of the bill and activating to firearms procedures, that there's a few different things going on here. It's not any one particular thing, but it's sort of common thread is that they're related to firearms. Having said that, then let's let's take a look at the different sections so the the committee can understand what the different proposals are in the amendment. Section one, I should say, so are we all looking at the right amendment, I guess? It's 8,606 proposed by rep LaLonde, and it should be dated March 9, 02:04PM. Is that correct? Yep. All right. Good. So in that version of it, look at section one, page one. This was also section one of the bill as introduced, so it's unchanged. And the proposal here and actually, now that I think of it, this is on the wall. Yes. Page 19 up there on the wall. So this just takes a bill that has been introduced and referred to this committee, H19, introduced by Rex Donahue, Burditt, Goslant, and just puts that into this proposed amendment. What this section does is, just a moment of background, I'm sure, as this committee knows, having dealt with property crimes so much over the years, generally speaking, with respect to property crimes, the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony depends upon the monetary value of the property. Do remember what that number is? Nine. 900. Thank you. Such a weird number. It's always that's strange to remember. Legislative compromise many years ago between July and a thousand. Landed on September. So if, generally speaking, with property crimes, if the amount stolen, embezzled, whatever it is, is is more than $900, it's a felon. It's less or $900 or less, it's a misdemeanor. And that exists currently with respect to met all the property crime standards. But this one that you're looking at right now in section one grand larceny, the proposal, though, is to with if the if the property stolen is a firearm, to have it always be a felony. That's the proposal. So you see that value of the property would not be relevant anymore, at least with respect to firearms in particular. So if you look at the language, line 16 through 18 actually, it started line 15 because that describes the existing state of the law, which I just mentioned. Generally speaking, depends on whether or not the firearm is, like with any other property, is $900 in value or more. But if the stolen property is a firearm, the proposal is that it would be grand larceny, which means it's a felony.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think that's that kind

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of question. Yes. Thank you, Jared. Do we do that with any other products, Eric? That are specific to a particular product, you mean, that sort of that would be the the Instant felony. Say it again. Sorry. An instant felony. Yeah. Right. Right. It's a good question. I don't think so. But not having looked into what I hate to say for sure and then I have given you the wrong answer. So let me take a peek at that, but I'm not sure. I don't think so off the top of my head. Or at least I can't think about it.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So this could be something very good.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If there isn't something else. Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah. So that was pretty straightforward to explain, but I can pause again if there's any other questions.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: We have questions?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Was gonna

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: say, we did do something. We did change the law to say that with retail thefts, you aggregate. So no single item might be over 900, but if you aggregate the total when it's over 900, it's a fail.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. That's true. Yep. Similar sort of not based on the particular property, but, yes, it's another approach that the legislature's taken to permit different factors to go into whether you cross the $900 line or not.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Even though I was one of the sponsors on that other bill to make it a felony to, you know, to steal a firearm, why wouldn't it be included anyway since it would have a value oh, it's under 900 we're going for. Okay. I'm I'm sure. It's been a while since

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I love those kind of questions where the person answers it themselves.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Stop off like you.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I appreciate that.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you, I also have a question on the 10 heirs and the 5,000. Yeah.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Are those in line with other statutes? Or

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. For the property theft. Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Should we move on? Okay. Alright. So moving on to section two. It starts at the very bottom of page one, we'll over on the top of page two. Now we're dealing, in particular, with persons prohibited from possessing firearms, and in particular, people who have been convicted of violent crimes. So every state, all 50 states from unincluded, and the federal government have these sorts of statutes on the books. And these sorts of statutes prohibit possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of certain crimes. So every state has that. The feds have it. Vermont, which you're looking at right now, was passed in 2015, happens to use the term, you'll see, violent crime. On the bottom of page one, and then we're gonna turn over to page two. And the general prohibition is that the person has been convicted of a violent crime, then they are prohibited from possessing a firearm. And the statute defines violent crime, and that's over starts on page three. And this isn't changed in the bill, but I'm just referencing it for the committee that the definition is there. Doesn't include all felonies. It's a specified carve out of certain felonies. And as I say, this Vermont Vermont version of this sometimes is referred to not always exactly accurately, but sort of colloquially referred to as felons in possession statutes. That's what these are often referred to as even though they aren't all felonies, and they sometimes aren't felonies themselves. But for purposes of the Vermont statute, violent crime is what's used and what that's the term that's defined. So what's the proposal to change that in this bill? That's in page two. Actually, it appears a couple of times, but the first instance is on page two. The current penalty for a person who violates a statute so in other words, you've been convicted of one of the violent crimes, and you possess a fire. So that would be a violation of the statute. What's the penalty for that? Currently, it's a two year misdemeanor. That is on page two lines four to five. Two year misdemeanor, a thousand dollar fine. So the proposal is to keep that penalty for a first offense. If it's a second or subsequent offense, then it becomes a three year felony, $5,000 fine, and that is on lines six to seven. That makes it understand how that proposal works. It's to and, again, this this

