Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Live. Hi, welcome back to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the House Judiciary Committee. We're looking at H. Six zero six as it is on the floor of the Senate. We'll see if it gets changed on its Senate or not. We'll go to Carolyn Hansen on that.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: there have been a lot of questions and issues that have come up with the test test.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: I think I've written them down, but ask away because I'm really just here to answer my wall's questions. My name is Carolyn Hansen. I'm with the attorney general's office. And I just want to start out by saying by framing this, and I think everybody's aware of this. But this issue that we're looking at with people who have an IRPO against them or someone who has a relief from abuse order against them, it is perhaps one of the most dangerous times that exists for the petitioners. Because when a person is first told that they have to relinquish their firearm and they are in possession of guns, which, first of all, that's a lethality factor right there. It's one of the top three lethality factors. And then the third thing is that this time of being separated and having a court order, that's a step towards taking control away from that person. And so it's a very dangerous time. It's very important that we follow through with these orders and make sure that when somebody takes a step like this to come and ask the court to provide an order that the person will relinquish their firearms, but that happens. And it's one of these things that sometimes people just think it's automatic. They think, well, we spent a lot of time on talking about when we ought to have orders like this. And so we just assume that it happens once it's ordered. And the big point of this work group and what I want to make sure you all take away is that it's not happening. So there are orders issued, and Vermont currently has no system. It doesn't necessarily even require legislation to have a system, but we have no system. And because this is a hot button issue for folks, I'm not going to play that down. We did come first to ask that you appoint a legislative study committee to look at this. And so we put together the work group that you've heard a lot about today. And those were all stakeholders that you all chose as important to have in the room, people who understood this process and played some sort of role in this process. And then we also looked at who are other folks who would have an interest in this and and and and could be helpful. And I can tell you that in chairing that committee, I made sure that every single one of those meetings were listed as a public notice in the way that we do that with public meetings. They were recorded, and then we had minutes. Every single person who was a stakeholder in the group was invited and encouraged to be at every single meeting. And if they couldn't, we asked them to have a stand in there. The consultants were sent an email by me identifying the bill, identifying that they were consultants, and identifying when the process was starting, the first meeting in July, that we were going to hold a special meeting in September where we were going to start with them and whatever they wanted to share with the committee, that we would also consider their written testimony and that they could come to every single meeting. So I just want you to know that I made my very best efforts to make sure that this was an inclusive process, because we wanted to make sure we had all those voices in the room so that we could get all the input so we could come back to you with the best proposal that we could. And I feel that we've done that. I feel that we've come back to you with a very good proposal about how to start to introduce the idea of some sort of compliance, some sort of making sure when somebody's told that they have to surrender a firearm, that something happens at that point to ensure that that takes place. And we tried to identify what those missing elements were. We tried to make sure, of course, that defendants understood the process and had adequate notice that how it would work so they could be prepared to make sure that victims were informed along the way. If somebody didn't surrender a firearm and they were supposed to, that somebody told them that. So they didn't make the same assumption that lots of us make, that the court ordered it so it must have happened because we don't want people making that assumption and making sure that there is a process. So I'll give you an example. When you all originally set this law up, you said that a third party could hold a firearm if if and I can't remember the exact wordings in the statute, but it's basically the same wording now, as long as it doesn't pose a safety risk to the victim. But there was no process identified to look at that. So nothing happened. There was no there was no process. So when Eric refers to it as a new requirement, I guess I wouldn't really call it a new requirement. I would call it spelling out the process that I think was intended behind what you did initially, but actually making that process clear and transparent to everybody about what would need to happen. Because it's important to keep in mind, while we talked about there's three places that firearms can go if somebody is ordered to relinquish them. And again, this only impacts people who have orders against them and are told they have to relinquish firearms. This has nothing to do with people who are hunting and sports people who are just using their firearms in an appropriate way. It's very important to think of those as buckets. And the biggest bucket it usually falls on is law enforcement. Law enforcement is going to do this. You've directed them to perform duties as a law enforcement agent, carry out those duties. This is one of those duties. So even if they don't have the space, even if it's not a particularly great time for them, they're going to do it because that's their job. Does, as I think you identified earlier, lots of things fall on law enforcement to do. That's a big bucket, and it's a safe bucket. But part of what we were trying to do in this bill go ahead.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I'm just listening to what you're saying. And I do also agree a 100% with what you're saying. Having been an law enforcement officer and having done this many, many times and having to take things back from my office, catalog and record all these numbers of firearms more recently than before. Before, the third party rule, we relied upon. And we didn't it it was a process, Phil. It wasn't we're just gonna go, okay. You can't have them anymore. We're gonna get them to this person. We found the safe person to get them. It was left up to us, because it's on us to make sure they don't get back. So we found a safe person to get back. And I guess I wasn't assuming sort of when you say process. There wasn't. And that's how we were trained.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Well, think that's It wasn't necessarily in writing, but that's how we were trained to do And I don't mean to say that law enforcement takes that duty lightly, but I don't think it was ever intended that law enforcement would make the decision. I think we've always wanted those decisions made by judges who can hear from the different parties involved, who can look at a background check, and who can have the party in front of them. So one of the things the judges would probably tell you is that they don't have any authority to order a third party into court. So the defendant has to be the person to bring that person with them if they want that person approved. I don't want to get too far down the line of third parties because I really do want to go back to the buckets. But you go ahead.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: And that was all part of the process as well. It's consulting with the person that owns the fire. Is this okay with? Because we didn't want to end up in the middle of something that they didn't want to do because I thought they could deal with them or sell them or whatever. And this was prior to the mix anomaly. Okay? But even now, there's many people we have an option to to give them to that do not need a Knicks transfer, family members for instance. Just throwing that out there. That's kind of a loophole that

