 The other big issue that remains in 221 has to do with the standards for removal at the ex parte and the final. So as you know in the bill right now at the ex parte hearing the standard for removal are going to be for ponderance of the evidence that's burden and at the final it's clear and convincing evidence which is a really high standard it's a standard below beyond a reasonable doubt and I think it's important to note that in civil procedures civil matters that's a not very common standard so for example obviously if we're going to it for the issuance of a warrant for a certain seizure the standard is probable cause we talked about that yesterday the standard for a final our face and be preponderance also significantly for comparing civil liberties when a child is removed from home because of abuse or neglect on an emergency basis that that initial removal is based on probable cause and then there's a hearing I think within 48 or 72 hours and that sort of temporary removal hearing is based on a preponderance standard as well so again pretty significant and then the under title 18 the proceedings for persons in need of treatment and forcing someone into a involuntary treatment that is based on probable cause on an emergency basis of the initial that's title 18 18 yes a 76 12 can I ask a question please I always get confused yeah in a jury trial the highest standard is clear and convincing below that and probably yeah and beyond a reasonable doubt only that's the standard of proof in a criminal jury trial for a civil jury trial the standard is preponderance as well so preponderance is more likely than not people always use this this like the hand puppet for like the balance of the scales it one way any questions I don't think that I have anything else that I didn't have a chance to cover yesterday so in terms of recommendation the recommendation would be to follow a follow some of the other states and I don't have the chart with me today I'm sorry I know that the chart is definitely on the record downstairs but I believe at least one of the two of the states have a preponderance both at the expert day and at the final and and I would suggest that it be a probable cause standard Connecticut for example which apparently is part of the the model and it's a New England state has probable cause at the expert day and probable cause is also going to be a more workable standard for law enforcement and they're familiar with because again probable causes what they use all day so the emergency one is the one that's further back yeah in the bill itself it's it comes later in the bill I know it's reversed I'm just wondering if you have any comments or input on the provision requiring relinquishment of weapons 459 so the idea I want to get there's a lot of different issues in here well I mean one of the things that does come up here and I know judge Grayson has testified to this before is the idea of relinquishment to a third party as opposed to law enforcement or a federal federal licensed firearms dealer I know that it's really difficult for someone who's trying to make a decision in the case of judge trying to make a decision about whether or not there's another person who's safe to get these firearms to and to be able to know that they can just that person there is now David has to be signed under the pains of penalty to perjury and you know in theory in the bill someone who violates an order is subject to contempt for violating it but that's the thing the thing that's not clear to me is whether the order is served on the respondent there was an opportunity to be heard on the order I'm I can't say that the research and I would I know that the AG's office is here today they might also be able to comment on this but I do wonder whether the order is binding on the third party so so it's interesting because when you were liking me at to an emergency child removal process I was thinking too about if somebody takes arrangements for their child which probably haven't had an emergency hearing but could have happened probably right before and something happens but that probably is taking us to our flip my question was this do we know that it's sort of what the outcomes have been for when people hold weapons for friends or family members like is it sort of considered like is it putting people at risk at times because then change the like are we just putting some people in harm's way and we might not necessarily want to promote that or is it a really great thing that has helped or I don't know that I have data I mean I do have you know well I mean the most recent anecdote that comes to mind for me is the mainstream case I mean the source of that weapon in the misdemeanor TV that resulted in murder, homicide, or a homicide suicide was a family member. Now that wasn't a case where I don't believe where it was that person's weapon that was relinquished to that person and there was sort of court involvement and all of that and just I think I think that it's because it's I again I think it's because of those sorts of circumstances that that's why it gives judges pause ordering so just another question that that's certainly one issue but looking at the relinquishment or surrender provision in this bill looking at it in the RFA procedures where we have conditions I'm still trying to understand if the individual is not being forthcoming and relinquishing or surrendering weapons what what that right so I think one of the reasons why past 422 the last session and why we have advocated for a bill like 422 is because what we know about what happens post RFA when it's illegal for someone to possess a fire and the ship is final order is that people still have weapons and then it's really difficult to it's really difficult to enforce that there's nothing that necessarily empowers law enforcement to go and like look around and make sure there aren't any guidance unless they have probable cause to believe that's the case and they don't want to go and do that and it really it puts a lot of burden and on it on victims who might know that there is a gun then report a violation to law enforcement which puts them in can put them in more danger actually because it's aggravating the situation so that is one of the challenges to one of the strapped it right now I mean what I had heard downstairs as far as intent is that there is intent that the scene could be would somehow be secured and then a person the law enforcement in conjunction with a state's attorney would go and get their order and then any execution of the order would seize the guns that have been secured I don't know that that's what is happening in the language here but we're starting to get into an area of criminal procedure that gets beyond my expertise and I do know that general's office is here today we can almost speak to that thank you very much good morning thank you for your time this morning I'm Jay Cushing Johnson the governor's legal counsel I'm just going to mostly read a statement if you don't mind sure that I remember everything sure and I'm happy to answer questions so I understand that there are strong feelings around the room regarding firearms and the right to bear arms as you all know the US Constitution has been interpreted to mean and the Vermont Constitution is very clear the right to bear arms is an individual liberty the Vermont Constitution goes so far as to say people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves that's very clear because the governor has been very clear in his passion of belief in the Constitution's and all amendments to the US Constitution and last year we had this conversation about the 10th Amendment when we discussed that 70 no so obviously the Constitution's are living documents and we they they come into our daily lives and it's great country because of that however as you also know both the US and the Vermont Supreme Court's have ruled that these provisions like many other constitutional liberties are subject to reasonable regulation I'm here to address two issues not s221 and 422 although I will get to that the two issues I think we can all agree on are that we need to keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them and we need to keep our kids safe in school when we start to talk details we retreat to our ideological corners we resort sometimes to name-calling often profanity and which side is more wrong and we forget two primary things we need to keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them and we need to keep our kids safe in school the governor's very concerned about the ability to have civil fact-based discussions about how to achieve these ends we're very happy we're very pleased to see that all sides seem to have come together to discuss s221 we expect action on that in the Senate and we expect action on that in the house I'm pleased to see that this committee is considering this bill even before it's arrived and may propose its own bill and I want to thank you all for recognizing the urgency that the governor has recognized and has articulated you've probably all seen the governor's memo the memo and if you haven't seen it there are copies available in the ceremonial office but the governor's memo outlines are a range of steps to make our communities healthier and our children safer the emphasis is on safety and there are a number of practical steps as well as some suggested support for legislation that's currently before both bodies the governor's expressed specific support for several common sense measures which would keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them as s221 extreme risk protection orders h422 allow law enforcement responding to criminal domestic violence incidents to remove guns from the home and age 675 conditions of release which this committee has already considered and so we thank you for that we've identified these bills as common sense measures which can be constructed in a way to address constitutional concerns nothing in these proposals even raises a second amendment issue or limits the rights to bear arms these proposals have been crafted in a way to address fourth amendment search and seizure concerns we see the two bills as accomplishing different purposes one is clearly a civil court proceeding the other occurs in exigent circumstances when a crime has been alleged to occur and others like Kara noted are better suited to address attestation I would like to leave you with a hypothetical say we have an 18 year old who has been planning a mass killing in a school for at least two years he has a journal which documents his progress a checklist above objectives and a kill list he's identified to date for execution of his plan sometime in the very near future one of the items on the list is to purchase a shotgun and that individual has purchased a shotgun if your goal is to keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them and we need to keep our kids safe in schools my question is whether the measures we adopt this session will accomplish this goal the question should be raised with law enforcement defense counsel prosecutors and the judiciary the governor bears the burden of his responsibility to our kids very heavily this weekend he had the chance to talk to the governor of Florida who recently attended 17 few months the governor wants to work with the legislature to pass common sense reforms while protecting our constitutional rights J I know the governor I believe the governor has based a lot of his thoughts and concerns and desires to move a gun legislation or safety president legislation forward based on the affidavit of that case in Fairhaven that's what moved him yes to is there any way that we can get a copy of that so we can read it as to why we're you know why we're moving so rapidly because again the only information we're giving is from the press and I I kind of I'd like to actually read it myself sure I mean we can send it to if anybody else hasn't seen it we're happy to shoot okay thank you so in terms of you want to comment about the burdens or you know things that we should be looking at but that's something that a number of witnesses have been thinking about what concern I have with 221 as drafted I mean as I as currently going through the Senate is and this is based on my conversations with prosecutors and and what I've heard from the judiciary is that as 221 is very narrowly drafted at this point the burden is very high the time frame it's very short and it probably would address a few cases in the next year so that concerns me if our goal again is to take a meaningful step to protect our kids in our schools I am concerned that that would be an effort to accomplish something a baby step and maybe that is all the legislature is prepared to do at this time but we think that this question will arise again and again and particularly if there is violence in Vermont that perhaps this law could have avoided there are other measures other steps we can obviously take in terms of securing our schools but I'm I'm concerned that if we if we pass this measure as drafted and and the weight of the legal community would be saying that's great but it really doesn't do very much I would be concerned thank you Jay I've been told by an attorney that we talked about this yesterday apparently it was discussion yesterday about burden of proof that the burden of the proof when I can't remember exactly I think it's when we knew it at 60 days or something that the burden of proofs on the state and there was some discussion yesterday about changing that to the response according to this attorney the burden of proof has to be on the state because when the state sees its property from people that they have to they have to prove why I mean that's how due process works and among other things the different apparently are all in agreement on 221 and supported at which is remarkable you know I'm sure you can say that's pretty pretty decent but that's something that's been worked out but now I would like to vote for 221 because I understand my understanding the concept is that it will be in the hot scene it can be secured and then you can go and get the state's attorney to the AG to go and get that order or whatever to be able to do this that was not the case in 422 422 has this convoluted language that tried to make it due process and it never but I think that this actually preserves the due process and does protect all parties I mean you know if we don't have 422 I think 221 can actually go and take care of those domestic abuse issues personally because that would be the hot scene where you go in and you secure the scene and then you go through the process and you would actually be able to set a question for yeah the question is you're an attorney now I'm not an attorney I don't know about all these convoluted little pieces and what the way to put them in the right order but I mean I talk about that for an effort you talk about that whole thing of due process so I am not a criminal law attorney and there are there are others in the room who are prosecutors and defense attorneys who know way more about this than I do so from my perspective again the question for me is what do those people say about what kind of impact this law would have if I mean to my my view is you know the governor has expressed a desire for 422 do you know do we want to leave guns in the hands of a person who is you know a violent has abused his or her spouse partner family member do we want to do that in what you described as a hot situation so this to my understanding 422 is a police officer can make that determination based on his or her best which they do a lot I do understand that there is a revised version of 221 that may that this committee may consider that is more clear in terms of what it means by warrant and judicially recognized exception to warrant so we would lay out those exceptions in the draft I've seen anyway 421 or 422 and it would address a process that happens immediately in terms of the ability of the of the alleged perpetrator to you know get to get them back so I mean from my perspective we're looking to see 221 and whether that addresses that situation as a civil court is a question I think better asked of people who know more about it than I do in that I what I understand and what what is being said is that mechanically it would serve to do that but the fact is there's a lot of process built around that that may or may not be feasible in particular situations and so I think that's a question to consider I mean ask people who know who are who can answer that question whether 221 actually would do that and that's you know that's a question that I've asked others I have you know gotten various answers depending on which side of the issue you're on and I think that it needs to be a fact-based determination okay my understanding correct that you do feel that 422 those past house is constitutional well it's past the house it's different than what I've seen recently as far as I know that's I've heard that from the Attorney General's office that they have the I guess the last year was the former chief of the criminal division and I know the person in the Attorney General's office who was on this issue now have both said that that is constitutional I think the Attorney General's office is here today and you can ask him that question you know if there is a way to improve it that would be that's something that I guess we should all be open to considering but that's what I've heard from the Attorney General's office that that as past by the house it was past it is you know I'm I really appreciate your clarity and I'm really glad you're here thank you I also yesterday we heard testimony about so how other states are doing it and one of the things that came up is that there are places where the state's attorney the office of the Attorney General and law enforcement play a role and I don't know if you care to comment I mean I know the different states have approached these two bills and that there are only two other states which I know that that that in the in the area of extremist protection orders it's relatively new and different states have taken different approaches and are taking different approaches in legislation that's proposed now I understand from law enforcement that it is preferable for a state's attorney to be handling in action it's just you know police officers at a scene are not necessarily you know then prepared to go on and prosecute a case so other states have states attorney Attorney General police officers they also have family members and Massachusetts is considering a law that includes healthcare professionals and the health professionals so in terms of petitioners so I don't know what's better you know I think it really depends on what's better for Vermont and right now I think what's on the table in the Senate is state's attorneys and if that's a process that works for people I think that that's something that we would you know definitely fine I'm real that the governor is wanting to move forward and keep children safe and because we know that as magical as Vermont is you know doesn't mean that that means I'm happy here but one thing that I'm hoping that we so one thing is this is really important and making sure that when our kids were at school they're safe the main so I don't want to just have parents feel like who now we took care of that the main cause of death the third cause of death for children is fatalities from gun shots and that those mostly occur in the home so I think the other piece is that public education piece about people keeping their guns locked keeping the ammunition locked separately making sure that kids can't get hold of it and I'm just hoping that by us focusing attention on schools we don't sort of forget some of the public health public education staff that could make a big difference for children being saved in our state and I don't know if the governor would be willing to just make sure people it's not just you know I just don't want people to have the concern with a false sense of security that's again why I would ask the question of the people who really are the most knowledgeable as to what exactly the impact of 121 would be or sorry 221 would be would it would it would it address a hypothetical like I suggested as far as guns in the home I don't know what Department of Health does in terms of advice or I mean I understand what you're saying but I also understand that and I've been given to understand over the last week that you know Vermonters have a different I don't know if it's a different kind of relationship with firearms than many other states and many and probably in you know large urban areas it the ethos is different but in Vermont people have a relationship with firearms that extends to family ties and history and tradition and I'm not suggesting I'm just talking about they're locked up and yeah but that answer that kind of I understand that that kind of issue is not on a table right now in terms of the legislation that we're considering the governor's memo right now is more focused on community health and kids safety you know I'm certainly happy to take a look at what Department of Health does anything and provide you with information J I was intrigued by a comment you made a few minutes ago about mental health and some states have taken a look at including the mental health providers in their abilities to I think here's what I heard their abilities to go forth and warn and be part of the solution to the problem when their clients or where people are dealing with pose a risk to to the health and welfare of not just children but everybody involved with them did I hear that wrong or you know give you my follow-up if that's what I heard is there any way is there any language that can be proposed that would include that in this bill or what I'm just curious about the whole thing I would say I did not mean to suggest that that mental health providers have a duty to learn other than what they already may have as professionals I would say that what I when I look at the Massachusetts proposal Massachusetts has proposed that mental health care providers would be able to petition the court similar to a law enforcement officer in this context so basically rather than just saying the state's attorneys or the attorney general can bring an action or you know seek an order they would be saying that family members mental health professionals could petition the court for an order that's the way that their law their proposed law is slightly different yes I have one more follow-up question then to that how does that how does that all come under the context of hip up well from what I understand I'm not again I'm also not a hip expert but I do understand that there is an exception a limited exception with respect to mental health information and the ability to remove firearms in certain mental health situations that hip up information can certain information if the information can be shared for that limited purpose but again I think you'd have to talk to somebody more knowledgeable about hip up thank you those are I think that's where the following up on that but I would just ask you to comment on what you believe presently given the confidentiality of any of those certain situations but there's nothing in 211 that would prevent a mental health professional or anyone else from contact law enforcement to say we're concerned about this person and then start the process that would yeah no nothing in 221 I would do that you know and I don't know what other kinds of professional restrictions or otherwise they would have but yeah nothing in 221 addresses that yeah I was looking through these big laws and I can't remember what the what the criteria is for 422 but one of the things that we said yesterday and you said it again today our criteria is preponderance and then clear and convincing for the two stages and a lot of the other states this is a pretty high standard a lot of the others start with well reasonable cause whatever that is in Washington Oregon is preponderance all the way through California has reasonable cause good cause and then goes to clear and convincing connected as property cause what difference would it make I mean it's 422 start with probable cause is that what causes the I mean obviously there's a domestic hot scene going on there's a crime being committed that a probable cause or and why wouldn't we use probable cause if there this is so my understanding of preponderance in the hot scene situation you're talking about an ex parte order so the ex parte orders preponderance and then the higher standard so yeah clear and convincing so I understand preponderance is a 51% kind of a determination so you know and again it gets to this question of whether the the burdens of proof as currently contemplated in the Senate version gets you where you want to be in certain circumstances if the impact is very minimal again like I said that would just concern us in terms of you know the effectiveness of what we've managed to do but at the same time we understand that it's you know that this is a huge step for the the general assembly and you know we recognize that you know anything is better than nothing but something that is effective and the constitutional is probably better than something that is a very limited impact so probable cause is what you need for warrant yes and what this bill was trying to do is get in order I mean that's different yeah something that you could get right you know everyone can address warrant situation but you know what 422 would be is a is an exigent circumstances kind of removal you don't need to call the court you don't need to seek additional process at the time of the incident you just take the gun and the process follows I understand the ex parte situation in 221 is intended to or is purported to do the same thing you can take it then process follows it's working day period but again I understand that there are differences in how those things work at the scene of a domestic violence incident okay so it's 221 also doesn't necessarily have to have a crime involved it can be an imminent danger maybe something that's more I think it's not intended to have a crime involved it's a civil procedure yeah but imminent danger maybe something that has to happen that's right yes that's right I'm using your hypothetical this it has not happened yet that's true so you can do this under 2.1 and get this question well actually under 422 we talked about the fact we would all have to be litigated and adjudicated under probably the fourth amendment or we think that was brought up sure good morning everybody my name is Evan mean in I'm an assistant attorney general in the criminal division of the Vermont Attorney General's office so basically that means I'm a criminal prosecutor I go to court and prosecuted individuals who have been accused of committing a criminal offense my understanding is that I was asked to so I believe the expectation is that I would come here today and give the Attorney General's opinion about how age 422 and S-221 might differ from one another or accomplish different purposes we also have some thoughts about each individual bill which I'd like to express if you'll indulge me but first I'll go over what we perceive to be the major differences and really the two bills operate much like a bend diagram where sometimes they would be used separately and then sometimes you might be able to use one in a situation where you could also use the other but there's two primary differences from my point of view one of which representative Dickinson just mentioned which is 221 a crime does not have to have occurred quite yet in 422 you have to have at least arrested or cited someone based on probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed with 221 there's this imminent danger so in other words if you think something very bad is going to happen but a crime has not yet occurred you might be able to proceed under 221 the other major difference is and I believe representative Alanda mentioned it earlier under 422 law enforcement can actually seize the firearms under 221 the best that law enforcement can do is get an order I should say the state the best that the state can do is get an order requiring someone to relinquish their firearms and then if someone doesn't obey that order at that point in time you know they're subjected to the associated penalties arguably a crime has occurred and then based on that obtained a search warrant to go in and seize the weapons so could you say that they're subject to what so they would be subject to the penalties that are in 221 so so if you obtain an order under 221 and it says relinquish the firearms to law enforcement or a licensed firearm dealer or a third party and the person says well I don't really feel like complying with that order today and they just sit on their guns you know arguably then they would be subject to the penalties at the end of the bill the criminal penalties in 4058 since that is a crime then the remedy for law enforcement would say we have probable cause to believe that a criminal violation of 4058 has occurred because this person has violated the order therefore we want a search warrant to go into their home and search for and seize the weapons that they were required to relinquish according to the order so under 221 it's technically possible through the use of other tools available to the state to ultimately search for these weapons but it's really a multi-step process and it really does rely on the individual's willingness to comply with the order in the first instance. Once law enforcement just has the order they can't go and search for and seize the weapons it's incumbent upon the person to relinquish them. Just a follow-up on that under 422 there was a hot situation in the police officer law enforcement officials that there's a need to confiscate those weapons it takes the person who's relinquishing those weapons cooperation to get them because