Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Morning, Christian. Alright. Morning, Eli. Good morning. We're back in Saint Judiciary on April 24. We're taking up s three twenty nine, and we have Chris Bradley here to introduce himself, and floor is yours.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Thank you very much. My name is Chris Bradley. I have the honor of being the president of Vermont Relations Christmas Clubs representing a approximately 14,000 in The US. I've been 45 member clubs. The fear of coming I think I've already kind of cut to the bar in the first five seconds. So I assume that you'd like me to start with second six.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: From my we've gotten some different iterations here in last second. Remind me which section you're talking about. I'm sorry? Which section are you referring to?

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: You've provided a amendment that had six seven eight in the first week of the week of Richmond. That would be the ordinance. Yes. On the amendment. I guess I'm preface this by saying, this is an AG Hansen. There we are. Just had a really good conversation, and I'm not really sure that we've got it far apart. Certainly, a little bit closer to main kids there, I was asked to be a consultant on this committee, whether they're working with next five times. I was invited to speak at the September 19. I also gave written testimony to that. At that point in time, I really didn't have a feel for just what Post changes would be in this in what has been proposed. And I guess I'd look at it in this perhaps through the different lens. I understand, well, I don't understand the Russian problems. I've never raised my hand against anybody other than my lawyer. They raised a hand against me. I know what happens. I know this is serious. I know that death can resolve it. So here I am knowing that 65% of domestic violence has to do with guns, but also knowing that at least the appearance is that once an RFA is in place, the chances of death are really very small. And in fact, we didn't take the chair's permission. The first slide that you're seeing there is yes. Thank you. There's the. Been a recent investigation by the Risk Factors Review Commission. They take a look at every that all the side effect that occurs every year, and then they make a determination of whether that death was delivered to the domestic violence. Apparently four fifty seven homicides across thirty years since 1994 to 2024, of which less than half two zero four were determined to be domestic violence related by the commissioner. Of those two zero four domestic violence related deaths across those thirty years There were one hundred and ninety six that had no RFAs at all. There were eight that did have an RFA, six with a current RFA in place, and two that had a previous RFA in place. I would love to say that we can protect to zero the domestic violence and I'm not sure given the volatile nature that we'll ever get there but just looking at numbers and I'm sorry I'm a numbers guy. I see that 0266 DV related deaths per year have to do with an RFA. So I come to the conclusion and perhaps I'm off base that when you have an RFA in place people are much safer.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm just, I'm drawing a slightly different conclusion. What I'm drawing is that not enough people got RFAs but when I look at it, all of the people who had RFAs and so eight of those deaths, there was some sort of RFA. Correct. And seventy five percent of those had an active RFA in place.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: There were all Oh, that would be eight. Yes. Yes, that's fine.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So I'm drawing a slightly different conclusion from this in that we don't get RFAs to enough people if one hundred and ninety six didn't have RFAs. But of those that did, seventy five percent of them still resulted

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: in a death. Yeah, but you would agree that focus six fifty five is a pretty desirable number. It's one death for the last four years and I've got shrugging a lot of deaths. Think it's a model. I would like to see that from zero, but I'm not sure as I just stated that whoever gets to zero, these are followers of situations. I have no, I hope none of us have any experience, but certainly there are people who have a great deal of experience in this and there are people living in fear and for those two zero four people we need to get RFA fixed to them. That's not what we're talking about with this process.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I guess my point is that because 196 of those people didn't have RFAs, we actually don't know if all two zero four of them did, how many of them still would have died. What we do know is of the eight people that did have an RFA, seventy five percent of them still resulted in a death Yes,

