Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We are live. Good morning. It is April 3. We are taking back page six zero six. We have Joseph Laporto. Am I pronouncing your last name from Correct. Joseph Laporto from the NRA to share your perspective on HM-six zero six. So if you could just introduce himself, and the

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: floor is also Sure. And Chair Hashim, thank you for the time this morning. Appreciate the opportunity to come speak with the city. My name is Joseph Labordo, the state director for the NRA, a portion of New England and including the state of Vermont. Again, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak this morning. I intend to keep my prepared comments on this relatively short, the bill that's in front of us, H606, Without some of the amendments that are floating around We did a fair amount of work on that bill on the house side and through think some very positive interactions with the house committee on this bill I think a lot of our initial concerns on this were addressed maybe we we in principle object to the necessity for a significant portion of age six zero six because it is in large part redundant to federal law. So it seems to us an unnecessary step to create state corollaries to what's already federally prohibited, especially as it relates to prohibited persons. We understand at times that states like Vermont have a necessity for creating state companion laws on federal issues because of the necessity of a limited access to federal resource prosecuting crimes. So to the extent that the state of Vermont needs to bury the government bills and federal requirements because they need to prosecute these cases in state courts because you can certainly understand that respect. But but at least as far as put this person statutes go those those exist under federal law and simultaneously exist under state law without more action from the state it's just a question of proper reporting to the NICS database so if we're primarily concerned with ensuring that firearms don't reach demands that should get public, the federal statute covers the state of Vermont. Yeah, think we heard a testimony yesterday from home of the Veterans Office as far as having a deterrent effect. Likelihood that these laws create that deterrent effect is fairly limited. So yeah, so while in principle we would oppose a larger percentage of this bill, our concerns as it stands right now on the bill that was passed out of the house is much more narrow. Our concerns really rest in a very limited provision inside of section three and that provision exists on page seven lines one through three. And in particular our chief concern with the language of section relates to the treatment of non hospitalization occurs. We recognize under the federal system that it is a long standing framework for dealing with prohibited persons. And the goal of the policy objective of all of that is to ensure that violent felons are not able to access firearms. We can certainly prove that concept. And it is well rooted in in both federal law and in jurisprudence on the second amendment, that those have been adjudicated as dangerous, you know, should not have access to firearms. And those are principles we can generally raise funds. Question really you know it's more about due process standards you know and under Vermont law there's when we're dealing with mental health issues there's two sort of paths there. There's a criminal component which is a much more serious environment where there's higher standards to process and then there's a civil track for commitment orders And what we're talking about in this section deals with fairly low standard civil commitment where a lot of law currently creates some flexibility for judges to provide for non hospitalization orders for folks that don't hit the threshold of being endangered themselves or others or civil conduct that became appropriate. So by default if a judge is saying that the non hospitalization order is appropriate that respondent has not met the standard to be committed and that standard is a dangerous standard. So by default the decision in that case is that that person is safe to return to society and is now under supervision. So essentially that person is receiving non outpatient treatment and in many cases and I actually went and reviewed a series of court cases that have been presented in home court here in the water. There are many instances where based on the progress of that outpatient treatment there could be a decision that that person is now declined and is now in need of hospitalization. So there's supervision over this process. But if somebody's given a non hospitalization order and outpatient treatment, it's in an environment where the standards on due process are very low, these are civil orders. Where we're talking about preponderance of evidence and lower type standards of proof. Essentially the court is saying that they're not endangered themselves or others by virtue of the fact that they didn't return to society to all be under supervision. We heard again we heard testimony from the public the federal office about creating too big a bathtub here and what section three is doing is trying to create a corollary system to the federal system which is to say those who have been committed to some sort of psychiatric facility, a mental hospital or prison, right, dull ones, those people are treated clearly under federal law. There's a big lack of synchronization as it relates to civil non hospitalization orders. That that is our chief concern, you know, and and what we hear is the big sort of difference between what the state is proposing to set up as a system versus the federal system. And we think those should be synchronized. Again, there's always a process concern. The very core principle that I think we also heard testimony yesterday regarding the State of America insurance prudence on the second amendment. The most recent case before the Supreme Court was US versus Rahimi, where some of these issues were more squarely dealt with. And yeah, the court holding in Rahimi was that when a court finds that the defendant is endangering themselves or others, they can be temporarily disarmed consistent with the second amendment. But that of course, insists on an adjective process, and that was thematic throughout the whole thing. So the question is, you know, are we dealing with instances where there's an adjective process? Is the finding an actual dangerousness finding in the case of non hospitalization or if that's simply not true. So, as far as section three is concerned, that's our chief concern and the one that we wanted to bring to the committee's attention this morning. Section four of the bill again we review that as relatively redundant to federal law. It is good in the sense that now the definitions there are fully synchronized with federal laws that relates to machine guns. And just to clarify some points that were raised yesterday, if you heard testimony with regards to auto series and clock switches, that's the advantage of tracking the federal definitions because those devices are treated as a chain gun set of federal law. So when you're allowed to rely on those ATF technical determinations, then a state prosecutor doesn't have to reinvent the wheel in any given case. You can rely on a federal definition and you can prosecute that case relying on those technical federal findings. So in those instances, you know, if you're to create some ambiguous category of things and the state bears the burden of trying to find that those things aren't in court that becomes a factual matter of jury questioning and as a practical matter it would make that very difficult to prosecute. Under this framework governors are safer because you know, we have one common framework between the state and federal government. You know, we're not in some gray area where we don't know whether or not we're trying to comply with the law, but don't know whether in fact we are. Now there's that sort of clear definition and framework, but it's also now relatively easy to prosecute if you're dealing with some of the violent crime issues that major cities like Chicago are dealing with where, know, not only are these, this was plus switches proliferating, they're being produced pretty consistently in crime as an issue. And we recognize it's an issue. And the lack of federal resources is an issue. So again, we understand the assessment for it. Making the task easier to prosecute, Under federal law, possessing one of those three d printed block switches that we heard testimony on yesterday, that's a ten year felony. And potentially $250,000 fine under federal law. And it's a stackable offense. So we're bombing traffic and getting caught spittages illegally. And I've got five of them in my pocket. I'm facing possibly fifty years in jail for that. It's a stiffer penalty than murder of most cases. That's The what it pathway that we reached in age six zero six that relates to that issue, and it addresses the actual problem and makes it relatively easy for the state to take action of itself. And it protects governors in the sense that they're essentially no worse off under federal law or state law here. So there's a synchronization issue there that ensures that we've got a level of control within the