you know he could have them or she could have them hidden all over the house and you know the you see what I'm trying to say that you're almost going to have to go in under a search warrant type of situation to check to see where they are what they are here because unless you have that information readily available to you like the spouse that here's all the guns that the person has and here's where they're located you're going your lack of better terminology going on in Easter. Well you're absolutely correct and that is that is one of the reason that that gets to one of the specific comments that the Attorney General's office had about 422 as it was passed by the house so when John Treadwell the former chief of the criminal division came and testified about the bill earlier this testimony related to the bill as introduced and that bill allowed law enforcement to do much more than what 422 does as passed and it did address to a greater degree this this hot situation right because and let me give you let me give you like a like a practical example so that you can visualize how the bill as introduced would would function versus how it was passed. As the bill was introduced if there was probable cause to believe that one spouse had strangled another spouse and law enforcement responds to the scene and they see in plain view a firearm okay they would be able to seize that firearm and let the process play out as prescribed in 422. The way that 422 has passed now reads and I'm hearing that there might be some changes to this language that might be proposed it only allows law enforcement to remove a firearm obtained pursuant to a search warrant or a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement after the person has been arrested or cited in offense right that means that before law enforcement can seize a firearm under 422 as passed they either need to get a warrant and do the kind of search Easter egg search that you're talking about which is how all warrants are executed apps in cooperation so that's nothing new we can deal with that or there needs to be a valid exception to the an existing already established exception to the warrant requirement like exigencies or something like that so and in order to obtain a search warrant 422 does not set forth new criteria for obtaining a search warrant we would have to obtain that search warrant pursuant to Vermont will the criminal procedure 41 which means we would have to have probable cause that a crime has been committed and that we want to search a place because we think it will contain evidence of the crime and then what we want to seize is evidence of the crime arguably a firearm in the situation that I described earlier is not evidence of the crime that one spouse has strangled another so there is a question about whether or not law enforcement would be able to seize that absent and already existing exception to the warrant requirement so that's one of the reasons that's that's the real reason why 422 operates much differently now than as it was originally introduced and addresses those hot situations so essentially you're saying we might not be able to get a warrant to seize that gun but we might be able to seize it depending upon the facts and we have to know all of the facts in the search with situation which it's hard to talk about those in a hypothetical but it's conceivable that other facts in that situation could allow law enforcement to seize the gun if there was a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement but being able to obtain a warrant to get the gun might be a little bit difficult can you precisely explain how as introduced that wasn't a problem yeah so the way that it was introduced it says when law enforcement officer arrests or cites a person for a domestic assault violation of this chapter the officer shall confiscate any dangerous or deadly weapon so for example it would include things like the machete that was used to attack the woman in the middle of Burlington whereas as past it only includes firearms but they as past they could take the weapon if it was in the immediate possession of the control of the person being arrested right that might include a firearm that's sitting on the end table right next to the domestic abuser who's sitting in a lazy boy chair okay or it's in plain view of the officer so it's sitting on the table or the coffee table and the two people involved in the domestic incident are in that same room law enforcement goes over takes the gun or it's discovered during a consensual search which that's an arguably judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement but those first two things one and two provide more flexibility to address the hot situation but those the one and two are the exceptions to the recognized exceptions the media possession I mean I'm sorry I'm not quite getting it I'm still trying to make sure I understand why a warrant is easier in that first situation you don't need a warrant okay right right right so these would be and John Treadwell's testimony about the bills introduced was that those two those two situations are okay under the special needs exception to the search warrant requirement that was the Attorney General's position at the time and the special needs exception doesn't allow you to go up and to get the guns that might be up there that's that's a much closer question that would require a little bit of research to figure out but that's that's a much more difficult question. The other comment that we had about H422 and this is just to give some thought to and I'll give I'll give another hypothetical factual situation to contextualize it for you but and this is true with the as introduced version and the as passed version okay it only applies when a law enforcement officer has arrested or cited a person for the domestic assault and I just want you to give some thoughts of this situation what happens when one spouse calls law enforcement and says my spouse just punched me or choked me or stabbed me or did whatever law enforcement responds to the scene they have probable cause to believe that the offense has occurred but the domestic abuser is no longer present they fled the residence because they're concerned that they're going to be apprehended and criminally prosecuted so what is law enforcement do two things one they attempt to go and find the domestic abuser and two they might decide to apply for a search warrant or an arrest warrant right so if they apply for an arrest warrant but they haven't actually arrested or cited the person there's an argument that 422 it's not applied at factual circumstances and then what happens when if it doesn't apply law enforcement can't seize the weapons pursuant to 1048 they might be able to do it under other law you know but just a regular search warrant under rule 41 but they might not be able to do it under 1048 and then what happens when the domestic abuser comes home and the weapon is still so so it is a fairly quick fixed on on that to add arrested or cited or for who the rest warrant has been obtained yes all right so in that situation where the does the officer then have to leave or calls in how they get the rest so the way they still at this at the site when they get the arrest warrant that's a little bit tricky because you know they have to type up the affidavit they type of the warrant application they actually type of the warrant itself they might not have the ability to do that on scene or using the computer that's in their cruiser so they might not be able to do that right there and then once it's prepared they have to have a prosecutor either an assistant attorney general or a state's attorney review it then they need to contact a judge which can be difficult if it's after hours on the weekend and then the judge you know has to issue the arrest warrant a follow-up as well it's so you have it let's say that is an exception that we can allow for the rest but how does that then work as far as there's not immediate control possession of the person the person is not there the user is not there what are the special needs so the special needs analysis that John Treadwell testified about for the bill is introduced isn't really quite as applicable to the bill has passed because the bill has passed requires us to get a warrant so we have a warrant we don't need an exception anymore or it says a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement so that would be something like exigent circumstances community caretaking and those are those are different exceptions to the warrant requirement than the special needs exception that the state might be able to rely on to pass a law like 422 is introduced so but if 422 has introduced that situation if it also applied where there is an arrest warrant I guess that's a question how would the special needs analysis work there if the user is not I see so all it does is it expands the circumstances in which the special needs exemption applies right so under 422 is introduced the special need exemption came into play in sections a1 and 2 plain view and immediate possession or control but under the statute those special needs exemptions only applied when there had been an arrest or a citation if you added in when an arrest warrant has been issued then those special needs exemptions would apply in a third circumstance so for example law enforcement response to the to the residents the domestic abuser has fled the scene and the officer sees the firearm in plain view even though it's a allegation of strangulation law enforcement would then be able to seize that firearm in plain view that's the sort of that's the sort of gap that existed even under 422 is introduced that wouldn't be incidental arrest so that's right down to that one special need that's right just one addition to that not only why in my belief and I could well be wrong not only could the officer see that one in plain view but just the views out to say here I got all of them right here it takes me hands them to him I audible yes yes sorry I was shaking my head and I realized yes you're you're right so suggestions if you could it's very helpful I really appreciate what you're saying if you could summarize some suggestions that you think would improve sure so so so as J. Johnson said from the Attorney General's office perspective any progress that we can make in this area is positive progress okay and we do think 422 as past would pass constitutional muster but as as I think John Treadwell testified the Attorney General's office was also in favor of structuring the bill as it was introduced so that it would include the machete and not just the firearm it would allow for a special needs exemption and then also apply to the situation in which an arrest warrant had been issued I actually have a question few madam chairman wasn't it the discussion at the time the reason why we went with just firearms was because it got so far down in the weeds it could be kitchen steak knives and hammers and baseball bats wasn't that the thought behind this long car to actually said you know just it's too broad and we played around in definitions and that's why it's actually time their request that we want them with firearms and I understand that and I understand that they given given recent events of firearms on everyone's mind and as I said any progress that we can make with respect to firearms is positive progress from the Attorney General's office position you know we do have statutory definitions of dangerous or deadly weapons we've been working with them for quite a long time prosecutors law enforcement and defense attorneys are able to litigate those nuances and then it was if we're trying if the idea is that we're trying to have two bills right s221 that creates a civil process and 422 that helps us address hot situations hot situations can be addressed much more rapidly if we're able if law enforcement is able to confiscate deadly weapons that are in the immediate possession or control of the person being arrested or cited that are in plain view of the officer or discovered during a consensual search and not just those weapons that are obtained pursuant to a search warrant or a judicially recognized exception to the warrant and so so how do you define it traditionally I might understand that these are some of them so how would how are you define it usually that's come up what does that mean sure and luckily I don't have to define it because the judiciary has so we have things like consent we've got things like exigent circumstances we've got things like the community caretaking exception there's a laundry list of them I'm not gonna remember every single one of them off the top of my head right now I understand I've heard rumors that that maybe there's there's some there's some language that you might see at some point that includes a list that will be beneficial but you know whether or not any specific exemption applies is going to be based on the on the facts of the case it that's just the way it is I don't know that there's a way around that so conceivably a bill could be passed that includes a laundry list of judicially recognized exceptions but I don't think it's a bad thing to to use the language judicially recognized exception because for example for all we know in 10 years the way that our lifestyles evolve and the law evolves the judiciary could recognize an additional exemption who knows or they could decide that one that's already recognized maybe for some reason should not recognize that I think that's why we yeah so back to the the consent again we have a concern that I say the victim can sense and you know well I mean anytime you see someone's personal property you need to do so carefully the reason why we have these constitutional protections is because we've made the decision as a society that our personal property is sacred to some degree and so we need to we need to make sure that we do it carefully and not just really really but as John tried well testified earlier those three carve outs in the law and the Attorney General's office position you know met the special needs exception to the warrant requirement we haven't changed that opinion there might be practical difficulties in a learning curve for law enforcement as there is with any bill in trying to learn how to use it we'll just have to overcome those those difficulties you have to do it carefully yeah so we're used to we're used to having the burden as state prosecutors so that kind of language in here which we were meddled around with yesterday that really needs to remain to keep this due process it's not objective to us we're used to meeting the probable cause standard we're meeting we're used to meeting with the under reasonable doubt standard you know we don't we don't deal so much with the other standards as as prosecutors but I will say that this gets into some of the particular comments that we had about as 221 we would be in favor of a preponderance standard like there is in a relief from a views order excuse me I just want to I believe you were talking about the burden shifting that was around a 60-day and renewal so it's okay yeah and so I apologize just want to make sure I'm following along I've got the bill as introduced and I have the one that appeared in yesterday's calendar okay yeah and so we're looking at and so we were 55 so the conversation had yesterday in terms of termination and renewal it's both on page 12 of your yes here the state has the has the burden of proof and the concern from the central crime services and the fishery but that is that is odd that the burden would be on the state that generally is the other moving so I believe when that's what you're yeah that's the one yeah this is the changing it from the state to the moving party so I mean it would certainly make the states easier if the movement to terminate the order had the burden of proof that part because the movement might might be the one who has access to the information that would justify the termination right the movement for example if I have an order that's precluding me from possessing a firearm and I file a motion to have the order terminated I can just file the motion 59 days in or 30 days in and put the state to its its burden right and I don't really have to do anything even though I might be the one who has access to all the information about the events that occurred since the order was imposed up until the point in time when I've filed the motion and the information that the state would have would be any additional information that was reported to it and all of the information from the original underlying incident that's right that's exactly right so I mean it might be difficult so it might be difficult especially under the clear and convincing evidence standard but if as I think some people have proposed the standard was reduced to a preponderance standard like it is an RFA proceeding then it would be easier for the state to meet the burden and it would be less onerous for the state to bear that burden in that particular situation right so explain though if if are there other situations where the property may be taken initially and the state has to meet its burden to have that property but then subsequently a person wants to modify order and explain that the rationale for the movement to have the burden I mean that there are other situations where the movement would have a burden the preponderance of evidence to modify or terminate an order with the type of work that I do which is primarily criminal prosecutions I'm having trouble coming up with usually in criminal prosecutions the states even for example if we sees property pursuing to a search warrant and the the the owner of the property files like a motion for return of property my recollection is the state still has to show a continuing need to hold on to the property but is there initial and initial showing that has to be made by the movement I mean there may be a shift in the shifting I mean is there some way that we can not just have an individual say hey I want you to terminate this but actually have to make some showing me ultimately the room that's not unheard of there are certain types of burden shifting even in the criminal context but remember this is a civil proceeding so it might be more acceptable to do that so you know but the examples that I'm thinking of in a criminal context which is different because this is civil would be something like when someone's charged with a criminal offense and they want to allege that a third person did it they didn't do it but a specific third person did they have to meet a certain threshold in order for the judge to give an instruction to that effect the state still has to prove its entire case but there is like an initial threshold that a defendant would have to meet so I just want to interrupt because I appreciate you saying it's a civil and I think it's important for us to remember that it was fashioned after our current RFA and where the burden is on the movement and I think it's a change in circumstances. Right right exactly so so I think it's it's much different from from the criminal context so so additional thoughts that we had that we haven't already covered was in 4053c2 and my pageant my pageant agent is different I printed off the calendar on the internet so I'm sorry I have to refer to the section numbers so at various times during in that subsection there's one once it uses the phrase bodily harm that's 2a1 and 2a2 it says physical harm and in 2b it says serious bodily harm I'm sorry can you tell us if you can say 4053c3 yeah so 4053c3 if you look at 4053c2a 4053c3 4053c3 I'm sorry it made me difficult for everyone but yeah so in 2a1 it uses the phrase bodily harm page 3 white band little eye little eye middle eye and in little double eye it says physical harm so just one question to ask would be whether or not you want those to be consistent and whether or not you want to define bodily harm like for example you do in the assault statutes 13vsa 1021 because right now there's no definition of bodily harm in the definition section and then the same thing would be true with respect to 2b which uses the phrase serious bodily harm that likewise is not defined in this particular bill so the question would be do you want to conclude a definition like adopting one from another statutory section if it makes sense for what you're trying to accomplish here so another in still in 4053 subsection e1 where it says the court shall grant the petition and issue an extreme risk protection order if it finds by clearing convincing evidence that at the time of the hearing so as I've already said the attorney general's office would be in favor of a ponderance standard but that phrase at the time of the hearing also jumped out at me if the purpose of 221 is to address hot situations these types of domestic violence situations can fluctuate very rapidly and you know at the time of the hearing does that mean you know March 1st at 2pm right then and there this is the respondent pose a danger to their domestic partner for I'm before you go on so this is in the permanent order section right that's right so your concerns are even though you may have had an emergency order that deals with the hot situation that you still have those concerns in the emergency order I do I do and this is the reason why because the language is at the time of the hearing at that time right then and there that moment the respondent poses an extreme risk of causing harm to himself or herself or another person by purchasing possession or receiving dangerous weather what I think the inquiry really is um is this person um you know uh going to go back home and hurt someone in their house you know so is it uh so you know what are we what are we asking right then and there in that room is that person going to pose an extreme risk or or do they pose uh an imminent risk of harm if they were to possess if they were to possess a weapon so if they were to get their hands on a weapon at that point in time when they have the weapon do they pose an imminent risk of harm to someone in their household so what um so so what what is your suggestion for could you just believe it could you just say in extreme protection order if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses yes and you would suggest okay and so you would but you would also suggest proponents of evidence yes I just had a hearing yes I think I think this could be an example of less languages that actually provides more clarity than more language and just I can't think of it off the topic what what is the existence of language in an rfa is it is it the same as what you're saying or does it specify the hearing um I brought 15 with me you might just step through into the section number I don't remember what it is off the top of my head I can try and look it up right now if you would like me to there's a reason why that's because again I think a lot of the art public so testimony is that it'll come back from transportation but it's trying to look at consistency with what rfa is so again for consistency sake let's see what that one says then consistency is helpful and so turning to that language the guidance would that would not be a bad idea um so in 40 54 three the intent piece of it is um I don't know that we I don't know that the general's office has strong feelings about having to prove intent about it I mean that's not um that's not abnormal um you know there's there's even a pattern during instructions that talk about how one can prove intent it's a circumstantial evidence by their words and actions you can infer what their intent is so I don't I don't think we have very strong opinions about they are criminal cases those are the ones that I tend to read okay okay yeah so I believe this was uh maybe came from 10 to 18 in our in our mental health okay so so we heard testimony that that intent was a good proposal I think that's weird kind of just staying on that section can I just run the suggestion that we had yesterday regarding a proposed change one proposal was changing that section we were just talking about Roman Mubu too by his or her threats or actions a reasonable person would fear physical harm to themselves in other words taking away the intent I'm not trying to be unhelpful but I don't know that I do have we also talked about um changing the section so that uh two a would be an extreme risk of harm to self or others may be shown by establishing that and then one two three and we change B to a fourth item that the respondent has threatened or attempted suicide with serious bodily harm and wrapping that all up so that all four of these would apply to risk of harm to self or others you know it's kind of it's hard to see without the language but that might be more of a question of form rather than function you know when I read through the version that appeared on the calendar yesterday um I thought two a and b were relatively easy to follow I think great thank you yeah so um so you just talked about the um change of appearance in the same time as the final hearing um and I know you're getting there but I don't want to lose sight of the ex parte of the hearing um which is also um I guess there's Congress we've heard possible probable cause I don't know if you have any thoughts on what to do uh we we would like to see preponderance throughout yeah I mean obviously if you were to lower it to probable cause in the um emergency relief section that would make the job of the state easier I don't know that too many people with the state would complain about that but you know we've talked this is a civil process not a criminal process probable cause is typically a criminal phrase so making it preponderance throughout is um I think appropriate and something we would I appreciate for again I'm pretty sure probable cause is in our mental health okay anyway but I am I appreciate that okay um just as an aside on page seven the emergency relief 454 there it does find this preponderance of evidence at the time of the audit request that the department closes in a minute and exposes the preponderance isn't that but the question I really had was back on 453 uh just before e1 on our page 4 line 6 so the court shall hold the hearing within 14 days after petition was filed under this section so when we're going down and asking about the time of the hearing are we talking about the original parte hearing or are we talking about a hearing for the 60 days so if you're looking at the time of the hearing I mean because the 14 days was given according to Judge Gerson so that you could make sure that you can get it into court without screwing up the docket to make sure you can get this expatriate hearing fairly quickly it might go in in five days and they go in 10 days right so so the way that I read the the version that appeared on the calendar yesterday is that if the state applies for an emergency order files a motion for one that should be granted an order issued without the hearing and then a hearing has to be held within so many days to determine whether or not a permanent order under 40 53 should be issued what's not clear to me is whether or not uh that prior to that hearing the state needs to file an additional motion for a permanent order or just kind of happen because that's one question that was not clear the situation I think that you were asking about is if the state does not file a motion for an emergency order and just files the request for a regular order when when does the hearing occur and I think that in 40 53d that's 14 within 14 days so either way I think you're working with this 14-day period if you file for an emergency order you have to have a hearing within 14 days to decide if it should be permanent unless the state dismisses it and if you just file for a regular order you have to have a hearing so you don't have to have files that's the way that I read it I wanted to like that in section again a little bit again on her saying you said that you know really weren't heavy one way or the other but again talked about just more use of that on the criminal situation so I did just google because obviously I mainly do the the criminal stuff myself but oftentimes you know what we always do is we look at what our you know model jury instructions and I did find that actually Vermont does have them on the civil side for intent specifically for medical malpractice and reasonable contract and they have there's various Vermont case law specific on that that goes back to it so I guess my my my question is I mean several courts do deal with intense so it's not going to be something that's going to be hard for them to figure out I mean do you not agree with that it's been a good nine years since I appeared in a civil case so and intent was not an issue any of the cases that I handled I think that you know judges will probably be able to figure it out this one I guess we have very qualified judges in the state of Vermont do you want to help did you have some more that were addressed to us if I may yeah so one one question and this this might have already been flushed out but it was a change that I noticed from the original bill and I understand why it's important it might be important to have a state's attorney or a assistant attorney general assist in the process of applying for these orders but if the intent is to address hot situations and if the judiciary is going to be required to prepare forms for the purposes of applying for these orders in the emergency temporary ex parte order situation I think one question would be worth asking is does it make sense to allow law enforcement to apply on their own using the forms developed by the judiciary if we're dealing with a situation for example Friday at 11 p.m. or Sunday what you're asking the law enforcement to do is to track down both the prosecutor and judge I'm sure law enforcement might have some thoughts about the practicality of that process but I think it's a question that's worth asking if the intent is