Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hi. Welcome back to the House Judiciary Committee this Thursday afternoon, March twelfth. We're taking a look at h six zero six draft number 2.1. That's some amendments based on the testimony that we had yesterday morning. I'll just run through what the amendments are. Eric, apparently not available. They're relatively straightforward. If there are some more technical questions, we'll make sure that we get Eric in here. On the section one on line 18, it changes to the reference for definition of firearms based on testimony yesterday. I at least agreed that that made a lot more sense. I will defer the testimony that we had from Chris Bradley yesterday on that. Moving ahead, there will be a second amendment in here on page seven, and that was language based on the issue that representative Oliver raised as far as forfeuding from justice. And then finally, the larger amendment is section four, which takes language that hearing from testimony from what I was understanding that if we essentially match the law, the federal law for machine guns and then had our own state level fine for that or penalty, I should say, I heard that that was not a piece from the witnesses yesterday. That was kind of a preferred approach as I understood. And that's what this is my understanding that this does that. If your technical questions on here, I bet you actually some of the witnesses, if we can get Chris Bradley back up if we need to and if he wishes to. But otherwise, we'll start with testimony. Unless there's questions that are not super technical about how it's drafted.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Eric, we can Oh, sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. Just to be recognized. We can anticipate Eric to be in at some point to just walk through.

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

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I mean, not that I don't take you at your word for what the changes are or the benefits, but it's always helpful to have legislators.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Absolutely. Absolutely agree here for that. No. Absolutely agree. So we're gonna start I'm gonna actually just start with Eric Davis. If you could join us, Eric, thank you for your flexibility and being able to be here. Okay.

[Eric Davis (President, Gun Owners of Vermont)]: Okay. For the record, my name is Eric Davis. I'm president of the Gun Owners of Vermont. We are an all volunteer nonprofit. A group that's dedicated to the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms. And I appreciate you guys having me in here. And I always tell everybody I've been doing this for about six years now, but every time I have to speak in front of a group of people, I get very nervous. Bear with me in case I kind of wander off my points here. You know, I want to start out by thanking you guys for having us in here, and start by saying I appreciate, you know, the listening that you've done so far, and some of the progress that's been made, you know, the striking of section five, the fixing of the language, and some of these things. However, we still oppose this bill in its entirety, partly because of the content, but partly mainly probably due to the reason or the speed with which it's being pushed through. You you've got four different parts of a gun bill here, which is almost like four separate laws that we're making. And when you're dealing with this kind of stuff, we think it's it's very important to slow down and, you know, sort of hash out all these nuances and details, and take the time to get these things right. And we're just not convinced that there's been enough time or that there's gonna be enough time to to get everything done. So I guess, you know, I I'll just kinda go through the points that are left on this bill here. I'm I'm not gonna, you know, beat you guys up with a whole bunch of technical details and bore everybody to death. I'm just gonna kind of give you some, a little bit of insight and some thoughts to kind of maybe help you guys see it from our perspective, and maybe, you know, touch on some stuff that hasn't been brought up yet. So, I'm actually gonna work backwards. I'm gonna start with section four and work backwards because I have the most to say about section one. So starting out with section four, the the prohibition on machine guns and and things of the like. I'll start by saying we appreciate you guys putting the work into this and striking the language about the rapid fire stuff that was very problematic and was gonna open a whole can of worms, and and we appreciate the work that you've done on this section. However, we still oppose this as a matter of principle, mostly because we believe that the second amendment does protect machine guns, and you should be allowed to own one. There's a whole huge conversation to be had around that about how the NFA is unconstitutional as legislation, we believe. We believe the Miller decision was flawed that upheld it. And under the Bruins scrutiny, you know, this law might be in serious trouble. And that's a conversation to be had. It's a very lengthy in-depth conversation. This probably isn't the time or the place to have that. But that conversation needs to be had. We also disapprove of the methodology of section four. And we've said this for a long time, where you sort of take a blanket band of devices, and you punish everybody with it because of something somebody did, or something that could theoretically happen with these devices. We think that's a flawed approach. And it's not the way this issue should be, you know, should be approached. That being said, sections one through three are almost sort of leaning in the direction of what we've been saying for a long time here. And that's focus on the individuals, focus on the behavior, and don't focus on the guns. Right? That's that's what that's the drum we've kind of been beating for a long time here. And and we bill ourselves as a no compromise gun rights organization. Right? We think all gun laws are unconstitutional, and they should pretty much be off the table. But that said, if you guys are gonna go down this road, you've almost got the right approach with sections one through three here, where you're focusing on the individual, on the behavior, and how to properly treat that behavior to sort of reconcile all these things. However, there's still a lot of nuance in each one of these sections. Section three for instance, I almost don't feel ready to comment on this because of the yeah. I feel like I haven't read it enough and thought about it enough and kinda digested it enough to really give an accurate testimony or or to be thorough enough about it. But I did have a couple quick questions on this one section, and these are just some for you to think about. You guys don't have to answer me. But what happens to a person who's been, ordered by a judge to have a mental evaluation and they pass that evaluation? Does that court order trigger trigger the loss of rights, you know, simply by saying having a judge say, we're gonna send you for a mental evaluation. And then, you know, a guy goes to the doctor, and doctor says, well, you know, he's a little goofy, but he's alright, I guess, and sends him on his way. Does this guy lose his rights? Does he pop up on a next check? You know? What what happens with all that? So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But we usually don't answer questions, but I'm I'm sorry. I and