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: state of federal government. So

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: Sections one and two, we have proposed no opposition to in the first instance. To the extent that the state is here addressing bad behavior, bad conduct, and criminal conduct, mean, NRA and our efforts have no interest in weighing in on that process. States should pursue avenues to enforce the law and fight crime, quite frankly. I think at the heart of this, essentially, crime bills and some of these minor corrections here. I will speak briefly to the amendments, and I would like to sort of frame my testimony on those as a starting point. I would sort of like to reserve the option to revise our opinion on those matters because we still don't quite know what we're dealing with on some the amendments. We haven't had an adequate amount of time to review and address those. We saw and heard some testimony yesterday regarding the relinquishment of the shoes and surrendering the firearms essentially a custody of firearms issue with relates to both domestic violence restraining orders and extremist protection orders. I think at the heart of that, the goal is, the policy goal here is to create more resources for the state by creating partnerships with FFBELS. I think that's possibly a good goal. We just have not had an opportunity to really work through the details on that. And I think the state is in need of a good solution here. We're essentially trying to extract private resources onto the state government to fill the needs that are currently not being met. I mean, I I I wonder about the the the sort of the the idea there, like, should not the state just provide those resources? But that yes. That's another question. But but to the extent that there's a there's a need for a partnership you know with that the bills I think more work needs to be done at bills. There are some concerns just at first in Washington and look through the language of it but it's in such rough form and we've gotten so little feedback from from industry on that I just don't know what if anything we can truly object to or discuss in a meaningful way in this session so you know

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: you did mention you had a couple of things at first blush. Understandably you'd like to work out once more and kind of just give us the areas that you've

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: I mean first blush I think there this bill as I understand you know and as we look at the issue essentially what we're saying here is there's a there's a need that's not being met from law enforcement with respect to storing spreading firearms And so what we're trying to do is find essentially private alternatives to that, whether that's through FFBLs or in some cases through third parties. There's nothing in this bill that guarantees that FFBLs are going to want to participate or have an interest in participating. But Vermont, since that since this legislation was first enacted had a mechanism where third parties could be designated. And it seems like some of the provisions would make it much much harder for a third party to be designated as a custodian for those surrendered firearms. I believe that there's language in that bill that would change the current law to prevent courts from granting a continuance and this is just one example right but I think there's a provision that the bill is written that would prevent the courts from granting a continuance and dictates from bringing it out

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: in the third quarter and the fourth quarter for approval.

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: I mean what's the policy goal there? Right? If the courts try to find a solution for that and the respondent needs an extra day to present the third party to the court, why prevent those things from happening? I mean, again, this is just a cursory review that we've had overnight just to let's say, the test of the bill, the ARCs. Quite frankly, was a report on this issue back in November and there's been a placeholder bill since the start of the session with the early text. If this is an important issue, then we should have seen the text of this bill at the start of the session if we would have had time to address the issue thoroughly and properly. And again, to the extent that they're And as someone representing the association, the National Rifle Association, our concern is our members. We certainly do at times weigh in on issues that affect the firearms industry itself, but we're not into record, we're setting up the industry in any actual way. That's not our primary objective. Having said that, we work with our counterparts that represent that industry. They are a constituent, a major constituent in that legislation. And unfortunately, as it stands right now, they're by and large silent on I know that there's a test order that they spoke to a handful of the dealers around the state but I think you're trying to craft a viable policy and solution here you need more liberation, discussions, more interaction with the industry to try to partner with it. So I really think the issues with that bill is just it's too rough and too rush. Know there is there if we had a whole session to work on it might be a different story but I think this is too little too late from our point of view and it's difficult to opine on it in this morning session because it is a complex issue.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, just so you know, isn't a bill that we're going to be rushing through by any means. It's going to take kind of a few weeks. So I know you're mentioning, you know, that the whole sessions that we're done, but, you you you and other folks will have to testify additional Congress based on how the bill is going where we just make the request and you're welcome to come back. And that same invitation is open to other folks as well who

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: have different perspectives on this. We welcome that opportunity.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: There was one point I wanted to go back on back to page seven regarding the ONHs. I understand your due process concerns, but I don't quite understand the idea that people who are under ONHs aren't threats to themselves or others because if we're to get an ONH, the court does have to find that you're a danger to yourself or to others.