to address hot situations so presently Oh yes they are required to be on call and that's certainly helpful but the more layers you add to any process the more bureaucratic you make it the longer it takes to the longer it takes to navigate those processes now the judiciary might say we would prefer to have a prosecutor review it before we see it in which case you know I would refer to the judiciary and law enforcement might might say we would prefer to have a prosecutor review it as well but if the goal is to allow for a nimble proceeding adding layers is you know doesn't help that so I think that is a bounce that we tried to think about in other areas in many situations the state's turning out to be the one interacting with the court about because they're probably best able to convey circumstances under which they're looking for something or in this case an order and I think pointed out just who we need to hear from to understand that balance but in your experience how you know how ponderous is it how much additional time I know I'm asking a question that has lots of different answers and probably can't be average but what burden are we putting on certain cases to try to find the state's turn who's on call get them on the phone relay your your your assessment of the situation to them have them get in touch with the judge who's on call and try to get the order I mean how how much of additional layer burden is that the situation it could be a couple hours to reach an on-call prosecutor track them down send them the draft paperwork have them review it make any edits that are necessary send it back to the cop figure it out and then before even making a phone call to a judge you could add a couple hours now of course you know that might also become less probable I mean another piece of that is that under this under this law law enforcement can't seize the seize the weapons anyway it's just in order to have them turn them over so that that's really where the major impediment is to addressing hot situations and so I mean I guess I'm not clear whether that I have assumed that the bill contemplates that all important officers stand right there at the scene trying to get through this process in order to get the order and serve it that might not be possible right so at additional time additional burden to that right whereas you know allowing you know temporary like for example if you're applying for a warrant and you have evidence of the commission of offense you can you can see you can see the evidence pending the application for a search warrant now if the search warrant is not issued you return the evidence um I don't know that this I don't know that this bill authorizes the temporary seizure of weapons pending the application for an order and it certainly doesn't authorize the permanent seizure of the weapons unilateral seizure of the weapons once the order is issued it's incumbent upon the person to turn them over and the person is in possession of those weapons until such time as they comply with the order so the only other comment that I had was that and I and I it's a concern I don't know how how great a concern it is but I think it would be helpful to state in any bill that's passed is that this is not intended to be the sole mechanism through which firearms can be turned over to law enforcement and what I would not like to have happen as a prosecutor is to show up at an arraignment for someone who's been charged with a domestic assault where the law enforcement officer did not contact me immediately for the purposes of applying for one of these orders and I ask at arraignment as a condition of release that the person not possess any firearms and that they turn those firearms over to law enforcement and then the judge to turn to me and say if you're that concerned about it apply for apply for an order under 13 vsa chapter 85 so I think it would be helpful to have something in here that says nothing would prevent a judge from imposing as a condition of release under 13 vsa 7554 that a person not possess dangerous or deadly weapons something to that effect would be helpful and we actually just passed great yeah well I was just wondering if you could comment about any thoughts on how to make the relinquishment or surrender process more efficient or actually workable because there's a lot of reliance on the person being forthcoming and relinquishing the weapons I mean is there any way that that can be strengthened for the workers back I think allowing law enforcement to seize the weapons directly and how would that I mean we have that in the 422 situation but in the 221 situation something law enforcement I mean someone can always hide a firearm right I mean buried in the ground or something but it would the order would authorize law enforcement to you know go to go to the person's residence to seize the firearms so what additional I mean it can't be that easy it's always easier said than done right I mean I want to understand what the barriers to do that either constitutionally or in the civil action we're talking about again I mean so the constitutional concern is that people always have a right to their personal personal privacy as protected under the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution and our own Vermont constitution and you know his you know and in order to typically the way we get possession of the property is we apply for a warrant based on probable cause which is lower than clear and convincing lower than a preponderance and then we go and we search for the stuff and we take it in this in 221 it's creating a civil procedure where the burden of proof is higher on the state and I don't think that it would be terribly problematic to allow the state to actually seize the weapons once they meet that higher burden otherwise we could you know you could just decide to have them turn it over and if they don't you navigate the additional process that I was talking about because now there's probable cause that they committed offense and then we just go get a warrant at that point go get them it adds a little bit of time it adds a little bit of process but it's still possible under this scheme when paired with existing law to to get the guns I think so yeah when does this go um this is a civil situation but based on my hypothetical that Jay gave just based on what he basically just said when does it go and transfer from a civil into a criminal and how does that change and it sounds like then you're going to go over a bunch of other things so the way that the way that I read the bill the way it would work is we would go and get either we go get either a temporary expatriate order or an emergency order or possibly both and the order would be served on the respondent and it would tell them you need to turn over your weapons to such such a such a person within so many days and then the person doesn't do that and they're in violate that and when they don't do it right and we can easily check that because we go and we ask the person hey you were supposed to receive these guns from so and so did you get them you know I didn't get them I've never came here at that point in time law enforcement would have probable cause to believe that the person had committed a criminal offense and that would be a violation of 13 BSA 40 58 and then we would you could cite the person you could and you could also get a search warrant to search their residents or whatever other piece of property where you thought the weapons were and you would search for those weapons and seize them and the reason why you could do that is because those weapons are now evidence of the criminal violation of 40 58 and then they're facing a criminal charge as well as having these orders in place so they turn it over and they surrender it the whole point is to surrender the weapon that is going to be possibly an imminent danger that's right if they turn it over intentionally surrender it and cooperate does that then become a criminal case or one no if they cooperate with the order then the law worked as intended and we are happy now they might have some other problems because of the underlying incident for example if they did actually physically assault their domestic partner yeah but in terms of a violation of 40 58 it's just when they fail to comply with the order thank you thank you very much all right see the break Campbell executive director of the state's trains and sheriffs and James Tepper James Tepper department of state's trains and sheriffs so I'd like to start out by saying is that we're looking at two two bills because I know we're here to talk about the 221 but obviously 422 is coming up as well and the way I see um see this is I believe Evan had actually mentioned is that this 221 and 422 they're not it's not one or the other you can definitely have both of these we take both of these actions I believe that any way that we can provide we as a state can provide any added protection to individuals who may be the victims of violence or even to people who might be thinking about doing violence themselves that I think we should take that that step and so it's really come down to a policy decision a lot of the questions that were raised I can I can tell you that Evan hit all the major points I hate to commit and testify saying we agree with what he said but Evan did hit almost every one of the major points and think points that we had had brought up among ourselves when we were talking about this you know considerations that have to be discussed so I think what right now it might be better just to take a question that's okay you sure you and do you want to um so how are you in support of both bills and in what I do support the bills I and I think they do two things differently I think the one the 221 bill is one that addresses another problem we have in the state and that is you know people who have have either attempted to commit suicide or contemplating suicide and that is people who are severe imminent risk themselves and then also other anytime again it's offering protection if we from a civil standpoint if you know or have a feeling we have a reasonable believe that someone is going to um to commit or to cause bodily harm themselves or others we can start that investigation law enforcement to go out and then they can determine you know whether there is enough evidence to apply for a either an emergency or a temporary order under this so I think that there is certainly room for this and I think it would help I think it's more narrow I don't think it's going to do um is much more especially with with the domestic violence issue which is I believe addressed more obviously in 422 I think that is a but probably a better vehicle my big concern that I had prior to coming here today and again was raised with everybody the fact that there are several vehicles that are at our disposal to make sure that somebody who might have been arrested that they do not possess any weapon or fire on and I certainly don't want us to that you all would not pass something that would limit that or could be interpreted as limiting our ability as as boots on the ground if you will to make sure that we are protecting the public uh so and how we're going to do this is we I have sort of uh 221 is one that I've been kind of following whereas James has been dealing with 422 so I'll let him comment on 422 if it's okay sure do you want to go ahead and do that right now if you're ready to do that sure how aren't we dealing with 221 we are but um we have the state's attorneys here now and because we're going to be taking out 422 as well or we could we pass it out of committee why would we be taking out of the house okay we will be considering whether there should be changes to 422 well let me let me rephrase I guess I guess what I was offering here is because I heard when I was standing here in the testimony that you were mentioning about 422 you had questions many questions that involved both bills I thought you wanted us to address that we can we can we can reserve we can reserve the afterwards not a problem well I mean we don't have a problem with 422 we've heard Evan's concerns we already continue to kind of think about the constitutional issues the one major issue that we had not with 422 has passed the house but you know there's a process that was created in order to return the guns in an amendment that I've seen that I think addresses a situation that's unclear in 422 whether the hearing 14 days out and then there you know there's all sorts of questions about whether returning the gun is appropriate and how to do it and I think that creating a new hearing about guns and appropriateness when someone's been charged with the crime is it will create a parallel process when a judge has every authority to impose a condition that the defendant not possess firearms so I think that you know if someone's being arrested at the scene detained then they will be arraigned within 48 hours and so a judge would then and if firearms are removed the judge will then be able to impose a condition that firearms continue to be held by the law enforcement agency so that kind of takes care of that scenario if someone's cited and and just told you know come in the normal force you know what we'll schedule your your hearing or your arraignment for three weeks out but we're taking your guns in the meantime I think that that potentially poses an issue and I think that what should happen in those situations is that if someone's cited for domestic violence that they need what's called flash citing and that they come in at the next business day to be arranged and then the judge will then look at whether the seizure of the firearms was appropriate and whether to continue that so that I have some language to that effect if you guys end up looking at 422 again but again that's 422 if we deal with just with 221 again I don't want to repeat what what the attorney general's assistant attorney general had said but I mean there are I think the most important thing is to realize again we're dealing with a civil order request for a civil order versus a criminal action that so someone has not been arrested at that point and that in in the 221 there is a situation okay if you're going we're moving away from 4.2 it is it is true that we're generally going to hear from them about 221 there has been a discussion and I think we may later today think about whether there's going to be changes to 422 that that might be helpful but you know for when and how that's all going to happen I'm not privy to at least at the moment so I think rather than spending too much time on 422 now we'll stick with 221 when the chair comes back if she decides that we're going to use our time while we have them here to address that bill so the the fact that I think the most important aspect of this that for the committee to to know is that while this does serve a I think a purpose that can be used utilized in dangerous situations it is one where the as was stated that the guns are not seized under this right this the the guns are voluntarily provided by the respondent in the case so the order would have to be obtained even if it was an emergency order the emergency order still would would require the person to provide the guns to law enforcement and to or to the individual sentence to be turned over to so that is you know that is a term that you always need to people should not expect that just by using this order or requested this order that it's going to necessarily result in the taking of the firearm so that's I think the most important part that that's something like we'll even missed possibly the other body yeah I definitely do and I mean so so would you have any suggestions of how to address that well I think what Connecticut does is at the emergency hearing you have to show probable cause of an extreme risk and then you're actually issued a warrant for the gun so at that point when you have the warrant issued then you go into the house and actually take the gun which as opposed to this where you know it's kind of it's relinquished or surrendered so so if you had an emergency hearing and you would then the the order could read something along with the weapon the weapon can be seized pending the hearing and if the outcome of the hearing is shown that the weapons should be seized at the court could do it if they wanted to order at that point any well I'm talking about the emergency hearing right there you have to I haven't had enough time to look through the as far as for the uh the non-emergency hearing to see about the workability because again I think that the most important part is when you find these emergency situations where you have uh you guys have been referring to as hot situations again I as a law enforcement officer I can tell you domestic's are in fact one of the worst things to to go in and handle and you have to understand also is that uh when you're when you're there and dealing with the situation it doesn't your goal is to separate the parties and to make sure they take away the danger the warrant a possibility of of injury to uh that any party or the police officer to because I can tell you more police officers are shot and killed at domestic's and so that's an important factor to realize that this is a very volatile situation so I believe you're going to want to make sure that you know if you had an emergency situation you could deal with this ahead of time that's why I like 221 in the sense that um if we it's not you're not waiting necessarily to for the explosive situation you know if you knew uh that there was um somebody had come up a woman whose husband was regularly assaulting her and she was aware that it was going to explode because it was going to be Friday and that's usually six after then you know she can uh there's a different there's a whole lot of opportunities for other things that she might be able to do but this would be a good mechanism also uh to make sure to get the guns before they become a problem because that's the fact that stop maybe I'll ask you uh just because you commented on the Connecticut law so although they have a different standard of cause rather than preponderance but that are you are you telling me that that um at the um that they have an ex parte order just as we do and in that order they can um order that the police law enforcement remove weapons from from that and it's my understanding the affidavit they need to identify an actual weapon in the affidavit um and then they can they go in with the emergency order and then the the final order is clear convincing evidence so here is my question so I'm I'm imagining a scenario which was what I helped support a group where and I'm imagining again so we're saying that there's a risk that we kind of established and so now someone has taken action to say to identify that there's a risk um in a standard rfa where there it's firewall law around if there's an rfa that's standing you're not supposed to have um any firearms I had a particular situation for example where we had the emergency rfa in place that person was actually able to move all of their firearms to a friend's place until the rfa was over and the risk was still there so there's some things that are within this that would have maybe helped because that friend might have had the courage you know when he came to get them after the rfa was over didn't want to return them to because he was that terrifying and dangerous but was at the same time like no I don't want them to take your guns so I will hide them for you um so I worry a little bit about the time because the fact that we're going to need this order in place that and we need some sort of action to happen that will trigger someone to take notice that there's a need for an emergency and so I guess in my mind my question is I don't know that this it's gonna I worry that it relies too much on that particular moment of identification to build in that safety window as far as you're talking like with the burden proof as far as getting in there the preponderance issue one of the things that that why you don't hear us coming in and saying and I think Evan I won't speak for but I believe you might feel some ways that rather than probably cause or just a reasonable reason to believe is we are talking about a right that is recognized it was a constitutional right as far as for that person to have the weapon and so with the preponderance in fact there's several court cases that deal with that and saying that it is not unconstitutional to create legislation that especially in cases where the burden approved or is the preponderance of ever in that so it's a higher degree so it's kind of saying listen we really did our homework we we checked out the stories there's more here too than a he said she said that I don't mean that in a majority way but this way remind us for talking about 2021 so that's not totally talking about the domestic violence issues we're talking about all the all the situations right when you might use the correct petition for order okay so you're saying and what I'm hearing you saying is that 221 can be used sort of in a preventive measure some guy putting around telling everybody if she ever leaves me I'm gonna kill her even beating her up you know something like we'll talk about the domestic abuse as an example but it could be the same thing if you had um you know the hypothetical situation with the kid who's going to go to school or so there's gonna be bomb threats at school or something like that it's a preventive thing that there can be a preponderance of evidence that this person is in danger or people are in danger and you can do it before it gets to that point and you can actually get some control of the situation before it happens in certain situations unfortunately this is all like very factual based and I think 221 is more of a of a narrower tool to be used and I think that it's more in situations where I see I see it being used more in cases where there's a potential for a person being in danger to themselves and then then anything else I think that if you're dealing with other issues whether it be domestic violence or some other threatening situation I think you need to be more particular and need specifically to deal with the the factual situations you'd like to see this being the civil form of just actually requesting an order for it is not what I would consider to be the being proactive in the sense of you know making sure that if you've got a situation where you've already made an arrest that there's different tools available to law enforcement at that point in time and as far as seizing a weapon or if the weapon was used in in certain crime whereas the 221 is hey look we know that we have somebody who is a potential danger and we want to eliminate the danger before it goes to its next step and we also feel that there's other things we can do so whether it's in combination with mental health or mental health laws this is I think that's where the limitation is on 221 and not that it's a knock to this it's just that this is it's a good tool for that scenario this you gotta all threats they come in different you know shapes and sizes and it also depends on you know does the person have the the ability to carry out the threat does he have the the uh is he really of competency to not only carry out but also the competition that he really is trying to or she is trying to so I just think that this is one tool to consider I would not reject it by any means and but I believe that there are many of the things that this body and that the legislature needs to do if we are going to try to address some of the situations we're finding that are currently happening in this country and the school violence is relevant I don't think this is the tool that I would use I think we need to be very specific as to the threats there I am hoping that that we can can move on another bill specific legislation that would deal with that so so you back up for what you said about the ponders of evidence and such so do you know are there cases that have addressed the constitutionality of the probable cause standard leading to seizure of weapons in other jurisdictions and as far as this with this type of an order this could there's kind of order or just generally I mean is it been found unconstitutional to base a seizure of weapons on a probable cost standard no I think that they can you can but I believe that in the ones that I've read the cases that I've read it gives more excuse me there's more support of that there is a rational basis for taking weapons at that point in time so I think that you're this is more I could I guess I would consider is you know a belt belts and spenders you know we could do it when you could you put a probable cause yeah I think you could would it be challenged probably would it withstand the challenge I think it would but it's I think here we would have a better chance if we had the preponderance as far as to withhold will stand channel challenge but I that is not to say the probable cause could not be used it certainly could I the the other reason I go with preponderance and it's a little bit it's also what everyone's talking about that this is a civil proceeding and the courts are more or little they deal with it they understand it in a I think a little better than they might in trying to take a criminal standard evidentiary standard and applying it in a civil situation but it's not that it hasn't been done because as the chair pointed out you know we are mental health hearings that are civil as far as competency and of course for mental evaluations and the standards are different so I mean I'm okay with either one this is a policy decision you all have to make I just I would not reject the uh the preponderance of the evidence straight out of that's Mike thank you I think I want to go back to your conversation about about 221 specifically in the least perspective that this really is getting at um suicide prevention and that piece and I I I do see that but I guess my my my question goes about how narrowly again maybe somebody's in the pitfalls of how narrowly focused it is then because um at least as what we would learn from much counsel and I did give his ear again just to make sure I remember this correctly and I did that although the the only thing that this actually does confidence gave though are are are actually guns and explosives that's it and so I'm just because I would I would imagine that suicide happens in many different ways besides those and so again I'm just I'm just wondering is is are we really you know not looking more completely at then how to address suicide prevention if we're focusing strict on guns and explosives well you know again this this does not deal with one specific area this is not a what I would call a suicide prevention bill by any means I just think that it's just another tool available that in certain situations if if somebody a family member had someone that they knew was in mental health in distress and they were concerned about the their safety whether they would harm themselves and they knew that they had a had a lot of guns or on fire even one doesn't it also takes one so if they had a firearm and they did not have the ability capability to take that firearm from the person then I think this is something where if somebody came to law enforcement came to us as the state's attorneys that we could say well we may not have acts under mental health there might not be something that's available there but we possibly could use this so again I see it as just just one more avenue of in a way to address problems that we have and and I agree I mean not everybody uses a firearm due to commit suicide however I think that the you will see that if the firearm is president so it's hard for home and they have a health crisis then you're going to see them probably use the firearm over any other method so in that situation again sorry I'm just not taken through some of this um how does that work though prescription they get I'm thinking like I don't know you probably remember my my common law professor was Cheryl Hannah yeah yeah right genius woman yeah sorry yeah went out and bought a gun and killed herself but again she didn't have a gun until she made that call you know so again I'm thinking like of her in this situation but with this have helped her though because she didn't have a gun yet but she clearly had stuff going on you know and so again you know so I don't know like if this would have saved her either and so I'm because again I don't know necessarily if that's if this is the next unfortunately we don't I don't think we have that silver bullet that's going to be able to save everyone and you know I say I hate to say that I didn't know it's interesting in this when you discuss this topic it's hard to to really find the word when you don't you don't end up with something that's uh unfortunately related to uh some violence but uh when anyway the the point is is that there's nothing that we can assure you can assure as a legislative body that is going to envision every potential situation especially when it comes down to a person with mental illness not they don't always exhibit it themselves and when they start to decompensate that could happen very rapidly so they're that's why that's why it's really in my mind why it's important to really have as many tools available to to those who are charged with trying to prevent these tragedies so that's why seables the only thing I would add to that is you know the person seeking the order here it won't it will not help in every case but you know they could take the order all the local gunshots and say listen by the way this person has this order against them and not allow them to purchase firearms it's not you know it's just something I would add to that right then but there's that mandate in there that that's what might happen no I mean I think I'm I'm not I'm sorry to get you so you know I think all of us you know we all have our stories in