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Make sure I'm

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: correct to see this.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. This section is also untrained between the this amendment and the bill as introduced. So it's basically for person convicted of a violent crime to possess a firearm currently illegal, but its proposal is to change the penalty so that first offense remains same penalty as existing mod to your misdemeanor, but second or subsequent, it comes with three. Alright. I can move on unless there's any questions on that section. Alright. Now, we're moving on to section three, which is over on page five. Now, what I just was talking about is the category of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms based on conviction of certain crime. Right? As I said, sometimes caught balance in possession, Vermont, conviction of a violent crime. There's there are also other categories. In addition to the being convicted of certain crimes, there's other categories of persons who are prohibited from firearms possession, both under laws in all the states and under federal law and under Vermont law, and they are in a separate section. In other words, this violent crimes conviction is one section of law, and then there's this other section of law right next to that section. That is being amended, proposed to be amended on page five. And as I say, this these other categories of people, which, you start on page five, and this is existing law. You see one, two, three, and then there's number four over on page six. Those are all based on federal law. Federal law actually has, I can send if anybody's ever interested in this, happens to be 18 USC nine twenty two g, which is the list of other people under federal law who are prohibited from firearms possession. The very first one is the convicted of crime punishable by a term exceeding one year, which is the federal version of what we just looked at. Fugitives from justice, unlawful users of substances, certain substances, etcetera, etcetera. So that's the federal list. A few years ago actually, only two years ago now, 2023, the legislature passed this statute that you're looking at, four seventeen a, to add a couple of those categories that are in federal law already to have those persons prohibited under state law as well. Anybody with me so far? So though these categories, those four that you're looking at, existing law, bottom page five, fugitive from justice, subject of a final relief from abuse order, that's number two, subject to the final order against stalking, number three, over onto page six. Person against whom charges are pending for, and then it lists three particular offenses. Those are all people who are also already prohibited under federal law. Although just under page six line one there, federal law uses the term under indictment, not against certain charges. They're pending, but same idea and extra yeah. Yeah. I'll leave it at that.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Can we take it a little bit deeper? Yeah. Yeah. By paragraph Yeah. Or something?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And if we wanted

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: to mean, starting on, like, page two, we're already up to page six.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: It was gone over a long time.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Now none of that has changed. But you can certainly talk about whatever you wanna hear about.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Absolutely. Printed black and white in my brain from

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: the previous time we've done it. So

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know. It has been a little Yeah.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I'm not saying, you know, like, convicted of violent crimes. Yep. I'd like to go through those.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. So Yeah. That's another document I can send you and have posted as well if that would be helpful. But for the most part, the violent crime because I remember I remember how that list was created. It was in the senate judiciary committee, many, many days of testimony going through each of the crimes in the in the list of listed crimes one by one. Do we want this to be a crime that prohibits a person possessing firearms? Yes or no? And we got through that entire list of listed crimes, and you'll see page three, line sixteen, seventeen. Violent crime means a listed crime as defined in about 53.7 other than and that's because those exceptions we made during the course of that discussion. Committee went through every crime that was on the listed crime list. Do we want this to be for prohibition or not? And when they came to they say, no. We don't wanna include that. That got into this exceptional list. See what I mean? And then there was a couple other if you got to the the in addition to the list of crime, there are over on page four subdivisions b, c, and d, some other testimony I specifically remember, Center for Crime Victims on b, the state's attorneys association on c and d, they said we want these to be included as well because they aren't listed crimes. They also want to include sexual exploitation of children and certain drug offenses. And that's that's sort of the genesis of that. I'm surprised I can't remember that so clearly.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So I was gonna follow-up, or I was gonna bring up the same thing that

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Oliver did. But wouldn't it be beneficial if we if there's somehow or another we could get those sorts of crimes to us now so we could follow-up on that. How long ago how long ago was those did we go over those crimes? Because we've done so many gun bills since I've been in this building now.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You mean how when did when did that Yeah. Get craziness?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Was Hang on, I just thought I had that written.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thought I'd written that down. I think it's 2015. But anyway, I do have the list and a separate document that I can definitely have posted and sent to you so you can see the list in addition to it being right there in the bill. But I'm pretty sure that that statute, 13 BSA, 4,017, was passed in 2015. So roughly ten years ago.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: What's that?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Roughly ten years ago.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Maybe more than eleven, but we're trying to rush this build through kind of fast, not kind of. We are we're we're trying. And I wanna know exactly what I'm doing and what I'm talking about, number one. And number two, if we could just back up, just some it's probably a lot of people around here and maybe listening that what's a starter gun on line 12 on page two?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: What's that listed as? This is the

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just so you know where that definition comes from, that's the federal law definition of a fire. So that's where that language comes from. So as far as the I think it's sort of what you would think of as sort

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: of a

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: plain language kind of thing. I think of a starter gun as because I'm official in swim meets, but I think of the gun sometimes in swim meet as a starter gun. But as far as a legal definition goes, I don't know if that's correct off the top of my head, but I can certainly look that up. But I will say that where that language comes from, that's the federal firearms definition.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: You know, I I think I recall that that discussion, you know, as well, you know, being, you know, a track coach and official, you know, we use that, you know, I mean, you know, in all of our activities. Very similar to, you know, all of the athletic starting pieces, you know, and it's it's use of a, you know, a fake but pretty accurate looking firearm. You know, I mean, if somebody puts that in your face, you're gonna, you know, look pretty closely, you know, at it because it's really hard to discern. But I remember that discussion back then, believe it or not.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. What's that?

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I just wanna make sure that Kenny, you're done?