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: we Well, in a domestic violence situation, though, I think you're talking about the background check bill that talked about normal people who are not normal people, that's not the word I wouldn't use, people who don't have any protective order against them. That's a total different bucket of people. Those are people who may be

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Right, I understand what the next check does.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Yeah, they're just telling the family

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: members that are not required to do a next check for me to give it to them.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Yes. Because because you two are presumably both just lawful citizens with no protection orders against you. If, however and you've already you've already done this. This is not new to this bill. The bill says that it can only be held by a third party if that's not going to pose risk to someone. Someone has to make that determination first. And I can tell you that no judge wants to be put in a situation where they're asked to make that determination without being able to look to see whether the person who's being proposed is even legally able to hold a firearm.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: We're looking for a problem before the I mean, they already have lawful ownership. We are now taking them away. They would have already been able to give those guns to somebody lawfully and say, here, without a judge.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Yes. Before they had a And and

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: and the mission accomplished. And it's still relying upon the honesty that like I said before, you can come and take all my guns out of my house. I'm sure you missed one. And if I end up back there or whatever

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: I guess maybe I'm not following your point exactly. But you're talking about, as I see it, you're describing a situation where two people are just selling each other a firearm or giving their firearms. And really, the government has a limited role to play in that. They have a role perhaps, and we made a decision as a state that they that when it was a close family member, we weren't gonna require any additional steps to make sure that person was a lawful owner. That was a policy decision you all made, which has nothing to do with the people who have a relief from abuse order against them or an IRPA.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Right. But even if there's a relief from abuse prevention order or something like that, I am now mandated lawfully to give those up. And the only right? If you're asking me to give those up, I have to give them up. How are you going to know I gave them up even

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: if Karen says?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: You don't know. No, you're right. Talked about this before. We're not necessarily going to deal with the person who is going to lie to law enforcement and say they don't have any guns. We address every single scenario, but we do. And I think Major Peterson said this, we are making a step forward. We're making a process better. We we need to we need

