 important for especially starting out in the younger ages to understand it's a safety issue that has nothing to do with promoting the NRA. I saw a piece where it talks about the difference between real guns and video games. And another thing along that lines is in all my town meetings that I went to nobody really, except for a little, they talk quite a bit about gun control. Nobody else did except for grabbing me in the hall as I was leaving. They didn't want to get a big discussion on the floor. Well an interesting discussion that I had with a teacher who taught seventh and eighth graders was after the Parkland shooting he had asked his students how many of you, and this is out of the blue, how many of you since yesterday have killed one someone in a video game and they all raised their hands. And then he asked how many of you have killed over 200 people since yesterday and eight people raised their hands. So I think that's concerning. I know when my girls, they're a little older now, we're growing up. Fortunately, there wasn't cell phones out, but there was rap music. If you ever listen to some of the lyrics of Dr. Dre and others, it's pretty disturbing when it talks about killing cops and so on and so forth. So again, I think that there's some sort of a program and I think it's been around there for a long time. The reason I pulled the amendment back in the day was because of the number of mandates that we are already put on schools. But I think when you're talking about a safety issue this huge, I think it's something that should be considered again. And another situation that I had, this was probably five or six years ago. There was a retired military and Border Patrol agent that offered his services to the local schools as well as he knew other people. So this would have been on a voluntary basis to be involved in the schools. Again, not to be just some guards at the door, but an individual who, you know, enjoyed kids and interacting with them and so on and so forth. So he had offered his services as well as others. It was on a unscheduled basis. In a sense, he couldn't do it five days a week, that sort of thing. But I believe that there is an opportunity out there for that sort of thing to happen. I think it's a great combination to have older folks that are retired that have the time that want to be involved. I mean, there'd have to be guidelines around it. I saw that. Yeah. But I just, and one of the reasons I'm mentioning it, because it really was a viable option years ago. I did go around and talk to some of the schools. But again, the atmosphere at that time was something that they didn't want to move with. And I'm sure there's going to have to be a lot of parameters around something like that. But again, I think those two particular initiatives will help. I'm sorry that so many kids these days seem to fear going to school. I don't know just, I think it's important for teachers and parents and so on to do their best. I know, and maybe it's been mentioned here too, but when I was growing up in the first and second grade, we had our drills, one of them was a nuclear drill, where we had to open the windows and individuals specifically every week set up to open the windows. And then we had to get on direct desks. My parents had built a fallout shelter bomb shelter in their basement when they put on an addition. But I never remember completely going to school and being so fearful and so on and so forth. So again, I hope there's there's ways that we can work through this. But I believe as well as a lot of my constituents that talk to me that so many of these gun control initiatives aren't going to work. So basically, that's that's my spiel. And I appreciate the time to sit down and say that. Well, thank you. And I appreciate your remarks. Can I get a copy of your of your resolution? Because they're going to be working on a school safety deal, which will come to us. I'll see if I can dig it up. Yeah. Yeah, and also, can you remind me of the website that you just referred to? Sure, if you just go to the Eddie Eagle gun safety program, you should bring it up. It's sponsored by the MRA. But this is just to give you a look. So this is this is what you'll see when you get to it. 13 year old son who very much likes those games. Yeah. And this is so these are the characters. And you really need to go through for yourselves to listen to what they say and how they how they present it. And it's also not even a specific presentation in a sense, because they believe when it when it does go to schools that the teachers know best as to whether do it on a larger basis or individually or smaller groups, that sort of thing. So it's, there's a lot of leeway there. Let's put it that way. So great. Thank you. So it's my understanding that the education committee is having a joint hearing today. Although, yeah, they probably have people lined up already. But just hope you're aware of that. They're looking at those conditions. I am. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, three to five. Okay, down in room 11. Now is it? Well, thanks again. I appreciate the time. For the record, my name is Karen Nixon. I'm with the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, and here to testify in S 55. And you'll hear from me some points that you've heard me make before, but I think it's important that they're noted for the record on this bill. So by statute, the Center is responsible for promoting the rights and needs of Vermont's crime victims. And so that's why we're here to testify in gun legislation today. We represent the needs of we represent the needs and interests of homicide survivors. We we represent children who have witnessed homicide and crime. We work with we work with those survivors as well. And so that's why I'm here. Additionally, the Center Victims Compensation Program pays thousands of dollars each year on behalf of surviving families and homicide victims to cover the cost of funeral headstones, crime scene cleanup and mental health counseling to cope with grief. And you've heard me say this before, but I will say it again. We believe that the criminal justice system in our society as a whole benefits whenever we shift the paradigm from simply responding to crime and its aftermath to an acting evidence based reform shown to actually prevent crimes from happening at all. And so for that reason, the Center of Odds leadership of both chambers, as well as clearly this committee and Attorney General Donovan, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Cole and Governor Scott for their support of these proactive approaches to firearm storage and disposal, which is contained in the bill and is really important that sort of a precursor to a lot of the other legislation in the building. The issues involving firearms removal, which aren't necessarily contained in this bill, but is another subject to debate building and clearly the measures here that are aimed at homicide and suicide prevention and for all the provisions here. And we think that they represent significant steps forward. So that's my that's my testimony and we're we're very grateful that you'll want to take any time on these issues. Any question? But of the proposals that are on the table now, are there any in particular that the Center has, you know, felt more strongly about? You know, I will I will say that we I'm certainly not the expert on sort of the evidence based rationales for some of the some of the provisions in the bill that are specific to, you know, who can purchase a firearm, you know, the high capacity magazines, those those types of issues. Although I certainly we've heard testimony and have a valid issue and we find that testimony you have for very compelling. Frankly, I think the issue that is the most significant in the bill is the gun storage issue. The testimony that we heard in the Senate committee is that I mean, this has been it's been an issue irrespective of the gun removal provisions that the committees have been considering for a really long time now. And so again, if nothing else that that provision is just so important to getting at the larger challenges that we have. And