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yes. Okay.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you. Following up on representative Goslant's question about starter gun, the word that I'm kind of curious about, and I'm on page three and line five, is rimfire and conventional centerfire picks ammunition. And I realize that this may be derived from the federal statute. Yes. But think it would be helpful because even even if you go back to line 17 on page two, we have a very distinct definition for anti firearm. Right. And I'm curious because I mean, just doing some cursory research in the lead up to this bill, rimfire, from my understanding, can be defined several different ways. And so I do think it'd be helpful if we just kind of dive into the granularities of what we're we're actually talking about.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Again, the the I suspect because that antique firearm definition is exactly and based on but also exactly what's in federal law. So I'm just without having researched it, I would speculate that they those terms probably have been flushed out in some federal case because of the fact that this has been around for a long time under federal law. But in terms of a practical definition of it, I would suspect that you might have witnesses other than myself who would be able to give you a a more hands on, so to speak, definition of both those terms. I should point out there, though, too. It's interesting. Don't if everyone sort of picked this up for the reason for focusing in on that language why it's important, is that those types of weapons are excluded from the definition of firearms. So in other words, they would not be a a person could prohibit those, and it would not be unlawful.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Possess those.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is that what I said? Prohibit. Oh, possess those. Yes. Yes. A person could possess those without violating the statute because they it's in a carved out exception. Alrighty. Are we okay on being in section three? Which is, as I mentioned, this list of other categories. These are we're getting to some of the other categories now. There's a few that, were passed in 2023 that we brought us over to page six. And so what's the proposal here then with respect to these other categories other than persons who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses? Two pieces to this proposal. I'm kinda gonna go back in order of reverse order because the second one is much simpler. That's over on page seven. That's just the same thing that we looked at already with respect to the criminal offenses. In other words, making instead of having all violations be a two year misdemeanor, the first violation will remain that remain the same as that penalty, two year misdemeanor. But second or subsequent would be the three year 5,000, and that's on page seven, lines two through five. Everybody see that? So that's the same as the same principle that he looked at with respect to the persons convicted of violent crime. So that's one thing that's done with this other category of what's often referred to as prohibited. What's the other thing that's done with respect to prohibited persons? That is on page six. Again, this is, this is a category of people just like the first four in the existing sector. This is a category of persons who are currently prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. However, the proposal so this proposal is to add a comparable provision in Vermont law. And the reason I didn't say that it's identical is because it's not identical in the sense that the federal law prohibits a much wider range of people, a broader group of people than the proposal here. The proposal here is to prohibit only a subsection of or a subset is a better way to put it. A subset of the people who are prohibited under federal law for mental health reasons is what this is all about from possessing fire. So within this category of people because of court actions that have taken place in their history on the basis of their mental health status, There's a category of those folks who are prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law permanently. Right? That's an interest that's an important point because that's one way in which this proposal you're looking at is different than federal law, but it's not all permanent. Be helpful for a second, I think, to look at because you see the I should mention too that you may already know this, that this language, the specifics of this language are have been I worked on this draft, and she authorized me to mention it to you with representative Donahue. So that's where this particular subset proposal comes from. But just for a moment, look at page five, line 17, and line 19. These are the two other existing subdivisions of categories. And you see the way that there's a written there. Number two, is the subject of a final relief order issued pursuant to counter 15. And number three, is the subject of a final order against stalking, etcetera. The point I'm making there is you see the way that's phrased. Is this subject of? In other words, once the order expires, they're no longer prohibited.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's the

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Once the they they have to be the current subject of this order. So for example, the RFA order number two. Once the order expires, they're not prohibited from possessing it. They're only prohibited while the order is in effect.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. And that's existing.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's existing law. Yeah. I just wanted you to sort of see that because that's kind of a parallel to what Rex and Donahue was going for with these mental health alerts. So if you look at page six, for example, the two line 14 and line 16, page six, because there's three different groups here, and I'm just gonna start with the second, number two and number three. Subdivision b is the subject of a commitment order issued by the court court pursuant to section forty eight twenty two. That happens to be the section that you will likely look at later in the year because it has to do with a person found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. That's currently being worked on in the Senate in the context of the forensic bill, which gives me a nice segue to say I have to be there at 10:15. So that's how far I can go on this. But the where was oh, yeah. So what the same thing with subdivision c there is the subject of a hospitalization order issued by the court of six zero two eight. And that citation, that's the civil commitment statute. That's not the criminal that's not the forensic people that are coming into the Department of Mental Health custody on the basis of having come from the criminal division, hence the word forensic. Those are people that are coming in because of a petition in the family division of the supreme court sorry, superior court, whereas under current law, a person an interested party can go to the family division and buy a petition. If the court finds that the person is a danger to themselves or others on the basis of a mental illness, that person can be committed. So under federal law, if you've ever had that happen to you, you're prohibited in possessing firearms permanent. Right? So you'll see how this is different. It's based on the same language we just looked at with respect to RFAs and stocking laws. Is the subject of it? For representative Donahue's point there was, shouldn't this person be able to possess when the order is no longer in effect? And that's why the language is phrased

