 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Tuesday, January 25th. And we are here to continue our discussion on S30, an act relating to prohibiting possession of firearms within hospital buildings. And we are joined by our legislative council, attorney Eric Patrick, that is going to walk us through a draft that proposed draft that amendment that incorporates the changes that we spoke about when we last took up this bill, which I believe was last Thursday. Hopefully everybody for folks who are watching it is draft 2.1. This did 123 22 at 507 p.m. That's what we're going to be working off of with Eric. Good afternoon, Eric. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon. How are you today? Good. Well, good. Yeah. Thank you. Good afternoon. Yes. This is Eric, this Patrick with the office of legislative council and here to that's the chair said, discuss and walk the committee through a proposed amendment to, to an amendment itself. You may recall the last time we talked about this bill. an amendment proposed by representative Knot. So what you'd be looking at now, version 2.1 is a strikeout to that amendment. So there are some changes to that proposal of amendment that are highlighted in yellow, which I can walk the committee through. Does that make sense, Representative Gregg? Yes, thank you. Yeah, sure. So I'm going to share my screen so that we can take a look at the language. And I can, as I go through it, if it makes sense, I can sort of mention, even though we've gone through those sections and might be helpful just to have a quick refresher of what they are as we go through, if that makes sense. Yes. And here we are. I'll just say, as I always do, that when I'm sharing the screen, I can't see anybody visually. So if you have a question or want to interrupt me for something to ask for a clarification, whatever the case may be, please just interrupt me. Don't wait for me to pause, because I can't see whether someone's raising their hand or wants to interject for a moment. So having said that, so as I mentioned, this is version 2.1 of the proposed strikeout amendment from Representative Knott. And walking through each section one by one, the first one, this was S30, you recall, as it passed, the Senate included this section, section one, which prohibits the possession of firearms in hospital buildings. And I believe that the only change to this section, just skipping it for a second, just to make sure, but yes, all right, just confirming that, that the only proposed change to the language that you looked at last time, and in fact, which is the language that passed to Senate is to change the penalty. You see, that's the highlighted language on lines 10 and 11. As the bill passed the Senate and as it was in the previous version of this amendment, the penalty for possessing, knowingly possessing a firearm while within a hospital building is a one-year potential incarceration and a $1,000 fine, which makes it a one-year misdemeanor, essentially, a one-year misdemeanor with a $1,000 fine. So the proposal, the proposed change here is to get rid of the potential incarceration period and drop the fine down from $1,000 to $250. So it would be a fine-only crime, of which there are others in law as well. It's still a crime because it's phrased as a fine. It's not a civil penalty, in other words, it's a crime. Fine. It stays a misdemeanor. Pardon me, go ahead. Yeah, it stays a misdemeanor. Correct, exactly. Thank you. Yeah, sure, yeah. And so, yeah, as I say, that's the only proposed change between the language that passes in it and what you looked at last time and the version that you have in front of you. Otherwise, it does the same thing, which as we mentioned earlier, prohibits a person from knowingly possessing a firearm while within a hospital building. We'll move on to section two now, not seeing any other, or not, sorry, not hearing any other questions. I won't see any, as I mentioned. Section two has to do with background checks for firearms purchases and specifically with the default proceed process, which we've talked about in committee as well. The default proceed process is a part of the requirement that background checks be conducted when firearms are transferred. And there's both a federal requirement for that and a state law requirement for that. Under federal law, the background check has to be conducted whenever a firearm is transferred by a federally licensed firearms dealer known as an FFL. And under state law, the background check has to be conducted for private purchases between private parties with some exceptions for family members and things like that. But generally speaking, that's the way it works. And the way the background check is conducted is that the dealer, even in the private transfer situation, the background check is conducted by the federal dealer, the two parties go to the dealer and ask them to perform the check. And the process for involves contacting the national instant criminal background check system known as NICS. And when NICS provides the transfer that you're contacted by telephone or through the internet, either way, if the transfer is, if they don't find anyone in their initial examination of their databases, they don't find any disqualifying criteria. In other words, they don't find that the person is prohibited from possessing the firearm. They assign a unique identification number to the transfer to give that to the firearms dealer and the transfer proceeds. So when we say default proceed, what that means, that refers to a provision under this federal law under the background check law that provides that if the NICS system can't provide a unique identification number within three days. In other words, if they can't give the dealer an affirmative conclusion within three days that this proposed purchaser is not prohibited by federal or state law from possessing a firearm. And I met three business days. Sorry, it's not three calendar days. It's three business days. If they're not able to make that statement to the dealer within three business days, then the firearm transfer can proceed, even though it's not in a sense, they didn't provide them with a unique identification number yet. So it's referred to as a default proceed because it proceeds anyway, even though the affirmative statement about the person not being a prohibitive person hasn't been obtained. It's, as I say, a portion of federal law, but because the state background check statute is tied into federal law, it applies also to transfers between private people who have to do them by using a dealer also. So the proposal is, and this is unchanged actually in this new amendment you're looking at, there's no proposed changes to this language, but just to refresh everybody's recollection, the proposal is that that three-day default proceed be increased to 30 days. So if you look at lines nine through 12, the way it would work is that it's not that it couldn't proceed after a period of time in which there's no definitive answer, it's that it extends that period of time so that if they don't get an answer from NICS within 30 days, then the transfer may proceed. So essentially provides NICS and FBI over a longer period of time to determine whether or not the person is prohibited. And as I mentioned, no changes to that section. Sections three and four are connected. These deal with the emergency risk protection order that passed the legislature a couple of years ago. This is the process, which I'm sure the committee remembers well, which allows a state's attorney or the attorney general to obtain a court order prohibiting a person from temporarily possessing firearms if there's a finding that the person poses an extreme risk of danger to themselves or others through the possession of firearms. The purpose of this section of the bill was to, and this passed the Senate. In fact, I think it, now that I think of it, it passed the legislature. Sorry, did somebody have a question? Yeah. Oh, okay. Thought I heard somebody, sorry. But anyway, so this portion, this section of the bill passed the legislature previously in S169, but that was vetoed by the governor for a different reason, not related to this section, but the veto statement involved the waiting period piece as the reason for the veto. But this piece was in that bill and essentially it arises out of concern expressed by some healthcare providers that they wanna be certain that they could provide the sort of information to a law enforcement officer that goes into the decision that a state's attorneys would make about whether to file for one of these orders, but the healthcare professionals were concerned that they would be able to do that without violating the federal healthcare privacy law HIPAA. Now, there is language in HIPAA already that arguably already permits this disclosure. And in fact, when I mentioned this, I discussed this section with our healthcare attorney, Jennifer Kirby, and I mentioned what the purpose was and she said, well, can't they already do that under HIPAA? And I said, yeah, I think arguably they can and that's because if you look at lines two through four, that is just a verbatim repeat of an exception that exists in HIPAA. So healthcare provider may notify a law enforcement officer when the provider believes in good faith that disclosure of the information is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person of the public. That's just copied verbatim from a HIPAA exception that already exists, says that disclosure is permitted in that emergency situation. But there was, it isn't exactly the same language as the language that's used in the ERPO statute and that language in the ERPO statute is in lines 10 through 13. You see, that permits disclosure when the healthcare provider, sorry, not the healthcare provider, but starting with the reason we believe. So that's the standard for ERPO. When a person reasonably believes that the patient poses an extreme risk of causing harm to themselves or another person by possessing or purchasing a dangerous weapon. So at first blush, the language of both the HIPAA piece and the ERPO piece certainly seem to be addressing similar circumstances, but it's not exactly the same. So that's why I think there was a concern among some healthcare providers that they wanted to be absolutely certain that the disclosure would be permitted without violating HIPAA. And that's why this section exists. You see what it does is essentially defines the federal HIPAA standard, which is in lines eight and nine to include the state ERPO. So it's just essentially making that connection absolutely clear so that it couldn't be, someone's not gonna be concerned that, well, this may meet the HIPAA standard but it might not meet the state standard. Well, we define one to include the other so it's clear