 And I'll be watching my Twitter account to see if I get fired between now and the end of my testimony. For the record, Lewis Porter, commissioner of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. Good morning. Thanks for having me here. I may be looking at a couple of things on my phone so I'm not actually tweeting. I'm just looking at some bills and some notes. The bill as it currently stands would have an effect on the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department by allowing those who've gone through our hunter safety courses, our hunter education courses, to be exempt from the age restriction. Which is fine as far as it goes. I think you'll see on the third page of the notes I just gave you, this graph which shows the number of hunting related shooting incidents back to 1973. You can see a dramatic decline. Not all of that is attributable to mandatory hunter education, but I think a significant share of it is. The class works, the program works. And I'm proud to say that nationwide hunting is one of the safest activities that people engage in outside. In fact, if you look at the sheet that looks like this, you'll see that you're 25 times more likely to be injured cheerleading than you are hunting. Which is, I think pretty great for an activity which involves tree stands, involves firearms, involves bows with razor blade broad heads. It's a trend and a trajectory we're very proud of. And that I'm very proud of my staff. And especially of the more than 300 volunteer hunter education instructors who work across Vermont. And these folks dedicate thousands and thousands of hours. They teach their classes in conjunction with a lot of rod and gun clubs around the state, a lot of other associations and organizations. And they are tremendously generous in what they do. On page 10 of our bill from the exemption for persons under 21 to buy firearms, and our person who provides a seller a certificate of satisfaction and completion of Vermont under safety course, or equivalent under safety course, we approve by the commission. All of these, all of these will have to be approved by your agency. Yes, and they are by and large now because we accept those certificates of completion from those courses for people who want to hunt in Vermont and get a Vermont license. You don't have to take a Vermont course if you want to hunt here, but you do have to have taken one that meets the International Hunter Education Association standards. And the province and other state are approved. Yeah, yeah, and we do that now with hunter safety. Do we, would Ontario be also available? Yes. Just get one? Yeah. Anywhere? Anywhere that does a course that we evaluate. And occasionally we have people come to us who wish to be licensed and have taken a course somewhere and we research that course, make sure it meets the International Hunter Education Association standards, and then certify that that course would be accepted. Would that do a licensed firearm? No. I've seen some, I don't want to disparage any university, but I've heard that you can get medical degrees online that you never took a course or anything, but you can get a degree from a university and get a water model. And that's one of several questions I have about how this section will work. You put your finger right on it. If somebody shows up with what we call the orange card of Vermont Certificate of Completion, you know, the FFLs are gonna recognize and know that. If they show up with one from somewhere else, I'm not sure how they will know if we've certified that course or not. There's a second area of this section of the bill, which I'm not sure how it will work and which I have some concerns about, which is... Nobody in the house asked you? We testified in the house set and gave substantially similar testimony over there. The other piece is we may see a number of people going through our Hunter Education programs who aren't really interested in hunting. They're interested in using firearms or something else and they're gonna wanna go through our courses in order to get their orange card and be eligible to be exempt. But if they have a New York card from the... Yes. If it was one of our approved courses. Well, I don't have a draft, but what I would propose is that we also authorize other courses, NRA certified instructor led courses, 4-H courses, Boy Scout courses, to also provide for the exemption. And there's a couple of different ways that we could do that. I don't particularly wanna get in the business of having the Fish and Wildlife Department certify other firearms courses, but if that's the way that you need to do it, we will make it work. We need to do other sections of the bill, but I wanted to understand this Senate. I voted against the bill on what the Senate just in case you didn't know. But... I was listening. The House made significant changes to several sections, and this is one of the changes that originally when I asked Senator Ash who proposed this amendment, I said, well, why don't we provide an exemption for Honor Safety courses? He said because I wish he were here, but he said because we can't verify from other states, and so you've identified a problem. So I don't know how to address that because this isn't like, it's the first reading. I mean, this is a bill that's passed, it's gonna either go to conference, be it concurred with, or concurred with for the proposal amendment. But if we were to propose an amendment, can you work with Eric to get something drafted in the next 24 hours? Certainly. And we could always put this off till next week, I guess. We need to, but it's important. If this is gonna become long, we're gonna ask the governor of the Senate if we at least get it right. So if you're against, I wanna make sure I'm not, because yesterday somebody testified, and then their boss said, no, that wasn't what it was. I wanna make sure you're saying that section, the section that, of course, will provide the certificate of satisfactory completion in another state of province, is a problem now. What I'm saying is that I wanna make sure that we do that in a way that works, and I think we can draft something that will make sure that works. What I'd propose is that we come back to you with a draft that clears that up and also proposes an alternative mechanism for people to get certified if they aren't interested in learning hunter safety, if they just wanna learn firearms courses. Yeah, sure. Is it more reasonable for somebody else to certify those people who aren't hunters but wanna attain fire safety? I would think that it would be best to go through an NRA certified course or one of these other courses, because frankly, my point would be certified. They're okay now. Would that come from you, or would that come to be registered with law enforcement, or with DMD, or who are you? For frankly, Senator, we don't have expertise in handguns and defensive tactics in competition shooting, but if, as a stop gap, you wanna make me the person who convenes a group of people with that expertise, I will do that. Okay. If we're gonna offer. Unfortunately, my attorney's on vacation on a well-deserved vacation this week, but I'm sure we'll figure something out. Here's our product. We're used to have to make it, we have to make one, three decisions today, and then recommend to the Senate tomorrow unless the pro-tent boys are put to get this bill. To come up, I'm sorry, I, the Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife feels that the section on page 10 of your, of Eric's highlighted portion, item number four is not something that he can support and would like to revise it under some other issues that he would like to see. I think we can, I think we can provide you with something that we'll straighten that out. Did your intention to vote on this tomorrow? It's on your actual calendar tomorrow until it is. So, which, just as I'm just walking in, to tell the new document, or the yesterday's. On the document, we were from both page. Right here. Page 10. It's the certification from under. It's actually, Senator, it is the concern that you expressed to me when you were first proposing the line of the 821 provision. Right. And I said to you on the bottom of the table, say how do you through? And the House went and did this, even though it was a matter of time, it looks like it's been something that was missing. So. At the time, as you know, I was drawing from the Governor's memo and made the suggestion, but the suggestion in the Governor's memo was, I mean, more general than this. And so it was hard to understand based on the Governor's own recommendation, whether it would be like a state certified or any private organization. And then knowing whether it was like a online checklist of two seconds and then you get a thing versus something that might require some proven confidence or knowledge of how to handle a firearm. So I think this is obviously more specific, which would have been, if we had had this in the Governor's memo, might have been in our original proposal. So the. The House only addresses understatement. Understatement, the point is, the Governor's memo by teacher was more general, and that was harder to understand how you'd have a clear chain of command and a determination to use a level. And I think we can fairly easily apply the same methods that we apply to getting your hunting license to getting this orange card or equivalent. The other question of the other courses, I think, is a little trickier, but I'll see what we can do. Senator Mellon, can you describe orange card and the letter for me with that term? When you get done your hunter safety education course, you pass the test successfully, the instructor deems you're ready, you get a card, it's orange in color, it's your basic hunter ed certification. Under this bill, none. I would propose accepting NRA certified instructor led courses, 4-H courses or Boy Scout courses, certificates of completion from those, which could just be a letter from the instructor as an alternative path for those folks who are interested in competition shooting, but not hunting. Otherwise, you're gonna have students sitting through a class, only half of which is related to their interest. Well, that would be a policy decision for your committee. I'm happy to attempt to work with Eric to draft up something that will go, that will provide you with different options. I'm not sure what that would look like, but we can talk about it. I think we appreciate it. Any other questions for your commission? Mr. Thanks. Thanks. My pleasure. I still don't see any commission from the state. Is the secretary of the state right for you to introduce yourself to me? You're wearing many hats. I wear