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: that way.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is the subject of a commitment order, is the subject of a hospitalization order. So once that person, they're the subject of, they will for a while be in DMH custody, possibly on an order of hospitalization, possibly on an order of nonhospitalization. But when that order expires or when DMH takes action to end it, which they do sometimes, then they wouldn't be a prohibited person anymore. That's the concept. So different as I say, that's a smaller sub that's a smaller group of people than are prohibited under federal that's under federal law once that prohibition of taxes. Sticks with you. All right, so there's an exception to that in representative Donahue's proposal, and that's in Subdivision A. She's trying to get parity for persons with mental health reasons and persons who are not. She said, but on the other hand, if the person has been found, I'm looking at line 10 now, not guilty by reason of insanity for a violent crime. Well, remember, not NGRI, not guilty by reason of insanity verdict happens. The other person has been convicted already. They've been convicted of the crime. It's just the court or they are able to prove as a defense that, well, I may have done it, but I was insane at the time. Therefore, I shouldn't be convicted. But the conviction is still there. So rep counting the point was, well, that person, they were convicted of a violent crime, which as we just saw in the preceding section, does prohibit a person permanently from from possessing firearms. So she said, with respect to those group that group, okay to have them be prohibited permanently, because that's the same way a person without a mental illness would be treated.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thanks,

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Chair. Eric, I'm curious if Representative Donahue, when she walked you through this, because, I mean, here's the thing, right? If someone is under a hospitalization order, and I'm just saying hypothetically, if they were diagnosed with bipolar or schizophrenia or something, the hospitalization order might be lifted, but if the mental illness still persists. So if the mental illness still is in existence within this person, should they have access to a firearm? That's a

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: fair question. And as a nonmedical person, I would defer I think she has more knowledge of that than I So I didn't respond to your question. We didn't get into the granular details that you just raised of that very interesting policy question.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: But it'd be a worthwhile one to ask. Well, and I'm just kind of curious because it also doubles back to how we can provide a carve out to federal law. Because we typically have very fierce debates in this room about really where the extent of our authority lies and what that line is as it relates to federal oversight. And it seems like this might be beyond that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, maybe a different way to think of it is because it's it's not a carve out to federal law in the sense that those folks would still be prohibited Right. By federal law from possessing a fire. The but what you're saying is or should say, what you would be saying if you pass this proposal is that that group of people, in other words, the people against whom that order is no longer in effect, would not be able to be prosecuted in Vermont state court by Vermont state's attorney because it wouldn't be legal under Vermont law. In order for that person to be to be prosecuted for that offense, it would have to be the US attorney in federal court because it would only be a federal offense, the legislature sometimes does, but that's a policy call for you guys as to whether you think it's appropriate or maybe you think that the federal policy is a federal, which is also a legitimate way to land.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. I I just I find it strange, specifically, the policies that come out of this committee, you don't really find leniency when it comes to federal crimes. So I'm just curious why this was an exception. I know that's not for you,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but that's just Right. Sure.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: So if somebody I'm just a little confused on how the, this mental health piece works. Yeah. So if somebody has a situation, an event, whatever you want to call, ends up in the hospital, is deemed at some point to have a mental health issue, I guess you could say, but then they're released and deemed lack of a better word healthy again. How does federal law treat them at that point? And how does this how does state law treat them at this point now? And does that change with this bill?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, just to sort of reframe your your hypo a little bit because a person who just ends up in the hospital for treatment for Really? Isn't necessarily gonna be covered by the federal law or the state law. These only apply when someone is involuntarily committed. See that? Doesn't even apply it doesn't even apply federal law specifics says it doesn't apply for voluntary admissions.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So Has to be

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: an involuntary ordering you to be committed. Right. Yeah. So if they're involuntary committed and they they go through their treatment and deemed healthy Right. Again. Yep. So what happens? Yes. In that case, let's say for either in that case, that person would have been committed to the Department of Mental Health custody, even if they stayed in the hospital because DMH has a number of hospitals they use around the state for these sorts of involuntary mental health commitments. That's the case, but they clinically decide later on the person doesn't that can be released. Then what would happen under federal law, under existing federal law, is is that that person would still be prohibited from possessing a firearm because that patch is permanent if they've ever been involuntarily committed. However, now now I should add that and I don't this will perhaps be deja vu for the committee a little bit. There is a process under federal law known as where you can get your light your firearms rights restored. Committee may remember when we were talking about the animal cruelty bill, that we put a provision in the animal cruelty bill that I said to you was based on this other provision from firearms law in the state that allowed a person who had been prohibited from working with owning animals in the future to petition the court for an order that they could have their rights restored. Anybody kinda remember that? Well, that was based on this similar provision in firearms. The only reason I mentioned represent Burditt, is because when I say that prohibition is permanent, there is that option for the person to go to court and say, hey, I shouldn't have my firearms rights prohibited anymore. Maybe I've re you know, I've had mental health restored for a long period of time. Whatever factors they might use to make that argument. So that just sort of so you have a full understanding of what that's out there. But other than that, let's say the person hasn't done that. Then, yeah, they would be prohibited under federal under state law, interestingly, you don't have anything on this in state law currently. So in other words, under state law, that wouldn't that wouldn't be a crime.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: My next question was gonna be as far as the federal law goes, has it been challenged? But I'm wondering if if you could if you could challenge it since there is a way to to petition to get your rights back.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think there has still been litigation on the on the subject of under what circumstances a person you know, whether it's an infringement on someone's firearms rights for them to be permanently barred on the basis of certain types of of involuntary commitments. But I don't think that the supreme court has has looked at the issue.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Right. Right. Kinda where I'm going with it is we debated this number of years ago in here. And it was a mental health piece and member from Middlebury, remember wanted once somebody was deemed healthy, I remember there want there was a piece that somebody wanted to add to the bill that they still couldn't get possess or or own or buy a firearm for another thirty days, but we we came to the conclusion in the committee that once somebody was deemed healthy, that how can you restrict their rights when there's, in a sense, nothing wrong with it? Right. And and this kind of steps on that. But right, wrong, or otherwise, this is something what this committee has already debated. They they came to a conclusion on, and and now we're we're changing it again.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I think under current law, there isn't there there isn't any prohibition in the current law. You may be thinking of, though, the recording requirement. There is a recording requirement in current law so that if someone has been involuntarily committed, then those names have to be reported to that national instant criminal background check. So in other words, even though it's not a state law prohibition, they do have to send the names of them so the feds can put them in the national prohibited personal list. And that's probably, I bet you, were that discussion you're remembering, Kenneth?