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: see I that. Just the next slide. One of the things that most concerning me, it seemed very, the best of all the situation, had temporary orders after fourteen days to get resolved or that leads to a final hearing where a final notice is typically issued over. I understand that there can be continuances along that but looking at again the big palette in the deer commission report, there were 3,200 on the pays, particularly the spot happened in 2021. 3200. The standard of evidence in that is a preponderance. As Judge Greerson used to say, that was an even scale and you drop a feather on one side and a dubber that comes in preponderance. So of those $3,200 petitions filed, ten sixty nine were immediately dismissed. I don't know why. It strikes me that if the standard evidence is preponderance, it strikes me as no one here on the road. But moving on from a temporary order being issued, that would be 2,131 temporary orders issued. However that's ten eighty eight that never make it to a final. I am just saying there is potential assuming that 50% of my households, which is probably a little bit under for firearms, that at least 500 people would have firearms mortgage to make two very different relatives and give them back or not having to take it at all. Final quick slide. Twenty five deaths Vermont in 2024, speech treatment 2024. Zero of them had an active RFA or not, but they're going have RFA or a previous RFA. So one of the things on the final slides one of the things that we looked at we had issues with whether it's a shared location or a separate location and the two should probably be treated a little bit differently. Only the accused weapon should be probably taken, not the defendants, not the victims or potential break up. What about co ord firearms? We see and one of the things already into the testimony itself is that right now in current law it's something we push very hard to learn is the provision for a third party. Someone outside of the FFL or law enforcement who has to sign an affidavit that says, okay, if I take custody these, then can invite them. I would certainly suggest that they should be a background check to make sure they're not a prohibited person. Although even the background check will often make two exemptions for background checks and waiting periods and that's during immediate family member or in the case of imminent danger. They don't have to suggest that if we had an investment violence situation where there's potential for imminent danger then the firearms perhaps could be transferred to a third party but they still think they should have a background We just started looking, one of the things that we thought of was that as opposed to going to law enforcement which are stressed now as they need to take firearms or going to an epithel in which they were eight, now they're seven, he puts green on sporting goods is not going to do anymore after suffering through the $30,000 lawsuit for stolen weapons. I think you'll hear from Henry Perill, the largest FFL in the state of Vermont, he only handles spiral orders not temporary orders. Four of them were main. I couldn't even get on the phone and they seem to be either a small business. And two that I did get on the phone indicated that if I put 10 long guns my storage would be filled up. So I think we really have a challenge as to where we're going to be putting these guns. And to me, until the state can provide a facility to store these guns, Third parties seem to be a very viable option and I have to say according to the numbers we're seeing over fair law, it seems to be working. Is it perfect? No, we're not at zero, but we're pretty close. I would wonder about safes, what happens in the case of the safe. Chris, can you just elaborate what do you mean by the case of the safe? When somebody has to do a temporary order, a border is established and they have it in a safe, how do you get into it? How do they get into it? If they have to relinquish, you know, I don't I may make the point, and perhaps you say, oh, they're not. If they're in a relinquishment situation for a temporary order, it is my understanding that, and I can't find numbers on this, that typically in order to defend or to protect the victim, the alleged defendant is going to be removed from the house. They can't go back to the house, they can't be within a certain distance of the person, they can't contact the person, there's kids involved, that's another consideration. But to that end, I have to look at it and say, well, that's probably where he stole his firearms. And now he's being removed from that location. And certainly if he goes back he's breaking the law and all that's her office as soon as somebody breaks the law then I'm having trouble with him. She's over to look at it. So I do understand well maybe they can come back and get the gun along. We're already outside the law. So I do worry in the temporary order and by the way if you take a look at the temporary order, the emergency relief, it actually says that the defendant in this is ownership. Name of Bill, the defendant is back up. I'm gonna start with section six on eight. Gonna just go back to you, Morris. Section six. We were asked to be a stakeholder. We participated in that. We were pleased to participate further. But I will, because we were actually pivotally creating S-one 109, it it vacillated between whether the Federation, myself, or be part of the working group itself or just a consultant. I ended up as just a consultant. I was happy to perform that role and I learned a quote. I will say that I was invited into one meeting on September 19 And at that time, I was surprised because I was muted for a while and then was invited to speak, which I did. I zoomed in. There's nothing been in person. But the discussion was much all concerning domestic grounds. And one of the concerns I had and I both voiced it, but I don't get my different testimony based on the group that wait a minute I thought we were looking at all court orders to relinquish firearms and that's what the S-one 160 actually up to the S-one 111 actually said. But there was no discussion about her phone and that was eventually added in actually just before we submitted it to the house judiciary. It wasn't ready so that's submitted here. So there's no discussion on this in the house judiciary although I think it's happening now. I would have to suggest that after the report the group was, perhaps properly, very focused on farming, that farming orders were not being honored, that relinquishment was not occurring. I have to say I'm a numbers guy, as you probably know, I'm a good looking data to say is this working or not working. So when I hear you know they're not relinquishing how do we know this and what's the percentage if it's not happening so we can react properly to be more forceful on these things. We do believe, however, that there is a stark difference between a temporary RFA and how that should be managed versus a final RFA. And we show we're aware that when an RFA was or is in effect, as I pointed out earlier, maybe homicides become very rare, as well as the fact that over half the time a temporary order never makes it to a final order. So again, we're studying how many times does a judge order the relinquishment in a temporary db order? I don't know, looked for this, perhaps odyssey has it in somewhere, I think that would be useful to make an informed decision. Likewise, the judge ordered a relinquishment in a final BB order. And many times that occur then how do we know that it's not being honored in some fashion? How many times with either type of DV order is relinquishment not occurring and how do we know it's not occurring? As we know there is no fire extinguishers because I have no idea how robbing this is happening with a firearm so they're not those sides.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Chris I'm sorry to interrupt I do want to make that all three of the folks on the witness list have around the same time so that's fine. And so I'm wondering do you have any specific language recommendations that you can provide to us within the next five minutes?

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: I have no specific language recommended, but I do have so many thoughts that perhaps could be turned into. I'd be happy to come back, because I certainly know I'm untrue of the parolance or respond.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Are there, any point generally to which sections it's like further down

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: the Third Legion I'm party. I think third parties are necessary in this and third parties can get on to the act of filing That would require an advance notice to the defendant to say, Hey, here are your options. First of all, the judge ordered you to labor firearms. Here are your options. One of those is third party law enforcement FFL, what he choose to do. That was a notice that when he comes to the final hearing he can possibly make arrangements with a third party. That third party could very well move law enforcement, a pending, go back to the domicile and seize or make sure that firearms were removed. One of the things that we considered was rendering guns inoperable in place, meaning gun laws, gun tables, even changing the safe to make sure that, but again if they go back to that domicile they're already outside the law and I don't mean to trivialize at all the serious nature of domestic violence. Understand, you know, don't understand. Frankly, one of the opinions that we looked at both in current public safety, God Moments for a Story, as well as Nicole Bora says that if I do have to sell firearms to recoup storage fees, the owner gets the remainder of the money back because it is where it's whose property maybe can't own it anymore but it didn't have value. What I see now is that okay if that happens either the law enforcement or the NFL or maybe the third party if you allow that or it takes the remainder of the money. Certainly in abandonment that's a different story But in a short period of time or just the nineteen months whatever eighteen months, I guess model policy section seven, we still believe the third party should be there and it's not there at all that's any current whole new branding on section seven added only BSN three zero eight. Likewise for section eight amended 13 DSA four zero five nine. We strongly disagree with the removal of the third party. We really see that unless somebody can come to me or show me or show us that you're saying that third parties are failing.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Regarding the sale of firearms, were you talking about Line four, April eleventh, for the firearms? They're not claimed within ninety days they can be sold?