again, we're so grateful to Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Kohl for willing to step up and come up with solutions to the problem. And we're really grateful to law enforcement for being willing, you know, to come to the table and figure out how to solve these challenges. Because for us, the idea that we can't remove guns because we already have too many is just a really unfortunate reason to not take steps on gun removal. Well, we don't know what to do with this abandoned property. You know, I'm really glad that that the administration has stepped up to figure out what to do with it. So I just support that part of the bill too. Because, you know, when we were discussing here, I was great if I could go out on the forum to talk about the provisions of Port 22 and not have anybody question me about what we're going to do about storing those guns. Yeah, no, it's really important. You know, one of the things that I know, you know, likewise on the removal provisions, one of the things I said is, you know, would you would you rather remove remove firearm to prevent homicide or remove as evidence of homicide, right? And I think that we, you know, in reasonable circumstances, we would we would rather remove weapon for that homicide, right? But because of the storage issues, it really has caused some concern about what that looks like. So I can't remember if you were here yesterday when Commissioner Shass testified. Yes, I was. So I mean, I find it interesting and also concerning. I mean, it's great that we're looking for that children in foster homes are as safe as they can be. And I know that the foster parent licensing and adoption licensing are really pretty stringent processes, which they should be because, you know, letting them take care of the children in our state's custody. But it made me take pause because again, most states do have that kind of regulation for foster homes. So just the children in Vermont and I don't know how many victims you saw that are victims of accidental shootings, or if they don't end up coming to your office. But I'm just wondering your thoughts on that issue. To be honest, I hadn't come prepared to take having formulated a position on that particular issue. And and probably I mean, in part, because so many of these issues are sort of new and coming to the fore for the first time. And and also because like you identified in these in the the accidental shooting context, we don't really have a crime that's occurred. And so I don't have access to information or statistics on that because there's no crime. They don't come to us for services. But I think your point is well taken. I mean, certainly, it's just a for monitor, right? It's a certainly a really important question to raise and want to put some thought into. But unfortunately, now I hadn't formulated a position on DCS policy, because it's sort of out of the realm of the center per view. Anything else? So you have four point one, close to yesterday afternoon. But look for you. You're okay. Can we get hard copies? Our legislative council and as a chair indicated, this is a new draft and it should say draft number 4.1 on the upper left hand corner. Everyone has a correct version. And it still has the yellow highlights as to the text that I went through yesterday. It's okay with the chair. What I'll do is just point out what's different from yesterday. And the first significant difference is on page six. This has been section six. And this is the background check section. If you remember, there was some discussion yesterday about antique firearms. And what the changes you see under one, which is on line eight, it states that firearm shall have the same meaning as in the new language is subsection 4017d of this title. And if you remember, 4017, we references last week has a definition of firearm that's quite broad. It defines a firearm as any weapon that will is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by means of an explosive. But it then states that it shall not include, in other words, a firearm shall not include an antique firearm, which was made prior to 1898, a replica of such antique, or various other categories, such as black powder or muzzle loaded. So in other words, I think this achieves the objective of excluding antiques, replicas, black powder and other types of antique type weapons from the definition of firearm. So I think that achieves what the committee wanted to do. But any questions about that? The next text I wanted to mention was on page nine. This is not a change. I wanted to explain why it is not. You'll see F on lines four through eight. And this is the community section that we talked about yesterday. And there's a question about whether it should be here or move to a different sub section of the same statute. And we kept it here simply because that's what we normally do. At the end of the statute, we have one big exception, and it covers the whole proceeding statute. Next, I'd like to go to page 10, please. And you'll see this is now the cell firearm to minors at section seven. If you flip to page 10, if you remember the last draft, I think there was some language about the hunter safety course, but then there was other language about potential other courses and that needed perhaps between that's been removed. So what the bill now does or what the amendment now does is it has an exception for a person who provides a cell or worth a certificate of satisfactory completion of a Vermont hunter safety course that was all prior language or an equivalent hunter safety course that is approved by the commissioner. So it has to be a hunter safety course. It could be a Vermont one or it could be another similar hunter safety course that has been approved by the commissioner. Any questions about that? And I believe that is all the changes from the draft that you saw yesterday. Are there any questions about anything? And the safe storage was prior ones, but it's not here for us. That's awesome. Any other questions about anything either that I just covered or anything else? So, so look if you can, can you walk through the entire because they take things out to just, I hate this, but I take them out reading glasses. So once again, we're in draft 4.1. And please stop me if there's any questions. I won't read line for line, but please stop me if you need more information about any provision. So beginning on section one, this has to do with the disposition of expanded firearms. And so section two, a lot of these changes are merely capitalization. I'm sure you've gone through them. The important part will be on page two where you have the definition of unlawful per se, which means a firearm as I previously explained that someone should not have period. It's unlawful to possess period and then abandoned firearms. In other words, firearms that it would be lawful for someone to possess, but they've been taken for some reason, and they haven't been reclaimed. So that's important distinction. And these sections as far as passed by the Senate are lying. That's my understanding. Yes, I think I can double check with that as Eric put it as my understanding. Section three, disposition of unlawful firearms. And this is where you get into the language at BGS. In other words, the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services would be taking custody these instead of the state treasurer. And I think that was explained to you why that's being recommended. And then the procedure to dispose of those firearms. Any questions about the general concept or how that would operate? And if you see on page four, we talked about this yesterday, but the highlighted text is just ensuring that proceeds from those sales would go back to the municipality and be used to offset the cost of storing those firearms. Yep. I'm just looking for the section there that talks about how they are then treated. You tell me what you do, please? Well, that's what I'm trying to find. Where is the section that talks about how they are to be disposed of? Wasn't there language about them going through an RFL? There is. Let me just find it for you, please. The place that I'm looking at is page four, our