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: The major is not gonna tell you anything different. He's command staff. I understand it. So on the working level, we that is the third party who's the most streamlined, safe way to handle all of these firearms.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Okay. I agree with you on the streamlined, but I am going to disagree with you on the safe. Because I can tell you that it's not in many states, they have and we're not debating this now because I want to be clear that we're talking about this bill, which is not taking away a third party and has nothing to do with that. That was a decision that was made back in 2013 to include that. So whatever you do, this is just this already exists in Vermont. We didn't take any steps to change that. When I said to you, this doesn't retain any different firearm restrictions. It doesn't. It doesn't change the ability of a third party to hold a firearm. All it does is make sure that it's done in a way where there's some safeguards around it so that we know that, for instance, we're not handing a firearm to someone as a court ordered person and handing them a firearm and then finding out that they were a prohibited person. That would be bad. And that

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Just could happen for conversation purposes here. When we go and we do this and we do the service, the safest time to do it is when they initially find out what's going on, and that's when we're there serving the order. And we can handle it right then and there. Yes. And be able to pass those things off, not have a time to wait to work something out, to find out where they're going, to do the next check. If they get a sometimes temporaries, they really perspire. I've seen that happen.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Yes.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Right? And so when you go, you immediately make some sort of accommodation to make that happen. And you'll necessary law enforcement. It's not necessarily an FFL, and and we rely upon that. This is gonna make it one of the strongest in the nation. Not one of the No. It's pretty close.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: No. There are states that do not allow a third party to hold a firearm once a court has ordered it. So I I understand that. But I

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: mean, in totality, we're gonna be you know? I'm I'm just telling you my concern.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: I'm having a hard time following up with this. I'm like, sorry. Start forth versus just a question and response. My concern is really

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: if somebody owns a fire I own firearms, they're still my property and I'm supposed to relinquish them. You're relying upon me to relinquish them. And if I I can already break the law by not really pushing them the way that you are asking me to. You follow? Yeah. And so I'm already in violation of the order. But yet nobody knows the lie here until it's too late. So giving up the firearms to a third party at least is a very good way to get things going. And maybe the victim can identify, well, I don't think you have them all or something. I mean, we can't just go in and search the place.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I'm trying to understand there's a couple intermixed issues that you're raising here. One is whether the defendant is gonna actually give up all the firearms or hide them or whatever. And the other is how expeditious it is to be able to remove those firearms and get them into a third party's hands. So law enforcement, even with the temporary RFA, well, if it's an RPL, they have to relinquish their firearms. You go out there and it's the first time you meet the person And that's the opportune time instead of giving them directions that you can go through this process to get a third party. We're going to take them And right you have Uncle Jed who's going to be able to take them. So is there anything preventing that from happening at this point, but then the court subsequently needs to essentially approve that Uncle Jed or we find out, actually Uncle Jed is a forensic person and we need to in fact do something different. Is there anything that prevents that initial action to try to get those firearms out of there and to a third party? Because the particular law enforcement agency doesn't have storage and there's not an FFL there. I'm trying to understand that. I mean, if

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: the final or if the temporary order, for instance, mandates that you take firearms, that's good. It's easier to do, especially if there's a third party willing to take custody. It could be the victim's brother. I don't care who it is, just as long as the person is okay with it, who owns them. And in many instances, like in my house, for instance, it's mutual property. I know it is. I mean, we pay for this stuff. So everybody has a vested interest in it, and a lot

