 Good afternoon and welcome back to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. We are continuing our discussion on S30 and finishing up some testimony that that we started before the lunch hour. So I would like to welcome back Mr. Chris. Thank you Amber. Am I allowed to share my screen. Yes, I'll make you closed. Thank you very much. Sorry for the inconvenience. Just very quickly, and thank you for allowing me back in chair grad. I'm not sure I adequately addressed 4062 which is a new statute included as section four. Just wanted to say that we have no objections to this section. And we're not sure at this point whether it's covered, but we were wondering if we could get some information. I think it's representative not suggested earlier. We're always on a quest for more data. And if it's already available, forgive us, but I would like to know the number of firearms have been relinquished through our extremist protection orders. And then what the disposition was, if anything of those with that unless there's any questions that have come up over the lunchtime from my previous previous testimony. I thank the committee for your time. And really look forward to working with you folks. Thank you. Are there any questions. Thank you very much. Committee members any questions. It's hard to see everybody's hands. I'm sorry. Yeah, let me check. I apologize. No worries. I'm not, I'm not seeing any questions. So thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And we will try to get that information for you. Excellent. Thank you so much. Great, you bet. Okay, that brings us to Mr. Bill Moore. Do I see you. I'm not sure I don't. I don't think I see him, but no, I don't see him. All right. Well, let's um, let's keep going and then if he comes back. Okay, sorry. How about, let's see, Connor Casey, please. Good afternoon chair and committee members. It's really nice to be here today. And I wanted to start just by introducing myself. I'm the new executive director of gunsense for months. It's my, my first week on the job. So you know, not much of an orientation. They pop your right into committee hearings. But it's, it's a pleasure to be here today. And just to kick it off. Gunsense Vermont, as many of you know, was founded in 2015. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy. We have over 4000 members spread out across the states. In every county and nearly every municipality in Vermont as well. Our board is made up of advocates from diverse backgrounds, including healthcare professionals. So, as 30 is certainly of interest to our organization. We're in a crisis, both nationally and here at home. I think it feels like it can be far away sometimes. But, you know, whether it be the tragedy, narrowly averted in Fairhaven, or the very recent shootings in the past few weeks in Elmore and Holland. These instances really take a psychological toll, not just on victims, but on entire communities and that is what we hear from our membership. So just like in any crisis, like the pandemic we're in, we need to come together to craft solutions that will ultimately save lives. And we're really optimistic that, you know, as 30 is a step in the right direction on this. And it will make a real immediate difference here in Vermont. I mean, I'll tell you right off the bat in 2021 I personally knew two people who lost their lives for done violence. So it is in our backyards, and we need to take steps. So we do support the common sense approaches laid out in S 30 as a bill with a good step forward. Without question firearms have no place in a medical setting. And the numbers provided by Dr. Sexton that they are, they're alarming hospitals can be emotionally charged environments. And it's so important that we protect doctors, nurses and patients. Because heavens knows the healthcare professionals that doing so much for us these days. And I think Dr. Sexton is right. It's even more emotionally charged than it has been. Along the same lines, Vermont should clarify its existing or by ensuring healthcare providers are able to provide information to authorities without violating HIPAA. And, you know, eventually we would certainly like to see that extended to, you know, families, some other folks. But I think that's a really positive step in this bill. Thank you to, you know, revisit looking at banning firearms in government buildings and childcare facilities. I mean, just anecdotally, you know, I sit on the Montpelier City Council here. And, you know, you're privy to a lot of what goes on with the protests on the State House lawn. You know, I think it probably affected all of us back in October when we heard that the speaker had been threatened and, you know, the person was saying that they had a firearm. So there may be any to codify some of this in law as well as just having rules around it. Even across the state, across the street, we've had some of our election staff receiving threats in the wake of the last election there that have been very nasty incredible in some cases. So we would love to see if not in this bill at some point expanded to public buildings and, of course, childcare facilities, which we think would be a logical extension of the schools. We strongly support Representative Knott's amendment to adopt a law closing the Charleston loophole. And I don't need to talk about that too much because I think most of the information has been said already. But really we need to require that firearms not be sold until a background check is completed. And, you know, even if it does take longer than 72 hours. I know only 3% are impacted this the number we heard. But this would keep weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have help have them, and it would help save lives. We do support responsible gun ownership, we really do. But we recognize the need for laws like this to prevent negligent and reckless behavior. This is really positive. You know, I think some of the opponents would oppose this bill under the pretenses of freedom. I would argue for monitors deserve freedom to have safe spaces in hospitals and other settings like this. Well, end of 2020 surveyed 500 remote there's and found that 74% were either convinced or somewhat convinced that we needed further gun safety legislation to support our children and communities. It's not just a popular thing to do. It's the right thing to do. Coming months, you know, as the new director of gun sense will definitely be taking our efforts outside the legislative halls, having some community conversations. And we really hope to be a resource for you going forward, as we heard today the need for more Vermont centered data that that's something we're really making a priority to collect and connect the dots on some of this legislation. But on behalf of the board. I really sincerely want to thank you for the work you've already done. I've done tremendous courage and taken a tripartisan approach in some cases handling these, these very tough issues. Certainly there's there's miles to go, but we'd love to be a resource for you. And again, I'd like to keep it short today because so much of the data's already been laid on the table, but but appreciate you taking the time and would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. You said you took a poll of 500 for monitors. Oh, yes, actually, and let me clarify that the poll was conducted by Alliance for a better Vermont of a random sampling size of 500 parameters. Is there any possible way we could, because I'm really interested in this data. Is there any way I could get we could get a copy of what questions were asked on that I'd really And I've got a broken down by I've got to cross tabs with gender and political persuasion, and we found regardless of your political persuasion, the majority in each case, favorite more common sense gun laws. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Excuse me, anybody else. Hey, great. Thank you. Thanks very much folks have a great day. I see that will more you have you have joined us. I'm sorry that I temporarily skipped over you, but you weren't there when we started so, so welcome and look forward to your testimony. Thank you. Okay. For some reason I wouldn't. It wasn't able to unmute. I would defer to Henry Perot if he's on a schedule, I'd be happy to hear his testimony before I proceed madam chair. Mr Paramount. Would you like to testify now or, or does your schedule permit you to be with us longer. Well, it was kind of sort of notice so yeah if I could testify now it would be good. Sure. Absolutely. Welcome. Thank you. So I guess I was asked to talk about the background checks, the three day delay three business days, and also the Charleston loophole that my understanding is why we're here. My understanding of the Charleston loophole. If this law was to pass. It wouldn't have any effect in Charleston anyway because the incident occurred. I think it was two months after the gentleman had the firearm. I'm not sure how this is all going to tie in and how it would help. But when a person comes into purchase a firearm we do a federal background check as mandated by federal and state law. We are told yes, no, or maybe in the maybe as a delay in his three business days. It doesn't start until the next business day. So if it was on a Friday, eight o'clock in the morning when we receive this delay. That wouldn't count Saturday Sunday wouldn't count the time wouldn't count until Monday, then Monday Tuesday Wednesday. If we didn't hear back from the federal government with the NTN number, we could deliver the firearm on the Thursday. That's after we go back to the FBI background check computer and recertify. And then we also have to print out the form, and then they have to recertify that the answers haven't changed. So in that scenario, the FBI is open the FBI background check system is open seven days a week. I believe 24 hours a day. So they would have all day Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and then we could deliver on Thursday. So they do have quite a bit of time. This, this is a federal law that was set up with the FBI and they deemed that was enough time to do the background check. Now, some of the other issues with this is, last I knew there was between 44 and 50,000 John Smiths in America. And I'm sure there are some John Smiths that should not own a firearm, just using that name as an example. So someone with a common name could be put on delay for up to 30 days under this, under this new proposal. People with top secret clearances in the National Guard or in the military in general already have an in depth background check performed on them to receive the top secret clearance. My understanding is, and we get a lot of these who are put on delay, police chiefs and National Guard members, and it's because they've already had an intense background check. And from what I can understand is when the FBI does the background check for a firearm, it goes into the computer, and it will show that a background check, a high intensity background check has been done on that person. But it can't tell why. And what will happen is a lot of times that will trip a delay status. And on several occasions we've had chiefs of police in uniform come in to purchase a new firearm and they get put on delay. They can leave with their firearm that they have on their side, but I can't provide them with a new one. For up to three business days, it does apply to them also. So obviously I'm opposed to it. I believe it would also shut down every gun show. And the very gun show is coming up and that brings in a lot of money for central Vermont. Every restaurant is booked every hotel is booked. And if you're getting put on a delay, it's, it's, it's just not going to work. So that's what I have for notes and I'm willing to take questions and I'm also willing anyone who would like to understand how the background system is performed I welcome them to come in and we can actually walk through it with the FBI computer. Thank you. Thank you very much. I see Martin and then Tom. Thank you very much for that fine today, Mr. Perl. So the gun shows, I mean, do they, how long do those last? I thought, aren't those a weekend affair? Yes. Yeah, because I mean, if they're going to be delayed, wouldn't they be delayed one way or another? I mean, there'll be at least the three days. So I just don't see how I can see how waiting period that we've talked about before could affect the gun show possibly, but I don't see how the that three, the three day, the maybe in the background checks would actually affect gun shows. So under, I want to make sure I have this correct. You're saying that under this bill if we were to get it back within one or two days, then we could deliver. Yes. Yes. Yeah, I mean, the bill is just if there's no answer. You know, if there's not a yes or a no, then it would extend the time to allow the BI next to get to a yes or no. Okay, but if the yes comes in a day or two days, then then yeah, definitely is allowed to be turned over. Under that, then I would, I would have to say that it would be the same. The only issue I could see is the people who are traveling, if they could get it back, because a lot of people come, they stay in central Vermont. It's a huge event to bury gun show. But if somebody's traveling from, you know, southern part, they may not come all the way back up to pick up that firearm in 30 days. Tom, sorry, I couldn't unmute myself. Go ahead, Tom. Thank you. Thank you, Henry for testifying. I just had a question around the Charleston loophole. I don't like the term loophole anyway whether it's got to do with Charleston or taxes. To me, there's no loophole that we have laws that people follow. But anyway, can you explain exactly what happened with that because I think I know there used to be with me anyway, some confusion around it that the gentleman, I'm going to guess he was a gentleman, or that ended up triggering this so called Charleston loophole. I think there's some confusion around that he didn't get the gun within those three days. And as you just said something about two months, I think, but can you explain exactly what happened with that. And, and, and I guess how the system did work. So my understanding, and I have to agree with you on the loophole. There was no such thing as a loophole, especially in this case. I don't have the exact dates, but let's use April 1st, a gentleman came in, purchased a firearm, and he was put on delay. So he had to go through the three business days, which works out to depending on when but five to seven days. He went back. The gunshot re certified with the FBI to make sure everything was good. And then he delivered the gunshot delivered the firearm to the gentleman. Two months later, he used that firearm in a