 Yeah, that'd be great. Okay, great. All right. Welcome back everybody. We are continuing testimony on age 610 Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. So I'll think I'll start going through the bill Great fashion. So the first place I come to is on page 4. It's talking about the transfers The dealer we really have no position. I have no calling stuff. So beginning section 2 talks about requests for relief Language added. This it starts out this section is actually the if you will the final term And so I mean we don't I guess Qualifying my earlier testimony. I mean, I think it's certainly in any case Domestic violence of the type that the committee is hurry. It's certainly appropriate that there be restriction on firearms So we don't have any objection to that And at the final hearing contrary to the emergency hearings, we're no doubt going to have more evidence that would warrant the imposition of that That type of those restrictions The substance division 4 is the one I talked about earlier this morning. That's on the bottom of page 7 And the final hearing at the defendant testifies under oath The defendant may never get to testify for the reasons I stated earlier this morning If there is already an order a temporary order, but not possession Prohibiting possession of firearms It's unlikely that we get testimony from the defendant at that time. I mean, they're certainly free to to speak but I Is there any other place that you can think of that you're put in that position Of the shell no of Sort of having to ask a question but let people know that in you're talking about how you Are in a situation where the person's being asked a question Which you then have to advise them Well, usually the way it comes about are certainly when I'm writing over these courts Knowing what may be coming the admonition is given right up front making them aware that they don't have to Testify or if they do testify anything they say can be used against them Right, but here we have a situation where they're going to be asked a question directly the way the bill is written now they would be asked a question about Their possession of fire and that's what I'm saying before that question was ever asked. I would provide them with that warning But it sounds like an awkward situation Is it typical well, it's typical in at least in my experience in our faith receives that I always Provide the defendant with that warning Because I may not I have an affidavit in front of me If I if I've heard from the plaintiff and it's the defendant's opportunity to testify I Will advise them then even though this is a civil proceeding that the nature of the testimony that came out may in fact involve An allegation of a crime and that the person does not have to testify that point so it at least in my experience It's quite common In any of these proceedings even without these provisions in there And I will give that warning because of the nature of the proceeding and the nature usually of the facts that That bring us there at least for me It's pretty standard then I would think it would be standard for any judge because of the circumstances in fact there are some Judges that take the view that if a charge is pending and the person is not able to testify because of the inability to testify because of the pending criminal case they will continue the case until Restriction is lifted, but that's not a policy that I ever pursued Recommend against it. Thank you coach and then Ken You're on how are you good? One of the things that came up in earlier testimony was in reference to the temporary and the fact that New Hampshire for example Has a provision Once served always listed with no expiration heard of it, but I haven't read it or As you can imagine The reason that came up in the discussion, you know was the possibility of maybe us Vermont looking into doing that similarly in order to protect the family Do you have any just general thoughts about that possibility? You know without I wouldn't comment on the Hampshire language without looking at it, but I understand the concept And it's been discussed Say without looking into detail. I don't have an objection right now, but I think the wording is important, right? Hampshire has some other parts of the statute that we should emulate as well Thank you. We let us know which parts I'm going to get to that hopefully in the next few minutes when we talk about a warrant but Is it generally followed that that the other judges will follow your way and No, that's why I was saying earlier. They're 30 independently appointed retained judges that make their own decisions I can Recommend and encourage I Let them know when for instance a bill like this Comes out. I will circulate it ask them for their comments. I mean when I'm testifying here Just testifying personally, but some of the responses I got from judges are reflected in the testimony But no, I don't have that I said I can recommend and I can encourage Educate I can try but ultimately they have to make their own decisions And I don't have the ability to I Can question but I can't overturn or tell them And that's what I was getting at earlier with how they handle this particular issue of firearms I think varies from judge to judge, but I don't think you will find Any judge that doesn't recognize the significance of firearms as it relates to these cases And at the very end of the testimony the last piece is the conditions of release Provision talks about No purchase Possessing firearms as a condition of release in a criminal case That is so ingrained In the system that it is a it is on our Standard conditions are released for whether it's in the statute or not. It's there And it's a box that's checked at least in my experience anytime. There's a domestic violence case Before the court conditions of release. That's a box that's checked without Even if even if at that point Firearms are not necessarily an issue in that particular instance that brings a person there because of the nature of the offense The issues surrounding firearms and domestic violence It's almost a matter of routine Thank you, sir So the next section that I have begins Court me issue a warrant now again. This is that The way the bill is framed this is at the final hearing and There is a great deal of difference between what happens at a final hearing versus the temporary strain or the emergency order The decision the Hemingway decision that David was referring to and I think Legislative Council has access to it a reading of that decision you will see that The issuance of a search warrant in that case Was done by a judge in a court hearing. There was a record another was during court hours It was not a nighttime request and that Difference the distinction between the nighttime and the court powers is very significant for a lot of reasons so I Would agree at least from my reading of the Hemingway case that this this bill Beginning on page 7 the top of it accurately reflects the language And I don't have We don't have any objection to it in terms of what's required. I think The fact that it's done as part of the final hearing Has more merit than the emergency order and I explain why But at a final hearing there's an opportunity for the court to explore The information it needs In order to grant this warrant and by that I mean The court is free at that time To ask the questions that we were talking about this morning that there may be Some reluctance to do so unless there's a reason to do it and this would if the person before the court is Requesting a warrant then there is a reason to require About these areas and particularly What are the firearms? What kind of firearms or whatever whatever information the plaintiff? And again, we would be in the first instance relying on the plaintiff to provide this information what firearms And where are they located? Search warrant whether it's civil or criminal The significance is the particularity of the items to be searched for and where they could be located within the Property of the defendant But that's that the final hearing gives us that opportunity to ask those questions Contrary to the emergency order where we're relying strictly if Granted on an affidavit filed by the plaintiff. There's no opportunity for exchange So doesn't that just mean that that Temporary or the emergency Order situation that you just be less inclined to find probable cause. I mean if you're not able to Ask those questions because you just have an affidavit either the affidavit was sufficient or wasn't I mean Certainly if it's enough in the court You're able to ask for the questions To determine, you know, if there really is more there to lead to probable cause, but again at that Would you just judge it on what's on the in the affidavit? In the temporary Well, you would but there a search warrant is a is a is one of the most significant actions that we take for the reasons stated by they would sheer and others when you're talking about issuing an order to Retain or search someone's home Take property and and I think the importance of that If it's going to mean anything I think chief Burke reflected on the importance of search more and I The the odd one of the odd things is that by putting it into a final order and giving the court the ability to question Someone about the need for a warrant and circumstances is something we don't get with a criminal Because when a criminal warrant is presented to us and you heard from Pepper and I believe the police officer But certainly from Pepper When I get a call at two o'clock in the morning for a search warrant From the police officer the first thing I ask or any judge has been reviewed by the state's attorney That's to develop That's to make sure first of all that has been reviewed by the state's attorney and they're satisfied that it meets At least their criteria For writing but when I review the warrant I may have questions But I don't ask the police officer. There's no record and so I I accept that affidavit in that request on face value It is not an opportunity for me to question the officer and say hey, this is missing you need to go back To the state's attorney or you need to go back to this witness and get more information And so in some respects this civil warrant the way it's laid out provides that opportunity In a civil context in a final hearing That will be lost certainly in the overnight the emergency hearing but the the the procedures for obtaining a criminal warrant Refer to the committee to rule 41 of the criminal rules procedure quite extensive. There are limitations for example on even on a criminal warrant On the hours in which a property can be searched The length of time that a warrant is outstanding What's required on a return on the warrant? Disclosure of what was uncovered. I mean there are a number of procedural rules and safeguards For instance, when I say the hours, we're not allowed to grant a search warrant Other than between the hours of six o'clock in the morning and ten o'clock at night unless there is a exception There there's a factual exception. Something is going to disappear if we don't grant that warrant Right away. So there are there are restrictions on our ability to do that There are other restrictions