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: of homes in it,

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: right? A third party is good.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right, so I just wanted to understand that scenario because otherwise we have this process. And one of the questions I had, which I want you to address is what about the notice to the individual about third party being one of the options. But let's put that one aside and talk about this first kind of scenario that I can make.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: So in the scenario that you presented and Uncle Jed wants to be the person to hold the firearms, they could not be the person to hold the firearms at that stage. The best time, you're absolutely right, the best time for law enforcement to collect the firearm, and that's only in cases where the judge has ordered that the that a firearm be surrendered. Okay? So there are temporary orders. It's completely a discretionary decision by the judge whether or not that is necessary to provide the level of of protection that the judge feels is necessary. If the judge orders that, it cannot go directly to a third party at that moment because we have to have a process to see whether or not the third party is going to sign an affidavit, understanding that they are creating a legal obligation for themselves and that they could actually be charged with a crime if the person were to get the gun back. It's I mean, there are rules around that, even federal rules. Like, federally, people can be charged if they transfer a gun to someone that they were not supposed to transfer it to. Oh, just a follow-up question.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Where would the guns, the firearms go in that scenario?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: They would be held by law enforcement. If law enforcement had a relationship with an FFL because they didn't have their own storage, this bill makes it possible for that law enforcement agency to then store the guns with an FFL just for that period of time before the court has a chance to evaluate the third party, make sure that they are an appropriate person to hold the firearm, and that they are actually legally able to hold the firearm, and that they're willing to do it. Because grandma might say, sure, I'll do it in that moment. And then look at the obligations and think about like, what am I going to do when my grandson walks in the door and says, I want my firearm right now? They may decide, look, I don't want to end up getting charged with a crime. I don't feel comfortable doing that. It might be better for grandma to loan her grandson the money to pay a storage fee to the FFL rather than create that disharmony in the family where she has an obligation that she's really not comfortable with, and she feels that she's having a hard time saying that to her grandson. That's just an example. So during that window, that window of the temporary order window, where two things have happened, the defendant has been served with a temporary order, and the order itself says that they have to surrender firearms. The only option at that point is going to be law enforcement and FFL, because there isn't an opportunity in that short window there to do an evaluation as to whether that third party is someone who can hold the firearm. But they're going to have an opportunity as soon as they have their due process rights. They're going to have the opportunity to decide that they want to do something different. And it could be a third party that could hold the firearm if they're approved. And I wanted to come back to your earlier question, which is, how does a defendant know about any of these things? And we created a brochure. Well, not really a brochure. It's really a two page document that will be attached to all relief from abuse orders and ERPOs once the family division oversight finishes revising it and has it the way that they want it to be. We submitted it to them back in September. This work group, as part of the work we did, we looked at the document that another group that I worked with had created a draft through EBTAP, the Firearms Technical Assistance Project. And this work group went back and looked at that draft and then submitted it to family division oversight. So the idea will be that there will be something attached to this order. So it's not part of this bill because it just was already happening, basically. So there is information in this bill to make sure that defendants get that information when they are, for instance, relinquishing a firearm and the law enforcement agency is holding it and going to transfer it to an FFL, they're going to get the same information about the possibility of having a third party hold the firearm. So they're going to get that information. It's also on the court's website right now and an affidavit form. And I can tell you that nobody's using this process. I mean, they're not using the process because it's not mandated that they do anything right now, as you were pointing out. And so when I asked the court for data about how many third parties they had had applications for in the last year and a half, they told me they had one in the last and it had just been filed in the last week. And so I think it was a result of people talking about this more. So I think you were trying to create a process, but I'm just telling you that process is not being used. The affidavits are on the court's website. There's information on the website about how to do it, and it's not being used.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Tom, and then so we don't get too far down the road. So grandson has firearms taken away. Grandma becomes the third party, grandson goes back to grandma, says, want my guns, and she gives them to them. What's the crime?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: She can be charged with contempt under the statute that you've already passed. So this is nothing new. And there's also, federal law that applies to somebody transferring a gun to a prohibited person. So even if she's just handing it back, that's still a that's still a transfer to someone. There's So already existing law. It has nothing to do with this bill.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So where would the existing law come into play that relatives can hand guns back and forth to each other as far as ownership goes?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Are you talking about the background check law, or are you talking about this, this law?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: To give a firearm to a close relative, there is no background check. If It's like, whether it's mom and his wife or grandson and his grandmother, they