the situations again I mean that's what I keep doing I keep looking at of course what happened there I'm gonna want what happened yeah and I'm trying to think with this to fix it and I keep wondering I don't think I mean I don't know what we've gotten there yet and I get and I guess that's some of the thing here is you know I also don't want us unless they do something this week you know and rapid fire and say we fixed it because no we have I mean we haven't even come close I think I think that you know we've got a backup just for a second and say you know what actually we're trying to do and not just here but overall when it comes down to violence whether it be protecting our children who I believe or should be a special class of people that we protect but are they protected as it would protect their children are we protecting those who have mental illness or problems sorry we're just trying to prevent violence overall and you have to look at how is that done that's done through family members that's done through friends neighbors who are can will see things that where a person may exhibit a certain behavior um we have you know it's funny I was listening to a commentator the other day who talked about here we are on the the age of amazon and all these other places where we shop and we go online I'm listening but yes I'm a party brother yes I know that problem anyway the the fact is that you go online and you go and order something and amazon or google I assure you know there's more of the about you and everything about you than the government does uh then you know certainly your law enforcement agencies know and that's all there at their fingertips and as I pointed out in the Florida situation which was very close to me um you know this is something their DCF was aware of it they've had complaints about this one individual since he was in third grade and there were multiple reports given but yet nobody was putting them all together nobody was you know some people weren't able to access that kind of data now again we're talking about also privacy issues but it's kind of ironic to me that we're more than happy to give our all of our information to amazon and to google and to wherever they're going to do now or in the future or with their facial recognition and everything else yet we're afraid to um try to see how we can use information to help protect our most vulnerable and our most precious citizens whether it be children or people who are unable to care for themselves so I just think that this is a big picture item and this what you're doing right now and what we're and whatever we've finished this session is not going to be the end all and it is one where I think that we as a as a government needs to sit down and take a real hard look at what do we really what is our charge what you know do we have an obligation to protect our citizens um from uh sometimes for people who would mean to uh cause them harm and physical injury I think we do so um I don't see any enhancements so uh did when the chair asked y'all to come and testify did she ask you to speak to you for 22 any suggestions to um change this to that she uh she wanted to know if we had any ways to make it more workable in our eyes and I think you know I mentioned creating you know getting a person who's charged with domestic violence in the sea a judge as soon as as soon as possible and then the judge can kind of take over the question about firearms which they you know in almost every situation where there's domestic violence the judge will impose condition 13 or you know the you know there's the H675 language to remove that they may not possess or purchase firearms um and you know that's not the case now with domestic violence it's being cited so I think speeding up that process you know if you mentioned something I think it's called flash citing flash citing tell us what that is and how that would work well the language I have um and I'm happy to share with whomever is that a person arrested or cited for domestic assault shall be arranged the next business day after the arrest is made or after the citation is issued except for good cause shown so um you know if someone is cited on a sunday they'll be arranged on monday first thing and you know under the 422 language an officer could remove the firearms on the sunday when they cite and then on monday they'll be in front of a judge and the judge will impose condition 13 and just in a broad sense here the purpose of this is to create a uh a hearing um as quickly as possible so that that deprivation period pretty pretty uh hearing is shortened as much as that and not not just that but also to avoid creating a secondary hearing that's unrelated to the charge strictly about guns which is something that the courts I don't think have the resources or the willingness to do you know when they have the authority all the authority they need an arrangement uh i'm martin person that's not enough um so just two questions that that issue would it be in the case where there's a citation and a removal of the weapons okay so the other the uh evan had suggested as well uh expanded to beyond just citation and arrest also having an arrest warrant do you have a viewpoint about that i think that makes total sense i think that's probably the intent here as well um i think um i think it was probably just uh it was just it's okay to say he was pointing out something we overall yeah i think i think that was the intent you know if you if you have an arrest warrant out here if you fully intend to arrest that person you shouldn't have to wait until after you actually make the arrest before you can remove the weapons it was mentioned when we did 142 that um i think we just said that report 142 basically that um you can hold a person who's been suspected of abuse you can detain them overnight 48 hours and then they go to the judge for the arrangement and then they get the seizure of the weapons we can do that now can't we yes okay so um there seems to be a feeling in this committee under the judicial reform situation that we don't want to detain people because even one night can ruin their lives forever it's just a very bad thing to do um i get this it's more i think about this the more it occurs to me that there's a good chance that this person who is doing the domestic abuse probably isn't exactly a person of high character who probably is not going to be willing for life if they get detained and behold and sell their in the correctional center for a matter of two um why don't is that what we do now or how does that work and is that better than trying to create a sort of a maybe a warrant waiver that we can that's what i hear you suggesting well i think that uh very often if it's a maybe the crime we can service people might disagree um that if it's uh if there is domestic violence happening and it's clear then there the person will be brought it detains the rest of them i think where you see the citations happening is if there's maybe someone was pushed or you know there was a slap something that's not quite as obvious and does both people being out intoxicated or appeared i think that's what you're going to see a citation and then those like i said can be scheduled three four or five weeks out before they're arranged and so that's the kind of situation i want to avoid by and so um by creating out i mean is the flash citation a uh unknown thing that the courts are well aware of creating something and actually we talked to the court about it and i guess again understand that emotions are on high issues that and the best one time to get involved is right then if you wait and then it goes down and then all of a sudden you never know what's going to escalate again it's best to deal with it with a situation at the time find out what the cause deal with the cause uh if possible and uh do with any remedy that that that is available but if you the longer you let it go i think personal matters my personal weight is that you lose the opportunity to um really address the underlying cause so i think much of our work in here has been about uh around 4.2 has been around trying to address the immediacy of those issues and so it's become myself at this point i think i think the faster we can get the whole process to move through the better off everyone's going to be in and and then i'll be with that um and so if we if we put on the road of um looking at change so obviously i have to talk to the court about how they would address those um i would just point out before i finish that that the whether or not someone is cited or arrested the probable cause standard is the same i mean found probably caused the way that they have committed that crime so i'm martin and then jim so this is a scenario that i've heard of that does occur in uh vermont and i'd like to just comment if you've heard of this as well that in the rural areas of vermont you may have on a weekend or a night essentially one state police officer one officer covering a very large area and maybe call call to domestic abuse or domestic violence situation go there and has to make the decision on whether to cite the person or to arrest the person and then be out of essentially that county for the next two to four hours to take them in and all those things uh and often they will air air air towards um citing and leaving the person there plus giving this an extra extra importance to the orientation weapons out of that situation is that the question in there is you know is that something you've also heard occurring is that make this a particularly important tool in some of the rural counties and some of the off hours and such yeah i think it looks leah look at number one that the law enforcement officers that are going and making determination they've got it they've got to actually make that kind of call right there and say wait a second now first about whether they have the probable cause but i can tell you that and i'm not saying that this is a policy or a procedure but i think that if a law enforcement officer who went to domestic and you know the first thing trying to get them separated trying to get the people or parties like you stay one place you stay another place or whatever but if if they um there was a weapon in plain sight or if the person was armed uh and certainly if it was obviously if it was a part of the you know a threat or whatever they could take it but you might find that they might just go ahead and seize it and it may not be used as evidence it could be used as evidence if they find that you really didn't have the authority to take that or you can't have a probable cause to to do it um i would hope that our officers that respond understand the um the crisis that could be evolving and they would take appropriate steps i i i don't see and i'd like to think that it doesn't happen that somebody would just also leave um with both parties still there and with the weapon um sitting on the table even if it was and and having sighted that person i just i don't know if that's anecdotal to the point where or if you've heard that it actually has happened i just i have not heard that happen i want to go back then to this this um flashlight way to kind of work with some of the due process issues and i'm having that too big of a live time to get right back in the court and my question again is back to some of the practicality aspects of that because i do you're right you know you do the flashlights that you know the next day but as you know you're also aware the court still doesn't know until the paperwork is actually found and so men don't see this as much now but you know in the main pv office like you know on a month in st johnsbury that the big ram makes monday and so sometimes there'd be people there that would say i'm here for an attorney but then they didn't get the paperwork yet so guess what it wasn't going to be that court day afterwards you know there was going to be a next court day because that for a lot of reason the paperwork wasn't there yet and so i guess my question is i mean is there a way that we can even we can mandate that though or is it just or if if paperwork's not ready on that monday it's just not going to be ready they're going to have to come i think it was absolutely you can mandate the fact that the flashlight it could be for the next day but that they will get in front of the court and the court can you know they may come and say that they can't handle that uh whatever but if they tell the clerk you know you got a flashlight that takes priority um and uh you know one of the problems we have you know this well and i do with that uh the judicial system the courts are uh we don't have enough judges uh is on a court time uh there's not enough prosecutors there's not enough uh but it's we are we are operating on a shoestring and we're very very lucky that we haven't had more tragic situations happen as a result of that and i would just add that uh having having a requirement of flashlighting would be less of a burden on judicial resources than having some separate process dealing just with guns when you have someone that has probable cause for a domestic great well thank you very much and we're we wanted to have to come back for uh sorry okay that was why james are done do you know like under rule three now like if if someone uh you know is arrested or cited would there be some authority because it's because the way uh 221 is written the uh fair to comply with one of these orders is criminal violation right misdemeanor criminal violation when you're misdemeanor so if the the officer comes to the scene and the person won't turn the weapon that they have probable cause to believe they've gotten could they place them under arrest under rule three and so maybe maybe that would be a not necessarily instead of the other option that's being discussed which is put some language in there that authorizes a warrant you know like you said james based on the canadian statics that they can quirk initial warrant and conjunctions the order that says you can take the weapon but isn't there's probably some existing authority too like rule three says you could arrest somebody for misdemeanor committing the presence of the officer right so so they'd be committing the misdemeanor in presence by not turning the weapon over just wondering if that might be an alternative way that they could arrest and take them into custody right then get a warrant take the weapons i think i think that is possible they need to be able to show that there is actually a weapon there for probable cause there are probable causes right that's right right so yeah that's a possibility sure thanks all right great thank you both thank you so we are going to get everyone on the list but may not happen before we go before in the back but i understand bill more perhaps at that time crunch issue and so welcome bill to come up and make sure we get to his testimony good morning bill more on the mock traditions coalition and i i want to speak briefly to the process um chris and evin and ed and um gun sense and auburn and peri were all involved in and senate judiciary produced 221 as senator sears has said it is a fragile coalition a consensus behind the bill as it was passed out and i'd like to encourage you to seek out jennifer morrison who represents the boots on the ground as it were understand that she's out of state till monday but i believe a teleconference call could easily be arranged for tomorrow if you'd like me to pursue that she had very thoughtful and poignant words as to how some of these things are applied in the field by law enforcement which would be a great compliment to i should still call him senator cambell and um anyway his office the process started month and a half ago but really in earnest three weeks ago we engaged before the testimony began we engaged with auburn we engaged with i brought the aclu in it to testify um electronically they had comments on the bill and from the beginning it was about due process it was about respecting the fourth amendment rights of individual or monitors who are under suspicion of crimes or or or threatening violence or threat to themselves and everybody pitched in and had good comments and consensus was built around amendments in a surprisingly rapid way but in a deliberative way the changes if you have the time to read the as-introduced version of s221 versus the version that is now reported and will be voted on this afternoon in the senate paint a clear picture of the process i'm describing and various diverse groups that were involved and i am jealous of that consensus i am very jealous of that consensus because it is a precious gift in this building to have such a thing go on under such political pressure again i think um a deliberative process over time would bring you folks to a much better conclusion and i respectfully suggest attempted to say demand but i don't use that word in here that we treat these bills separately that s221 does things that 422 cannot propose to do and vice versa that 422 attempts to do things in a procedure that is completely dissimilar completely unlike the structure of s221 and that's not a bad thing i'm not speaking pejoratively about either bill i currently support s221 as it was passed i feel very strongly about the amendments that were made and you're going to see a dramatic endorsement of that on the senate floor today and i hope i just i hope that we can put aside the desire to piggyback one with the other which i'm going to be frank now the word in the halls is that there is a likelihood that those will be merged in some sort of larger format and that at least s221's version will be stripped of some of the protections that i've spoken of or that the length of term will be lengthened that the evidentiary standards will be reduced radically and that that consensus that coalition will come apart and we'll lose a precious opportunity in this building to pass something that everyone from the governor down to tim ash and all of us in between support so i just i urge you to separate the two i understand the discussion has to be merged because there are overlapping issues and i appreciate that but i think when it comes down to raising your hand here in the committee i think you should keep the two separate that's my request i would add that i am going to provide additional documents i've supplied my testimony that i provided a series of questions about due process issues with 221 that were resolved from senate judiciary that is going to be posted spoke to mike earlier i'm urging others that were involved to likewise forward those specific very detailed questions and proposals so that you can see the process up close but i believe it's going to take too long to get past it this week i believe that you should look for what comes across from the senate and take it up and keep it separate please questions can i add a footnote there will be some valuable information coming from senator sears committee that was provided by among others eric fits patrick on cases regarding evidentiary levels but more specifically something that senator sears repeats often and we've had documentation for that effect over 60 percent of these urpos the extremist protection orders in connecticut are applied to threatened suicide situations and and and less than half as many of those of the remaining 40 percent are with regards to domestic violence now that doesn't lessen the importance of domestic violence in considering this mechanism this process but if we can pass it just clean because of what we'll do for us to address people who are threatening harm to themselves that would be worth it if we can just succeed in s221 just on the suicides we will save lives starting right away and uh the cases on that evidentiary standards um state be quickly i think it's one of them eric you have others that you can share okay as long as thank you thank you and i appreciate you uh adjusting your schedule i know it's a big ask and i try not to do it i'm happy to do it um yeah great and questions have questions thank you all right thank you so um you're all gonna break from lunch time to get everybody in we're gonna i'm gonna get started here the chair will be back shortly um so uh just to make sure i've got it um so chris uh and ed and evan is around so he kind of is just up in the cafeteria okay um and so we'll hear from you guys we um some of us are gonna have to leave for additional attention a little bit later so we're gonna hopefully get through the testimony that we have on our schedule here by three um we have to go slightly over that we can do it but um and then i'll take my minute to figure out what it's next so i'm getting you guys to allow you guys to use all your time you have so uh chris you want you want to start or good afternoon my name is chris bradley and i wish you know that i have two important roles in regards to the rights authority to vermont citizens by both the vermont u.s constitutions i'm both president of the vermont federation of sportsmen's clubs and i'm also the current secretary treasurer of the vermont state rifle and pistol association for the record i wish to know that i was scheduled to give testimony without ever being formally invited in either capacity i also wish to note that the two documents i was responsible for as vt fsc president are now part of the official record of the house judiciary without me submitting them i assumed that they were submitted because they both state support for s2 21 as a past senate judiciary yet the agenda somehow does not show me representing me from our federation sportsmen's clubs it shows me representing the s rpa oddly and there will be several iterations of the agenda that have been published so far this week and there have been many everyone else on the most of these versions showed everyone is being invited by me uh as i'm aware that evan hughes dp federation has formally requested to testify before this committee and i further assume that a deliberative process is being allowed for which will accommodate testimony from all interested parties i will represent the v s rpa as the agenda states and let the vice president hughes adjust concerns of the federation and both of this documents entered into the record again without me submitting them i had suggested that they are both in the record because they reference s2 21 as you will see in both uh pre submitted documents a coalition of the foremost remark firearm support groups a group that covers a wide spectrum of firearms rights all came together to support s2 21 as it passed the senate judiciary i cannot stress enough how difficult it was given the wide spectrum of viewpoints on pro firearm rights to have that coalition come together in support of s2 21 in the final analysis however reasonable men and women can all agree even without consideration of recent events that's there are some people who should not be allowed to have ready access to anything dangerous this was a fundamental point that we could all agree on and we then focused our attention on working with the senate judiciary to see that that bill could be made workable please consider that again for a moment the three majorly the major entirely vermont based players in the vermont firearms community representing 75 plus organization with tens of thousands of total members all support s2 21 as it passed senate judiciary it is these same organizations by the way it turned out 1200 vermonters on january 3rd in response to senate judiciary's request for a public hearing on firearm laws in vermont as i said over 1200 vermonters took the time out of their busy lives to come to the state house and deliver their views on gun control initiatives against approximately 200 folks who wanted more gun control on that night in their two hours were allotted for testimony with three minutes each given to each speaker but even within these meager limits the anti-gun folks ran out of speakers while proven speakers were not allowed to testify due to running out of a two-hour time limit well s2 21 did not give the firearms community everything we wanted we have felt and have publicly stated that s2 21 is something we could support s2 21 is a bill they can address head on some of the problems we have been seeing with unstable and deranged people we support s2 21 as it left senate judiciary we further note that our governor has indicated that he wants to see s2 21 on his desk this friday a meter two days from now so in that light and while it is unusual for the house to pick up and move a bill even before it has formally left the senate chamber we can understand that the normal deliberative process that these hallowed halls require a deliberative process that citizens of vermont have come to expect is being fast-track the problem is that there have been commitments made by house and senate leadership that he wanted to list the bills will be passed including s6 h8 76 h4 22 and s2 21 well i understand that the topic of my testimony today should be geared solely towards s2 21 the same documents that were submitted into the record also reference s6 h8 76 and 422 and i point out that all of those bills were recently the focus of a press conference by the senate and house leadership uh vice chair i would therefore like some latitude to discuss 422 briefly as other uh respondents have been allowed to do that thank you sir discussion of h 204 22 is germane to the discussion of s2 21 because it is my belief and senator senator sears has stated that he crafted 221 as a bill that would handle the concerns of 422 but would do so in a manner that would embrace the concept of due process with s2 21 passed by both house and senate in the form that it left senate judiciary and then signed by the governor a toolbox would be made available to law enforcement that they could then use to address cases of extreme risk in a legally prudent manner several days ago the firearms community noted that the primary anti-firearm group in vermont was signaling through their website that s2 21 as it passed senate judiciary had been changed to incorporate h4 22 where they got this idea as anybody's guess but i suggest they were told of a plan ahead of time so they might muster their forces but unfortunately they misunderstood the plan since 422 is germane i would like to briefly review the trajectory of 422 last year i began by stating that a representative of the federation sat down late in 2016 through a representative of the domestic violence network so that they could they could see if there were any areas of agreement concerning a bill that would attempt to create a five day window of perceived safety for a victim of domestic violence at that time we saw the initial language of what would become 422 because it was shared with us arguably in the normal legislative process a potentially controversial bill would be dropped into the hopper as early as possible so that it could be given careful consideration differing opinions could be sought and weighed out and a true deliberative process could be allowed to occur such was not the case even though this bill was ready to go on january 1st the bill was never dropped into the hopper until i believe the wednesday that was 16 days before crossover the very next day h422 magically scheduled for walkthrough by legislative counsel witnesses who supported this bill had already been consulted and invited and it was obvious that they had been given ample leave time to prepare their arguments against the long list of individuals organizations that wanted to see h422 and were designated as being invited i point out that a not a single invite had been made to any program group that would would likely have a dissenting opinion we had to be asked to be invited and i i when when i was when i asked on the following monday afternoon if profiler and groups were going to be allowed to testify it was suggested i could give testimony the following morning i was apparently being granted and granted the audience immediately when it could be easily deduced that there had been no time to prepare let me be clear on my view that h422 was predestined to be pushed through this committee at least once and i believe twice things were moving so quickly and even though we've been scheduled to testify on one version of a bill the day before overnight the bill had changed such that we were giving testimony on an older version during the testimony we were able to give significant questions were raised with a number of these issues causing a sitting member of this committee to voice a concern that the more the bill was examined the more problems were found in the discussion this morning there had been references made to potential new language for both s221 and 422 but while referenced they are not publicly available there is ironing here because while one major one of the major issues we see with 422 surrounded due process the due process is normally afforded legislation moving through these bodies also had issues but 422 passed this committee and then went on to the senate judiciary and considering the composition of senate judiciary i believe we can all agree that there's some exemplary legislators senate judiciary is known for being a very deliberative body and it was the opinion of the majority of that committee that the problems inherent with 422 were great enough to not warrant any further movement they additionally felt the same way about s6 i cannot state that strong enough a majority of exceptional senators on senate judiciary saw enough issues and problems with 842 422 and s6 that they opted to not move them at all but their opinions as well as the opinions of 1200 citizens that showed up on january 30th apparently do not matter it is difficult for a citizen like me a citizen who believes deeply in the sanctity of the legislative process to witness what i'm seeing going on i have no faith at this point in any logical arguments i might construct will be carefully considered as such deliberation is not really allowed when an