that don't it's only in existence for ten days For example, now if we don't serve the individual in this case you grant an emergency order And they're not served that warrant is no good They'll have to come back to court Extend it so what what one of the concerns I have is that there is no Process there is no procedure laid out for this warrant and what happens to how it's processed And I'm talking about I guess I'll continue to talk about the emergency warrant. I mean the emergency warrant You have to understand Contrary to a criminal search warrant You are getting you are the individual the plaintiff is contacting Either a staff person or a contractor person someone we've contracted with for an after-hours process But no training they are not an advocate for the person applying They're at Vesta Scrivener But they're not there to tell the person what they need in the afternoon Or to say that's not enough There is no So though that still seems that the end result is You don't find probable cause and don't issue the warrant. I mean it's the the burden should remain Same shouldn't it? I mean, yeah, there's procedural safeguards and it would be great if we could Have a procedure where somebody knows exactly how to help this individual who's seeking help on a late Friday night You know that it can help them put that together But she or he either puts that together or not Is I mean I can't disagree with that But I guess my concern be if you're if the committee is serious about the merit and Justifying Let me go back for a minute. So yeah, I agree with that as well. I'm just trying to parse out But let me tell you what the real problem is and it's with quite frankly the after-hours Leave from abuse process as it's evolved When that process started and I forget how many years ago it was almost every In almost every county or at least accessible or state police The sheriff's office often were 24 hours a day. There was accessibility to police For these after-hours calls and so the staff these are volunteer positions and staff And about three years ago We started getting calls from certain areas where The landscape had changed the police the departments were not open And we had staff members meeting with Victims in the parking lot of empty police stations and so we started to look into this situation and Without spending a lot of time on what's happened. I can tell you that within the last six months We've had this significant upheaval in the ability to Maintain after-hours process and by that I mean at this point the numbers I have there are nine counties that are relying on Contractors in other words they're not staff people We have had to hire people. They are doing that most of them are covering multiple counties So it's all done by telephone There are still looks like Four counties that have some staff that are still willing to go out after hours the caveat to that is that and The Supreme Court has taken the position that if people are still going out they can only go out if there is a Secure setting for them to do that and quite frankly there are fewer and fewer safe settings a safe setting Is a police presence throughout the process for for processing this this request for a relief from abuse or And that doesn't mean a dispatcher Dispatchers oftentimes are behind A safety glass they're in a room that no one else has access to So the court has basically said there's got to be safe setting We're by what you're really doing is adding another obligation on to assist them That in my view is broken David Scheer Said that the New Jersey Case In part by the basis for this is constitutional sound Doctor the language in it and he said it's similar to our procedure. It's similar To our procedure in all but one respect if you want an after-hours order in New Jersey You go to law enforcement. We're the only state that I'm aware of That attempts to process these after-hours requests through staff or tired staff and Hampshire I mentioned I would get to New Hampshire New Hampshire has if you want an after-hours order you go to law enforcement Massachusetts you go to law enforcement the New Jersey process That's why I said reading that decision. You'll see that that was an import during courtroom hours But the idea that we would take essentially a non-legal trained person and add the element of a search warrant and the importance of search warrant and To me just it's adding a burden on a system that is not Working now Not working in the sense that it's more and more difficult To be able to staff those positions and are we putting people at risk and sending them out? Even the few who were staff are still able to go out. Are we putting staff and victims at further risk by sending them out in the middle of the night? So my concern is that we have a system that is strong We're the only that is doing that way and so if the if the warrant is important and I think it could be Then it ought to be done in an appropriate manner and not to say we don't have the procedures We don't have the rules so let's do it and if you if you don't grant it so be it if you want to warrant Apply for it as part of the final hearing so that we can there can be a full exploration of The investigation if you will Cheap work at least by the court and that's what you'll see in the Hemingway That's what the judges are lying on so I'm concerned about adding another burden On to people who aren't right And that's why I'm saying If you look at the procedure involved for criminal warrant I mean to do it properly and to make sure that it's done I think pepper testified it might take hours to process Thank you, but the important thing is that you have a trained individual police officer Who knows what is necessary? To obtain and presents that to a state's attorney who will then review and say yes I think this is enough or Go back and get more and I don't know why we want to overlook that process For a civil war so again, I don't think we're overlooking the process. I mean there's I Guess first of all just looking at what a person would have to show in sufficient Particularity, and we're not talking about looking for contraband or any number of things we're looking for the firearms that the individual who was Just shown probable cause or shown enough to get an RFA that abuse has occurred and is likely to continue That there are firearms identified and the location is identified I what more is the law enforcement looking for Probable cause while there's one more element Restall them that that the its search is necessary to protect the life health or well-being of the victim I mean if an individual can show that I don't I don't I've still not understand what more Law enforcement would be adding. I do understand the safety component. That's a different That's that's the execution of the warrant as opposed to whether it should issue And yeah, perhaps there could be training for individuals for Yeah, I do understand I'm sorry. I'm kind of going on. There's a quite I'll try to form a question out of your eyes, but So But I guess taking a higher level look is I think saying that we need to just wait for the final for a warrant Is really you're missing the the period of time that we're really mostly focusing on and and if there are Suggestions of how to make this work better. I'm still not convinced that That an affidavit that goes over these elements that we spelled out that have to be there And then we get that from the court. I understand why that's not sufficient But if there's ways to make it work better that we're not delaying You know getting the lethal weapons out of that situation Yeah, I certainly open. I think we'd be open to that but well, I think you have You have an option that's in place and that is instead of linking it to an RFA you link it to an urban Where you do have police officers and we have the state's attorneys Well, we could do that here having this we can do the RFA process and have the state's Attorney in law enforcement. That's the other component of this is the many individuals who? Don't want to get law enforcement involved but need to get the protection and And I think we're going to get to the other ERPO problem as far as those after hours and not We don't have Procedure set up even like we have for the RFA. I understand that but But that's the issue is that we don't want to Dissuade individuals from seeking that protection because they don't want to go to law enforcement. I Understand the issues And I think we have to ask This after-hour system that we have is I'm not I Think there are alternatives. I think New Hampshire Jersey The system seems to be working there. And so I think the same system Here so I just wanted a quick question So if it's during court hours, there's not a problem with an individual pro se Seeking an RFA and presumably award as well as part of that process. I think that process But it's the after-hour One of the real issues is the after-hours requests, okay, I Want to go back to the the burden you were talking about in the after-hours request for personnel It sounds like Security Pressure It's volunteer, I mean up until I will say the last Year, so I would say most of the courts are being served by staff members I Can't tell you the reasons why but I can give you some examples Of things that happened that in the Boyle County, for instance We had three people three staff people have been doing it for years All of a sudden they earlier this summer last summer They just said no, we're done and they give us 30 days notice. So we had to Find a contract personnel that would fill that position We had an incident in Bury at the beginning of the summer where there are actually two long-time staff members that were Doing this after-hours work, and they were in the very city police station the processing request for And the defendant was somewhere outside of the building But knew they were there and texting and I don't know what the nature of the text were But I'm sure they weren't pleasant and threatened To the point where people didn't know where this individual was Was in this case he just outside the building or he could have been 10 miles away, but enough so that Staff members said we're done We quit I mean we had no notice Within a couple weeks they both came back Within a week or so a couple weeks after that one of them said no, I'm definitely not and so there's been this this We put out a notice to hire people for this type of work And sometimes there's no response to that so it's getting harder and harder. There's few certainly fewer and fewer staff that are doing That wanted to what it is voluntary the court is concerned about the safety of individuals going out I'm not just saying safety right especially in the situation like this. That's particularly volatile and so I understand why I Victim sometimes do not want to get police involvement But I find that there are other alternatives that I think we may have to look at By by Talking about police involvement doesn't mean that a crime will be prosecuted. It means they will be the one To process the request for the restraining order Would that be Volunteer on the part of the police force as well No, they they would be part of their policing duty I'm not sure how it's set up exactly And