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: If you look at how this played out in case law, you know, it is, there's a very, very clear standard for someone who could be hospitalized under that. And there are very clear definitions as to what it means to meet that threshold that you have to get back to danger, and injure yourself or others. Exactly urinating of health. Again, a non hospitalization order is an outpatient treatment system. And so just as a matter of, as a principle, there's no conceivable way that you can meet that high standard for being an imminent threat to yourself or others and simultaneously being returned to the street.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I don't think it's imminent. I'm not trying to split here. I don't think it's imminent. I'm looking at the federal language and what we had in forty eight-twenty two. Don't believe

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: Is that imminent? I think Danger Others, which does cover Section six seventeen(three), which is what references me to on page seven. It is dangerous to to suffer at the end, if you look at page seven, line three, that's non hospitalization. In either case, the court has to find before the OA that the person needs a person in need of treatment. I'm not positive about the word imminent, but it is done.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I was just curious about that one. So for the federal language, if somebody is adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others and they're a prohibited person, is that same person also physically committed to a locked and secured facility? Generally the federal system recognizes daffling. If you discuss some of

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: the other scenarios. If I'm a criminal defendant and I'm found not guilty by a reason of insanity that falls under the general category of being adjudicated mentally defended using the federal department's federal language. But there's an actual adjudication there. And obviously the commitments to a psychiatric facility if you've been committed either criminally or civilly that commitment is supposed to be transmitted to NICS. And at that point you know the respondent you know can at some point seek they can get that record removed through a legal proceeding but those are proper transmissions to NICS And part of the concern right now is that these non hospitalization orders are under the current Vermont law are being transmitted to NICS and that's technically inappropriate. The way the federal NICS system works practices, federal system creates a series of categories for folks that are prohibited under federal law, but that list of categories also includes anyone who is prohibited under a given state law. So the federal list includes all things that are federally prohibited plus anything the state says to prohibition. And at that point the next system can then collect those records. So in other words being convicted of a violent felony doesn't require state law the federal law covers it it's just a matter of the state transmitting the record sticks that's probably tracked in the federal database so it goes to the federal bureau identification properly The feds are technically sourced to, if the state is transmitting records that are neither federally prohibited or specifically prohibited under state law and without the passage of page six zero six right now, Vermont state law doesn't provide a corollary and that partly brought over here to sort of create that framework. But currently, Vermont State law is silent on this issue. Nonetheless, the language of the health law says those records should be transmitted to NICS. So they're already going to the NICS database. Now in practice, the federal government is supposed to screen those out. But in reality there's no mechanism for the federal government to filter records being transmitted by the state so unfortunately in reality the state of Vermont could transmit whatever records it wants whether they're appropriate or not and there's really no mechanism to spring those out of the mixed database. Again the problem here is that if this was just simply a matter of and I think we heard testimony all the way through the framework there intended to restrain conduct while the order is in effect. So in other words, under the way Vermont is handling this, under Vermont law, the moment that those orders expire the person is no longer prohibited. The problem is you're transmitting those records to Nixon now they're federally in the database and now they've got a legal problem that they've got to deal with and that can be very very costly. Getting So expungement requires legal proceedings that folks have to pay for. And if we have indeed created too big a bathtub here, we're now making them felons under the law. And this is that they are potentially possessing firearms that may or may not be covered under federal law. So they run the risk of enforcement under this. And in addition, at best they have to pay a pretty heavy fee in order to restore their rights when they don't immediately fall into that category. So that's our chief concern for Penwood Section three. Okay. Thank you. Committee, any questions?

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: I just want to, the metaphor too big a bathtub I can't go along with because it's bath is a good thing. So it sounds like if we need bath, I would prefer too big a bathtub. Probably

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: better now. People are asking me about it. Just borrowed the analogy from Jess. That's probably what you need to turn that down. Before I report, would just briefly say on the proposed amendment with regards to banning the possession of firearms the sort of alcohol. That's a policy that we just wholeheartedly, full throated opposed, maybe from the risk. Again, too big a neck. We'll change the analogy. Okay. Too big a neck. You know, there's the presumption that folks go to places that serve alcohol simply and only for the purpose of getting intoxicated is simply grabbing them to be out. The vast majority of places that serve alcohol serve food, they serve breakfast, there are hotels, there are all sorts of places that folks are routinely going to for all sorts of reasons and they cover large swaths of you know the sort of heart section of our communities and and there's no real good argument for wholesale declaring those places gun free zones they're not secured there's no reason to expect additional security in a bar if anything you know if we're concerned about conduct in bars there's more reason to think that you might be the victim of the private bar so this is another area where we're conflating you know an environment with conduct if the focus of legislation was on conduct I. E. Should you be heavily intoxicated while preparing a firearm I mean that's another matter And that would be it's more difficult sort of issue to address it from our perspective. We're not here to defend reckless conduct. But simply going to a restaurant on Sunday for dinner with my family where I tend to consume no alcohol and I'm expected to be defenseless in that environment simply because that place serves alcohol to some patrons. That's just the foreign policy. And that is an issue that we are litigating over in multiple states. It is you know, we heard some discussion yesterday from the solicitor on the constitutionality of six zero six in its present form. Those types of sets in place designation as it's earned, a hotly contested area of the law right now. We in a Boston swimming in dozens of states at this point on that exact issue. And those are issues that are before the Supreme Court right now. So what's consistent with the nation's history and tradition of firearms regulation, if you look at the sort of core areas that were genuinely accepted by by courts across the Well, while there's lots of contested territory, common themes are places like polling places and courthouses and legislatures. Those were areas that were designated as sensitive at the time it was founded. The reason why they were designated as sensitive is because there were places where core democratic functions are occurring, political functions are occurring, and they were secured by the government. There's a presumption of security to court has their valents and sheriffs and legislation. Sheriff and all of So we've got security in legislatures. Similarly in polling places there was generally a presumption of security from the local sheriff. So the places that are consistent with founding as it relates to sensitive place laws are places where the government is providing damage or security. There's a presumption that that's the case. If we start declaring every place under the sun as a sensitive location despite the fact that there's no actual security or resources to provide for the security of people that are there, that

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: is entirely inconsistent with the nation's traditions. Would you feel that way about schools?