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Yes. And any proceeds beyond the storage fees would be retained by the law enforcement and or whoever is currently holding the gun is not giving back to the owner. And I think further than any options, sorry, sir.

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, no, no, you're fine, keep going.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: I would suggest that at any time during FA or this whole process, especially if there's any legal fees being incurred, there should be some revision to allow that person, the potential defendant to be able to sell their guns again to liquidate the fire. I don't even want to wait till the end of the statement. Now an FFL can do that, law enforcement can, but a third party could. I guess in short Harold, I'll stop there. They made great strides with this. And as I shared with Carolyn, I really wish we could have had the kind of discussion we were just having to of sort through some historical lander issue. So I would suggest that this may need to percolate along a little bit more given the fact that from what I see are things considered. Senator Mattos, let's all switch gears. Yeah, I just had

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: a question, Chris, about section seven when you brought up third parties. What are you referring to? Just being part of the statewide policy or what are

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: you talking about? Like policy Which page?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I'm sorry. Section seven, page 13. You mentioned third party. I'm curious what you mean by that. Just being included in the policy or? And then just

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: take more questions to the chair on

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: the ninety days. When does the amendment

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: occur? I'm not sure off

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the top of my head.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It was a question that I had as well. In the event that abandon disappears. Right. How soon after that are they going be spooling for the virus and certain opinions? Yeah.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Good morning. Morning. I'm Marilyn Hanson from the Attorney General's Office and we're to talk about the Violence Dunder Order of Finance Group recommendations of that piece of the amendment to your bill. So I guess the thing I wanted to start with is to just remind us that what our focus for this group, which is the lens that I run and the question that comes up around this through, which is, does this further the goal of limiting prohibited persons access to firearms? This is not about restricting hunters, gun owners, anybody.

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I mean, I'm completely agnostic on that. This has nothing to do with this. There's not any new firearm regulation. We're dealing with a very discreet group, which is people who are already prohibited. So they have a court order that says that they can't have a firearm and all of these things are designed around limiting the access of that individual person. That's it. We're not increasing any regulation or restricting anybody else's firearms rights with this. And so if there's a question in your mind about, well, how does this fit with that role? Please tell me, but that's the framework for

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you. Just a quick comment on that. I want to make sure that I'm understanding that relinquishment is a

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: thing that already happens, right? It's order.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Right, yeah, that's, yeah, correct. So, relinquishment is something that is ordered under current law. Yes. And this is seeking to clarify and organize that process because That's there are some gaps in what I'm picking up at moment.

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yes. That's exactly it.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: And I liked your description of what it's doing. The one thing I would add, it's also protecting the rights of guns who've had these orders against them because it's going way out of our way to make sure that the guns are undamaged, that if and when they're allowed access to them again, that firearm is there and it's not produced in value in any way. So I feel as though our efforts before this bill and through this bill are, yes, number one, to make sure that that person who's prohibited doesn't have access, but number two, if we are going out of our way to literally protect the weapon, the piece of property, so that it can be returned to them if they're allowed to have it, or if not, it can be sold through our organized laws. So I think of relinquishment as we do it, balancing the property rights and and in some sense protecting people as we're doing things.

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yeah, absolutely. That's very We've also taken into consideration making sure that we follow and respect people's due process rights, their property rights, their Second Amendment rights, making sure all of those things are balanced. And thought I would start by mentioning one of the things Chris just said which is like how do we know this is a problem? And I would love to be able to get you statistics on how many firearms are being ordered to be surrendered. That information is not currently being collected. I've asked her to be collected. I'd love her to be collected. That needs to be collected by the judiciary and they're aware that that's something that we think would be good to collect. What I do know is that when I contacted the court and asked them to provide me any information about how often, any information at all about these hearings for a third party to hold firearms. Was told that they had one request in the last year and a half. And that request just came in right when I asked. It was like a week old and they hadn't even acted on yet.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Which court was that?

