 This is a continuation of Senate Judiciary Committee. We're looking at a 30 bill relating to prohibiting firearms in certain locations. So we have a number of people who are available to the committee, if the committee has questions, but we will not be taking the testimony today. This is purely for markup. You had a hosted on the website an amendment from Senator Baruth and myself. You put that up the committee to discuss today. Yep. Sounds good. We'll do. Right. This would be a strike all provision. Senator Baruth. Sure. Whatever your pleasure. I will use Eric. Okay. Is this draft 1.1? I can't see that. Yes, it's draft 1.1 of the strike all amendment. So you see that on the top there. Yes. So the proposal, you remember the bill has introduced. Del would location restrictions on firearms in three locations. It was hospitals, government buildings and childcare centers. Those were the three places. And the one that was in the bill as introduced, as I said, so this is a proposed strike all amendment from senators, Baruth and Sears. That takes out the prohibition on possession at childcare centers and government buildings. And instead. Has just a prohibition on hospital buildings. And you'll see. That's here in the new section. The bill was introduced in the year 2013. In the year 2013. And the couple of things that are, that are added in addition to, to the general prohibition on firearms and hospitals, a couple of clarifications are made that. Are different in this strike all amendment as opposed to the bill as the language in the bill has introduced. The first one you'll notice. Is actually in the title of the bill. I should say the title of the section 4023. Remember that was in the draft as introduced. The idea here being, I think the committee, I'm sure recalls the discussion of whether or not it would apply to, for example, in the parking lot or on the grounds of a hospital. I think. Committee's preference was to have the prohibition apply. If at all, of course you're still discussing that. But I mean, if you were to have it. To make sure it was narrowly crafted to be the hospital. if you were to have it to make sure it was narrowly crafted to be the hospital building. So that's clarified. Then you move on to line seven, the actual prohibition, and you'll see that initially that, or I should say as introduced, it was just not knowingly possess, sorry, not possessive firearm while within a hospital or at a hospital. Now it's the two terms that are added are knowingly in line seven. So a person shall not knowingly possess a firearm. Again, that to address the concern that someone doesn't inadvertently or accidentally go into a hospital building, forgetting that they had possession of a firearm on his or her person has to be knowingly. So they have to know that they actually have it. I should point out here that this is exactly the same language that's in the statute on prohibiting possession of firearms in school buildings. That uses the same- Yes, honey. I'm sorry, who, what? Somebody needs to mute. I'm sorry. Okay. So yeah, so I'll just read it to you, we can look at it too, but I'm just gonna read you the same sentence that's in the prohibition on firearms in school buildings. And it says exactly the same, no person shall knowingly possess a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon while within a school building. So you see, I essentially use that same language, didn't use the dangerous or deadly weapon, but other than that, it's exactly the same, knowingly possess a firearm while within is the other key point within a hospital building. So it has to be possession, knowing possession inside the building, which is the same phrase, phraseology, the same language that's used in 2004, 13 BSA, 4,000 for the prohibition on possession of firearms in a school building. So that's where that language was, where that's Genesis was, it's still the same penalty as the bill has introduced, that you would see in subsection B, it's the one year misdemeanor, that still includes the exception in subsection C for firearms possessed by federal state law enforcement officers for legitimate law enforcement purposes. So those are still exempted. So Eric, can I ask a question about that? Please. I thought in the bill, it did say for whether they're on or off duty. Yes, and the bill has introduced, yes, that was a good point. And so I went back to the legitimate law enforcement purposes, is the more typical language used to exempt law enforcement officers in these firearm statutes. So the honor off duty was within one statute only, but the more common approach is to say for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Okay, thanks. I'm looking at the 4,004, the possession and school buildings or on school property in that case. And they use knowingly and the court uses knowingly as a standard. Somebody mentioned the issue of intent, is that's not covered in either the courts or the schools, right? Correct. You have to, but you have to knowingly possess it. You can't just, somebody sent me it, so they're in an accident, they're unconscious, they're taken by ambulance and they have a firearm. Well, then they wouldn't knowingly because they're unconscious. They wouldn't knowingly possess it. This was a scenario that they had dreamed up that would get them charged with the crime. Yeah, I don't think the knowingly standard would be met under those facts. And if I walked in with a firearm, forgot I had it because I'm bringing my wife in and she's had a heart attack or something that would not knowingly, right? Right, I agree. What about intent that's not available in either one of those scenarios? Either one of the schools or courts. Yeah, and I think the intent question, it really sort of, if the idea is to make it a possession crime, which it is in both, as you say, the school and court situation as well as in this proposal, the intent becomes really not relevant unless you're gonna make it because it begs the question, intent to do what? If you know you have it, then intent in that sense is synonymous. If all you're looking to get at is the knowledge that you possess it, then intent doesn't add anything. Typically, like for example, I'm looking at 4003 now, 13 BSA 4003, if you add intent, the question is, well, intent to do what? And that statute, for example, you say it already criminalizes a person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon the intent to injure another. That's a two-year misdemeanor. So that's what the, usually with intent, you'll say something intent to what? Intent to cause serious bodily injury, intent to cause harm, intent to whatever you specify. If