line. And I don't know. Or does it just reference back to? I'm sorry. It says sale to a federally licensed firearms dealer. It's not capitalized, however, pursuant to the commissioner's authority, etc. Great. And that's as to, once again, the important distinction that's as to abandoned firearms, ones that would be lawful for a person to possess that were seized and have not been reclaimed, the difference between per se, illegal and abandoned. Any other questions? Thank you. Any other questions? Section four on page four at the bottom starting line 16 has to do with the rights of the innocent owner. Once again, this was text that is a carryover. I think you discussed previously. And the changes to this section really are changing. Capitalization and then changing state treasurer to commissioner BGS. So it's really conforming with these prior changes. Section five is firearms relinquished pursuant to relieve from abuse, order, storage, ease of return. And the important text is actually on the top of page six. The new language added is that the Monty Police will follow the procedure described in section 2305 of this title, and that was the section that we just looked at. And I'm sorry, I forget the explanation for that. I heard it, but I forget why the language was added in. I think it was just to conform to the prior section. I can check on that as well. So then we get to section six, which is the background check. So if you see on page six, starting with subsection A, you have the definitions and I just talked about the definition of firearm. And once again, this change will now exclude anti firearms. Then you have the other definitions of immediate family member law enforcement officer, license dealer, transferee, transferer, and the transfer and unlicensed person. That's all language I think we've looked at before. Are there any questions about those definitions? Then you get to the meat of this new section, which is on page seven, starting line four with B to one, and it states that an unlicensed person shall not transfer a firearm to another unlicensed person unless and then you have the mechanism for the background check requirements, which I think it has been described to you in your testimony about it also, am I correct? Two, on line 12, proceeding through line 15, has a requirement that a person shall not make a false statement or exhibit false ID. And then starting on C, on line 16, has the language about the license dealer who agrees to facilitate the transfer and how he or she shall comply with all the requirements of state or federal law, et cetera. Remember, the new language was added in on line 20, but shall not be considered a defender. And as I explained yesterday, that is dealing with sales tax. That's why that was added in. Does this speak to age at all? Again, I'm continuing to think about how to make sure guns don't get into the hands of children. And so I just wondered if it doesn't seem to say anything about age, but obviously that's one license to another license. Well, you read all provisions of this amendment. If they become law together, so if the age to purchase is raised, that affects everything else. So you wouldn't be able to go to the FFL and do the transfer unless you were the required age, et cetera. Unless we're a grandfather, a ranger. Right. They all would connect, I mean. Okay. I just want to make sure that it's clear that it would. You read it as a totality. So all the provisions should be followed. They all should be observed. They all would connect to each other. So transfer from one immediate family member to another. Again, it's, you know, we're silent on age. It is. Well, you would look at the age restriction first. And yes, you look at the law or in this. It wouldn't be ambiguous. I don't think so. I'm not the way this is. No, I don't think so. Can I just add something real quick? So the form that they have that everybody would have to fill out for the transfer number, if you get the number of the form again, 4473, the very first sentence at the top of the form is you may not receive a firearm and forgiven it by federal or state law. And this would be for the state law. So thank you. In the language I gave earlier about false ID, false statement that would prohibit trying to get around our requirements of law. Any other questions? So we're always still there to talk about sales tax provision and then page eight. You have the fee language and what happens at the licensed dealer attempts to do the background check. And for some reason, it comes up that the purchaser should not be allowed to have or the transfer or should not be allowed to have a firearm. How do we turn it? Then you have on page eight, or in line eight in D, you have the sanction for transferring a firearm without following this procedure. And then you have the exceptions. Are there any questions about those provisions? Going to line nine under four, you have the carb out that allows a person to transfer in order to prevent imminent harm. And then you have the language we just talked about, which is the immunity from civil criminal liability for a dealer who in good faith, attempts to do the background check and carry out their duties. We had added in veterans and I'm looking at page eight, line 15, 16. It says four member of. Right, so veterans, I assume that was a discussion with Eric and the someone in this committee. Okay, all right, wrong section. Now we're on to the age restriction, which is section seven, starting on page nine. Four zero, two zero sale of firearms, two minors per hit. So this is the raising the age to twenty one. You can see under B, these other carb outs does not apply to law enforcement officer. And once again, the language that limited that to purchasing a firearm for purposes of his or her duty has been removed. So it's law enforcement officer in general, an active or veteran member of the military. Proceeding to page 10, a person who provides a seller with a certificate of completion of a hunter safety course. So people who fit within these carb outs could buy the firearm. Even though we're not 21 years old. Any questions about those? Then we get to the definition of what constitutes firearm. And this is similar to the same as the definition I just talked about earlier. It excludes certain types of firearms. Any questions about any of that? Section eight is a large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In other words, large capacity magazines. And as we talked about yesterday under A, it states that a person shall not manufacture, possess, transfer, offer for sale, purchase, receive or import into the state, capacity ammunition feeding devices. Now, as we I think we also talked about yesterday, there is under C, which begins in the bottom of page 10 and proceeds on page 11. There is the grandfather clause that this only pertains to large capacity magazines that are lawfully possessed as a language now on only for the effective date of this act. Then under D starting on page 11, it states that this section shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices and you for certain exceptions. So, for you as well. Yeah, just one question on the ammunition feeding devices. Lawfully possessed on her before and of course this act takes effect on passage. So if I ordered a large capacity magazine today and didn't have that by the day to passage, it's possessed. It's in your possession. So I would read this as you had to have received that magazine. So it was ordered and paid for. Right. So of course, it depends if there's those the governor when he or she signs it, he, you know, to his governor Scott. So, you know, that would be a specific date. People have to be aware of that. I don't know what if someone would actually be prosecuted for missing it by the day. But directly it could be. So. Under. Yeah, on the Internet, things are important to the state. And I don't remember exactly what he's saying, but the dealer, the gun dealer who was here to testify and said that you can order it online and it isn't shipped to the person. It's shipped to an FFL dealer. Who I can't remember who does them. The background check at that. Not like like