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I think it was with Orleans and I want to follow-up on it and find out what happened with it. But people aren't filing these motions. And if you talk to FFLs, a lot of them, they're not snoring firearms for relief or abuse orders right now because they don't like this program. Because there are pieces of this program that don't work for them and I'm gonna let Henry speak to that more. But that's why we invited all the stakeholders to be part of this to come in and tell us what's not working with this. Why do you feel like you can't hold guns? There were two big things and I think I've already gone over these with you guys so please stop me if I'm talking to Obi Wan Kenfra. They said it's a big problem for us that we have liability. You know that was a big problem for Green Mountain Sports. They ended up being part of a lawsuit and they didn't have any, they didn't have the same immunity from liability that police departments have as long as the firearm is appropriately handled. Like they still have liability if they don't handle them appropriately in accordance with the guidelines. But we needed to have the same protection for an NFL that's willing to engage in this program. And the other thing was the proceeds. And that's because if somebody doesn't pay these storage fees, I mean these are businesses, and if somebody's not paying the storage fees and not pocketing them, and it goes that ninety day period, they need to be able to move on with their business. They can indefinitely store fire over someone who is not following their responsibilities to keep the place informed or they're adjusting to pay their storage fees. So at that point that they can sell it and the law in the beginning from the get go never made any sense to those FFLs. And again, I'll let Heather talk about this. Well, that was one of the things we heard from them is like, if I can't even find this person and I'm supposed to only deduct my storage fees from the sale, you're not doing me much good. I don't have anybody to give this money to. Like why should I participate in this program? So we're getting rid of that. We're trying to address the things that keep people from participating. And I can't say that it won't be necessary down the road if we had exploding problems of violence and crime. And I can't say that it wouldn't be necessary at some point for the state to build a facility, but that's not where we want to start. We want to start by saying we can't handle this in a partnership. And when you think about this law, I hope you can think about it this way. The big bucket up here is law enforcement. That's generally going to be the way most firearms come into custody because if it's temporary order, if the judge looks at the petition and the petitioner is asking to have the firearms removed and the judge sees there's a basis for that. So this person has to engage in abuse and there has to be a danger of future abuse and the judge has to believe that it's necessary at that stage to get the firearms, that is the safest and best time because the defendant doesn't necessarily know about the order. Officer is serving that order and presumably the defendant might be in a place where the firearms are right there. The officer can ask to remove the firearms at that point and that's a good option. But that's not going to happen in a temporary order that doesn't have a firearm relinquishment. It's not.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead. I just don't want to get too far ahead before I forget my question here. But I wanted to talk again about the immunity piece. The changes that are being proposed in this which are on page 11 starting line eight. Currently if the NFL is storing firearms they don't have the immunity that is described in the subsexuals, right?

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yes. And I'm just trying to find this. I know I have a copy of the draft of this, though. But And when you're referring to lines, I just want to make sure that I look at the right thing. No worries. Okay. I'm looking at one point one three point nine. Okay. What page?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And page 11, line eight, where the immunity nine starts.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: I want

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: to just clarify that this the new language is proposing to provide this liability immunity to FFLs to store firearms. And it would protect against liability for the sale of those firearms provided that there's notice but it would also provide them with a liability immunity against damage or deterioration And is that correct?

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yes. So the immunity is the same immunity that law enforcement currently has under the law. There's an added immunity when the law enforcement agency or the NFL has to go through the procedure of settling the fire. So it's not just about the damage to it. It's also did they follow the rules, wait the ninety days, send out the notice to the party, do all of the things that we've asked them to do to notify the defendant that the firearm can be picked up. Nothing in this. This only has to do with where the person wants to get the firearms back. So if the person decides that they want to just sell their firearms they can always sell their firearms. Nothing prevents people from selling their firearms.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I want to make sure I'm understanding. So if a defendant has their firearms scored at an FFL and the defendant is saying, you know what, I don't want to deal with it. FFL, can you please sell them and then forward me the proceeds? That can happen.

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yeah. That can happen during the order because the defendant is not in possession of their firearm. The FFL is taking care of that transaction, doing the checks that they need to do. That can happen, a sale can happen anytime. So that's, I mean, all we're caring about, again, going back to our goal is we're not trying to mess with people's firearms. What we're trying to do is limit the access of prohibited people. So a sale to some other person who is presumably going to pass the background check, if they don't pass the background check, there's a lot reasons why it can't happen. But that can happen. We're just dealing with situations where this is being temporarily held at another facility. And I just want to go back to the big bucket thing because I feel like this third party piece ends up being a part of the conversation and it is there. It is an option. Nobody's trying to say it's not an option, but it's not being used in an appropriate way right now.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Before we get too deep into the third party, I still had some Does thoughts about the language for the FFLs, does this amendment propose to mandate that FFLs will be storing these firearms? No. Okay. And the ninety days, can you talk a bit more about abandoned property? It was a point that was raised a couple of times in the past. We were in

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: this land today.

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: After,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: At what point the property become considered abandoned and can FFL relinquish it without fear of future coincidence?

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Well, that was a policy decision that was made by the legislature when it was first was drafted and it was the ninety day window. So at ninety days, at that point, the firearms could be sold. This FFL is still going to need to send certified letter to the person that they believe owns the firearms telling them that they need to come and pick their firearms up. They're eligible to come and pick their firearms up when the order ends. I don't know if I'm answering your question perfectly.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I guess in other areas of law where there are questions or issues around abandoned property, do you happen to know when those timelines look like?

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: No. I mean this was a decision that you all made earlier and we just followed that same guideline of ninety days. So that is ninety days where the person is in a position where they can come and pick up their firearms and are not responding, they're not doing anything. That's when COVID-nineteen country decided that the FFL or the law enforcement agency could treat this as abandoned property. I don't think law enforcement agencies would ever sell these. They would pass it on probably to buildings, federal services, who then would go through their process. But it was just I think, a policy decision made by you all. I don't know what it was based on.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, I was just curious. And also just as a time check, hoping to move on in about five minutes or so. Okay. And then we'll make sure that DePero has at least fifteen point minutes or so to testify. Committee, any other questions at this moment? Carolyn, you want us to talk a bit more about the third party aspects?

