Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: We are live. Hi. Welcome back to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the House Judiciary Committee this Wednesday morning, March eleventh, and it's continuing with age six zero six. And, Chris Bradley, if you could join us, thank you for thank you for being here, Chris.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: See if I can fold myself into the chair here.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Watch your face.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: I mean, very clean, not challenged. It's fun to be in front of this committee. It's only the first time three days before the crossover. Thank you. For the record, my name is Chris Bradley. I'm the president and executive director of the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs. I have the honor of representing, 45 member clubs across the great state of Vermont, in addition to its, 14,000 plus members. To start, the federation strongly opposes the bill as introduced, and we have grave concerns, with introducing a bill that even though with one part removed has four operational parts affecting a constitutional right in some way, and it appears that there's the impetus to move it through in two days. I'll begin with section one that amends 13 b s a twenty five zero one, to make it a felony to steal a firearm of any value. Just as a side note, the federation generally looks favorably on the concept of getting tough on crime. However, we question why this bill references the, if you're not aware, committee, statute has multiple definitions for what a firearm is. We question why this bill references the definition of a firearm from 13 BSA four zero one six weapons in court as opposed to 13 BSA four zero one seven prohibited persons, which is in fact the definition that is used in sections two and three. 13 b s a four zero one six defines what a firearm is regarding one being found in a court of law. As a reminder here, the Supreme Court of the United States has specifically ruled that courts are sensitive places, perhaps requiring a more expansive definition of what constitutes firearm. Looking at section two, you will see a definition in 13 VSA four zero one seven, which, that's the prohibited person statute. And you'll see that that definition is far less expansive. By the four zero one seven, definition, antique firearms, replicas of antique firearms, and black powder guns are exempted from being called firearms. And in fact, prohibited people can own black powder firearms legally according to federal and state law. We respectfully but strongly request the reference definition of the firearm in this proposed amendment to 13 BSA twenty five zero one be changed to point at 13 BSA four zero one seven as opposed to four zero one six. The primary point being that the firearms that are exempted by 13 BSA four zero one seven are not used in crime typically. Well, every firearm has some value, and some number of firearms exempted by 13 VSA four zero one seven may be worth well over the $900 that would currently trigger 13 VSA twenty five zero one anyway. A significant number of firearms that are exempted are not worth the $900 value that would currently trigger twenty five zero one. And by the 13 BSA four zero one seven definition, they are not even considered a firearm. It is not to say that people stealing these cannot be prosecuted. They can still be charged under 13 BSA 2,501 grand larceny or 13 BSA 2,502 pettit larceny based

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: on

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: the actual value of the firearm. The point here is stealing a rusty wall hanger musket that may be unsafe to fire, but which would qualify as a, quote, firearm of any value, end quote, may be worth significantly less than $900 and should not automatically be considered a felony. As another point of consideration, we foresee a situation where the state could prosecute a criminal who steals a firearm under proposed amendment 13 VSA twenty five zero one while at the same time, the state could also possibly prosecute the victim of that theft under 13 VSA forty twenty four, which is a negligent storage of firearms. If a person were ever charged, under grand larceny for stealing a firearm, We suggest that 13 VSA 2,501 be further amended to include c, with language similar to c, charging the person under the section will disallow the victim of the theft from also being prosecuted under 13 VSA forty twenty four. In the final analysis, a firearm is just another piece of property, and making it an automatic felony, regardless of its actual value or if it is even considered a firearm seems out of line with stealing any other type of object that can be used as a weapon. Any questions on our stance on section one?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Just a quick question. I assume in your written testimony, you had that language as far as what you're I did, sir. And so we can just look

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: at it. And it's been submitted to Nate as of this morning.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay, great. Yeah. See it. Great. Thank you. Very good. Any other any questions on on this section for

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: no. Proceed. Thank you. Not a problem. Section two, amend 13 VSA four zero one seven. Federation of Health is no objection to this. We will point out that there is a discrepancy between federal law and state law in that if you're a prohibited person under federal law, it's an automatic felon. Section three amending 13 BSA four zero one seven A. This is a court ordered firearms possession prohibition In reviewing the new sections five A and five B, you see that these sections conform to existing federal law as specified in 18 USC nine twenty two gs. Likewise, the first part of five c also parallels nine twenty two gs. We are concerned, however, over the second part of five c, which states, I quote, for a non hospitalization order issued by the court pursuing to 18 VSA seven six one seven b three. Under Vermont law, per 18 VSA seven six one seven a, which is reporting National Instant Criminal Background Check System, 18 VSA seven seventy six one seven b one b two and b three all require the court administrator to report the person who is subject to the order to the National Institute of Criminal Background Check System or NICS. 18 USC nine twenty two g four bars possession by individuals who are, quote, adjudicated as having a mental defect or who has been committed to a mental instigate. And federal courts interpret committed to mean formal involuntary commitment, not non hospitalization or outpatient therapy. Further, firearm prohibitions for prohibited people focus on people who are dangerous or confined, not people who are allowed to live in the community but who may be under treatment. This actually creates an interesting situation where Vermont law would cause a person to fail a background check when that failure is not disqualified under 18 USC nine twenty two g, I e, non hospitalization. A person caught in this dilemma would be required to request an expungement from the NICS system when it should never have been reported to NICS in the first place. Any questions on our stance on section three?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead, Barbara.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So one thing that we've been hearing related to people who are competent to stand trial, and if they are either ordered to be hospitalized or have a non hospitalization order, is often there's somewhat of a fine line. It's a big range of people who qualify for the non hospitalization order. And some of them, there have been major complaints from many different facets of the community that the people really are borderline needing to be hospitalized. I think Vermont's laws, when we did deinstitutionalization tilted in one direction. And so when we're hearing from mental health providers that they didn't agree with the Department of Mental Health if somebody should be hospitalized or not. And so we have the psychiatrist and the person who's treating them saying that the person is either what they consider dangerous or at risk of hurting themselves or even non compliant, then we have the Department of Mental Health saying they disagree and there's been no place for that to get resolved, committed crimes and were actually the worries that the local providers had were valid. And so one thing that came up early this session was like, how do we resolve that? What if there's disagreement? How does that get resolved? And so I worry I see your point about the federal law, but I worry about the group of people. And again, I don't know what percentage it is, we don't have data on it, that are in that non hospitalization order that really have significant mental health challenges that could make them risky candidates to have access to weapons. And I guess I just want to hear how familiar you are with.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Well, as far as mental health issues, I've done must confess it's not my primary area of expertise. I I think what you just described was the court making an error. And when they did not rule that this person was either a mental defective or required hospitalization. And I'm sure there's lots of disagreement as to when something should happen or not.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: But to