[Eric Davis (President, Gun Owners of Vermont)]: I didn't mean to yes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I I would want to just explain a little bit further. I I I respect you being in here and raising that. So there's a whole process that is followed in a court of law on whether to have an order of hospitalization or order of non hospitalization, meaning that somebody is a danger to themselves or others because of a mental illness. And that's what's causing the danger. So there's requirements for psychiatric exams. There's a whole process determining this. So if your scenario doesn't go through that process, so that person hasn't lost it. It's if they have that order or if the other component is that if they're found to be not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial and the underlying charges are relayed or would ban that person from having a firearm, that's the other situation where mental illness comes into the equation. And I would just note again, I think I know it the other days, this captures fewer people than what the federal law does. And it also allows people to regain their rights at least under state law much more easily than under federal law. Though obviously the federal law, the person that's going be subject to the federal law, we can't do anything about that. So I just wanted to

[Eric Davis (President, Gun Owners of Vermont)]: make that clear. Sure. No, and thank you. And thank you for taking the time to clarify that. I didn't mean to try to ask questions to the community. Just kind of just kind of a thought to throw out there. Absolutely. But that is thank you for the clarification on that. But there there was that point. And the other point I had with section three is that, you know, you you obviously wanna get people who are in need of mental health. You want to get them that help that they need. But could you possibly be discouraging people from coming forward and saying, hey. I'm having some trouble here. I need help because they're afraid that they might get caught up in this system. And I was I I actually hadn't heard about this till yesterday. Somebody, told me about a guy that got up north, I guess. Guy was, he was a marine, you know, a veteran, all that stuff, and was having some trouble. I guess they changed his medication. And he started having a real bad time with it, started hearing voices, started having some bad thoughts, and called up the hotline and said, hey, I I need some help here. I'm having a tough time. Somehow or another got transferred to the state police. State police told him, Come on down. And initially, he hung up on him, ended up driving to the barracks. They said, Do you mind if we take your gun away? He said, No, I don't want you to take my gun. And they finally talked him into leaving it in the car and getting out of the car. But long story short, this guy pretty much did everything he was supposed to, and he ended up with some sort of, like, domestic terrorism charges for it at him or something like that. And I I don't know the whole story. This is the anecdotal, I'll admit. I was just, made aware of this yesterday, but we're worried about folks like that that might get caught up, in this process and sort of dragged along with this where they're, you know, they're not really to the point where they need intervention yet, but they need some help and they're going to be deterred from going and getting that help because they're afraid of this process, I guess, is what I'm saying.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I would just say just really quickly on that to also make something very clear for everybody is that if somebody is voluntarily going and seeking treatment, this does not cover that. And this is a court process, usually involuntary, but not orders of non hospitalization and hospitalization. Those are for involuntary commitment essentially. So for somebody getting voluntary treatment, this doesn't cover it. I can't comment on what the federal Sure.