looking at this issue in the history behind the Hemingway case I contacted the New Jersey courts to find out Okay, this The Hemingway decision came about as a result of an in about court time hours I said do you have an after-hours process and the answer is yes But it's done through law enforcement. So an individual who needs an order contacts the police the police get the information and that the police officer obviously is trained in Knowing what information they need in order to get the order more so than as I said the staff member or the person Contracting is not there to build the case For the individual they're there to take down the information And that's there. That's their role. They're not an advocate So then the officer with that information contacts the court the same way they do now for search warrants or bail Judges are obviously conversed with them on those issues and they explain the rationale for an order and an order is issued I'm I'm concerned in putting undue pressure burdens on Judiciary staff or the judiciary overall. Do you think that to do this properly? Be considering an appropriation I'm not here asking for an appropriation. I'm not asking here for more resources. I think we need to look at the fundamental process that We're doing you know, we're asking Civilians if you will or non-legally trained people to assist people at a point in time when The trauma that they're experiencing is that it's highest level and these are not individuals who are trained Yes, they get training to some extent before they're out there, but there's a big difference between law enforcement personnel professional involvement with these so Adding more resources is not the answer as far as I'm concerned. Certainly. I'm not here as part of the judiciary Yeah, I'm not asking you to say that you're looking for more more money. We're not it's not a money issue If you were going to put money into it, I suppose would be Reinforcing the state police that they're open 24 hours So that we have a safe setting to send the people that are willing to do this work, but that's That's that's where we've seen the change and I'm not faulting the police there It's just the way the process has involved Departments that were open 24 hours and no longer open I just want to ensure that we're not creating more risky situation for a different group of people in an attempt to create a safe situation I think you're taking a situation that has been in In effect for any number of years the RFA after I was processed and I understand the value of the importance Certainly the time is of the essence one of the witnesses said and I agree But I don't think you can overlook the other testimony that talks about the complication of getting a search warrant and the significance Of getting a search warrant and if it's going to be done It should be done properly with professionals involved so that the person who's asking for it Isn't going to feel frustrated that now I've got the order, but I didn't get the warrant And what do I do and do I do I take the job the order is served knowing that the person has guns But for whatever reason the paperwork they put together wasn't sufficient that that's it's it's it's looking beyond What we've had which I will I will say that you know I think we've been fortunate in Some respects and able to provide that service, but it's not the service that we've had over the years And it's not a question of resources. It's a question of promises and I Think adding the and I'll get into it with the her for having a family member They can't contact a judge they can't call the judge in the middle of the night Period it just doesn't work that way. We don't talk to the litigants It's in the nature of what's referred to as an ex parte conference and we cannot have those so Allowing a family member to seek an orc award we've got to come up with a process And that process in my view can't be Somebody asked pepper if they thought they could be done the same way as Mara Faye that's just adding another burden on to a system that It is In my view it is is broken because we were then again asking An untrained person with the issues that an orc Request comes with To be the Intermediary between that individual and the court I think it should be professional That's my concern I just wanted to ask a couple years ago We worked with you on setting up the process for remote Situations and With an eye towards Concerns I guess I'm hearing that Like has that helped at all this part of my question and then Do you Do you think is it possible that having that remote process is actually contributed to some of the outsourcing of this? No, I mean I can't speak for staff as to why people have been doing this They're willing to go out for years have said no more It may be as you know, we see in the courts I've either been practicing or on the bench the level of civility Individuals just in a day-to-day basis The behaviors that we see they're certainly Escalating all the time so I whether that's the reason they're not going out of it Just don't want to be on call. I don't know but the process that we Implemented quite frankly in some places It worked in other places. There's no self-coverage. There's no ability. There's no internet. There's no cell coverage. So Did that work out the way we hope to know but what it has allowed us to do which is what has been the saving grace at this point is these contract folks are now covering multiple companies because what we're doing is processing these requests for the most part by telephone and That individual in other words the person who wants an order calls a hotline Depending on where they are in the state that they're still staffed the hotline calls the staff member or the contract Person and so that person can be in Wyndham County, but covering a request for relief and abuse in the And so that's all it's all done to help on it now. So Other than those three or four counties I mentioned there is no staff Going out in the contract folks do not go out they Process these telephonically so that bill that piece of legislation Helped us do what we're doing It seems like It's it's made possible it's made it possible for us to continue to But it's it's certainly not the system that's been in place For a long time We're maintaining that but that's why I'm concerned about adding the time involved in Processing the question for the warrant and or an article or adding that on is just adding on to the burden Couple points I Just want to make sure I have all the rationale or reasons why you're saying that the after-hour system right now is broken And I have that there's you have untrained people interacting between the victim in the court. You have no cell coverage were there other Reasons why I believe that it were not reason why I believe I understand that it was broken from what I heard But what are the other reasons for that? So how else is this how else is the after-hours system broken I have the untrained person component of no cell coverage problem What other issues have you run into? Well, I think there are in times we just haven't been able to Retain or hire people to to do that kind of work. So the bill ability really I'm sorry availability of food. Yes, good contact. Okay. Yes in the other Issues that are caught I know they're pretty big But I understand yeah, but I just I just wanted to get a complete I Think that I'll give Those certainly And I in my colloquy before I didn't get to the point of a question But now we'll go back and ask ask questions that so what else With law enforcement besides yes, they're more professional and these people might be trained more But when we have in the law that this is what you have to bring forward You know with particularity the type and location of any firearm possession ownership or control I Understand that having a professional having law enforcement could help the individual interpret that is that the main Or is there other information that would be coming forward? I think there's a difference in whatever Information that person brings forward and someone instead of taking down the information And saying let's try this I'll submit it to the judge and that's the end of it Opposed to someone who understands what's necessary to meet that burden to make sure that the evidence is there Obviously, I'm not a police officer, but I think there's a significant difference if you were granted a restraining order and granted it a search warrant and That is then delivered to the police. I would think the police Would have a concern over not being not knowing what they're getting into when they get an order court order That says you have to go to this house and you have to Service person But then enter their property. I think as I think it came in at the tail end of Chief Burke's testimony But that I believe he said was the highest point of risk or a very high point of risk for police If that's the way they're viewing it then Why not let them be involved at the beginning so that they can make that assessment? And and provide the person who wants this order who feels they need this order is getting the best Opportunity the best chance of getting them instead of leading it up to essentially a scrivener that when I that's all they are supposed to be doing He has he I think he has a pistol, you know, it's right so so just I'm gonna break that apart a little bit I mean the you're adding an element of It's a it's a the probable cause. I mean these are the elements you need to show for probable cause I don't think we need to add a How will the law enforcement safely execute this more? That's kind of what that point was getting to And that's very important, but that's not part of the problem cause Determination the other thing that they would I'm saying they Sure that next step as far as how to execute it. Yeah, no, they can help they could help, but then all right That's a separate thing right if we had sufficient Individuals trained to answer the phone 24 hours a day Doesn't have to be law enforcement to help a person do this right now. We're at the big issues We are having trouble retaining and hiring these people. I'm very And they're not trained. I mean if we were able to saw I'm just saying it law enforcement It's not like it just happens to be the resource that we have available at this time to be able to help an individual with that affidavit it also gives us the additional benefit of law enforcement being involved so that throughout this They can understand what they're getting themselves In the house to safely execute the warrant and such is that I mean is that not the case? Again, once again, I lose my questions Did you hear a question in there by the way, I'll try to hear it I'll try to answer Put it this way. I'll answer the question that you want to answer I think at some level we had I understand why I understand But if we want to make this system Effective why are we so unique? That we can't do Why are we so unique from New Hampshire and Massachusetts and Jersey? What makes us Have to take a different path. What is there about the process that is different here? that Those other processes wouldn't work and work more effectively So I will ask the question. I mean that If we had the