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: Schools are a tough issue,

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: you know, but the whole senior argument wholesale applies to schools as well.

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: I would say, you know, schools are one of those areas again that we're, you know, we're wrestling with. And it really comes down to again the question of what burdens the state have in insurance security places. In the Convent.

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. See, that's where I take issue with, know, Justice Thomas' opinion. You know, I fully understand that in certain ways you can look back three hundred years ago or two fifty years ago and get useful guidance. But I think in many ways it can't get useful guidance about, you know, what is now, you know, a twenty first century country with, you know, hundreds of millions more people. So something like schools, we're in an epidemic of speech abuse. And I know that there's a difference in opinion about how to respond to that. Some people make the argument that more drugs in the schools onward produce less violence or less death. I don't happen to believe that myself. So, you know, we passed a ban on paramilitary training camps.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Hold on. Sorry. In interest of time, because we do have two other witnesses, is it possible to keep it contained to the amendment in the bill that we have? I'm

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: glad to assess that issue. Okay.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I do have one question and then Senator Vyhovsky. Sure. You had mentioned intoxicated persons earlier. Would you be supportive or perhaps neutral on a prohibition on being intoxicated while carrying a firearm?

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: To understand that was carefully crafted it's more likely we're mutual on that issue. I mean we're we're unlikely to go and shepherd legislation like that through a seagouse but but again as it relates to reckless conduct you know there's nothing to defend there from our perspective. We're here to defend the rights of qualified people, peaceful people, not those who engage agency in through conduct. We'd have to see the text of it, but it's very likely we'd be mutual on that issue.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I appreciate that, but I do wanna just from a brain science standpoint point out that there's actually no amount of alcohol that doesn't affect your judgment. So I don't really think there's any amount

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: of alcohol in guns that we should

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: be fixing. I my question for you is if you're you were aware that in October 2024, the second circuit actually upheld in Antoinette versus James that you can prohibit firearms in places that serve alcohol and that is they cited historical analogs from 1853 in New Mexico when they prohibited firearms at balls and famedangos. In 1870 in San Antonio, Texas, they banned firearms in any barroom or drinking saloon. In 1879, New Orleans banned firearms at any public hall or tavern. In 1889, Arizona required that the keepers of drinking saloons keep posted of an inconspicuous place in this barroom, a plain notice to travelers to divest themselves of their weapons. There's actually a pretty lengthy list of historical analogs to banning.

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: Every single one of those that he mentions come well after 1868 reference period. So there's if we want to discuss

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So that's supposed not 1853, so that is chronologically before 1860 No. Well, one of

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: the major questions before the Supreme Court this term is the question of this decision between 1791 and 1868. And that is an issue that is likely to be settled here. The principle that seems to be evolving across multiple circuits, including the Third Circuit, which said this a little bit more clearly, is that the true reference period is 1791. You should merely look to 1868 as confirmed confirmation of a tradition from 1791. Now the issue that you're raising, yeah, the second circuit has ruled the way that they have. That issue is also before the third circuit, the fourth circuit, the ninth circuit and some of those sensitive place issues are now before the Supreme Court. So it is an evolving area of jurisprudence. While the Second Circuit is a panel decision of the Second Circuit on a preliminary interlocutory case, know, a preliminary injunction, I don't think that's dispositive on what the end result of the law is going be on this issue. Again, it's about on behalf of the NRA, we're litigating north of 60 cases across The United States and every state circuit that matters on this issue. The final say on the matter is that the Supreme Court, but these are questions that haven't followed out of the Grooming decision. So unfortunately, it's going to take us a couple of years to get there. But that is a fairly disputed issue across circuits and we'll see as the case will evolve. But question will hopefully be more fully addressed by the court in the coming sessions.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Any other questions?

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: The record of Chris Bradley, a president of Vermont Federation of Sports and Sports We have your honor representing approximately 45 and close to the great state of Vermont with approximately 14,000 members. I owe the release concerning the core of six zero six so I can be very brief. Section one, amending 13 BSC twenty five zero one, we have no objection to this section. As a point of consideration, however, we foresee a situation where the state could prosecute a criminal steel supplier under the public amendment of 13 BSA 4,501, while at the same time the state could possibly prosecute the victim of that theft under thirteen eighty s a four zero two four amber storage. Certainly there can be situations where things are stolen that you don't immediately understand are stolen. So if we're now after the fact saying, hey, this was stolen, it may very well be that we can't go back and say thank you what was said was the criminal against the victim. So we suggest that an amendment be considered for 15 psa 2,501 and the suggested for the DH being similar to charter in person when the section disallowed and they could argue that from being prosecuted under 13 BSA for reporting form. Regarding section two, thirteen BSA from 17, no objection to the establishment. Section three amended for TBSA four zero seventeen a. I think my colleague, Joe, did a very good job of explaining that. We are concerned on having the second part of five c, 100 which states for a non hospitalization order issued under court pursuant to the meeting