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: come to your point, we don't know how many people this affects?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I I don't know. I couldn't tell. Should the committee know that? I I think also just to to go back on your point, I'm not even sure it goes The court is relying on the Department of Mental Health, and the issue is with that system, like getting that system fixed before we assume everybody in the non hospitalization category is in for a minor mental health or out because they have minor mental health struggles, not significant.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Well, again, I guess I have to come back to saying, you know, if it's clear that there are issues that we should address for this individual, then I think we are on the side of caution. And that's either an involuntary commitment or we exercise ERPO. But certainly, it it as written right now, we were casting a net for people that are not deemed to be mental defective or requiring hospitalization. In fact, the court is actually saying you're fine to be amongst the rest of us in the community and if that determination is being made, then why would they lose their rights?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Angela.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I think just to put I I really support what representative Rachelson is saying and just to I don't think that it's accurate to frame it as the court saying, you're fine to be among the community. There are many folks who are under orders of non hospitalization, who anyone under orders of non hospitalization has to be receiving treatment. So it's not like you're fine to be among the community, period. It's you're fine to be among the community with very specific restrictions that are related to the identified and hopefully diagnosed at that point mental health challenges. And we've heard a number of times, and we just heard from the state's attorneys and sheriff's departments that who are the people in our communities who are on the front lines of trying to get a handle on the dangers posed by the Vermont context, which I think you're offering the federal context as a backdrop, but the Vermont context is different. We don't have the facilities that other states have, and we don't have the capacity that other states have. We don't have the treatment that other states have. We don't have this under control. And so I think it's a bit of an oversimplification to say we should just match the federal standards because if someone's on an ONH, then they're fine to be among the community. That's just not accurate.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Forgive my ignorance on these sort of things. Someone's pulled over, charged with multiple counts of DUI. And the court orders them to go into treatment for alcohol abuse. Is is that a situation that would fall under this?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So just just to be really clear on this, to get to get one of these orders under 5B or 5C, there has to be a finding that the person is in need of treatment. And that's defined specifically as being a danger to themselves or others. That's really the key in all this. And they can be given the least restrictive kind of treatment out in public, not out in public, they're getting treated, but still that finding is what this is really keyed to. And that's the danger to themselves for others. And that would be in both 5B and 5C. That finding would have to be made.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: If we're a danger to ourselves or others, isn't it an IRPO?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It could be an IRPO separately or it could be this prohibition under here. Yeah, mean, there's very similar standards for an ERPO, but somebody doesn't necessarily have there's other I can find the language precisely, but the danger to themselves are others due to a mental defect. So there's that. You may have an ERPA where you

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: don't have that other connection.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: If there's a finding of a mental defect, that's a separate issue. If they've been found to be requiring involuntary commitment, that's a separate issue. But we're dealing with something that's nebulous. In fact, it seems to me by the discussion we just had that we have ERPO when things are very clear that this is a person who's, an issue. And by the way, we supported that when it was initially submitted. It was we took some heat for it, but I think we can all agree that there are people that shouldn't have guns. The only requirement there is the conditions under which that occurs and as long as due process is is realized.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. I agree with that. But Tom. It'd be a

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: separate determination by the court, like a condition of release on a case by case basis.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: I would certainly think that's probably advisable, because everybody every individual's different. But what I think we're hearing here is that you have a court, there's a situation with an individual. We're not going to involuntary commit him. He he is, has a mental defective, and we're gonna put those two aside. But then we have this other rather nebulous situation where it doesn't rise to the state of an ERPO where we should be charging this person as a or or tying that to this person because they are a risk to themselves or others as has been specified. But that doesn't seem to be the case with this nebulous area we're talking about. It non hospitalization at this point to representative Rachelson's point, we don't seem to know how many people are being affected by this. Is it hundreds? Is it thousands? How many are the how many people are in this this area that are being affected by this that are, in essence, losing their rights for some period of time, and then have to go through the process of expunging a record from the federal system where the federal law didn't require that situation.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So that's really a concern, not with this language right here, but the language which we did a number of years ago, that we have to submit orders of hospitalization and non hospitalization to the NIC system. Where that really goes.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Was it non hospitalization, sir?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'm almost positive. I double checked that. Again, it's connected in the person in need of treatment, means a person who has a mental illness and as a result of that mental illness, his or her capacity to exercise self control, judgment or discretion, etc. And there's a danger of harm to himself or herself or to others. And then it describes what that danger is. So it all is tied to that in provisions.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: I appreciate the clarification. It seems we have layers here, and we haven't reached the stance of VIRPO yet, and we're somewhere under

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: that. Angela or Tom?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Just want to make sure that it's clear that it's not as nebulous as you're portraying it, because the Department of Mental Health would have data, where I think representative Rachelson is saying she doesn't have that data right now. That's different from it's not out there, it is. And I think it's really important to keep the conversations appropriately separated because, as the chair mentioned, with an extreme risk protection order, there is not necessarily a finding of a mental defect, which is, of course Or mental illness. Terrible language. Mental illness. And I think that's important because it is more of an emergency procedure and process for an acute situation, often to help save someone's own life, hopefully prevent suicide, but also to prevent risk of harm to others. But with this provision, the sweep is different. The universe of folks being potentially effective, is different. And it would be known, I think, with some DMH data.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: I'd be interested to see that representative. I understand your point. However, I do worry that for this grouping of people that a court has not said you have to be committed or has not said, boy, you know, I I don't think you've got all your marbles. There's something wrong here.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: They have. The court has

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: That's not that's finding somebody with a mental defect. A mental

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: illness that has to be treated.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: That's

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: the O and H.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: But you're going to let this person in the community

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Often if we don't have a facility or a capacity in many of

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: our facilities. Well, that's a problem elsewhere, isn't it?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Reached where I was gonna go. We say order of non hospitalization. Looking at it literally, we have no hospitals, and that's where they would most likely be if we had the facilities at the time. And if they get treated and they come off the order and they're judicially involved at the time, then they are no longer, then they would be able to own a firearm. Unless