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: If the if grandson has a protection order issued against him and he wants his grandmother to hold his firearm, because it's already a very dangerous situation where the court has made a decision that this grandson poses a risk to the the petitioner or the or the plaintiff, then grandma is going to have to have a background check because we don't want the court authorizing and handing guns or anybody handing guns to a third party in that situation that we already deemed to be dangerous. We already know that there's abuse going on. The court has found abuse and that there's a danger of further abuse. So in that situation, even if you're giving the firearm to a family member, they're going to have to have a background check.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: One more. You as a state's attorney, Georgia state's attorney, right?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: I'm actually assistant attorney general, so that's okay. What I'm saying. That's

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: right. Are you charging an eighty five year old grandmother in this case?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Am I charging grandma?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Vermont isn't charging an 85 year old grandmother in this case.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Well, you know, there's there's always discretion that yeah. There's always discretion. I don't let you talk about being a deputy of state's attorney. There's always discretion involved in who gets charged. But the point of it is that there's there is criminal liability for doing that.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Oh, no.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: I've a lie to that. It's a civil It's not getting charged. It's a it's a civil contempt, actually. So the court could find grandma in contempt civilly and fine her as well. But I'm just I'm not saying it's gonna what you're saying.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I know I know

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: for Bob all of us.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: The main thing we this case. Honestly, that whole idea that you can be charged with a crime or you can be, you know, held in contempt. I mean, honestly, I I don't wanna sound flip about this, but who cares? The issue is whether the person has access to the gun. If they get that gun and they harm someone, who's gonna care about whether or not we can file a charge against someone? The whole idea What law is supposed to be the thing that that's gonna stop the person from giving it back. Yeah. Laws do that. And some people are some people are inhibited by the idea of a law. But what we're trying to do with this is to create a process where that person doesn't have access to firearms when they're not supposed to, protect them from themselves, from doing something that they, six months from now, probably wouldn't even consider doing. So you remove the firearm and you reduce the lethality of that situation. And it applies with ERPOs, too. I just was in an ERPO training yesterday for social workers listening in. And they talked about a multistate study where for every IRPO issued, they estimate no, for every 17 to 20 IRPOs issued, one life is saved. And that's because most IRPOs are issued in situations involving suicide. So this is a preventive method. It's a preventive method to take the firearm and then return it to the person when there's not such a volatile situation going on.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I didn't hear that you

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: wanted it. Oh, I'm not even going to go down that path because everything was a compromise. I mean, we talked about these things, we came up with a consensus of things that were important steps forward. I mean, I think when Major Peterson said, is this everything? Well, of course not, but it's a step forward.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: In No, I'm not talking about anybody else. Yeah. Is there one specific thing that you wanted in here that's not in here?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: No. I mean, I'm speaking for the group, and we spent a lot of time on this and had very long discussions about and I think Representative Rachelson mentioned this. When victim notification, when you're talking about reasonable efforts, could we require more things? But we have to think about, law enforcement has a lot on their plate already. And if somebody is homeless or moving around a lot, they might be really hard to reach. And so we wanted to be careful about like, it's a balance, right? You're doing the best you can.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: What's homeless connection?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Somebody who's sorry, I'm sorry. Someone who has a relief from abuse order, they're the plaintiff. And let's say that they are currently unhoused. And they might have a phone. They might not. Might be very difficult for a law enforcement agent to track down to say, hey, guess what? The firearms that were taken from your ex partner when you got that relief from abuse order, they're going to be returned in the next day or two. So that might be very hard for them to find that person. We want them to make a reasonable effort. But we understand that saying that they must be informed is perhaps just a burden that can't be met with existing resources. So that's just an example. But it's better that we are making a reasonable effort, because right now there's nothing that requires them to be notified at all.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So overall, how does a third party relieve law enforcement from any duties when the firearms would be relinquished to them first anyway? Other than the actual physical storage. They're going to have to document, I believe if they take the firearms in, they're still going to have to do all the paperwork and documentation. Same amount of work they would do as if they were storing and they're just not storing. And then what if they did go to a third party, would all that paperwork and documentation have to