an Internet sale, like you're getting shoes from. Does anybody remember that? It seemed like there was a way of not allowing it to be. I think those are firearms. Not for magazines. Not for magazines. This is just for magazines. Okay, but just to be clear, when I read that lawfully possessed, it means you have it in your possession. It's in your home or wherever. So. In transit, but not. Yeah, but it doesn't go to the person. They don't possess it until after it goes to a dealer. That was just for firearms. And then you had to go through all the other stuff. I'm sorry, I wasn't here for that test. Yeah, there was one. Any questions about that language? My question may be for you. I don't know if there was discussion. Um. Last week that I missed related to. Discussing the grandfathering. I'm just kind of curious about. That's the ways Bill came from the Senate. Is that right? And no, there's no way this amendment will. Okay, all right, right. So. So. One concern I have as Tom is talking about that is we are concerned about these types of guns. One. Have we had a discussion about people having them in Vermont that already have them and two people getting them between both the there's going to be a law. Let's get. Hundreds of them before this law passes and it. Not necessarily doing what concerned about. Yeah, I mean, I think there has been discussion. I don't remember who were. But yeah, I mean, we did. We did look at that and looked at the different options and what different states do. And some do. Some don't allow grandfathering and some do allow grandfathering. There is a document that talks about that online that concept for month. We provided yesterday. But the concept was there's a couple things. First of all, that didn't allow for that possession. All of a sudden, a lot of people in Vermont, law abiding people may be possessing them and then all of a sudden are violating the law. The second thing was, well, how do we get those out of people's hands and the concept of where they would go, how they would be destroyed or taken? It was another issue. The third issue really went to enforcement and through discussion with an input from David Cahill, what at least he is one state's attorney who he wants to be able to go after or whose behavior he wants to affect are those out of state sellers who sell by the internet into the state because FFLs in the state will stop selling them. And yes, there will be magazines for a while. This is this is not going to immediately solve the problem. Even if we didn't have the grandfather and it wouldn't. But it's going to construct the circulation of this particular item and it should increasingly help us. It's the concept behind this. And did we talk at all about having to buy back as one of the options if people voluntarily want to get rid of some of their guns that are currently have them? Again, certainly that is something that I talk to people about and consider with this. I don't remember if it was in testimony. That would put this on a whole different route as far as having to be a corporations committee, et cetera. And I'm not sure what would happen with it in that case. I include a section of the magazines. That's not. Yeah, just to make sure. I was just going to kind of echo what Martin was saying and just if you look at the period where there was a similar early enacted federal ban, it looks specifically like there was kind of this tanneling, you know, it took a while to reduce some magazines, but it didn't happen until often then when the ban was not renewed. And I was just, you know, I read it in the record yesterday, but take the work out. OK, all right. I'll give you a few minutes on the website. I think that I'll connect to that topic. I appreciate the grandfathering, because I think it's important to have a balance. And I think that's what we're trying to do is try to. So that's helpful for me to hear because I just. Just trying to. Yeah, just trying to balance here. And again, trying to keep 55 as close to the center as possible. And when we have it's great for that to be, you know, at least recognizing our restrictions, but to be at least restricted. We're still on page 11. Now we're in subsection D. And these are carve outs. States section shall not apply to any large capacity ammunition feeding device. And then there's a number of carve outs. I will read them all. But we talked about them previously and includes transfer or possessed by state or federal law enforcement or officer for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Possessed by the individual on the floor who would be tired from service and law enforcement agency and such a magazine was given to him or her upon his or her retirement. So there's a number of exceptions or carve outs including on page 12, 5. And this is manufactured as possessed by a manufacturer for the purposes of testing experimentation. Any questions about those carve outs or exceptions? And then C is a definition. So this is a definition what constitutes the large capacity ammunition feeding device. And it means any magazine or similar device that has the capacity of or can be readily restored or converted to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Section 9 is the bump fire stock prohibition. And it defines a bump fire stock in A, which is starting in line 13. And then in B, it simply states that a person shall not possess a bump fire stock. And a person who violates this shall be imprisoned not more than one year, fine not more than $1,000 for both. This is the Polanka prohibition. 8876. And then last but not least, section 10, the effective date as was indicated earlier effective of the past. I do have a question. When I look on page 12, lines 5 and 6, as part of the definition, we include in the definition manufactured after. And yet when I go back and I turn to page 10, I'm thinking of the what if scenario that a magazine is from another state where it's legal and it was manufactured prior to this date. OK. And then it is, you know, it is unwelcome in Vermont based on lines 14 through 16. But I'm wondering if putting that date up there circumscribes the universe of items that would be impacted on 14 through 16, like 14 through 16. I can't say why that date was added in. I don't know if that was subject for discussion or not. But I think I do understand what you're saying. So the definition is a device manufactured after July 1st, 2018 and then has a capacity of 10 rounds or more than under the rest of the statute. It talks about the carve out for possessing the grandfather clothes I described earlier. That's OK to possess such a device prior to the effective date. I don't think they'll contradict each other. I see what you're saying, but I'm just trying to think out actually how it would work out by order of one of you. So there's a magazine made in the state of Wisconsin in the year 2005. And I live in Vermont. And I say, well, actually, that's not prohibited because in Vermont the statute said it must be manufactured after July 1, 2018. So therefore, my magazine that was made in 2005 would not be subject to lines 14 through 16. Interesting argument. So on the same language, I have a slightly different concern of perhaps an inconsistency. And that is between that same date that we're talking about on line 6 and page 12 and then on line 19, 21, and the top of page 11 as far as a possession. It can't be one can possess it. The device, if it was a lot, they'd possess honor before the effective date of this act. And then we have the July 1, 2018 date. So it would seem like the July 1, 2018 date should be consistent with the effective date of this act. Was the effective date changed or the last? OK, here. So let me talk to Eric. Maybe a reason for that. So I think it's a point. Let me follow up with him. I see what you were just saying. It's an interesting point. Let me talk to him and see if there's a reason why. It may just have been what the effective date was. We'll circle back to you once you know. Circle back to community. Sorry to say that for my kids. But so Martin, was it your intent that those two things would threw up? I mean, I think I have the same question as