[Eric Davis (President, Gun Owners of Vermont)]: And I understand. But I think the, you know, the point that somebody that's suffering from mental illness and anxiety and stuff even, you know, would possibly not know that for one or still have an apprehension about getting into the system to be referred to somebody who is going to adjudicate them and remove their rights and stuff. So there's, you know, there's that to consider. But, you know, sort of on a on a a broader level, I guess, I'm I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the the approach with with sections three and even sections two are kind of sort of what we've been looking for for a long time here, and that's the focus on the individual. You know? Even section two here is you know, we we oppose gun bills as a matter of principle. But if you're gonna have a gun bill, this is, you know, kind of sort of along the lines of how you should write it. If somebody messes up bad enough, long enough, enough times, there eventually comes a point where you, you know, don't you lose your rights and, you know, there have to be repercussions of this. But that sort of brings me into section one and where I'm gonna tie that all together is that this has been a a long sort of standing thing that I've had about about gun rights. And when you cross that line from being a normal person to being a felon and what happens with your rights and specifically your second amendment rights when you get put into that legal basket. You lose them. And I understand there is a path to get these back, but, realistically, that path is very long and very cumbersome and can be very expensive for somebody who doesn't have, you know, connections or money or the prowess to write letters and petition courts and things of that nature. I'm gonna share with you, you know, a a couple scenarios here. People that I know in my own life, I have a friend, been a friend for a long number of years, a guy's in his fifties now, still going still can't own guns because he stole a lawn mower when he was a young 21, 22 year old kid. Got running with some bad people, got into drugs, stole a lawnmower. The dollar amount of the mower triggered this imaginary line where there's a felony here, and now the guy can't own anything but a black powder gun to go hunting And, yes, he could petition the courts to get his rights back, but it's a very long process. I have another family member who's guy's in his sixties now. Excuse me. And did some time in jail and can't own a gun because he got caught growing and selling marijuana thirty years ago, which interestingly enough is not that much of a big deal anymore as long as you go and get the right paperwork from the state. Nobody's really got any trouble with that. Guy still can't own a gun. I know somebody that was in trouble for embezzlement, stole some money from a company that they worked for, and realized the mistake afterwards, said I made a very bad decision. I made a very poor mistake. I regret it. They paid their debt to society. Years later, they still can't own a gun. So, you know, our our main issue with this is that we think this needs a little bit of work for these people who have been looped into this legal basket of being a felon already. They've lost their rights. This is the only right that we do this with is your right to self defense. You don't lose your right to go to church. You don't lose your right to speak freely. I think in Vermont, correct me if I'm wrong, you don't even lose your right to vote if you're a felon. I think you still vote as felon in Vermont. But when it comes to your second amendment rights, you're right to defend yourself. They're gone effectively forever unless you wanna jump through all these hoops. And I think before we cast that net wider to try and loop more people into this, you should sort of address that stuff on the back end first and make sure that, you know, there's a a clear and honest path to redemption for these people who have paid their debt to society and don't deserve to have their rights taken away anymore. And and that's gonna take some time. The other thing to consider about, you know, making it a felony to steal a gun is what is it about stealing a gun that is that much more nefarious than stealing a weed whacker or picking somebody's pocket at the grocery store for their last $200 that they were gonna use to feed their kids. What is it about a crime with a gun that makes it that much more nefarious than larceny committed with any other object? So I guess what I'm saying here, the overall message is that there's enough nuance and enough details in all of these points of this bill still that they need more time. And we wanna put the idea forth. I I don't know how well this is gonna go over, but what we would like to see happen is for this bill to get put on the wall and picked up again next year. I know there's gonna be some different people in these seats next year, but you've already got a little bit of bipartisan support on some of these things here. You've got, you know, the gun groups in here that's saying, hey. We oppose this, but, you know, realistically, some of this stuff is not awful with a little bit of work, but it's gonna take a little bit more work. That same scenario is gonna be here next year. It won't hurt anything to put this on the wall, come back next year, break these out into separate sections on separate bills, and give them the time and the attention that they deserve. They you know, we we understand there comes a point where individuals in our society have either become unwell enough or behaviorally non compliant enough that there's a line there where you've got to decide like, okay, you know, you've got rights, but this, you know, right of personal security, we're gonna take care of that for you for a little bit. You know what I mean? We're we're gonna take this away from you until you get better, and then we'll talk about giving it back. And you guys, you're the judiciary. We we say this all the time. The proper function of government is to protect individual rights above all else. So where this policy or any policy intersects with constitutional rights, you have to have to take the time and get it right. It is so important because of the potential long standing unintended consequences, you know, people that could get swept up in the list that you're not thinking about. It's you you guys are the vanguard of individual rights, and and it in our opinion, it's gonna take a whole lot more than a couple of days of kinda hashing over this stuff to really get the details right in this. So I guess that's about all I got to say on the matter. I'm happy to answer any questions or well, philosophically about any of the points on this. I'm at your guys' proposal. So