crime. So this loophole that doesn't exist wasn't even a loophole. Everything, every law was followed. A lot of people try to make it sound like he picked up the gun in five days. And on the sixth day, he committed a crime. And my understanding everything I've read that's not the case. It was approximately two months later. So he wasn't in a situation then where Earlier we heard some testimony that there's actually continuing investigation by the FBI for two or three months. I think that's what I heard. So potentially somebody could even though they're given their firearm that a few months later, that maybe the FBI could find, you know, a reason they shouldn't have it. Was this in this situation, was there was the FBI triggered? I guess we're Yeah, I don't know the answer. Okay, okay, I don't have that answer. Right. I can say that we have delivered a firearm and it wasn't a delay status. It was a proceed. And maybe I don't have the exact date to three months later, we receive a call from the ATF inquire about the person. And if we delivered the firearm. And of course we pull our federal form, and we did. And then it becomes an ATF case where they will go and interview and or arrest or retrieve the firearm. Right. I will have to say there is an ongoing investigation. Right. Okay. Yeah, I think I'm pretty sure it's three months that the investigation continues by the FBI. But another question that I was going to ask Jeffrey well and instill will at some point but So we, we enacted a law where if two private citizens are going to buy and buy sell trade swap firearms, whatever they have to go through an FFL. How many, and I know you sell a lot of firearms. You, I'm going to guess you probably sell the most in the state that's just my guess. How many of those transactions have you, I guess the word is facilitated maybe because they have to go through you. Yeah. I did run that report yesterday. I don't have the exact number in front of me I filed it, but I would have to say a couple hundred. Okay, okay, well, I'm, I'm surprised there's that many that's not many in the whole state but but that's great. That's great that people are following the law I guess. In your experience. I guess I'll save that question for Jeff later on. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation on the, the Charleston, I'll call it issue. There you go. Thank you. Okay. I'd really like. I appreciate what Henry just said but Mr Bradley touched on that topic earlier, could I just get more clarification so I can finally put this to bed in my head for Mr Bradley again is that acceptable. Yeah, so I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying so you. Mr Parrow did discuss it and as well as Mr Bradley or is there could Mr Parrow clarify something that I just want to make sure I want to, I would like to know if that's how Mr Bradley understands it also. Okay, and can you can you restate your question please. Henry just just clarified the Charleston, I'm not even going to say it, but is that how you described it also earlier, Mr Bradley, the Charleston loophole, and I concur with the, I hesitate to use the term the. There was no loophole this was designed specifically to have and keep the FBI's feet to the fire so that there was a decision in a timely fashion. Purposely weighted personal rights over failure to have an accurate decision in a certain amount of time. In point of fact, the loop the gentleman involved in Charleston, if I can use that term very loosely. It turned out that it was, he was not a prohibited person. The sale was allowed to go through under a default proceed, but in the end and final analysis, he was not a prohibited person. And as Henry pointed out, and Madame chair thank you for allowing Henry para to speak at our request that was, thank you. He is the most knowledgeable person in the state. So, just to clarify, can again, it has been repeatedly testified that the person who perpetrated Charleston was a prohibited person. He was not not at the time according to the FBI records. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you also, Mr Farrell. Let's see. Tom and then Martin. Yeah, I just had one more question for Henry. In your experience with selling firearms. Have you ever had any situations for people were arrested or prosecuted for lying on forms, or have you had to turn anybody in for it. Yes, we have a pretty good security system. One of the things we're constantly looking for a straw purchases somebody pointing out a firearm and then somebody else. It would be hard for us to say somebody was lying on a form. Common sense if something's not quite right, what we do is we deny the sale. We refer it to the ATF. We have a good relationship with the ATF, and if somebody comes in and things aren't quite right, we pick up the phone. We let them make that decision. Sure. And how often does that happen where you have to make that decision. Maybe a couple times a year. Okay. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Before you ask your question, I have a question. I remember we spoke with you about gun shows a few years back and am I remembering correctly that if somebody goes home or back wherever they they came from out of state in the state with a gun show and then they are cleared that it's possible to mail or deliver that they can still get their firearm. I just have that recollection. No, if somebody is from out of state, we cannot mail them a firearm. Can maybe delivered in any way or if they're in state, could they come come back or. Yes, if they are in state, they can come back. But if they're out of state. You know, we just can't mail guns. Okay. Thank you. Just I think a couple of questions. I just want to make sure that I'm happy to stop using the terminology Charleston loophole and is it delayed proceed is that the the terminology you use Mr. Perot. Yes, we get proceed delayed or approved. Those are the three options. Um, the other question I had is about the, the form that is filled out presumably it's filled out on a computer is that right for the for the background check. Yes. Yeah, I just want to make sure I have the right form that I just looked online trying to find it is that the, and it's the firearms transaction record is that what it's called do I have that right. Yes. Yes, it's, it's ATF form 4473. Okay. Yeah, I'm just going to, I've sent that to Amber, just so she can post it and it will be under my name under s 30. When she does get it, but, but I do note on here that your example of was it John Smith, I think is what, what use, maybe that was the name you use that yes, but on the form and I just want to confirm that that's your your understanding that it's not just the name it's it's a street number I mean it's the address the city date of birth. You know height I mean there's quite a bit of information to distinguish the different john Smith's and, and I suppose if you are a john Smith you can also put in it's optional, which I like that it's optional. The social security number is, it can be put in as well. Is that is that information that's usually put in do you know when you, when you enter person's information how much of that information actually gets entered. Well, we don't enter the person does. Oh, okay. The only thing, excuse me only thing that's optional is the social security number. Okay, so the person you let the person actually enter that at a