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: We were discussing voluntary Yeah. Bet. Yep. Talking back, probably fifteen, sixteen biennium.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I'll bet I'll bet you're right because the reporting law that requires the names of those folks to be reported to to Nick's does apply to persons who had been found a danger to themselves or others as a result of the senate committed.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Because if we if we were discussing involuntary, it would have come up that Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Yeah.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Goes back

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to the federal law. Yep. Well, interestingly, this and this is specifically what representative Donahue was was trying to do. This doesn't require this doesn't prohibit that universe of people from possessing. Because this is lot it says is subject to, generally speaking. So once the order goes away, you can possess.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Oh, okay. And that

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was representative Harvey's point, which is, if a person still has, even if it's in remission, so to speak, the mental illness, is that the way you want

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to go or

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: not? Unless someone can go into remission for mental illness, right?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I'm trying what's the word I'm looking at, though? It's with respect to competency. Oh, restore. Like, some competency can be restored, but then they can become incompetent again. Right.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: You're getting from justice, and the person has fled to avoid fuss to avoid giving testimony to the

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: criminal for cheating. Yeah. Do the work.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: With that

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Are you on page five there? Think so.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Looking at the I

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: jumped up to that to find that

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: No, no. But if

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: that could include somebody who's got a simple jaywalking bent warrant in another state or a violation that's showing up as a misdemeanor warrant?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I no. I would generally view a misdemeanor as a and I think that is a crime. So if it's a I don't know if it's in another state. It could be a civil offense. That wouldn't that would be It

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: could be a misdemeanor too. I mean, in Vermont, it's a civil. But in some states, they're misdemeanors. And that seemed like sort of an unfair blend.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Yeah. I think as long as it's a crime, which does include a misdemeanor, then it would be covered. But it could be you know, there could be the potential where, like, let's say, someone something were a civil offense in another state, then that could be something that a defense lawyer would raise. Hey, this isn't a crime. They shouldn't be prohibited.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Here, it might be a civil offense. But in another state, it might be

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I see what you mean. Right? The opposite. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yep.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Alright.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are we

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: So Are you looking to change that?

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I don't think it's really fair. If it's a civil offense here and it's not excluded, then it's a misdemeanor in another state. You could be excluded by having an unresolved violation in another state that's could be a misdemeanor, petty, and it's not a a listed fence that would normally stop you from getting one.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Could you be looking at some language that would have to be

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: a crime here?

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Well, you're assumed to be a fugitive if you leave the state and have an unresolved issue, but you're not fleeing. I mean, that's Right. We we could be looking

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: at some pretty petty stuff. Right. But it's still

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: gonna show up in a criminal record. Right. And it may not be a misdemeanor in the state of Vermont. It might be a civil wildlife. And and and fish and wildlife are often a blend. Right? Fish and wildlife violations are generally

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, yeah, some are civil some are civil, and some are misdemeanors. Yep. Exactly. All done

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: on ticket.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Right.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: So if you have an unpaid ticket in another state, it might be a miss it could be a civil violation here, but it'll show up the next. Who decides if it's a fugitive or not?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, if it got litigated, it would be up to the court. But you're right that if you wanted to limit it in that way, you might wanna you could conceivably put it on line nine, for example, prosecution for eight Vermont criminal offense. You want to kind of avoid that disparity.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Future cons confusion.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Or we could say for an offense, that would be a crime in Brooklyn. Yeah. It's gonna be if it's a misdemeanor elsewhere, but it would be so offense here.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: So that's that's all I want. Wouldn't you then make it one of our listed offenses or just anything? You you could have a warrant for something and still be in litigation for something, theoretically, that's not, like, still be able to buy a firearm.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: You may not have a warrant,

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: but you're not a fugitive because you're in a state. Well,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I be. Think that the you wanna do it or not, possible. Yeah. Yeah. I think the idea is the MIA verse, not so much what the offense is. It's like I've been trying to get away

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah. So then they come to

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: be reinstated. Right. That

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: crime. Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the federal language on that one, for example, is a fugitive from justice also similar? But