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Well, was just thinking that I heard you all asking questions about that and I heard folks saying like, this wasn't well thought out enough because there isn't enough in here to exhaust third parties. So that's when I started with the bucket thing. So law enforcement is generally where most of these firearms are going to start out. The defendant has the option to transfer the firearm to an FML if they want to do that through the law enforcement agency. Law enforcement, one big thing this does is make it clear that law enforcement agencies who lack storage, they can have also an arrangement with FMLs that would store the firearms, not evidentiary firearms. Again, these are just firearms that are being held because of an IRVO or because of a legal abuse order. And the defendant would be notified of that and the defendant would be able to decide whether or not they wanted to pay the storage fees or whether they want to come before the court and propose a third party. So when you all originally set this up, there was an exception for a third party also to be able to hold a firearm. Things to keep in mind around that is that these three buckets are not equal. Law enforcement is the big bucket. FFL is the next bucket. Third party was always intended to be a fairly narrow exception. And it was really intended for people who don't want to pay the storage fees and who don't want their firearms with law enforcement. So that is why the focus of this has been around the other two. That's why the whole law enforcement protocol is around those two because that's what's mainly going to be happening. But there is a provision for third parties. Nobody's taking that away. We're just making sure that there's process around that. Because right now somebody might be just handing their gun over to someone and saying, Hey, can you hold on to this? And there's no process that explains that they need to come into court and actually have the judge take a look at whether that works. And also have a background check done. Because we don't want courts to be handing firearms to people or approving people to hold firearms that aren't prohibited people. And a judge, I think I heard you saying, Chair, at one point, well, maybe the judge can look and see some information from the bench. The judge is going to know nothing about this third party. They can't look at anything about them. They're a defendant. They're not anything. So it's all based. The judge is going make a decision on what's brought to them. So this does nothing to limit or prevent third parties from doing that. It just sets up an appropriate process for that person to be approved. And the reason why it says the language about not having a continuance is because we didn't want the third party process potentially to engulf the point of a final abuse hearing, which is for the court to determine whether or not there's a basis to the order, whether or not there's danger of further abuse. And they have a lot of hearing scheduled at final orders. And if people come in prepared with a third party present, and a background check done on that third party so the judge is able to take the time to do it. There's nothing that prevents them from doing it at that hearing, but it's just to be very clear that in most cases that's probably not gonna be the case. Most people are pro se, most people are still fighting the order or whatever they're doing when they come into the hearing. And we don't want to create a system where all of a sudden inadvertently we're not honoring the entire intent of the relief or abuse order system, which is to go through a fair I've got words I could read you from a Supreme Court case. But it's intended to be a short process that people can do without lawyers. It's not meant to get bogged down to, I want to discuss this issue now. They have issues around who should pick up kids, they end up, if they can, they end up pushing that into the family court, into the proceedings that are going on there. So their primary goal in that hearing is to decide whether or not, give the defendant an opportunity, give them their due process and for the judge to decide whether or not abuse has occurred and whether or not there's a danger for further abuse. The third party thing, it's still an option but all this says is that that's not a basis that a defendant or a lawyer for the defendant can ask like, well let's not issue that final order today, judge. Let's leave the temporary in place for another two weeks and come back and I want a third party. You're making a clear guideline for the court that like the defendant can walk out of the courtroom that day and they have a third party in mind. They can file a motion. The court will set it for a hearing. And generally, I think the press acknowledged this too, FFLs generally aren't holding the firearms at the temporary stage anyway. The reason they're not is because you all made a legislative decision when you first passed the statute that you didn't want people charged in that time period. So generally those firearms are gonna be held by law enforcement during that time frame. And if the defendant wants an FFL to hold it, can, but again, the agreed payment. So that's the reason why that is the way it is. It's to make it clear that defendants aren't necessarily gonna be charged if there's never any final word. Law enforcement agencies never charge. So I may be getting a little feel but I just wanted to come back to the bigger purpose of this to answer your issue you raised before. It certainly could happen in the initial hearing but we only want it to happen if the third party is present. So if you add any language in there, you need to also add that I guess it could happen in the final hearing, if the judge has time, if the defendant's prepared, and if most importantly the third party is there in court with them. Because we don't want third parties approved who have not signed this affidavit. And we know it's not happening right now. We don't really need statistics to see that. If the courts have one motion filed in the last year and a half, it's not happening. What I draw from all of that is that courts are making orders that people should not have firearms and then in some of those cases nothing's happening. Because if the guns aren't at police stations and if the guns aren't at an FNFL and there's no approved third party, I think it's a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw that. Everybody's just kind of said, Well, nobody's asked me about this so I haven't done anything. And so we're trying for many ways to make sure defendants understand their rights, understand their obligations, encourage the court. We've created a brochure that we've encouraged the court to have attached to every order when it's served by a defendant that explains these are your options for where you can store firearms. And if you want to have a third party, this is what you need to do. So we want to inhale.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay. I know there's a lot to discuss, but thank you.

[Marilyn Hanson (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yes, you're very welcome. And if you have questions, please know that you can reach out to me individually and be happy to try to answer them. So thank you so much.

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Missus Baruth?

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: Name's Henry Barrow. I own Barrow's Country Supply and Monitoring. Obviously an FFL holder, and I was asked to sit on this committee to kind of be the go between, between the state and FFL's holders with the goal to streamline the process to hold more FFLs with sign on. Try to get a major FFL holder in every community to store the firearms after the judge has said they must be delinquent. So I sat on the board and, you know, kind of the whole in between, between state law and federal law, what would work, what wouldn't. And this is what was proposed. So I guess I'm here to answer any questions or where you need. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, and I appreciate you coming down. So I guess generally can you share your perspective on this language as it has been introduced to us and if you have any recommendations, areas of concern with this language?