terminal. Yes. Okay, great. No thank you very much that that's helpful to understand the process. Thanks. So if I may. I'd like to follow up a little bit. The computer, the FBI, ATF computers, they use sound like technology, they use pretty close technology. So, in the sense of john Smith you may have a physical he is 61, 250 pounds. If the date of birth is closed, if the social is closed, it will still trigger it, because it's a similar. So it's not exact when it comes to the delay process. Great. Thank you. Thank you. That's helpful as well. Bob and then Tom. I'm sure. Henry, I've been to the TS clearance on a couple of different cases. Thank God, I'm not running to the example you gave as to walking out of your store without being able to purchase a firearm which. But having said that, as elected officials, the last time we want to do is to put a firearm into the hands of someone who should not have one. And looking at the amendment using the Charleston example from three to now 30 days. I was thinking anywhere between three seven or 30 days. Do you see what this is going to make a significant difference if in fact we use three days versus seven days or 30 days and right. Well, I think it's going to make a difference in the people purchasing with with the common names if you will, if they know they're going to get put on a 30 days. They may try to skirt this and then the private sales will go up that are not having background checks. So it could have an effect, a negative effect. I don't think anybody, including a gun dealer wants to put a hand put firearms in the hands of somebody who shouldn't have them. But we also have to be respectful of people's rights. The federal government has deemed that they can do the satisfactory background check within three business days. And that's what has been working. We just debunked the Charleston loophole that it wasn't even loophole. So I guess, do we have statistics in Vermont where this would have prevented anything. So having having said that Henry do you think that we should be looking at extending this period from like three to seven days on the Vermont level versus 30 days or what your thoughts on that because you deal with this on a daily basis. I deal with it on a daily basis, and the federal government has set up three business days. They run those computers seven days a week. They run hours a day for background checks. If there's a little bit of a hiccup, that's where they need that three days to maybe go into a different computer, maybe make a phone call in today's world of technology and computers. Three business days is enough in my opinion. I don't think we should extend it. The federal government says three days. Okay, thank you. Excuse me Tom. Henry, how many years we've been doing the federal background checks. Is it the 80s. Yeah, I don't remember the first one, you had to send the paperwork to the county sheriff. And I don't remember what year might have been early 90s. Okay, but I'm going to guess back then it was all. I'm getting applications and snail mail. Yes. So, and where I'm going with it. Okay, so when an application when a person fills out an application now or to, to buy a firearm. Is that all submitted electronically. Yes. So, okay, so right there. I mean, in the past, I guess if it was it was three days and we're using handwritten forms and snail mail. Boy, they must have, they must have been busting their butts to get that out within three days. And so with the, the computers running, like you said 24 seven and just constantly checking information. It makes me wonder in a sense how many, how many days of information are you actually getting in those three days compared to you know with the speed that things are done but that looks like I mean there's already a huge gain there, as far as time goes. And yeah, I don't know. The big argument is the is the Charleston loophole and that's been debunked and other than that I've never heard any other argument for extending these timelines other than Charleston and that's Charleston fallacy. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else any other questions for Mr. Carol. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Now I'll turn to, to a little more. Hey, it worked the first time I'm unmuted. So that's progress. Hello everyone. Thank you, Madam chair and members for having a long day and a large opportunity. As you may have seen from a letter that I am sorry I should identify myself for the record, William Moore. I'm the firearms policy analyst for Vermont traditions coalition. I've written a pretty strongly worded letter to the members and many others across the political spectrum in the state house, similar to some objections that I filed last year with the senate judiciary committee when they took up the original bill and previous to the special session. Regarding the accessibility and functionality of the legislature and the legislative process and the citizen access and the citizen participation opportunities here, which are greatly truncated on zoom. And this is an insufficient process I want to register those comments I want to point out the letter that I sent the committee and hope that you spend some time reading it I think it's a thoughtful. And then and sincere request that complicated policy issues and other social policy questions that are not truly emergencies or truly responding at least to an immediate problem should be held off until the building is open, or at least a strongly hybrid physical presence and my main concern has been repeatedly. You know, citizens may appear to have access, but this is a one way window. It's not the same. And the second part of that is that I've come to the conclusion just recently that the largest deficit of this remote session activity for any bill whether it's complex policy like questions of psychiatrists reporting patients threats. Or simple or things like dictating signage at hospitals is the interpersonal and the interaction between legislators themselves. As far as I'm concerned my dime pays you and my vote elect you to interact with each other. And everything else is the way you gather your information and arrive at your conclusions but the interaction between you, you between each other is is the act of legislating and you are not able to do that so I consider this whole process. Less than legitimate but to the bill. I've written some notes because I am. Excuse me. Can, can you explain what you mean that this process is less than legitimate. Well I think I just did I mean I think the biggest deficit problem is, is your ability as legislators interact with each other. You know unless you unless you reach out through email or phone calls you're just not in the building and I'm sorry I've been doing this 35 years madam chair. I've been in the building on and off since 1988 and there's no, there's no valuable replacement no tenable alternative to physically bumping into Martin in the corner by the water fountain or running into coach Christie and talking about something has nothing to do with the bill and then stumbling on to someone who has information that I can then, you know, offer to him, but there's certainly no substitute for you to interacting in the hallways or interacting with a legislator who has no idea what we've been talking about all day, and hasn't even know the bills moving and all of a sudden you let