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: they've been found to be incompetent to stand trial, that's 5A. Yeah, but I mean, they could be restored. Right,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: right, yes. I mean, it's literally because we would all the testimony we've had on other bills with this same type of issue is we don't have a place.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. And that's a whole other issue.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I won't take them because they don't have rope.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. That's a whole other rabbit hole to get down that will stay out of for now. But but it is a really important issue, and we we have been trying to address that a little bit in this committee, and we'll be continuing to. So so let's move on.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Very good. Not a problem.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you for the, discussion on that.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it. Section four. This is amending 13 b s a forty twenty two, to prohibit machine guns and rapid fire devices. When the federation was initially informed that a bill would be forthcoming concerning machine guns, we initially understood that the primary concern was to address Glock switches or devices which, when installed into a Glock, would allow the firearm to become fully automatic as opposed to being semiautomatic. Per existing federal law, it is illegal to make a machine gun or to possess a nonregistered machine gun, a crime that is punishable by not more than ten years and or a fine of up to a quarter of $1,000,000. Federal charges regarding machine guns can also be stacked, Meaning, a person can be charged under, say, 26 USC fifty eight sixty one d, which is possession of an unregistered machine gun, as well as being prosecuted under 18 USC nine twenty two o, which is the illegal possession of a machine gun. If you're not aware, currently, there are 37 states, including Vermont, which allow for the legal ownership of machine guns. Obtaining one is not simple, not only because the number of machine guns that can be legally owned is a finite number since 1986, the Hughes amendment. I mean, that is a number somewhere around a 180,000 total legally owned and are therefore ridiculously expensive to purchase, but also because the process to own one is far, far more expensive than just going and doing a normal background check. I'm happy to explain what that process is if you'd like me to go into greater detail. One of the types of devices that can be legally registered in Vermont and still purchased today legally with the ATF is an auto seer. Well, we can determine from the ATF the number of legally registered machine guns in Vermont. We cannot tell what they are because there is a tax involved, a $200 transfer tax, which makes that information private. It is entirely likely that there are legally owned auto Sears in Vermont today. Beyond that, auto Sears can be legally owned by something called a special occupational taxpayer or an SOT, which is a class seven FFL that both firearms license. There are different classes. And as of this year, as of actually two nights ago, there are 12 such FFLs in Vermont. As a simple matter of history, the federation was not aware that there have ever been any instances of illegally owned machine gun ever being used in crime here in Vermont. And as far as the use of legally owned machine guns being used in crime across The United States, I could only find two across The entire US in the last four years. So crimes with legally owned machine guns are more than just rare. Beyond the problems in the rewritten section regarding machine guns, we have serious problems with the definition of, quote, rapid fire device as found in a three. For many years, triggers on firearms have allowed the pressure required to trigger that that makes the firearm fire to be adjusted, allowing the trigger to be made lighter or heavier. Making a trigger heavier would require the person shooting the firearm to have to exert more pressure on the trigger to make the firearm fire. Conversely, making a trigger lighter would require less pressure. The bottom line is that the trigger is set, that is set to seven pounds of pull, or the punching you have to put on the trigger to actually have the sear release than the hammer pull to make the gun work, is not going to operate as fast as a trigger with a 2.5 pound trigger pull. Legal triggers can also have something called a positive reset. This feature puts a slight amount of forward force on the trigger once it has been used to fire the firearm. Simply essentially pushing the trigger forward slightly, allowing the shooter to use less energy to move their finger forward, thereby allowing the trigger to reset, that would then allow the trigger to be fired or pulled again. By the definition of a rapid fire device, an adjustable trigger would qualify as such a device that would increase the rate of fire so the legal install installation of a legal adjustable trigger would become illegal. In rifles like the a r 15, where the rifle is fired, gas that result results from the propellant being ignited forces the bolt back against a recoil buffer that compresses a spring behind the bolt, which after being compressed then forces the bolt forward. Depending on how hot the ammunition is being used, simply changing the recoil buffer can increase the rate of fire of a firearm. To representative Burditt's point, in its simplest form, the index finger of a shooter is a rapid fire device. Because the more one exercises that trigger finger, the faster one can actuate a trigger. One of the things I'm not sure we've discussed so far is what is the standard rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle or pistol? Essentially, it's as fast as you can do this. With practice, shooters can achieve rates of fire on the order of eight shots in one second. That's with a revolver, not a semiautomatic, a revolver. And in fact, that's eight shots in one second. And if you wanna ever look at a video of Gary, he is able with a six shot revolver to fire six shots, reload that revolver with six new shots, and put another six shots for a total of 12 shots onto a single target in two point nine nine seconds. That's with a revolver. That's not a semiautomatic. Just as a side, I have included here a common rubber band can be used as a rapid fire device. And essentially, the way it's used is it forces the trigger forward. You know, trigger when you pull the trigger, trigger breaks the sear and hammer falls. If you put a rubber band around that trigger like this, so that when you fire the trigger, rubber band wants to pull your finger forward. I've got a video if you'd like to see it being used. A rubber band is a rapid fire device.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I see it. It is linked in your your, testimony.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: So Even without a rubber band, almost all semiautomatic rifles can be bump fired, a technique that does not use Avon stock, to achieve faster shooting without any device being used. The federation does believe Vermont law enforcement should not be put into position to decide what is or is not a rapid fire device when it is almost impossible to determine without disassembly if a rapid fire device is installed or through the achieving of rapid fire with no device at all. With the framework provided by the Bruin decision, combined with the Heller decision, has led courts to reason that items necessary for a firearm to function, such as triggers and stocks on a rifle, items which are necessary for your firearm to function, likely fall under the definition of arms and are thus protected by the second amendment so long as those components do not allow for fully automatic fire. We believe that Vermont should parallel federal law by simply stating that making a machine gun is illegal and leave out attempts to define what is or is not a rapid fire device, things that are better left to the ATF and the federal government. As an aside, bump stocks, which this section is amending, are not illegal by federal law. Forced reset triggers are not illegal by federal law. Binary triggers are not illegal by federal law, yet all of these are components. If we try to ban a stock, you're banning the firearm. And all we've got here is a bump stock that allows the stock to slide. It's still a stock. I'm sure LaLonde. I had written a couple of paragraphs concerning section five and perhaps I don't need to belabor the committee with it but I'd love

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to So, yeah, if you I mean, I know it's a little bit longer in your written testimony, but if you can give me the the basic points, look at the I'll

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: read them read them quickly. Alright. No. Mean, it's literally just a page here.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. No.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Mean Well, closer to two. Full disclosure. This is, was a new subchapter five thirteen VSA forty ninety one two and three, liability for public nuisance, in firearms lawsuits. The protection lawful firearms commerce in firearms act, better known as PLACA, was passed by congress in 2005. What PLACA was designed to do was prohibit lawsuits against gun retailers and manufacturers for things that could happen when their products were used for any illegal activity by third parties. BLACA does not shield a firearm industry member from wrongdoing, such as knowingly violating federal law, failing to maintain records, selling to a prohibited person, or making defective products. Instead, it targets lawsuits that attempt to blame lawful businesses for unlawful misuse by others. 15 USC seventy nine zero three five a three, however, does allow civil lawsuits against many gun manufacturers or sellers if they knowingly violate a state or federal statute specifically applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms, and that violation approximately approximately, not approximately, caused the plaintiff's injuries. This is referred to as a predicate exception. Because of that predicate exception, in recent years, several states have attempted to bypass FACA by drafting statutes that define certain firearm industry practices as, quote, public nuisances. And such laws attempt to reframe traditional liability standards to open the door for unlimited litigation against manufacturers and sellers. To be crystal clear, black estates in 15 USC seventy nine zero two A, a single sentence, a qualified civil liability action cannot be brought in any federal or state court. Yet that is exactly what section five attempted to do. To support section five, Protonus had pointed to a court case called NSSF v James, a case that was decided on 07/10/2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit, which upheld a ruling by the US district court for the Northern District of New York without opinion stating that PLACA did not apply when a state passed a law that specifically allowed decent lawsuits to occur. At issue is the New York general business law, section eight ninety eight, which imposed civil liability for gun industry members who knowingly or recklessly endanger the safety or health of the public through the sale or marketing of firearms. When section eight ninety eight was enacted, the governor of New York stated that New York wanted to, quote, reinstate the public nuisance liability for gun manufacturers, end quote, something that Plaka specifically forbids, from imposing to, quote, right the wrong, end quote, New York believed com congress committed in passing Plaka. Just so you all know, a petition reviewed the Second Circuit's decision in NSFF v. James was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States on 02/20/2026. That petition asked the question, quote, whether PLACA's predicate exemption allows parties to bring the same common lawsuits against firearms industry members that congress enacted PLACA to prohibit so long as states codify these general common law principles in a statute that applies to commerce in arms. That petition further said, simply put, nothing in PLACA compels the nonsensical conclusion that the predicate exemption empowers states to sneak in through the backdoor the very claims that congress tossed out the front. It further states, quote, the nation the notion that congress simultaneously greenlighted suits advancing the exact same unfounded theories, so long as they are initiated under a statute that codifies the same general common law principles that it found did not support them, defies common sense. As opposed to the second circuit decision of appeals' decision on placa, there was a case of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that also dealt with placa, a case called Gustafson v Springfield, which was decided 03/31/2025. Wrapping up. Per the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, quote, instantly, we find that PLACA contains an express preemption clause which explicitly preempts state law relative to qualified civil liability actions. The PA Supreme Court also found the PACA was completely constitutional and that it prevents exactly what section five intended to do. A central question of section five is whether Vermont could pass legislation that it that intentionally attempts to work around federal law. The clear answer to that question is a firm and resolute no due to article six clause two of The US constitution better known as the supremacy clause. The supremacy clause specifically states, quote, in this constitution, when the laws of The United States, which will be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of The United States shall be in the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. In a separate five page document that I've submitted with this testimony, the federation provided a preliminary analysis of the negative effects of section five on the Vermont firearms manufacturers, FFLs, stores that sell select firearm accessories, and even Vermont citizens should they ever choose to sell a firearm. The wording of Plaka is clear, unambiguous, such that section five is quite simply unconstitutional.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you, chair. Chris, thanks for coming in and for your testimony today. I just wanna say for the record that, I mean, this has probably been one of the single bills that we've received the most outreach on. And at last count, I had seven forty four emails opposed to the bill,