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: of the assembly 7017

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: b three. The 18 USC nine twenty two gs four bars are positioned by individuals who are adjudicated as having a mental defect or who have been committed to a mental institution. Historically, both the ATF and federal courts interpreted and committed to need only voluntary equipment, not non hospitalization or outpatient therapy. Third, firearms prohibitions for prohibited people, focus on people who are dangerous or confined not people who are allowed to live in that community, who may be undertruth. If in fact there was a concern that a person was at risk of doing harm to themselves or others, we have a law for that and it's extreme risk protection laws. So we seem to be in the middle ground where we're not ever postage. We didn't commit on their not insane. So we're going to reduce the names of the community, but even for outpatient treatment. Now just as in the backdrop, this Joe, colleague, finally Dean says that when somebody happens to be non hospitalized, we are going to report them to Once they're reported to Nix, they are not going to be able to buy a firearm into this expenditure to bring this off. Interestingly enough though any firearms that they may have had gone otherwise are not touched at all in the mine hospitalization situation.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Chris, if I can interrupt you real quick here. I just want to make sure there's the distinction with HERPO where, if I'm remembering it correctly, but an HERPO firearm could be seized.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: Yes, sir. Whereas

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: with what's being proposed in this bill, it is sending the reporting to Nick's saying if this person attempts to purchase firearms, they can't do so.

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: Correct.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But there is no There's no which right. So just want I make sure there's a distinction there.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: Well, we're making a move that essentially releasing somebody under non hospitalization that they very well have firearms at home. Is being done about. Not necessarily suggesting that, but we have ERPO for a reason, and we are in a situation where if you're not in these other categories, we're in this middle of a relationship with your community. That seems kind of problem. Further questions on that? Let's see. Sorry. Section four, we worked very hard on section four and we had no objection to that section. As far as firearm relinquishment amendment that we amended in 20 d s a point zero seven, in the interest of full disclosure, I was invited to serve as a consultant to the Firearms Relinquishment Study Group, and I provided written testimony and was invited to speak, and participate, with that group once. After giving input, while the federation was given a copy of the proposed language this past Tuesday, our input was never solved in the language that is now being proposed. As we understand it, the final report was delivered in November, early in the session the H571, but it was only in short form. At some point after that, while six zero six was being worked on in the House judiciary, we were providing a full version of five seventy one. We were told that five seventy one would likely be amended into H six zero six by that committee. In reviewing the version I provided I was provided with, I immediately contacted Chair Lalonde because the submitted bill had missed a substantial part of relinquishment in that neither the report more than really minted bill, addressed ERPO. This occurred despite my little testimony, on to the study committee and my specifically mentioning that both DB and ERPO should be addressed when I was asked to speak to the committee. I believe that it for that reason that this amendment did not lead into discussion at age six zero six. And I have to ask the question, if the need for this bill or amendment was so dire, how did it miss any one entire section of law on illegal delinquency? And where was it across the earlier part of this section such that it could have been at least somewhat that entire going to illegal? We do understand and we do agree that there needs to be a uniform process to handle the relinquishment of firearms. We also understand that the recent change temporary RFAs and unique situations which now allow for an ex parte defendant to be required to relinquish their firearms coupled with recent changes to community forms which are now heavily focused on whether or not the defendant has firearms or not and has invoked it will increase the number of firearms that are forced to be relinquished. We understand that most law enforcement do not have the facilities to store firearms and that there is reliance on FFLs to take up the storage burden with eight currently listed FFLs out of the three forty FFLs in the state registered with a bond through the APF. As an aside, there were 3,200 RFA petitions filed in 2023. Of those, ten sixty nine were immediately dismissed, leaving 2,131 where temporary orders were granted. Well not all of those 22,131 defendants likely had firearms. That could possibly potentially be 2,131 relinquishments. Of those 2,131 temporary orders that may have resulted in relinquishments, over one and half apparently should not have had their firearms relinquished as they never made it to a final area. When '20 BSA 2307 became law, the federation heavily participated in this creation of chair of Sears, and one of the things we were insistent upon was that beyond law enforcement and FSLs being able to still relinquish firearms, there must be a third party operator. In current law, a third party can become involved as early as the temporary hearing That has now been removed in favor of forcing a separate hearing to the third party, something that can only cause delays in further burning the court's docket. Further, while all law enforcement and FFLs have been given immunity, there is no remedy for a third party in this bill. We are not aware, ask that if you ask the agency's office for clarification as to any data where, without third party storage, where there has been difficulties and the third party apparently doing the releasing firearms due to the post offender. It is a fact that all firearms have value, that some firearms are very expensive, if you'd expensive attachments like slopes, that many firearms have intrinsic emotional value because it was bothers or grandfathers. For someone like me, who is a moderate collector, someone coming to my house to pick up my firearms that I may have been ordered to relinquish would be faced with a daunting path. It would not be appropriate to stack firearms and dump cases or padding into the trunk or the back seat of a cruiser for transport. And what do we do if a situation is encountered where guns are locked in a safe? This study doesn't touch this. What would be done when there's a discrepancy between the purported victim and the accused over who owns what weapons? Or do we on the side of caution and take all of them leaving the defendant defenseless? Per current guidelines on the DPS firearm relinquishment page it speaks to how the seal of firearms should proceed with the owner getting any leftover money after all storage fees are settled. This amendment however changes that allowing LE or an FFL, you'll mention the third party, to retain all proceeds in the sale of a gun, again a provision for the third party. In regards to the eight FFLs listed as storage sites on the VPS web page, I tried to contact each one yesterday. I will absolutely no longer do this. Warren, I'm sorry, will absolutely no longer do this. You're being sued, hand for the firearms in a DV case that was ultimately dismissed. That would be Greene Downs sporting goods. They're not going to handle this anymore. One FFL was out of business, and now it just sits. Two did not answer their phone. Two of the FFL's were shops through the sole proprietor with both having limited storage available. One stated that you do not handle storage for some more than ten long hours. Ideally the state should look to build or create a firearm storage facility because that would be a fiscal expenditure that we likely cannot afford for the near term. A very viable alternative would be to actively promote third party storage, not discourage. The Federation stands ready to help assist in correcting this possible bill. With the complete mishandling of a third party solution plus numerous sections of this bill, in addition to other problems, some of which we simply have not had time to fully outline, will require a great deal of pardon and possibly in other words, increases in the zon. We oppose this amendment as not providing the best solution to a very complex problem. We further request that the Confederate General's Office be allowed to review this amendment as well as the Dunsey Barr amendment should that stand alive I would further respectfully request that we bring any knowledgeable FFO like Henry Baruth as well as consider asking the NSSF, the National Sports Shooting Foundation, to give testimony which is the organization that represents the elderly industry and FFL's movement. Just one typo, I think on page two, line 16, you're referencing Subdivision 2, or I believe that should be Subdivision 1. Any questions on money assessment on that subject? So