them know and they're interested and they get involved and they interact with their constituents I'm sorry I just, I will never accept that this is a legitimate process for true legislating in a citizen legislature. This is not human scale democracy, I will participate without objection, duly noted. Does that answer your question. Thank you. Yes. Okay. So, I'm not going to get into the redundancy about the so called loophole except to say that the, the administrative procedures act and other administrative executive orders have dictated a process by which the check system has to be reflective of the data that's available responsive to the form, and it has to obey the law. So, it obeys the law if folks are deeply upset about the fact that a hold can be X number of days, and then the transfer and they need to take that up with Senator Leahy and with with with Representative Welts and Senator Sanders to have that change to the statutory federal level it's not an issue that should be changed locally because you don't have the depth of understanding and you and you really are trampling on other people's rights when they get delayed by a federal bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is quite good, on the other hand, as Henry will I believe agree with me is quite good at identifying people who are prohibited. And more often than not the prohibited negatives either don't come in the room and fill out the form because they already know they're they're prohibited, or immediately upon getting a negative, you don't see them again. So, it's quite good at doing that and the refusal rates over the years have increased and improved and I think Henry will back me up on that. I'm backing up a little bit to some earlier testimony and this is not a criticism of them, just I felt there was some gaps. Kevin Green responded to some oblique questions about hospitals and how they handle current policy, every hospital facility in the state of Vermont of any import has the signs does not allow firearms. She knows that no one asked you that directly but I wanted to just point that out. Now as you get into the weeds on the definitions and statue that Chris got into and Eric Fitzpatrick earlier. There are minor facilities such as my physical therapist, which may or may not be affiliated affiliated with a hospital organization that they certainly have the right to put a sign up. Now whether they do or not, they have the exact same rights as the other hospital facilities to restrict firearms to call the police if somebody appears not to comply with the gun back in their car, as is the case with the dollar store and the state house. Right now the state house's mask rule is enforced theoretically by the same mechanism that Chris so nicely outlined earlier under 13 BSA 3705, which is, we ask you to comply. If you refuse to comply, we ask you to egress. If you refuse to egress, we may have already called the police, and you will be cited for misdemeanor trespass and arrested, and then released with a citation to appear. That's the process that's been the process. I've used it as a bartender 20 years ago. And thank God I never had to use it as a security personnel at Copley Hospital. Another job that I did have. And I, I mean if everybody in the room raises their hands that used to work security at a hospital, I think it's just me. So that brings me to my next point which is hospitals have a variety of security personnel and a variety of security processes and contingency plans now most of them are with regards to mass casualty events where you know there's a lot of bus accidents where you know there's a large bus accident. They deal with these things as they can. Certainly they've had to create contingency plans under covert for various reasons, not the least of which is visitation rules within the patient wards and the patient but they're perfectly capable of anticipating people who come in perhaps drunk with a big cut on their leg. Maybe they call a cop just to come by and be there available to deescalate in the event that that happens. They're very aware of it they're very proactive about it. Certainly if a person comes in and has a gun on their hip when the jacket opens and they ask them to put it in the car. I've asked around and in the last year since this bill 15 months since this bill was proposed, there have been zero events that we're aware of in police reports of anything getting beyond the oh you're not allowed to have a gun in here please put it back in your car. So, as was the case before the bill was proposed. There is no problem. But there is a statutory and criminal process in place already to deal with it that works quite adequately, and has been affected at times. In the USA 30705 a person who refused to leave the State House during the special session was asked to leave refused to leave and asked what would happen if they didn't and they were told they'd be arrested and they asked for the civil disobedience purpose to be arrested and cited. It worked just fine, you can check in with your chief. It was a very peaceable event, but it's an example of civil disobedience but it's the same rule, the same statute and the same penalty that's used to apply for people who refuse to comply with these rules of attendance no shirt no shoes no service is the same it's the same process it's an old law it works fine. And the criminal intent as Chris Bradley pointed out earlier, there are a myriad of charges and the police would be involved and called immediately by hospital personnel and confrontations. A little bit of a hobgoblin. The police was called as security to deal with confrontational issues in the ER. More often than not they were de escalated by the extremely knowledgeable and professional caring practitioners whether it was the nurses, the L&As or the doctors themselves. Someone comes in traumatized by a car accident drunk on drugs. Those situations are far more dangerous. There's almost any other event in an ER, and yet they deal with those all the time and they're highly trained to do so. The few times that I was called a security to come to the emergency room which seems to be the focal point of these discussions. One of them was for me to sit. What I call Shiva just sit at the end of the bed blocking the door for a young man who had tried to commit suicide with some pills of some sort. He happened to be a young man that I knew from my church your youth group when I ran the youth group. Now that's more typical of the situations that a security person in a hospital, a small hospital would deal with, or just making checking doors. I mean, we don't a coply we didn't have a full time security personnel we were cross trained in what was called the politely referred to as facilities. One day a year we'd have a cross training with takedowns and restraints by a training officer from Newport State Prison. Half the day was used cleaning hallways and offices, but we were on site, and we did checks and we were there in the event that a situation. We didn't feel that they had the de escalation training or the restraint training to deal with it. And so I give you all that just to let you know that these hospitals are quite well prepared for these events. No one can train or write a law to stop a mass shooter, whether they go into a theater, or they go to a concert or they go to a school that's not what we're discussing