outcome is already been predetermined and i won't no longer have faith that the system because of what i'm seeing for the information of the committee the egregious new york safe act was passed with no hearings no testimony and no time for opponents to make their case it was ran through and heck with the formalities of the deliberative legislative process the vs rpa and all major firearm groups in vermont all support s2 21 i respectfully asked that this committee accepted as forwarded pass it as forwarded and then allow it to go to the governor's desk i have little to no faith however the s22 when i will change that perhaps with the decision of the senate 30 to 00 perhaps the i am wrong with that statement perhaps as 2221 will pass as it should what will however occur in the next few days is a truly sad day for the vermont deliberative process because of what is going to happen on the senate floor tomorrow and while some may lament how things are being done in washington if one see the same things happening here please vote through s2 21 has passed senate judiciary you have any questions i'm sorry if this was somewhat pointed how many questions for mr breller thank you appreciate it uh this is already a matter we have emails i've said to you i'm sorry i'm ed cutler i'm the president of the gun owners of vermont and uh i and our 5300 members stand in full support of s2 21 as written in the senate um what i'm giving you now and what i emailed to the secretary is our original opposition to 2221 five senators came together with a bunch of us sat down and acted out until we got it right my organization for 20 years have been screaming we have to take care of these seriously abusive situations and violent people we are also strong constitutionalists being that we believe and hope that this committee does not change that bill because right now in this country there's a feeding frenzy and what should happen in here in vermont the cradle of liberty should be the highest standard in a courtroom a person in this state because our state was founded by outlaws ethan alan himself had a new surround his neck if he went to new york state we want this bill as is because in this bill a person man woman whatever for any reason has his day in court to the highest standard um i like chris i'm hearing that uh we're going to be adding all kinds of stuff or excuse me committee's going to might be adding stuff changing it around this is unacceptable s6 i'm going to give you an example of s6 universal background checks a woman and her son who was 19 years old right here in the state of vermont the kid was a could have been an olympic class target shooter literally he had bought rifles on his own he says mom i really like to you know go buy a pistol start getting into olympic class pistol shooting also it went to the f f f the kid picked out literally uh 1500 dollar both uh high high quality target pistol he was refused because he was under 21 years of age mom thinking oh don't worry about it i'll just buy it for you so she bought the gun it raised a red flag at at f headquarters or the nci center she gets home she gets a phone call says oh you just bought this pistol what are you going to do with it i'm going to buy it from i bought it for my son she is now a federal felon for being a straw burgess sir regardless of what you say about what kind of people we have to save this is a law of unintended consequences this is a this is a true crime in new york state another friend and you know when we have this many members i get horror stories from everybody was driving down route 22a which went wanders in and out of the state into new york he got stopped for a traffic ticket in the new york side he is now spending two years in prison in new york state because he had a handgun without a new york state license and a high capacity magazine 12 rounds instead of 10 this is a law of unintended consequences there are horror stories i hear all the time about things like this people of ramon are the most forthright honest and helping people in the world look at how iran every neighbor came out to help every other neighbor the the storm in new orleans the governor of new orleans came out and said little over month sent more help than any other state in the country little over month with a population of 625 thousand when things like this bills like this come up it's a horrible thing for anybody who writes a bill like this or tries to get a bill like this it's insulting to the people of ramon so i just um i want to make sure we're clear about what bill you're talking about so are you writing s6 now if that s6 uh 244 the bill that was passed out of here uh we're talking about uh high capacity magazines any gun bill that comes before this committee okay okay all right i just want to make sure we're clear what you're really talking about because i understood you earlier and see your support what you're doing i do want to say that i want to make sure that we have time to hear from mr hughes so are there any last thoughts about 221 um that you want to give us okay i will say that if if those other bills um like s6 or any of the other bills that come from the senate over here uh or i suppose if there was a background check bill that was taken up here that we'll have you back to talk about that specifically okay um as far as 221 we along with the federation and all the other firearms groups in this state fully support it as long as it's not changed no amendments no anything let it come into this body say hey we can do this everybody wants it and i mean everybody wants it pro and anti-gun alike this is going to do something it's not everything i wanted it's not everything anyone wanted um i would like to say though part of it because of a law that came through here a couple years ago we now have our vermont gun shop project which i am a proud worker in our group gun owners vermont uh have gone beyond just handing out flyers we are taking the gatekeeper courses and we're we've actually saved four people since that bill was passed from suicide when we talk about that death by suicide and they're trying to prevent it and you can check this with the department of health and the center for learning down in braddleboro we are our co-workers in this the last thing you want to do is make it seem like they're going to get their guns taken away the big reason for that and don't believe me check with them is because of the simple reason that if people are afraid they're going to lose their rights they are not going to see treatment so be very very careful with that in any bill okay thank you very much and as i said we will i'll make sure we have time to hear from mr. use before we come here from augern so thank you can we mr. color so a couple of our committee members have questions i would like to ask you um no that's my fault i'm trying to make sure we get everything in here but that's clear the no that's i don't have to remember i have a question no thank you um i i did have a question though because again loose right now our discussion has been on 221 but then we did have pessemon earlier today um actually brought by um the i believe it's the ad office but of a potential um work around with the due process concerns of 422 um specifically with respect because again the argument being that that you know 421 isn't talking about let's say a criminal situation where the 422 is but the concern of also taking the gums out adequate due process and so what what what was prospered in was to immediately cite the person so the very next court day they can be in there to basically have a hearing on whether or not was valid to take the gun with the first place first off have you have you heard have you heard about that that concept and if you right now if you have any opinions on whether anything that is you're capable yeah absolutely the funny thing is is you know we have actually we have a lot of officers in our organization and i talked to them i talked to everybody the phone never stops ringing they already have the authority in a truly violent situation and part of what i always advocate is if a person is truly violent and i mean violent not a shouting match they ought to be in jail um you don't need to have to do it you know everybody is talking about the fair haven't said you know we have an incident in florida and we have an incident in faraday they dropped the ball in florida the fbr had local pd and hats off to them from my pd did their job and they did it right with the existing law in an abusive situation yeah it's up to the cop and if a cop sees somebody getting beat up at least in promont they're going to do their job i completely trust those people so i mean 720 uh 221 is is something that we can all live it's something that actually works and it does so constitutionally and it does it to the highest standard of law and especially with the constitutional right it should never go below the highest standard of law good afternoon good afternoon for the record i am evan hughes vice president vermont federation of sportsmen's clubs the federation is the oldest and largest sportsman's organization of vermont we have 50 member clubs throughout the state if there's a fishing gaming club near where you live it's almost certainly one of our clubs the federation support says 221 as it passed out of the senate judiciary committee and just passed over on the senate floor on a second reading um when s221 first was introduced we we identified certain problems with the bills with the bill and um we worked with the senate judiciary committee on correcting those efficiencies as we saw them is the bill everything we wanted no but legislation is but we think it addresses a danger and an issue of danger in the state we don't look at it as a gun control bill we look at it as a public safety bill um i was a police officer in barrington and i dealt with violent situations one of the things that makes s221 so attractive is it isn't limited to just one type of crime and encompasses all crimes it's more comprehensive than other bills that i've i've seen um and to the question of what a police officer encounters when they when they went into a situation and what can they do many is the time i've gone into because i was generally assigned to be here at the old morten at burrowing um there were quite a few bar bites and family disputes that i was to which i was assigned and what a police officer can do when they get there is they assess the situation and determine if there's sufficient probable cause to make an arrest and if there is they have a choice to make arrest or release one of the criteria for affecting a physical arrest as opposed to issuing the citation is continuation of the crime it's difficult to imagine that any police officer would seek to pursue an order to take firearms and leave a violent perpetrator there when continuation of the crime is a serious threat such as is the case in being sought in other bills what a police officer would do is first off they'll immediately secure any any weapons that they see and then they will proceed to do with whatever they're going to do about affecting arrest or or site and release to leave a violent person who's a threat of continuation there there simply makes no sense that a police officer would do that so the police officer decides continuation of the crime is as a factor they affect their arrest then the case in brunckton we took them to the police station we processed them we took the photograph we ran a criminal record check on them we had another decision this is to make lodge or site and release if continuation of the crime was an issue one of the criteria for incarcerating on a lodge basis in this day remark is continuation of the crime you simply can't release somebody who's going to continue to commit the crime for which you affected an arrest so they would be lodged at the correctional center in south brunckton and then they would be arraigned and at the arraignment they're read the charges they're read their rights an anorak plea the judge has a decision to make remand pretrial or release and if they choose to release there's a set of conditions they use and one of those is they've got a whole sheet and some of those are no no weapons no firearms no drinking no but if continuation of the crime is an issue it's going to be pretrial remand and not release if they are released on pretrial status and they violate those terms they've now committed contempt to court and they're back and they're just looking at them again with the same criteria of releasing and when they've already proven that they'll finally there are avenues that exist already for law enforcement and the courts and pros prosecutors to use and dealing with crimes it's been done for many years and any law enforcement agency or prosecutor that allows somebody who's who's had sufficient probable cause determined that they have been are committing a crime when there's a threat of continuation of the crime would be absolutely derelict in their duties and they should be professionally held accountable for that decision so we looked at 221 and we said this is a this is a bill that we think works it deals with due process of law it deals with the capacity to deal with violent people who are a threat at at the time it brings in judicial officers not just law enforcement making a even though I was I was a police officer I'm rather biased and we knew all the answers drafting an order or petition is the work of an attorney not not the decision of the police officer so this is why the federation strongly supports s221 the bill was properly vetted everybody had a chance to come in and express their testimony on the bill and five judicial committee members with a lot of experience and one of them is an attorney with the help of legislative council achieved a bill that we think is quite vital we hope that the uh house judiciary committee supports the bill I don't I also like the law there's no gun laws at Vermont and I and I I strongly suggest anybody going to 13 vsa and look at in the look at the fourth section four thousand section of legislation there's guns on school property there's guns minors in possession of guns there's guns on school property there's 13 vsa section 4004 and guns on school property there's also a 16 vsa our education statue there's section 1166 and you hear all the time that there's no laws while anybody that knows how to pick up those green books and review statutes could find lots of laws there's a reckless endangerment including with the firearm there's a threatening violent behavior under 1020 1026 13 vsa 1026 subsection one was just a numerous numerous laws on dealing with violent behavior what we see 221 is doing is an extension it's an enhancement of the capability of law enforcement to tie into those existing statutes and it's been said previously law enforcement of Fairhaven and I one time was a kind of component so I had familiar area with Fairhaven area and we used to play those fairhaven high school kids at football too so I have an interest in protection of Fairhaven even though they didn't play football that far um don't tell that I said don't tell Bob how much I said that there is a question if I so so um set bill 221 uh you mentioned that uh as introduced there were some big issues that you had problems with and you managed to this process to give you change can you explain what those the big issues were the fact that it was a law enforcement officer okay but we thought it should be either a second either a state's attorney's deputy or somebody from the AG's office we also thought that the the burdens of proof were two then they didn't fit the aspect that this is an emergency bill we thought that for the ex parte order we finally ended up being preponderance of the evidence and let me explain preponderance of the evidence because like in a civil trial a sues b and all the all the plaintiff has to do is prove to a preponderance of the evidence that what they're asserting was the case that's any shipment 50.0001 wins 49.999 loses what's in a civil case where both sides are present and they're represented by counsel in this ex parte proceeding the defendant the respondent isn't present so obviously all the evidence that's being entered is going to be favorable to the person filing for the order we understood that as the bill was introduced it had seven days to file and as judge grierson related seven days wasn't wasn't sufficient it needed to go to 14 to be to be viable for the process and then for the preponderance of the evidence we wanted it to go to the state having to prove beyond to clear and convincing evidence this is this we're taking away somebody's personal property rights and I hear about the fourth amendment of them there's also the fifth amendment too due process falls under the fifth amendment certain seizures the court and there's a second amendment issue here too so there's there's lots of issues this is we see this as serious litigation which is why we want the attorney to be filing and now police officer and uh there were there were other things like we uh there were like nine conditions in the bill originally and some of some of them were like criminal record well it didn't specify recent criminal record nobody really has much consideration of somebody of the shoplifting conviction from 30 years ago to be considered in the in a valley waiting around their grant disorder and it should be violent crimes once again back to the shoplifting offense really shouldn't be a consideration but it's it's embarrassing for the responder um and and we had things like hearings limited to just one when it was for it was originally for a year and once again we went back to this is an emergency procedure there are opportunities under chapter 18 section 159 we title 18 chapter 159 for if this is a mental health issue to go through that process we just we like the the way 221 grand due process of law once it was worked to a same favorable state by our for our concerns and we thought it reached a it was a good tool for what where we wanted to go with uh preventing violence thank you so I need to very quickly I appreciate now I'm sure but I do want to ask a question because I you you you reference um um the other gun laws and specifically with respect to um so to weapons on school property thinking as I hand my sense again a lot of this is trying to think about what has been going on and so what might work you know to actually help help the situation and I so I asked for the book because I actually never had it had this case before so I was just kind of curious and so currently though under existing law um for for a thousand four year round there as well um B says no person shall only possess a firearm or dangerous or deadly weapon on a useful property with the intent to injure another person a person who violates this section shall in first events be imprisoned on more than two years or find out more than a thousand dollars which we know that's a misdemeanor would you would you object to that being a felony the law the law is fine as it is um I know about this law I help work on this law after after Columbine 2002 and uh it's consistent go up to the section above it for zero zero three and then that's just with this just normally possessing it is absolutely intent and it's one year and a thousand dollars so it's also a misdemeanor but that I went to the intent because I mean again and I'm not trying to argue on that though I think the intent thing that's trying to injure someone with a gun is then I would do that the separate section a separate bill not in 221 lead 221 oh I'm not saying what you're trying to you brought that up so I'm just trying to see um if we could if that's some kind of issue that you think that elixir coalition would would be able to we would really need to look at that at one of our Federation meetings to discuss but we don't we would we would consider it right thanks for the record I'm Auburn watersong and the policy director of the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence thank you for coming here today um to comment on s221 the network um strongly supports the goal of providing law enforcement with the tools necessary to potentially prevent another senseless death the main focus of our organization as you know is to ensure that the laws protect victims of domestic and sexual violence here in Vermont from 1994 to 2016 nearly three out of every five domestic violence related homicide and 78 percent of the suicides associated with these homicides were committed with firearms our member programs are well aware that the presence of firearms in a household where there is domestic violence increases the risk that the victim will be killed fivefold at the public hearing last month's on firearms this senate judiciary committee had the opportunity to hear from survivors whose loved ones were killed in domestic violence related homicides involving firearms and you also took some testimony in 422 um from I think you remember Stella gravel talking about ronda gray and some other um written testimonies that were read aloud um since 1994 there have been 80 domestic violence related fatalities that were committed with firearms in Vermont and as you are aware the past eight years of mass shootings in the united states has that that eight year trend has also revealed a common thread and that is domestic violence in 54 percent of the mass shootings of those attacks the perpetrator targeted either a family member or an intimate partner so there is a connection for all of these reasons the network maintains that law enforcement should also be allowed the ability to remove firearms at the earliest possible moment in an abusive household immediately following an arrest or citation at the scene of the assault while we support the intent of s221 we would like to offer the following suggestions to increase the protection of victims of domestic and sexual violence first of all thank you for your really amazing work last session on h422 and we support your continued effort to provide law enforcement with the tools designed in h422 which allow law enforcement to remove firearms at what is the most dangerous time for victim and the victims children we feel that h422 more directly addresses that immediate safety need for domestic violence victims and their families we also want to point out that current federal law title 18 prohibits the receipt or possession of firearms by anyone subject to domestic violence protection orders and while it is often current practice in vermont courts to do so there's no such language in our current state statutes the network would recommend that we consider codifying in vermont's current relief from abuse order statutes in 15 vsa and 1103 and 1104 the practice of removing firearms at those times now for 221 i know there's been some conversation about burden of proof and there's also been conversation about how this relates to the relief from abuse order process i'm not as familiar with the arrest prevention orders as i am with release from abuse orders in vermont so i thought i would just share with you where we see the differences here so the x partially in s221 right now the standard is preponderance of the evidence which i think you heard and i think you are familiar now with what that means in the rfa x party order the way our statute reads is that the x party might maybe issued without notice to the defendant because that's the that's what an emergency order is upon motion and findings by the court that the defendant has abused the plaintiff or the plaintiff's children or both then the final order that you have in 221 is by clear and convincing evidence the final order in an rfa process is preponderance of the evidence so i just want to point out those differences to you and the reason why we have the standards we have them in the rfa process really is to make sure that it's a it's a standard that will allow us to get at those very dangerous very dangerous moments and be able to make sure that we're not burdened with such a high standard that we can't protect victims and their children so that's that's why we have those standards in the rfa process then i just want to add that um in 221 you have 60 days for the final order and in the rfa process it's um there's like a custom if you will of of that being a year but the way the statute reads is it allows the judicial discretion so um right now uh 15 1104 reads relief shall be granted for a fixed period at the expiration of which time the court may extend the order upon motion of the plaintiff for such additional time as it deems necessary to protect the plaintiff the children or both from abuse so that's a wide open door of judicial discretion we found that um that that in general works for our victims victims can go back and get extensions as they need to and and i think you heard kara testify yesterday that the customarily it's it's a year usually for a final order um i did want to point out something which i pointed out in my testimony in 221 um and i think i've probably said here before which is there's an element um that's available in in 221 which allows for real English matter firearms to the third party and i think i've said this year before that that's somewhat problematic for victims as it stands already i mean that's current statute um so i don't it's you know policy decision whether you want to dig into that or not but i did want to highlight that um the language in 221 um uh that suggests that a third party will be uh an option for storing the firearms has been problematic in the rfa process and when that is used um oftentimes what we find are advocates working more intentionally with victims at that time because victims aren't aren't feeling necessarily as protected if the third party is a family member of the perpetrator or something like that um even with an application process it still feels it can still feel really scary to the victim and so we've had to do a lot of safety planning with victims where the third party is is the option that's chosen for firearms so i just wanted to point that out there as sort of a a weak link in the current process too which is actually being reiterated in 221 um so beyond that what i want to um there are a couple things that i i just want to leave you with um around the need that we feel is still existent in 422 one thing 422 as you know is a criminal process and not a civil process it's also answering um the fact that an event has already occurred so it's not a predictive process it's something that a domestic assault has occurred there's probable cause to believe it has occurred and therefore um because we know how lethal firearms are in these situations data has shown us that then the law enforcement need to have the ability to seize those firearms um so that for us is is the is really the critical difference you should also know that 18 other states if you remember this from our my testimony 18 other states have 422 right now only four other states but maybe five states excuse me have 221 but um Indiana, Connecticut and California they all have both 221 and 422 so i just want to point that out to you because i think they do do two different things um and and both of them will be helpful going forward with unissues of gun safety and for more Indiana, Connecticut and California um and then lastly i know there's been some conversations about when things get really dangerous there should be an arrest happening and um i just wanted to tell you as a practice in domestic violence cases law enforcement around the state the reality is that arrests and citations happen um and citations excuse me can leave someone without um a process for up to two or three weeks without an arraignment process but what i really want to point out to you is there's this uh idea going around that if a domestic assault is a very dangerous situation then then there's going to be an arrest and this person's going to be taken away and i have um posted i sent it to mike hopefully he's posted it for you um it's uh research from the crime research group um that uh was collected and this was and i just want to caveat this it's it's old in the sense that it was collected in 2012 i wish we could get more current than that but um for a number of data problem reasons we can't our law enforcement are not all sharing the same database anymore um so that's been problematic but for um before 2012 if you look at the crg report um and uh if you can look at page 10 chart 10 and i will tell you that how many years this covers though bear with me a second it's kind of a little a while since i looked at this um but if you look at chart 10 on page 10 you'll see um okay hang on one second i'm just gonna this is a period of 2003 through the second calendar quarter of 2011 okay so i wanted to say that um and then let's go down to page 10 um chart 10 and you will see just as an example um and this is just by way of just like making sure that that you have a clear picture on how domestic violence is handled on the scene there are arrests there are arrests without warrant and there are citations and i think whenever i know when i saw this chart i was a certain somewhat alarmed at the number of citations and um and i think i i just i point that out to you because i really want to stress that what you did with 422 it was really addressing that situation when there is a citation and there needs to be immediate seizure and um and um and you you listen to that when you pass that bill out the first time and so i just wanted to share that just a quick question so so since 2012 um do you have any reason to believe that there are more or fewer citations or arrests i don't have any reason to believe it has changed but i would just defer that to like law enforcement on the ground i don't know if other people in the room might have more information on that um but um to the best of my knowledge no i don't think any practices have changed that i that i've been made aware of in any way