it's just a purely possession thing, then it doesn't add anything to say intent. And I'm sure that's why it's not in the school or court statutes either. So in a sense, this is just adding, okay. Thank you. Are there questions for Eric? You can take this down now. Yeah, just to quickly add though, there is a second section. Oh, thank you. Go ahead. Yeah, sure. This is the member that Bill has introduced also had a prohibition on possession in government buildings. So that, excuse me, that concept is the proposal here is to replace that with a study from the Capital Complex Security Advisory Committee report on weapons in the state house that would have to be made to justice oversight by December of this year. And the idea is the report would look at subdivision one there, how the possession of weapons at the state house is currently regulated, including rule 26 of the joint rules, which this committee has already looked at, which prohibits firearms in the state house. Subdivision two also has to talk about some information of previous situations in which persons that possess weapons and how those situations are typically dealt with. And finally recommend whether there should be a statute, whether there should be legislation addressing the issue of weapons. Again, it sort of comes at the issue that the committee discussed, which is, is the rule sufficient or is legislation needed? And this proposes that the Capital Complex Security Committee look at that question and report back to justice oversight. The only thing I would add is that the, this security advisory committee, the Capital Complex Committee is actually scheduled to sunset on July 1st of this year. But I spoke with Becky Wasserman who staffs the capital bill. And I guess the plan is in the house version of the capital bill to extend that sunset. So if this were to pass, we have to make sure that that sunset does get extended. Otherwise the committee that you're tasking with the force here wouldn't exist. So, but we'll do that on our end. All right. Everybody else that with the language should I pull the bill down for now? Yeah, I couldn't see who had the question. So please. I'm sorry. Senator Necta, I recognize the voice. So with regard to this, the study, why have this as- Can you take this down, Eric? Sure. Why have this as weapons and not firearms? I'm thinking of, someone brings a cake and as regularly happens, someone brings a cake in and a big knife to cut it. Seems to me that comes under weapon. So why isn't this just firearms, which is what this bill is about? And not weapons. It certainly could be either. That's the way we did it. Okay. But it could be, it could be. I mean weapons, in terms of if it includes a knife, how about the cafeteria? I've got all kinds of knives. So it seems like it would be better to study firearm than a- Well, you could go to the weapon in the court and use the term on both of these, dangerous or deadly weapon. And dangerous or deadly weapon means any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that in the manner it is used or intended to be used is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. Mr. Chair. I don't think your cake knife could somebody whoever's making that- I think it's Devin Green. No, and maybe not Devin Green. Somebody has a train going on behind him. Oh shoot. I think it's Peggy. Oh, thanks Peggy. So could I ask a question about that same section? First, Senator Barusa, then you, yeah. To Senator Nitka, I see the point. And it would be fine with me to change it to firearms if that was more in keeping with what the committee wanted. Would I then be allowed to bring a grenade in? Yep. Well, so that's, this is a study. So one way to look at it is that you could give them a slightly broader charge, you're not writing law. So having them look at a range of weapons might not be a bad idea prior to narrowing it down for legislation. So my question, comment on this section is I think that I would not like to see a study that just focuses on this. If we're going to do a study, let's do a study on state house security. Let's not just limit it to this. And the other point with this is that we've only limited it to the state house. We have state employees out there who are crying because they don't have proper security in their minds for the places where they work. And here we're looking at a study to protect ourselves, but not to address their needs at all. So I would just eliminate this study completely. And I think that the cap of the, that committee continues to look at security of the state house in general and just have them continue their work. I'm 99% sure that I'm actually the chair of said committee. And I would be in favor of removing this section all together as well. I remember Ruth. So I'll just say generally this draft was an attempt to try to take into consideration testimony we'd had and opinions that seemed to be expressed in the committee as a whole. So the section on government buildings, although we had League of Cities and Towns, for instance, were their board voted unanimously in favor of the proposal. I agree with what Senator White said. There are calls from people outside the state house about their security. So I wasn't comfortable just eliminating the issue of government building security around firearms altogether. It seemed like a reasonable middle ground to task somebody with looking at it and come back to us. So I guess we're at a place where we're often at, which is if it will move senators toward passage of the bill, that's something I might consider. But if we strike this section, people vote against the bill anyway, I don't think that advances anyone's feelings of security. So that's my thought about it. I'm happy to try to accommodate, but if there's no way people are gonna vote for the bill in any event, then cutting it to pieces to please people who aren't gonna vote for it is kind of a self-defeating strategy. Well, let me just suggest that if we do any study, it should be how to deal with government buildings. The way the bill was introduced left a lot of questions about what is a government building was essential and so forth. So I do think the League of Cities and Towns, we don't need to put it in legislation. I do think that the capital complex, the League of Cities and Towns and others need to make some to look at this issue, whether they do a true study that we require or not, it's up to them. I have a real concern as I expressed about keeping, the reason I did this or went along with Senator Baruth on this is I had real concerns about government buildings. And when I think of the town of Ridgeboro, where it takes 