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: and I just received my second one in support. So I just

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: wanna state that code for the record. My I guess my first question is, if memory serves me right, you were you were part of a study group last summer that was on safe storage So knowing all of that and that you have been really a frequent flyer in this committee for many, many years, were you consulted at all on this bill during the drafting phase? No. No. Okay. The next thing I just wanna state clearly for the record

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: is in terms of modifications to the legislation as currently, you know, in front

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: of the committee as as proposed, what modifications would you and the federation suggest to make to make the bill I mean, I have concerns about the constitutionality with the second amendment with this bill, but I'm curious, if we go back to the mental defect section in section two, I'm curious if there's any modifications there that you might add.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: I'm the only thing that Sorry, not section two, section three. Yes. So we have concerns over the non hospitalization. Because to a certain extent, representative Harvey, we already live under federal law, right? And whether I like it or not, that's the law of the land. So, when we see situations where the state and I must say, listening to the sheriffs, weren't concerned about section four at all and the machine guns that struck me as odd but I guess we we do number one, I think you hit you hit a very important point. We we would like to have some input before a bill gets thrown over the wall and I and and chair of the line and I have talked about that and not that we're trying to steer anything, but I think we can steer away from cliffs that are are tripwires here. The nonhealth hospitalization was of concern to us. We're always very concerned when a fundamental unalien right can be taken away. I guess I can leave it.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. No. I agree with that. And I think what might start at the second amendment could easily go to the first amendment. Right? And I think that is the broader concern of a

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: lot of people that have concerns with this legislation

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: as written. The other question I wanna get back to is on page eighty nine one, talking about rapid fire devices and the rate of rapid fire. And my question there, you know, and

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: you I thought your testimony was extremely compelling in terms of the concerns that were that you pointed out there.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: But I'm wondering if there's other states have that have already established that rapid rate of fire and if you're aware of

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: what the what those qualifications are.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Actually, I have not researched it. I mean, I I'm certainly I'm a competitive shooter. Pistol pistol rifle predominantly. Pistol. You really need to I would suggest, and I can send a a video if you'd like to see mister McEwlett with a pistol. I would. And and one of the things we're banding around here is is we really what is a rapid fire device? And when we're applying one, what what is the standard? How fast does this firearm fire just without any rapid fire device? Or if I just sit and watch TV and just keep doing this, I'm willing to get more proficient at it. I can use a lighter trigger. We're we're kind of if it's not a machine gun, then it's a semiautomatic. And I know a lot of these terms start to get lost, you know, or what's a revolver? I mean, what's an autoseer? There's a lot of detail that you can't expect everybody tomorrow, but Right. We live it or I do.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Right. And I think I think that is also incumbent upon the members

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: of this committee to take the time to make sure that we get this right. And I think short of modifying language to ban rubber bands in the state of Vermont, it seems that it would be very ineffective to have any kind of consideration of what a rapid fire device could be. I couldn't agree more. I mean, if it's not a fully automatic witch, hey, throw the

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: book at them. But you cannot make that by federal law. And in fact, let's get serious. We're gonna make it shouldn't be a misdemeanor if we're gonna get serious about it. But anything other than a fully automatic, which should should be controlled and is controlled, it's a semiautomatic. And when we can have rates of fire that just sounds scary because so many practices, that that that touches on self defense and the ability to defend oneself.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So just a couple things. We do need to look at this way, we'll care. But just as far as I wouldn't say that we've consulted, but I've made sure that Chris and his organization knew what was coming last fall. And when he got the language and started looking at this, actually Chris initially raised a lot of the complications and concerns in the last section regarding industry. And largely because of understanding the complications from you, Chris, that I pulled this out of this bill because it needed more time. So I appreciate the cooperation with the I

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: placed myself at you in the committee's disposal. It's a complex issue. It's difficult to understand all the nuance to it. But we're dealing with a fundamental constitutional right. Form of what's coming up. I did not mean to say and by you, and I think we will be working much closer moving forward. In fact, five seventy one, the relinquishment group, we've had lengthy discussions on, and that's I think it's agreed that it needs further work, which is why we're not seeing it. Yeah. Yeah. A quick question. On section four, I think you testified that there were virtually no crimes committing from a machine gun. Illegally owned machine gun. That's correct. Illegally owned machine gun. Okay. I'm not even aware of illegal machine guns. It may very well be. I guess my question I'm not trying to poke it. I just want to try to understand the data. And so, an example of what I'm thinking about is drug bust where there's a I guess this gets back to a bigger question for me. Is a Glock with a switch? Is that a machine gun? Yes. A Glock switch is an auto seer. Okay. So so and and then in that case, in Vermont, if you got a drug bust where there's a block with switch there and their chart there's a charge there involving that, is that a crime involving a machine gun at the time? It's it's certainly a crime. Not until you have it this fast. Yeah. Because there is no machine there is no no reference other than you can't quint with a machine gun. There is that stipulation. But, no, we rely on federal law to and the feds to to prosecute machine gun crime. So there's really no data right now about how much crime is being committed in the state where a machine gun is involved that's not legally owned? To answer that question, you'd have to look at the odyssey system.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: And I've been fortunate enough to do freedom of information because this goes back to something that a representative Harvey was looking for. Hey. How many times are these are crimes being charged? And I specifically looked at all firearms crimes. Now, interestingly enough, Odyssey will tell you all active cases, and then they'll tell you all closed cases, but there's not a clear connection between the two because cases can span years. So I can tell you I was very disheartened when I looked at my initial findings, which I'm happy to share from two years ago because it you're crunching on a lot of numbers matching what a conviction is, which has a different identifying number or a charge than a different number that's used in conviction. And plus, you have all the nuances of I would charge you with x, but it was reduced or thrown out completely Yeah. When it finally made it if it made it to court. So in direct answer to your question, I'm I'm not worried of airing any statistics. In the example you provided, first of all, there's a drug bust going on. There's already some prohibited activity.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: If a Glock was found there, right now, that would be turned over to the feds until you do something, you know, illegal possession or making. Follow federal law. I mean, it's already there. But, you know, and you're catching a guy with a drug, chances are that's gonna be played away or dropped, honestly, from what I see on conviction data. Because not only do we have a problem with hospitals, we have a problem with prisons. Okay. Thank you. Not a problem.