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Great. You, Jared, and thanks, Eric, for being here. I actually it's interesting because in all the testimony that we've received, I mean, although it has been limited, it's been rather a fast process for this bill. The concept of restorative justice for gun owners is now something that has come up as of yet. And I'm curious, and now I turn to the chair, you know, I'm wondering if there is a compromise section that could be added to the bill to allow for some kind of restorative justice and competency provision to allow like, the individuals that Eric talked about. I mean, are normal Vermonters who, you know, whether I mean, we certainly took up embezzlement last session, and we removed that from, you know, series of crimes that peep you know, that people could have expunged from the record. You talk about marijuana possession and growing. I mean, it seems like there there has been a change of the times. And I think maybe there could be an effort amongst the new chair and then also all the members of this committee to come up with some kind of concept of compromise to create a restorative justice program for gun owners.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I think that would be a very interesting concept for many of us to entertain.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. Yeah, mean, so I think where that has to be looked at, frankly, is in what can be done with gun guns or gun obscene. So kind of felony theft is something that can be sealed. And right now the ceiling doesn't keep it from staying in the system. Frankly, I was not a fan of that, but the bill that came over from the administration had that language in there that seal documents could still be used there. I would say that's the place to look. I think that's a bigger discussion that we could have next by any of them. I'm happy to have that. But that's, I think, where one gets many rights restored when they have their defense sealed. But one of the rights is not to get the firearms back. And we should look at that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, and I appreciate your willingness to do that. It just seems that this would be a really prudent time to take it up, especially given, you know, where both sides are on the committee on this. And I think, you know, we not to mix any bones. I think we all know where the vote was probably gonna come down in this this piece of legislation specifically, But it seems like that maybe would go a long way, even just to entertain further testimony on it. If we had more time, I'd be inclined, the clock is ticking. Yeah. Guess maybe that's my frustration and my concern is that we could come up with a really great piece of legislation that all of us probably could split if we were just given more time to do it. So not so much a question for you, Eric, but I appreciate your comments and where you're guiding the conversation because that is a perspective that hadn't been shared in this room before. And maybe that's where we need to move the needle to actually help Vermonters instead of penalizing them. Any other questions for Eric?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you again. It's always good to have you back. Thanks, Robert.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thanks. I hope

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you don't like coming back because that means we're dealing with the fight. Well, it's not my favorite place to be,

[Eric Davis (President, Gun Owners of Vermont)]: but I appreciate you guys.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You bring to us. So do you think we're going to lose in that if we don't get them right away, or shall I go to a next step?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'd say vote next step.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'll vote next step.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Just a clarifying question about that. It aren't felons barred by federal law from possessing firearms?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, that's the other thing.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. I just to make that clear. I just wanted to check my understanding that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes, you make a good point. But I think there may be different crimes that are considered.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: But broadly speaking, it is a federal law that if you are guilty of a felony, you may not possess a gun. Right? Okay. Just wanted to check that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Keep on thinking of the state law, but there is that federal law here, you know. We'll go to Suzanne Laurie, if you could join us. Thank you for being here so great. I appreciate it. I'm sorry we couldn't fit you in yesterday, Maureen. Thanks thanks for your flexibility. You're welcome.