here and any references to mass shooters earlier in the testimony is really what guides the point. So, to end that sort of part of my testimony I just want to add that. Certainly no one here representative knots amendments or or or Senator Bruce earlier versions of the bill was intended to deal with criminal activity, or advanced altercations. To do drugs or fights or whatever certainly this was meant to deal with keeping the public apprised of the hospital's desire to behave in a lawful manner, and one of the lawful manners was to not bring your firearm into the buildings. It's really been no more complex than that. And as I think outlined, the existing statutes allow for a myriad of options and responses to that, regardless of training a personality hospital. I wanted to point something out that I think Henry mentioned but when FFLs do do feel a little itchy on the back of their necks. They have the right to refuse it all points the process to sale to anyone without any risk of being called to the mat for failure to sell pretty much pretty much a broad authority and discretion is that correct Henry. So, like a bartender who can refuse to serve and I've done that too. That that's there and they're really superbly qualified, particularly when their hairs already up on the back of their neck for a long delay. Somebody comes in in, depending on their behavior they can suggest to them that they go elsewhere. Speak, probably the most of the rest of my time to the amendment with, especially with regards to the mental health issues. But I did want to point out, I can find my paperwork. So last year we had an interrogatory with Eric Fitzpatrick regarding the ability to charge a person with trespass and responding to a specific question. Eric said it's true that the sign is enough to provide notice against trespass under 3705. And he and I researched it and we came up with a case that's known as state v Pixley 208 Vermont 529. And it states in part. The statute allows notice of trespass to be given by actual communication or by signs or placards so designed in situate as to give reasonable notice. As the court Supreme Court of the state of Vermont speaking. We conclude that the statute allows notice to be proven with the objective evidence of reasonable notice through signage and without showing that a defendant subjectively saw and understood the signs. We reached this conclusion foremost from the plain language of the statute, which allows the state to demonstrate notice in several ways including through quote, actual communication by law enforcement, or the person in lawful of the of the premises, or by signs that provide reasonable notice. So if that's not clear enough to everybody, you don't have to take my word for it up to this point. There it is. I've forwarded this document and several others that were from the Senate Judiciary Committee to amber recently so those will be posted later in the afternoon. I would like to point out also that there's no rush on this bill as it is not subject to crossover, since it is a Senate bill. There is no rush so waiting my suggestion and my strong urging to wait for a more open process and a more in the building process really doesn't put you up against any particular rules. And one more brief point before I get to the, the mental health issue. This is Bradley's friendly amendment regarding educational events, educational historical and competitive events. I fully support the alternate language that he proposed. Part of the reason is because I'm involved in a club in Eden, that also is trying to build what is incorporated as the Vermont Military History Museum, which will be on site. It's a big, big fancy museum like a very historical society or whatever like that it's, it's going to be some machinery some equipment, some, you know, memorabilia military a small building that will also function as a clubhouse. And it's a it's a work in progress, but it will involve educational events historical reenactments, and so on that may or may not include up in through World War two and Korea which would involve that magazine issue. That's why we strongly support the idea of having historical and educational events included in that, Madam Chair, I just want to follow up with Chris on that. So, I'd like to use what what time I have left to discuss the issues of the mental health counseling, the existing statutes that were referred to earlier by Eric, the federal statutes are of interest I don't profess to understand them completely because they were pretty well explained the state statutes. Click something up here for myself here just for a second. So, I did my initial research and I've confirmed this with among other people and Donahue to make sure that I'm not completely off track or completely ill informed here. Thanks to, and this document was forwarded to you earlier there's it's a, I think it's listed as comments on not amendment. But I want to refer to this peck versus counseling services and I think I'll just read my, my commentary from here that you've you've received it but it's easier for me not to rewrite the book. So, essentially the not amendments will radically extend the quote duty to notify or quote duty to protect for the extremist protection order statutes to a demand side incursion into the doctor patient realm. Currently, citizens abuse victims, the family and spouses may initiate. Pardon me for that noise. Currently, citizens abuse victims, the family and spouses may initiate with states attorneys, these red flag orders. The proposal would irreparably harm the confidentiality between all patients in most types of counseling, including depression addiction recovery, family members seeking help with anger management, sometimes court ordered. Even the debate of these amendments will leak in leaked to people now considering seeking help and trigger fear that discussion about suicidal thoughts and ideations will trigger the automatic filing of her pose by the source of their counselors and doctors. Similar problems with age 610 and judges feeling pressured to check the box on all cases, mental health care providers will fear the risks of not airing on the side of quote duty to protect existing liability protections for practitioners who do report threats to others are apparently based largely on the peck beat counseling services case cited below. The counseling services appears to balance confidentiality in a way that creates and protects practitioners who feel compelled to warn those in danger with continuation of care under a confidential model. This is an excerpt from that court case decision this case was from 1985 but I have confirmed with two sources that it is still ruling law, and it works in concert with these existing state statutes that you've had a primer on this morning. In the same manner that do care must be exercised in the therapist's determination of what steps may be necessary to protect the potential victim of a patient's threat of harm. So to must do care be exercised in order to ensure that only that information which is necessary to protect the potential victim is revealed. Thus we hold that a mental health professional who knows or based upon the standards of the mental health profession should know that his or her patient poses a serious risk of danger to an identifiable victim has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect him or her from that danger. That is a very strong admonition to act. But carefully and firmly balanced with a very limited narrow allowance of disclosure. That's, that's when it when they get their licenses, and they're operating and they're responsible in their oath and their licensing applications. Those are the words they're at their, they're taking responsibility for this is the ruling law. I see nothing. That can improve on that. I only see something that can create an impetus to check the box for practitioners. That's getting bad for practitioners to act when the balance of their instincts might be to continue to counsel or more intensively involve the family members, or at least in this case if you read that again yourselves in a quiet moment you'll see in that case. The, the conditions of the case and the circumstances the case allowed for instance if Kate was Kate, if Representative Donnelly was was counseling somebody and was aware of it. It encourages them if they have access to the person who may be the direct object of the threat to contact them directly, which would also engage them to some degree in the troubles of this person. But it wouldn't disconnect or short circuit by going to police and triggering an ERPO process, which would break the relationship with the practitioner and the client into ashes. And so, I mean, you really have a problem that doesn't exist. And the fix for it really is quite destructive and disruptive to the current process that that clients and practitioners have developed over decades. I mean, these are professionals telling them what to do in a set of circumstances that are always unique is very risky. So, I think I think I've made enough of that. But I would urge you to finish and read the rest of what I've given you. I guess I guess my, my final comment would be. If I read the definitions of hospital or healthcare facility. If this passes next time I'm sitting at the end of a bed with a kid who committed suicide, or tried to. And he wakes up and realizes it's me and he knows me. We have a deep long term relationship now he's a very healthy young man. And he survived his crisis. But if he came to me today and said I've relapsed I'm a mess bill help me. I don't know who to go to. I would tell him to go to a pastor I would tell him to go to a religious group, because he wouldn't be subjected to this, because they're exempted from that in the state law. They're exempted from the liability questions. If you look at the definitions they are not considered hospital facilities. So, I would just tell him to steer clear and go back to to his, his roots which is where I met him. I'd hate to have to feel that way. But I'm and I am using a little bit of hyperbole here but I'm making my point that you're getting involved in a situation in a profession. And I think is highly nuanced, perhaps even spiritual, even with practitioners who are professionals, where there's a, there's an interpersonal dynamic that you can't write a law and anticipate circumstances. You'll only be disrupting it. You have any questions about any of this updates to the bill I'm happy to discuss them obviously. Barbara, I see that your hand is up. I'm shutting my phone off. I know it's been making a lot of noise and I apologize. Thank you, Madam chair so when you mentioned that about shipping it. And so I have gone back through some of my old notes and I also just Google shipping guns. And I'm finding a lot that if that somebody can have a gun shipped from you from FedEx from the Postal Service I'm seeing it on the ATF site to a registered seller. And so I'm very confused about why that earlier issue about the delay would hamper a sale for someone at the gun show, like what am I missing. So you can you're correct. Representative Rachel, so you're absolutely correct. If you, let's say you came up to the gun show and you're from New York State. You would probably likely have the gun transferred by shipping it to another FFL who would complete the background check there on the site. The additional costs and time of the transfer isn't probably as as cumbersome as it is. I think a lot of those people would choose to buy locally so it's a little. It's an example that's worth noting but it's really not it's not that cumbersome people travel long ways to a gun show. They already know they're going to have to deal with it that way. The other hand a private sale can be done as well that way but it's still again I have to take it into Henry and say I'm shipping it to my brother in Las Vegas. He's going to pick it up at this shop that shop would complete the background check there on site and there would be quite a lot of cost. Barbara seems to be muted. So that seems to only be needed if somebody is from out of town or from downstate and doesn't want to stay in. I don't know why they wouldn't want to just extend their stay and bury for a few days but if they don't then in those situations there would be an additional cost but but it wouldn't shut down the gun shows and we should be careful about framing it that way. So I was like I've been in FedEx when people have melt guns but like I've watched them. I've seen it happen so anyway so thank you I just wanted to make sure. I agree I understand your point like losing our minds here. I think I think what Henry was trying to say that you know if you look at the statistics. Chris Bradley knows he's better than I do. So if you look at the statistics for gun sales, the infant testimal less than 1% that get delayed or refused aren't the issue. There are gun show their vendors there people like Henry Perot set up tables and they have telephones and they can do background checks and swipe credit cards and sell guns to legitimately sellers and that's 90 90% of what they do during that gun show so yes it will destroy those gun shows because those gun dealers will no longer attend. It's not worth the trouble because of the they barely make much from gun shows anyway because they they rip up their existing point of sale retail location and then they close it and then they come to the gun show and it's sort of a just you know it's visibility but they lose all that if they can't sell guns all day. They just won't come and the gun shows won't be gun shows they'll be shows with people selling old leather holsters that'll be the end of it that it's okay. I've worked in my know, trust me. Well, thank you. But thank you for clarifying because I helped clarify when I heard Mr. Perot say, you can't just mail a gun I believe that was his testimony so now I know in fact. Yeah, it's just about sales. It really is. So. Okay, thank you very much. So we will now turn to Mr. Jeffrey Whalen. Good afternoon and thank you for. Thank you for your time. Good afternoon. Yeah, thank you. Good afternoon. Am I able to be heard? All right. Thank you. Technical challenges always technical challenges so best to best to verify. So for the record, my name is Jeffrey Whalen and I'm the director of the Vermont Crime Information Center with the Department of Public Safety. I'm here really to provide a little bit of background information about how the criminal records that VCIC holds feeds into the firearm background process and then really answer any questions that I can. I'll begin simply by saying that we do not undertake background checks for firearm purchases here at VCIC or at the state level. They are all