and also i would just say to you that the crime research group is much better able to talk to you about this data than i am so i'm like i've tried to talk to them about it before but if you are ever interested in more detail that they would be the ones to bring okay thanks over um we've been listening to the past couple of days is that there was a coalition of all of these different groups that came together and supported as to why made changes that passed the senate judiciary and everybody was on the same page um it sounds just from the testimony we've has not perfect but a couple of things that probably should have been included maybe but the question i have is that this includes you and carers group as well as all these other firearms people but did you support it or not i mean is that an accurate description and if so why do you have this discussion now there's all kinds of rumors floating around what's going to happen to this the senate just passed it for the other nothing yeah yeah so give me a little more background on what's changed yeah yeah no um so has it changed yeah it really has i mean this is pretty much my same testimony that i gave in 221 i talked about the need for 422 um i i don't know about this coalition you're referring to i was never engaged in the um drafting of 221 i just came in and testified about what our concerns were um i talked about again like about what the rfa process looks like to because i heard that senator sears was saying that uh his intention was to mirror some of that procedure um and um and i really held to the fact that you know this could be another tool in the toolbox at the time for law enforcement officers when i was the draft that i commented on was the draft is introduced um i didn't have the later draft in front of me so i was commenting on okay here's here's another tool for law enforcement 221 and we still need 422 as an as another tool for law enforcement um i you know the network sees 221 as a potentially helpful tool when it comes to the possibility of the predictability or preventability of a mass shooting or suicide it doesn't do all that we need to have done for domestic violence victims and i think i'm pretty much consistently said that on the other side that i'm saying now so so were you so so were you part of this coalition because it's being said that you i don't even know what coalition i'm talking about because i i mean i wasn't you know i was wasn't engaged by anyone to like co-create anything for 221 for part of any discussions of anybody down there in the senate judiciary uh in the senate judiciary means judiciary coming to me about like drafting or something no i mean to talk about the bill i testified i testified and i you know like we talked with other witnesses about processes you know what it means and no offline discussions with senator sears about 221 yes i don't i'm trying to think i don't think i did i'm like let me just offline what i mean yeah what do you like out in the hallways like you know we're always you know what i'm talking about because you know you go out there with people i go out there with people yeah i'm just trying to figure out again here it's really i'm just trying to figure out you have to get these folks here i've had we've heard other people thought about some coalition got together and talked about this i'm trying to figure out who all these people are yeah yeah i mean i i've had conversations with senator sears about 221 but i was not engaged in any kind of coalition or you know stakeholders yeah no groove or it's just been you know talking and then testifying the normal process yeah yeah can i try to yeah care fits in for my center for private services i mean that um i i just have to echo again um the senator was certainly not engaged in any sort of stakeholder group that gave a sign off to the final version of 221 and the opportunity that i had to testify on the bill was um all that was uh sort of public and released was the as um introduced version and what i what's on the record is i understand that there are other people who are talking about a new draft i'm not included in that i can talk about concepts that i think might appear in that new draft because i've had conversations with the state's attorneys about what might be in that new draft but i would not report i will not sign off that i was on part of any sort of coalition that said that 221 accomplished wouldn't need to accomplish right and me neither if there were i mean whatever if this were sort of a work group that the senate judiciary asked for would that fall under like would there be minutes or notes or anything that okay it's definitely i didn't mean to represent in any way that any any of the statements or or positions of of either kara or or water summer earlier when i spoke um but they were engaged they were in the room they testified as she said there were changes made that were partly at least prompted by some of her testimony in ours but that's just the normal process so i just want to clarify that i didn't mean to infer coalition consensus is probably a better word of the groups that i listed earlier including uncents and senator shears can verify whoever had signed off and he did ask around the room to all of us are you on board with this we're ready to vote with and he checked in so consensus i'm sorry for if you're misunderstanding yeah i'd like to follow up i was certainly not in the room and asked if i agree with the bill as passed and if that happened i was not there and um would that the senator would would not have done that because based on our testimony as this body heard yesterday we do have some problems with 221 and i don't remember being asked that and and and consenting in any way either so all right so um i'm just so michella's still another she's gonna come she's on her way senator's broke and i did i told him come here all right um so that's um this is completed our our testimony on 221 with that and everyone's show is going to let me talk to us about senate bill let's take a quick look at my understanding was that you testified yesterday right i know you still on our list but yeah i'm just here to see what's going on i got another pattern for and then at 430 so if you need anything more for me i'm available okay the flashlight yeah yeah all right so let's just take a really quick so committee as i said earlier and i'll they'll say again now that we're all here um it's it's important for us to to work on 221 to work on these issues i know we don't have it now but it's not unusual for you know to work on things that we don't have and to um and to take a position and i think even the urgency and even what the governor has asked us to do i think it's important to um to get up to 221 and and then at the same time i've spoken with the senator's years basically we're both bodies are moving in sort of parallel directions that will both be sending each other similar bills and i'm hearing that they will be looking at 422 hopefully but i think you know i think it's important for both bodies to make a commitment to to be giving this attention and to um also to have a have a good discussion on the house floor before we go home for town meeting because i'm hearing that that's that's important for for members as well so um that is why i've asked michelle to come talk to us about the senate bill or did you want to say it's just curious what the time frame looks like then if we're having that conversation well i'd like to vote today the governor once i don't think we're going to make this i don't think everybody's going to get something on this just for the town meeting day unless we have rules suspensions i've heard that you know that parties would like to cooperate and work towards a suspension but i so we do our work in here and that you know those are for other folks to meet your other rules suspensions so that's what i think myself i would like to see the senate bill stay as it is and there's a lot of work done out of over there and one of the big reasons is is that many times on the house floor on a bill that really isn't necessary to have a roll call vote that sometimes we'll do a roll call vote to send a message to the senate to show a strong strong belief in the house and we have never had it since i've been here a whatever to zero vote on anything on the house floor and on something that we want to send a strong message and the senate has certainly sent us a very strong message at 30 to nothing and on 221 and i have also heard that senator sears has made you know with quotations the promise to take up 422 um actually we're discussing now or no but no so let's um let's take up this bill and then let michelle go we can discuss your stuff very soon because this is going to be a much shorter walk than ever um so for the record this is michelle child's office of legislator's council and we're looking at s 267 and it's an accurate to timing of a decree nai sign and divorce proceeding so a decree nai sign is essentially it's a court order that does not take a fact or have any force until a particular condition is met and with respect to divorces when a when a divorce decree is issued it's a decree nai sign until the expiration of three months and then basically that's so that you kind of have some time to sit with it uh unless uh so people want to change their minds and so um so that they so upon the expiration of three months then the divorce is final um and the the only change that s 267 makes is if you look at section one then the language on uh line um four lines 14 and 15 is right now it talks about that um the order becomes final at the expiration of three months and the the senate bill changes that to 90 days and that's it's like a day's a day's that it wasn't so much of that but and i think her representative i mean the senator florie can talk to you about why but i think in her practice she had experience well some days some months have 28 days other months have 30 or 31 and um i think in her practice she had experienced something where there was some vagueness with regard to when it was going to because you can't get remarried until your divorce is final i think maybe she had some experience in her practice where um because there was a little bit of lack of clarity with around the three months period that she thought it would be better to go for for days strange days and because you don't have to do this when you're talking about i think over a certain time period just a day is a day is a day so 90 days you don't have to worry about saturday some days what days those types of things and um and i um asked myself to pull up the witness list instead of a new writ probably so yes i think uh yeah so i'm curious if um there's sort of a norm of how how long these periods are like either insure themselves uh model rules nationally but whatever states like were we at a pretty long time period and now we're trying to sort of true up with the rest of the nation or anything uh i did not look at the other state because the the request as i came in was just changing it from three months to 90 days right right that's yeah that's true they're really didn't really i think senate didn't really look at it as much of a substance of change as of just the language you know to make it a little clearer for people to administer it's all i got great okay i think that was a very first point we got actually um yes i think it was the senate i think it was an indigenous first practice billionaire though everybody likes to start off with something fairly straightforward a little easy so great okay great thank you so is so is it still available or not so so now it's you know the time to talk about um about 221 i understand and i have heard that keep it the way it is and i understand it was a you know i'm a supporter frankly i don't think i would have expected anything but a unanimous vote out of the senate um that being said i thought the testimony that that we heard was was very compelling um in terms of the burden of proof um to to change um 221 the um the we're going 60 days and you know going back to a year and so i think those are those are the changes that um that i would like to have seen i i know there was discussion about possibly putting um a procedure in there for removal of the weapons um not like to do that at this point um in terms of switching with the burden you know with your testimony back that um but i'd like to i know that that um was important to senator benning so i'd like to just keep that as is and again this will go over to the senate we'll have theirs um and there are there have been some concerns um expressed about 422 and senator sears asked us if we could address the citation issue um and so the states attorneys have some some language that would would address that um and so i think that would be i think that would be helpful um so that's okay um so i know eric is working on some language that i'm not sure which is not here i just email them you email okay well we might have it from from my brother they're not sure so um um all right so then why don't we since we don't have anything yet from eric do we want to go but let's go do let's go to the 221 s pass and judiciary and that way we can we can mark it up so that we can get on your mark and martin you might be following it if you have it as well yeah i think i have uh what eric's working on it right so would there be a pass on the uh what we're just doing as the 2.1 the draft number yeah so i think i think these are the the changes that eric is working on but uh starting on each i'm not going to have all of them i'll give you a blanket change uh for the 453 petition for extreme risk protection order uh changing parent convincing evidence to preponderance and i did it on page three line three yeah i see page three line three is one place but four and so um so okay so this is the this is the this is the final i got the expert team right right that's the final on page two and three okay um i guess we could just go page by page page by page yeah also on page three line 12 and 13 could you uh go over that one more time what's your uh page three or line three i've got that i've got it clear in convincing evidence what do you want to change change the preponderance of the evidence um on that page in line 12 and 13 that sense should be by his or her threats or actions as he i'm sorry wait by his or her action or threats or actions a reasonable person would fear physical harm to themselves uh there is still a question that i don't know if uh eric was addressing on consistency of bodily harm physical harm and serious bodily harm there's three different this was taken from the mental health there was a suggestion yeah the judge so i saying that that this is taken from the mental health so this is exist for the most part except for that term intended right which is on line 12 right so bodily physical and serious bodily is i believe so yeah so so he's taking out intended right right he's striking the respond has intended to place others and reasonable and and uh essentially replacing that whole sentence with by his or her threats or actions a reasonable person would fear physical harm to themselves and does it have to be themselves or like should it be like what if it's their children are there can you say that okay i'm not letting you care just slow it down martin sure sure the next one says well i don't want to change let me say that again sure uh by his or her threats or actions then there's new language a reasonable person would you strike the respond that has intended to place others and reasonable strike all that fear strike of physical harm to themselves you know leave the ordering because it is consistent with mental health on page four page four line 11 strike clear and convincing and strike at the time of the hearing uh replace clear and convincing with uh preponderance of the evidence so it would be the court shall grant the petition and issue an extreme risk protection order if it finds by preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses in extreme risk dot dot dot what was the argument originally at the time of the hearing if anybody remembers something about the things that have changed over time and that was the well i think it's down yeah i think part of part of the area well there's i think there even was a little ambiguity because you thought it was a different time than some of the else but but i think the key point is that what has to be shown is extreme risk yeah this extreme risk is kind of looking at a future point you know based on the situation that they're looking at at the hearing and whatever evidence is the fact that they're looking at extreme risk it's it's really even surplusage to have at the time of the hearing if anything that that's confusion so that i think that was but he had a reason there was a reason why it was so that way i don't say that um they thought that that standard at the time of the hearing at a level difficulty to address the so the emergency relief temporary temporary x party order page seven i think it's the next place and it's my understanding on line 18 changing preponderance of the evidence to probable cause at least that's what he was going to be putting in where are you at no i'm sorry i'm sorry page seven line 18 i want to make sure i'm not missing which if i can stop there though again i thought the the testimony though got at least from one of the uh federal states attorneys or the ag that you know but probable cause is more criminal in nature not civil so they they support the consistency of preponderance throughout but then i think it was pointed out that a couple places in in civil um mental health mental health and uh so i think the removal of child from home it's a it's a probable cause standard uh i can give you i can give you the site too for that right there's also testimony that law enforcement they're familiar with what that looks like you know it's uh emergency removal for a chance 33 bsa 5302 is a probable cause standard for instance that's a civil action i think to my recollection of this date of john campbell's testimony of that they wouldn't object to probable cause there they just yeah that's page eight on line eight nine is the same change that was for page three one 12 13 same change on page eight line eight nine so page eight not taking an antenna okay yeah that's that we'll be changing for the other language marvin can you can you read the way that uh it's lines nine sure h8 we'll read now yeah uh by his or her threats or actions a reasonable person would fear physical harm to themselves 14 days so on page 12 19 changing that to burn approved by the hundreds of the evidence these 12 what line line 19 thank you personally wanted to shift the burden on that but uh uh yes yes hundreds uh i'm trying to get more of the date is uh actually i probably missed the changing this did i miss this change the 60 days to change it to a year and i missed that change the next page 60 days but is it also on i apologize and eric's on his on his way in the voices that let's you go i'm just double checking the 60 days is um yeah yeah just on page 13 so so that would be uh i'm going to motion review with extreme risk protection where that's line 14 page 13 and page yeah and line is up to so up to one year is that 60 days yeah that was i may be missing another place where it says one year there eric's on his way in health and also line 14 and 15 is the clear and convincing evidence changing that to hundreds why are we changing it from 60 days where we're making that into those days plus another six another another year up to one up to one year that consists of well yeah excuse me for rfa and that also has what it was that you have so it's no no no it's just it's up to you it is up to three right now we're taking out the 60 and it's up to it's up to a year yeah yeah yeah i think the question is part of the question is it is the extension of the upright yeah extension would be for up to one year i mean you could have one year lapse and then you can try to seek for another year correct what's what's the um the standard for the emergency um the temporary um rfa is is it is it just is it just uh reasonable down or is it also preponderance and evidence so are you asking for the emergency or for the yeah the emergency because again i'm talking about the emergency for um a relief from abuse i believe is upon motion and finding by the court right so it's really so it's different and then the final can we ask the judge sure yeah so how does it prove before you ran in my emergency sure my basis for it so it would be by hundreds it would be by hundreds so yeah i mean sorry we're probably consistent with the rfa's then i think the emergency shouldn't be reasonable down here it should be preponderance i mean i mean i just we either do it all the same or we shouldn't figure back from different things i think i i think that was all of them was that mean that you're talking about page seven where we change preponderance to probably cross 118 yeah so it's the same because again if we're talking if the intent is kind of near this most like the standards of proof to an rfa proceeding that even burns that temporary order is by preponderance so this would lower than what it is for an rfa so then the other ones that we're taking from clearance and that same those are all those are so they're all they're all preponderance and i know the final ones i didn't know what because i didn't know the analysis according to the temporary really in the least apparently what we're going to see is not going to be the okay so that's pretty sure that's all but we haven't yet we have though we had our area um are you good okay sir so thank you for being in any places you're welcome thank you so it's a lot of fun this afternoon for in all places as you know so my understanding is that you can send us the changes more and just walk through them as well as i could remember oh good well i don't know that there i wouldn't be surprised if i forgot who i'm here in there so so do we so we do have them do you have a version of them a version that you yes so yes so i so i sent it to mike and so me he may have already uploaded it to your your website so it would be a house fishery community strike all 404 p.m the only thing okay can i ask question i think i know the answer but i um we were talking about version um 2.1 and we were on page 7 online 18 changing preponderance uh to probable cause and i'm just uh it's i have in my notes probable cause typically is something we link in criminal but then in title 18 dealing with mental health which term is it that we use in title 18 uh the probable cause is used in for mental health proceedings and also for it's also somewhat similar to ideas you've sort of been discussing in here the initial warrants uh to take custody of a person and to make initial finding that someone is the person need of treatment under title 18 are probable cause but then at the final hearing it's clear and convincing in order to determine that somebody has to be committed for a longer period of time yes that's the so the mental health statute to use the probable cause initially clear and convincing at the final so however we already may have found something on which maybe i misunderstood this draft had has clear and convincing at both do you want our probable cause initially well that's what we're talking about that's what we're talking about now so whether it's probable cause or oh you're still in discussing the issue um but we definitely didn't want their convincing oh i'm sorry i'm in spoke i meant preponderance at both yeah is what's in this draft all it is yes right right so the um so in terms of how this um the thinking of of um 221 in the senate we're hearing that it was um crafted after our face but then also crafted after the mental health is it sort of taken from from both yeah i think that's fair because because then it makes it you know on the one hand mental health has probable cause but then our fate has preponderance right it's right i think i think it's accurate to say that they were they had in mind both procedures uh they also had in mind uh what other states had done uh you know and which also is not any one answer in the sense that yeah as you think you've seen in the discussion here there's different uses of probable cause preponderance clear and convincing and so um all of those options we're percolating kind of the same way it is in here right now then another question on page four this is again a 2.1 line 11 at the time of the hearing language i think we um i don't really talk to you about that am i are you taking that out or you have that that struck yeah i think we're going to get the help here can i ask eric i'm just going to put question this um uh draft 2.1 of s 2021 right is that the one that that actually passed the on the floor of the senate today this is proposing to amend that yes although there is one small change that was made on the floor that would not be reflected in this one i should say uh is proposed to be made on the floor tomorrow obviously hasn't been made yet so you should be looking now what is 1.1 right so so on page three on line three i think we were planning at least for discussion purposes uh changing career and convincing hundreds of you know what's funny about that literally within the last 15 minutes i was like i feel like i'm missing one instance of changing career and convincing that the ponders and i kept going through and i couldn't find it so thank you hopefully that's the only one but yes that should also be so on if i if i may maybe on on page 12 then i mean sorry on page three line 12 yeah um um there's less wordsmithing that that that you had done than what um was reflected from martin however um what marna suggested was by by his her act uh threshold actions a reasonable person would fear physical harm to themselves you don't you don't provide the reasonable person standard in this one is just the respondent has placed does that change the this bill in any one like if whether or not you were silent on reasonable person standard or not silent on reasonable person standard i read that as the reasonable person standard line 13 it's it's different words but the same thing the reasonable fear of physical harm means they're a reasonable person would experience the fear of physical harm so i think it's two different ways of getting at the same point and again i'm just the zero i'd like to only get no i'm glad to be asked the question yours was much nicer i can't take credit for it that's exactly how it appears in title 18 is actually where the language comes from but but i copied it accurately so uh do do you want to kind of just go through where the around the versions you have are there highlights what you just mentioned for example represent joe like was that highlighted that language in line 12 so you could see it yeah okay okay great so uh that the first change that was just being noted was that uh the the intended to language which is interesting as i say without the language so in other words as you see it in front of you with the intended to struck it actually is identical to uh the definition of um of uh how you show danger in the mental health commitment statute the the judiciary committee downstairs had made a slight tweak to that by adding in the intended to language so if you take it out you actually go back to the the wording that is verbatim what's in title 18 does that make sense all right so that's why intended to is struck there so what if we go over to page four now this is again going to the standard of review and this is the final hearing remember uh this is the the one that takes place after notice to the respondent with an opportunity heard and so here you do a couple of things in lines 11 and 12 on page four one is as you were just discussing the standard is going to preponderance in all instances uh and then you also struck the language sort of lines 11 to 12 which was providing that the preponderance has to be shown at the time of the hearing i think there was concern about whether that might be too limiting um there's also i think some discussion earlier that even without the language there's a finding that the respondent poses an extreme risk obviously still has to make be made you know at that time and that you know it's not a finding that the person posed past tense an extreme risk five days ago so i think that was thinking as to why you're removing that language see that further down the page one year on page seven that's right submitted right yeah just being clear that the motion is being submitted i think uh right exactly um page eight you'll see again the intended to language struck and i just flagged on page seven on line 18 if we're still considering whether preponderance of the evidence there should be changed the problem of cause line 18 you think yeah yeah still thinking about that yeah the one we just discussed yeah that's all we just discussed it just wasn't it just preponderance uh it is preponderance in the rfa troop and again i think it's trying to be consistent with two different laws that makes it a little tricky but i guess to be clear it seems like we have decided on everything right now to make it consistent with the rfa that would be really i think about the only difference now this one with respect to the standards of proof is what i'm saying if they're they're all with and the amount of timing are are now except for that one piece so well right now it's all the same but perhaps in that they would all be consistent with the rfa it's not really a hodgepodge anymore uh so noting that uh that issue on page eight we just thought page seven of the page eight we just saw the intended to change it didn't go some time until uh the termination and renewal motion this is over on page 12 remember there's an opportunity for the person who stuck it to the order to file a motion to terminate it as well as an opportunity for the state to file an opportunity to renew so this