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: Good afternoon, and thank you for all coming back today. Yesterday, we heard a lot about legal and policy issues. Today, I wanna share with you a personal story. My name is Suzanne Lurie, and I live in Charlotte. I'm here today as a gun violence survivor and as someone who believes we can and must do better. My personal story is not unique. The consequences of gun violence have far reaching ripple effects that impact the lives of too many people. In 1987, I was in law school when I received a call that would change the life of my family forever. On the day before his 50 birthday, my father, a neurosurgeon, was the victim of a premeditated murder in our home by a by a patient. My mother was also shot. She survived her injuries, but later, in large measure due to the trauma, she died. She relived that horrible event over and over and could no longer distinguish whether the gunman was still a present threat. The perpetrator went home and with that same gun, killed his wife and then himself. Another tragedy for another family. The gun was later stolen from evidence and used again in an interpersonal violence event. Another tragedy for yet another family. That experience is why I'm here today with you. Like many survivors, I never expected gun violence to become a part of my personal story. I expected to be working to support others, not personally wearing a red shirt with the word survivor on it. I'd like to tell you a little bit about my background. As I often share with the survivors I work with in the Everytown Survivor Connect program, The gun violence we've experienced does not define us. It is one piece of our story. My parents made it clear to my siblings and me that we were expected to pursue professional careers. My path was to go to law school, but I decided to delay for a bit, and I took a job as a counselor at a domestic violence shelter where I had volunteered during college. There, I witnessed the courage of so many women attempting to leave a dangerous situation. Several women I worked closely with took brave steps to leave their violent partners but were shot and killed. The reality is that the most dangerous time for someone in an intimate partner situation is when they leave an abusive partner. It was heartbreaking, truly heartbreaking, to share that news with other residents in the shelter who were carefully planning their own path to safety. I then decided to go to law school to focus on changing laws related to interpersonal violence. I interned as a victim witness advocate and volunteered at a domestic violence legal clinic, where I learned firsthand about the intersection of gun violence and domestic violence. We know that access to a firearm makes it five times more likely that a woman will die at the hands of an abuser. Five times. More than two thirds of intimate partner homicides are committed with a firearm. Eventually, I changed directions and became a licensed clinical social worker. As a mental health clinician, I know that far too often we may blame violence on mental health issues instead of focusing on access to a firearm. Simply having a mental health condition does not mean someone is a threat to themselves or others. House Bill six zero six would help keep guns out of the hands of people who have been found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others because because of a mental health condition. The perpetrator who shot my parents had a very specific plan in place, one that was known by others, including his therapist. If there had been a procedure in place to prevent his access to a firearm, perhaps my family story would have had a different outcome. As a mental health clinician in Vermont, I quickly became aware that the vast majority of all gun violent deaths are suicides. In fact, eighty five percent of gun deaths in Vermont are by gun suicide. Eighty five percent. This bill would address a gap in state law by removing firearm access from someone the court deems a threat to themselves or others. I now use my skills in supporting gun violence survivors across the country. Our backgrounds and our stories are very different, but what ties us together is the experience of having lost a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a beloved friend, having been at the end of a gun in an interpersonal violence incident, or having served in the military and experienced the impact of gun violence and part of a mass shooting at a school, a bar, a concert, and the list goes on. I urge you to support house bill six zero six so that other families do not have to live with the lifelong consequences of preventable gun violence. Thank you. Thank

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you very much, Susan. I'm sorry for your loss. Thank you. Any questions? Angela?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I want wanna to say thank you

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: to you. You're welcome.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I also have question for you, Chair LaLonde, that I wasn't aware yesterday. When you were here, I didn't realize that

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: you were here also as a survivor and

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: an advocate and a survivor. And I would just ask that in the future, we prioritize survivor or victim testimony as much as

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: possible, Yeah, which as schedules

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we can do that. And I didn't realize that was the case either. So I apologize for that.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Starting here today. Thank you for coming back and knowing that sat through an entire day, a morning of testimony yesterday and additional testimony today, but knowing that you had a story to tell, and I'd like for folks to have the options to be in the room and hear everything or not, if they choose not to. We'll hopefully change that. Thank you. Thanks for your time.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Oh, yeah. I have questions. Thank you so much, Susan, for

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: your opinion.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm wondering if you can tell us a little bit about the Everytown group. Because prior to the red shirts that I saw yesterday, was not familiar with the group at all, so curious if can give us some background.

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: Are you speaking specifically about the role that I work in?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I think the organization as a whole. I'd never heard of it before.

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: Yeah, think we have someone

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Maybe Elizabeth who's coming

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: next for the

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: can speak to that when she's out. So I see she turning her camera. I guess specific to this bill, why are you advocating for this bill specifically? What does this bill do that you feel like is going to move the needle to make sure that your family's circumstances are never repeated hearing from them? Right. Well, I think

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: I'm glad that this bill focuses on that the court has to deem someone a danger to themselves or others, so that that is a vehicle and important that's a gap that's closed on this bill. I think it makes very clear that access in my mind, is access contrary the gentleman who spoke before me. It's access to a firearm that is the risk. And so I think that makes it very clear that there is a procedure so that people's rights are respected, but that there is also a path when someone is a danger to themselves as another. And I know as a mental health clinician, one, how difficult it is. You have to be very careful about making that decision to break confidentiality. That is not something that we do easily. So you have to have supervision that goes all the way up to consulting with the lie the lawyers at the top to make sure that you are breaking confidentiality if that's the situation. I don't know if that's always gonna be the case, But so that you you're you're walking a very careful, respectful path, understanding that people are a threat to themselves and others.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And it's interesting because I think the supervision and the breaching of HIPAA or confidentiality is not something that we've really spoken about yet in this committee. Think that's actually probably an additional concern.