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: well, let's let's let's try out the for an offense that is a prime in Zamaat. Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Shall we move on to, I think, the final section, section four? All right. So section four, now you have a current this is make an amendment to a current statute that was passed in 2017. So 13 b s a four zero two two passed in 2017 to prohibition on bonfire stocks, and you see that definition in existing law is lines 14 to 18 on page seven. So the proposal here is to add two other devices to the current bump fire stock prohibition. These are also devices that involve increasing the rate of fire of a firearm. Two and these two devices specifically are auto sears is the first one, which is the bottom of page seven. This is based on the federal definition, ATF, Bureau of Alcohol Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives. They issued ruling couple of years back about autoseers, think they were covered by the federal machine gun definition. And I'm just reading to you from the from this ATF ruling that the autoseer is a combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger. So you see that that very similar to the language that you see in subdivision two there, that's what it was based on, means a device other than

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a bump stop because that's what

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I covered, designed to convert a semiotic firearm sorry, semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger without manual reloading. I should also point out there that that definition in ATF's ruling was also referred to approvingly in the United States Supreme Court decision a couple of years ago. It also reiterated was referred to that ruling and reiterated the decision on the language you by the Supreme Court. The next decision was that an autoseer permits a shooter to fire multiple shots while engaging the trigger only once. ATF has accordingly recognized that modifying a semiotic semiautomatic rifle or handgun with an autoseer converts it into a machine gun. So that was what Screenshot noted two years ago. And so those concepts oh, sorry.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: What's the case?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. The case is Garland v what's the

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Garland v Cargill, c a r g I l, June 2024. Thank you. Yep. So that's where the language comes from. And the language is fairly straightforward as to what it's intended to cover. Again, I think, at least by the current interpretation of ATF and the Supreme Court's decision, already covered it. But, again, making it a lot of sense here. So that's number one. Number two, that's over on page eight. And here, we're talking about a separate kind of device. I should say different kind of device, but has a similar effect that you'll see. So this means any device, including an auto. So here, I'm on line one page eight. That when installed in or attached to a firearm, increases the weapon's rate of fire or the rate at which the trigger is activated. And it's the term that is proposed to be defined as is rapid fire device. And there's a number of states oh, I should have mentioned sorry. Meant to mention that on the auto series that there's a plus or minus 25 states that also have a prohibition on auto series. Rapid fire device is another type of component that some states also regulate. It's hard to find a commonly used terminology that crosses all states. So that's why it's a little bit harder to say, oh, well, this number of states prohibits this already. It's in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 to 15, possibly between ten and fifteen who do this kind of thing. And it's a it's a as you can tell from the language, it's a definition that or sorry, a device that increases the weapon's rate of fire or the rate at which the trigger is activated, but it doesn't do the same thing as an autoseer, because remember, that specifically allows the weapon to be fired with only one depression of the trigger without manual reload. So this could this could actually increase the rate of fire, but still, you have to either mechanically assist it or otherwise press the trigger more than once, essential.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Zach or the top?

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I'm just wondering where the rapid I'm wondering where the rapid fire language came from.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, yes. Maryland. Yes. That's from Maryland statute. They defined it as a rapid fire activator I'm sorry, activator as opposed to device. Other states use the term rapid fire device. Rightly or wrongly, I like rapid fire device better. So as a term, I chose that even though I use the Maryland definition of length. But as I say, a few other states that use and if you looked at some of these states, and I'd be happy to send you this too, know, it's you can look at there's some languages very similar, some some different, but I was trying to kind of use some language that was out there already as opposed to trying to make it up. Thank you.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Yep. So rapid fire device doesn't necessarily mean pulling the trigger once and

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Correct. It but it could be a device that helps you or or aids in the speed at which the weapon fires even though you're in one sense or another willing to trigger more than once. Even by assistance, or maybe you have a device that allowed you to do it. Again, I'm certain device? Of some kind. Yeah. Some kind. A device? You mean your own finger? No.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: You can wrap the fire with it.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I think if you're just really good at it, don't think that would cover this.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: If you lessen the the amount of pressure it takes to fire a gun with the with the trigger, you can you can if you hold your finger just right on a on a on a a trigger that's sensitive Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It'll rapid fire. Without the addition of some other mechanical device to help you, you mean? Just be then I would view that as not covered. If you just happen to get a skilled Okay. That's because it's not skilled. Yeah. And I would say not covered. Okay. But, again, I'm gonna bet that you have other witnesses who can give you some test marks. Right. Right. These things work.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: I got a question for the committee. It's an autoseer. How's it work?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think we have witnesses that can testify. No, I'd rather well, we've

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: got committee members supporting this. Not saying I support it or not.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think that we can have discussion later. Let's hear from witnesses.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, by then, people are gonna go online and figure out what it is, how they work, because I question how many people

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: let you know how a boxwoods works. Well, mean, can tell you that the reason that I put this into the bill as originally introduced is that I received a letter from block.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: No. No. And I realize all that, but that doesn't suggest That doesn't show how exactly a block switch works other than the definition that it makes a gun shoot fast.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. I I guess I don't understand.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Well, it's a clock switch. What what's it do to the firearm? How does it make it

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It makes it essentially an automatic what? I don't think I need to know that to understand what I received from you know, at this point, that's why I have testimony on this. So people want to get experts? It's my understanding.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: People don't know if it goes on the trigger, on the barrel. I don't know what