that it does. You'll see the one change is to do with the definition of healthcare provider. This was an issue that had come up in committee last time. Concern about that term and what it might include. So I also talked with Jennifer Carby about that. She suggested changing the, because healthcare provider is defined in several different places in Title 18 which are the healthcare statutes. She suggested changing that definition changing the cross-reference I should say to refer to a different definition which is slightly narrower than the one that you had used before. And I had asked Amber to post and she did a document that shows you the two definitions just so you can see what the change is between the two reference definitions of healthcare provider. So the one on top you'll see is from draft 1.1 of representive knots amendment. In other words, that's what you looked at last time. And the definitions are essentially the same except for the facility or institution language. So in the version of it that you, that was in the amendment last time defined healthcare provider to include a facility or institution. Whereas the one that's referred to now in the proposal specifically does not include facilities or institutions. So you can see that that's subdivision seven at the bottom there. It means it's a partnership. Yes, I know that. Yeah, I know this language kind of narrows up who could potentially report somebody or whatever. So I guess a little more detail on how it does by eliminating facility or institution. Yes. And fortunately, Jen explained a little bit of that in an email to me, which I'm going to read a little bit up to you so that to respond to your question, Merb Simberto, because I had the same question and asked her and she gave me a little more detail. And she's been working on healthcare stuff for a long time. That's for sure. Exactly, we know it's far more about it than I do, certainly. So yeah, it's a really what it boils down to is the difference between an individual and an institution. It's almost like, I think it's with the division of racial justice statistics bill. We've been talking about the word entity, for example. It's a similar concept that by the definition on the bottom that's in the amendment right now that excludes facility or institution. There's a lot of entities that are going to be excluded. Yes, it still would include a partnership or a corporation, we know, which is meant to include healthcare providers who are basically in business together. But facilities or institutions are excluded and I'll read to you what Jen said. It's the institutions are, it's from the definition of things that are excluded. For example, because you see how it says other than a facility, right? Well, in the same statute, facility is defined and that means all institutions, whether public or private, proprietary or nonprofit, chauffeur, diagnosis treatment, ambulatory care, et cetera, and the buildings in which those services are offered. So according to Jen, that means that the definition means individuals. So you are including individuals and businesses, licensed, certified or authorized to provide professional healthcare, but you're not including hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, et cetera. Institutions like that, which makes sense because this statute is about a person's ability to make an individual disclosure to law enforcement without violating HIPAA. So it makes sense to exclude institutions like that because you're really just, the whole purpose of the section is to provide individual healthcare providers with the ability or at least with the comfort level. I mean, arguably they already have the ability, at least with the comfort level to know that they could make a disclosure like this and not be charged or sued or another way subject to negative consequences for committing a HIPAA violation. So that's the distinction really. Thank you. That's helpful. Sure, that that's clear to the committee members. No. Can you just kind of cover it again? I think this is one of those things I'm gonna have to hear two or three times before I quite get it, so. Right, right. Well, it's really an exclusion, so in other words, the entities that aren't included in this definition, the one you're looking at now. Facility or institution. Exactly, and that's gonna include things like hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, et cetera. And I'll read some more just because we're looking at a more detailed definition. Nursing homes, health maintenance organizations, home health agencies, outpatient diagnostic for therapy programs, kidney disease treatment centers, mental health agencies or centers, diagnostic imaging facilities, independent diagnostic laboratories, cardiac catheterization laboratories, radiation therapy facilities, inpatient or ambulatory surgical diagnostic or treatment centers, hospitals, general hospitals, mental hospitals, chronic disease facilities, birthing centers, maternity hospitals, psychiatric facilities. These are all excluded. So these do not, these will not be a healthcare provider. And again, the idea is that those are all, those are all institutions, right? And the idea here is to provide individual healthcare providers and their businesses with the ability to make a disclosure of certain information without feeling that they might be violating the federal healthcare law HIPAA. So there's some logical sense there and that's what Jen suggested. So aren't you really trying to get individual healthcare providers? You don't want to have all these institutions in there because they're not, you don't make a disclosure as an institution anyway. It's a person who would be doing it. So. Okay. Does that make a little more sense? Yeah, a lot more. Thank you. Just kind of curious that a couple of things on the list. You said something about a mental health. Agents, agency or center. Yes. But remember, remember that, that doesn't mean the individual mental healthcare provider would still be covered. It's the agency. It's the entity that wouldn't be. Gotcha. Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah, sir. So going back to Eric, it's Ken. Going back to the, what I asked I think last time on the DCF building that we've had a situation there. How's that relate to this? That I also followed up with Jen and asked her that question as well. And it's a similar answer. And that, and that I think this is kind of what you were getting at, Corp. So that's one is that the, again, an individual, someone who works for DCF, let's say, and they are a person who provides mental health counseling services, they would be covered. They would be included in that definition. Now, the agency itself, as we're just saying, as an entity, not covered. But yes, an individual person who is, and let's go back to the, just so we can look at the language in the bill. Oops, sorry, did I miss that? Oh yeah, sorry. So I meant right here. So yes, it's a person, partnership or corporation after the highway which highlighted language, licensed or certified or authorized by law. So assume that it's a licensed mental health counselor, for example, working for DCF. Yeah, that person would be included in this. They would be able to make the disclosure without violating HIPAA. I think that's kind of what you were getting at. Am I remembering it right? Yeah, yes, thank you. Yeah. So Eric, with this language, it would eliminate, say, just for an example, the orderly in the emergency room. Correct. I asked Jennifer about that as well. They would not be covered. No, because that's not a licensed or certified position. They're not providing professional healthcare services. So no, that person would not have the ability to make the disclosure. But on the other hand, it's probably true. And again, I'm not a HIPAA expert, but probably an orderly at a hospital isn't covered by HIPAA anyway. I would think. Maybe it all depends on what the individual's responsibilities are. Are they providing healthcare services in some way? But they might not be covered anyway. But either way. That might not have been the best example. But I see where it's going anyway. And I think it's a really good thing. I think this is a great amendment to narrow it down to people who are qualified. Yes, that's right. Exactly. The idea is that they would be licensed or certified. And obviously, that's a certain level of professional job requirement. Yeah. Yeah. Good, thank you. That was helpful. Yep. So yeah, I think that completes that ERPOPY. So the next section is also related. It's just a reporting section that also is identical to the language in S169. Although no, wait a second. Yeah, that's right. This is an S169 also. So this is a reporting requirement that the court administrator with the assistance of AHS report data on the use of ERPs, the amount that have been filed and the number of orders issued, whereabouts in the state they were filed, that sort of thing. So it's a reporting requirement regarding these extreme risk protection orders. Section five is highlighted because it's new to this amendment. But at the same time, the committee did look at this language last Thursday also in the context of, I think it was an amendment representative grad brought to everyone's attention because it has been passed by the legislature before, actually. This is a section of law that was in effect for a period of time. But then it had a sunset attached to it. So it has since been repealed. And this section has to do with large capacity and feeding devices, high capacity magazines, which in this language that you're looking at here, that's not underlined. That's existing law. So starting on line 15 through 20 there, that's existing law. And that's the law that prohibits possessing, manufacturing, transferring these high capacity magazines, these two large capacity feeding devices. They're prohibited generally. Now, there's a number of exceptions. You remember that we discussed this. And one exception that was in the law for a while but has since been repealed is the one that it's in subdivision F right now, lines 7 through 13. And there's actually a typo here. Line 7 through 9 should all be underlined. That's a holdover from a previous version of this. But the language should all be underlined because it would all be new, even though it's line 7 through 9, have actually been law before the sunset kicked in and it was repealed. But because it's repealed and it doesn't exist anymore, we're essentially enacting it again so that should all be underlined, the entirety of it. And the term, you'll see one proposed term in line 8. The law as it existed before had the word established. So in other words, this exception to the general prohibition on the high capacity magazine is permitted for bringing one into the state by a resident