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: I don't want to I'm speaking my role as a health clinician. How much we have approached that and did in the past. We took that very seriously.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: But I do think that's a consideration for this bill, too, that I think is something that we should look at as well. I think, I know you were here in the room yesterday, I'm not sure if you recall the question that I had, but say you have someone with a mental defect or a mental illness or an episode or something that they're going through, they are deemed a risk to themselves. And then all of a sudden the protection order, the non hospitalization order relapses and that person is able to get a gun again. Or maybe, prior testimony was, that person goes for the evaluation and they say, You know what? We think you're fine. And they still maintain access to that gun. Then, God forbid, they go out and hurt somebody. I guess my question is, where's the line? Where do you think that line exists in terms of where the gun should be taken away from?

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: I think if there is information that has been reported that someone is a risk to themselves or others and they go through the proper procedure for a court to make that decision, that's where I believe that the firearm should be removed. Should that person you know, we talked about the process for them to be able to restore their rights. If that person and the people around them, the people intimate and understand their behavior also support that, I leave it to the community to decide and talk more about how to restore those rights.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Well, that's But we know

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: that these these acts are done often premeditated as well as in Vermont, the impulse around a firearm and suicide is

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: that's a very big concern. And I guess my last question is, in terms of wondering if this bill goes far enough, in your opinion, or would you seek to make modifications?

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: I don't think I have time to answer that. I feel like this would take a step, but I am going to defer to our our expert here. And, b, this is important.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Important to do it.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And I think one thing too, you know, when we're talking about gun ownership in The United States Of America, and I'm sure anecdotally, it's probably true here in Vermont as well, is the two largest groups of individuals that are the largest single largest purchasers of guns now in 2026 are women and people of color, typically for self defense. So I just think that's worth just putting stating for the record is that these are the two largest

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: groups that are benefiting from don't see that taking away from their capacity, their ability to get a firearm legally. Right. I'm not here to debate whether a woman, a person of color, should get a gun. That's not why I'm sitting here.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So for you, it's the mental health component. That's the biggest concern.

[Suzanne Lurie (Gun violence survivor; Charlotte resident)]: It's not the biggest concern. A concern is a concern that certainly speaks to my heart. But I think the other components are very important as well.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Great. Thank you very much for your time, Sachar.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. We'll go to Elizabeth Ryan next. Thank you.