people trained And available could they handle the part the component of getting the information interpreting what they need to put in the affidavit Help them establish probable cause Because it's essentially When I say I don't know Right, no, I understood that part. I just I'm trying to yeah I'm just gonna ask the same question in a different way and the same answer But no, I understand what you are saying law enforcement is a preferred, you know, they have the expertise They have the ability to do this and and they also Have the advantage of getting them involved so that they can safely execute the war or help them in that process But there's still that other hurdle Not only can they do it but understand once many of these orders are issued They're sent to a central Dispatch they're oftentimes not served till the shift comes on at 8 o'clock in the morning and in my view that Can create a false sense of security for the individual who has come out in the middle of the night met with someone they never met before and In describing Sometimes they're most the most intimate parts of their life to this person on the other end of the phone And they get an order, maybe they But they have no idea when they hang up that phone When that when that order is going to be served if you have law enforcement involved at the outset They then have the order in hand They will respond to it because it's in their hand And so it's not again, I I can't emphasize enough I understand I understand the thinking behind it, but I'm saying I think if we're looking at adding these elements to me and just Increases The reasons for having them involved in a process that they have not been involved in before for all the reasons I'm saying there's nothing Some of the order to go out literally I don't serve till the shift comes on in the morning. I don't know what we look on by that process I had a partial question And it's related to the process I understand what you're saying here on as far as the continuum of service Makes sense that We would maintain that because the we're losing holding stations You know around the state because of the sheriffs Just being able to staff these These stations and The data that's we're hoping will be inputted one of the recommendations was that When the order is given it automatically is done like an e-file Either at the court Or in this case if we were doing something like a ticket for example that TRL could go into the system at that point and then be on record and on file So that if an officer encountered a situation with that particular individual They have automatic access You know, it's I think that this particular one might require a little more discussion But I Just in listening to the testimony so far think that there might be You know, I'm I'm just sitting here. I'm Listening to this And it just sounds like to me we don't have enough law enforcement Full-time or with this staff paperwork, etc etc To do the job that we need to better protect our citizens And I think that leads us into bigger problems with all this domestic violence whether it has to do with guns or not it it seems like You come into you come into play when it's already The damage is already done But there's so much more help that should be There before it gets to you like Manpower Which leads me down to this we don't everybody everybody knows we don't have 24-hour State police I Have 24-hour seven day a week 365 day a year police protection in my own town of Norfield We don't have it as a state police Let's mess it up No, but I think you're not to get off But I can talk to any police department state police shares They're having difficulty. I'm not saying that's why we don't have 24 hours. No, I understand it but the domestic violence part of this is Understand and I guess what I'm really saying is it's with these are in my view very significant proposed changes in this process both for the civil warrants Which there's certainly merit and value to them and whether or not family members get involved in their code But these are significant changes and all I'm suggesting is now might be a time to look at the system We have and say can we do better? May not please everyone, but I think we've got to take a look at what we're doing in there. We just Thank you I Seven we talked about the difficulty in asking when you get on to page eight of the paragraph about the plaintiff providing that information I understand that there's some language to change that and again, I would just Repeat it without that information It can only come from the plaintiff then the warrants aren't going to be granted either at the Emergency basis or on a final order During the next section section three is emergency relief and less folks have other questions I think it's I think I expressed my concerns when you're on the section for the bottom of page 10 They got touched on that this morning the idea of That's the new problem. We don't Page 12 Section F It was not pretty what that was referring to shall report to the House and Senate committees on jiu-jitsu sherry the number Of the show caused during the previous 12 months Compliance and non-compliance with temporary a final order. I mean, there was a question asked earlier this morning by one of the representatives about how Violation of the orders handled or enforced or monitored and I think it was Peppered David Scheer described that if if an order is outstanding and there is a violation No contact or no texting in the text. It's up to the individual To report that to the police And then the police investigated the extent they need to it's then reported And they file the criminal charges that they refer to this morning So I'm not sure where the show cause orders There's an anticipation there's going to be language proposed at a later time to connect up There was a Thank you So then the next major section I've touched on it some section 8 family member under the present system It's through law enforcement State's attorney process those requests the law enforcement Presumably gets contacted by individual or family member. They do whatever investigation. They feel they need to do in order to respond Promptly they relay that information to the state's attorney state's attorney in context of judge for the airport order And I can tell you that there have been approximately 20 orders each year the Erpo law has been in effect This would add a dimension under the current system where the family member wanted an order If I understand this correctly, they would not have to contact law enforcement state's attorney Having said that Said before and we cannot have them contact a judge So is this this pretty much same issue of after hours versus during court hours is there any problem with during court hours in Family member being the one that no Petition Then we deal with it during court hours, but that may be the way to look at some of these issues that as I said at the very beginning I said, we've got to look at what stage are we at Emergency or fine, and maybe there's things we can do in a final quarter setting that you can't do on an emergency Well an emergency basis that doesn't necessarily mean after hours does it can't be during regular hours But if they came in during regular hours, they would file it in other words They would file just the same kind of petition. It's just that There can be an emergency situation where somebody a family member can go to the court Without a problem from what you're telling us if it's during court hours It's still considered an emergency order if it's ex parte they come in It would be It just seems that some of the testimony makes it sound like the emergency ones are the after-hours ones and the Finals are the during court hours ones, but there can be emergency ones that are Right, but the difference would be is The individual can come in not only five But there's a possibility that they would actually Court felt necessary to have a hearing and take testimony and create a record much like what you're seeing in the Hemingway case But again, that's another way to look at some of these issues I don't think the answer is to now have this burden on to Court staff who have never done this Haven't played no part in We're talking after all. Yes. Yes But the answer could be that if you want to skip law enforcement then with this Have them contact the state's attorney So the state's attorney becomes the content peppered suggested that we could just Do it like we do with our face right here at least throw it does the state's but but in reality again, it's the same issue that I see in the request For us a civil warrant. I mean you need an intermediary But you need someone I believe who understands the process and what what you need to marshal the evidence necessary Get whatever order you're trying to get what is a warrant or whether it's These folks are always in a position of stress and I think they need someone who professional perspective can Address that stress and get the information Get the order So so going back to normal offers the regular proceedings One of the questions that came up Of data, you know into the system And this is a question Do you think that it would make sense? to Enter the order, you know at the time it's received at the court And to understand the question The process right now is Ex parte or otherwise if I get an order, it's not necessarily entered into the system The electronic system immediately When you say the electronic system, I mean the orders obviously are in our system That's transmitted to the to the holding stations We took testimony and there was a question mark there That's not Are you talking about the federal Anticipating that question I did write to You know the reason you know that The thought being that it would seem to make sense that with our new Data system that it might Well, it should be happening now Inside the case management system these orders is I understand that outside of signed the order And then they're available Was a part of this bills, um, no it was it was before we were taking testimony on some of the challenges Yeah Yeah We shouldn't have Yeah We have no Adding that as a stature requirement That is so standard that I just asked for a sample from the local court in the area this is 40 conditions of release is what they call their Possibly their menu of standard conditions and I've highlighted 13 you may not buy Have or use any firearms or dangerous weapons And then there's a space Narrative there's some unique item that Someone That we can add to the standard language so Adding that language the statute isn't really going to add anything to what we do by adding the statute doesn't It's just another Possible condition, but it's already so ingrained in the system. We're not opposed to it. I just don't think it will You said that's Barry from the very Um Do all courthouses have that they may not have this exact same form, but they they have Standard conditions of probation I mean a release and for instance were part of the criminal oversight committee that I also sit on in the process now going through I've never sat in a court That didn't have that condition, but it'd be possible to get the forms from Just wanted to circle back around a little bit I