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: Alright. So we're gonna go to Joe Laporto, though. Thank you very much, Chris.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: My great pleasure. Thank you very much for your time. As well.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Can I interject with a question for the committee? Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: For the committee?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes. Just based on representative Harvey's comment about only receiving, I think you said, one or two in favor, emails in favor.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I just received my second. My bar's name.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So I'm just curious that I've received over 125 in favor. Pardon me.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: How are you?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Well, I'm just they all went to my other inbox.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Trust me. I've been looking I've been looking at spam and filter. I've received two. Yeah. 44 in support and two.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I haven't been calling me now, but I've gotten a whole bunch of bulls.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I filtered everything into one so I would have it all in one place.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I just wanna back

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: everything on house. Alright.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we're gonna go ahead with Joe. Go ahead. Thank you for being here.

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: Alright. Thank you, chair. DC, I understand. We're headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, right outside of DC. I I'm Joe Joseph Laporte representing National Rifle Association. I'm the state director for Northern New England, so I work both here in Vermont, including New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts as well, and on a team that covers state and local issues nationally. So I hope I can perhaps offer some perspective on some of these issues given that we address this type of legislation in all 50 states. I will keep my prepared comments relatively short. I think Chris has covered a good deal of the formal comments on the core areas, these sections of the bill. We largely concur, and on behalf of our members, we would oppose the current draft of the legislation. Just to be clear, the amendment fairly The amendment as published yesterday.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Got it.

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: We thank the committee and chair for addressing the issues with regarding some of the other provisions in proposed bill here. And again, I'll keep our comments somewhat limited. I think Chris covered it. We share the same concern with respect to Section three as it relates to non hospitalization orders. And I fully understand that there's a calibration issue with regards to Vermont health law. But I would point out to the committee that under the civil commitment procedures in Vermont health law, the standard of proof that an applicant has to carry in order to obtain an actual commitment, an involuntary commitment, is quite low. It's probable cause showing. So the court is given a fair degree of latitude to make the determination as to whether or not someone is at risk and should therefore be committed. Now, we understand that Vermont law provides flexibility, so a court facing a civil commitment case doesn't necessarily have to choose between a commitment order versus just letting that person go. We've created some additional flexibility here, but mental health issues are on a broad spectrum. So the fact that a court uses its discretion to say that there should be some outpatient treatment here, again, which is inconsistent with federal law in terms of making that federal prohibition. It's unfair to say that everyone that falls into that category naturally is a danger to themselves. There's a low threshold to making that commitment application, that involuntary commitment application, and the court is essentially saying that despite that low hurdle, there's no finding here that justifies that, so we're coming up with an alternative plan. The state provides resources to both individuals and law enforcement agencies, health providers, through the ERPO statute. So to the extent that a noncommitment order is granted, there's still the flexibility, if there's concern with the court, they could pursue an extremist protection order, but they're choosing not to. And so the requirements, and this has to some degree been tested in the US Supreme Court, not precisely on the issues surrounding mental health, but last year there was a fairly significant benchmark type case, US v Rahimi, where the court held that where there is due process and someone has been adjudicated as a threat to themselves or others, they can be temporarily disarmed in a manner that's consistent with the Second Amendment. So we require adjudication and due process here. And again, the calibration issues with regards to Vermont law notwithstanding, a noncommitment order is simply not that. In fact, in light of the fact that under Vermont law, those civil commitments are being reported to NICS, in practice, a person who receives a noncommitment order should be able to go to the federal government and say, look, I was not committed. I should not be a prohibited person under federal law. And I would also point out that this this state attorney general correctly points out that the mechanism for which someone receives relief from this provision has kind of been falling off the wayside. That also raises concerns here. If there is a procedure for obtaining an expungement for a civil commitment, now we're going to require folks to go out and pay substantial amount of money in legal fees to get an expungement for a noncommitment order. That both burdens the respondents in these cases but also burdens our court systems here who now have to deal with additional expungement requests that relate to non commitment orders and non hospitalization. So it's complex. I understand the unique resource constraints here in Vermont, and the legislature has in its wisdom created a lot of flexibility for courts to try to address these issues. The problem is we're casting too large a net by including all non hospitalization orders and saying, well, the folks that are on one end of the spectrum are just going to be victims of circumstance here, and we're going to punish them as collateral damage because we're concerned about the folks on the other side of the spectrum. There is there is mechanisms in state law to deal with those issues, and and and you shouldn't bring things out of out of synchronization with with federal law, this issue. So So, Jessica, I'm trying to square what I heard from the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs that we're actually carving out not as broad as as the federal law, which is just Correct. Having a mental defect. And I'm hearing from from you, and I think from Chris, that it were actually broader. And I'm I'm trying to square that. Well, I think the bulk of section three of this bill is largely just redundant to federal law. Because it deals with circumstances where it automatically is relieved for the most part, That makes it less restrictive than federal law. We're not gonna weigh in on the issue of whether or not this is truly appropriate. I think largely this is redundant. Nine twenty two gs in large part deals with the vast majority of Section three of this bill. So from a policy perspective, we're just making something illegal or that's already illegal. It's duplicative at best. Prosecutors want flexibility to deal with those issues, and that's why you need to create a companion bill to federal law and state law, we can certainly understand that as a policy objective that these folks, there is no avenue to address this in a federal court. State prosecutors need a way to deal with this. So we understand the issue. The real problem is just the lack of synchronization with federal requirements. I do think there's a way to address that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We'd be

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: happy to work with the committee on ideas to resolve those.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: As introduced, it was more of issues with some individuals that weighed in that we wanted folks to be able to get their firearms back the right to prevent firearms. Fairly straightforward with the language that we have in here. So that's kind of the policy decision that we had before us. Ken?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Just want to back up a little bit. The drug busts that were already brought up and then more of the federal and stuff like that. You have a drug bust, I mean, obviously it's more likely federal. Gonna be federal involved.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I mean, it's pretty well documented that drugs are being run from other states into Vermont, and they're bringing the necessary weapons with them to go and cover themselves and do more harm, and put more Vermonters in jeopardy and stuff like this. So the people that are anti gun, they're left with nothing to, innocent people are left with nothing to defend themselves. That is the concern. So the good old saying that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. I mean, this is a perfect example of that. The other thing I want to address as a hospital, the lack of mental health or whatever the proper wordage is. I've been in this as a state rep for over eight years now. And even before I came into this building, we were dealing with the mental health aspect and prosecution, or lack of prosecution with three instances that we had in Burlington weren't being prosecuted because of, you know, they they pleaded insanity. And then I think all three of them eventually were charged that they were they were sane. We've I don't believe we've done a whole hell of a lot with help in that situation. So again, that puts the law abiding citizens that do have guns, we're paying that price there for our lack of ability to address that situation of hospitalization and getting people the proper help that they need to hopefully make a difference in their life. And the other thing I just can't get over, again, my over eight years in this house, how we go and we plead down, I don't have state's attorneys in but how we plead down and a slap of the wrist all the time, and the same people get out over and over and over, there's a big reason and everybody wants to blame it on COVID, I don't fall for that, right? It's like, we just have docket after docket after docket, because we won't hold accountability. And again, we're taking rights away from people that deserve to have the freedom.

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: I wanna know. So I agree with your sentiment here. So so any idea how to fix that? Well, you know what? I think that could dovetail into our our our sort of comments and concerns regarding Section four of the bill as well. I think we again would share much of Chris's concerns with regards to definitional issues here. But from a policy perspective, you're now taking a

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: very outward policy. Yeah.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Or you're taking of my favorites.