many hats. My name is Chris Bradley. I'm here representing the Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association. I am a registered lobbyist for both the VSRPA and the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs. It was my participation in the VSRPA that allowed me to become president of the Federation. Just to jump back to the line of questioning we were talking about concerning training, there is a civilian marksmanship program. The VSRPA endorses and works with, we run matches under the CMP. One of the things that I do, I'm an NRA instructor, NRA coach, NRA range safety officer. We provide classes to teach people to shoot competitive shooting under the CMP and that's based on the U.S. Army small arms firing school that you would take if you went to Camp Perry. So in order to shoot at Camp Perry there is a requirement you'd go through a small arms firing school. The VSRPA has taken that program, basically made it a day long course. So we teach people to shoot competitively. So that may be something else you want to consider because we provide an affidavit of completion of a course recognized by the civilian marksmanship program. Chris, before you move on, can I just ask a question? Yes, sir. Our constitution literally says we have the right to bear arms for self-defense. Should we course on self-defense? We do not. We shamelessly try to lure people into competitive high power shooting and that's our focus. The NRA and many other organizations provide tactical defensive courses. But that is outside our purview. We are looking specifically for competitive shooters. But there are courses available for self-defense. Absolutely. If I can... The RIP got here has said that they offer ones particularly for women and it's been over and over every time they've offered it. That would be the Academy, I'm sorry. That would be the Women on Target program. That's another program that the Federation, in fact, if anybody's looking at the numbers of amount of money that comes into the Federation from the NRA, those are grants. These are not paying salaries or lobbyists. These are grants and we spent something on the order of $15,000 for ammunition, pistols, rifles and equipment to support women on target. And as you said, Senator, it's one of the fastest growing courses every time we put one out. There are women signing up for these things. Let's just take for the competition shooting purposes but also for literally self-defense. There are courses available, they are. If I may, and I know my testimony this morning should be limited to just those areas of 55 that changed, may I have some attitude to speak just to the age change for a second? It seems odd to me that a person between 19 and 20 can be threatened, be in danger to the extent where a relief from abuse order could be issued. Yet, and in that critical time, they may decide to take a prudent action of buying a firearm for defense. And that is now encumbered by waiting until what is likely to be a seasonal hunter safety course can happen, enroll in it and then be able to purchase a pistol for self-defense. When in fact, they may already have that self-defense training already. This is a great concern to me. I think we're denying, well, I won't believe where the point is. I think there's a lot of gray areas. But the fact is that when you have bills that have passed one body and then passed another body, it really would be rare that you would take something out that was in both versions, just as it would be rare to add something in that wasn't in both versions and actually, that's against the rules of law. If any time it's been attempted. So, I mean, you couldn't add in, for example, the software was banned during a conference committee report on this bill, just the same as it would be difficult to take out the background checks because they were both versions. I'll let that help, that's helpful. No, I appreciate it. The rules that we live under. I am learning them the hard way. Thank you, Senator. As to my testimony, what has been accomplished with S-55? In regard to handling events like Fairhaven and Parkland, we fail to see how any portion of S-55 would have prevented these horrific events. As we have repeatedly seen, the majority of perpetrators at the school shootings were determined and they carefully planned and prepared. While repeated statements were made that sections of S-55 were imperfect or would not stop everything, what seemed to sway many was the thought that if just one event could be stopped, it would all be worth it. The sad truth, however, is that for someone who is determined and who carefully plans and prepares, which appears to be the modus operandi of these sick perpetrators, not one event will be stopped or even appreciably slow. We have seen it to time and time again. In House testimony, it was stated by several representatives that they were able to vote for S-55 because it does not take anything away that Vermonters currently own. As that thought generally appears to be true, i.e. that nothing is being taken away from Vermonters, then what has been accomplished when everyone keeps what they own? That is not to say that I support outright bans or restrictions on rights, but how exactly is anything being stopped when nothing is being taken away? The stated intent by the presenter, at least concerning Section 8, is to gradually reduce the number of magazines held by citizens over time. So while the magazines I own are grandfathered, what happens to my grandchildren or great-grandchildren? Am I able to gift or bequeath what I own to them? Currently, I believe that such things would be prohibited. So while the current generation is protected, future generations will not be. And I cannot tolerate a restriction on my grandchildren's rights any more than I can abide by watching my own rights infringed upon. I further ask what is supposed to be done with the magazine in my estate if they can legally go nowhere. Vermonters will obey the law. Several times across the discussion on the House floor was stated that Vermonters are law-abiding and they will voluntarily adhere to laws such as Section 6 and Section 8. I beg to differ. While I fully understand the issue of registration is in no way related to S55, I ask the Senate Judiciary Committee for a bit of latitude to briefly touch upon the topic of registration as it pertains to compliance by citizens as S55 clearly does require voluntary compliance. Chair Sears, may I have that latitude? I begin with a situation that exists in Connecticut. As you will recall, in December 2012, a sick and deranged 20-year-old perpetrated the horrendous and unconscionable act of gunning down 20 six- and seven-year-old students and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School. As a reminder, he obtained the rifle he used after killing his own mother by shooting her in the face with a .22 so that he could steal the firearm she legally bought and possessed. In response to that unconscionable act, the Connecticut legislature quickly responded by crafting a law that banned the sale of a number of semi-automatic firearms that were labeled as assault weapons. Connecticut residents who owned these types of firearms were allowed to keep what they already owned, but from rain within the law, they were required to register these firearms with the state before December 31st, 2013. As of January 1st, 2014, there had been 41,347 registration applications made. Given the relatively low number of registrations, the median Connecticut began to wonder just how many Connecticut citizens actually owned these firearms and had not complied. Because there are no exact numbers, the National Sports Shooting Foundation, which is a trade association for firearms manufacturers, attempted to make an estimate. Using data obtained from numerous surveys, customer purchase information, NICS background check data, and even data from private party transactions, they estimated that there were 350,000 owners of such firearms in Connecticut as of January 1st, 2014. As a quick aside here, because these style of firearms are modern and new in nature, virtually all of these purchases by Connecticut residents were likely made after passing a background check, meaning that these were honest and law-abiding citizens with no criminal records. Yet, when it came time to register, less than 12% complied, meaning that 88% didn't comply, which meant that over 308,000 law-abiding Connecticut citizens appeared to have voluntarily opted to become felons as opposed to remaining legal by registering. Now let's look at a similar situation in New York. In April of 2014, the New York Safe Act took effect, which required New York residents to register any firearms they owned, which matched the New York's version of what an assault weapons was. Again, the question quickly arose as to how many people registered their guns, and so the government of New York was asked to give that number. New York refused. In response, New York was hit with a freedom of information request. Again, the government in New York refused. Eventually, however, New York was sued to obtain the number, and as a result, they were forced to provide what should have been information freely available to the public. From that lawsuit, we learned that just 23,847 people had registered that had these types of firearms. Again, however, there were no hard numbers as to how many New Yorkers actually owned the firearms that were designated as assault weapons. Using the same approach that has been done with the Connecticut estimate, the NSSF again stepped forward and calculated the total number of owners in New York of these types of firearms at one million. If that estimate is accurate, and I believe it is, then just over 2% of the estimated New Yorkers who were thought to have this style of firearm registered while 97% didn't, meaning that 976,153 New Yorkers willingly opted to become felons. Again, the vast majority of these people likely had to go through a past background check when they originally purchased these firearms, meaning that these were all likely to be honest and law-abiding citizens with no records. With a stroke of two pens, a whole new class of citizen were defined in Connecticut and New York. Specifically, this new class of citizens were virtually all law-abiding. They all had no criminal records, but when it came time to do an act in compliance with a law that they felt was infringement, over 1.3 million Connecticut and New York citizens willingly opted to become felons. I relay all that to underscore that when it comes to constitutional issues, there is a percentage of law-abiding firearms in Vermont, firearms owners in Vermont that will likely not