mean, I really hear what you're saying about the conceptual difference between court staff and police Building this wall, but but sort of putting that aside because I think I would really want to hear from other witnesses about the pros and cons of Transferring that whole process to the police and what kind of silencing or amplifying effect that might have on people coming forward But just so within the process that we have I heard you talk about More contract workers doing more work telephonically Maybe there's concerns with adding This requirement on but but I just kept sort of like thinking back to The problem and testimony that we heard a couple years back and in many ways it seems to me like having contractual Workers doing those workflows telephonically actually answers some of the concerns like that Court staff who are already in nine to five rules are feeling burdened by the expectation that fell And I think your testimony today kind of bear maybe bears that out and that their safety concerns And so I guess I wanted to understand a little more Like how are these contracts workers hired? How are they trained to do this work just understand a little more about the nature of the contract workers and if there might be some system improvements there to what could help I don't get involved in the recruit training of them so I couldn't But is it the judiciary? Oh, yeah, I assume it's the judiciary Because they're sort of temporary court clerks. No, they're not as no the contract council don't have anything to do with the court Other than that they are hired specifically for after hours Access, they're not Court staff they're hired Okay And then is the judiciary training Training I don't know what Okay, that's what I'm saying. I'm not involved in the recruitment I don't know exactly what the nature of the contract is, but they're not they're not otherwise Employees, they are hired specifically for after hours Sure Questions and concerns potentially, but well, it's it certainly has allowed us to bridge Gap of staff that no longer are going out so in that sense but my concern is The warrant there are other ways that the warrant could be could be processed Thank you, thank you Members of the committee madam chairman, my name is Darren Jones. I'm the state director for the National Rifle Association I'm here to testify in opposition to age 6 10 But I will say that I'm going to focus on the default proceed provision We have a lot we have a lot of speakers and I you know in the interest of not repeating testimony. I figured I would Discuss that more in depth Chris Bradley who is on the list and the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Club They are the official NRA state association So our positions are going to be the same and I know he's going to focus on that part of the bill as well others the domestic violence provisions the red flag extremist protection orders, but I wanted to talk about the default proceed portion of the bill and we're opposed to that because the it's already federal law that after three days The dealer if they get a hold They the dealer can proceed, but there's no obligation for them to proceed they can still opt not to do that and It I did contact the National Shooting Sports Foundation We work in conjunction with them and they do a lot of data sets and it's also important to realize that when we use data We get our we don't commission independent studies all of our data sets come from CDC, ATF, FBI, US Justice Department We use government source data and I asked him their government affairs director for some numbers that I thought Would be interesting and the the data set that they had most recently available was in 2014 And my question was how many how many people get caught up in this right and so 91% of the checks Clear immediately and that is while the dealer is either on the phone or he has a queued up in their computer system So 91% of the checks happen almost instantaneously and of the 9% that are delayed 98% of those are cleared up in three days So now we're talking about a very very small percentage of you talking 98% of the nine Or yes, or the 91 goes to 98. Yeah, 91% Go through no questions asked. Well, I shouldn't say no questions asked It means they go there's an answer given now that answer could be no like somebody could be rejected But for 91% of the the transit the transfer requests that are put into the NIC system 91% there is an answer. So 91% are Excuse me, 91% have an answer 9% are delayed. So of that 9% So we're we're dealing with the 9% where there's a delay and that's what the bill is speaking to Are the people that are delayed? So there's a delay and of those you got to work through those So 98% of the people who are delayed are clear are given an answer in three days So now you're talking about what's left and that's really what this what this bill is talking about It's it's 2% of the nine that are delayed. I know it's kind of complicated. I don't know I so you're talking about it To synthesize all of that Look at the people who maybe would go through the system The the the transaction went through what happens well they go to the ATF and they say you need to retrieve that fire I'm that person was was clear you shouldn't have been and that percentage for that year was point oh one percent So we're talking a very small sliver. So What we're left with is is the problem that's created here when when someone This bill is pretty harsh compared to even what other states have done I mean some states the New York bill originally went to three days. They were trying to extend it from three days to ten this bill Prohibits the completion of the transfer As long as the proceed never comes back But also I think it would be interesting to hear from folks from the ATF for the FBI because they're clearing 98 Percent of these in three days. So what's the justification for needing a longer time period? I mean do you need three days before do you need ten and the whole point of this is when the 1993 Brady Act went through part of the fact that are part of the reason that they opted for Background checks was part of that deal was that it would be an instant check. It would all these records would be Computerized and it would be basically instant and in fact, that's how it works I mean most of this stuff go goes through while the dealer is literally on the phone with them. So The people who are hung up? Why are they hung up? They're hung up because Common names most of the time You know, there's always the the famous cases of Senator Edward Kennedy who couldn't board a plane because he was he was flagged on one of the fly lists because he has a common name and You can look at names that aren't even that common I'm trying to look to see it. I mean everybody uses John Smith But you know if even if you came up with like Sandra Robinson something that's not incredibly common But relatively common type that into Facebook sometime you're going to get 2030 returns in the country and those are just the people on Facebook so you can imagine in criminal databases for all 50 states the commonality of names and Just because someone was the name Sandra Robinson was flagged in Minnesota All of a sudden my record comes up not my record, but another woman with that same name Comes up as a delay. Now keep in mind The problem that the courts look at this with is you're suspending somebody's constitutional rights and that person may not be Prohibited it's just that they have a common name. So you get into some serious Constitutional issues where you're suspending rights for folks I mean this would be this would be like the equivalent of fourth amendment rights under search and seizure I mean how many times do they throw up murder convictions because they found something? Incidental to a search that they throw up the evidence and you know that's heartbreaking that the justice isn't there but think about these cases where there are people with common names and and Their their constitutional rights are suspended and this bill is problematic because now you're removing The remedy for that and that's that at least if you had Five six days. I mean they would eventually be cleared This creates a system where they're just never cleared and I'm not sure that the courts Would look at this very favorably and the problem is I don't know but I can't think of another state I mean you you guys might be able to come up with another state But certainly me working on this in multiple states. I'm not aware of another state that does this down even New York Had 30 days now and also I might comment on that a next check is only good for 30 days so that potentially created an Endless loop there where they wait the 30 days the next check isn't about you have to run it again You I mean you get the idea so This is even potentially worse than that because from a constitutional Viewpoint It just says you can't proceed at all unless you get there they get the procedure There's no remedy for a person who's denied And so I would suggest that someone is probably going to be caught up in this and then is going to File a lawsuit and it'll work its way through the court system Probably all the way to the US Supreme Court at something So this is a little bit Uncharted water on this and the other thing too as I'm you know, I would I would ask you like What are you trying to accomplish because? You know if if your argument is three days isn't enough. Well, how long is enough? I mean obviously the federal government at some point determined with the computerized checks being online that Okay, they can clear most of these up in three days and the evidence that I've given you the statistics I've given you show that they are clearing 98% of the cases in three days so This isn't me advocating for stretching because our position is The federal law is three days and that's sufficient and we don't support anything beyond but certainly if your argument is that three days isn't enough how much time is enough but this bill would just put people in complete limbo and Not offer them any sort of remedy for and again the constitutional issue is here somebody could be delayed and Not be a prohibited person and that's just a complete violation of their constitutional rights And that's where the litigation problem is is probably eventually going to occur And with that that's the part of as I said before, you know, we object to some of the other issues on extreme risk protection orders for example extending it to family members, you know versus Now coming from a state's attorney some of the due process issues on ex parte hearings But again other witnesses are going to speak to that but I wanted to highlight The portion of the bill that deals with the default proceed portion So and with that, that's my testimony So with with the three days, I guess The base question is where did it come from? But where did it was it determined at three days? I guess it was an agreement between parties that we could that it could go to three days and still be considered Instant check is that is that the bottom line basis for three days or yeah, it's a little history I guess I was just going to say I mean, I think if you put it in the context of Historically where this falls