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: admittedly I'm still working through the language of the original bill that we got. Yes, trying to fully understand that. Sure. And the next step is looking at these amendments here more in-depth. I noticed you had mentioned Erbos should be addressed. I think this was at the beginning of your testimony. I'm looking at the first page of the proposed amendment, line 19, and there's new language that's adding Burgos. I'm assuming there's something that I'm missing or? This is, I'm sorry, which one? The draft 1.2.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: Item 1.1, what section was it?

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Line 19, it's under the definitions where it says that it's under the relinquishment definition. A person is required to delinquish firearms or other weapons in the person's possession by

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: a court order. It

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: cites the court order

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: and that refers to It does reference exumus protection in May as original release, which I assume this is based on. May. It does not have IRVO on it. So what was presented to house judiciary and to me in consideration of adding two six zero six had no mention of their vote. Correct?

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: I don't know if it prevented either, but yeah, I agree. Eric, fact, the office of the by the council that the Erko addition

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: was made more. Thank you. That's the question.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes, so the graph that I have is 1.2, which was published on the thirty first. So if that's Sandy,

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: now addresses how you feel. Yes it now addresses or no if that's a question.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I think and again there'll be opportunity to talk about it again once you've got the most recent language but just wanted to clarify that piece regarding the RIPOs. Any other questions, Mr. Baruth?

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Not a question, but a correction. Just missed out on the number. I gave an inactive number because I was including all the federal licenses,

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: but not the dealers. Dealers are in an expansive list of specific classes and categories. I did it last May, it was nearly 45, just to clarify. Yeah, I was looking at the total federal licensees. Oh okay. I mean, they were looking at Vermont specifically. Well within Vermont I was including like manufacturers, collectors, other than that we being living through March. Okay not what I thought but I can share you my And as you may be aware I have gone through the extensive list of FFL, so we can't manufacturers with the specific goal of splitting off people that are individuals who they have no storefront. And specifically, as a in buying, why it worked, I wanted to know storefronts, whether these transactions are really happening with the steroids, R and L, Archery, powder horn, not necessarily just kitchen table, FFO stick, so that would be appreciated though. I'm sorry. Oh, no. I didn't. You have any questions? I'll check. Vans on firearms and establishments itself. Again, I apologize. I did look for a combined combined with last night. I assume moving forward, based on the comment yesterday, said that you. Thank you. Very almost identical to what we passed out in the charter and then was put into age 45, I believe, the house? Oh, it's age 45 in the house. And then it was S231 on the Senate as it moved through the Senate government house. Oh, S131? '1 131.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: The charter. Sorry, I was thinking we had a state line.