Kimberly, why do we need a manufacturing date in that section at all? My question is that, I guess. Yeah, let's turn it over. Yeah. I agree. And we did make some changes to A and C and didn't really look at the effect it might have on the. Well, does the committee agree they should be trued up? I'll ask. See if Eric, if there's some legal reason. Assuming there's not. Does the committee agree it should true up to? I'm not sure I do agree, because if the intent is to ban them, are we really saying we're only going to ban things that are manufactured from the effective date moving forward? I think we strike the manufacturers' average lifers. Yeah, that would be my preference. I mean, I don't see any reason why. I'm just going to do that. Can you repeat what you're saying, Martin? That on page 12, line five to six, we strike manufactured after July 1st, 2018. That may have had a reason previously, but it doesn't make any sense now. And once again, assuming there's no legal reason why the language isn't here, just let's assume that. For argument's sake, does the committee agree that that should come out? That would solve the discrepancy. So then it would go from feed strip, that has a capacity? Correct. Let's say line five, magazine, bell, drum, feed strip, or similar device, that has a capacity of. And then it will continue. Do you mind if I send a quick email to the committee? Not at all. He is not at all responding to emails. Yeah, then that'd be perfect. I think he's stuck in the committee, but go ahead. So we already covered bump stock before we took the date? Yeah. We'll go on to some kind of backtracking here. I want to make sure you were done with the visit. With magazines again, so if I own a high capacity up till before the date, whatever, after that, they would be illegal in a sense. But so I can possess one, but I just want to make it clear that I can still use that. I think that's the assumption. Yes, yes. So I mean, if I can possess it and not use it, then I'm just not clear on that. There's nothing that, if you lawfully possess a 15-round magazine, say it's a 15-round magazine once again, so you possess it before the effective date of this act. So that would be a large capacity magazine. You have that in your possession before the effective date of that. I don't see anything here that bars you from using it. I'd be more comfortable with something in there that says that it could be used. Well, I think we're not forbidding to use. I think that's pretty clear. Yeah. So, so Martin, you're looking at that. Too pretty confident. Well, let's look at the language. Person should not manufacture, possess, transfer, opt for sale, purchase, receive, or import into the state. Is that the option? Well, that answers the question. So in answer to your question, yes, I am confident because if the law doesn't bar you from doing something, you can do it. So this bill, this language, allows you to possess large capacity magazines if you had that before the effective date. It doesn't have any language that says you can't use it if you lawfully possess it. So therefore, yes, you can use it. Policy, question, or whether you add language or not, that's up to the committee. But legally, I think that's to a lawyer clear. I don't know if it's, you know, it would be clear to a regular person reading or not. No, thank you. I feel comfortable with that. Any other? In section six, under two, committee family members means a spouse parent, step parent. Then it goes on to say child, step child. So I just give you one. That's a good idea. And what I don't see here, I have two stepchildren. I have six step-grandchildren who have been my grandchildren since the day they were born. My guns will be given to them some day. The step-grandchildren, who I consider grandchildren, can I do that with this law? You're saying that you have step-grandchildren. It doesn't clearly state that. Well, I'm sure I like it, too. Yeah. Yeah, I think it should. OK. Yeah, I do. Thank you, Gary. So it should be step-grandparent or step-grandchild. Maybe a step-grandparent. Maybe a step-grandchild, like me. Step-grandchild. But you would be quitted to them. I guess I could be quitted to you, all right? Yeah, they wouldn't be quitted anything to me. So this means you're going to vote for it, right? Nothing to vote for. I vote for that particular thing, but no. Residents still don't vote. Are we adding in step-grandparent and step-grandchild or just step-grandchild? Well, step-grandchild. It seems like we should do both just to be consistent. Right. Not like everyone else. Unlike Chloe Simmering. Yeah, it doesn't matter to me what is one bit. As long as my grandkids can get my guns and they don't go to the state for disposal. Right? In the process. OK. You have to be quitted just because we're saying that any of these people in this category, if they follow it in the categories, then they're not required to have a background check. But if you leak one of them out, that person would still vote for them. Right. May I stay on that topic? I'm sure. And on that then, again, I'm thinking about that direct line then, too. I mean, because we do have an older population in Vermont. Because we're going parent-grandparent, that also excluding the right grandparent. I'm thinking, like, my kid's a great grandparent. And so would the great grandparent not be covered? I mean, because that's consistent with that direct line. And then it goes, and on that, back to our stuff on parentage, would this language cover all that we define as a parent-parent? So would a defacto parent still be deemed a parent under this? No, no. I'm not happy to be a parent. No, I'm not happy. But I'd be embarrassed. At least we've made her mention that, you know, those parents are just as important as other parents. So I think they would underpair. Yeah. I would. Yeah. Okay. I might do it again. I don't know what to say. I think under the recent decision, it would be... Yeah, I think it would be. Yeah, okay. What about the great grandparent stuff? What about a corridor? What about the other stuff? The other stuff. The other stuff. Okay. If you ask the question of the committee, what are you adding, great grandparent? I'm, yeah, I'm going to say that. I think that'll add to it. So is there a great grandparent, but also in that language? Okay. That was out of the time. That was the effort today. Well, there are states that... I'm just thinking about this, but I said, yeah. So are we talking just great grandparents or step-great grandparents? All of them. All of them. All of them. Well, no, I just... I mean, why don't I get that whole line down? You show up on Ancestry.com. Yeah, you... There's actually a pretty good chance in the next couple of years I'll probably have that great grandchild, so... That person might be in line for what they're doing. Hello. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, manager. Just so I'm clear, because I think this is moving along, we're adding in step-grandparent, step-grandchild, great-grandparent, and also step-great-grandparent. And step-great-grandchild. Okay. And great-grandchild. I think we already had that. Okay. Any other? Changes? And for the next draft, we want the highlighted highlights out because we're more of a finished version. Yeah, so we're going to take the others and give them a little test money. Are you able to make these changes? Yep. For us? Yep. I don't want to talk to Eric or anyone by hand just in case or something like this, but yes, we can do this quickly, one way or the other. Yep. So I remove the stricken language, I remove the highlights. Obviously, we'll come in and show you what's new from this current version, but get this ready as the final version. Great. And so, how about the current version pretty far from the other draft? We'll do the best we can. I would like to also run into adding one more time as the new language, just in case there's no typos or mistakes, because we'll do everything we possibly can. So what does that mean? What does that mean? It means I'm not sure. I'll get moving on right now. Let me just get moving on. See how long it takes and I can circle back to you. Sometimes