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you said, you know, but, again, I I think this is we're gonna hear from witnesses.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: No. I know. But that's just that's just information that people, you know, were putting this in a bill, and and and my guess is an advocate came to somebody originally way back when and and said, you know, Glock switched back. You better put it in the bill and and make it illegal. And and people don't even know what they are and what they do other than they make a a gun rack of fire. They don't wear gold on the gun when it goes to the gun. Tom?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So so just a second, coach. So, again, the way builds work You can get listen to Listen to me.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Don't patronize me.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, you're you're kinda patronizing me with that question. The way, you know, is I But

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: you can't answer it. It's it's my point.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I can answer by going back and looking at the letter I got from Locke, and I understood it at the time. Do I remember what exactly the mechanical device is for that? And I don't think that is relevant to putting this into a bill and hearing testimony, including individuals who are experts on this. So I find that that question to be really honest. I think it's

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: very relevant because there's,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: know, things that have happened in the past about people, you know, wanting to outlaw semi automatic firearms because they think they're automatic. And there's no comparison at all. Agreed. Because people talk about things that they don't know what they're talking about. And that's kind of the way I look at this is this is in this bill, and people don't really understand

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: what a clock switch is. I think it was sufficient understanding to have this put into the bill and put it

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: through I'm not saying it's right, wrong, or otherwise. I'm just saying that

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. I understand I understand your point, but let's let's proceed with some additional testimony unless there's any questions for Eric, any additional questions. Yeah, Ken. So just sticking on the Donahue stuff,

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: not the mental health quite yet. Right. But I I do know part of this was the the stealing of a firearm that happened in Berlin. I know that situation fairly well. It's one of our constituents. And and the house was being worked on. One of the workers, they had to get in and out of the house. One of the workers that was supposed to be trustworthy decided to go through the house, stole a very important firearm to pay off for other things that were needed money for. It was finally, basically, as usual, a plea deal is is made and found. We plea way down the the people that we really want to keep weapons away from, not innocent people that can have a firearm. The deal got played down, I believe, he basically got away with nothing, little slap on hand as I frequently have brought to my attention. And very light sentence, if I remember, was out, and I think get another crime and basically and how they played out. So you deal the same thing is what we're constantly hearing about, especially in this committee, it's what do they call it? The catch and release program. And then they just continue on and on and on, which leads me to the mental health part that representative Donahue is bringing up in a different capacity, but still these people, a lot of the people that are doing it need the help with the mental health part, but we're not fixing that, we're not dealing with that, that's one of our main priorities of doing it, and then the innocent people that want to carry a firearm, be responsible, protection, whatever, their rights are being imposed on. And I don't know. You do you have any ideas how we fix that? You are the lawyer, by the way. I'm I'm just Kenny sitting here. I'm just

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's probably a broader question I can answer right now. But But whatever ideas any of you guys have, I'd be happy to draft

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: that story.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't know if I tell you how they might work.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I can't wait. Eric,

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: just a quick question.

[Alicia Malay (Member)]: As a freshman legislator, I'm new to the discussions around these type of bills. I don't know if you were were you around for the first 4,022, the dog stock? Yes. Yep. Was there any discussion at that time around adding that section into the possession of a firearm while committing a felony? Like, as, like, an aggravating factor or, like, as a separate offense?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Adding what? What's this again? Sorry.

[Alicia Malay (Member)]: So in the same section in 13, I think it's 13 BSA 45 is the crime when you are possessing a firearm. So it doesn't really like, isn't just a firearm. I was wondering at the time we were talking about bump stocks, was there any discussion around it being a different crime if you possess a firearm that happens on stock?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I see what you're committing a felony. I don't recall that. That's in my memory of things that far back, it's somewhat random. Yeah. So it could have happened, but I don't I don't recall that.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thanks.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other questions for Eric? Alright. Seeing seeing none, and

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we get to go Timing is perfect. Have to go down the senate judiciary.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Exactly. We'll hear from Kim McManus, and then we'll take a break. The other two witnesses had to leave it at ten. We'll see if we can fit them in another time. But, Kim? Yeah, yeah, if you could go grab a spin. Oh, there you go.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It went so smooth. Eric? Yeah, sorry. It's just

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: been on stairs, and you got plenty of time to get there.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, thanks. I appreciate that.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: But I have to get it

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: blown up before I get there.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: You know, it's a whole

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: different time.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: More coffee or anything? Yeah.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Anyone over there wanna open a window?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I would do it, but it would take more or less.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Kim's It's coming.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Kim will be here momentarily.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: You know, if they get chance on a quick break now, you know, just to, you

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: know, wanna start with Chris if he could, Or Matt's Larry, if he gets you this.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is she coming on?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. She's right outside the door. Wanna go grab her and drag her in?