in mean 1993 you're you're talking what it was 30 years ago. And so Before that there was there weren't many waiting periods but a few states had them and their argument was at the time that That and keep in mind remember what I mean it's easy for us to forget now that we're in the age of iPads iPod I everything but before that the sheriffs somebody would come in and apply for a firearms They actually had to interview neighbors employers, etc. I mean that that was the background check system I mean the records keeping wasn't nearly what it is today So if someone got caught up in one of these with a delay There needed to be police investigative work that needed to take place Whereas in 93 the stuff was all coming online So part of the part of the deal that was negotiated at the federal level is all right You can do background checks on dealer transfers. That's that was the original Brady bill the background checks But part of that was this compromise that the stuff is now an instant check it's computerized so people shouldn't be delayed and you know now we're several years removed from that and Three days I keep in mind this was three days was agreed on 30 years ago And so as more and more of this stuff has been Improved and you look at everything that's happened even after Virginia Tech They had the Congress passed the next improvement act because they found out that that there were all sorts of Mental health records that weren't being submitted to NICs. So now they required first The the NICs improvement act did did a couple things. What was that? I'm sorry. It was after Virginia Tech I think that was about 2007 Um No, not fix NICs this would be the NICs improvement act which was after Virginia Tech and that and that that required states to Submit their mental health records because they were looking at some some actually quite big states It's submitted, you know one or two records over a long period of time So it provided a an incentive a carrot in a stick basically there if you submitted your records We were one of the first set of states There was a time period on it where they gave you Grants the federal government gave you grants to do things like Modernizing your computer systems, etc. And then if you weren't compliant after so long Then there were penalties like for example If you weren't compliant then some of the grant monies that you were getting through other programs had to be dead It was certain public state It was like almost like what they were doing on Everybody lowering their BAC levels to point zero eight if you weren't compliant Then all your federal funding had to go into certain safety programs Well, they did the same thing on these mental health records for NICs checks and that that that is I mean We're ten years removed from that all the states now have to be fully compliant But I give this as an example of we came up with three days almost 30 years ago before there There's several pieces of legislation that it have improved the background check system Now I'm not here advocating for you know universal background checks by any stretch of the imagination But what I am telling you is that we have consistently said that we would be much better served in this country If we looked at improving background checks instead of expanding them because look at all the people who go through the I mean some of these terrible episodes that we've seen these people past background checks Jared Loftner in Arizona past a background check I mean I could actually wear you out with the names of high-profile shootings where these people have past background checks So our position has always been improved background checks Not expand them. I mean We need to improve what we have so that when we run a check. We're confident at Zachary and Also, I don't have the numbers in front of me But every every holiday you get to Thanksgiving and Christmas. It's a it's it's gun sales peak over the holidays and The the transfers that happen in this country have continued to spike I mean we're talking about millions and millions of transfers just Millions and millions of firearms transfers and 91% of them happen while the guy is on the phone instantly so When you're left with the people who are delayed, how can you now say we should drag this on for days and weeks and months and According to this bill potentially forever without clearing someone and the trade-off is Again, it would be one thing if you were keeping firearms away from bad guys But what you're potentially doing is suspending someone's constitutional right just because they have a common name and and I mean I would think that that's not going to withstand, you know constitutional muster I'm sorry. That was a very long answer You had your hand up My understanding is it's not like Vermont wants it to just drag out, but it's important that If not just be a default that it's being given to somebody By arbitrary date and I get your point about somebody whose rights are being denied because It went on for a long time, but I'm also concerned about the people who ended up killing who were in that 1% that you know even one of them You know because we're so concerned about meeting a date and my understanding is it's the feds, right? It's not Vermont who's going to be Holding it up We just need to answer if the person's clear You mind if I respond? Yeah. No, I'm hoping you know representative. I I completely are Listen, you and I walk in the same grocery stores down the same streets I mean, I nobody wants a bad guy to have a firearm. I mean that that goes without saying So I think what I'm trying to narrow down here is that most of them get cleared So what I think the question should start to focus on what causes somebody to be delayed, right? Because just because they're delayed and it defaults to proceed That that means that they've searched the databases and these people aren't being flagged in the debate Because if they were flagged they wouldn't be able to have the firearm, right? So there's not there's not evidence that the that a bad guy is being given a gun because they've run the check They've run it through state records, and I think Chris's testimony will focus on what exactly a next check is and in it it's it's it's quite thorough and so their name has been so what so I guess what I'm trying to do is give you some reassurance that that if someone has been Given a proceed and their name has been run through there. It's not like a default proceed Sort of like well, we don't really know if this guy is dangerous or not No, their their name has been run through an exhaustive database and it's come back, you know That's why I think probably the committee would be well served to look at Um Asking questions what causes someone to be in delay my answer is commonality of name accounts for most of it and And and I and again this is supposition on my part But I would be willing to venture that that is why 98% of the nine percent were delayed or cleared within three days So and what are you basing? I mean in some ways it's like if the state or the I'm sorry Gun dealer isn't getting the name back It could be wow that person was on a you know a list that they couldn't get it But we want to double check if they're still on that list I mean it seems like it could be a gazillion things and for us to assume. It's just a double name Yeah, no, I'm I'm actually saying the opposite of what you just said and that is if it comes back that they're on one of These lists they're prohibited right so so then it wouldn't be default proceeded would be rejected, right? Right, but if the name doesn't come back Yes, and I know that the dealers It said when you fill out the federal form It's at your social security number is not required But they advise you to give it to clear up some of these some of these name issues now The name issue was only one of the issues I'm raising I'm sure that that the folks that deal with this probably at the FBI some of the You know the actual database administrators would be able to tell you other reasons Why? It would come back delayed first of all there aren't many that come back to late 98% of the ones that are delayed Are cleared up so you're talking about a small sliver and again the small slit I can't emphasize is not the small sliver who are still delayed Have been run through the database and there's been nothing in there that's rejected them But maybe it's a case of we're not sure that their identity we there's no There's nothing to substantiate that there is a Fred Jones Anywhere so we're suspicious about the yeah, I think we're all speculating Yeah, and you're right. We should find out, but I wouldn't want to err on the side of Making the wrong decision like I think that's a worse lawsuit to have and Just living with ourselves that we in our case to make sure somebody Got their gun right away You make a big mistake Selena Matt So we did her testimony last week on my legislative counsel and believe some others that One reason sometimes for the delay is just the variability in state law and how and interpretation They need to have been to line up to the federal prohibition particularly with regards to domestic violence And so Yeah, I can speak a little bit on the domestic violence Issue because I mean I've also handled New York and some of the states for example their definition of what sort of a misdemeanor offense Under domestic violence is a prohibiting offense varies from state to state but that is taken into account in the next system in terms of They put the state law in there. So like for example in South Dakota, Wyoming this particular I Don't even want to call it admit. I'm gonna call it misdemeanor because that's what it is You know, whether that's the violence or it's like a stalking charge or whatever it is because each state deals with it differently but I guess what I'm trying to Tarticulate is that if that if if New York for example Has misdemeanor offenses a bigger list of prohibited offenses mix flags it that that transfer will not proceed Because New York has misdemeanor offenses that are disqualifiers Whereas in another state that doesn't have that misdemeanor disqualifier It would go forward. So that it does take into account the state laws For the delay You know, I that would that would cause me to speculate and I don't want to want to speculate on that but it seems reasonable that They would want to look at if the state If a particularly and you would be talking exclusively about misdemeanors if that States misdemeanor offense was a disqualifier in that state. Could that account for a delay? Sure Is that does that account for a significant in number of the delays? That would that I can't imagine that being the case That it would be a significant number and not only that but after you've resolved that issue once It should be taken care because they would say okay. This New York One came through and and the person was delayed. Do we think that that offense is a disqualifier? You know once they made that determination then every other one that was entered into the queue with that same offense That question would be resolved. So I can't imagine it would create additional delays struggling a little bit like I I feel like couple conclusions Your your