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: You're taking a very serious federal charge and reducing it to a misdemeanor under state law. I mean, there was an argument that you are potentially at risk of causing proliferation of illegal machine guns because, one and this isn't one of the discrete problems of this bill. And we have worked on this on multiple states. I'm happy to answer questions with regards to how other states are addressing the issue. But as was queried earlier, what is an auto state? That is a legitimate question, and it's one that a prosecutor is gonna have to grapple with under this bill. So the thing that you're most concerned with, the proliferation of block switches and the utilization of those things and, let's say, gang violence, and there are certainly major urban centers in this country that are dealing with a scourge of violence around that. And they, again, they need the flexibility in state law in order prosecute those cases where the DOJ or ATF is unwilling to take them. So I guess we can understand the policy clear definition that a prosecutor is now going to have to deal with a factual matter as to whether or not the thing in question meets the statutory definition. And that is what makes these federal cases very complex. The ATF has a fairly large branch within the ATF whose mission is to do technical analysis and reach technical conclusions as to what does or doesn't fall under federal definitions. In federal cases, when they prepare testimony in those federal prosecutions, they're actually engaging in rulemaking when they make a determination as to a specific thing in a case. So when an ATF agent says, We've tested this particular device. It meets the definition of a federal machine gun. It's unregistered. That is satisfying that legal definition as opposed to leaving the burden with the prosecutor to prove what is or isn't an auto sphere. So this bill is taking this issue and making it, on the one hand, making it difficult to prosecute the actual concern at hand. At the other hand, you have rapid fire devices in the same context here, which is problematic in a whole other direction and probably of greater concern to gun owners across Vermont in the sense that the way this is currently written, virtually anything could fall within that definition. That leads to something that's very ambiguous, that leaves the door open for selective enforcement or arbitrary enforcement or, quite frankly, no enforcement at all. I think there was questions earlier about what other states are doing here, and we've certainly seen some examples of what I would describe as experimental legislation on this issue. And there's other language alternatives out there, but what we can't really find is evidence of enforcement on this issue. So again, from a policy perspective, if we're writing words on paper that no one's gonna practically enforce because it's either too difficult or in this case, in part because the penalties associated with are too small. If I've got a misdemeanor charge and I'm a prosecutor, and I've gotta go through this big technical hurdle with expert witnesses in order to prove what is or isn't an auto SEER, they're more likely, to your point, representatives, they're more likely to just drop that charge altogether, and that doesn't solve problems here. So question, Angela. Yeah.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So two questions about that section, and then based on what you've just shared. So would the NRA recommend that we change it to a felony?

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: My suggestion, one we've had both internally with the federation and Chris, and we would be happy to work with the committee here, there have been states that have simplified this whole problem. They pass a law that defines what a machine gun is in a manner that's consistent with the federal definition, and then they say anything that's subject to registration under the NFA that is possessed without proper registration is covered here, and anything that's not subject to registration is not covered here. So what the state is doing is basically saying, we're just gonna rely on what those federal determinations are. If it meets the federal definition, then it is a crime under state law and shifts the burden on figuring out what is or isn't a thing under the statute to the federal government, which again has the resources to do that, and that would smooth that out. Now as to penalty associated with, that's a policy question that I can't take a position on on behalf of our membership, but most states do, if they're doing this properly, regulated as they are regulated under federal law. Federal law does not create separate categories of things. Under federal law, a Glock switch is a machine gun. If that were possessed illegally, in other words, not properly acquired or registered under the National Firearms Act, whether it's attached to a thing or not, that is by itself a machine gun, and as Chris mentioned, it's stacking charges. So if I have 10 of them in my pocket, I could be facing one hundred years in prison.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And then my second question was, do you have a better definition then, if you're concerned with prosecutors' ability to determine the technical aspects of a device, Do you or does the NRA have a stronger definition?

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: I think the answer is just the problems with both of these sections is the asymmetry between state law and federal. Federal government is providing a uniform framework. So someone who taken the steps to properly acquire one of these things and registered it under the NSA is relying on those federal definitions. They shouldn't be treated differently under state law and just simply track and copy and paste the federal law into state law and, again, take the determination process out of the equation by just deferring to the ATF as to what is or isn't a thing. It's for context. An autosteer is a type of machine gun. It's a broad it's a very technical thing. Right? If I were to take a piece of coat hanger and cut that wire to the right length and I twist and bend it in the proper dimensions, I have created a machine gun under federal law and can be sent to jail for ten years for doing that, for possessing the co hanger. Again, doesn't require attachment to a firearm under federal law. It is a machine gun. Now the merits of that kind of a policy, we're not it's either endorsing or supporting that. We're just saying that the federal government has a regulatory system here that is quite complex, that requires a lot of technical expertise that perhaps Vermont may or may not have, and would therefore limit the prosecution of these cases where it matters. Don't think on behalf of the NRA, we support law abiding, responsible citizens. We're not here to protect the rights of drug traffickers and and gang members in inner cities. Right? That is that is illegal conduct, to the extent that people are breaking the law, they should be prosecuted.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So are you good? I'm sorry.

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: So to possess a Glock switch is a federal offense. Correct. It's not illegal to sell it though. Well, is. Yeah. It's illegal to transfer or possess an illegal machine gun unless you're

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: could find them for $150

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: on it.

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: Well, that is a problem. Right? I mean, if lock switches are selling in inner cities for $20 a pop, that is a serious concern. We, again, we understand the issue, the need sometimes for state companion law to provide flexibility for prosecutors to deal with the problem at hand. Although I do think, as Chris mentioned, I think it's interesting that the attorney's general's office just doesn't see the problem here. They may not be seeing the issue in, say, Burlington or Rock Hillier, but it certainly is an issue in Chicago. These things are fairly easy to acquire. They're largely being shipped in from overseas. And that is a bigger issue that is outside the sort of regulatory framework of firearms in The United States.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: And they can be three d printed also. So There's other issues there.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: But Yeah. What what went through my mind when when you said that, and I knew you could, you know, you can climb mine and buy them or whatever. Didn't know if maybe

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: FFL seven? SOT, yeah, FFL seven is allowed to make and manufacture things.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Right. Right.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So I didn't know if maybe they were allowed to be sold for

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: No. I mean, so the Hughes amendment was passed in 1986, and that sort of trapped in amber all machine guns that were in existence as of 1986. Nothing manufactured post-nineteen eighty six can be transferred to anyone lawfully who isn't a SOT class seven FFL, and they can't really transfer it to other people. There are exceptions in certain states where FFLs will manufacture those types of items for law enforcement or military use, but they're not transferable to the average citizen. Hope that clarifies that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm done for the moment, sir.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright, I appreciate that testimony.