obey any law that they feel is repugnant to the Constitution. I believe that this is especially true when these Vermonters consider the process that had occurred or didn't occur as S-55 was moved through the House Judiciary and then the House Proper with amendment after amendment being proposed to fix issues which should have been caught and resolved with more careful and protracted deliberation. Arbitrary magazine limit. Within the testimony provided to the House, I state that there was never any factual basis presented which conclusively indicated that reducing the size of magazines would have any significant impact on mass shootings. It is the Parkland event that seems to have brought us all here. I point out that the Parkland shooter used only 10-round magazines and the potential shooter in Fairhaven apparently intended to use a shotgun, both of which would have complied with section eight. Issue with constructive possession. Within federal law, there is the concept of constructive possession, meaning that if you have certain parts of a firearm in the same place, you can be convicted of having a completed device even though it's in separate pieces. With the ingenuity of Americans, there are carbines, which are short-barreled rifles rather than full-length rifles, which shoot pistol caliber cartridges such as nine millimeter. The magazines for some of these carbines are completely interchangeable with pistols and in other cases, pistols themselves can be incorporated with a carbine assembly to become carbines. If an individual owns one of these carbines and pistol and legally bought a 15-round magazine for the pistol, but which also fits the rifle, is he in fact possessing a legal or illegal magazine at the same time solely dependent on which firearm it is inserted into or is he otherwise guilty of constructive possession simply because the pistol magazine can be used with a carbine. Next turn to an informal poll on economic impact. In regards to economic impact, the Federation conducted an informal poll of 58 entities that are listed as manufacturers. Economic impact on section eight or the old bill? Section eight. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. That are listed as manufacturers by the BATFE as residing in Vermont. Each entity was then asked if they were aware of S55 and if so, they were asked two questions. One, do you see any negative impact to your business if S55 were to pass and if you do foresee negative impact, could you this influence any decision to stay in business or even possibly relocate to another state? Due to limited time constraints, only 22 calls were able to be made and due to the presentation of the list as presented to me, these were all small businesses. Of those, 11 indicated that S55 would negatively affect their business with 10 of those also indicating that the passage of S55 would and could influence their ability to stay in business or otherwise have them consider a move out of state. Of the remaining 11, two were out of business and nine could not be reached. Well, completely informal and completely unscientific and even with some exemptions being carved out with S55 when S55 was barraged with amendments, the poll indicated that 100% of the respondents indicated negative economic impact. Issue with the term transfer in section 8A. Section 8A refers to the term transfer. When I was giving testimony to House Judiciary, the record will show that I repeatedly asked what the definition of transfer was as it was used in several sections, some now thankfully removed. And in response, I was repeatedly told that the definition of transfer was the same as applied to section 6A7. This past Tuesday, however, and in talking directly to legislative counsel, I was told that because section 8 does not provide a definition of transfer, the definition used in 6A7 would not apply. Within section 6, transfer is defined in A7 as quote, sale, trade, or gift. And I believe that this was done purposefully so as to allow and support the concept of loaning or borrowing. In section 8A, the term transfer is used as is the phrase or receive. Use of these two conditions makes it unclear if loaning or borrowing is legal or not. For example, consider two citizens at a range. Person A has a rifle with a high capacity magazine, both legally owned. And Person B would like to shoot that rifle. If Person A grants the request, as soon as Person B is handed the rifle, he has received the high capacity magazine that was in the firearm. The language of section 8 is unclear as to whether temporarily handling that gun, handing a gun to a friend that has a high capacity magazine inserted is legal or not, or simply the act of Person A handing an empty high capacity magazine to Person B for their examination is legal. Issue with the word import. In section 8A, the word import appears but is not defined. It is my understanding that a word or phrase is used in a statute, but it is not specifically defined, then commonly accepted use of the word applies. If we consider Google as our gospel, the word and you Google the word import, I see the first definition being quote, bring goods or services into a country from abroad for sale. If I can believe that Google might provide a common definition of the word import, it becomes unclear as to whether or not it's legal for me to go to New Hampshire buy a case of high cap magazines and then return to Vermont with them. So long as I have something in writing that indicates that the state intent will only be used for my personal use and not for sale and therefore not an import. Enforcement is impossible. There is quite literally almost no way the law enforcement can enforce section 8. As I understand you've heard this already with testimonies by folks with far more stature than I, I will not belabor this, but magazines are not typically serial numbered and they rarely have a date of manufacturing printed on them. When law enforcement finds a citizen in possession of a high cap magazine, the chance of being able to prove precisely when that magazine was made, when the possessor actually first took possession of it, or even if it is on loan or borrowed, assuming loaning and borrowing is still legal, it will be virtually impossible. Even if law enforcement stopped every vehicle coming into Vermont and then found in Vermont with several high cap magazines, how could law enforcement tell if they were just recently purchased or simply being returned to Vermont from whence they originally came? S-55 does prevent the ownership of firearms. In the house, repeated statements were made that S-55 does not stop any firearms from being legally owned. At this time I can absolutely state that this is not true, and I can think of at least one firearm which is impacted, and that is a shotgun made by Kel-Tek. The Kel-Tek KSG shotgun has two integral tube magazines, one on each side, each holding seven rounds, and I believe that by the current definition, that firearm would be made illegal to own. There are also a number of pistols that come standard with magazines that hold greater than 15 rounds, such as clocks, and while magazines can be made that hold lesser amounts of rounds for a given pistol, it may well be that a manufacturer like Glock will not create a special magazine just for Vermont, such that certain types of pistols may no longer be able to be sold here. Arbitrary magazine limits. When the bill left House Judiciary, 10 in rounds was the magic number for both pistols and long guns. After a weekend of work, another arbitrary number was arrived at for pistols with a suggestion of 15. I ask the question, allowance of number of rounds is apparently based on the type of firearm. Does that mean that pistols are less legal than rifles? If I have 15 rounds in a magazine with one additional round in the chamber, why cannot the same be true for a rifle, which was also built to accept high-cap magazines? Impact on competitions. I next turn to competitions, which is a topic very dear to me. I do not hunt. I instead like to put little round holes in paper at distance, as I am a high-powered competitive shooter that has been nationally ranked. While I am the president of the Federation, I am also the past president of the VSRPA, and I currently serve as their secretary treasurer. Across the spring, summer, and fall, VSRPA runs clinics and matches that attract shooters from Vermont and around New England, and we have even had international participants. Three years ago, the civilian marksmanship program, CMP, was searching for a location to have a new regional New England Games event. After looking at sites in Maine, New Hampshire, and New York, Vermont was selected by the CMP due to the existing laws of Vermont, which were seen as being very friendly to these competitions, as well as the outstanding facilities that are available at the Camp Ethan Allen training site in Jericho, Bolton. Every year surpasses the previous year's participants in match entries, such as the CMP New England Games are now being referred to as the Camp Perry of the East, and last year saw 800-plus match entries. This match is a major fundraiser for the VSRPA, with seven days of matches bringing in shooters from around the country and internationally as well. I cannot overstate the economic impact to the area surrounding Keats by having large numbers of out-of-state competitors coming to Keats to shoot in these events, restaurants, hotels, gas stations, area attractions, and stores all benefit with greater economic impact every subsequent year. On the House floor, when the issue of the effect on competitions was raised, the presenter informed the House that out-of-state competitors coming into Vermont with high capacity magazines, which could be used exclusively for competitive shooting would be prohibited from doing so as this would be called important, even though these shooters would leave with what they came with, and then bring them and leave what they came with. Prior to an 11th hour and 59-minute amendment being crafted that would allow these matches to continue, the House appeared perfectly willing to let these events die. While an amendment was passed to allow these events to continue for this year, the amendment was only allowed because it contained a sunset provision, which will have it expire July 18, 2019. So when does this get fixed? Or is it the intent to curtail out-of-state involvement in Vermont matches? While I am being, by no means a lawyer, is there not a legal challenge here under the 14th Amendment, under equal protection when Vermonters are given preferential treatment as to what they can do with legally-owned property by an arbitrary date versus what an out-of-state