argument is this very small amount of the cases that are being delayed Some of a large percentage of those delays are technical like tech just I guess I'm wondering the reverse of that if it's a really small amount of cases That are being delayed And there are instances where for example Parsing out like how a domestic violence charge from Wednesday it relates to the prohibition I Guess I'm trying to understand the other side of that Yeah, and I would say I guess I mean, this is the danger. I guess I tried to layer it right and so first of all I want to say that it was extremely rare but the again the thing that I wanted to emphasize is all the people 100% of them have been run through the databases and there was nothing Presumably that would have caused it to be rejected. So it wouldn't be like Someone who hadn't gone through a background check at all I mean the person was run through the system and there was nothing that was flag And again, I think that probably the committee would be well served to look at some of the reasons for delays And maybe get the numbers. I mean, I don't have the answers to those questions. I mean You know whether it's ATF or FBI, you know, my testimony is that it's it's very rare I mean almost all of these go through the ones that don't go through their result within three days. So Your question to me was what's the harm in waiting? But the problem with this bill is it's not just waiting We're saying Doesn't go through at all. It's not even about waiting Yeah, but without a time frame so presumably the onus is on no one to ever clear this and Again, I mean think about this in terms of other constitutional rights if you just said well We can't resolve it. I mean I Listen, I mean this is just my opinion But I think that if this were adopted and someone gets caught up in this situation They're gonna sue it's gonna go through the court process It's gonna get litigated and I think that they haven't I'm not even an attorney But I think they have an airtight case that they're constitutional rights by this law are just unequivocally being abridged because you're just saying that there's you're not saying the But the legislation is saying that there's no time frame or even resolving it There's no resolution on it, and I I just don't think that that was stands a sort of Constitutional muster. I mean, I don't even think it's a close call That's why part of me is like you guys passed the bill. I mean this is gonna be an easy one to overturn But again my opinion Yeah, I'm not sure if you're the right person. So if you're not just say so I'll be happy to confess Yeah, I have questions having read a bunch of documents that we've been given about what happens after the fact if a default proceed goes forward and then Your firearm is sold and the process when ATF gets involved to take that back Would you be able to speak to that a little bit? I'm sure Not very in-depth. I just do know as I said my testimony that point oh one percent of These were turned over to the ATF for then for then for them to then retrieve the firearm Mostly my questions involved, and I guess this is for future anyone just Around the number of times that once that is turned over to ATF that they are successful in retrieving that fire Yeah, that I would not be able to come on. Yeah, thank you Few questions So first of all have there been Any other amendments to the NIC system or improvements to the NIC system heard Chris kind of in the background Suggest something in 2017, but if there have been what were they and when were they yeah well the again the Fix NICs is something different, but the the NICs improvement act after Virginia Tech is is one You know you could go back to the Lautenberg amendments the stuff that was added for domestic violence I mean there have been constant tweaks to the to the NIC system. What is the fix NICs? Fix NICs yeah, you know what I'll let that was an NSSF program And I'll let Chris probably talk about that a little bit more and SSF. Yeah, National Shooting Sports Foundation Yeah Yeah, okay. Well all right different question then Have there been any cases challenging? Utah's law which Seems to be open-ended like ours. I don't know what it was put into place, but in that law they have to have a background check and It says a dealer may not sell or transfer a firearm to an individual until the dealer is provided the bureau Bureaus with with the information set subsection for that's the background check And has received approval from the from the bureau under the subsection seven which explains how that is Approved so it appears to me. Maybe I'm meeting it wrong because I just read it right now I haven't studied it, but it appears that that is open-ended Florida law also appears open-ended. Do you know of any cases that are challenged? No, I don't and again we're talking about recency on this issue in this issue I mean this pretty much obviously came up after after Charleston, right? So Yeah, this this was effective. I just read it was effective last year. So yeah, so yeah, so Yeah, like for example, New York, I mean I can't some of these states I can't comment Is intelligently on either because they're not states under my purview which is you know I do Vermont, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey. And so in the case of New York, what's that? Yeah, it's a little bit of a challenge But in the case of New York They did the bill Just last year. I mean it hasn't even been in for a year So on some of these states, you know, it takes a while first of all for somebody to be caught into the salute Right for it to run through the court system. So I'm not aware. I'm not any challenges at this point Okay, so but it's a recency issue. Yeah, no, I see that I didn't realize what when this was passed And I'm sure the floor is very recent as well. One other question is As far as it if an individual is caught up in this like you say that that there's not any forthcoming Determination either yay or nay they're caught How you put it but Is there an opportunity through another process for instance? Providing the information to seek a unique personal identification number that you can is that a process that would allow such an individual to Get around the fact that he's in limbo. I guess is the way you put it to be able to Obtain his firearm or her firearm. Yeah, I'm not sure what process all the money comes available to someone who is just exhausted I mean who's I I guess You have to to initiate Court proceedings to you know to eventually get it resolved And not necessarily if there's this other process that Allows an individual to There are there are situations as I understand it that individual They have the name and date and all the other stuff and every time they purchase a firearm They're denied and then they have to go through a bunch of rigor roll to rigor roll Yeah, whatever To get their Firearm but this there seems to be these processes to deal with that situation. Yeah It's an extra step You know to to either appeal or to get this right you can But it's my understanding that with that You kind of pre-approved essentially is that not yeah, yeah, I would imagine Probably the equivalent would be like on your tsa checks, you know, great clear or whatever um Now I but the problem is this would probably be the and again I'm not as well-versed in what tsa does but this would probably be like if if You know pre-clear. I mean do they ever come up with delays? I don't know um, so what what if the people are attempting to get you pinned and then that's delayed that's why I think that before you proceed with the um With the legislation it would probably be beneficial to understand why people are being delayed And and so because this I just feel like says all right if you come back delayed You're just you're delayed until till it's approved And there's no time frame on approving it and that's why I'm saying the constitutional issue arises, right Is that there's ultimately no there's no remedy and and that's why you know, the new york bill just passed last year And that's potentially going to be a problem because they put 30 days on it Which is just as bad because the next check is good for 30 days. It expires and it creates this endless loop um, and you know in our position has been that Three days was something that they agreed upon 30 years ago. The system has been improved I don't know what kind of argument it would take for for The federal folks to take longer than three days to investigate these I mean what's I mean and again these are questions for them, right? because If you're saying five days ten days and I'm not again I'm not advocating for any of that because the federal law is three days And I you know and this goes back to the basic premise of what we were talking about and you know The two questions I had from the representatives about airing on the side of caution and just not passing the checks But keep in mind. There are probably more people that have gone out and done bad things who have passed a background check Who've actually been cleared Than the people who have been delayed I mean, I don't see any evidence that there are a whole bunch of people that have been delayed Um, that have gone out and done bad things But there is a long list of people who have passed background checks And gone out and done bad things and that goes to my argument that we should be Focus our energy on Improving these systems improving what background checks we do have rather than expanding them Just on what you just described Improving background checks as opposed to expanding them. What are some of the things That can be done to improve background checks? Well, we've we've done a lot of that in terms of mental health reporting on the states that have Domestic buy there's a lot of stuff that goes into to background checks But I think that we get so wrapped up on background checks background checks I mean, I'll give you an example in New Jersey. I mean, I have to have an FID card. I've got to have a purchase permit Um, I buy a rifle a shotgun and a pistol buy three guns I pass five background checks in a month on the same person in a month. What's changed We're doing multiple background checks on the same people over and over again instead of actually Looking at improving some of these things and again that goes to your question Military records. I mean we saw you know one of the military bases where there was a shooting The guy had been flagged in the service dishonorably discharged. That's a prohibited offense was never transmitted that record from From the branches of the service into the next database Those are the types of things that we should be focused on right because we I mean our position is we don't want bad guys with guns and When you're all of a sudden Changing the focus on you know in terms and this gets off on a different issue, but universal background checks Me transferring a gun to my cousin or somebody that I know and who isn't a criminal when all of a sudden we're focused on that We forget about the bad actors who have maybe you've been you know discharged from the military and the service We got to start if you go to the doctor For a cold and you got lung cancer and he's prescribing Cough drops you're going to die cancer right and I feel like on this gun stuff We're doing the same thing. We're focusing on the good guys and I'm going to tell you I I mean I did this I bought I bought a couple firearms and and to do the paperwork with the local police And to buy the guns I ended up doing something like four or five background checks in six weeks On me. It's a waste of it's a waste of resources Right. They're investigating me over and over again And and yet there's something as simple as somebody being discharged dishonorably from the military And that record doesn't make it into the next database I mean we're focusing on the long stuff and that's sort of what I'm getting at is improve the improve the checks that we do have And and you know look at expand, you know I don't think that the checks need to be expanded. They need to be improved Thank you. All right. Thank you Eddie, my name is Ed Cutler. I'm here representing the gun owners of Vermont Membership is somewhere pretty close to 7,000 people. 