45 minutes to get somebody there, and one of my first experiences in campaigning in Ridgeboro was talking to a guy who was openly carrying a pistol, right on his hip. So that's a fairly common occurrence there. I'm sure the day some of them were the rightly or wrongly of whatever feel comfortable and open carrying or even concealed carrying in there because they do not have any kind of security available to them immediately. I also thought that some of the testimony from Commissioner Brown from DCF indicated that they were less than enthusiastic about with the childcare centers. And I realized that for most people that was one of the keys that Senator Baruth made some really good points about if most people thought it covered schools and would cover childcare centers. But I do think there's some confusion about family-centered childcare centers and that sort of stuff. Anyway, that's why I went along with this because I, as I expressed to you last week, for a long time I've wondered why, and I think we should probably use the same term of deadly weapon that's in the other statutes rather than just firearms in hospitals. I worry about our community hospitals, particularly the testimony from the doctors about the issues that they're being confronted with on a daily basis in their emergency and the danger there. And that's why I'm supporting this. I don't care whether we do a study or not do a study, it doesn't matter to me. I would vote for this as it is or with or without the study. I, if that helps, I don't know. I'm willing to take the hit, but I mean, we're gonna get hit from both sides. Number one, we took out the government buildings, took out the childcare centers. So that's gonna upset some of the proponents of the bill. And obviously those that oppose the bill are gonna continue to not support them. I don't know why my, my battery's running low because I didn't plug it in, I guess. So I just wanna. Yeah, go ahead, I'm gonna fit in my battery. With regard to the government buildings, we did hear from BGS with regard to their opinion on this and that they already have, they're already covered with regard to this so that they didn't feel it was needed. We did hear that testimony as well. And my other thought on this is, well, nevermind. I just don't take out section two. Ken, if I might ask of people, I agree with Senator Sears at this point, the hospitals are my main concern. If there is support for the hospital piece of it, I'm less concerned about section two. Okay. So that's kind of where I am at this point. Obviously I supported the whole bill originally, I still do, but given our testimony and given where people seem to have landed, the hospital piece strikes me as the place where we had the most compelling testimony. And at that point, we would be adding to schools and courthouses one location in the middle of a pandemic where we've seen violence around healthcare and public safety issues. We would be adding hospitals to that list. I'd kind of liked Senator Boyd. Before we go any further, maybe it's an opportunity to let some of the folks in who would like to comment on this. I would want to hear from Jeanette first, if we could. Oh, okay. Well, I don't know what we're gonna hear from people. We're gonna hear that they agree or disagree. I mean, I can look at the people who are on the list here and I can tell you, they're gonna say they agree or disagree. But I think that there are, I need to have some understanding of what this means. So right now, if a hospital has it posted, as I believe our hospital does and many hospitals do that says no firearms or no weapons or whatever they say and somebody walks in, they know they have their gun with them. They walk in and the person at the desk, at the emergency room, or they oftentimes hospitals have security, not always law enforcement, but some level of security. Our hospital contracts with Hunter North, I think they're called. And somebody walks in, they have their gun on. Right now, what would happen is the person would go to that person and say, I'm sorry, but you can't have your gun in this building. It's posted. And the person would either say, okay, I'll take it out and put it in my car. Or they would say, no, I have a right to have my gun in here. At that point, law enforcement could be called and they would arrest the person, charge the person with trespass. And as Evan said, they would be given the choice to go either willingly or go with them in their car. That's the way it would happen now, as I understand it. So there's a two-step process. They're confronted and they're asked to leave or take their gun away and they either do it or they don't. So it's two-step process. The proposed change would, somebody walks into the hospital and has their gun on them, knowingly has their gun on them. And the person, whether it's a security person or the person at the front desk says, you know, there's a law that says you can't have a gun in here. And that person can't charge them right now. So they call law enforcement and law enforcement comes and charges them right then. They don't ask them to leave, they charge them. Is that the way this would work? So in both cases, it's a two-step process, but in the first case, they are given the opportunity to leave and then they're charged if they don't. In this case, if they knowingly have their gun on and they don't leave, it is a charge. So it is a criminal offence. Is that the way this works? That there is a two-step process, whether this is passed or not? If somebody can just help me understand this, because I'm trying to figure out what this really means. And then that person goes away and has a charge of a criminal offence. Could we have Eric answer that? Who would like to? Somebody. Yeah, I'd be happy to answer that. I think Senator White, the difference is that in the proposed legislation, it does not require a two-step process. That's the, I agree with your description of how it works under the trespass statute. It requires that first level of communication of notice. That's to be a communication of notice of trespass by somebody, whether it's the law enforcement officer or the person at the hospital, whoever it is. The way this statute is proposed, there's not any notice that's required. The person at the hospital can see the person with the firearm come in the door, they can pick up the phone, call the police and say, this is assuming the law is in existence, by the way, I don't mean now. If the law is in existence, they can say, there's a person here with a firearm, it's against the law. Please come either arrest them or ask them to remove it because you can arrest, it's a