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: So good afternoon. Thank you so much for having me, Chair LaLonde, and distinguished members of the committee. It's been two years since I was in front of you to testify. I'm very glad to be back here today. And I do especially want to acknowledge Suzanne. She is a member, a volunteer with with Moms Demand Action, which is part of every town's grassroots organization across the country along with Students Demand Action. I am my name is Elizabeth Ryan. I am policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety. And that includes our our our volunteers who are also there present today. So I appreciate the chance to talk to you today about H-six zero six and in support of H-six zero six, particularly going to address the issues or the provisions relating to the mental health prohibitor and the machine gun prohibition. I would also like to take a moment though to express strong support for the now removed provision that would have set up some gun industry accountability. For decades, the federal law has allowed the gun industry to skirt responsibility for the harms that they have caused. But the federal law does contemplate that specific states can hold this responsibility. New York became the first state to put that kind of system into place in 2022. That was upheld as constitutional by the second circuit, which also covers Vermont. And I do hope to be here next session to talk to you about that bill comprehensively. To address the six zero six, so Vermont, as you know, has made remarkable strides in gun violence prevention over the past several years. It has brought it up to number 17 in the Everytown State gun law rankings. This bill would partially address one of the remaining foundational policies that Vermont still lacks, which is a prohibition on firearm possessions for those who have been found by a court to be a danger to themselves or to others by reason of mental illness. And this bill would bring Vermont closer, although not completely, into line with federal law and with 29 other states. Federal law bars individuals who have been involuntarily committed to psychiatric facilities from having guns and has done so for more than fifty years. But a separate state prohibition is important to ensure that state authorities can also properly enforce this law. This bill is a step in the right direction to do that. The key core concept here is that the bill requires a court to find under existing state law procedures that a person is a danger to themselves or to others by reason of mental illness. It is not nor should it be, excuse me, It is not nor should it be a prohibition on someone merely having a mental illness diagnosis. It is not a prohibition on somebody being medicated for having a mental illness. And it certainly isn't a prohibition for people who are just seeking help for a mental illness. It requires the determination of a court under very specific process that is already established in law that a person is a danger to themselves or to others by reason of mental illness. And that dangerousness provision is the key here. These are very long standing restrictions in both federal and other state law. The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v Heller stated that its decision was not questioning quote long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. And the Supreme Court's more recent decision in Rahimi in 2024 specifically evaluated and upheld a prohibition on possession by someone who had been found by a court to be a danger to others. And while that case specifically involved a domestic violence restraining order, not a mental health finding, the key is the dangerousness component. And the fact that the court has held that that is a constitutional consideration for laws like this. So again, the restrictions that exist in federal law that exist in other states are and consistently have been found to be constitutional. And additionally, a prohibition like this is still important even in a state like Vermont with that has instituted an extreme risk protection order red flag law. That law allows a court to order that the firearms of a person posing an immediate threat of harm to themselves or others be temporarily seized and it addresses a very acute, very immediate and emergency situation. But the orders are very short in duration and although they can continue to be extended, they should exist in conjunction with a prohibition like this to ensure a more robust and comprehensive system that this bill would partially provide. So moving on to the machine guns prohibition. This new version of the bill that adds prohibition into Vermont law that mirrors the federal machine gun definition is definitely needed. Machine guns have been heavily regulated under federal law since the 1930s and have generally been banned from civilian possession since the 1980s, although there are about an estimated 783,000 that are still in circulation. But the very steep and fast proliferation of rapid fire devices has also transformed ordinary semiautomatic firearms into fully functioning automatic machine guns that can fire at a rate of up to 20 rounds per second. Vermont has recognized the danger of those conversion devices when it enacted a bump stock ban after that type of device was used to massacre more than 60 people at a concert in Las Vegas. Vermont is one of the only remaining states that does not have a specific state level ban on machine guns. So this bill would rectify that basic missing piece. By mirroring the federal definition, it would also cover some types of rapid fire devices, including switches, which have been found to qualify as machine guns under federal law. So we strongly support this basic step, but also hope that a broader and admittedly more complex and complicated issue of rapid fire devices is brought back next session. 29 other states including some deeply red states like Mississippi or have excuse me like Alabama have passed bans on auto sears and on clock switches. These are an increasingly deadly increasingly common problem And a step in banning machine guns covers part of that problem. And we support it. But again, hope to be back next year to talk about that further.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Questions for Elizabeth. Go ahead. Thank

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: you, Chair. Thanks, Elizabeth, for being here. So I guess the question that I had asked the prior witness, Suzanne, is if you can just give a little bit of background on Everytown, when you guys were founded. Sure. Are you a C3, a C4? I'm just kind of curious, who are you as an entity?

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: Sure. So Everytown for Gun Safety was founded, its very beginnings were founded the day after the Sandy Hook massacre back in 2012. That's when what would become Moms Demand Action was formed as a as a volunteer contingent. It then developed into another portion developed into what's called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which was founded by then Mayors Bloomberg in New York and Menino in Boston. And it has then it has now grown to the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country. We have both C4 and C3 components. We focus on both legislative and non legislative policy at both the state level and at the federal level. We have involved there. We've had more than 11,000,000 people across The United States involved in at least some part of our movement.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Wow. Very

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: extensive. And I appreciate the background just so that we can all kind of level set because I'm sure some people in the room are more familiar with you all and some of us are are just getting up to speed. Specific to to Bill six zero six, I'm curious if, you know, in your research and your advocacy, if you've come across any examples where criminal penalties measurably reduce gun violence. Violence?