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: Prior to sitting on this board, I did become an FFL storage. I had some reservations because of the old language and certain things just didn't add up in my book. So I did do it. I was very cautious on what I took in. I only took in very few firearms. I went with a different approach that I was trying to help the that's used in the sense of safe storage. You know, hunting is a legacy in Vermont. A lot of people have their family in their grandfather's firearms industry. My thought was, these departments aren't in the business of storing and properly taking care of firearms. A lot of times, it's a plaza, and they're just thrown in there. Where an FFL holder does it for a living, they understand they have a passion for the snoring, safe storage, and controlling firearms. So I did do it. And then there was that lawsuit, I put it on pause. And then I was asked to sit on the committee. And I think we identified some of the problems that was preventing FFL holders from signing on. On the immunity, the police departments had immunity, but yet FFL holders didn't. It's a huge liability about being paid, you know, abandoned property or whatever you want to call it. After the ninety days, the law enforcement, the state law enforcement, the public safety, they have another process. But I believe in the old bill, at least the part of the legislature would see the proceeds. I'm not a 100% sure on that, but we needed something where the FFL holders would get paid. The ninety days sending registered letters and everything else, if they're not gonna respond to anything, then, yeah, I think it is a business and we should be paid. To comment on what Chris Bradley said about ownership and getting paid, they have the owner of the firearms at any point from the day they were served to the day they pick them up. They had the option to sell them. It's not an absolute where nothing can happen. They can show up on the day the law enforcement agency transported the firearm to a family member, third party transported the firearms to my shop. They could show up and say, this is going to be a long legal process. Would you be interested in purchasing these? And then we would, you know, we'd start a negotiation. So they don't have to go into the firearms stores. They could be purchased even anytime, you know, throughout the whole process, maybe sixty days into it, could come to my shop and say legal bills are mounting up. We could be here and say purchasing the firearms. Once again, we would go from there. I have a question?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Robsy, real quick. Had a thoughtquestion. Somebody is going to be in a long, drawn out legal situation, and they come to you and rather than saying, Can you sell these? Can they also ask you can you store these for what will likely be a pretty long time?

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: Yes they do have that option beyond you know what the restraining order whatever you know that says they do have that option. Want to make sure that you

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have that Yeah, thanks Henry.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I'm curious if somebody, you know, the person whose firearms were relinquished, if they do want to sell them, who who comes up with the price of that firearm? Is do they say $1.02, $3,500 a piece? Or in your case, if it's been sixty days and the fees have amounted to more than what those firearms are being sold for, do you would you have the option to be like, actually, no, the minimum I could sell

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: it for is my storage fees? Yes. It would be a negotiation process. Okay. It would be a give and take. I have waived fees before to help the consumer. You know, it's a tough question to answer, but yes, you can. I think every case would be, have to be judged individually, depending on the quality and quantity of the firearms versus the storage. You know, we would look at what could we give for it, what can we get for it, and then try to blend in the storage piece to make sure that those are taken. And then they would wash their hands of the safe storage, but would transfer into the ownership of the FFL holder. So I have a quick question. I know that you said I think seven or eight FFL's are currently providing some kind of storage and this is meant to expand that. Do you have reason to think as you've been working on this talking to other FFLs that more would participate under this new version? Yes, I believe so. Talking to some of my colleagues throughout the industry, say no immunity, they know chances of getting the fees, being able to sell it and keeping, paying off the fees and keeping them, you know, the profit, if you will, was big factors. And it's been pointed out in the lawsuits, a lot of people, including myself, we've had a step back until we get this clarified. It needs to be clarified. It needs to be black and white and rendered more than the way it was initially rendered. Thank you and thanks also for serving on that. Sorry

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I interrupted you and started a frantic question but did you have additional testimony or any other perspective you wanted to provide on this? No, don't believe so. Any other

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: questions?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Would you be opposed like picking after what Chris Bradley said just about that, you know, NFL gets to retain the proceeds afterwards. I'm personally kind of stuck in, alright, it's been ninety days already. You've had notification. Is it abandoned? Is it not abandoned? I also have sympathy for the business side of things where, you you are providing this service and it's you know, you need to be able to continue to provide this service or retain retaining those proceeds. Would there be, you know, maybe one final, hey. It's I got the money for the guns that I sold. You got fourteen days to come in and recoup. After my storage fees and any kind of fees that go along with it, you can come in and accrue this leftover value like one last effort. Because I think, you know, on the initial form, here's my address, and say if they no longer live there or they can't live there and this notice is continually going there if they never give a notice.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It's When they

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: get the one you're talking about.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I don't know. But it's just one more step in

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I have have an idea about Okay. I mean, what about from the initial when the FFL initially receives the firearms, there has to be a notice provided to the defendant from the very beginning, which says, when we get to the ninety day mark, if you don't provide me with an updated address or follow-up with reclaiming your firearms and selling your firearms or continued storage, I have the right as

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: the FFL to sell the firearms and keep the customers. Yeah. Believe on the back end there's been all kinds of discussion with GPS about the training with the law enforcement aspect of how we do it. I believe Caroline talked about case that would be given, allowing the third party and just have an instruction sheet. And when they come in, I will also have that they're gonna receive a receipt, and it wouldn't be unheard of to have it preprinted in full and have it in everything in black and white with the serial numbers and little instructions and everything else. Something to the effect that it is your responsibility to keep us above the date of your current address so we can get ahold of you. Yeah. Would like them to see the firearms go back to the owners right at one point. Having on the branch.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Is an onus on the owner themselves too. Yes, absolutely.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think I appreciate the chair's suggestion, like that disclaimer upfront, that you have a responsibility to tell the owner, this is the process, if you don't, keep me updated. This could be the outcome. That way it doesn't come as a surprise to them.