makes clear again that the um if there is a motion to terminate made by the person who owns the weapons uh then the state has the burden of proof you kept that piece but had to make it consistent with the rest of it the burden of proof is shifted to clear sorry the preponderance from clear and convincing you see that twice on page 12 again you see this twice on page 13 remember the same way that the that the final order initially is uh one year has moved from 60 days to one year's proposal if it's renewed it would also be for a period of up to one year so we're back to page 12 yeah 21 I think you have to add evidence after the project so yes thank you the evidence yeah exactly uh yeah I think that's it till the very end um and this is a provision that I think the AG office in particular was asking for to make it clear that and it's not not uncommon in the statutes and you know to see an effect on other laws section when the legislature wants to make clear that what you're doing here shouldn't be having an effect on what you're doing in other places with the law providing other places so um seems like a good addition just be clear that this chapter shall not be construed to prevent a court from prohibiting person from possessing firearms and it's the other provision of law actually I wanted to be able back to page 13 yep uh line 15 that's very clear and convincing that should be changed with the preponderance okay yes thank you so are you going to add yeah okay let's go for the what line is on 15 on page 13 so the way we have so the way it's strapped and now it's preponderance also unlike nice caves thank you I think so thank you so I think there's not really many improvements but I think respond to the testimony that we heard from the governor's office from the secretary's really from many instances yesterday and today and so this would make a good bill even even stronger and more effective and motion to pass this piece is probably and I want to do it segment by segment maybe we want to get a clean copy though I mean just because we do we don't that this is there's still changes that need to be made okay yeah and I know so maybe we have to go so we can come back you think what 5 30 how long is your meeting of me here yeah I would say hopefully less than that but maybe the property will be back okay yeah I would like to have good person testifies to what these changes actually mean there's been people who say it's I mean I would like to ask them questions anyway if you like to well I'm over in the corner tired to get out of the room I will try to answer any questions I think all the changes that I've seen have been discussed certainly in this this committee and I will try to answer any questions you'd have for the record Brian Gray or some Chief Superior Judge she's trying to stump you well it wouldn't be the first person but go ahead okay thank you um when we change from Florentine Munson to preponderance and you know what impact does that have does that make it easier for the respondent to how does that work in terms of the real world well the standard uh by preponderance is less than clear and convincing so the burden therefore is less on the moving party meaning the state is filing the petitioner making the request request their burden to satisfy the court that the evidence meets that standard is less than it was clear and convincing preponderance as you know is just the slightest tip of the scale clear and convincing yes much higher standard so the impact is from the court's perspective the burden on the moving party is less meaning the court easier may not be the right word to use but because it's a lesser standard and less evidence to get to that level to meet that burden so so my hypothetical case of let's say a suicide or a person who is in danger of it's more the standard that we would look at is just preponderance is that it's more likely than not that the evidence satisfies us that this order isn't granted the person poses the risk to themselves or others however that's defined in the in the bill but essentially that's what we're looking at more likely than not clear and convincing is is a certain degree of probability as opposed to likely more likely so what would you need for clear and convincing as opposed to a lot more evidence and you can't quantify it by the amount of evidence it's the nature of the evidence it's presented so this bill in its present form does two things you've taken away the issue of intent first of all and by changing the standard you know the same evidence could be presented it may rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence it's not like we would say to the person there's here you're about to get more the evidence presented either meets that that burden and it's just the differences you're looking at the at the evidence through a different prison if you're trying to reach a higher standard or higher burden approved as opposed to the preponderance it's much different to look at evidence and say it's more likely than not this is going to happen as opposed to a certain degree of probability so your honor i'm just i i just want to make sure that i've got this crystal clear preponderance of the evidence when we're dealing with the state presenting the case they have a they have a i'm trying to make sure i have my verbiage right but they're they they don't have such a high bar to reach when it comes to if they let's say there's two cases the state's presenting both from preponderance versus clear and convincing the state with preponderance doesn't have as much evidence that they that they have to to to um to to give the courts am i correct in that or am i wrong i got this wrong you don't you don't have it wrong but it's hard to define that's why i was trying to use right verbiage that i don't have it's hard to define the quality or the quantum of evidence in other words i don't want someone to think that they're you can measure the amount of testimony or evidence that has to come in it's oftentimes the quality of the evidence that's presented that's that you have to make that it's really a weighing it's a balance that either the state has shown that it's more likely than not it's going to occur um and if you're looking at these situations is it just verbal threats is there some physical action that's taking place um you know a lot of history could come in as to what how the police got involved to begin with um and so you're looking at all of the evidence um and i can get to that more likely than not before i ever have to think about clear and convincing evidence okay can i give you an answer all the same well i think it's important for gary to understand i think this is the leading part okay so i i cut off jesson jesson isn't that a question well i just wanted to get for gary to understand this one issue that yeah how i'm going to be at the same meeting i know that's fine yeah i mean it's not the it's not the standards it's what you're trying to prove it's extreme risk you know you know i appreciate the balance you know why you see the scales and i think that's how we think of it so you know we only have the tips so slightly to one but the other piece judge i wanted to get maybe on the record too on on that burden though i think it's kind of important so you can see though too also prior to this change the burden even to remove oneself from that was also clear and convincing so i guess it does cut both ways now that that when someone's coming to try to actually you know the moving part trying to vacate the order still only has to do so by preponderance am i missing something there i'm not sure originally i believe the bill in matter fact the committee voted at one point clear and convincing evidence on both the initial hearing and the second in the final years they then within roughly 24 hours they took a re-vote and voted for preponderance at the initial hearing but kept clear and convincing at the end no i don't understand i had that final though when when you're moving to try you know you have the ability to try you know to petition the court to be able to be removed wasn't that one again i'm sorry the government the government still has the preponderance of the evidence uh the burden is not in the original uh or as it came out of senate judiciary the state had the burden on a renewal request clear and convincing you've changed that to preponderance if i've read all the corrections but aren't you able in that section also you have one to the petition the court to actually vacate the order uh or the the the uh respondent yes and i think that's where i'm at and i thought and maybe i'm wrong didn't the respondent have the burden we talked about that but it didn't change it is c but but is it still for is it not preponderance for them no it's preponderance for the government i mean the government's still there they don't have to they don't have the highest standard even if they request that still it's all under this it's all grabbed they still understand by their bond right no thank you thank you so if i understand i don't appreciate it because i don't understand that so if it's this will be a somewhat of a leading question i think the judge can go and see i'm sure everybody can know did you need to i do well it'd be very quickly the question isn't it isn't it what you're trying to prove is is as critical here that it's an extreme risk of of those consequences i mean it's not just preponderance of our verse clear and convincing it's this high element of proof that you have to be showing extreme yes the element proof comes in when you look at the definition of danger to themselves or others right in other words using the term extreme risk in and of itself doesn't mean anything you have to look at how we look at the definition right and so yes that's what we that's what the preponderance of evidence has to so it just can't be untied from what it is you're trying to prove no that's why that's why we worked on putting in the the mental health definition because number one it was there and it made sense in this context but it gives the court some frame of reference to make that determination of okay what is an extreme risk and it gives us some guidance as to what we can look for okay and what evidence comes in to support that those three or four prongs will vary from case to case but at least we know in defining risk of harm or danger that's the criteria we're going to know that's all right um i will say in passing the only thing you left out i think was the idea of filing with the um holding stations oh oh thank you thank you which you may want to think about on that note i will be looking at it at the point where the order has been issued and you're getting ready to have it served so at the time it's served on the individual it's also filed with the holding station i don't remember exactly where it is but that's the context in which you want to give me both the expert a final order well well yes yes all right yes because if there's a final order you'd want those entities to know about it. I put that one. Yeah. An error problem. Okay. Yes, we can see down there. Yeah, this is kind of an old question for anybody who was uh at the um in the senate while this was being debated but uh no just if anybody knew why the senate what went clear and convincing um there was very little i was there there was very little discussion on the floor and uh no i'm sorry it's just yeah um they thought that this you're depriving someone of a constitutional right and they thought that clear and convincing would be an appropriate standard and it's also the standard for a final hearing. Okay. It depends which which law you go through to as far as yeah which even every which choice is um i guess i don't have myself i don't have a big problem going for ponderance i realize it's well i guess you can say it's a lower standard but then again it depends on your opinion somebody else may look at it as a higher standard well it's definitely a lower standard and there's no no i mean it's a lower standard as far as the amount of evidence you need but you could it was like the judge yeah i mean sorry sorry i think i know it's always hard for no i'm not the lawyers and not the lawyers kind of but again i like how he said again again it's not it's not even like the amount of evidence it really goes back to weight that's why you always see those scales you know for like lawyers and on that stuff though doing okay he said that 51 to 49 but some of the thing you say it's 50 point oh one i mean only has to be the the most little one side so basically the court that's what they're doing you know both sides get to make their case and so by a preponderance you know if you if you're there you only have the tip so slightly by clear convincing it's you know it's not further and beyond a reasonable amount at least in our standard you know is the ultimate highest nothing point yeah and so i mean so i mean that that's the difference is basically how really much you the the the the side that has to make their case has to tip the scale right right i mean it's just going through my mind that this being a safety bill that um it would seem to err on the side of caution i guess and some questions around the wait i'm not sure i'm fine because if it's safety and we want to make sure that we that these orders are attainable that's why we i would suggest we drop it preponderance right right right okay i think that's what he was saying yeah yeah and yeah exactly yeah what was multitasking here yeah it's hard to keep up with how and by going to 60 days to 100 at that i'm not sure to a year a year i'm sorry a year a year i don't know why i wrote 100 down here but if we're going from 60 to a year at 60 days at the end of the 60 days could it be extended another 60 it could be um i think but then that it's up to 100 days so it may only be no one year one year one year i keep saying and and for what it's worth that was the one question raised on the floor did senator ingram stood up and asked about extending and the answer was it could be extended extended without an end was my take away right and that's true okay with the extension up to a year and i got at that time say if it was only extended uh it was extended to 60 days the end of the 60 days could it still be extended yes okay and and that would be the true for either of these you know each time it could be up to it was that up to 60 up to a year so when they extend they could extend for 60 days or they could extend for a year i mean it gives stuff more latitude how long the extension is and please write me if i'm wrong about that that's not my understanding it could be up to a year but it doesn't have to be a year right but it could be extended up to a year multiple times if necessary or that's the same thing with our series of 30 days yep okay so any other questions on that okay so eric is working on a new draft i have to go to a a meeting but do you want to continue to discuss um so then there's um so there's a rewrite to um 422 um we've heard concern that 422 um concerned about the citation part of it and um even though i heard testimony from the governor's office and she's office that 422 is fine as it as it even was introduced which is much broader and as it passed the house i know senator sears asked me to address the um the citation issue and um and so states attorneys um have a i think worked with the victims advocates and so there is a a draft here that believe us on our website and i don't know if eric are you prepared to to walk us through this or i guess i think it'd be better for the proponents okay okay so um i don't know if the three of you want to do it or have the view on that may i ask you so how i mean just how that work uh though because if if senator sears wants us to do that he has the bill why don't they concur with further amendment fix that and just give it back to us i don't mean that would be wonderful but that's okay so are we doing are we doing a new bill that's not 422 i'm just trying to figure out what is what we're doing so we're doing um well i'm proposing that we do um it'd be an amendment for 22 it's it's different but it would address the concerns yeah but but but we don't have it so how can we amend 422 that's what i don't understand well it's going to be so it's 422 in nature that's what it is a new bill that's okay okay sorry so it's 422 in nature we're not having any of the same numbers but it sends them something that addresses their concerns because again there's being told to act fast and to do something as quickly as possible so this way we're trying to i'm trying to address their concerns get them something they'll get us something um so that when we come back after a town meeting we can pick it up again and um and really good so we'll have to do that in the same session we are yep it's not we are and i check that out remember they were doing that with pot to us i mean the text in it to us so it's going to be the uh s267 that's why we heard from um michelle on the divorce me see but your question is so this is different we're not one thing yeah we're yeah we're not yeah and this is so this is different we're not we're not taking the exact bill you can't just take the exact bill that's so i mean you can change one word and that would well i you know what i could propose this to strip just to use the number but actually that little me see bill it's important to senator floyer i mean that's important but i don't know why we have to put it all in the same bill though i mean let's do three separate ones so at least that way everyone can you know we can we can you know those of us because i do i mean i say you know i think there's those of us that would like to that are really easier for us to get behind 221 except for 20 especially those that have already done the record against 422 you see what i'm saying and so well you might well once it well procedurally we we can't and i ask can we do two separate weeks we can't um why can't we because we don't unless we because we don't have another vehicle well we got we got stuff up there that we're not around touch huh i i hope to take up all those Senate bills you know at least in terms of so there's ways that you can explain anyway i think to go to my chair so so okay for the record james pepper department of states attorneys and sheriffs we're looking at an amendment uh to h422 it's not just at the top other than just 228 18 this is new language um and um i don't i don't see a much counsel yeah eric printed this off for us but um it contains a lot of the suggestions that both kara and the network and kara suggest so that's the cool the idea here to get back to the concept is um based on the testimony that um you heard today from the attorney general's office some of the other sort of situations that we've caught um that i think in some ways looking at 221 and help all the players involved to catch in terms of um the goal of this particular legislation these are some proposed changes that will help us accomplish that so page one you'll see that there are some highlighted sections those are the changes between the original page 422 has passed by the house they're highlighted they're highlighted great so page one they're highlighted no there's nothing highlighted no changes on page one moving to page two under section two you'll see that um eric added or routines an arrest warrant for that fixed um kind of a maybe an oversight where you know law enforcement officer would be allowed to seize weapons of someone if a person is arrested or cited but what about the situation where the the individual flees the see the scene and the officer's called in first for an arrest warrant it's been granted and then this would offer him the ability to seize weapons uh on the premises um for that situation and you know a warrant you know warrant for an arrest i think should be seen as the same as an arrest or a citation you know you have to meet the same standard for the burden of proof so um that was something that the attorney general picked up on and i think it makes a lot of sense for um so then overall okay and this is where we don't have the ledge council here and we don't have we don't have someone here who can bring you to this language on your screen um but you heard the attorney general testified today that um the attorney general's position was respect to the the basis for one of these orders should go back to the original language of um the as introduced version of 422 um in in order to best ensure first that we're going to cover um all of the weapons that we're concerned about here the firearms that we're concerned about but also in order to ensure the constitutionality and um so the attorney general's preferred um position in terms of um meeting all of those concerns was to go back to that original language it's difficult without it's not what's reflected it's not section two over here it's just subsection a but i can i can uh so what it would end up happening is that they wanted so sorry when you say go back to the language you mean the language that was in 422 as it was originally introduced introduced yeah and it sort of in terms of technical ability i can read it i can read that language thank you i can read it a lot as well but yeah oh sure so um so uh when a law enforcement officer um and again to conform to the ag there's a couple of small changes when a law enforcement officer arrests sites or obtains an arrest warrant for a person for domestic assault and violation of the sub chapter the officer and again to go back to policy this would be may confiscate any to go back to policy change decisions here firearm that is an immediate possession or control of the person being arrested or cited in plain view of the officer were discovered during a consensual search and so then that would replace the the a1 and a2 that are in the draft that you see in front of you and i don't have you should go on and talk about the person there and then so back to the the amendment that you have in front of you on page 2 section 2 sub b um this is the flash citation proposal um that it reads a person arrested or cited for domestic assault shall be arraigned on the next business day after the arrest is made or the citation is issued except for a good cause shown so that really is just if someone's been cited weapons have been removed that they will then appear in court in the next business day that person will um and then at that point they will be arraigned um and then a judge um so from moving on to the next section um page 3 at the very top so at arraignment the court shall issue a written order releasing any firearms removed pursuing to subsection a of this section and less and then you'll see all of those were in 422 um but i added uh sub d the court imposed a condition requiring the defendant not to possess a firearm so you know the process that i'm envisioning is that someone is cited firearms are removed they'll be in court the next business day and to be arraigned um the judge will return order issue a written order releasing the firearms unless they impose a condition that the um that the defendant not possess firearms that that's the uh that's the vision that's that's what i'm envisioning by this language i think that it that accomplishes that vision i think i put a copy on a hard copy in your desk or not a few more hard copies if you want but i don't think it's posted on our website so um and then so now i'm sure i have i suggest the language that creates a process for returning the firearms if the judge determines that uh that the person that the firearm should be released and in that instance um that's uh subsection two on page three um if the court under subdivision one of the subsection orders the release of a firearm removed under subsection a of this section the law enforcement agency in possession of the firearm shall make it available to the owner within three business days after received the written order and in a manner consistent with federal law so that's the process um contemplated in two twenty one when firearms are being returned that uh the law enforcement agency in possession will make it available uh after receiving the written order um so the law enforcement order officer doesn't have to return the gun in person you know track down the the individual they'll just make it available within three business days i think that's all the changes that are in this proposal so um let me just make sure i can walk through it so the probable cause uh the arresting or citing is the same but there's the addition of if an arrest warrant is put out for someone um but the probable cause standard is the same there right um if that happens um the law enforcement officer can remove weapons under the exceptions to the warrant as they were originally put in before the interview spirit before 22 right so the way the cells are enumerated is um so it's confiscate any firearm that is one in the immediate possession or control the people being arrested or cited two in the plain view of the officer or three discovered during a consensual search that's how it's just a different way of saying what is in here but um the attorney general's concern was that when you also include the um the language around getting a warrant what you're then suggesting is that the only guns that any of this pertains to are um firearms that this pertains to are um firearms that are evidence of crime right so if under one of those three um circumstances or you know any other possible incident to arrest or whatever that exists now but the weapons are or the firearms are removed um that person will be um arraigned in court the next day business day business day so if they're arraigned they're taken on Friday night it's gonna be my day right um but and that and arraignment um the court will either uh order that the guns that the weapon firearms are returned or um that they um well do they have to um do they have to have another order at that point to say whether or not they will be deleted or whether they will keep for a period so it's the way that this is written there's a presumption that they will be returned unless uh one of these um four situations will say abcd uh is is in play um and then so the the d is the one that i mean in many many domestic violence cases the condition 13 and finish on that possess or purchase firearms is imposed off you know all this doesn't matter of course um so i assume that that one will come into play and in that case uh the firearm um you know the order will be in place until the case is is adjudicated if it's dismissed then that conditional will go away and and the conditions of release are i mean we just passed or will pass on the possible track but uh six seven five yeah that's the same they order right and then the return is done the same way as in 241 that that's what i modeled that after you have the three days the within after receipt of the written order uh the law enforcement agency and possession will make it available see studio space of uh so yeah um where were you originally at five days did this change or am i confusing i'm not confused well it goes back to that that as a produced burden i was that like that's not your best uh some of the other things that we have at some periods way now this this change is the period to either between when they're arrested and the arraignment the court orders the firearms to be returned to arraignment then it could be an additional two days before the law enforcement agency is it common past practice remind me if it's common practice that a person arrested that they they're arraigned on the next business day if if they're being held then they have to be arraigned within 48 hours so that's different than next business day though isn't it right so the the next business day is addressing the cases that are cited out well no it's because it's like no it says a person arrested more so we'll see that i mean someone's arrested when they're put in handcuffs they may be cited afterwards so they may be arrested then cited and released so that's why we're just trying to make it comprehensive that you know it's either going to be next business day or 48 hours if you're being detained so yeah i guess that this kind of muddies that a little bit because if you're arrested and detained it's 48 hours if you're arrested should it be a person arrested and cited not arrested or cited i think that there probably are situations where people can be cited without being arrested well i mean i think that one should just drop the arrested or because it's the key point is that this is the situation where there's somebody who's been cited because if they're arrested and lodged well that's you know good word of arrest if they're either cited or they're lodged if they're lodged it's 48 hours if it's cited it's it's the next business day i mean that certainly you can do do it that way i mean perhaps even you know if you will have someone that's being lodged maybe you want them also to be the next business day also if you have them lodge and you've removed their firearms it's possible you might want them next business day also i mean i wouldn't see a reason why that part has to change okay i guess the other question is do we know that having that the next business day is that going to cause a problem with the courts i've been in touch with judge greerson about that he said absolutely not you know i asked you that yeah okay that you know this is routinely done especially in shidney county for drug cases mental health cases you know you want to if you want to get someone into treatment quickly or is a diversion quickly or you know you want to get services them quickly they'll be flash sighted if it happens over the weekend we have time with us to get rid of arrested or it's under to be a person cited for domestic assault and does that cover every instance where someone shows up to an domestic assault for probable cause they found the probable cause do they so they can be cited which i have taken to me during