handled as was mentioned earlier by the Federal Bureau of Investigations National Instant Background Check System or NICS that you'll hear it generally referred to. VCIC is the criminal history repository excuse me for Vermont does provide information that's used in that but we actually don't undertake those checks ourselves. So just to be absolutely clear on that on that piece moving forward. I did provide some information on the number of background checks that were conducted by the FBI on behalf of Vermont earlier and I'm happy to quickly review those with the committee. In 2020 the FBI NICS section conducted 57,965 firearm checks on behalf of Vermont and of those in 2020 those just over 57,000 there were 476 denials of those which represents 0.82% of the checks conducted during that time. Furthermore of those checks 56,771 or 97.1% were completed within three days. For 2021 I have information through November I have not updated for December yet through the publicly available sources there were just where they were just excuse me there were 46,966 checks completed through November for 2021. There were 337 denials and 46,518 were completed within three business days. Additionally during the same period noted which is 2020 and through the first 11 months of 2021 there were 28 firearm retrievals issued to ATFE and as of the time when I pulled data together earlier in December 19 had been completed at that time. So that's some basic just basic publicly available information on the number of checks that are done on behalf of Vermont. It averages about 45 and 4800 checks per month between 2020 and 2021. But beyond that really I just want to answer any questions that I can for the committee members and appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Committee members any questions. Martin and then Tom, and then can did you. Yeah, okay so Martin Tom and Ken. Yeah, thank you for for a testifying today. Could could you just explain the information that you provide into the system or you provide, you know just a brief overview of. What information is provided through your organization to the next system. Absolutely, absolutely. So there's two primary things that we provide with regards to information available to Nick. The first are criminal history records. So it's the record of an arrest, arraignment and conviction of an individual that's made available. And what we commonly refer to as a rap sheet, you know, that's what's commonly referred to as a rap sheet. So that information is made available to the FBI Nick section for determination if the individual has any kind of federal or state disqualifier. Now that's the primary thing that we do we also annotate any record where the individual has a felony conviction. We annotate that so it's immediately known to them that an individual has a felony conviction on their record. So those are the primary records that BCIC makes available to the FBI Nick. Thank you. Tom and Ken. Thank you. Hey Jeffrey how you doing. Good to yourself. Not too bad, not too bad. So those numbers you were throwing out their background checks were in like the 4050,000 range was that what it was. Yes sir yes sir. I'm going to assume that the private sales are included in those and is there a number do you have a number of how many of those were what I call private sales. I don't know if they're private sale or not but because they're going through the FFLs but is there a number for that by any chance. They're representative it's a great question. The FBI on the FBI Nick's web page right on their publicly available page they do have that information I did not look it up before this meeting but they do break down the number of private sales on behalf of Vermont. When I did look at it a long while ago there, there is a number there they are doing them and recording them on that but I don't I couldn't tell you the number they did for the last few years but it's readily available right on the FBI Nick's web page. Okay, great. And I'm going to guess it's fairly substantial since Henry was saying that he does. I think he said he did 200 alone so just his gun shop so. So it's really pulling a lot of people into the system and making people more accountable which was the, the idea of the law anyway but let's see. So, do you know if anybody has doing a private transaction without an FFL has there, do you know if there's been in any cases of people being charged or prosecuted or arrested or whatever, whatever term you want to use for not using an FFL. I'm not aware of that, but I wouldn't necessarily be. That's not information that I would necessarily be privy to so that would be something that either the state police or the ATF would be able to answer better. Right okay. And I guess I guess that's that right now. Thank you. Okay. Thank you madam chair. Good afternoon Jeffrey. To go back to your figures. What did you say 2020 was 57,965. Yes sir they were 57,965 checks in 2020 conducted. That's a lot closer to 60,000 than 50. So then what was 2021 again through November. Through November 2021 was 46,966 checks. So close to 50,000. So, these are actual gun sales that go with an FFL or just an FFL. So these are the number of checks that are processed by the FBI next section. I wouldn't necessarily equate each one to an actual purchase an individual may decide not to complete the purchase for whatever reason, etc. They're simply verifying whether they're eligible or not. I may defer to some of the other folks that spoke earlier who actually are involved in the actual sales of firearms to speak to whether or not that happens, or whether or not every single sale. I would be afraid that every single check results in a sale, it may be a check that's done but it does not result in a sale. Okay, thank you. So my other question is we've had this situation going on now for a couple of years. Our systems are antiquated and all this stuff our computers and all this stuff. Do you anticipate any problem at all I mean it sounds like you're on top of everything with us that we are keeping the public. Safe in my mind. The information that we when we receive information so thank you representative it's a good question. We have a fairly sophisticated operation here as far as making these records available, but we don't generate them ourselves they come from the courts and they come from law enforcement So we're as good as the data that we receive and we do think then make that information available and essentially real time to our federal partners. So as long as we're getting data in a timely manner and an accurate manner we make that then available to our federal partners. So just to be clear, that's data that's coming from our Vermont court system and our our law enforcement correct. Yes, sir. That's correct. Thank you very much. Tom looks like you might have another question. Nope. Sorry. It's fine whores. Community members any other, any other questions. I won't say I don't have another one I'll say I don't have one right now. Thank you very much. Good to see you. Thank you ma'am good to see you as well. So, okay committee good timing and we, we have gotten through everybody there's quite a bit of information from our witnesses on our committee page. So, please make sure to look there and I will update you as we get more. If you get any more submitted. And we are on the floor at three. So let's adjourn today.