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: Well, I've already worked on language just for myself. And then what we can do is if we have other FFV holders that contacted me or are thinking about it, maybe it could be referred to me where I had this model received, it will explain what happens.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Eric, if we make some sort of fire change like that regarding an initial notice as well, the chart includes describing what may happen after the magnitude.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Sort of the rights and responsibilities of both parties involved. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Would that kind of get to your concern?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I think it would, yeah. And know, as you said, there's some bonus on building themselves. Yeah. And as long as they know where those firearms are in the timelines that they have to

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: do whatever and I think that'd

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: be very helpful. And once again, they have the right to sell if they choose from day one. Even if they're served and they decided to maybe firearm ownership isn't so important right now as, you know, retaining legal counsel. They have that right at day one to sell as an option. And they might need the money to get them for legal representation.

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can I just add something there? Yes. So I'm looking at page seven. Line six of the 90. So if the law enforcement needs, at least, starts to start to go and stores for the have to provide a notice because it will benefit certain information. Subdivision C, under the current law group, they have to notify the Fed to fail the retreat within ninety days that they've partnered ownership prior to me. No problem. Yeah. Are you thinking of something different or a

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: different No. Something like that, but I remember previous testimony. It doesn't even say who the FFL is. And I don't know where in the process there's a notification that says where your firearms are. No, that should

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be there too. I think that was something that Mr. Bradley had mentioned earlier too, that that information could be added there. Oh yeah. Yeah. But I mean, far as that's hard added, That's covered the issue of giving them sufficient notice of the fact that here's what could happen with the LPA. People don't come get it.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That's right in

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the beginning, Yeah. Process. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: There circumstances in which firearms could go directly to an FFL rather than going to law enforcement first. You may go and serve the order, grab the firearms at that moment.

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: Heard that statewide policy, all of the law enforcement

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is always

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: No, I'm just thinking section seven, whatever page that was on, the statewide model policy, how law enforcement will basically work with FMLs, right?

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's like kind of that question that's in

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: the bill. If they go in, get the firearms, do they have to bring it back to their law enforcement agency or if they go directly to the agency? Isn't that what Section seven is kind of trying to figure out a model policy for that? Yes.

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think though, if we look what you're getting at, some of the shame, is that if that does happen, to make sure that the person gets that notice, it would have to come directly with AFFFA. Right? If we look

[Henry Barrow (FFL owner, Barrow’s Country Supply and Monitoring)]: at page eight, Submission

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: two, lines three of the SPIFs, notice that that notice that we're just talking about, whichever we have to add the identifying information, sent it by us, may be provided by the FFO, the federal directive provided the dealer use of records document that was provided. So that notification that you filed a obligation to make payments and what could happen if they don't, or if don't do this, could be the way that proposed language is written provided by the federal director.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: That gets added or not? I think it does.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But can it be rather than the notice required by subdivision one of this subsection may be provided. But well, no, because a notice isn't required, but it's just saying that rather than law enforcement, it could be the NFL provides it. Things are gonna have to make sure that regardless the defendant is going to get the notice. That's right. And there has

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to be record keeping on it.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, thank you very much for your testimony. Was very helpful. Any any mister Eric, can you join us for a quick minute? Yeah. So what I would like to do is take this language take six zero six eight six zero six and strike everything from that bill and insert this religious language into that bill and also change the title of it. And I want to keep everything else in three. Tabitha, committee, are there any questions or comments?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Just, just from earlier point made on section seven, and it's between law enforcement and FFLs. Could we add in there about what law enforcement does for the statewide model policy If it is to go from a law enforcement agency to a third party, so law enforcement knows.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: How to do that. How to do that? I

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: don't know if it puts

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: them in a place where it's not going to NFL, it's going to this individual.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Do you mean if they have it from the temporary order and then it's going to the third party in the final order?

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think so. I think that's.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah, because it's a legal statement, fair practice, roles and responsibilities for law enforcement, seems interacting with FFLs that are snoring firearms. Should there be something in there that says for law enforcement that's going to throw them to a third party?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Like my siege used to follow

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the LEA stores a firearm with an FSL or a third party, that kind of thing?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah, because if we're specifically just talking about LEA to FFL, it kind of leads out that step of if it's actually going to a third party in the market policy on how to do that. Right.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Getting more guidance as to what to do if it's going to LEA for a third party. Yeah.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: I'm if not opposed to that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I mean, if it's it's just the statewide policy and it's working to figure out what that policy is, it never hurts to be more digital.