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: I was confused. We don't have state line there.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: If I can speak generally to that front.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: They were drafting that line when I decided to try to do that.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: So the law would be a sensitive place option and we strongly oppose that idea. A side note here, we should be aware of the eight thirty five, Bill submitted very early last November, which then called for preintervalidity analyzing by the statewide for the record that Bill was so highly valued that it was never even introduced in the ostrich and being a chieficiary. And the conjecture that this was because it was a very sensitive place. We all well or should know that the United States Supreme Court has a point that there are indeed sensitive places and they were even listed. Course, legislators and legislatures and polling places. If I may intercede here, you mentioned schools. Historically, the primary element of the being sent their children away to the school to reeducate. The court's reference to no guns in schools applied not to the professors, not to the administration, but the kids could not bring school, the guns to schools. It was not a blanket, no guns in schools. It was designed specifically for the kids that were at those schools. We believe this goes specifically listed those places because in each government provided security. Courts and legislators have on-site police and historically sheriffs guarded polling places. In the absence of government provided security or security provided by another source utilizing screening equipment, performing bag checks and having requisite security guards, citizens coming and going with a place designated as extensive place where firearms are not allowed had no protection at all. The whole decision made it very clear that he could bury legally outside of the home. We believe we understand that with the noted exception of two fairly recent shootings in Burlington that happened outside of bars, we are not aware of other shootings or a significant number of them that have occurred in Vermont bars. A new guns and bars statute would affect far more than bars. It would affect the restaurants. It would affect hotels. It would possibly make exceptions for other venues that serve alcohol such as outdoor weddings and parties. Should any such a duel use the term premise according to the definition of premise I find in the state statute that would extend to parking lots. Please consider a young woman that worked in a bar at Burlington and she carries home her tips that night. She has no means to defend herself in a city that is experiencing violent crime. The sooner a father was adopted and who has opted to use his constitutional right to carry a firearm for the defense of himself and his family and he wishes to take his daily out to a restaurant or meal with none of them drinking alcohol. Does he lose the right to defense when no other means of defense is provided not only in the restaurant but also as they come and go? Consider a businessman who services an ATM in a liquor establishment that serves alcohol who routinely carries thousands of dollars and also carries a firearm for self defense. What is he supposed to do? He's a firearm in his vehicle and if that vehicle is in the parking lot he's still at risk. If this amendment is to be accepted into this bill with the federation of respective requests, we'll be given a chance to reread the language and then be given the opportunity to provide further and further testimony against it. When suddenly the imposed session amended bill, we believe we understand that our governor had already indicated he would veto such a bill if it ever made his decision. Any questions for me? About half an hour?

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: Yeah, perfect, perfect.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I was able to get I believe you got Tim pushed back by twenty or thirty minutes and I want to make sure Dave has had at least twenty or thirty minutes for today. But if there are any quick questions

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: before Not a question, but just follow-up based on your last comment. There have been times in

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: the past where the governor has threatened the detail and then allowed something to become law before signing, and that should be done. Very good. Thank you. Thank you very much from there. Really appreciate your point. Thanks.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Eric, can you hear us alright?

[Eric Davis (President, Gun Owners of Vermont)]: Yeah. Good morning. Can you hear me?

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Morning. Yes. Yeah. Good.