of another state. This is line 7 through 9, the first paragraph 1. For the exclusive purpose of an now organized shooting competition, if the device is lawfully possessed under the laws of the other state. So that was the exception that had existed before the sunset. In other words, if a person was lawfully in possession of one of the large capacity feeding devices in another state and they could bring it into Vermont for the purposes of one of these established shooting competitions and that was the idea of how it would work. The proposal here, in which you looked at last time, reenacts that piece with the change of the one word and also adds to it. So it's not just going to be folks from other states but people in Vermont as well will be able to use them for the organized shooting competitions and that's what paragraph 2 does, lines 10 through 13. And so this provides the same exception for Vermont residents who want to participate in these shooting competitions provided that you see lines 12 and 13, as long as they lawfully possess the device on or before October 1st, 2018 because when the original prohibition was passed, that was the grandfathering date. So that if you had one as of that date, then it wouldn't be prohibited. It wouldn't be illegal to still keep it. In other words, you didn't have to, nobody, just because they were illegal going forward, that didn't mean that people were gonna have to get rid of the ones they already legally had. So this ties into that grandfathering piece. In other words, it's not gonna be illegal to use them at one of these shooting competitions. If you buy it later on, you know, after that October 1st, 2018 date, that's still gonna be illegal. But if you legally had one before, then you can use one at these competitions just as the folks from other states can use them as well. Now, another slight change that was made to the language that you looked at last week here is in lines 11 and 12. You see there that had said before organized shooting competition and it didn't have any of the language starting on spot with the word sponsored on line 11. And so this is clarifying that, you know, who is it that would be putting on these shooting competitions to make some qualification as to who they would be run by and the languages. And I think the committee discussed that last time in concept and I ran it by David Hall, who's our attorney who works in the commerce area and works with the corporate entities and how they are written in law and registered with the Secretary of State's office and he proposed this language, which is to say that it's an organized shooting competition sponsored by an entity registered with the Secretary of State and authorized to do business in this state. And that's boilerplate language evidently that they use all the time in the commerce committees when they wanna refer to these business entities. And so it's gonna include corporations, nonprofit corporations, LLCs, limited liability companies, you know, all these different business entities that are required to register with the state and they're all listed quite clearly in several titles of the Vermont statute. So it's a, as I say, this is standard language that's used when you're referring to these organizations. So it's just used again here to make clear that that's who the competitions would need to be sponsored by. So just to be clear in my thought process here has the organized shooting competitors, have they, is this a known fact that they've always had to be registered with the Secretary of State? The competitors themselves don't have to be registered. It's a- No, the organizations is that, has that always been in effect? I'm gonna leave it to the witnesses will know better, but I'm assuming that the answer to that is no. If you mean by that, you know, because prior, you know, right now, whenever these shooting competition took place, as far as I know, there was not a requirement that they had to be sponsored by an entity registered with the Secretary of State. And maybe some of them were, I just don't, I don't know the answer to that, but this legal requirement, I don't think existed. So this will be, this would be a new requirement going forward that if you're an entity that sponsors one of these competitions, then presumably they'll need to register, unless they do already. I mean, I think my guess is, you know, you would know better talking to some of the witnesses who are familiar with these competitions, but my guess is some of them are already sponsored by such organizations, but I don't know that for certain. So the second, I'm sorry. So this is sort of the context. This language, one of our witnesses, Chris Bradley, had talked about it originally and this was his recommendation in terms of entity registered with the Secretary of State. Oh, that's what he said? Yeah. Yeah. So I had an email to change with them yesterday and over the weekend to confirm essentially this language, which should, if it's not already posted, I sent it on to Amber to post, so you can see the exchange without Chris Bradley. So that's where this language largely came from. Is he on, by the way? Not on Zoom, but probably as well as to main representations, as well as to main representations, probably with this as well. I can probably do that email as well. Yes, I'd appreciate that. Thank you. I'm sorry. We'll be sure to get that. Yeah, I'm a little concerned with the, after the Secretary of State, the word and authorized to do business in the state. I think there could be, I think there could be nonprofits, I think there could be unorganized ranges that are so not authorized to do business, so not doing business. They could still be organizing and sponsoring a competition. I know for several different occasions, a local range has sponsored a shooting competition as a fundraiser for different events and they're not an entity that can do business in the state. They're not registered with Secretary of State. It's a local organization that gets together to maintain a range. So I don't like the and, and I don't necessarily think that the entity registered with Secretary of State as well-meaning as that one, is really relevant to, through all the current and potential states and standardized organized competitions that are happening. So I don't make sure I understand you, so if you were to write it or tell me again what you don't think is necessary. I think organized shooting competition is, I don't know, I don't think that registered Secretary of State or authorized to do business have any relevance with who can and can't organize a competition. And that is concerning because some ranges are nothing more than some people get together with a group of land and have an agreement as to the main maintenance of the land and people can participate in that organization. But that's not when I was registered with Secretary of State. That's not always something that is authorized to business. So firstly, if you keep the Secretary of State language, I really have a concern with keeping me and authorized to do business in that state. Because, so could there be, maybe this is more for Eric, would there be anybody who's registered with the Secretary of State, but not authorized to do business? I don't know the answer to that. I can check with David though. But I think that there's probably, if the idea is to put a qualifier on because of the fact that this is an exemption to something that's otherwise illegal, otherwise the possession of these devices is illegal and they're creating an exemption. So if the idea is to say, well, we're okay with the exemption, but you wanna have it affiliated with an entity, a known entity of some sort. I think it's probably correct that you don't maybe even need that second half of that phrase, the fact that the entity is registered, perhaps gives you enough of the fact that it's an entity that is official in that sense. And whether or not they're authorized to do business is maybe less relevant than the fact that they're registered. Yeah. I do know that the sportsmen are very comfortable with this language, after consulting with their council. And I would hate to, and I'm not saying that potential changer is the right or wrong thing to do. And I guess before any changes were made to this language, I would like to hear from the sportsmen's federation and maybe Byron has something to add. Yeah. And I think we can scratch that language after the end. We didn't think that really added or subtracted to anything and that's not language that I passed by Chris Bradley. It would be with the secretary of state. And I don't think there's any problem in just scratching the and authorized to do business in the state. And then it's the language that Chris Bradley saw and approved through whoever he went to. So I'd be fine to do it. And I guess I have another question related to that language, Eric. I'm wondering if we need to have that language in the previous section F1 or if it's fine just to have it in F2. No, you need to have it in F1. That was the other thing I was going to mention before we moved on to the next topic. Those are two changes that, you know, get rid of the and authorized to do business in the state and move the sponsored by language also to F1. Exactly. Because they needed it. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Any other comments or discussion or questions on this section? I guess. Sure. About this. Eric, not being a person who owns one of these large capacity magazines under online 12, is the device was lawfully possessed on or before October 1, 2018. Are these magazines date stamped or time stamped right there? Is this just an honorary system? How does that work? It's more of an honor system. I mean, it's, they are not date stamped. It's, yeah. So, but nevertheless, that language is consistent with what we passed as far as the ban that there was a grandfather any large capacity magazines on before that. So, yeah, you know, enforcement is, there are going to be strong enforcement on this from outside of individuals doing the right thing. Next question. How do you enforce it? Time change. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, sure. So moving on to then to section six, this is, this is a section that is new to the amendment, although not new to the committee, that you may well recognize that this is actually directly pasted from a bill that the committee passed last year, and which the house passed actually H-133. This is the language from, sorry, did someone have a question? Yeah, I was kind of having a little side meeting and I didn't, I wasn't paying attention to what the question Bob asked about the high capacity magazines. I did hear what I think was part of it is that with where they marked with anything to identify them. Was that, was that the gist of the question? Yes. And I think the answer was, they're not. So it's, you know, it's essentially whether or not you possessed it on, on that date is more of an honor system than anything. Right. I didn't know if there was anything else to that because I had a question around the, the high capacity magazines also. And okay. Let's fast forward 30 years. We're in the building, right? So fast forward 30 years, competition is going on. Out of status, you know, competitors from out of state can bring in high capacity magazines by then we're 30 plus years into the Vermonters not being able to buy new 30 round magazines. I'm going to guess in 30 years if they're used enough, they're going to be worn out. And that means at the competitions, Vermonters won't be able to compete in the out, in out of state competitors as well. Well, it must, it must, how do you mean if they're not functional anymore? Yeah, yeah, because they can't, they can't buy new being in the state. Yeah, that's a possibility, I guess depends on. I'm not, I don't have the technical knowledge to know how long these things can last or whether they can be repaired to continue to operate. I'm not really sure, but. I mean everything mechanical wears out eventually. True. That's all I'm getting at is, is a, I don't know. I don't think it's hypothetical that at some point in the future, Vermonters will be able to possess the 30 round magazines and compete in their own competitions. And I don't know if it's something we have to address in this bill, but I think at some point, maybe it should be addressed just because of that reason. So the same, the same rule applies to all the state are bringing their high capacity magazines into the state. They're not supposed to be bringing new high capacity magazines. They're not supposed to be bringing new high capacity magazines into the state. Those lawfully possess honor before October 1, 2018. So everybody's in the same boat. All honest people. Right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. No, I see that now. So I guess at some point in the future that. If, if the competitions are going to continue. I mean, I don't know where's out in time. I don't know. Yeah. I'll just say, I don't think we need to address it now, but I do agree with you that. Well, this is fine now. And I'm happy with this way. Now you think that actually that's, that's something that does need to be an extra craft. Okay. I'm sorry. Sure. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The bill was, was previously passed by this committee and. And by the, by the house. In age one 33. Last year has. Not been acted on in the Senate yet. So it's still, the bill is still in the Senate, but I'm sure you remember it. It has to do with emergency relief from abuse orders. And those RFAs are an existing process and law that. It's an existing process. A relief from abuse order when a family or household member. Has demonstrated that they've been abused by. Another family or household member and that. There's an immediate danger of future abuse. And there's a list of. Provisions that one of these emergency RFAs can contain. That's existing law. Line starting on line six through line 18. That can be in current law in one of these orders. And the proposal in age one 33, you probably remember was to add to that one of the existing pieces include, you know, no contact orders. You can't contact the person or the person's children. Yeah, you can abuse, continue to abuse the person. I heard any of their animals interfere with their personal liberty, et cetera, et cetera. And it adds one additional. That can be in one of these orders, which is that the person who's subject to it, who's been found to be committing the abuse. And I'm 19 to 21 now. Directing the person to immediately relinquish until the expiration of the order. And I should point out that the orders are, have a maximum effective period of 14 days. So after at the end of the 14 day period, they have to try and obtain a permanent order. And that's the only way they can do that. And that can last up to a year. Or it expires, but either way. This temporary order would last for a maximum of 14 days. And the idea is that it requires relinquishment. Of any firearms in a defendant's possession or ownership or control. And to refrain from acquiring or possessing any firearms while the order is in effect. So I think that's probably familiar to everybody. I think the commissioners will be able to do that. I would add that. And I would also add, I would like to add the provision. In the relief from abuse order section. That the committee has seen. And talked about last year. And the proposal is to add that section to this. Amendment as well. So nothing. Nothing has changed. From what passed the house. Correct. Okay. Thank you. The effective ages to my first. The 2022. And that's, that's everything that's in it. And that's, that's everything that's in it. Okay, great. Thank you. So we actually, I'm going to hear from Chris Bradley. He represents the Federation of Sportsman, I believe. Yeah, so he does have the zoom link and he'll be just just so we can ask him about taking out the screen and authorize the business language, just since he was the originator of, you know, of this language. I worked with him when I wanted to bring this concept back and so. Okay, so great. Thank you. Thank you so much. Shall I leave the screen up? Do you want me to take the screen down or? Well, Chris is in. Let me welcome you, Chris. Are you there? I realize we can't. Actually, Eric, if you can take it down for a second, we can see Chris. Yeah, sure. In the state. And then it's the language that Chris Bradley saw and approved library. Okay. So I'd be fine to do that. And I guess I have another question related to. Chris, you're not muted. I am not muted. I'm just waiting for a break. Okay. That's you. Shut down your YouTube. Those are. Those are two changes that, you know, get. I'm here if I can be of assistance. Okay, great. Thank you. You have, we can hear your line live stream as well. So that's why we. We are. Looking at the new. The language on page seven of draft 2.1. So line 10 talks about. Possessed that news and organized. The sponsored by an entity registered with the secretary of state. And authorized to do business in this state. So there was. Concerned about the authorized to do business. In this state. So just your thoughts on. Would it be okay to take it out? Is there some reasons that you would want it. In there. Well, I. Yes. In original testimony and in response to a question from a secretary of state. That perhaps a registered entity with a secretary of state. May solve the dilemma. Because there seemed to be a question of who. Not what aware, but who was sponsoring this event. So again, off the cuff, I suggested. The secretary of state as a registered entity. That would cover. The Vermont state rifle and pistol association, which was my main concern. And I'm not sure. I don't know. The member clubs of the federation. Are all registered entities. So I believe we're. We're covered with the registration. With the secretary of state. I have to say I'm a bit confused between. The section one and section two under F. I. It just seems like one section is. I'm a Mr. Fitzpatrick. The first I clause was to allow people from. Out of state. To do this. To come in for the purpose of a competition. And as I understand number two. It was to allow in state people to do this as well. There's nothing preventing in state people from doing it. They can do it already. If they already owned a. Large capacity ammunition feeding device. They can do it. They can do it. They can do it. They can do it. They can do it. They can do those in competitions right now today. In Vermont. We now have an issue though. With Vermonters being able to use these in competitions. But people coming in from out of state. Are prevented from doing that. And we've lost competitors. Because of that. They don't want to break the law. It's, it's, it's. These are very law-abiding individuals. And I think that. It almost seemed, and frankly, I don't think we have any. Difficulty with that language. It just struck me that those two sections could really be merged into one. As originally proposed. Transported by a resident of another state into the state for the exclusive purpose. For use and established. Excuse me. Organized trading competition. Sponsored by an entity registered with the secretary of government. I don't think that's a legal. Person, but I think that would cover it. Cover what we are concerned with. I think that's true, but I'd ask Eric. Thank you. Thank you. Chris. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Yeah. Don't go away, please. I promise. Sir. What do you. What do you think? Yeah, I think that's a very good point. I think this makes a good point there. I hadn't. I hadn't noticed that, but I think he's right. That. You don't need subdivision too. Because. If people. Are already grandfathered in. Then they can already use them at shooting competitions. It's the. They wouldn't be prohibited under the existing law anyway, because they're already. Subject to the. October 1st, 2018 grandfather. So. You really don't really only need one. Subdivision Roman numeral one. With the addition of the register with the secretary of state language. That he mentioned. I think that probably covers it. So Eric, how would it. How would it read if we were to. Merge these. Take out some language and merge these. Two together. It would just read. So subdivision two would go away. That wouldn't be there. And you'd have subdivision one that would read. Transported by a resident of another state into this state for the exclusive purpose of use. In an organized shooting competition sponsored by an entity with the exclusive purpose of use. In an organized shooting competition sponsored by an entity registered with the secretary of state. If the device was. It's awfully possessed under the laws of another state. And that that was assuming that we weren't including the and authorize the language. I'm not sure I quite heard a conclusion on that, but I was assuming that. But I could go either way. I would suggest if you registered with the secretary of state, that's the purpose of registering. So you can do business. But that would just be my observation. I think it's fine to strike that language. Martin, go ahead. I think it'd be fine to strike the and authorized to do business in the state. Okay. And what about the October? I think that that raises the question again that Tom had earlier. And I don't know that we need to address it right at this moment, but. It may be. I guess the question that do we, do we. Say lawfully possessed. Honor before October 1st, 2018. Or do we say under the laws of another state? That was the question. The only