citizen can do. With Vermont stepping firmly onto the anti-Gren ground with completely unenforceable law that makes the state looks inane, events such as CMP New England Travel Games may well be moved to a state which is friendlier to Second Amendment rights, and other statewide events would likewise be negatively impacted. I conclude with Bumstocks. Concerning the ban on Bumstocks, I am confident that the federal government will prohibit these devices in some fashion in the very near term, and they will make it a felony to break that law if it were to be broken. Against that, I see the House intends to get tough on the horrible problem by making the possession a misdemeanor. I also comment that while Bumstocks make the act of bump-firing easier, it is a known fact that you can bump-fire virtually any semi-automatic firearm with specific keyingling, or you can use a rubber band or your belt loop to accomplish the same thing. Thank you, any questions? Well, there's a few, and actually I met with somebody on Monday who showed me he can use the, he didn't wear a belt, so he can use the loops on his belt and we have the same as the folks. So, we've heard testimony in here of that from the Attorney General, the state, and I've had several emails. Unfortunately, Sheriff Wainack is going to be used today because he's home sick, but has law enforcement expressing their opposition to the Sheriff's Association expressing their opposition. But I've also heard from a number of law enforcement people that they won't enforce this law. So if nobody's going to enforce it, what's the big deal? I guess that's a devil's advocate question for you. We're going to have a law on the books, but nobody's going to enforce it. That's the testimony that we've heard now. Anybody on the committee is welcome to challenge that as testimony. I would be interested in seeing any active law enforcement officer who put in writing that they will not enforce the law if confronted with a violation of it. Well, I would be happy to record that. I would be happy to try to find those emails. I, it should be part of the record if an active law enforcement officer sworn to uphold a, I think the state has indicated that he or she would not have mentioned it. Whether you like the law or not is a different issue. Whether it's easy to enforce. But if confronted, let's say with a say, let's say, just as an assumption, let's say this became a law tomorrow and a licensed dealer sold a high capacity magazine after the effect of the, I think if, but if they're saying they will not enforce the law, that's an amazing statement. I think it should be in the formal record. Well, I would ask Peggy to find those. Yeah. If I could at least respond, Senator Ash. While not specific to Vermont, there are certainly sheriffs and municipalities that have made that clear statement in New York that when it comes to the SAFE Act, they will simply not enforce the law. They have more important things to do. There are Vermont. That's not Vermont, but it's also different. They're different. It's a nuanced question, right? There's, if confronted with a clear violation, would you enforce it? And then there's the, are we gonna go out looking and try to find people in violation, which is different? So, I agree. We make those kinds of discretionary enforcement choices all the time. That's a different issue. I'm saying if confronted, I would not enforce it. Okay. I appreciate that, Senator. It becomes, as I've stated, becomes from my extensive experience, magazines are not serial. Magazines have no identifying marks. They are simply metal with a spring and a follower. I do not understand or see how law enforcement is going to come and see that I have a high capacity magazine. And in any way, be able to prove when I bought it, when it was manufactured, or if indeed, is loaning and borrowing a magazine allowed? Well, I think there's a question that we have for everybody. We'll ask later what the interpretation of these are. I have a couple of other questions that I could. It's been, what is the use of the high capacity magazine? Have it ever been the only legitimate use of it? Not at all. In terms of sport shooting, or just recreational shooting, having a higher capacity magazine is more, allows you to put more shots on a target. As far as competitive shooting, there are different types of courses of fire in competitive shooting, one being a slow fire course, one being a rapid fire course. So in CMP and NRA competitions, there's a concept of rapid fire, which basically means you have two magazines, typically loaded, you're going to shoot 10 shots, one magazine will have two, and one magazine will have eight. The magazine becomes much easier to handle having something that extends downwards. So you're actually given 60 or 70 seconds to put two shots, do a magazine change, and do another eight shots within a 60 or 70. So competitive shooters actually practice fast magazine changes because it's a time issue. Additionally, Senator, if I'm sorry to interrupt, when one is shooting offhand, which is the act of standing and shooting at a target, in my case, at 200 yards, there are various ways you're going to support your rifle. And different statures require you're going to put your hand in different places on the rifle. It is not uncommon to put your hand so that it's on the bottom of the rifle for a short-statured person to bring the rifle up so that you can get a clear line of sight without moving your head. Could you tell me what an attached tubular device designed to accept the capable of operating only with a .22 caliber rim-firing munition? I learned how to hunt and shoot my first .22 rifle. I never saw a tubular device attached to that, and I have no idea what it is. A tube-fed magazine. I'm exempting that, and I have no idea what the resemblance is. I think that's strictly because tube-fed magazines and a .22, given the small length of the bullet, can typically exceed 10 rounds very easily. Picture your barrel of the gun, and right under it is a tube with a spring on the end of it. I can turn the end of a follower, pull that out, drop bullets into that tube magazine, come back down and lock it. It is now under spring tension, so that either in a pump mechanism or even a semi-automatic mechanism, self-loading, it will self-load. It's okay to exempt that. That's been a carve-out in numerous states, apparently .22s are not, even though it's the same diameter as the cartridge of a AR-15. I had the .22 rifle, I remember only five to say, and Bobby Kennedy was killed with the .22. I'm not sure, I know as far as the favored weapon of the Mossad assassinations are .22s. Senator Bennington. The purpose was to ruin the 30-round economy, and to hear anybody articulate that discussion of self-defense at the same time. This is quite simple. There were millions of these devices on the street today. That's correct. And if an aggressor against them has one of those, and I'm limited by the law to a 10-round magazine, what good is the argument of self-defense in the Constitution? One has to imagine what is going through somebody's mind in a self-defense situation, and clearly you're under a lot of heightened tension and pressure, nerves are going to be running high. It is likely, and we've even seen with law enforcement the number of times that law enforcement has engaged a target, and this is no condemnation of law enforcement, but multiple rounds are shot that are only several are actually hitting or impacting the target. I think that's a common, you're on edge, you're in fear of your life. Quite frankly, in a self-defense situation, you don't know how many attackers may be engaging you. And in fact, you may not be able to respond by putting bullets where you would like them to go. More is better in these cases. This discussion I've often been accused by some folks of saying, well, you're not entitled to the Bazooka, frankly, if I'm wrong, where a Bazooka is actually a common voice on the streets of America? They are not, but there is the concept under BATFE of any other weapons. I know of cannons in Vermont legally owned, everything from 20 millimeters. I know a gentleman that is a class three dealer that has these collections, all operable guns. And oddly enough, machine guns, if we're not aware or are legal in the state of Vermont, I can't recall any crime being committed in Vermont with a legally owned machine gun. Nor can I find one with a bump stock for that matter, or a cannon, or a Bazooka, or grenades. Or yes, there are classes of firearms that are completely allowed for people, honest citizens, who can pass background checks and be fingerprinted and get a chief law enforcement sign off and be FBI background checked to own these sort of weapons. That may be a black powder cannon. It's right across the river in New Hampshire, so. I don't know what they, but it is really loud. I'm trying to keep you out of the idea. Oh, you said it was good. I went to a barbecue in Tennessee and they had a can in the backyard. I already laser was in Tennessee, so I shot the can, but it was a celebration, I guess. Well, our neighbors did shot the can in Tennessee, and they were okay with that. Other questions? Do you recall our day? Thanks so much. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Well, the question about the arbitrary, as you say, arbitrary, 10 or 15 for the magazine, others would argue that the manufacturers, if a number of, as it does mirror, at least, it roughly mirrors what a number of other states have done in terms of magazines and capacity. There are some who would argue that manufacturers, that there's a logic to it, because then manufacturers have a consistent audience of what's, or consumer base, or what is allowed to be bought and sold in those states. What's your reaction to that? Well, certainly. I'm not saying in favor, but that's there, but it's an argument which seems to have some logic to it, so I'm wondering what the... I guess I'm not certain that it's advisable to pick up laws from other states and feel that they apply to Vermont. Yeah, I'm not asking you to make that statement, nor would I make that statement. Okay. What I'm saying is from the issue of rendering to some firearm to no longer effectively able to be used because currently the conventional magazine size would not be compatible. If there are millions and millions and millions of people living in states that all have a similar restriction, one might think that the manufacturer is rather than having a custom made for Vermont, a custom made for New York, and a custom made for the state of that state, if there was consistency in the magazine capacity, that there's a lot of consumers all with one tree, I'm just wondering if you think there's a logic to that. I won't gain say that there isn't logic to that, I mean certainly uniformity is something that may be desirable, but that stifles in some cases creativity and the ingenuity that has allowed many advancements in technology and certainly with firearms, such as the shotgun I mentioned. When it comes to defense, I don't think we can quite put ourselves in that situation to what you're going to be feeling if in fact you have to defend your family against one or more people. It is as difficult as that may be for some of us to imagine happening here in Vermont or anywhere, but these things do happen and you don't know if you're going against one attacker or two attackers or however many attackers. I mean in a defensive situation I think things are running high and what logical when someone is coming at me and I can repeatedly apparently see evil people using magazines or high capacity magazines to attack completely innocent people. What is the rationale for limiting my ability to respond in kind when I'm a law-abiding citizen? Thank you very much, appreciate it. I'm sorry. It's in our, I believe it's already in there. I think that this was handed to me, I just wanted to pass it down to this input for a little bit on the audience. Let's just see what that's going to be. Okay, all right, I'm getting, I wanted to have a commission around this and that's our next group. And this test is going to be from the chair who we all know. I don't know, maybe not many of you have talked about it. No one in the world appears. Thank you. Commissioner, we're not going to put the truth out. The process is going over for the whole bill for my everyone to know. I'm concerned about two floor amendments. One on page 14 of the part of the Department of Health says to develop, promote, execute, and collect the process that permits persons to voluntarily and on to the bump fire stocks. I don't know if we knew that was there. Yeah, I gotta tell you, I have not. I don't know. The one portion of this. I don't know if it was something new before they assigned new movies to you. No, I mean, the one portion of this bill that is most important to me at this point, the issues with respect to the background checks, the bump stocks, the magazines, those are really issues that I'm not prepared to testify on or provide information on. I haven't really reviewed the bill like closely. If your department has any concern with the department. On subsection C on page 14, I would request one, if this bill passes, there will be one addition to that, the Department of Public Safety shall develop, promote, and execute a collection and destruction process. That would be my only request because if this passes, they will be illegal and it doesn't help me just to collect them. I need to, I need, I need to be able to. Then we go to the storage problem. And then I got another storage problem to the extent we get any, but I would just. It is a report on background checks, arriving fire accidents on the 4th of December 15th, Department of Public Safety, Executive Director, Chiefs of Police will submit to the House and Senate Committees on Judiciary a review of current practices, if there's no options, all that. I hate, I mean, these are floor amendments, so obviously you remember them and solve them before giving them to duty. Yeah, I mean, it's not that I lack for reports that I have to provide. So I. You don't have to really report on reports, by the way. I wish I could give you a better testimony. I just, I don't know what all that would entail. You know, how time consuming it would be. I don't want to get into a situation like we had with the Secretary of Education, I keep calling Commissioner, where she refused to do a report, and then by the Legislature she didn't have the resources. So I'd prefer to ask the Commissioner or the Secretary if they're able to do the report, and it seems like a pretty detailed report. It could be, I just haven't had a time to look at it and talk to, we probably see the Colonel on what exactly that would entail. I can do that and submit something to you. Are there tomorrow morning? Sure. With any recommendation? No problem. The one part of the bill that is critically important to, I think the way S55 started was the, my ability to get rid of firearms. So that component of the bill is extremely important. There really is no good way right now for the state to dispose of firearms that have come into its possession that they cannot be lawfully possessed by anybody. They're either illegal per se, or they're unlawful as defined by statute, or the bigger chunk of them, the guns that are abandoned that I've got in our possession that we have really no good way to get dispose of. So that's really the correct. The only response to the bill, I support that part of the bill. So I know it's the boring part of the bill, but it's the only response to the only. It's the only response to the bill. I know it's not the, I know it's the boring part of the bill, but it's critically important. You have to contact me really vehemently against the bill asking why I sponsored the bill. What it grew to be was not something that I envisioned. It's a former shell of its original order. But it's still there. It's still there. I will say this, if I might. I agree that this is a tremendously important provision that has been left out of most discussions. But unless we do this, I don't give you the ability to dispose of these flyers. Yeah, I don't think there's anything terribly controversial in it. I don't think anyone opposed to it. So it could appear somewhere else on what happens to this. But we're at sort of critical mass on that at this point that I've got to. I think there's a general agreement on this committee that at least that part of the bill. Anything else? No. Any other questions? Senator? Just, I know that the administration had been at least part of helping craft some of the amendments that came forward before third reading of the bill, maybe even second reading, but that's all beyond my knowledge. Was anyone from the administration at all involved in writing the report in Section 10 or the provision on Section Page 14 about where you requested the destruction to be added? I don't believe so. I just wanted to. You know, I have not had any discussions on that. It seemed like a fairly minor, more of a technical correction to the bill tool. If they're gonna be illegal, I've got, they've got to be collected and gotten rid of. I think there were floor amendments and not all floor amendments are equal. Some come from the committee, some come from people who support bills, some from people who are opposed. Sometimes it's the administration. In this case, the list of 11 or whatever that were on the House floor came from all sorts of sort. I'm just trying to get a sense of whether anyone of the the first I heard of, no, no, the first I'd heard about it was, I think when it was getting voiced on the floor and I think I'd made a request to try to get it sneak it in at that point, but I'm not, I may have been too far along at that point. It just seemed like a technical omission in the amendment. The term usually is, and tried by a legislator. Well. I don't know. The former prosecutor, you've seen any enforceability problems with Section 10? Senator, I really have not looked at it that closely to tell you, that's the magazine part of it. I really haven't looked at that closely to make a determination of whether there'd be enforceability, you know, I mean, there's always enforceability issues with every law. So, you know, I just can't give you a good answer on that right now. I guess I'm not on enforceability. There's a provision in this bill that allows a manufacturer to continue to manufacture something that's outlawed in the state of Vermont. It seems kind of incongruity, and incongruity to me, that you would say, okay, this thing is so dangerous that we're gonna outlaw the magazines. Do you know of any other wear in state law, or even federal law, when we allow something that is so dangerous that we ban it to be manufactured? I'm not off the top of my head. It's one I'd have to take a harder look at, Senator. I find that to be one of the most egregious, speaking personally, things in the bill, that if you really believe that this item is so dangerous, the high-capacity magazines are so dangerous that they should be banned in the state of Vermont, that you would then go out and provide an exemption for them to be manufactured. And I suppose it will be different in opinion, but I find that to be dangerous. I did two, actually, until I talked to somebody, and they are still, this bans them from civilian use, and they're still sold to the manufacturer, I believe it's in single. This manufactures them for law enforcement and for military purposes, and for lots of other purposes other than civilian use. So it is incongruous, as I originally thought it was. So that's the explanation I was giving. Did the administration support that proposed change? I can't answer that, Senator, I don't. The change of the, yeah, again, I have not, look. I have not reviewed the bill, that section of the bill closely, I've not discussed it with the administration as to what the position is on that, so I'm just unable to provide the testimony you're asking for right now. If there were an amendment to allow the manufacturer just for military and law enforcement work. Like, I mean, I suppose I can sell it to Minnesota. Am I safe in a survey from your previous remark that you never asked to appear before the house to provide any testimony? I provided testimony on that section of S55 that, or whatever it was in the house, on S55 related to the ability to dispose of fire on the section of the house, that's it. Really, these are very political questions. I think law enforcement should mostly stay out of it. Other questions? Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. We have a letter from Sheriff Boynac that all the committee has seen. I don't think it's necessary to call him. He's on ill. The Vermont Sheriff's Association is opposed to other than banning the bomb sites, and the background checks are okay. And we are against amendments, probably to say, would be nearly impossible. Of course, in the high-faculty magazine ban would be impossible. I will understand that we need to protect our school children so that they don't have to be blasted by us. Mr. Robinson of this bill will not protect anyone. That's from the Vermont Sheriff's Association. DJ Donovan would like to talk to you by phone. So, what could you do? I think later for him, we could try and piece it. 950 or 10. Well, 950. Yeah, it's 950. Good. Okay. Close enough. Close enough for government. Which that? Yeah, that would be the famous 19 minutes. That's in reverse. It will be 950 dollars. Is it eight to eight numbers? It's an eight over two numbers. No, does it eight to eight? No. Oh. I think it's yourself. No, it's watching. I don't know. Hopefully it's not, hopefully he's doing an eight to three. Yeah. Joe. Hello. Hi, DJ, Dick Sears and the Judiciary Committee. Hi, Secretary Sears. Good morning. And a number of members of the media and a number of witnesses and other monitors are in the room. So, we're happy to hear from you. Thank you so much. Thank you for accommodating my schedule this morning. I just wanted to offer my opinion on S55. And I think it's important to note that as the chief law enforcement officer, we're talking about a new criminal law. And I think with any two criminal laws that are being proposed and debated, enforceability is always going to be an issue because this is what lawyers do. We engage in issues, body. We engage in hypotheticals because that is where I train. What this is to be, someone reminds me of, is the texting while driving, to be a few years ago, where myself and others were raising issues of enforceability about how we would enforce such a law. But reflecting on that experience, I think what came out of that was a couple things. Number one, training is always required on law enforcement, police and prosecutors. But more importantly, public education, public awareness, and trust of our monitors is what happens as a result of these debates and these bills becoming law. And I think in that case, he's really down, no pun intended, he can't do the texting while driving. That's taking people's lives. That's the difference. And on this specific film at 55, enforceability, I think it's going to be clear in some instances. For instance, the retail sale provision, that's going to be clear. When a gun is used in a commission of a crime, I think that's clear. I think the issue that was raised was in reference to the grand talk of laws and I think through collaboration, I think through training, I think through public awareness, education among our monitors, we will be able to enforce this law. I am pleased and I agree that the legislation does not require any sort of registration. I would not support that. But I want to be clear, I support at 55, I will pass by the house. And I think we can do our job as we have been trained to do. I should this bill become law, which I do support in becoming law. And I want to be clear about the testimony of my colleague yesterday. He did exactly what he was asking. He's a lawyer, he issues spots, he raised issues. This process is a process that has been difficult because this is a unique time I think in our country and in our state dealing with this issue. We want this to be the best process possible. We want a law that is there to everybody. And I think he did something, I think at 55, I'll pass by the house. It does that, I support it. And I want to thank you, Senator Sears, for your leadership on this issue, for your willingness to engage in this debate. And I just wanted to thank you. We will. So the headline, depending on where this morning is, AP's Office Magazine Limit and Done Bill largely unenforcened. I didn't see Senator Jim Linus on another headline, it was very similar. And I think that stems from the testimony yesterday, which he gave directly to the great bottom loss, as we call it. And I think the forcibility of that comes down to public awareness and public education. And trusting for moderns. That's what we do in this state. We trust for moderns. And if a case arises, will we be able to investigate? Yes, but let's do what we've done in so many other cases, particularly in the technical or private origin. I remember, I made the use of a force to. This is about educating law enforcement, police prosecutors, this is about educating the public. And that's the best way to enforce the law in any kind of public state. Any other questions? I'm sure you're hands free right now as you're driving around the state. Any other questions for TJ? Anything else, TJ? All right, Mr. Attorney General? I just want to make the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Sears, again, greater leadership on these issues. And you're willing to engage in this debate. I know it's not easy, and this is a law that I think will save people's lives. I think we can be fair to all of ours, protect you process, protect people's property rights. And at the end of the day, make sure that everybody is safe and protecting the state. I think SSC-5 does that. So thank you again for your support. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. My plan right now is we still have one way of the schedule that I haven't gotten to yet. So I'm going to push our 1030 bill back to some other day as we push it back several times. And then come back here at 1030, but I do want to make a statement. Which I think is important to recognize. Today, in the Senate, we're going to vote on age 422, which is an important bill on domestic violence. And we'll protect many Vermonters or something from that. It came out of this committee on a 5-0 vote. Today in the House, they'll be voting on S-221. I believe it came out of the House to issue a committee by 11-0. These bills will do more to protect Vermonters than anything that's, in my opinion, in this bill. However, shortly, there's also, my hope is that we have time to do age 675, which will provide protection, particularly for our schools. And it will be geared towards our schools. So while we have sharp differences on S-55, and what's been passed by the House and Senate in this committee, I want to just emphasize where there's tremendous agreement on at least two and hopefully three bills that will help really protect Vermonters. So I think it's important that as we battle over the government divide to keep in mind the positives that are happening in this state. Thank you. So we'll be back at 10.30, here for Bill Moore and then discuss the word bill for me. Senator Sears. Well, our witness, I'm sure he'd be back for a moment and then we'll vote at age 799, and actually vote at the sale of property, so he's not made property taxes. Just inadvertently, just to turn my computer on for this, Bill Moore, on behalf of Vermont tradition's coalition, we represent land-based sporting interests, land-based business interests of all type around the state, basically the culture of Vermont's economy and recreation sports. I'm also representing the Green Mountain Boys Shooting Club from the inner line for purposes of, specifically for purposes of section eight today. I wanted to try to answer two things that came up earlier. It's a bit of a hodgepodge, I apologize. I didn't want to repeat people like this. Brad, you did such a good job. There was a question yesterday regarding semi-automatic pistols. Have you paralleled the case to me that of these pistols sales, 80, 85% are semi-automatic, of the diet almost exclusively have the few that have 10 are usually antique in 1911 they're supposed to be from the 60s and 70s. So I want to ask a question. Well, could you stop over there? Yes, you are good at speaking, but someone can come if you're using it yourself. Absolutely, as you know, it's not a long amount of safe walking. So yes, absolutely, both of their dogs can fly around in a terrible way. So I wanted to start by sending the best exemption, this committee can consider minus 55, is to exempt it from section eight, then you won't have to worry about exemptions. The second thing on that note is that the viability of a long stock ban is now in question because the federal government is clearly engaging in the process that will either result in some sort of ban that is certainly at the very limit of regulating on chest achievement is regulated now. Limited supply, highly restrictive background process, registration, and so on, and I won't worry about the details there. So I think the committee would also be safe in removing that specifics on the bill. In 2014, there was a bill, some hundred line bill, that's 31, and a lot of it didn't include a slower one than layabouts to that. It's been stated by certain house leaders that a public hearing was held on this bill. S55, which by the way, it's original title, different, it was titled subject criminal procedure jurisdiction, state and the purpose of the bill is to introduce the federal process to expand remonstratorial jurisdiction so that we're good at regulating chest health skills. No changes occurred in the bill until the week of February 28th, 2018. We've been introduced on January 31st, 2017. Once the work was underway, it was already six to eight weeks after the January 30th hearing, which is being propagated as an excuse for not holding a public hearing on the current version of S55. We still do have a public hearing on S55, but we won't impose that on this process because we feel we may be close to some sort of resolution. I wanted to remind you, that the process has been fraught with such errors and restrictions on the house side. I do not feel that way about the treatment that the bills have here in the Senate. I appreciate the time today and the extended testimony of the fight up to this point. We still oppose the entire bill, speaking on both with the groups that are attending, except for the underlying solution to our overloaded storage problems and our law enforcement. And I have since spoken to my sheriff to reinforce his support for that particular section. I believe there are deep issues with several pieces of the bill that will be under litigation shortly after its passage, if it passes now. Not the least of which would be age 21 appears to contradict Vermont's constitution, even more so than the federal constitution. And I would refer to the Common Benefits Clause, which was in the Baker Decision Fund on the station. I get rid of the Baker Transpose and Bounds and I apologize, but with the essential problem with the section we get to keep our magazines, is that it's equal to being able to keep my bicycle, but no longer selling tires and tubes. At some point, I cannot import more. At some point, I cannot pass it. I have broken magazines at home that I came from arts. I believe many people in the room have had that experience. Not everyone, like some of us, own a dozen magazines for one gun. Some only have, those can quickly look up. As a misdemeanor fighter, they're everywhere to resupply yourself. Let me take a segue. I refer to the Attorney General's recent statement. I believe his debuties spoke very accurately with regards to law, with regards to the adventure standards needed to prosecute him. And