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: be done again? There will be a process to make sure that if a third party indicates that they're willing to hold a firearm, that they're actually holding it. So, I mean, anybody can say anything. Right?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So We have a law enforcement that's in between the court and the third party. Yeah. Yep. They're still doing the same amount of work to document. The only thing they're not doing, well, they may even have to storm for a few days if the court doesn't make the decision right now.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Yeah. I mean, law enforcement was part of this conversation. And I think everybody

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I'm not saying

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I agree or disagree.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Yeah. Right. I mean, I think everybody was thinking, like, what's the least burdensome thing that we can do that still provides some measure of safety? Because right now, we don't have that. If you were to just say, anybody can fold your firearm, what happens two minutes after the law enforcement officer leaves? And that's not really accomplishing anything.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Officer, I'm the officer. Representative Oliver, I remember I seem to think the system may have an upper third party that's pretty efficient, safe. And I don't know, is it too

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: It sounds like he personally did it in a way that was very responsible, there was nothing in the law that required them to do that. Mean,

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: No, I realize that because we're talking about things being burdensome and that type of thing. I think it was a decision being less burdensome and me, that sounds like would be the less burdensome way to go is from wherever the firearms are, right straight to the third party. That's

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: And the only difference in here is we're making sure it's something that the court approves. So we're actually

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: creating No, actually, then you're putting the work on law enforcement to do all the documentation also and possible storage for a period of time. A little bit more than just that. And that's really a temporary No, know that. Guess

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: I can't think of any alternative that would both be less burdensome and would provide any level any level of compliance process. So we've made it as minimal as it can possibly be and still have some sort of process to it, if that makes sense.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Another question that had come up earlier is immunity for third parties, maybe even to partial immunity somehow. Because some of the responsibility would be on the firearms owner, it seems like, that they are kicking them. But on some level it seems like they should have at least partial immunity. I don't even know what at this point. You folks decided there's no immunity for our third party.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Well, I mean, I guess I think there's But so far that the laws can go in protecting people from making bad decisions, right? I mean, I loan you we talked about this before, too. If I loan you my lawnmower and then you go off and sell it, I might have some sort of civil remedy that I can pursue. I can prove it was my lawnmower. But, I mean, that's just that's not really something that the law would normally step in and decide what should happen in that situation. I'm saying it's my lawnmower. You're saying, Oh, she left it on the curb and it was abandoned and I took it. I mean, we don't usually get involved in that. So the third parties are generally going to be people that the defendant knows and trusts and has some sort of relationship with. No, just realized that. Just seems like there should be some,

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: and I don't even know what. I mean, it's if the third party doesn't own the house and they get stolen from the house and the third party member is responsible for that?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: That's going to be up to the two of them. I mean, if

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: they want

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: to create paperwork and a contract between them, they can do that. But that's not anything that we would get involved with.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: I mean, they do have a contract with the court. They have an affidavit that they've signed that says that they're not gonna give the person the guns back. But it doesn't say what they're gonna do if those guns are stolen. They would have to pursue their civil remedies as the owner of the guns.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Proof of insurance that the the firearms would be covered as far as insurance goes if they're gonna be stored in their home? I don't know. With with an FFL if an FFL stores them.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Well, yeah, FFLs have all of that. That would the person would be able to if the FFL burnt down, then I'm sure that they have a mechanism for reimbursing people who they are holding their property for. But a third party, that would just be between those two parties. I mean, otherwise, you're creating a lot of regulation to be a third party that isn't Yeah. That almost seems like and I

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: don't disagree with third parties. It almost seems like they need to hold some responsibility where it appears they really don't have a lot at all, mean,

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: let the storm not give them back. And that's really where our interest ends, right? Because all we're worried about is reducing To the