misdemeanor, but you can arrest for a misdemeanor that's in the presence of the officer. So assuming the person is still there, the person could be arrested. Or, I mean, there's some discretion to how a situation is handled, but the point I guess is that there isn't, and this is a policy decision for you, I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying that's the distinction I see. That interim step isn't required under this legislation. Well, there is a two step process in practicality because most hospitals probably don't have a certified law enforcement officer at the door. So they would have to still call to get one there. So it really is a two step process. I guess I meant by that, not that the call isn't required, that communication isn't required. There isn't any communication required between the hospital and the person with the firearm before having them arrested or... Right, but I can't imagine that somebody walks into a hospital with a gun and the person that's there doesn't say, would you please take that away and instead just call? So in practicality, it seems to me there is a two step process, but so that is the difference. Right now it would take somebody to ask them to leave and then they could be arrested. If this is passed, they can be immediately charged and arrested. Correct. Okay. Let me just put something in history here, a little historical context, I think. I was here when the law regarding weapons in the courthouse. I was here when we were passed the law regarding weapons in schools. Each time was a lot of testimony, a lot of hand-bringing, a lot of consternation, but are these facilities where we feel it's important to not have weapons in and that's how I came down on the hospitals. I think it is at such a point where our doctors, our nurses, particularly emergency room personnel have been asking for this. I believe that at some point, you'll be looking at other government buildings in this state. Other states have already gone that route. But at this point, I don't see this, if one of them wants to say it's a nose under the camel's tent, that nose under the camel's tent came when we banned weapons in courthouses. And then it was schools and now it's tests. And I can understand why folks are gonna say, wow, just a matter of timing people, violating my constitutional right. But I think we have enough, I've looked at all of these issues. You'd rather not study, I don't care. I don't really care about the study on a bulletin. I think you're gonna get a call down in my comments. Oh yeah. In the near future. So can I just add one more thing? No. Mine, I'm not concerned about creeping gun laws. I'm not concerned here about constitutional rights, none of that. What I'm thinking is that we heard that there are other ways of dealing with this. And when Matt Valerio testified to us, he had four things that he looks at when we pass a new law. Does it do constitutional rights? In this case, I'm not concerned about that. Is there current law that covers this that can be used? And will it achieve its purpose? And I'm not so sure that we don't have other ways of dealing with this. And I'm not sure that it'll achieve the purpose. If somebody has malintent in mind, they're going to kind of find a way in. I'm not so sure that this, anyway, that's where I am. I think he, Matt also said, will the bill make anything worse and inadvertently for those intended to be protected? Right, that was the- So, Senator Baruth. I, similar to what Jeanette just said, I think there's a swirl of arguments that get made. It boils down very simply for me. And that is right now, this is exactly what we have in schools. And that was a decision we made as a society that we wanted to protect the vulnerable in those buildings. And this was the method that was adopted. And we said the same thing about courthouses. So that those are in law, they're constitutional, they're everyday life. If you go to a school building, you know you can't bring a gun. This says let's add hospitals to that. That's, it's all adults, especially if we get rid of the study. So I think it comes down to something very simple, which is do people wanna add a third location to those two? And, you know, there's no difference. And then if you, if you don't, you don't. And if you do, you do. For me, it's necessitated by the fact that we've had a broken mental health system, which has put people with mental health issues in hospitals in kind of unprecedented ways. And then on top of that, we have an opiate epidemic and a pandemic. And what we have heard unanimously from hospitals and medical people who have testified for us, including the doctors, is that they want this protection in the same way that schools and courthouses have it. So, you know, I think we're kind of at a point where nobody's gonna change anybody's mind. It's comes down to that simple question for me. If people don't feel the necessity to add a third location where you can't bring a firearm, then that's how you would vote. I'd like to give an opportunity for some of the folks that are here. Oh yeah, sure. No, speaking if you don't mind. So I'm just gonna, I'm going by my, I'm sorry, Senator Benning, you wanted to comment? Well, of course I wanna comment. And I thought the rule was they weren't gonna take in witnesses at this point in time and I'm getting mixed signals, but let me just respond quickly to Phillip. You are creating a brand new crime here. And there isn't any difference in my mind between the shooting that took place at the Burlington Mall because people should feel safe in a mall or a hospital. Now we've got this down to hospitals as a third entity. But the only evidence that we have heard thus far, I think the most pertinent was from the doctor at my local hospital, who was pondering what if somebody in the group that was arguing with each other, somebody had a firearm on them. I don't know how he would have known nobody did if they were carrying concealed, but we don't have any evidence that a gun has actually been used there. Phillip, you provided some statements, we never heard any testimony on it, but you provided some statements about the Bundy folks out in Washington showing up at a hospital and some of them were armed. There isn't any evidence in that case I'm aware of that somebody pulled one of those weapons and pointed it at somebody. The only concrete evidence we've heard is a guy in Dartmouth shot his mother. And the evidence as I understand it is his mother was diagnosed with a brain injury. And I'm willing to bet my dollars in my pocket right now that the defense attorney in that case is gonna raise the issue of somebody who