I think he spoke very clearly to Senator Asch's scenario inside the federal, but I would add to that. Senator Shears here, no retailer in his right mind will have a magazine hanging on a rack on October 2nd. I would also direct to the Attorney General's comments, Senator Shears, that we don't enforce tailgating. I have not seen any, I have not seen the prosecution for tailgating in recent memory. I often wish they would, it's one of my bad views. But I would suggest an alternative then to address the Attorney General's concerns. We should have primary enforcement for texting while shooting a gun. We cannot equate texting or driving with the individual right to possess arms for the defense of yourself and the state. It simply can't be done. Non-statutory constitutional understanding of the history of the brain cannot be done. Driving is considered a privilege, we license it for reasons other than the fact that it's a right, it can be limited, they have to do it safely. And so to point out, tailgating, this is quite illegal and very difficult to prosecute. But it does remain to be illegal. In the case of an accident, it becomes an issue in the information from the police officer. It then becomes an issue for the state's attorney to consider prosecuting. As would be the case if someone were caught and there was some evidence that they had a box socket legally or they had a magazine illegally, it would become part of the information from the police and it would be up to the state's attorney to prosecute. If you get to the deputy attorney general's statements, I believe you'll find very, very little energy to do so. And I'd like to say correctly to my club, I brought in Henry Creel several times who's been asked to shoot if any spoke eloquent of them, believe that his comments had a great deal to do along with that cover and others with the dropping of the assault on the stand for the bill. We're glad we're effective there. But my club has, like Chris Bradley's organization, unique characteristics by which this bill would impact it. We have 400 members currently here to take, excuse me, many of them from out of state. We have a British national who's under the UN delegation and he directly comes up. We have people from Toronto and we have people from Montreal who come down and come to the shoots from all over New England and the Eastern Sea Ward. Some of our events are in the primary event, it's embedded in an exhibition as well. But we have those members wishing to come out there in Europe and use the range so they will drop the membership. Our event, the main event, the weekend in July which we talked about announced in history has 1,500 to 2,000 people involved over the course of one weekend in a long time. Most of those respectators who pay a fee to come and spectate that as a major funder is equal. We also have a big pig roast that I recommend. There's this unique in one respect. We have a large attention to the military antiques, including World War I tanks, which are legally owned under some provisions. I have never seen a Zubia but there may be so many legally owned when I don't know. Recoilers, rifles, lots of belt-fed antiques, World War II, World War I, period war and lots of hand-held rifle-tightened weapons, all of which utilize either belt-feeding or a large capacity magazine or devices of other types. Essentially this would, even with the grandfather, we would be hard-pressed to reschedule that event on this July, knowing full well that this law will permit that the following July and 80% of our sign-ups are done the day of the event for the following year, much like you might quote a favorite weekend vacation spot. Senator? I'm sorry, I'm putting in some setting, 30-30. We wanted to do a long-stir-dust in this panel, but the real issue that has come down to none of the magazines, I think it's, I appreciate the testimony of my mother full of my time. Okay. So I gave you all that information about our shooting club to solidly backstop our opposition section eight. We feel it's the least well-prepared, least-fed, and I think judging by the journal of the House, the last two periods when it was debated, it's clear there are unanswered questions, amendments that were not fully fleshed out, personally sat through one amendment, they passed, but there were three other ideas in that room and conversation in 15 minutes that led to that amendment, clearly because it was the only version of it that would get enough folks to walk out of the judiciary with no testimony, no technical testimony on that. So to wrap it up, that's really what I wanna say. It's, you know, it really needs to be removed and live to have a discussion another day with more time, expert testimony, and this is not the time of us to do that. Could I leave a personal note, both for the numerous one for Senator Hatch? I wouldn't repeat the word go off and I think that supper cat would fit my room too and it was meant clearly as a little bit of hyperbole and I hope you took it in that spirit. I appreciate you bringing it up, but it was just for the committee's benefit that this was mentioned in a CAX story, but not in a humorous way. I think that no matter which side people are on this issue, one of the challenges is, for instance, I've never met Michael Bloomberg. He did grow up in Massachusetts in that regard, I guess I'm a flat vendor, like he would be if he were, I've never met him, but there's a perception that he's controlling the actions of some people in this building. The perception that people are getting bussed from other states and that that's influencing the outcome of events is a perception that gets fed, just like there are perceptions on the other side which are not accurate and in this case, there has been a steady drum beat this year of claims that Chittenden County is somehow immune from economic pressures, from people in poverty, from a variety of social and economic and other pressures and it has been a steady drum beat and this was just one example, hearing that it's a Chittenden County cabal that is somehow behind the emphasis on gun legislation this year. When irony of it all is, is that the administration itself put out a memo that was even more expansive than what's on the table. So I do appreciate you bringing it up, but for many people who watch that, they get a different rate because they know that you're in the building, you were being interviewed as someone with more of a first eyes or a firsthand experience and they might think that in fact it is a series of Chittenden County legislators or community members who are solely driving this issue and that would not be accurate at which I think you would agree with me. Well, if you check it right, you'll find I've never represented anything regarding outside of mine, so I was referring to the votes and I appreciate it. Another very, top of the page 10, your receptions from the 18th and 20th, maybe that they have passed a certain course, might have been able to still purchase, that they would show that they have a team that said of course you represented two organizations that were definitely accepted when it was. You gotta agree that most shooting club in Vermont is they're a new training program that actually provides a certificate of completion. Not formally, but we've spoken about doing it in the past. We have to be happy to. Are you aware of any other courses anywhere that would provide a certificate of completion for someone who is strictly trying to learn for self-definition purposes? I'm not, I believe Chris Ratham had a better panel on that, but I might suggest that Vermont State Police Academy could formulate some sort of training category that would be available to common clubs like ours and provide that. I would think it would be a one-day event. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for sitting today, but what's the recommendation? It's, we could recommend that it concurred our proposals to the amendment. We could recommend that, we could recommend that, that a number of amendments suggested that seemed to be a little either technical or common sense. Yes, we should give the commissioner the ability to destroy something that he's got a lot of. A lot of stuff around it. We should recommend that they're illegal, we should destroy them. Yeah, if I were to believe that. If I were to, if I were to, but you know, at least what I thought would be more technical in nature is the one you just mentioned, Senator Sears, about allowing the commissioner to destroy the weapons of their tool for us to turn to them. There's the other one that I believe the commissioner Porter's going to be back with me this afternoon, which is providing some, in terms of the age restriction to permit right now his phrase, so that it's people taking on a safety course of their clothes, and I think there are a lot of thoughts as to fire him a safety course of whom he's sponsored by the proposal language. So, in fact, there's the, the other two that I have, the verification and definition of who the family members are who are examined in the background, and clarified it in law, so that we could just land with it there, so that any, like something like any of the other relations by heritage or something like that, that would cover the possible. And the other kind of one that I had was, then- That's one question about in law, gentlemen. Would it be, would it be in law? I was thinking the same thing about my stiff Greek brand struggles. What exactly is that to do with the number of men? I, this is, I, it's not, I guess that's the question. I got a divorce very, very late. It was my 45 in law school, my 55 in law. Sure. I'm sorry, now that you're over here, you don't even share it. I'm sorry. Do you ever consider taking a shot of him? Yes. I mean, why is it that you're taking a shot of him? Well, I just, I was curious about, I know it sounds funny, but many of us can't, I said there, I've only heard it, it's only going to get resolved if there's any conviction, some part of it will be termination. Appreciate that. Anyway, I don't mind the effort, I just was curious about that. There is, I just searched in the statutes for the immediate family, which I think is sort of the rough. Obviously despite, this is for campaign contributions. Oh yeah. The immediate family, it's a person's spouse or civil union partner, parent, sibling, child, or in-law, including parent of a civil union partner. I'm not sure if that's even, still working. I don't know what I'm trying to say. That's something to look at. Erica, I didn't hear you, but you said hunting, safety course, or like, I'm not sure what a self-defense course falls into the same caliber. I think the best we can do is go