we've done it without going to the edge. Understood. Understood. Of course, it has taken a long time. You can do that. I'll let you know. Okay. So can you check that with me at 10, 30? Absolutely. It's not before. Absolutely. Okay. Anything else from anybody? Thank you. Thank you. I understand that you want to say a few words. Yeah. I really appreciate it. Just start with three quick things. Okay. You want this way? You do get a little better at gymnastics working around the wings. For the record, my name is Bill Moore. I represent the Vermont Traditions Coalition on firearms policy as a volunteer advocate. And I got to say it's amazing what Ledge Council could do when it needs to be done. It always blows my mind a little. So I wanted to update you on some items that have happened in terms of our outreach and advocacy with our members and the public in general in Vermont. There was a gun show this last weekend and literally in a day and a half, we had over 650 letters signed opposing the underlying bill and the amendments that have been discussed. So obviously the letter wasn't completely up to date with some of the changes you've made since Sunday. And that was a moderate effort but it was pretty much 99.9% of folks attending that gun show saying this won't solve school safety issues. I don't understand why they're doing it. Can I just ask a quick one? When you say the underlying bill, you mean that with S-55? With S-65? Well, just S-55 as it came and then it was amended. I want to clarify that I'm talking about the whole package. With all the long amendments? Yeah. But not the underlying storage. Storage and distribution. Yeah, I'm not addressing that because I worked constructively on that solution. Right. And we still support that particular change in statute. Just not the vehicle. So I might add not to confuse but just to have a little fun with the whole thing of lineage and grandchildren and this and that. We were playing around with it and I came up with non-adoptive, non-pistodial, cohabitating parents, children. So you could get pretty funny if you think through this thing. In a normal modern family there can be non-marriage relationships that are as strong and long in my family. Particularly I have two non-adopted step-grandchildren because we never married and I now have a grandchild, a great grandchild coming along. So there's that. We did that the long ready. And I don't mean to poke fun and I appreciate your time. So the other thing is that it's come to my attention that after a long relationship a gentleman was able to offer one of the house members a lengthy detailed demonstration regarding magazines, how they're used, why they're used, such little facts as 90% of handguns sold today have magazine capacities in excess of 10 rounds. So basically the entire industry has tooled up to provide 12 to 15, 17-round magazines for most of the semi-automatics. So how that ends up impacting gun stores and gun owners who are looking at purchasing firearms as tools for self-defense is something that needs to be reiterated again, choices of tools for self-defense. Can I ask you a question? Yeah, so my understanding is that there's a so-called California version of the various handguns because they have a 10-round band. And so that there is this market in California, perhaps in the other states that have that band. Can you comment on that? I don't know the proportions. Henry Perrow probably could address that better. I'm aware that there are certain companies that have made limited numbers of their models available with those types of capacities. It's more likely they would re-manufacture the magazine itself as an unmodifiable, if you'll excuse the term, version. But you'd have to ask the industry that. I doubt if they'd tool up for Ramon. But again, that would be a question for Henry Perrow. What I was getting at is I've got a resource and it's never too late to have good information. Randy Lopes, from the information I have in this email, he's a Burlington police officer, competitive shooter, and firearms instructor for both the Burlington Police Department and the Vermont State Police Academy. He's available to redo this presentation he did with one of the house members here. I have her name, but I don't have permission to say it. They had a long, long meeting and what the email here says is that after the presentation, Carol came to the conclusion that this was sort of a silly idea that won't achieve the goals as far as the magazine ban, just that part of your bill. And that gentleman is available and would like to come even if it's after this vote. We could work with the committee to set that up in, say, in Room 11 for Friday morning or something, whatever the schedule is. He's anxious to be helpful. He's a professional. He's way smarter than I am. And it's out there and I'd be happy to rely on the information necessary to set that up. And finally, I repeat myself, the necessary tools for the choice of exercising your self-defense Second Amendment rights in the home, when you restrict them, you're really going to hurt the people you don't want to hurt and that's going to be families and individuals, particularly single women living in questionable places or in remote places that want to make those choices. And I think the difference between nine rounds and 12 rounds really shouldn't be the purveyor of the state in this case. So that's it if there's any questions. Deb, you could just provide us with this information. And then do you have copies of those units, 650 letters? We're going to provide them. We have them scanned so that we can provide a set for the governor's office as well. And I will get them to the committee. Okay, great. Thank you so much. So I have one quick question for you. Absolutely. Anything that you have that supports your last statement about why it's hurting women who need that kind of gun? The largest, the fastest growing sector of handgun purchasers in this country in the last 15 years has been women. That can be backed up and I can find the data for you. I'm not going to serve Dr. Jen. I guess you said it hurts. I keep seeing data that shows that you have a gun in your house for safety reasons. It doesn't make you safer. And so if you have research that shows that it makes women safer to have guns that are, you know, able to shoot 10 rounds, that would be good to save. There are smarter people than me that can expound on this, but the statistics you're referring to are based on when there's a criminal or violent incident, when there is a domestic violence incident, or when there's an incident of crime, if there's also a gun in the home that seems to have some increase in the statistical likelihood that there'll be a firearms injury, but it doesn't differentiate, let me finish, doesn't differentiate between the gun in the home being owned by the homeowner or being owned by the criminal or the intruder or a drunk neighbor that came into the house. So what you have is sort of a strawman. If there's no guns, then the violent act could be perpetrated by any other thing, and it kind of cherry picks. Now, I don't dispute that domestic violence victim advocates have a genuine need for the police to be able to respond in the home and remove guns when it's appropriate through the version of S-221 that we worked hard to support, we would have that tool. So I'm not disputing that there is validity to your argument, but those statistics tend to lump things together in a way that doesn't tell how many times a gun is used by women or men, elderly or young, handicapped or what, regardless of color, regardless of race, the rest of the world, used to deter crime without a shot being fired, because the most likely use of a gun to deter a crime or deter an incident or deter an attack doesn't involve an actual discharge of the firearm. Those statistics are available through the Justice Department. So I think we just need to take them all just a little bit, the statistic that you're referring to with a little bit of a grain of salt, and remember that in an individual right, the exercise of that right sometimes requires a tool, whether it's my mouth, that computer, or a printing