was trying to put his mother out of his misery. And other than that, we haven't had any evidence. And at this stage, you're not just adding another crime. I spoke about this when Jeanette made the question initially, why do you need to have a gun at, I think she used hospitals at the time. And I don't look at the Constitution in that light. I think that turns the Constitution on its head because the Constitution enables all of us to carry a weapon for self-protection. The question for me is, why should someone be denied the constitutional right for self-protection in a given location? And to me to overcome my concern about that issue, I've got to have clear evidence that there is a problem that can't be handled in some other fashion. And for me, that's where this bill, whether you have one or three entities attached to it fails completely. And I'm very much concerned that if we pass this with a new criminal offense attached to it, that you are causing more problems because in my neck of the woods, it's not an unusual thing for somebody to be coming off the road from hunting or whatever. I was thinking to myself, I went through 12 weeks of cardiac rehab. And I'm in the middle of hunting season. And there's guys around me that have weapons in their rigs who were coming and going from hunting. I did have a legal question for Eric. Eric, the definition of a hospital as it's listed here has the statutory citation attached to it. Are you able to pull that up on the screen so we at least know what this is actually covering? You're muted, Eric. Thank you. Did you mean to pull it up on the share screen so everyone could see it? Or you can read it to me if it's a short definition. I just want to be clear about what physical entities we're actually applying this to. Yeah, it's a little lengthy. It might be better to take a quick look at it if that's okay. Could we do that, Senators here? Absolutely. All right, let me try that. Well, this is a lesson on how to get to the... Yeah, the law books. Yes, I should be going slower so I could get everyone but I'm trying to move a little quickly. So it's in the hospital licensing statute chapters. You see where I've just gone to in Title 18. So you'll see, actually it's shorter than I thought. See it's subdivision one there. Place devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of diagnostic and therapeutic facilities for inpatient medical or surgical care of individuals for an illness, disease, injury, or physical disability or for obstetrics. So if my local provider, which is corner medical, performs an in-house surgical procedure, for instance, I have some skin lesion on my face taken off. Does that mean that falls within the definition of hospital? I can't proclaim to be an expert on the types of facilities that might fall under this definition or not. I can only say that it's the definition that's used currently for licensing. But at least looking at the plain language, I would say arguably, yes. It might turn on the term primarily, place devoted primarily to the maintenance of those things, which perhaps would be a fact specific discussion. But if the place required a license, I think that the way the definition is applied now is determined as to whether a place needs to be licensed as a hospital. So any place that had to be licensed at least would come under the definition. So we're creating a new crime without real clear direction on what there could be a legal battle over whether or not a given facility falls within this definition. I guess that's my concern. Thank you for bringing that up, Eric. Sure. To the rest of the committee, I wanna say that I came to the legislature anxious to try to prevent crimes being created that were not necessary. And I really feel that we have not had evidence that tells me this is a necessary step to deprive someone of what is normally their right for self-defense. You know, I heard a lot of emotion. In fact, that's the bulk of what we have heard is emotion of people who say, I'm afraid. I don't want to be afraid. I can appreciate that concern, but that's not what America is supposed to be about. Unless I'm interfering with your right to be free and practice your own constitutional rights, I don't believe we should be entering the process of creating new crimes that limit your ability to live under the constitution as has been traditionally done. And I'll, I guess end by saying, we've had this rule about schools for some time. That didn't stop Jack Sawyer from developing the idea that he was gonna use Fair Haven High School as a target zone. And it is very true that an individual with nefarious intent is not going to be stopped by this legislation. But what will happen is we will rope in people who had really traditionally been doing something that they feel is normal and has been considered normal. And all of a sudden they're facing a strict liability crime, which, and I know it's been tailored some with the language, but I still look at it as turning the constitution upside down on its head and having people prove why they should be entitled to self-defense in a given location. Mr. Chair. Senator Bruce and then Senator White. Well, a couple of things about what Joe said. And I wanna start by saying, I know he's sincere and I know he cares very deeply about the Vermont constitution and the national constitution. And I've always respected that about Joe. I wanna just speak to a couple of points. One, the incident at Dartmouth. Joe, I think you've, for various purposes, every time we bring that up you seek to put it to one side or exclude it. It is the case where someone took a gun into a hospital and killed another human being. That's the main fact about it. And yet somehow you try to, you always try to minimize it. That's a horrible thing that happened. Phillip, if you've got the impression that I minimize that, let's not my intent. Hang on, I listened to you. Now, please listen to me. Good. So I think if the person had injured someone in the hospital the testimony might be, well, no one was killed. Or if no one was injured, then you'd say, well, no one was injured. In this case, someone took a gun and killed someone else. That is a fact. It's a horrible fact that's in our testimony. So the other thing you said, we hadn't heard any information or evidence. We had unanimous doctors, physicians, hospitals across the state. The chair even asked of the hospital association, is your membership divided on this? And we were told to get in again, no, it's unanimous. That's an extremely strong set of testimony. We had testimony from all the state office holders. The attorney general, the auditor, the treasurer, et