thing that I think I would add there is that. You had mentioned earlier, represent the line. That lawfully possessed honor before October 1st, 2018 by my read does not apply. And did not apply. To the provision about. People coming in from out of state for this. That was added only. When the idea was. To cover. Folks in Vermont. Because you. Because Vermonters are the ones who are subject to that. That grandfather. So not that you couldn't add it. But. It wasn't subject to that date before. Right. It's already there for us to. It's. That October 1st, 2018 is already law. So. The only thing that we're really worried about is making sure people comply to Vermont law, correct? Yeah, but that law only applies to. You know, in other words, we can't say to somebody in. New Hampshire or Maine. You know, you can't possess a feeding device. Unless you had it before October 1st, 2018. That grandfathering only applies to people who possessed firearms. Here. In Vermont. And there had, there had been this exemption. For people who came into the state for the shooting competitions. They weren't subject to that grandfather. As long as they had it. Lawfully. Under the laws of their own state. They were okay. Now, but now in a way. I suppose maybe. It wasn't at the time, it probably wasn't considered because when the, when the. When the exemption was first written and put into law. It had a sunset. So everyone knew it was going away anyway. So it didn't really matter so much. You didn't really have to have that grandfathering piece, because it was only going to be in effect until. I can't remember what. What the, what the sunset was, maybe it was the same date. October 1st, 2018. I can't recall. But. In that sense, maybe, maybe. Since it wasn't something that was considered one way or the other because of the fact that it was going to sunset. You know, maybe it's something that you. Want to think about now. You know, do you want it to be. For example, I think this is kind of what you're getting. I represent. Let's say. The person buys. A person in Maine. Buys their. You know, their. Large capacity feeding device. You know, tomorrow. Can they bring it in for a shooting competition? Or does it have to be something that they possessed. Before October 1st, 2018. I mean, you're kind of on the honor system again anyway. But. I guess that's the question. Identified two problems. As far as people. Possessing the large capacity magazines. And. My own opinion is that if we allow, as long as they're legally purchased in another state. And if we allow them to bring up, bring those into Vermont. We eliminate one of the problems we're talking about. Fixing in the future. And if we did that. The only problem we would need to fix is. Somehow, and I have no idea how allowing Vermont competitors to. Purchase or replace. The high capacity magazines that they have now. So I guess, I guess my question is, and I'm a little confused. I don't know which way we're leaning on. The language is, is if we're going to allow out of status. That legally possess. Their magazines to bring them in. Well, we're shooting. We have to tie shooting. Right. We're shooting. We're shooting competitions. It's the October. 2008. I mean, I think we leave the language as it is enough one. That it's under the laws of the other state. And we. Make sure to make a note that we need to address this further. I don't think it becomes an issue for a little while. No, no. And we're going to get lots. We're going to get more clarity in the next couple of years. On, on the ban itself. Frankly. With what's going on. Supreme court. So I think it's fine to have the language under the laws of another state. I mean, I think we leave the language as it is enough one that it's under the laws of the other state. That's fine to have the language under the laws of another state. So. Not, not, not tying it to October 1st, 2018. Well, okay. So as long as they're purchased legally in another state. That fixes that problem. Right. Right now. So I think I heard Mr. Brown. They start to speak. I'm not sure I'm curious. So what do you. You might have to say. I guess I certainly don't mean to obfuscate, but I'm still leaning towards one section or eliminating the two. And simply say. If the device is lawfully possessed. Period. That way it's lawfully possessed in Vermont. It's lawfully possessed wherever they came from. It's lawfully possessed when and how to state person comes into the state for the purposes of a competition. If. If the device is lawfully possessed. Possessed at and used at an organized shooting competition sponsored by an entity registered with the secretary of state and authorized to do that. Secretary of state comma. If the device is lawfully possessed. Period. Yeah. That's the way that we're leaning is to, is to go to the lawfully possessed. Then that would apply for wherever their home state was. That would apply to them while they're in Vermont and it would apply to the state of Vermont. And then that would apply to the state of Vermont. And then that would apply to the state of Vermont. Yes. It's lawfully possessed. Yeah. So Eric, does that. Have any questions. Yeah, I did. I guess I'm still not quite sure. What the committee's pleasure is here. Can I get a shot? So I think it is what you had read before Eric. It's transported by a resident of another state. Into the state for the exclusive purpose. Of use in an organized shooting competition. Sponsored by an entity registered with the secretary of state. If the device is lawfully possessed under the laws of another state. That language may would make it lawfully possessed while it is in Vermont, even if they purchased it last week. Yeah. Because it was lawful in the state from which they came. Right. Right. But again, going back to lawfully possessed means that had to be lawfully possessed already in that state. So we don't even need to have in that state language. Do we? I think we do have to have that to make that clear. I think that that we do have to make that. There'd be some confusion. Maybe some confusion if they were bringing it into the state. With that, with that language as far as saying. Naming the state. Would that allow this new law to cover Vermont's. Law of the way. Well, I guess that, I think that's the idea. Yeah. I thought that's the way you were going. Yeah. Yeah, I think that that as Chris was saying. Vermonters are already covered. Yeah. You know, even. This law. Provides the ability of out of status to come in and participate in these competitions. But Vermonters are already covered by the existing. Grandfathers that provision. So anybody in a Vermont. Resident who has one of these devices and had it. Before October 1st, 2018. They can already use it. They can bring them to the competition and use them. So this was intended to. You know, because some of these competitions, you know, bring in folks from out of state. To be able to allow them to still come in and bring their, bring their high capacity devices without violating the law. So I think though that you do, you probably do need that under the laws of another state language, because if it just said, if the device is awfully possessed, it creates a potential ambiguity there. Because well, that means. You know, if the person comes into Vermont. And they're bringing a device from New Hampshire. And they just bought it last month. Well, technically that's illegal in Vermont. Because that's not grandfathered in. So. If you just say that. So that's no longer lawfully possessed. But if it's lawfully possessed under the laws of the other state, if they bought at the bottom of Hampshire and that was okay. Then they're okay. Even if they did just buy it. That's the way I read it anyway. Yeah. I have a question for Eric and quite possibly Chris and maybe your answer. So basically we seem to be having. If I understand this. A large discussion over language on something that. In all essence is. Unenforceable in Vermont because it's all based upon an honor system from this law that was created back in 2018. Is that correct? There's no time state. There's no damp on the stamp on these magazines. So we're talking about something that really, unless they say, yeah, I did it. It was unenforceable. I think you're right. By the last point you brought up that. That it's enforceable to the extent that people comply with the law. And they, you know, and they're there. Honest about what they're. When they bought it and that sort of thing, but I think you're right. If somebody is, is. Going to be dishonest about that. Then you couldn't rely on their statement, but, you know, it's conceivably possible that there might be evidence. You know, let's say there was a witness who knew that the person bought it last month. Well, then might, you might still be able to enforce it against the person, even if they, they lied about when they got it. That is the case in the state. That's right. My second question is going back to Tom's question. So I'm not all that familiar with this law that either is or is not enforceable in the state of Vermont. But when it comes to purchasing of magazines, you know, you know, you know, maybe Chris, you could answer this and say it's a metal magazine. Is there anything that precludes individuals from my back? You know, it's going to go on these magazines as loading spring and the loading plate from purchasing those parts. And still, and still using them in their 30 round plus magazine. It's not the magazine itself, but they're, but they're replacing. You raise a very interesting point, sir. The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the complete. High capacity new high capacity feeding device in Vermont. Due to this law. Parts are available and are not regulated. By this. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Not the parts are not regulated. So if you, you know, I don't want to get down in the weeds, but there are essentially, there's a body to the magazine. There's a floor plate. There's a floor plate. Four pieces. You can buy the spring and it's not a magazine. You can buy any one of those component parts. Just to replace something that broke or otherwise just to buy it. And it would be possible for someone to. Under Vermont law illegally assemble a new high capacity magazine feeding device. Okay. Thank you. So what I would like to propose, Eric, so you're, you're clear on which, which way we're going in terms of proposing in terms of language. Correct. Yep. Yep. Okay. So what I would like to propose if this works for you, Eric. Can you, you know, redraft it with, with that language. And then also I guess the underlining that. That wasn't carried over. That makes sense. And that would be draft would be three point. Three point one or two. Right. Yes. Okay. So could we take a break while you do that? And then that way. Cause I do have a schedule for a possible vote. I would like to vote on this, but I think it's important for. Many members to see the language. So if we came back in 15 minutes, is that doable for you? Yeah, I'd say 15 minutes is doable. We get rid of the. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Should we get rid of the highlighter highlighting in it as well? Have a clean copy. That possible. Okay. Here's a. You're voting on now a rep. Proposed amendment by represent not correct. Okay. So yeah, we can get rid of the highlight, but. I think it's, you know, as a matter. Like that's an amendment that's a proposed amendment to the, to the. Senate bill, right? Right. Right. So then the committee would have to vote on whether it wants to amend the bill in the same way and suppose. Right. We'll be voting on three point on three point one. And then we'll be voting. I guess if we voted, I guess my point is that if you, if the vote were favorable. Then the final dot, the final document would be a committee amendment, not, not an amendment to one. One member. Right. Right. So we would start by, by voting on the whole amendment, or are we just going to. Would we be voting on what we've been discussing now. The whole thing. Okay. The whole amendment. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. All the, all the pieces of it. Everything that was added as an amendment, we would vote on that. Then we would still have to vote to pass out. Right. As 30 is. So we got your necessary. We got your amendment for voting on. And then we vote. On. That's 30. Right. That's how I understand that. Yep. Makes sense. So this, this language we're talking about around the high capacity. Magazines become part of the not amendment. Right. Okay. Okay. Great. Great. Thank you. So. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back to house judiciary committee. We had a short break. While our council Eric Patrick. Strafting. New language that we have been discussing. Eric. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. As a matter of fact so. Good afternoon. So, um, Do we have this. Language is amber have a language. It's the best way for us to. To look at it. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, um, So our committee assistant and, um, Amber does have it will. Email it to us. Also post it. Thank you. That is great. And so we're just taking a minute or so to have the email pushed through and then is everybody who wants to in the room who was like a hard copy. I don't need one of those. This will be draft 3.1 when we get it. I'll be good with that one. Thank you. So I just realized that I forgot to change. I forgot to change the, the version, the draft number. I can do that now. It's either I can do that now to take me a minute or you can just say state that you're voting on draft 3.1 and I can change it after either way. Sorry for the mix up, but I'm sorry. So we could either state that we're voting on 3.1 and then he would change after. To me, as long as all the language is right. That is a big deal. Yeah, Eric, we're good. We're good. Looking at something that says 2.1 knowing that that it will be changed to 3.1 that that's that nothing else in the actual body of the amendment needs to be needs to be fixed. It's just that. That number up there. Just in the just the version number in the header in the time. Okay. So in our, when it's posted to our, our page will be, we'll say 3.1. Why don't I just send it right now. Hey, don't take a minute. I already changed it. So, okay. Yeah. I like that. Yeah. Thanks for that reminder. This is the first time. I just sent the revised version. Thank you. Amber, I just sent the revised version. Thank you. Okay. We're going to 3.1. Correct. Let's see. Okay. Okay, thank you. It should be there. Okay. Thank you. System is very slow. Yeah. Everybody else does. Okay. Thank you. And then. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then. Yeah. Yep. I got it. And then folks still want. Three copies. Yeah. So. So I'm confused. When I'm going to S 30 draft 3.1. When I. When I push on it, it comes up draft 2.1. Yeah. So you're like me. It hasn't. I like it. Oh, right. Yeah. That's what I have to. Yeah. The email I was sent says 2. I just posted that. Eric, did you send the one that you changed the header? You did. You're muted, but I. I think I read. Yes. Okay. Mine says 2.1. Yeah. What's the email say. I don't think the email says 2.1 to. I just forward that. Sure. You sent the right one. Yes. When I opened the one in my sent email, it says 3.1, but I can try again. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you. I'm like watching grass. Well, paint dry. Grass grow. I think the original wasn't. A little longer. You can let me know that. It's going to be at least. Like 50 minutes or something. Thank you. All right. Let's try that again. All right. Let's try that again. Okay. All right. Yes. Send another one. Thank you. Sure. I'll be right. Controversy. Potentially. It's what an agenda looks like. I swear. I'm going to go. We're going to send it. Actually. I'll click after. First. Yep. There's these cups. Cool. So. Do you want to send it there to all the judiciary committee? Sure. All right. Yeah, I just. Amber, do you not have an email that says version 3.1 on it? I didn't get another email from you. Strange. Well, I don't have a list, sir, for the entirety of the judiciary committee. So it's going to, I can send it to everybody, but. Amber, why don't you send me an email and I will reply to it with the document attached. Can you try that? All right. I just got your email. So. In theory, this should work. Thank you. I just replied to it with. The document. Great. Thanks. Amber. No, that's not. That's okay. Okay. Please. I can't hear you. I feel like there's a lot of background noise. So. Amber has not received it. Do you want to send it to me, please? So you didn't get the reply email I just sent. No. Computer wizard, but have you got a lot of emails in your. Outbox sent. Yeah, but it indicates that they have been sent. In my outbox. I'm going to get here. Open it. All right. Martin and Maxine. I'm just trying to send it to you to see if you get it. How's that? Sure. It's a great. Thank you. When I click on it. It helps up like this and out. On page. You have on your phone. All right. I just sent it to both of you. Okay. I think Eric is lost in the matrix. You're not getting it. Yeah. I'm going to, um, I got it. Sorry. I'm so sorry. Just stay behind on their email payments. Yeah. That's weird because. Yeah. Strange because when Amber sent me hers, it came right away, but it must be something that's sending slowly from here. Our constituents will be happy knowing that we even have major problems in the state household. And every city forwarded. Yeah, I'm going to try to get it. It's not even in my outbox. Could you send it to everybody? An email. Nope. I think if we get some months, that might be faster. I got the more from 253. I don't know. Excuse me. Are you also posting at the chamber? Maybe that's a system. Well, this is, we should definitely speak to you about this. Yeah, I'm sending them an email right now. Great. Thank you. They might get it tomorrow. Like Ken says, tell them to pay their bill. They have to bill. You only get half the speed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Here and on zoom and public who are watching for your. This is important not only for us to be able to see what we are looking at and voting on, but, but the public as well. In terms of our, our website. Regardless of. Of the bill. You know, just. I'm happy we're in this room going through this because if I was in my home office right now. This computer would be through a window. So more than I just forwarded you something regarding your racial stats. Yeah. I sure you get that. I did. We've heard that before. Refresh your page. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Did you ever go out? I never got your email. Not yet at least. But that's fine. It's posted though. We got it. Yep. I got it on the committee page. I think. All we need is. Your copies. And so on the committee pages. We have a draft report on without. Lighting. Once we get our copies, the language. I believe is on page. Seven. Which is now. It's just. Yeah. So we're waiting for our copies just for a few of us. If folks do want to look at this. This language. I think it looks better. Take a look. Line seven. We have. One. Yeah. Used to be a little lion. Two I and now it is. Thank you. Goodbye. Thank you. And that is the. That is the only. Change. Correct. The highlighting. Yeah, that's it. Exactly. 3.1. Remember, see the. That language. The public. This is for public view now too, right? That public can say it. Chris can say it. If you're still there. Yes, it is on our. Public view. Chris Bradley president of the federation. Chris, do you have the language in front of you? I have it from the website. Yes. I see nothing wrong with this language whatsoever. Thank you. I just want to make sure every committee members. And zoom in here. I'll have. 3.1. And I've seen the language. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Committee members. So I would entertain. Emotion. I would move to. Amen. As 30. As laid out in draft 3.1. Second. Okay. Any discussion. Not really discussion. Comments. Yeah, comment, I guess. Yeah. I certainly. You know, the changes that we've made today, I certainly appreciate the committee's work on it. And I think, you know, those. The changes we made, I think it's. They were important. And, you know, and then my, my eyes certainly. The positive direction anyway. That's all I can say. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. In the same vein as, as Tom's comments, that you'll really appreciate the collaborative work on. On sections of so that you make. Significant changes for the monsters and. And that work is. Appreciate it. And I'm glad to be part of that. Oh, thank you. And I. Do very much appreciate. Everybody's work. On this bill. I appreciate it. I appreciate it. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Support it and not support it. But I really do. It shows that our committee is really a. A good functional. I appreciate it. Anybody else. Before we vote. Discussion comments. Band. No. Okay. Then. The clerk shall. Commence. Call the roll please. Over. Yes. Yes. I'm never prepared. I'm always expecting coach. I'm sorry, but yes. It's just voice that messes you up. Donnelly. Yeah. Both slant. No. The lawn. Yes. Loeffler. No. Norris. No. No. Yes. Rachel son. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Brad. Yes. Seven four zero both. Okay. Thank you. And now. I'm just amending s 30. I would move to. Approve. A 30. As amended. As amended. So do folks understand this vote? Yeah. Make sure. Okay. Any discussion or. So just to be clear, what draft number, what are we using for. So it's, it's still, it's still 3.1 strike all amendment. Okay. We need to do the roll again. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Okay, ready? Yes. Yes. Donnelly. Yes. No. LaLon. Yes. Lefler. No. Norris. No. No. Yes. Racielson. Yes. Chris C. Yes. No. Grab. Yes. 740. Okay. Thank you. And Eric, thank you so much. Great. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you everybody else who. Specified and. Help us. Along the way. So. Thank you. So. We'll be reporting it. Okay. And. Yeah, we can talk about after because I'm not certain what the procedure is right now. Sure. Great. Can I, can I interrupt? Yeah, please. That will not be the document that you bring to the clerk. You'll be bringing a clerk. The document you bring to the clerk is going to be a house judiciary committee amendment. And I will send Amber that document separately. So that I don't know who, I don't know how you do, do it physically these days, whether somebody walks it over there or what, but. But give me a, I'm just going to have the editors take a look at one little piece that little language change we need at the end, but. It'll be a separate document. Great. Thank you so much, Eric. Yep. And then. I wonder if so. This emailing. I know that's I'm testing. I'm trying to figure that out. All the emails about a minute ago. Oh, there must have been a delay. Okay. Amber said she did finally get your email. So there must have been a delay. So hopefully. Hopefully that problem is taking care of. Her computer crashed. Are you in the pink lady today? No. Okay. So we can't just run across the. Hey. All right, cool. Okay. Hey, we'll just. A little bit. Are there witnesses. And this year. Okay. Do we have a report? Yes. We have a report. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then we should have the also the original bill. I came up with the Senate. But. Physical. Physical. I had to throw out because it was from two years ago. I don't have any physical bills. No, no committees since that physical bills. Yeah. I can get them, but everything just. Yeah, I think. Okay. Okay. Great. Great. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Right now. Transition. Okay. Five 46. And actually waiting to make sure justice. And we have the. Thank you so much for your. For your patience as we work through. All of this. And I noticed. That the. They're also. Email some. Test money that we will. Make sure that it gets. My understanding is that we. Had not heard back. As to whether or not that he. Was able to testify. So. If he does want to testify. We will be glad to. With him. So. Welcome. Thank you very much. They did the Department of Public Safety. Ask me to come here today to see if I could answer some questions. If you have them. My name is Betty Wheeler. And I work for the state of Vermont. For the past 29 years. And during that time, I've worked as a Vermont. State police dispatcher. A communication supervisor. For enamel one and state police dispatch. I've also worked in administrative support for the PSAP, which is the public safety answering point. And currently I work full-time for the agency of digital services. And I'm assigned to the Department of Public Safety. My partner is Betty Wheeler. And I work for the state of Vermont for the past 29 years. And I also work for the Department of Public Safety. My part-time hat. I work for the Vermont state police. And during. That project. Projects that I work for them. I do auditing and reporting. And I, a lot of what I do is. Centered around demographics. For traffic stops. So I take a look at their data. And I also work with the state police. And I also work with the state police. And I also work with the state police. To point out where there's deficiencies where there's missing elements. Send it back to them for corrections. And I summarize that for them. And I work on any other type of data projects that they come up with that they need information on. So my experience with the state police has provided me a really strong foundation. Working with the collection of the data. And also managing the data and knowing what's available. I work with the state police. I work at Secondary or automatic dispatch. Records management system. I'm sure you're aware that the state of Vermont. In the past couple of months has moved. All of the law enforcement agencies around the state to the same cat RMS system. Except for three. Agencies. And the system was developed by a company called cross wind, which is out of California. agencies that were left in the state of Vermont onto this system. The development of this system was in response to the governor's direction and executive orders 20-60 in August of 2020. And this developed a standardized and mandatory statewide computer dispatch center records management system to allow us to collect data to use in looking at use of force, traffic stops, arrests, mental health issues, and other related topics within the CATRMS system. The implementation of this system takes data sharing and law enforcement to a new level where we have not been in many years. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about what is collected in this system or I can walk you through where the data is collected and how it's collected from the beginning of an incident to the end, if you would like. Thank you. That would be helpful. Any other hands up for any members? Like over. Yeah, not at this point. So go ahead. Thank you. Okay, so about 90% of the calls for service within the Vermont State Police are initiated by phone. And those can come from an E-911 call. It can come from a direct call. It can come from a citizen. It can come from a neighbor. It can come from a number of different sources. And that initial call goes to a state police dispatcher and one of two PSAPs in the state. Those dispatchers collect information from each caller, hopefully their name, their address, their phone number, and sometimes their date of birth depending on the situation and what's going on. They'll get the location of the call or the complaint. They'll initiate an incident within the CATRMS system recording the date and time and the nature of the call. They'll then determine if this is something that actually requires a physical response by an officer or a phone call. And that again is going to depend on what type of data is collected by the officer. If the officer responds to that call, a lot of times you're going to be verifying the name, the address, the phone number, and the date of birth of that person. They're also going to be looking at information around specific flags, documentation that they can collect. The initial screen allows them to say it was an opiate blocker, Narcan, used on this call. Were there any mental health issues during this call? Was there domestic violence during this call? Were there any drugs involved during this call? They'll collect people detail while they're out there. They'll note whether this subject was a juvenile or an adult. Are they talking to a 15-year-old, a 12-year-old, or a 40-year-old? They will get physical information on a subject possibly. They may possibly have a photo of that subject. They'll get physical descriptions of a subject such as the height, the weight, the bill, hair color. If that person's arrested, they're going to have information such as a state identification number or an FBI number. All of these things can be recorded in our CAT RMS system. You're going to collect phone numbers, possibly an email address. They're going to have their driver's license and the state. They may have their school. They may have their employer information. They may get an emergency contact number and a phone number. They might also, if this person is involved with the Department of Corrections, may have Department of Corrections information such as who their probation officer is. There's many more data elements that that officer could collect or might have to collect when he responds to that scene. If he's responding to a motor vehicle accident or a motor vehicle stop or anything involving a motor vehicle, he would collect the mate, the model, the year of that vehicle, the plate of that vehicle, the color, the van, the owner. Was there any damage to the vehicle? If the vehicle was stolen, what was the estimated value of that vehicle? The vehicle was recovered. Was there any damage to that vehicle? What's the value to that vehicle now? If that person is arrested, they're going to look at the date and time of the arrest. What are the circumstances around that arrest? Where did it occur? What were the charges? Were those charges forwarded to the state's attorney's office? Did the state's attorney prosecute? What was the outcome of that prosecution? They're going to describe property that may have been involved in this incident. That would include drugs that would include items that may have been stolen. They're also going to put in a value for those items if it's necessary for the report. They're going to record tickets and warnings if it's an outcome of a motor vehicle stop or motor vehicle accident or anything, even sometimes municipal warnings. They're going to record demographics. And by demographics, I mean, as required by law, they're going to record the perceived race of that individual. They're going to record the sex or gender. They're going to record the age. They're going to record whether there was a search done if any contraband was found. What was the reason for that stop? What was the outcome for that stop? They're also going to record those any resistance to this interaction. And if there was any resistance, what was the response that was required to bring this subject into compliance? And this is called use of force. There is a module within this new CATRMS system that deals with use of force, but I will tell you not all agencies are currently using that yet. They have their own internal methods for recording that use of force. Yeah, thank you very much. Can you tell me a little about how or whether you collect the data, how you collect the data so that there's some consistency when you might pass like cases along to the state's attorneys or as it goes to the court? I mean, are there some ways to have uniformity as far as how you're recording race or ethnicity, name, et cetera? Within the actual CATRMS system, there is a tab called a people tab. Within that people tab, those are dropdown fields. So if we're looking at stating what the race is of someone, there's a dropdown field. The choices that are there are what is based on the NCIC approved races to be used. Is that what you're referring to? I think so. It's a matter of just how the information travels. Yeah, an officer cannot ask someone their race unless it is actually for an arrest. So if that person is arrested, the officer can ask them what race they identify with, and that is what they should be recording. And that's what they're trained to do, is to record that information. Another question, if I could. How flexible is that system, if you needed to adjust fields that are being collected? We are very lucky. The company that we partnered with for this CATRMS crosswind technologies is very flexible and helps us modify fields, adjust on the fly what we need. I think it was last year, the requirement to record use of force during a motor vehicle stop was implemented, and they were able to turn that around in a relatively short amount of time so that we could start reporting that. So we just worked with the developer to get those changes in place as quickly as possible. I just ask one more question. And then Bob has a question. So backing up, you said it's only if there's an arrest that that race is recorded, it's not if there's just a traffic stop that doesn't result in arrest? If there is a traffic stop, what is required is that the officer recorded the perceived race. So it is what the officer perceived that individual to be. If that subject is then arrested, then the officer may ask them what race they identified this. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Bye bye. Thanks for being here. You were talking about, I'm fairly familiar with this, obviously, officer's perception as to the race of the individual he or she. Have you been able to establish the margin of error plus or minus on the officer's guesses or perception of races that you're going to contact with? No, I have not seen a study on that. I know Robin through CRG has looked at that some, but I don't know if she has percentages available as to what no race is versus the perceived race. So just to make it clear, Betty, what you're saying is that if someone's arrested, the officers can ask their race. If they're issued a ticket and or a warning, they're simply, once again, have to fill both of those tickets out. It's based on perception. Correct. They're totally different data sets. They're not tied together so that we can look at what the officer perceived this person to be versus what they identified with. Okay. Thank you, Betty. Yes. Thanks. I'm wondering if that's the same situation for gender in terms of perceived gender. Normally, that is something they are taking from the license at a motor vehicle stop. And that is whatever the person has reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles that they want on their license for gender, whether it is male, female, or ex. And there are several states across the nation now that do you have ex as a gender? And do you keep data on how many times what the officer thought and what then was reported for gender? For either, for either. For race, yes. I know that CRG Robin has looked at that. I honestly don't know what those results are, but for gender, no, we do not. And I'm not aware that it's been done. And if somebody does not want to answer the question, what happens? Then this report is refused. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. No questions at this point. Please continue. Thank you. One of the things that I wear for a hat for the Vermont State Police is I do data audits for them. So what I do is I look at the information that has been entered into the system to make sure that there's no missing data. If I find that there is point where they're not recording outcome of a motor vehicle stop, what happens is I send that information back to the individual barracks saying, you know, this data is missing and they work to correct that. A couple of the other studies that I've done is looked at arrests to make sure that that information is complete. I think the commissioner also did send a memo in from the Department of Public Safety regarding his position summary as well. Thank you. And if that's not posted already, it will be posted. But I do see that the commissioner is on the phone if he would like to join us. Good afternoon, commissioner. Good afternoon. I would be with you by Zoom, but I got locked out. Don't think Zoom likes me very much. No sweat. If that's the biggest bump in all of today's work, that's fine. I did provide some written testimony or written position summary and happy to answer any questions folks have. In general, we are supportive of robust availability of data. One of the reasons we moved to this new system among many was to eventually create a far more data transparency, both in the form of publicly available dashboards so the public can see and drill into information about law enforcement and other emergency service responses and also eventually to have data publicly available on open portals so that researchers, students, and the public in general may have an interest in inquiring of that data and asking questions of it that we haven't even begun to contemplate could do so and do additional research. General concerns we have are just to ensure that whatever comes to pass here ensures that it has deference to the various legal overlays and I know there's been an effort to try to do that in the first draft, but just of note there are a number of federal laws and regulations that relate to personally identifying information and we just want to make sure of course that as we're making information as widely available to folks as possible not only on racial justice statistics but really to be able to inquire of the data really anything that we have in our possession eventually that's done with deference to personal identifying information and we've also flagged safety no secret that people's information is mined in a variety of ways and we wouldn't want our data to somehow be commingled with other data that could be mined from other sources and somehow create safety risks for individuals. That's the high level overview happy to answer any questions or get out of the committee's way at your discretion. Thank you very much we do have one hand up at this point Representative Long go ahead Martin. Thank you Commissioner Shirley just one comment and then also one question the issues that you raised in your memo which I had a chance to really briefly take a look at I do believe we are going to be getting those pretty well addressed in a an amendment that I've been working with legislative council on that I think we have a scheduled walkthrough on Friday afternoon so we'll appreciate if you or your staff have a chance to take a look at that when that comes to see if it helps with some of those concerns that you have regarding privacy and on the other hand transparency trying to thread that needle the question I have is one of the things that we are adding in the amendment is to make sure that the division complies with the criminal justice information services guidelines this was from Kristen McClure had suggested that besides that and the public records act are there other particular concerns regarding I mean presumably we don't have to put in any laws that you have to comply with because they have to comply with them but just to be doubly sure you know we want to put in for instance the CJIS but are there others that you think that we should specifically point out in this legislation? I don't know I leave to your discretion whether it makes sense or specifically point them out there are federal regulations and laws about we're required to bifurcate juvenile records from adult records for example and there are a host of those sort of nuanced regulatory things around law enforcement data in addition to the CJIS compliance it may not make sense to to sort of get in and try to dig out all of the nuances but just to maybe a blanket statement about ensuring compliance both because it's hard to to to be sure that we have a comprehensive list and federal regulations can change so if it has a blanket statement then it's flexible enough to not need to be tinkered with if the federal government changes their regulation all right I appreciate that thank you I think there's questions for Betty other than the commissioner but hello so Betty the information that you're working with I don't want to put words in your mouth but is it kind of your job to make sure of the accuracy of it? What I look for is missing data elements and then I refer that back to the individual barracks to make sure that that information is collected and that it's entered into the CADRMS system I don't look at the data as far as accuracy about reporting what the trooper sees that is definitely goes back to the individual barracks to make sure that that is correct and I don't modify any of the data so if I see that you know there's a lot of missing stuff then I go back to them or if it doesn't make sense then I send it back to them okay no and I mean being a layperson I guess I would consider that looking at the accuracy of the data but the data that you're collecting is it just from state police? The data within the statewide CADRMS system is statewide the only data that I have worked with belongs to the Vermont State Police. I have done other reports out of the statewide CADRMS that is sanitized data which means there's no personable identifying information and that it doesn't relate specifically back to an individual agency it's compiled statewide so I report out how many domestic violence cases there were statewide but I don't report how many belong to Bennington PD or how many belong to Burlington PD. Okay and I guess around traffic stops and that type of thing do you see that data also because I'm just wondering if anybody's collecting that data from the municipalities or you know local police departments? That data is collected yearly by the police academy. Okay so is anybody for the local police departments or even sheriffs is anybody looking at that information to make sure it's I guess the word would be complete going forward because I know we've had issues with some with some locals. The state police has a fair and impartial policing board and it's open to everyone and all municipalities. They have in the past offered services from them as well as from myself to teach them how to do these audits that I do. Several agencies have taken us up on that audit as far as making sure that every agency is reporting. In the past I have looked at the previous system Spillman to make sure that every agency that was on Spillman was entering that data but it was not audited for completeness only the state police data was. Okay great thank you. Yes okay thank you you're all set thank you very much very helpful I'm not seeing anybody any comment with their hands. Thank you again I appreciate your your patience and all your work through some technical issues on the last bill and unfortunately to not get to you on the time we had scheduled but thank you so much. Thank you. With that.