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thinking out loud, I'm wondering to what extent the agency is involved when it's third party anyway by the alternative means. But maybe procedure is going be fairly general because the the audience is there anything you can put that

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: in there.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And it may be for legislative counsel, it might be for someone else in their own, but thinking about this third party, is the only restriction on who that third party can be that they have passed a background check? Because I'm wondering if there's an instance in which my brother's the third party, and I'm staying with my brother. Do you know what I mean? Because I'm not allowed to be in my house, I go stay with my brother. He's the third party holding my firearms, so actually I still fully have access to them.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Not necessarily. I mean, they would be responsible for keeping the firearms stored and inaccessible.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Don't think there's any prohibition on being at the same domicile with third party stored weapons though, which is your point, right?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, it just seems a little like there's a little wonky loophole there that might still put someone.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Yeah. It's always been a little bit of a odd concept because I think even on Chris's sheet, it says something like lowest cost greatest care because it's your family member, but it's also somebody selected by the person who's having their firearms, which theoretically would be the person that they're closest to it, who would do it. And we're making a trade off because we want a third party option, but it has always had the dangers for it that I think you're alluding to, which is that they might be sympathetic to the person or not sympathetic to law enforcement and would they prevent their access in the way that we're thinking they should.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I was just gonna say

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page two lines nine to 11. Not only is it, as you're saying, Senator Hashim, the judge's discretion has to be a hearing burden, and the court has to make a filing that the alternative adequately protected safety to detect parties. Okay. So it's the background check that you identified, Sandra Hovsky. It's also required that there also has to be that. So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the judge might well say, actually, maybe not your brother because that's where you're staying right now. Exactly. Okay. That makes me feel a little better. It just, as I was sitting here thinking about it. Yeah. Right.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you, Derek. Yeah. No, I was

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: gonna say a third party has a pretty high responsibility for these cases. That's correct.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Yeah, don't know why anybody would do it unless they were your relative or something or your best friend. Willy nilly given out

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, you Eric. Yeah. And we're gonna switch gears briefly to talk about the mislead. It's a good beer.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So for the record, I'm gonna talk about legislative council. And we're gonna take a look at your amendments in this case. Survey should have some states updated yesterday draft 2.1. Have one. 2.1.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It's the

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: same thing. I have 3.1.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, alright. As long as it has a first and a second.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: Yep, first, second, yep.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, it's correct on there. I just need to update those better. Thank you. So, pretty short right now. Not that there's leaking, I'll go back. But we've just got a few, and we have talked about them already in the previous hearings. So the first instance of amendment, and this is totally policy for you about how you want to address it, but this is a division in the house passed version having to do with setting a minimum age on the civil violations for possession tobacco products or using a fake ID. So I'll just kind of tell you what, who I'm talking to and kind of where things stand. Remember there's another bill, SY-ninety eight, that's currently in human services right now that is focused specifically on tobacco, number of tobacco issues. And there are provisions in there that are amending this section of seven BSA 1,005. But it's really taking a comprehensive look at it. I think you can explain the change that is in the miscellaneous bill was brought to you by the court just saying, Hey, there's a minimum age of 12 under alcohol, you know, the alcohol provision for underage. There's not any tobacco. We're just kind of raising this as an issue. Should it be, was it potential that there's not a minimum age? I think it was something that probably just happened is that, I went back and looked at one of ways that age was raised, were put there for twelve or four months long ago in Melbourne. People were just working on alcohol laws. So I think it wasn't necessarily intentional at the time to have it be different. So that issue's kind of come up. Is that should there be a minimum age for the tobacco provision? And human services are looking at a number of changes there. The leaking synapt language that was sent over. There's two provisions in there. One is the possession or the unlawful possession of a tobacco product. The other is using a state IDE to obtain a new tobacco product. My understanding from Jen Carvey who was staffing that bill is they're weighing a bunch of different things. They're working with the Attorney General's office as well as the Department of Health and they're looking at maybe we say you can't possess, but we're not going to have a penalty, but we have a penalty and then not referring the minor to the substance safety awareness program, but having something separate around tobacco education cessation that's specifically for youth. So they're looking at all of that right now in human services. So my recommendation to you is to just strike this section because there are other committees that are looking at it holistically and we've communicated with the chair, Representative Wood, as well as I've talked with Todd at the AG's office. So they're going to put the minimum age of 12 issue out there for discussion and committee and they'll make a decision there. So unless you are really, feel really strongly about having this in here, I would say just let that play out in the other committee. Again, the issue is that if they're restructuring the whole thing and you're amending just one little part, sometimes depending on the timing of things, you get a little messy at the end if you're amending the same provision of law during the same session. So usually we can kind of make it, true it all up at the end, but up to you. You can certainly leave it in there

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: if you want.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But that's what I'd have for your first.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any statutes that would great.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then second sub amendment is just adding two new sections. I added them as 40A and 40B, just to keep the numbering the same. It's a little easier when you're comparing these bills with a lot of sections. So section 40A is the language that you heard about yesterday on the victim notification language. So you've already reviewed that and you think we're okay with that. And then on page two, section 40D is the home improvement bill. So it looks much shorter here because the bill as it was originally a lot of, showed a lot of like the current law so that you could kind of read it in context. But I think at this point everybody's more than familiar with this bill and so I just removed the provisions that were not being amended and also remembered that there was an Aurelius cross reference in the one that was passed and so that's not in here. So that's what I thought so far.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: And then you issued this four questions. Is that amendment or any of the amendments? I

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

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: All right, sounds good. Thanks.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. And if there's anything on the other sections that we've walked before, just

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I've got some minor stuff, but I don't think we've got a

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs)]: lot more in so

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: be careful.

[Derek (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll come back with you next week.

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