[Joseph LaPorte (State Director, NRA – Northern New England)]: You. I think it's a pretty good time. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we will go to Billy Clark, and just as a time check for you, and Billy, we can the folks that we're not going to make it to today, we're going to take it up again tomorrow afternoon at 01:00. But, Billy, you can get started. And, if you need a little bit more time to go through your testimony, we'll try to have you

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: Thank you so much, and thank you all to the committee for the invitation to speak with you today. My name is Billy Clark, and I'm a senior litigation attorney and second amendment issues manager at Giffords Law Center. I'm also a licensed Vermont attorney who practiced in civil litigation in Vermont for several years before I joined Giffords. So I do wanna speak quickly today in support of h six zero six as it was introduced, specifically section five's industry accountability section, But then I wanna move on to testify in support of section four to talk about this machine gun, rapid fire devices, auto seers that we've been discussing, a bit over the over the course of this morning. So Gifford strongly supports industry accountability laws that bring the same oversight to the gun industry that nearly every other business in America faces. Since 2005, the gun industry has profited off special treatment that it receives from the federal government. Unlike nearly any other business, the gun industry has exceptional immunity from civil lawsuits, an immunity codified in the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, PLACA, which has been referred to this morning. PLACA protects irresponsible gun industry members from the foreseeable consequences of their action and closes the courtroom door to those who bear the most acute harms of the gun violence epidemic in this country. PLACA's immunity, however, is not absolute. PLACA explicitly allows for lawsuits against gun industry members who knowingly violate a state or federal law regulating the marketing or sale of firearms. This is the predicate exception that's been mentioned. So because of this, states remain able to enact and enforce laws that establish standards of responsible conduct for the gun industry. PLACA's predicate exception is designed to balance the supremacy clause, again which was referenced today, with state sovereignty. One of PLACA's core purposes, which is spelled out in the statute, is to preserve and protect the separation of powers doctrine, the important principles of federal federalism, state sovereignty, and comedy between sister states. So PLACA did not attest to prevent states from ever regulating firearms. In fact, PLACA's predicate exception allows states to exercise their traditional police powers to pass laws that can fall under Placus Predicate Exception. So there's currently 10 states that have enacted legislation that require the gun industry to implement basic responsible business practices to prevent harms like trafficking, illegal sales, and gun theft. If a member of the gun industry violates the law and someone is harmed as a result, then victims and or government officials can sue the industry member. These laws ensure that the gun industry faces financial incentives to behave responsibly and that victims and survivors of gun violence have access to justice for the harms they have suffered. So again, we strongly support Section five of the bill as it was introduced and ask this committee to reconsider the amendment to remove this from the bill. But I do want to go on to Section four, and I do want to just sort of I want to kind of tailor my testimony to try to address some of the questions that have been raised today. So I know there was one question about the federal government's willingness to prosecute machine gun cases, rapid fire device and auto seer possession cases. And I do think it's important to talk about the world we're in right now, which is one where there are major instability and capacity challenges at U. S. Attorney's offices around the country and in particular in Vermont. I think this committee knows, it's public knowledge, that Vermont has been without a permanent US attorney since president Trump's inauguration. It has gone through a series of different acting officials and, you know, line deputies who are who are doing their best to to keep things going. But, you know, this is not how a US Attorney's Office is typically staffed, and that does bring challenges to bringing criminal cases, including, you know, federal machine gun charges. I would also mention that the gun industry is currently bringing constitutional challenges to federal machine gun laws. So to say that this is solely, you know, a matter of federal regulation and all federal regulation is fine, well there's logistical challenges, you know, given staffing and capacity concerns to bring these cases and then there's also a concerted attack on the actual laws that would be enforced. Mostly this is focusing on Commerce Clause grounds, not to get too into the weeds of constitutional law, but it's less focused on Second Amendment grounds where there's a long historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons. And so machine guns have not been found to be protected under the second amendment or that it would violate the second amendment to ban machine guns. But what has been done is there's been a targeted effort to say that the federal law regulating machine guns exceeds Congress's powers. Now we'll see whether those are successful, but to say that, you know, we're living in a world with settled federal law and no need for the states to get involved, it's not inconceivable that this federal law could be invalidated. And so there would be this gap that states could come in to fill. Another question that I heard asked was about whether there have been any cases involving machine guns in Vermont. I know there was some question about whether it's legal possession, illegal possession. I did just want to flag two illegal possession cases, at least that I'm aware of, that have been prosecuted. It's harder to pull state records and obviously because there's not the state law on this, it's less clear whether there's been crimes involving machine guns in state court. But in federal court, there's been at least two cases in the last six years. There's one from 2019, one from 2024, where individuals have been indicted and sentenced for violations of 9,220, which is the federal machine gun law. And I'm happy to share those cases with the committee.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Before you go ahead, Zach, go ahead.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. Billy, what are the cases? Can you give us anecdotally what the cases are?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: Sure. There was one from 2024 where it was a person who possessed a unregistered machine gun that lacked a serial number, a privately manufactured AR type pistol, that was the 2024 case, and then there was another case involving an individual who had a older machine gun that had an obliterated serial number on it. And in that case, the 2019 case, the individual was sentenced to sixty five months imprisonment. He was also facing state charges, but not state charges related to the machine gun. Believe had committed other crimes.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Well, that's what I'm wondering. Were these drug related?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: I don't believe so, but I can't guarantee that. Again, I'm happy to share. These are

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: broad questions. It'd be helpful to have that in terms for witness testimony prior to citing up in front of

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: a room full of people. It

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: just would be good to have those.

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: Yep. Yeah. I've been responding to a question that was raised. It was not something I planned on testifying about, but wanted to help the committee, on the question that was raised about whether there's been prosecutions. So I'm also happy to kind of get into the weeds a bit on some of the technical elements around auto seers. I do want to be very clear that we at Difference would what we want is we want Vermont to have Vermont prosecutors to have the ability to prosecute machine gun cases in state court. And so, you know, right now there's no state law on this. And so, you know, at a minimum, we would support adding the adopting the federal statutory definition of a machine gun, which would include auto seers, you know, as done through, you know, the ATF system. You know, there is as Attorney Fitzpatrick referenced, there have been specific rulings from ATF about defining an auto seer. So I know there were some questions about technical, how is this done? There is an ability to rely on the technical elements of the federal government in order to do that. So, you know, we at a minimum would support having, you know, machine guns and then, you know, the devices that are that turn something into a machine gun regulated under Vermont law. Again, for those reasons I mentioned that is presently a capacity gap and there is the chance of a legal gap, that could arise. So I do want to get into that. But I know we're short on time so I think it may be better used if I can just you know open myself up to the committee if there's any questions I can answer about auto seers, technical questions at all on that.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So just to go back, I'm trying to be clear here. The two cases that you brought up, were there it wasn't just a machine gun crime. There was more to it than just that. I mean, I need a little more detail on that. Like, what representative Harvey was asking, like, what's the details of that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yep. So I'm happy

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: to share the federal indictments and the the the press releases that came out with them. These were done by the US attorney's office in Vermont. I'm happy to share those with the committee. Again, I did not have them before my testimony because did not know that was gonna be one of the the things to cover, but happy to share that with the committee.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. He'll send he'll send that

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: in Well,

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: that that's fine. But I would think if he's if he's brought it up now, he would know now instead of just throwing it out there at us right now. Like like, it's important for me to know what that is. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And you're gonna know he's going to share the indictments, which will rather than him kind of paraphrasing what it is, let's see the whole thing. And we're gonna get those, and thank you for providing those.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Are we in kind of a rush for this whole bill to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: get passed? Presumably, I'm assuming that he's probably in the motion of getting it ready to send to us right now.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: I hope so.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Not very much. So questions regarding the technical issues regarding auto CRE? Any folks have questions? Yeah, go ahead, Angela.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So I wonder, given your technical knowledge, Billy, if you can if you have any thoughts on, I don't know, more specific definitions or, I guess, to back up, if you have any concerns about the current definitions and section four of AutoSear and Rapid Fire Device, and If you have any concerns about potential confusion on the part of prosecutors in trying to bring these charges.