press in Ben Franklin's day, limiting the choice of the tool besides that right to an individual. It's always something we should take extremely seriously, and air on the side of strict, strict caution. So more children are injured by guns in their homes than they are in schools, and we know that... Then they are in schools? Yeah. Well, that makes... That's true. That tells me that injuring, being injured by a firearm in school is very rare, but it doesn't tell me a lot. No, it isn't rare, it just means that the other one is more... It's statistically rare, but... I do a problem. I still think... I mean, I think what Representative Richardson was asking for was, I mean, it was a generalized comment, but I think we were making for a dramatic effect that didn't actually have a factual component to it, because a woman with a lower capacity gun still has a gun to protect herself in those unsavory places. I appreciated the fact that you did speak to the fact that if there is an intrusion that more often it's not about the gun being discharged, it's about having that gun present. I know that because I lived that experience today. Thank you. But, so, again, I want to... I know that this is very hard and emotional, but we want to honor everyone in this, and there are victims involved in this, too. So, I just... If there is something that ties to your final statement, I would appreciate being able to see it, but I do understand as well, because if you would just... I don't like you just had to say something. Again, I think this gentleman can address some of that, and in the final analysis, I try not to be emotional or passionate about any of this, or use statistics in that in the furtherance of anything emotional, because to me, I have to start from the fact that it's an individual right, and therefore everything else that I say will flow from that. That's my principle. And I, you know, I have rape victims in my family. I have... We've experienced crime in my family. Everybody's got an anecdote or a cousin or a neighbor with an anecdote. They don't serve to inform the debate about restricting an individual right, a constitutional right. It's difficult not to go there. I'm sympathetic to it. She still has a gun, and that's still her right, and we're not taking that away. So, in the name again of the law enforcement officer... Oh, yeah, I'll forward a version of the email to Mike. I just moved off it briefly here. It's Randy Lopes, and I have his cell number and his email address, and I will forward that to Mike and share to you. I have to scrub the email because it's got some other stuff in it. Thanks again. I appreciate it. I know last minute's always kind of crazy. Thank you. Do you have any questions? I did hear from Eric, and he doesn't see a problem with the only date that that was just something that... The 2018? Correct. That I'm not age 12. I'm five and six. Did he say why? He said I don't know... Well, my question to him was, was there any reason that we can't strike that language and that it causes some concern regarding health? There it is. Well, we'll let him talk. We'll let him sit in the seat, too. Thank you. Do you want me to... Do you want me to sit? Marty was about to... Looking at the language of 2018, the July, I didn't have to strike that. I really can sit down with you for a minute in one minute. Okay. I will let him. I was close. Do you have a question for her? No, I just wondered if we could have a break for a minute as well. So let's take a break. Can you read his email? Oh, yeah. I asked him if there was a reason to take it out. He said I don't know what's from the federal Massachusetts definition. Since you have the grandfathering and you don't need it, I guess that's not a definitive answer. I thought it was more definitive. I think a little bit more definitive. But I think the initial impression is that it doesn't sound like it's tied to the bill that was a definitive even reason he had to have it in there. But let's hear from him. Great. Let's take a stretch break. Can you turn back in here? I'm here again on the proposed committee to strike all to Senate Bill number 55 in the upper left-hand corner in the parentheses. It's just a draft number 4.2. Does everyone have a right copy on your iPad or a paper? So what I'm going to do is talk to you about what's changed from the prior version that we spoke about earlier this morning. As you'll notice, all the yellow highlights have been removed. So this is a clean copy. It's been removed by page and line number. What's different? The first substantial difference is on page 6. Lines 10 through 13. This is the definition of immediate family member. And I'd appreciate if everyone would read it to make sure that I included everything you wish have included. I think Gary Vance has stepped gradually. But what includes now? Let me read it through. If you think it's a mistake or an accurate please let me know. So immediate family member means a spouse, parent, step-parent, child, step-child, sibling, step-sibling, grandparent, step-grandparent, grandchild, step-grandchild, great-grandparent, step-great-grandparent, great-grandchild, and step-great-grandchild. I don't see house pets on here. Moving right along. Do not get my mother down. The next change is on page 9, and this is not something you'll see in the text, but if you look down on this section it shall not apply to lines 14 through 20. If you remember the prior version was highlighted but had some stricken language. I took out the stricken language in the text. It wasn't necessary to include it. But this is the definition we talked about earlier. And then the final change is on page 12. And this is I removed the date that Representative Jessup had caught, which was the July 1st. So now it reads E, as used in this section, large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, et cetera. There used to be a date in there, and we took it out. So there's no longer the reference to the date. But those are all the changes. Are there any questions about anything else? Thank you. Thank you. I would like to make a motion that we had draft, that we move to take up draft number 4.2 of S55 and pass it in its entirety. One second. Should we have a discussion? I would like to make a motion that allows the appropriate time as far as dividing the vote. I think I will make a motion now to divide the vote, and here's how I'd like to see it divided for folks. So slowly? Yep. Sections one through five. Okay. And would you like to vote on that first? Yeah, I'd like to vote on that first. Section six. Okay, so one through five is the it's the storage and disposition of firearms held by the law enforcement. Okay, so part of the underlying bill yet. And then section six. Section six is the firearms transfer background check. I'd like to vote on that one separately. Okay. Section seven. The sale of firearms to minors. I'd also like to vote on that separately. And this is the order you'd like to divide on them? I think the order of the bill is fine, yes. Okay. Section eight. The large capacity ammunition feeding devices also separately. Okay. And section nine. The bump fire stocks separately. Should I have the effective date and any opinions on that of where I should place that? I would recommend, I may probably go through all those sections and then one of the final vote over what's left. Well, we have to do that. The effective date then would be germane, I think just the final bill anyway. Right, good. All right, so that's a motion to divide it so I have a second to divide it. I have a question. Okay, a question, yes. Is it going to be divided on the floor like this? It can be. I would think so. I would think so. Should we check? We'll check with the... What happens on the floor separate from what happens in here? I thought you said the same rules apply here. Meaning that you can ask for division in here. If nobody asks for a division out there then that's fine, but we will have recorded our votes on the divided questions. Right, and the reason, as we talked about this last week is that that I wanted to give, you know, if people wanted it, I wanted to give them the opportunity to