7,000 paid members Yeah, don't listen to Richard. He doesn't know what he's talking about. If you don't, I'm talking about what you're talking about You all have charts that I left, Jeff. This is the FBI uniform And there's a couple of questions I'd like to answer the rest last week to begin The first question was About false IDs, you know the computers stuff you were talking about. That's not how criminals buy guns The way they do it is they steal them They buy them from people who steal them or they get them from straw purchases Now straw purchases literally Everybody could you go get that for me? It's because you can pass the check and I can't All three of those are serious federal felonies 10 years in prison for either one of them Especially the falsification on the ATF form you have to certify and swear that You are not buying this firearm for somebody else So that's 10 years in prison for lying, which is a pretty serious thing, but it is not in deterrent Okay, Eric is going to pretty much cover the federal background checks and how they go and how they work The bill stops people from obtaining firearms indefinitely and takes the right to sell defense away in other words As just testified If you don't make that three-day thing and the ATF doesn't or the FBI doesn't return I'll go after those three days You could be left defenseless Now in Vermont the crime rate is extremely low the murder rate. It's almost non-existent But we have wild animals We had a bunch of years ago a big rabies epidemic. I think all of us could remember it and Let's say you're being visited by that or now with the new recycling laws We have to compost all our food Bears in the spring are really hungry Bears with cubs are very protective You go out to that compost pile with a bear problem And uh, you don't have a firearm You need to get one just to defend yourself If you can't do those three days You can't defend yourself against that bear and bears are a serious problem in this state And they're about to get bigger along with raccoons Skunks or any type of rabid animal because rabies does come back. It's a cycling thing Other questions were raised and this is what the FBI crime report is for How many murders are actually they said homicides, but let's keep it to murders, which is different than homicides And the FBI crime report has the charts they have the numbers 2018 which is the latest data There were 10 murders Out of those 10 murders Three of them were firearms not 50% like was testified last week three. That's a lot less than 50% At the same time There were Five with other weapons, which is knives, billy clubs, you name it And there were two By hands feet and fists So what was the time time frame for that again? Excuse me. What was the time frame for that? That was 2018. That's 2018. All right. Yeah And actually that if if you check back with the FBI crime report Year after year after year, it's about the saving of a lot Um, we've been very consistent except for 2020 that was an intent In 2010 I can be proud to say there were zero firearms murders Okay Now I want to compare this with uh, new england states, new york and new jersey We're going to use california, but we couldn't add up the numbers um new hampshire 10 21 murders 12 by firearms. So their rate is actually higher than ours And they're considered this year in the safest state union Maine 23 murders 11 by firearms massachusetts with all its gun control 136 murders 93 of them by firearms Now this 93 number is pretty significant considering By their numbers Only 14 of the population have legally owned firearms Unlike vermont who is probably somewhere up around 70 percent um New york 546 murders 313 by firearms um Connecticut 83 murders 54 by firearms now that's pretty close to uh Little over that 50 percent And most of the uh, southern new england states new york and new jersey are well over the murder rate as far as firearms We are sitting here in Probably the highest firearms ownership state in the country And probably one of the highest in the world. I think only switzerland beats us As far as the ownership of firearms At the same time Have the lowest murder rate Not only is it the lowest murder rate, but it's also the safest If you compare and I can't Go any further than the FBI But if you compare vermont with the rest of the world Vermont has the lowest per capita firearms murder rate in the country What we're doing in this committee now is we're looking to fix a problem that does not exist The biggest thing and the biggest deterrent to violent crime and a lot of people In his committee, I can think of who will not agree with me is the possession of firearms Putting the cart before the horse take away your guns Putting the horse before your cart Is a chilling effect And what I mean by a chilling effect these numbers The gun control states have higher firearms murder rates than the people who Are pretty much safe and unlimited as far as what they can know Here's the fun part Brady does give us a good number of the amount of firearms going You'll hear from some people that the background checks don't count because they might not get firearms The passes of break through Brady Since 1996 which is when it took effect is over 600,000 firearms just in Vermont If you figure it before Brady because guns don't wear out There are millions of guns in this state With a population of 625,000 Again, the mere mention of a firearm is not Conclusive to being violent. It's just the opposite I have friends of the officer sheriff's department I never sat and talked to you about it, but I know sheriff's fish and wildlife They visit people with problems that firearms are in the home. It's probably happening here, but nothing is happening Three murders a year if we go by the the attorney general's testimony and the lady from the mom's demand action If 50% of those murders are domestic That's one and a half person a year Over a population of 625,000 If this passes and we're going to go to Taking the way the guns from people You're going to leave a person defenseless because when that TRO is given And that person walks in To that courtroom the one the I guess litigant. I'm not sure the legal term They're going to say Yep, he's got firearms Go take him away Admittedly the worst part of the time is the first two three days The police come they take all those firearms Now you've got two people are arguing over a vacuum cleaner and a divorce Those are my guns. Don't take those. No, those are my guns. Get them out of here You know what I'm saying You leave the person who's left at the house defenseless In a time when they should be able to defend themselves For this minuscule amount of times that these murders happen with these firearms According to this charge, you're better off taking their knives and billy clubs away Maybe every stick and tree Because that would solve the problem even better The part on the medical part Just bouncing around here on the medical part. What do you mean by the medical part? Persons endangered themselves or others That'd be I think the last page on the last section of this You're adding family members I have a twin brother and we constantly argue We don't fight we don't beat each other up, but we argue Lots of people argue it's part of life You know 10 minutes later. We're all nice happy and brothers again But I can imagine and I know people this has happened to Where they can go and they can say this person might be a danger because he got mad This can't happen And then you take their constitutional rights away for owning a firearm Judge Greerson did an excellent job Explaining that they already have the authority To take people's firearms away that deserve them To make it something that would be mandatory or easier to do Well, I've been in a divorce many of us have been in divorce talk to anybody It could get a little hectic For lack of a better word because people argue over vacuum cleaners During my divorce and here's a good example of it My ex-wife's lawyer Told my lawyer That if I did not Agree to certain things and what you wanted was basically The serial numbers and the models of firearms. I am I don't even know every gun I own as far as that stuff That they were going to pull a restraining order on me Things like this happen I can name dozens of people that I've talked to that things like this have happened Lawyers routinely work for their clients and I I don't hold it against them I really don't I have lousy orders. She had a good one but um It's easy to get a restraining order and when I got mine And it was just a TRO Um Basically, she didn't say I was violent because we were married for 20 years and we never raised our voices to each other We grew apart Um, she basically wanted the house Excuse me wanted money for the house Um, and there were certain things in the house that she wanted to make disappear. This is an old story Many people have done it the TRO Thanks to the judge down in bridal room. I don't remember his name Um, did not include firearms on that Of course in that TRO. She said we'd never fought. I never we never argued anything like that It was up to that judge to determine Um, what was right and what was wrong and I have a serious love of the court system in this state because It's it's one of the fairest things systems. I've ever seen Things like that So to make it so that the judge has to do something like that is ludicrous because there are situations and a lot of them like mine Okay, also in this thing Um, there are other pages with other things violent crime whole bunch of stuff, but remember Not in general Does not have a serious problem. It has very minor firearm problem realistically Murder can be dealt with the judges can make their decisions based on what they know and what they hear Leave it to them To stand up for the rights of may and you Okay um Any questions any questions anybody? Don't look like it. Thank you That's all we have for today. Um anybody else that was on the list will be coming back another day. Yeah What's up No, we don't know right now Probably probably next week. I'll show you probably next week next week. Um, good week. Yeah, just don't pick a snow day because I got He doesn't like snow The days of snow next week