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: So we every town is generally neutral on penalties associated with gun crimes. Our focus is on prevention and the bills that lead to prevention. We believe that the penalty provisions are best left up to legislators like yourself.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Sure. I appreciate that. And I guess that kind of segues into my next question in looking at petition mechanisms. So I think one of the key areas of concern for many on the committee and witnesses that have preceded you is on the non hospitalization orders and wondering, what does this cover? What does it not cover? Is someone's second amendment right being taken away? And I'm not going to litigate that aspect of it. I think there's probably some constitutional scholars, far more qualified than myself, that are going to be able to take that up and probably including the Vermont Supreme Court. But I think specific to the bill, I'm wondering if you think there should be some kind of petition mechanism for that when someone is undergoing a hospitalization order, whether they can have their rights maintained while the evaluation is happening and prior and certainly afterwards if they are fundamentally incapacitated or unstable?

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: Sure. We certainly support a process for restoration of rights after an order of this kind that is written into the existing Vermont procedures right now. Is something that most states, if not all states have, is a procedure where somebody can petition a court at some time after this determination was found to present evidence and support that they are no longer a danger to themselves or to others. And and we certainly support a process like that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Right. And you think those rights would not be infringed upon while they're awaiting trial?

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: If there has been a specific court finding of a person being a danger to themselves or to others, Once that finding has been made, we support that prohibition between then and the point at which a person's rights would be restored.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Okay. And I think going like same on the mental health line of questioning, because it is very important, right? And it's something that we are constantly talking about in this committee and certainly in this building. But in your research, mental illness or mental defect, has that been indicative or a predictor for interpersonal violence in relationships?

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: So just a diagnosis of something like mental illness absolutely is not indicative. People tend to be, if anything, more likely to be victims of violence. And that's why I think the focus has to be on that dangerousness provision. This isn't, again, not because somebody has a diagnosis, not because somebody has sought treatment, not because somebody is medicated. This requires a specific finding by a court based on specific facts of dangerousness. And I think that's the key.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: That's helpful. And my last question is, can you, for the benefit of all of us in the room, can you point out the gap in federal law as it's currently written that this bill is looking to solve?

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: Sure. So is so federal law, the gap in federal law that actually this covers is this order that would apply to somebody who has been there where there has been a dangerousness finding, but they are ordered to outpatient treatment. That is not something that would trigger the federal prohibition, but it which we consider to be a loophole in federal law. We we support that that is a prohibition, and that is something here that this bill would cover that federal law does not.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And there's no concern with a person receiving outpatient treatment, not because that was one of the things that came up yesterday is Vermont simply doesn't have the infrastructure with our mental health facilities to take all these people. So outpatient in another state might mean something very different than what it means here in the state of Vermont. So I'm just curious if you thought about that dichotomy.

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: I think, again, I think the key is the dangerousness provision. The fact that Vermont has the ability to order outpatient treatment, I think, is is great. I think that's an option that that a lot of other states don't always have. But again, I think the key is on the dangerousness, not necessarily the commitment part of this consideration.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Thank you very much. Ian? Hey. Just one quick question. I think you said earlier that under federal law, a block with a switch is considered a machine gun. Is that written into the federal statute or is that through case law? Can you just elaborate on it?

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: Sure. So that has been found. So the definition that is in this newest version of six zero six is, except for the last sentence, word for word what is in the federal law. And so that includes that language which is

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: common so this is on page eight.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, please.

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: A weapon that shoots. So, the term includes a frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun. So case law has found that certain devices do fall under that definition of machine gun.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: You have. Do you have the k like, the federal case?

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: So so I can get that for you, certainly.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I think isn't the ATF doesn't don't they have promulgated, like, what qualifies under this? I think that's what is important. Yes.

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: The ATF. Yes. The ATF also has regulations that are that govern the use of switches and the classification of switches as rapid fire devices. That authority was challenged, and there was a claim that that had gone beyond the scope of their administrative authority. And that was found that in most circumstances, one sort of very narrow circumstance, it didn't apply. But in general, they did have the authority and do have the authority to regulate that.

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

[Elizabeth Ryan (Policy Counsel, Everytown for Gun Safety)]: But I can get you the exact case site.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That'd be great. Thank you. Other

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: questions, Philip? I I don't see any, and I'm I'm looking at the corrections committee acknowledging. It's like Matt Valerio still testifying. Did you want to weigh in, Chris? Are you No. You're good. You're good. So I guess we'll stand down until we get down Matt over here. I think that makes sense. What's the MAC coming in on? On this note. Oh, it is. Okay. Yeah, yeah. So we will

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: until

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: further notice,