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: Yeah, absolutely. So to go one by one, no concerns about auto seer because as attorney Fitzpatrick testified earlier today, that is tied specifically to the federal definition of a machine gun under federal statutory law as well as the federal regulatory definition of an auto seer as put out by ATF. And that's a regulation that's been around since the eighties. And again, was cited in that Supreme Court decision as an acceptable use of federal government power to regulate machine guns. So auto seer, no questions on that, no concerns because again, you're gonna have regulatory, back backing for that. You've got the statutory framework and you're gonna have case law in, at the federal level interpreting that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Before before you go on to the rapid fire device, so I if I understand from miss Bradley's testimony that auto seers, if they're registered under this complicated process, are legal federal. Is that my understanding?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: There is a small category, yes, of pre 1986 auto seers and then there's also a very small category of auto seers that can be produced by a certain category of FFL, a federally licensed firearms manufacturers.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And those and those are captured in the AF the the alcohol firearms the ATF. Sorry. The ATF regs, I mean, as far as what those are that are legal if they're registered, is that correct?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: That is correct. I'm not positive the statutory language as currently done would include the legality of those legally registered auto seers. Again that is a incredibly small number. I don't have the numbers in front of me but it's incredibly small number from what I'm aware of anecdotally on this. But if you wanted to add in language that you know excluded you know legally federally registered machine guns from this, that would capture federally registered machine guns, federally registered auto seers as well.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Go ahead. But you were gonna talk about, I think, the rapid fire device, believe.

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: Yeah. So so rapid fire device, you know, I think what what I view as the keyword there, and again this was emphasized by attorney Fitzpatrick, is device. So that a device is not a finger. A device is something that's installed or attached that increases the fire and so that is trying to capture the universe of objects that are used to mimic automatic fire on a semi automatic gun, to turn a semi automatic gun into something that has fully automatic fire. So that's where I believe that the the sort of you know, the slippery slope is addressed is through that use of the word device. You know, another thing that I've seen some states do and could be done here is to add examples that specify what you were talking about. There is a list of examples that are different than auto seers. This is something that I know that the expert from every town Greg Lickenbrock will testify to I think later this week, but there's a whole category of different devices that you could specify. And I know that's what some states have done is just like you all did with bump stocks, could specify trigger activators, binary triggers, forced reset triggers, different things that if you wanted to do it that way.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Before I get to you, Zach, just one follow-up question on this first. You mentioned fully automatic, fully automatic. We don't have that here. And I'm wondering if that's where we need to go if we're gonna something like this. Instead of just increasing the weapon's rate of fire or the rate at which the trigger is activated, we should be talking about converting the firearm to a fully automatic fire. Would you agree that it sounds like that's where we should be after?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: I think that's right. My one caveat would be, one approach that I've seen states do is to say that the rate of fire mimics automatic fire, that the rate of fire is to the same level. Again, the devil gets into the details when you say it turns it into fully automatic, because it depend depends then in part on how you're defining fully automatic, whether it's a single pull of the trigger or whether it's done through these other mechanisms. One of the things that we've seen the gun industry do a great deal is try to push the federal definition of a machine gun as far as it can and really beyond where it can tolerate in order to get to fully automatic fire in a way that at least in their argument does not implicate the federal definition. So to me, the real focus is are you mimicking automatic fire? Are you trying to get are you getting something that can fire at the same rate of fire as a machine gun?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. Zachary. Billy, I'm just curious where you're pulling your definition of device from. Is it somewhere in Vermont statute?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: I'm not pulling it from that. I'm pulling it from the common usage of the word device. I mean, I think it would really strain credulity to try to go in and say a finger is a device. You know, that, you know, as matter of statutory interpretation, I think would really be a difficult argument that would not be able to be accepted by a court.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So, I mean, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not gonna try the case in front of prosecute the case in front of the room of witnesses here today, but we've heard from two extremely compelling witnesses that a digit, whether it's a finger or some other device, could be classified as such. And so I guess further opining on that, do you think a rubber band is a device?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: The rubber band and the example that the Coat hanger. Oh, can you

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: hear me?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah, the coat hanger. Is that right?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: Yeah, the coat hanger example. So you know there are there have been federal prosecutions for the coat hanger. That that is something that that does happen and that's done in the context of someone who has, you know, taken coat hangers, broken them down, and is either selling them, to be used as, drop in auto sears or auto sears or lightning links. There's a lot of different ones. Again, that's where the gentleman from every town can speak to it. You know, that there there have been prosecutions there, in in that context. I I'd want to think through whether the, you know, rubber the the other the other part that that's doing work in this statutory definition is installed in or attached to. You know I'm not sure the rubber band would work with that, maybe it works with attached to, but installed in and attached to that does get the finger part out of it because you're not installing your finger or attaching your finger when you're using the gun. It's not attached in any way.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Right. So we we can debate that further, but I guess to put a finer point on it, you're not suggesting part of your testimony today is not suggesting that we ban coat hangers in the state of Vermont.

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: I'm not suggesting that we ban coat hangers in the state of Vermont.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Okay. So then how do we enforce this? That's that's really what I'm trying to get to the point is how do we enforce this? If we're not gonna ban coat hangers and all the devices that could be used as a rapid fire device, how do we actually make this kill effective?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: Yep. So I think we follow the long standing lead of how the federal government has enforced this in that, you know, the the vast majority of any case that's going to involve this is going to involve the Glock switches that we're seeing for sale online in the black market or on through social media. That's going to involve, you know, the lightning links, the the drop in auto seers that we've seen that are showing up at crime scenes across the country that are enabling fully automatic fire, to hit innocent pass ers by, that's where the enforcement would come in is that we know, you can there there's a long standing model of this being done at the federal government. This is not something that's brand new.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Right. And that's why I think there is such a long standing history with the federal government legislating over this. I just don't know why it's necessary for us to do it any further and have potentially damaging carve outs in the state of Vermont. But my last question for you, Billy, is were you consulted at all on this bill prior to it coming to the committee? Did you have any input on any of the language?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: I have been in touch with committee members on this.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So I'll take that as a yes. Thank you, Karen.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Last question.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Last question. So are you saying don't reinvent the wheel seeing as we already have a a mirror of federal law? We could have a mirror of federal law on this particular issue in the bill, the the rapid fire devices and all that. So we could just adopt that and have our own state penalty.

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: I am saying that adopting federal law in that way would be a huge step forward for Vermont. I do have some concerns about it at the edges, and I do think that the rapid fire device definition does some work that federal law does not. At the same time, I think if this if this were to go forward with just the federal definition brought in, that would be a huge improvement for public safety in Vermont.

[Chris Bradley (President & Executive Director, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: So if we were so

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: that way, if we run into one of these devices, we know that it's technically a machine gun, and we can have our we can prosecute it on a at a state level with our own our own penalties. Yes. Or or hand it off for that matter.

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: Yes. Exactly. Or yeah. Yes. Exactly.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Great. So if you have more to say, we can have you back, but it sounds like she covered what we needed to from you. Is that correct?

[Billy Clark (Senior Litigation Attorney, Giffords Law Center)]: Yeah, that's correct. Happy to but I will send those two things that I referenced, the two cases that I referenced momentarily.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, great. Thank you very much. And so the witnesses we didn't make it to, including Eric Davies, we will have started at 01:00 tomorrow afternoon. And I think that includes a few other people who didn't quite make it to. So we're adjourned until 01:00 today when we're taking up h seven seven two, an amendment.