cetera, and the attorney general, in some ways, the top law official in the state called S30 sound public policy. So we have had strong testimony in favor of this bill. We've also had some passionate arguments against it. The other thing I would say is that hospitals and the idea of a new crime, we voted out a robo call bill, 5-0, that created a new crime. And nobody batted an eye. Nobody threw up their hands and said, oh, we can't create a new crime because we all thought that that made sense. But when somebody opposes a bill, that becomes something that they would never do. So I'm just saying, I don't view this as creating a new crime. We already have criminalized weapons in two places and we are adding another place. So in that sense, it's not like we're creating a new category. We have two location-specific prohibitions on firearms and we would be adding a third. So again, I think we could go back and forth on this forever. It's not my intention to do that. I think that there was plenty of testimony for the hospital piece of this. And so that's what I'm asking the committee to go along with. Phillipa, if I could just quickly respond to very short things. First off, you have no constitutional right to make robo calls. So for me, that discussion is completely irrelevant to this conversation. We do have a constitutional right to carry a firearm. And I believe I asked one of the witnesses who was in favor of the bill, if this bill were law in New Hampshire, do you really believe it would have prevented that horrible event at Dartmouth? And I can't reach the conclusion that this legislation would have prevented that from happening. I just can't get there. And I understand why you'd wanna use that as part of the discussion to pass it. But I don't see this bill if it becomes law, changing the nefarious intent of someone who is hell-bent on committing murder. So I walk down the road of saying, this is in fact a new crime because you are restricting the area where someone can practice self-defense. And that argument is going right back to what Lily, I can't remember her. Sharky. I can't remember. Sharky Buren, I think was her last name. She was very correct. This was the next step in the process. And you and I had this discussion years ago. If you want to eliminate the Second Amendment and Article 16 to have a place where we have no weapons at all, that's a whole different conversation. But you're heading in the same direction every time you add an additional place. And frankly, I was surprised to hear somebody shooting in a mall in Burlington. And that didn't all of a sudden become part of this bill because I think that is the direction that this takes us. And my thought process here is if we pass this out of the Senate, it will go to the house and additional locations will be added to the mix before it comes back to us. That's the way I've experienced the past 10 years. And quite frankly, I don't think I've heard evidence where we should be embarking on that path. Thank you. Senator White. And then I will ask for brief comments from anybody else who wants to make a move. So I do mean brief. I do love the Constitution. I have a copy in my bag. I have a copy at every desk I sit at. But I'm not looking at this necessarily as a violation of our Constitution. I'm looking at this as the second question that was raised by Matt Valerio. Are there other ways to doing this? And I think comparing it to the robo crime that we just passed, that was whether they, we have a Constitutional right to make robo calls or not, there really wasn't any other way. There wasn't any existing law to deal with that. So we created a law to deal with that. In this case, we have existing laws to deal with this. And we're not adding a place where people are prohibited from having guns. They are already prohibited if the hospital puts up a sign. So there is a prohibition against them having a gun at a hospital if the hospital has a sign. So we're not adding another location what we're doing is applying a crime to that now. A new crime to that because it already is a crime to have a gun at a hospital if you refuse to leave. You can be charged with trespass. So there is a crime there. So we're not simply adding another location here. We're applying a new crime to that location. So I appreciate that. Starting with Devin Green from the hospital association if he has any comments. And I mean, brief from all those folks. I really appreciate that. Thank you, Devin Green from the hospital association. And I apologize for earlier. It's been a long school vacation week. I did want to say that one of the differences with the hospital, I believe is that every second counts, especially in the emergency department. And I heard a story this morning from an emergency department director who said that his experience was there was a very agitated father whose child was sick, who came in and he had a gun that could be seen. And the nurses were nervous about it. And he went and confronted the father. And the father started to argue about his constitutional rights. And it was all time that he could not spend caring for the child. And he ended up getting the father to listen to him by saying that, but it took precious minutes during that time. So with the trespass, arguing with the person, showing them the sign, going back and forth with them. These are all things that matter in emergency situation. And so that is the difference here is to be able to say, no, it's a law. If you don't do it now, the police are coming. And so that's why we would ask that hospitals remain in here. Thank you. Will Moore, did you want to comment briefly? Very briefly. So to clarify Jeanette's question further and also somewhat respond to what Ms. Green just said, our concern is for the person who enters the emergency room either in a crisis as a family member or visiting someone, which is the main entrance to my hospital. And realizes without being asked, they're carrying a firearm. And thanks, oh my goodness, that's right. I forgot we're not allowed to do that. Turns around to go out to the car. Under this amended version of the bill, that would still be a crime. Under the current statute, that person has the ability to turn around and discontinue and leave the gun in the car or be notified. And as far as time for the concerns of emergency room staff, I've worked in hospitals. The return of the police from that phone call isn't gonna be any faster under this statute than it is under the current law. So our concern is unintentional lawful carriers who make the right choice when they're made aware of it or aware of themselves of it. Anybody else who'd like