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: me, that's not where our interest should end because we're writing a law that says this is the way it's got to happen. It seems like that third party somehow should have some responsibility or at least some kind of insurance or whatever is another part of the protection, because there is, if they mishandle these firearms, if they're reckless with the firearms, they're responsible for the damage done to them.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: But potentially, there could be a civil action between the two parties, right? I mean, if I damage your property, then you can pursue some sort of civil remedy for that. Sorry, I'm not answering all of your questions.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Well, pick your third party well, or give third party some coverage in the bill.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Yeah, I think when you think about third parties, you should be thinking about a family member, a trusted friend. That's the kind of person that would

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: A family member that you can just give

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: the guns to now without having to go through all the paper?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Well, there's supposed to be a determination that that doesn't place the victim at more risk. And that is in your existing law.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: questions are Tom and then Ian?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Clearly, we're on a little bit

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: of a philosophical difference, but I don't think we're that far apart. Vermont's firearm transfer rules are stricter

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: than the federal government. Yes. The fact that we're

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: we abide by Vermont's transfer rules, we're okay. And I'm not saying third party is gonna is gonna be my answer every time I pick. I know there's gonna be we're gonna have to do other scenarios. Doesn't make sense to me when I go to a house. The defendant's gonna have to leave. The survivor, victim is gonna probably have the house. And that's where the safe is, and that's where the firearms are. And if they're if they're finding it, to keep them.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: But let Or me Let me give you an example, though. Like, so they're gonna one in. We How how are you gonna find out if

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Let Tom finish with the word. Well,

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: if they're willing to take custody of the firearms in the house, they may want to have a firearm. I don't know. Why wouldn't that be an acceptable solution? Or give them to another family member, a trusted family member. Even I don't it doesn't matter what side, but I suppose it would make more sense to the the survivor side or the victim side to hold on to them without having to do the next check. The ownership is still the ownership. We haven't violated any laws. And if someone gives them a firearm or they take the firearm, they're breaking the law, the order, the defendant will be breaking the order. And I would encourage a next check before the return no matter where they That makes the most sense. But doing mix checks to where they go, I I I don't think that's it it's really a thing we need to do if it's lawful to already do that. The person's a lawful owner or transferee.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: But they might not be a safe option for the person, and the background check is one way that the court can look to see whether or not they're

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: actually Who may not be a safe option?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: The family member. There's no way, just because you think The

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: next check's not gonna tell you if they're Yes. Won't tell you if you're disqualified. Yes.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: That's what

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I'm giving you. Nothing says I have to do that if I wanna give them a gun. Here, gift. And that's what I'm doing, essentially. And you hold on to it, you give it to me back. We do it all the time.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Yeah. And that's totally fine, unless there's a finding that the person has engaged in abuse. And then there's heightened interest in making sure that if you give the gun to someone- Then

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: why isn't it required when I give one to a family member already?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So it's a different status as well. It's

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: going to someone who's not accused of anything,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: for one. The status is that you're transferring ownership, and that's when you can transfer ownership or gift a firearm to a family member.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: You can as well. What's that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You can loan as well. This is a different kind of scenario. So I think we understand the difference between what you're saying. And I think that Carolyn has fully explained the reasoning behind this. We will have to have some more discussion about it later. But I think let's move on though, because we're gonna be done in six minutes. Gosh. Ian has a question.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: I didn't even answer it all.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, we're gonna have to have you come back, I think. And we can continue the discussion within the committee. But Ian.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah, my only question is, because I think I take Tom's point really seriously about the you've got officers showing up to a scene of domestic violence or they are serving a protective order. And that's the moment where taking the guns is probably the safest and the most efficient and for lots of reasons, the right thing. In the bill, for the statewide model policy one and two of the things that the statewide model policy would be tasked for creating a policy for would be removal of firearms from scenes of domestic violence and removal of firearms when serving protective orders. So do I understand that to mean that this model policy would establish four departments across the state to basically be considering and probably trying to do that seizure during those times, despite the fact that they would not have access to a third party immediately to give the guns to, that they would have to wait till we got to later in the court process where a third party was approved?