the citation yes they are arrested and taken away are they still given that citation right there so if we say cited we're covering every instance including an arrest warrant put out for them i believe this covers every situation i mean there are situations where someone is arrested the officer seeks conditions or bail that's denied and then they're issued a citation and then they're released guess what i'm trying to get at though is our concerns have been about making sure that that within the confines of 422 an officer can take the guns when they have the probable cause in every instance of which is the probable cause to be that their domestic assault has occurred so you know we we i think went into this thinking someone's going to be arrested and taken away and then we heard that in some instances they are cited and not taken and then we most recently heard about that instance in which someone please knowing that they're going to be arrested and an arrest warrant can be put out for them i just want to make sure that if we take all the words except cited and in every one of those instances again within the confines of 422 waited out but that officer could take those weapons for that until they are in them i believe that it covers all situations you know we we vetted this language through all of our state's attorneys they all approved of it so i mean the one question is the adding of the arrested warrant but you know that person once they either once they show up and are arrested and lodged or cited then the other provisions would go into effect i suppose they could come and ask for the guns back right away when there's a warrant out for their arrest but that would happen in the interim but my my question continues to be if we got rid of arrested or arrested and or have we covered it now it's a suggestion i heard on the table and i just want to make sure we're putting the language in that is what we wanted to do so there's a question we have to be explicit about the situation where they're arrested and lodged and that is 48 hours mostly i'm thinking does does that cover so i i hear James Pepper saying that in consultation with the state's attorneys they believe that the rest of the cited covers everything i heard him say that cited i think he said decided would cover it as well but i don't know if does that cover the arrest warrant having been issued for that person you haven't for perhaps for eric well i think i i don't want to go somebody who practices here that would know about this so you're trying to work on this amendment so i don't know exactly what the substance is in the discussion you can try and answer to on me or james yeah no i i think that if you remove arrested or i think you i think you've achieved the exact same purpose i really do i had something else written in there and david k hill said that i should have this language but i really do think that if you remove arrested or i think he was just trying to be comprehensive as possible i mean there's a question on the top of page three the ad arraignment that we could ask add ad arraignment after arrest or citation what is that where there could be clarification or is that implicit i think you need to get at it earlier i mean if you're removing no you're um i apologize people it's been for the day i i think it is addressed up in a one i was looking down at three but a one is really where we say we lay it out arrest sites or the things that arrest more for a person adopts and they remove the firearm under the circumstances right down the carbon path here so committee well um while the chair is out let's let's let eric continue the work he needs to do we can go through two twenty one just to confirm that the this draft contains the changes that we talked about so that we're getting later looking at two point one working at yes two point one um the first change uh on page three changes from clear and convincing this is for the the actual order not the x part they order changes that burdened from clear and convincing to a preponderance of the evidence and down on um c or sorry c two little two we take out anybody see something that's not in here that should be on page four e one wherever we are still I believe in the order based on preponderance yes and then we changed the period from 60 days to one year the one year and on page seven uh somewhat technical change to change the file to submitted now on the emergency x part they order uh on page eight um that order so be delivered to the holding station as we heard the person uh rounded me to a little to again you take out the tent to place others in reasonable fear of physical harm page 13 so I am oh this is for the termination or renewal of orders um the state has the burden by a preponderance of the evidence um which goes along with the burden that they have elsewhere uh more to a motion to um grant the order has to be found by a preponderance of the evidence actually this must be terminated where are you the motion to terminate um has to be found by a preponderance of the evidence a renewal would change the renewal of the order from uh 60 days back to one year moving party uh in that case being the state would um have to the burden of proof will be preponderance of the evidence on that next line on uh online 18 has changed to one year and the standard has changed to preponderance online night page 14 at the very bottom the um section about service the court uh so also deliver a copy for the holding station the last addition on the last page to uh said uh Scott should not be construed to prevent a court from prohibiting a person from progressing by our arms and yet under any other provision of law the court with everyone else's any changes share as having conversation uh the governor's office I believe on um section on 422 on section 2 um under 8 to understanding what their testimony was as to whether or not to go back to the as-introduced conclusion and ask a question be able to answer it yet right now it's a technical question but uh this final draft is going to have a number of different moving parts um if you think you want to have the um try to answer the questions about the ordering of the different parts now the the decreed easy things going to go last uh if you do the way we ordinarily order things which is sort of in order in the order of which they amend statutes it would be the 221 bill first followed by the findings it's a little unusual because usually findings come first but it's okay to do followed by the 422 if it's included see that yeah probably not maybe I'm being more technical I should tell you how it comes up is there so why would the findings in that particular finding this session it's not codified so ordinarily findings in a bill or the first section because it's not it doesn't go in the green books um but it's it's been it's not like it's never been done that way it can certainly do it it's no good deal and so if you're comfortable with but but also it doesn't matter you get totally up to you or I just thought yeah but in the way if you put them up front and you're right we cover the entire bill to be sort of clear right it might be a little bit misleading well in this case I I mean the question is can you put the findings after right in the middle after the nisi section before 221 would be right after 221 then the findings then 422 then nisi you mean the findings for 422 correct okay I mean yes in whatever way we can get the findings to be immediately preceding if possible but if not no then we precede them yeah who would come right before the 422 it's okay yeah it's not like plan can prepare for bill I have been doing that a little often it's hard to multitask it's not good for you I can't really do one task Mr. Chair would you entertain a question sure just curious I wasn't in the room in the discussion bill more of my traditions coalition this is not official I know was the records flowing right it is so I'm curious what utility and what objectives do you feel increasing from 60 days to a year serves like I said I wasn't in the room so that's not going to think about so that was the original time that was in the bill you know I think the I'm recalling right it's well also that you know you know we're talking about removing weapons or firearms in the same way we do in other places including RFAs those are standardly we heard I mean they can be any like the time but they tend to be a year I think we heard a number of witnesses who had a lot from the Attorney General's Office if I remember correctly to to advocates who had worked closely with the RFA process say that the amount of judicial discretion that the up to a year period provided allowed for just like a more case-by-case did you all testify now we didn't testify on the year the Senate Judiciary Committee originally has introduced headed as as one year and I don't think I was there when it was dropped if I may continue the conversation reflecting that change it was talked about 68 being sufficient short enough to protect people from an extended loss of their rights but long enough to serve so that the RFA process TROs conditions of release involuntary hospitalization all those processes would be well on your way and should be clearly if the evidence was there to sue any of those putting on the case and that was the rationale so I just thought I'd share that with you because I don't know if it was brought to the record in your discussion earlier I know that in looking at the materials of other states it looks like many states have a longer time periods and that sort of makes sense with time to do off and make sure so yeah I it feels like a lot of yeah I mean a lot of again a lot of states sort of looked at the time period and I was wondering why we had 60 because that was short yeah I think the key is that it's still within the course of discretion it's up to you you're giving me a little time so so yeah so you want to be clear what works take your testimony at that point or just go ask that if you can ask a question and you guys happy to let me have a conversation about that appreciate it thank you so we've been through the graph of 221 uh with the changes the changes that are here reflect the committee's decisions earlier yeah so and then we have um so we're waiting for another draft of 4th honeyfields right and then we have versus senate bill uh 267 oh the DC yeah so we're gonna make a change so I should make sure any changes to 267 I'm sure you're still taking testimony um I'm not sure if you would like to speak I was hoping to I don't want to intercede if you're good evening for those of you that don't know me I'm Joe Belly representing Caledonia district and the senate um as you know today the senate passed unanimously the version that the senate had at 221 um and we've been working many weeks to try to make that bill work um I am cognizant that there are entities in this building that are not happy with various provisions but I'm going to hope you will consider the fact that there are other vehicles in play that will enable those decisions to be addressed this is an extreme risk protection order it is not a domestic abuse order nor is it a criminal charge it is for extreme situations that have to be resolved which is why we fought over the one year provision and brought it down to 60 days we went through a lot to get to that point I noticed that you're shifting the burden of proof I just want your committee to know that the reason that we had the burden of proof shifted back to the state in the conversations from the original bill is that we were of the impression that life, liberty, and property should always be removed only after the state has the burden of demonstrating what it was supposed to have. I have a kind of recall. We didn't shift the burden away. We shifted the standard. Yes there was this there was a discussion with actors. Okay so I missed rib where I just saw but thank you for that. Let me go to the the standard. We had fought tooth and nail over where clear and convincing should be and over where preponderance of the evidence should be whether there should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt or simple probable cause and we came to the language that we did after hammering out and remembering that this is a short term emergency risk bill. The reason I'm here right now and not over at the hotel watching myself on channel three which I'm always happy to do is that I am desperate to make a plea to you guys that we have for the first time that I recall in my eight years of being here a bill that has met approval from all sides and we have a golden opportunity to have a historic moment in this state house if we can preserve this extreme risk protection bill intact. Now I've noticed a couple changes you made that I don't have a big deal about but those are merely technical changes. When the substantive changes are made the coalition of all sides that got together to have this happen breaks apart. I would love for Vermont to be the first state in the nation to take a step towards dealing with dangerous situations in a target that is actually dealing with the brain behind in the case of a gun the trigger or whatever dangerous weapon there is whatever device was being displayed. So I guess my plea is to try to hang on to that somehow. I also came in because I really like those pretzels that are seen. I appreciate hearing what you have to say and your desire which I think probably assured widely to have everyone get together behind a piece of legislation about this particular issue. I would say that it's we have heard differently there in terms of whether all sides were behind all the decisions that were made in the senate and point out the very obvious which I know I don't need to do but you know that the senate makes their decisions about what the right thing to do is the house is going to make its decision starting in its committee and going out to the floor and at the end of the day particularly in this instance where we have two separate bills trying to accomplish the same the risk protection orders those we're not going to come to a final resolution in this sort of iteration of the bills passing. We will be coming together in some way and probably in a conference committee around this as we often do to try to see if there is something we can land on that everyone can support but in that way I don't think it's any different than anything else we do and I don't think anyone in the house or the senate for that matter well maybe I'll just speak for the house once is willing to give up you know our ability to do due diligence and put forward what we believe is the right thing to do for this particular piece of legislation and I mean I'm just sure that the senate feels the same way and I I mean I hear your concern about the fact that we aren't going to get to the place that we all want to get to I guess my level of concern about that it hasn't reached your level I think I think we may come to a place where that at least the members of the house and senate are going to be able to support something very very widely if not unanimously. I want to make two responses part of the reason that I'm here is I've been hearing all kinds of rumors about what you guys heard as opposed to what we heard so I want to be clear from the get-go that when I say we had a coalition I had a clear understanding from Auburn and from Cara that they were in support of this legislation as I did Wilmore and Evan Hughes and Eddie Cutler and Chris Bradley in my eyes those were the the two sides that were most likely to be at loggerheads I also had an understanding from the state that they were supported this legislation not saying that they wouldn't prefer to have tweaks made to it but all of those folks are now back having the same conversation that we did before and I want to say one other thing while I'm on the record Cara unfortunately is not in the room but I did tell this to Auburn I had a conversation with both of them on Friday afternoon and I was urging them to back off supporting H 222 to 222 because I wanted them to support 221 I was very clear with them at that moment in time not thinking that I was actually telling them back off for 222 all together and I made that mistake so I'm I'm really apologizing if in fact I have caused some of that confusion I did not believe that the issue around domestic violence was going to go away I was hoping that we could preserve 221 without having that as part of the conversation mixing up the bags so for whatever that's worth my public apologies if that got somehow put into this mix but I'm going to come back and say we had a clear understanding in our committee that people were united and as a result of that took the language forward to the caucuses and the caucuses were then united on what they were hearing and once you get back into changing some of the policy components that are here not the technical changes you're making but the policy components themselves I just want to leave you with the understanding that whatever unanimity we were able to gather is going and I don't know how we're going to get back to anything close to being unanimous should we pass any legislation out of this building but I would be really sorry to see us miss the opportunity to be the first legislature in the country and that can come out with a unanimous statement about what's going on in the country so I hope that you keep that in the mix I know you're going to vote whenever you're going to vote and that's my plea as a senator I appreciate that talk about the coalition but what I said to our committee that it is important for the house to to have a position on gun violence and so that and we also have heard from the governor and we heard testimony from his counsel that that he wants us to move and to move quickly and and to well originally go go home with with bills passed before town meeting but it's not to take action as quickly as possible so so that is what we're doing here and so that we can have that that conversation on the house floor but also knowing that we are working parallel and that and that we will continue to work happy that we have 675 and I think there'll be other things there'll be other bills I don't think this is the end of the discussion right and so so maybe there will be another opportunity to to be unanimous that's certainly 675 which is a very important bill is a start and I have another meeting I have to be at but I appreciate this so the staff downstairs is making copies great so a couple of minutes hopefully it'll be up here so we're on 1.1 right 267 yes right 66 p.m. uh-huh okay and uh so this is a strike all to the uh decree nisi bill which is senate bill number 267 but it's you know sort of the big picture it's bringing in the ERPO language as modified by this committee in section one I believe sections two and three are going to be the 422 language section two is the finding section three is the substance section four I think the decree nisi and right section five is the effect of it so I think you've gone through the underlying substance of most of this we could certainly take a sort of a flyover again one point I'm going to have to raise with the House Courts Office or whoever's bringing it over should raise and Dennis just made this point to me is that the and I think they can do this right there is that the introductory language on lines two through six might need to be tweaked from because this is the house amendment to a senate bill not house to a house bill so I think it's the house stuff proposed to the senate or something but they can do that in the courts office of course I know the I think the changes that you talked about earlier are reflected in this draft so for example on page three lines three and four you have the preponderance of the evidence again I've removed all the highlighting from this one so it's not as easy to flag when you go through but obviously has to go clean for the calendar tomorrow line 13 but intended to language is not there notable by its absence page four that would be about lines 10 through 12 again preponderance and at the time of the hearing language is gone so it's preponderance you know the finding without requiring that it must be at the time of the year you see the one year line 18 used to be 60 days over on page seven is the submitted line seven page seven lines seven I used to be filed now submitted page eight now this is something that we've got added just at the very end this is one of the places which we're adding that the court delivers a copy of the order to the holding station right now this is the this is the temporary first has to be in here twice because now you'll see when we get to the second one um on the same page line nine the intended intended to language is struck just not there uh skip to page 13 you'll see preponderance in a number of places line do line four line 16 and line 19 to probably or others thank you no that's okay um jam trying to mark these up so so you can catch up okay um okay so line okay so line 12 60 days to one year the uh I think that's it for that page so preponderance in four places in one year and two uh over on to page 14 at the very bottom you see the uh this has to do with making sure that the copy of the order gets uh transmitted to the holding station but this one only deals the reason I had to be in two places because there's so many deals uh with the with the final order so this way I remember I remember when judge gerson was leaving the room I asked him just to vote the expert pay in final order should they be sent to the holding station and say yes so that's why it's in both places um see that should bring us to well so then the that we went through on page I think it's probably page 23 um the effect on another law section remember that the attorney general had asked for and so that brings us right there page 23 line four so that will bring us to page 422 and essentially starts right there right section two of this bill was the finding section from page 422 no changes have been made there as far as I know those are identical to the version that passed uh the house last year then over on to page 24 you've got you have the substance of the uh of age 422 and the authority of law enforcement officers to remove firearms when they arrest site or obtain an arrest warrant remember that was a suggestion from the HG line 7 and 8 to add in that um and you have included the language that specifically references uh that the uh weapon is removed pursuant to a search warrant or a judicially recognized exception if it's necessary for the protection of the officer I I broke that out a little bit that was a long sort of confusing run on sense a little bit so I just took the definition rather than included all more plays I just said as used in this section judicially recognized exception includes and since you use the word includes it's not an exclusive list and those are the those are the exceptions to warrant requirement that you see listed there incident arrest consent action circumstances playing view and regulatory strategy and then I think that James and Kara both walked you guys through a little bit of the kind of this bill and in particular the fact that the when a person is cited for domestic assault they're rained on the next day after the citation is issued unless there's good cause and then at arraignment the court issues a written order that releases any firearms so the ones that have been removed pursuant to a will be released unless one of these conditions applied and that would be that it's being used as evidence or the courts over on to page 25 now the court's order of relinquishment pursuant to the RFA statute see the person is prohibited by law you know and then perhaps there have been convicted of violent crime under state law or felony under federal law or the court imposes a condition requiring the defendant not to possess a firearm for example a condition of release or something of that nature so subdivision two is talking about return so if the court has ordered release then under one of the under the previous subsection we just looked at then whoever in the law enforcement agency is the one who actually has it so if the court orders release they have to make it available within three days after they receive the order the immunity section is sub D through one through that has not changed at all that immunity language is identical to what was in the bill was passed the House last year that takes us to section four the decree NICI which I don't know a lot about I see that only a lot of drafting were left straightforward I like that and the effective days actually a little different because I assume this to be true but I noticed in the decree NICI I didn't know if there was an underlying reason for this now but not wanting to change anything that the decree NICI bill that came over from the Senate had a July first effective date you know I don't know enough about the family law situation yeah right whether there may have been a reason for that I don't really know but not knowing yeah I made I kept the effective date of that section still was to July first or if the rest of it takes effect on passage all the preceding 221 and 422 elements and there you have it yes questions so do you have any questions or are you catching up but about this draft um I don't have any questions so the 221 changes are consistent with your testimony our testimony that we have heard from a number of people this morning it's really important to prove you know predominantly it's what we changed on the year of the time period and then the 422 pieces that um I don't respond to Senator Sears to serve it out and the state's attorney's um concerned about the citation and what happens when somebody's cited um and the need for for more of a process that that was and as I explained as we said as I've been saying for a few days now we're we're both working because it is you know so important that governor asked us all to work quickly and um you know so that's why we're doing you know our part here in the you know the house and I know um asked for real suspension I'm not sure if we'll get them but we're just trying to do our work and um and then so we'll get 221 after from the senate after uh town meeting and senate will get this and um I'm hoping that 422 will will be actually voted at a committee um senate judiciary um but we we don't know but but I'm hoping that it will but it is very important and it is a separate bill and it's very important to folks in the house so I guess you know just a concern that that we had had the chance to discuss after we heard the attorney general's office testimony on 221 um and again this this may be way too late in the game is um that that there's this gap in 221 you know basically the senate seems to be under the impression that um that mechanically they're exactly the same and it was identified to think that a committee this morning mechanically they're not exactly the same but that there's a gap when it comes to being able to just take the gun there is nothing in 221 or expressly authorizes that um so I mean I guess that I guess what I was kind of hoping is you know the energy's office had was thinking about some language that you know could both fill the gap in 221 and to the extent 422 doesn't matter it doesn't move at least 221 you'd fill the gap you would have theoretically filled the gap if it's something you could reach agreement with the senate on so I mean that that was just a you know I just sort of a logistical concern that 422 doesn't move um but um and then I guess there were some other issues identified by the AG's office with respect to 422 this morning um you know just in terms of and I didn't know which way the committee was going to go in terms of staying pretty true to what was um passed with some changes or if there would be any kind of aversion to some of the concepts that were introduced but I understand that has its own issues all right right so so so thank you and I appreciate those remarks I think in terms of um making strengthening 221 and 422 doesn't um doesn't survive I think we have time for that because we will be getting 221 and and from the senate after a press over day and um and so yeah so that's yeah so I hope that doesn't happen but we will have the opportunity if we do in terms of going back to the bill is introduced at the attorney general's office was talking about I you know we were trying to make it as tight as possible in terms of constitutional concerns in terms of interpretation so we had a lot of discussion about what's a weapon and um and I appreciate you picked up a lot of the language that the state's attorney's office had come up with yeah um process yeah so that's that's just a thank you yeah so anyway um and I know I'm sorry my committee members are here but also we I I didn't realize I didn't think we were going to go this late and I know that people did have other um might have had other commitments so um but we're trying to get it out tonight so at least we can get it on notice and try to get a real you know just keep let's you know just keep moving and you know address people's concerns that we are moving as as you know quickly but carefully but that we are I appreciate that so do we need a motion are you ready for a motion I should say so I'm hearing that that maybe folks might come back do you do you know I didn't know I haven't heard um I mean we can certainly do a motion if they come they come back they can enter their votes I don't think they come back but we also told the clerk's office that we'd have yes it's going to be a notice tomorrow we had to get it to him okay um so why don't we go ahead and do the motion um so I move uh that we accept uh s267 draft 1.1 that's all we've got 6 o 6 p.m. dated 6 o 6 p.m. sure I said oh you have it did okay Colbert yes Dickinson Jessup yes Lalonde yes Morris yes Richardson yes Viennes Wilhoit Burdett conquest yes Grant yes so Tom asked me Marcus absent um let's not turn it in