to comment? Matt Valerio, who's been quoted several times. And accurately for the most part too, which is good. The two things that I wanted to bring up is that in the event that anything is passed here that prohibits firearms or weapons from being brought into a hospital, I would make it a requirement of the law that at every entrance it would be posted clearly and conspicuously before entering the building that firearms are prohibited so that you give people the appropriate notice the person who inadvertently is carrying or who is in a rush or not thinking about it is at least confronted with something that is posted clearly and conspicuously prohibiting it and that be a requirement of the law. I would also request that you focus, if your focus is on firearms to focus on firearms because deadly weapons under Vermont law can be about anything and it can be anything from a knife that you wear on your belt or carry with you to open letters or the like or anything. So deadly weapons under Vermont law is a very broad category of things. So if you're putting firearms, then I would keep it on firearms. And again, that it be posted, part of the law that it be posted clearly and conspicuously at the entry to any buildings. Thank you. That's good suggestion. Anybody else would like to voice something? Sir Kendall Jacobson. Thank you, Chair Sears and I'm Kendall Jacobson from Every Town for Gun Safety with the interest of being brief. I'll just say that you've heard testimony that this bill's prohibitions wouldn't highlight the Second Amendment. And we've presented research, I think you've heard from other folks that to debunk the idea that guns are regularly used in self-defense. And I just wanted to speak up on behalf of the public buildings portion of the piece in particular because we've heard about people with malintent, but as we testified before, people are people and they get passionate and emotional, especially in highly politicized environments. So the bottom line is that there is research to support that the presence of a gun in a location like that in a sensitive space increases the risk of violent conflict. And we've also presented evidence about horizon extremism across the country and the fact that these are happening in state capitals across the country. So we continue to urge you to have this bill cover public buildings and the state house and believe that a clear law would provide uniform expectations and standards here. And I know that I've spoken to folks and provided testimony from Giffords and from Gunsense, Vermont. And we all continue to urge you to keep this bill's application to the places that are listed and currently in the bill. But recognize the debate that's gone on in committee today and I just wanted to make it clear that that's where we stand on that. Thank you. Chair Sears-Bradley, Federation of Vermont Sports. Thank you, Chair Sears. Can you hear me okay? Yup, thank you. Just a couple of very fast points. I believe Eric Fitzpatrick in providing us information on the trespass law gave us a case law of Pixley. In the Pixley case, the court seemed to rule that the sign itself was adequate notice for trespass. So just getting back to Jeanette White's two-step concern, nobody has to confront the person. The police can be immediately called, which I think would be the case if someone was in an emergency room acting up or have just walked into the building. So I agree with Joe Benning. When we're creating gun-free zones where there's no element of protection provided, I think you're creating a situation where people can be put at risk. So with that, I will defer to keep my comments short. No, we would like to see it the very least intense, sir, but other than that- Maynabow. Eric, did you want to comment on that? Just to clarify that- On the notice. Pixley does not stand for the idea that a sign can provide notice of the, that carrying a firearm on property constitutes trespass. I agree with Mr. Bradley that it does stand for the proposition that a sign can constitute notice of trespass. So remember, we're talking about the distinction between whether you can come on a property and what behavior you can engage in while on the property. So yes, if hospitals posted signs that said no trespassing, absolutely. Someone comes on the property, they've already received notice, they've already violated the trespassing sign. But if the sign says you can't possess firearms on the property, Pixley was not saying that, that therefore when you carry a firearm on the property, you've committed trespass, you still at that point have to be provided notice with the fact that you are trespassing on the property by carrying the firearm. So that's the distinction that I would point out. Okay. Chris, did you want to just- That notice however, does not have to be done by anybody on site. That notice can be provided by a law enforcement that's been called, correct? Thank you. Eric. Yes, that's correct. Correct. Well, I'm going to use the example of the state house itself. We have a sign out in front of the state house, no firearms or no weapons. I can't remember whether it's been so long since I've been to the state house. Can't remember what the sign says. Weapons. I think it's no weapons. So how do we enforce that law? We have a capital police. Matt, Romy, I told us how we enforce it. He goes and he tells the person to leave or bring their firearm out. And if they don't, then he escorts them out and he can charge them with trespass. He can. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to only want to make one more comment myself. Well, I won't say it's only one more. The idea that when it comes back from the house that it might have things on it that would concern us, including malls. I think if we, I just don't, I mean, I would worry about every bill we, I worry about, I worry about every bill we pass what the house might do to it. And whether it's judicial area or any other committee, and many of you know my concern about that issue. And that's what conference committees are for. And we can always draw lines in the sand. I'm always concerned about that. I'm not sure where we stand as a committee on this bill. And no. Can I say one more thing? I just want to make it clear that I do not believe that guns belong in hospitals. I don't believe that there should be guns in hospitals. But I think there are other ways of dealing with it. That's my only point. I appreciate that. I understand that distinction. I was clear to me, but I appreciate clarifying that. Senator Nidka. I'd like to make a motion that we add the language that Matt Valerio has suggested with regard to signs at all