[Eric Davis (President, Gun Owners of Vermont)]: Yep. Sorry. Good morning. Thanks for having us today. My name is Eric Davis. I'm the president of the Gun Owners of Vermont, and we are an all volunteer nonprofit advocacy group dedicated to the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms. I apologize I couldn't be there in person today. I had to attend over Zoom, and my Internet connection is sometimes a little shaky up here in the woods. So hopefully everything stays good and then I, you know, don't miss any parts of my testimony here. But I'd like to start off my remarks today with sort of a preamble, and that's that we believe, first and foremost that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights and that this principle should not be compromised. The nature of the second amendment is that it specifically protects the right of self defense by guaranteeing that government may not interfere with the ability to acquire the necessary tools with which to defend oneself. Self defense as a human right is an axiom. It's a given. Nobody contests the idea that you have the right to defend yourself against aggression and malice. The premise on which the second amendment is built is that the right to defend oneself against aggression and malice is no right at all unless one has protected access to the means with which to do so. And in modern times, that means access to a firearm. That also means that any attempt to restrict access to firearms for anyone is by nature a violation of that person's rights and subsequently a violation of Article sixteen and Second Amendment. And we oppose the entire proposal on this principle alone regardless of any discussion of the specific details or merits of the bill. That said, our testimony today is gonna focus mostly on sections one and three. And I'd like to share a few thoughts today about the philosophy behind these kinds of proposals and what we see as sort of fundamental flaws in the approach that's being taken on these issues. In section one, regarding making it a felony to steal firearm, we would start by asking the committee and anyone following along to sort of consider a few things. And first, the thing that we'd like folks to consider is what is it about the crime of larceny that gets so exceptionally worse to be subject to stiffer punishments just because the object stolen was a firearm? What is it about any crime for that matter that makes it more nefarious because it occurred with a firearm? Why are guns being given special consideration? Now in the usual scenario, if you have a bad crime, then most people look at it and say, oh my goodness. That was a terrible crime, and we should hold that person accountable. But we have this strange thing where if a crime happens with a gun, everybody looks and say, oh my goodness. We need to do something about the guns. And by framing the discussion to focus on the device, the gun, rather than the behavior, and in this case, the behavior is the crime of theft, this approach sidesteps several larger issues. For instance, what is it about the crime of theft or excuse me. What is about the theft of an item with a value of $899 versus an item valued at $900 that puts an individual into this special group of criminals who can no longer be trusted with a gun? No reasonable person would argue that a dollar should be the difference between normal punitive measures in having your constitutional rights revoked. Instead of taking measures to address the inconsistencies in law, this bill proposes to take more rights away from more people based on the same flawed premises. And once again, the second amendment ends up as the proverbial black sheep of the bill of rights in the sense that it is the only constitutional right that you lose effectively forever if you cross this line. You don't lose your right to go speak and worship freely. You don't lose your right to due process no matter how bad you mess up. Even a convicted serial murderer has a right to a fair trial. And in Vermont, we make sure that you don't even lose your right to vote. But when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, a mistake made as a young person can haunt an individual for decades after they've atoned for their sins and paid their debt to society. I personally know several people who've made mistakes in their youth, which at the time were considered bad enough to lump them into the legal basket of felony. I have a longtime friend who stole a lawnmower in his early twenties, which was valued at over $900, and it earned him a felony to which this day prohibits him from hunting with anything other than a black powder rifle. Guy's in his fifties now. I have a family member who ran afoul of the regulatory system thirty something years ago for growing and selling cannabis, which is much of a big deal these days. If you go get some paperwork from the state, nobody really cares. They they encourage it to a certain extent. He still can't own a gun for his personal protection. I know someone who embezzled money from a business as a young person and paid for it with jail time and reparations. They admitted their mistake years ago, paid the debt to society and the victim, asked for forgiveness, and still cannot buy a gun to this day. And even a young man I knew as a childhood friend who at 18 years old, being a stupid kid, actually stole a gun. And long story short, this guy got in a whole bunch of trouble, but he turned his life around afterwards. He took care of his legal problems. He stopped drinking. He got a good job that wouldn't have been available to him if he caught a felony for the gun thing. And in the twenty five years since that incident, he's been a good man, a good father, and a good member of the community. He's a model citizen. If the proper role of government is to protect rights, then lawmakers should first focus on restorative justice in a path to redemption for these folks and others who have made mistakes and paid for them rather than seeking out more reasons to take rights away. All that said, we do understand that there are some individuals in our society who are very unwell either psychologically or behaviorally to the extent where it is the duty of the government to intervene. The issue at the heart of any judicial debate is at what point that intervention is justified. Section three attempts to address this issue, but like section one, we think it comes up short under a wider scrutiny. If we believe that the proper role of government is to protect rights, we must also accept that part of that duty is to maintain a system of courts and laws with the protection of rights as its core principle. That also means that the government is justified in using force to restrain those who violate the individual rights of others, I. E. Maintaining a system of punitive justice and or treatment for those who offend. For those who do threaten the rights of others and do so to the extent that they cannot be trusted with guns or presumably knives or arrows or sharp sticks, we must first ask one very important fundamental question. If this person is so dangerous, why are they out walking around unsupervised? Removing a person's right to self defense because the court determined that they are suffering from a mental illness and therefore are not responsible enough to have a weapon and then subsequently kicking them out onto the street to fend for themselves while they are still suffering is a cruel approach to justice, and it will drive more people away from seeking treatment. One of the largest demographics of gun owners across the country are veterans. People who fought under the American flag and the constitution for which it stands. People who believe fiercely in the right to keep and bear arms. People who have been mistreated by their government. People who have learned to be deeply distrustful of the systems set up to protect them. These people bear the scars of war and suffer daily from them. And these people will be less likely to seek the help that they need and deserve because their rights are not being protected. And it won't just be the veterans who shy away from the help they need. It'll be people suffering from depression and anxiety, or even anyone just going through a hard time dealing with the emotional and psychological stresses of trying to keep up with life. We've said it for years, focus on the individual behavior and how to treat it. Focus on mental health and how to treat it. Focus on getting people the resources they need so they can work through their difficulties. Focus on protecting everyone's rights. But for goodness sake, stop with the fanatical obsession of focusing on guns and how to take them away from more people. In closing, I'd like to point out the divide between constituents and lawmakers seems to grow wider every year. It's not just on guns. However, the flames of distrust are stoked by the refusal of the legislature to let even a single year pass without another attempt at restricting rights. We would ask that our lawmakers attempt to rebuild lost trust by discontinuing their approach of focusing on guns and show their support for all Vermonters by helping them get the support that they need to make it through these very hard times. Now this was going to conclude my remarks for today. However, I learned late last night that there's some other proposals on the table. One I'd specifically like to speak about is to whether or not to add a location to the list, another location to the list of places where carrying a gun is prohibited, and that is in places where alcohol is sold. And the point we'd like to make on that is that taking away everyone's right to carry a gun within a certain area because some people in that area are consuming alcohol is yet another example of the fraud the flawed approach that we think should be abandoned. What does this law do for someone who doesn't drink? A designated driver, a couple eating at a restaurant, someone staying in a hotel with a bar, outdoor and sporting events where alcohol is sold. There's a whole list of places that this can affect. In addition to being a political advocacy group, we're also a group dedicated to gun safety. Nobody is suggesting that we support drunk people waving guns around in public places. We do not support people behaving badly with guns. But to tell the whole population that their right to carry a gun depends on whether or not alcohol is served on the premises is to tell them that their rights and liberties do not depend on their own conduct, but on the behavior of the drunk and the lawless. A person's life does not get less valuable and therefore less worthy of defending because they crossed an imaginary line somewhere. Going from outside to inside, upstairs to downstairs, or from the street to the sidewalk should not be the difference in your right to carry your gun for your own protection. And we continue to oppose this bill in its entirety. And we ask that you would please vote no on H606. Thank you.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Hi, James. Committee, any questions?

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: Okay. Thank

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you. We'll be working on this bill over the course of a couple of

[Joseph Labordo (NRA State Director, New England/Vermont)]: weeks and I'm sure you're aware of that and

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: let us know if you have any follow-up.

[Eric Davis (President, Gun Owners of Vermont)]: Yes, sir. Thank you. We'd happy to come back if this continues to progress. Thank you.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: All right. Okay. Let's yep. Kim up next. So we've got a couple of minutes. So let's take Tim Saguen. She's not gonna No, but Hunter Jones is still waiting. Yeah, okay. Alright, let's take a five minute break and just let Hunter know we'll come back.

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Do you have a coin?

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: My name is someone.