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Think, if I understand your question

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: It's a long foot.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Yes. Yes. It's it's making sure that law enforcement understands how to proceed when they're serving an order.

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

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: That they don't just hand the order and walk away.

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

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: That they if the order requires that the person surrender firearms, that they explain that to the person, and they ask for those firearms, and they say, The order requires that you relinquish your firearms to me, and allowing the officer to have a conversation. And officers would be trained in how to do that in a way that is not confrontational and is very warm, making the person aware that you're going to get a chance to have a hearing, you're going to get a chance to explain your side, you can have other people hold your firearm if you would like that down the road, all those kinds of things. But yeah, that would be part of their model policy, how to have those conversations with people and make sure they're aware of their rights and their responsibilities. And so when you guys were talking about the model policy in the group, was there discussion around a scenario where departments didn't feel like or representatives from departments didn't feel like they had the capacity to seize the firearms at that time and that they were basically leaving them there for then, I guess, the individual to forfeit on their own. I guess

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I'm seeing that issue. I think it's a very real one that basically the moment they're served with a temporary RFA, they actually should have sessioned firearms. And if they are charged with a crime of domestic violence and they have a condition of release not to have firearms, then they would be in violation of those conditions. So making it so that the moment that that thing is in effect, they are not in possession of firearms seems to be really important. And so I guess what I'm just trying to understand is, are we establishing in here by policy and also procedure that law enforcement, being the first people who are engaging, are going to be able to get those firearms for the very immediate and hopefully very temporary time before we have the hearings that you can establish a third party? That's what I want to understand from this bill if you feel like it's doing that.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: I think that it will require law enforcement to make their best efforts to do that. There are going to be situations where the defendant is not in the place where the firearms are, it so might not be possible. But they will be instructed in scenarios if the person says, My brother has my gun. Well, then the law enforcement officer should be asking about, Who's your brother? And how can I get a hold of them? And so I feel like it's a step forward. And then officers will have to decide if there's also a crime going on and they have information that there's firearms in the house. Maybe with a criminal case too, they can apply for a search warrant if they needed to. So maybe they can apply for a search warrant and not use it unless the person doesn't give them the firearms that they know to be there. So I think it will require some work on law enforcement's part to do their very best to obtain firearms in that scenario. Being mindful of your point, we don't have any kind of registry. We don't really know where we're relying on what information law enforcement is told. So they're just doing their very best, reasonable efforts.

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

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Carolyn Hansen (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont)]: Does that answer it?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. No. I think it's really at the crux of a lot

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: of like, it's at this moment that's very important. A common tactic before transfer was when we'd serve something and the person had control of them and took them away or did whatever we were to do, especially when we had the person, let's get rid of the guns, okay? And that's what happened. So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we're going to have you back on Friday, I think, because we're going to, my understanding latest is we're going to be on the floor for a little bit and then we'll be off the floor because it's towards the end of biennium and we'll be coming back in the afternoon on Friday to the floor to see if the Senate has sent us anything over. That's kind of where we are in the biennium. So we will have some time on Friday morning to continue this testimony and we need to hear from Charlie as well. And we need to have some, I'm sure, robust community discussion as well. But just tomorrow, real quickly, one and you don't have to sit there anyway if S-one you 193, there was, I guess I can call it a negotiation among the committee chairs, and we have a version of the bill that at least has the committee chairs on board with it. There are things I don't like about it, but that's world's compromise. And the main thing is we want to get this out and get it over to the Senate so that we can have a conference committee on 01/1993. And so we will see that bill tomorrow, I'm scheduling a vote for Thursday. And Thursday, we'll also look at the miscellaneous bill, the amendments that we're expecting on the miscellaneous bill. So we're adjourned until tomorrow at nine. We walk live.