vote on different sections. I should have talked about it last week, that for instance he might vote for certain sections but in the end he'll vote against the bill. So that's... So with the process we're going through we have a motion on the floor that's been seconded. We don't have to address that before we do... We have to do that first before we do anything else? No, we do the divided questions and then we go back to that original motion. Okay. Did we have a second yet? Yeah. Is this time for discussion? Sure. I would like to hear a description from the Vice-Chair about how you managed to buy a semi-automatic gun for your son in New Hampshire if that's what he heard correctly last week. He bought a gun for himself, but I can't remember the name of it but I think he told me it was made in Czech Republic. There's a store in Wells River that's like a sporting goods store. They sell used as well as new and that's very well. And they're in FFL and he did his background tracks and he was over the correct age and all that kind of stuff. And he's a hunter. Actually, not a hunter. He just likes shooting guns. Did he charge the practice? Yeah. So he lives down in Lebanon, New Hampshire. He can't really use his guns around his house so he brings them up off and then we go out and shoot at things. Yeah, okay. Was that interesting? That's what we did. Okay. So the first thing that we are voting on are sections one through five. So your chapter the Unlawful Firearms Agency the disposition of unlawful fire arms rights of innocent owner and the crimes relinquished pursuant to relief from abuse, order, storage fees for the crimes. So then it's called on sections one through five as divided. Colburn. Yes. Dickinson. Yes. Jessup. Yes. Malone. Yes. Morris. Yes. Rachelson. Yes. Vien. No. Wilhoi. Yes. Burdett. No. Conquest. Yes. Grab. Yes. So that would be nine two faithful. The next section is section six entitled Firearms Transfer Back to the Shepherds. Six by itself. No, I have I have a section here like that. That's not it. Yeah, sorry. So we have vote one, vote two, so I have all the sections here and then final vote that's recommended out there. That's how I'm doing it. Okay, so the we may have a look at it real quick again, sorry, sorry. Yeah, so it's section six which goes page six page seven page eight and then through line eight of page nine. I'm good. I'm sorry, thank you. Coburn. Yes. Dickinson. No. Jessup. Yes. Malone. Yes. Morris. Yes. Rachelson. Yes. Viennes. No. Wilhoi. No. Burdett. No. Conquest. No. Grab. Yes. Six, five favorable. As to section six. Okay, the next section is section nine which starts on page nine entitled sale of firearms to minors prohibited and that goes through line eight on page ten. Yeah. That last vote was six five. Six five, yes. Six five favorable. Yeah. Coburn. Yes. Dickinson. No. Jessup. Yes. Malone. Yes. Morris. Yes. Rachelson. Yes. Viennes. No. Wilhoi. Yes. Burdett. No. Conquest. Yes. Grab. Yes. So that was eight, three favorable. And the next section is on page ten and that goes through line ten on page ten through line six on page twelve. Coburn. Yes. Dickinson. No. Jessup. Yes. Malone. Yes. Morris. Yes. Rachelson. Yes. Viennes. No. Wilhoi. No. Burdett. No. Conquest. No. Grab. Yes. Six five favorable. As to section eight. And then bump stocks on page twelve. We're trying to line eight through 16. Okay. Coburn. Yes. Dickinson. This is number nine. This is bump stocks. Yes. Jessup. Yes. Malone. Yes. Morris. Yes. Rachelson. Yes. Viennes. No. Wilhoi. Yes. Burdett. No. Conquest. Yes. Grab. Yes. So that's nine, two favorable. As to section nine. So now the question is shall the shall four point one. Four point two. All right. That's it. Any madam chair? Coburn. Yes. Dickinson. No. Jessup. Yes. Malone. Yes. Morris. Yes. Rachelson. Yes. Viennes. No. Wilhoi. No. Burdett. No. Conquest. No. Grab. Yes. Jansen. The first vote was on section one two five. What was the vote on? Nine two. Madam chair. Who do you want to report on to the bill? Section eight. I just do that for two minutes. This is an easy one. You don't want me anywhere near that one. I'm passing it over to you my friend to finish the job. All right. Thank you. Is that helpful with the breakdown of the section? Yep. All right. There's one word on this. I mean it's no secret, you know, where I've been all long on this, but this is just a personal opinion about the whole process that we just went through. I think as far as days, this was worked on. It wasn't a lot of days, but in those days there was certainly an enormous amount of hours and I think it's important to look at the number of hours we've worked on this and not the number of days and the wide array of, you know, witnesses that we did have come in here and again I don't like it, but the opinion, the due process that was done here was very appropriate. Again, I certainly would have liked to see a different outcome, but I just think it was all done right as far as the process goes. Thank you. I just like to say that when we started this process we found that we were looking at it from a school safety aspect. Nothing in this bill as far as I'm concerned addresses school safety. I just wanted to say I appreciate the chairs allowing me and others I think to vote on the individual parts of the bill. I can't support the whole thing, but there are parts in there that I think are important and that I do strongly support and I just appreciate being able to express that support in a vote. So it sounds like the senate is working hard on 422, which I'm quite out and they're still deliberating, so certainly things can change, but it's looking very similar to what we passed out before town meeting. So I think that's encouraging and so we'll take that up again. The idea is that we're working in parallel to get the bills pretty much to the governor at the same time. So I'll do that tomorrow. And I assume we're going to be on the floor all afternoon, but if not, depending on what time it is, let's come back. I do want to start looking at some other Senate bills, even if it's just walk-through. Do you know when that joint hearing is for education though? Because I do want to attend. That's right, 3 to 5. So I'm just thinking if we are off, I'll likely attend. I would just have to say, I hope that we do take up the issue of school safety. And that other committees are also doing work on it, and I think it's a top priority for all the obvious reasons. Well, as I said, I think the Senate is going to use 675 when they look at the conditions of relief part of it, and that's when we had our felony also was set. So that extra language of was it retired law enforcement or off-duty law enforcement? Yeah, the off-duty language, and then Gary, your amendment language, and also what I would ask Senators years to consider all of that. And then certainly when we get it back we'll have the opportunity to do the same. I just want to, I can't let Gary's comment just lay down the answer. I do believe that what we passed here will assist with respect to gun violence, including in schools. There's definitely broader things that we need to do with respect to school safety, but I do believe that this will present some restrictions, some barriers to individuals who are trying to get a firearm for the purpose of causing harm. I think some of the language we put in, based on input from David Cahill into the ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices will help in that area as well. The background checks will get people in private sales to be sure who they're selling to, that they're somebody that's not prohibited. And I think that the bump stocks ban as well, that the bump stocks and the hide and buy magazine will help. It's not going to be a it's not going to solve everything. It's not going to eliminate this, but it's definitely going to help. And it's also going to have the extra benefit of assisting in other areas that this state should take a close look at. And that's the suicide rate by firearms. We have a very high rate, and this also helps in that. So I think it's doing more than just school safety. I do think it moves us in the right direction. Thank you. Adjourn.