to a court, something from the commission of that would, I have a feeling that if this passes, we'll be back here next year, thanks to you. I didn't mean if I said hunter safety, I think I, I'm going to say it's a firearms, it'll just come back with me. Okay. Well, I, assuming that we're going to that S, that that section A will pass, it should be amended to allow what is allowed for one year to be allowed generally in the state. So I'm going to repeat what that sounds like. Yeah. And so? That's the only place that it, right. So I think I'm not just to make sure. I am, yeah. That's the only place. I'm, and obviously one that would be the strength section A. But if that was to fail, at least it should allow exeggulations. Well, that raises the question for me in terms of the graphic, which is, you know, in the same amendment, we can't strength section A, that makes changes to it. So is there, is the thought going to be that the committee's going to decide that now, or tomorrow morning, or tomorrow morning. Okay. To me, I think there are a lot of changes here that I believe that the other bill would be added to the committee of companies. And then you said you're going to vote it for, and I don't actually vote it for the 21, you're going to vote it for the Longstock, you're going to vote the original bill. There's so many people in the United States who are aware of that. The, I'm just sort of thinking. Is there anything else that we should be fixed if you were assuming the bill would become law and the governor were to sign it, and that's the, we don't even know if the governor would sign it. If the governor were to sign it, it became law, or other things that ought to be fixed that are problematic. I don't think we could fix the testimony of the state's attorneys, or the attorney general, or any of those things regarding this issue. By the way, I was reminded in the hallway that there are other main factors that we do not contract with the federal government that produce these products, that are exempted, not just that one. That may be the larger company that does not just follow any factors. We can say on the cell to the general public. So I understand it correctly. So there's two of these sort of mind and head and go nature events that actually are not all in sectioning. Those two are the Fire and Safety Courts that's related to the age restriction sections, and the immediate family members' definitions to the universal background. So one way I think that the project that destroyed this, isn't that in the section? No, to the Bostock. Oh, you're right, that's in the Bostock, so. I don't think that the committee is, I haven't heard any objection to the ban on Bostock from the time to this committee. Right, so what I was thinking, you might have all those amendments, but it's sort of drafted and alternate. Right. The Fire and Safety Enclos. Yeah. One would be it's stricken. Well. And the other would be to make a change to repeal the sunset. I guess that would be the only step to the change. Obviously, the favorite option is to ask for a committee conference. That would be up to the full Senate. Right. What our job is to do is to recommend something to the full Senate, but if you were going to concur, I think the very least you should do those amendments we just discussed. Right. And then if there were, if you can count section eight, I think if you can do that, then you would be correct. I've been convinced by the committee of events from one that I consider not in. I've had a number of difficult votes that couldn't go on any way, but we have serious concerns about the whole bill, but I think especially about one section. Thank you. And that will be. I'm going to start with a lot of, not that sort of part, but that's it. No, I don't know. We have the opportunity to say anything to any constituents, especially as opposed to this, 55, the way it went to Senate floor. It was in favor of it, and it left our committee. And I certainly got more concerned that after people went from the house, we're making decisions on how to best try to address those provisions from the house that are especially walrus. And I find myself torn between do I vote on trying to fix that in the understanding that the votes coming out of the Senate were for passage of this bill, and all likelihood to remain in favor of passage of this bill, where I continue to vote no, and you kept out of trying to make the changes. And that's a very difficult position to be in. For whatever it's worth, I've lost a lot of sleep, and I don't know where I'm going yet. It should be said that all of us have been put into an extremely awkward position. It just has not been funded. I'm sure no matter what decisions we've been going forward with all, it continues to be eviscerated by various folks along the way. I think we totally agree with you. At the time that we were forced to go down certainly to this committee, Senator Nick Hilton announced it. We knew where we were going. We had upset a lot of constituents, but we knew where we were going and which side we were going to be on. This one is much more important. Our parts of this bill that I think are good. I think I see myself as seeing some good come out of a background check. I took my lump silver, certainly, even in the cat calls when I was in the balcony or anything, so she didn't pay the late cost of it. That's the chair, but I don't understand. This is sort of a system-play in New York. Now, for the record, we get $650 or something while we're in session to do this. And I'll just get to the same amount as we do certain unfairness with that. I think that it's unfortunate that what has happened here is that we've kind of been put in two camps. You're either four or you're against and there's a whole radiation along there. And then we happened, so I suspect that no matter what we do, we will, from people on the far end of here and the far end of here, who don't understand the process, that we'll get, we've gone too far or we haven't gone far enough. And then there are, I'm sorry that we had, I regret that we had been put in two camps. And I saw it at an event in Cutney on Saturday and I live in Cutney and we tend to be over here. But I saw it there and it was very unfortunate and I'm sorry that this has happened. Because I think there is a lot of middle ground where we all agree. Yeah. So. Just got one little piece here on something I raised before on page eight, number two, the licensed dealer. This is with regard to the private to private transfer where by the way, I've got a belt on top of page eight. The licensed dealer shall return by a proposed transfer or and declined to do the silver bank transfer. In fact, this might be going against the federal check law because this says the dealer shall return by a proposed transfer. In fact, as I said, private to private comes in, the dealer checks the person who's the purchaser and he fails, the dealer then cannot return the gun. The gun to the person who wanted to sell it without the dealer putting them through a background check. Did you check that out? Yeah. I thought it was a deal about it. Isn't it probably the password? I thought that's why they put the language in about not being able to answer it. I'll get you into that. They're not going to answer the sales tax. He's correct. He's correct. That's the sales tax. That's correct. That's correct. That's correct. That's correct. I don't know if you've done a reminder of what that said. I don't know if there's something I can drag around to know who she is, but I don't know about that. We have a question around the fact that the seller is illegally holding the weapon. Does this language require the dealer to give the weapon back? You mean if that's not the next check, the background check? You mean if the seller, if the dealer recognizes that the seller, the vendor, the dealer recognizes that this individual is a criminal criminal. But he's brought in the weapon himself. Does this language require the dealer to give the weapon back? I don't know. That's an interesting question. There's a shout out there. There also is a complaint that said that they have a $5 property state that's a lot. So it's an interesting question. Well, I guess you do have to ask a different question. 2.1 and 4.2 if 500 are seized. The person couldn't use them to a friend and say sell them and show the friend's self to somebody else, but he's not the owner. But if you're doing it again, what happens there? The owner is actually illegal to possess. Senator, I have a detailed answer if you want. 10 seconds. 10 seconds. For the record, Vermont Traditions Coalition, Bill Morn, under their license requiring them to follow all state and federal laws, if they were made aware that a person was before them who was prohibited in possession, they would have to report that to the police. If they were merely flagged yellow, which is a delay, they could tell the person to come back in three days and they would follow the law as to what the final presentation was. My question has to do with a friend who is arrested and cited for domestic violence and firearms was seized under 422 at the scene. Those firearms, the friend says, hey, I don't want them, I don't want to get out of this, I don't want to be back with my brother in a series, gives them to a friend, the friend goes and sells them, but it's not the owner, in a private sale. I mean, I think there's a lot of interesting questions there, Alice, that you've raised, but... Yeah, I'm sorry, I was addressing Alice's. Yeah, you can, but I want to get to the other bill. Yeah, I just want to ask Bill. Other legislation, I'll go. Yeah, when you said that if they become aware that it's a person that isn't, but are they required? I go in with him, he has to have the check because he's going to receive the gun. Are they required to do a check on me or is it just if they become aware that I'm not alive, that I'm on the list? Are they required to do the check of me also before they allow me to take it back out of the store? They would be now, under like five, six years of directive from ATF, they would be required to do so, yes. Even though I haven't ever even let them touch it, it's never enough for my hands? Yes. Okay, okay. Serial, I'm going to go to the center. Yeah, I'm going to go to the center, yeah. I've got enough guns. Thank you, sir. I hope that this has been complicated for you because it hasn't been for me. Thank all the people who testified and I suspect that there are a lot of people who didn't get to testify who would like to. And there are those who say that the testimony was one-sided, I'm happy to hear from anyone who had written testimony between now and tomorrow morning.