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. Sure will. I'm a great lie.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: It's cheap.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: What's that? I don't mean literally. Meant segregated. Of course.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Well, yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, thanks. We'll catch up. Thank you. Hey, thanks for being here. Hello. Hey. Good

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: morning. Morning. Good luck. Good morning, Kim McManus with the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. Thank you for having us in for H-six zero six. We are greatly appreciative of the sections of the bill that we have proposed to the committee. As you might remember, our 10 priorities at the beginning of the year, One of them was two firearms initiatives. One was adding the theft of a firearm to be a felony, which is in section one, and our department supports that. The other was the changes to the person prohibited from carrying a firearm in section three. So I know you all are tight on time and have a number of witnesses. So I will just briefly state that our department does not have a position on section four nor section five of the bill was introduced. I understand there's an amendment that removed section five. And so are we speaking just to the amended bill? So, yeah, so section part of section numbers stayed the same. Yeah, that's section two, I think. Sorry, one second. There's a draft 1.1. Have it on my computer, just not printed out. Let me just double check my sections now. Okay. So starting from the top. Section one, grand larceny. Thank Again, you so our department supports that the stealing of a firearm is considered a felony. Section two, persons prohibited. We had not suggested the second or subsequent offense, but we have no issue with that, if that is the direction that the committee goes We do appreciate that when these are multiple offenses, it is quite frustrating to have to charge it the same way each time. So again, that was not something that we had put forward, but we have no issue with that, and we appreciate the reasoning behind it. Section

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah, go ahead, Kim. Just a quick question on section two Yes. While we're there. I'm curious if the department has any statistics in terms of the number of how many cases that's been charged or prosecuted related to these offenses in the state. Not to put you on

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the spot.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: You can always

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: put That you on the

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: is definitely not a number that I have in my mind. But that is something I could get you some rough

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. Just a rough rough estimate.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: And what sort of time period? Well, few years?

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Oh, thirty?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I I

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: heard. Ten years. It's

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. Because I'm looking I'm trying to capture the COVID error as well. So maybe six years. Let's go back to 20 charging the prohibition. Yeah. I'm just curious.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I know I personally have judged it.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, but

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I'm just curious, is this something that's super prevalent? Is there five cases a year? Is there one hundred cases in the state? Has it increased? Has it decreased in frequency? I'm just curious.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Okay. I'll be able to get the information for you. I probably won't get to analyze it.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: That's fine. Thank you. I can analyze it.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I do you feel about language in there saying What's your instead of construct constructive, no friendly. Where

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: where are you on I'm in

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Grand Arseny, 50250 1. Is that in section 1? Yeah. Can you tell which which one

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I just saw? Followed it.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Well, I'm I'm thinking on line seven, line eight. Probably line seven. That's constructive possession. I'm thinking more along the line of knowingly.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, this is historically our language around theft, using the actual respectful possession. It would be a choice if for the firearms piece you wanted to change that.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: But that is your common? Yes,

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: that's for theft of any object, that actual that it's the possession of healing. Section three, and I'm just double checking that my notes line up with the amendment. Yes. Okay. So the language that was in the original introduced bill is the language that our department supports. We get the language that is to have been found by a court to be a person in need of treatment pursuant to Section 4,822 or the subject of a hospitalization order or non hospitalization order. The the amended language, we would be concerned let's put it this way. This would get us partially to our goal. It would leave out a number of persons who we would be very concerned about having a weapon. So I think this unfortunately carves out a lot of the scenarios that we were contemplating when we suggested the language that was in the as introduced bill. So we would be opposed to the amendment. We would ask you to reconsider going back to the proposed language and with the particular focus that the proposed language had the ability for a person to go to the family division to ask for a petition for relief if there had been previous findings. So there was an ability for a person to go back, be able to get their legal right to own a firearm depending on their situation. So we would ask if we think that's simpler, cleaner language, and again, it aligns with the federal language. And that would be where we would want this committee to focus on. And then again, on section four, we do not have a position.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any questions

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for Before I talk. Tim, with We

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: don't have a position on section four, you said. We do not. Maybe maybe you can still answer my question. So making this I mean, it's already illegal federally, which that is what it is. So if somebody did get get caught with, you know, with these devices or this device, how likely I mean, in essence, you have a you have a machine gun. In essence, I guess. They're not real. How likely is it that the fed the feds would would prosecute that other than the state?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And stop.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Likelihood, it really depends on what ATF has going on. When these cases that would it could be charged either by state or federal, It's a conversation with our federal partners that we would reach out and say, hey, we have this case. Do you want it? And then it's their choice of whether they take that on. And then, of course, they have their own separate investigations as well. So it's hard to say likelihood.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Didn't know if

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: It really depends on what they have going on and what their Yeah. Priorities

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: didn't know if, you know, when it was something, you know, of this magnitude, you know, where it was on their scale, I guess, as far as importance goes, but there's variables to be considered too.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Carrie, yes, you would need to ask someone from ATF or the US Attorney's Office. It really varies when they want to get involved with, which cases they want to get involved with.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Right. Any vetsmen have to come in to testify on this? Nope. I'd like to know the likelihood as far as the federal law goes from where they would stand as far as prosecuting the polls.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't very much know if prosecutor would tell us whether they would likely to prosecute that or not. I know in past firearms related bills we've reached out to federal ITs to testify. They've never agreed with the board to testify.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yeah, often the US Attorney's Office will not be able to say. They can't project what they would prosecute or not. But again, I think part of it is it depends on what they're being told to prioritize, even in their office, as well as which crimes.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Right. It's going through my mind, and somebody goes into a bank with one of these is probably going to be a higher priority than somebody shooting in their backyard.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Right, or a major drug related incident with a lot of firearms. That's a very the facts and circumstances would greatly matter as far as whether the federal agents were involved.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other questions for Kim? Thank you, Kim. Not seeing the questions. We'll take a break until 10:30. We might have Matt Valerio and then Chris Bradley depending on if Matt Valerio gets here because he has some time to finish today.