entrances, as he spoke. And just a question about that. Would that? I think we should do that, whether or not we pass a bill or not, I think that the hospitals should consider, let's say we pass no bill. And so there would be, I agree with you that should be in the bill, Senator Nidka, if we pass a bill, but let's say we pass no bill. I think the one thing I've learned here is the notice needs to be much clearer to everybody and including in front of the state house, by the way, I just don't think it's a very clear sign, whatever it says. So that would just be whether we pass a bill or not. Senator White. I do have a question about the, and this is, I don't know if it's going to help me or not. Senator Bruce wanted to comment on the sign. On the sign. Oh, okay. But go ahead, Jeanette, you were already starting. Well, I was just wondering about, I'm thinking of Brattleboro Memorial Hospital. It's a complex. It isn't a building. There's the building that, where they house, where the emergency room is and where the inpatient people are. Then connected to it by a walkway, there's a building where there's outpatient, there's physical therapy and orthopedics and stuff like that. Then across the parking lot, there's another building that has offices in it. Would they all be covered under this or just the part of the hospital that has the emergency room and inpatients, in residential patients? I think that goes back to the definition that Eric provided and I don't know if that's clear. I didn't see it. Joe mentioned that my doctor's office, they can perform, especially in the orthopedic office, which is separate from the hospital, they do perform minor surgery. And this complex is all owned by the hospital. Devin might know. Devin, do you know? I was just gonna say, I believe the licensing definition is pretty clear. I mean, the surgical center in Burlington is not considered a hospital, even though it does surgery, it's not licensed as a hospital in my mind. That wouldn't be to what, but this bill looks at the hospital definition, not what is considered under the licensing. But the definition is under the licensing statute. With the GANF building. Sorry. I was saying, if you wanted to make it narrower, potentially you could say, limited to inpatient emergency department units. I just didn't know if like the GANF building at the BMH would be considered part of the hospital or not. Or the Richard's building. Question for Eric. Do we have in the school statute of the court statute, are there notification requirements? No. Okay. I take Matt Valerio's point and I'm open to what Senator Nitka is saying, but I would suggest that one of the strengths of this is that it mirrors existing law that's been in operation for 20 or 25 years in these two other locations to the extent that we try to make it different in any way. I think, yeah, Eric. I'm sorry, I misspoke. I'm sorry. There is no notice provision in the school section, but in the court prohibition, there is a provision that says, I'll read it very brief, no dangerous or deadly weapon shall be allowed in a courthouse that has been certified by the court administrator to be, oh, sorry, I've read the wrong subsection. Notice of the provisions of this section shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each courthouse. The difference there might be that with hospitals, there are many entrances. And with courthouses, there's usually one public entrance and the schools now you can't even get into them. So there's usually only one public entrance. Yeah. So I guess I would favor what Senator Nipka said. I would suggest that as closely as possible, we mirror what's in the courthouse statute and not make it that it, you know, has to cover every single door that leads in or out, but the main public entrances or something like that. Yeah. Sounds like what Eric said, that would work. Never mind just main entrance, at least to be honest. Is there a third vote for the amendment? You mean to, you're speaking about adding the provision that Matt Valerio said? No, I'm talking about, I think we've all agreed we should add the amendment. But even, I mean add the provision, but even if we add the provision, there's a third vote. A third vote for the bill or is that what you're saying? Yeah, yeah. If we're going to vote. I guess I'm being blunt about it or do you want to wait another week and... I'd like to make another motion then if we're going to vote on the bill. I would vote that we strike section two. Mr. Chair, prior to that motion, I, my... You want to straw poll. My way of, no, no, my way of thinking about this was I agreed to have the Democratic caucus not discuss this because the bill wasn't ready. And I would personally think it's something that our caucus should discuss before we vote. So with respect, I would ask that we delay a vote. As long as the caucus discussion is a public discussion. Sure, on a Zoom call Tuesday at... Yeah, well, obviously a Zoom call weekend. Yeah. But yeah, yeah, I don't want it done behind closed doors. And that wasn't my suggestion. We, you know, two... No, I know it wasn't. Tuesdays at noon, we have that and I can speak to the majority leader about that. How about the Republican caucus? It seems an odd request, but how about the other caucus? They can meet as well. I mean, you were speaking about the Democratic caucus. Well, that's because I'm a member of that caucus, but Joe's free to, you know, try to convene his people to talk about it as well. My thinking is this. This is coming out of an unprecedented time in at least two or three different ways. So we just saw last month an insurrection at the Capitol, after which every state government complex was put into a lockdown because we were worried about violence. And on top of that, we're in the middle of a pandemic where people are every day who confront unmasked people or try to enforce public safety measures are being confronted with violent response from advocates who think it constrains their liberty. So I think these are big weighty issues that this bill is trying to respond to. And I'm, I just wanna say I'm delighted as always with the discussion we've had. I think it's been really good give and take. I would just like the larger groups in the Senate to have a discussion before we take another step forward. And that would include the Republican caucus if they wanted me. I would agree with you and particularly in the light of the fact that 16 members of the Senate, about besides yourself, 15 members of the Senate will respond to the bill. So to try to say we're either not doing it or we're drastically reducing it without talking it over with their colleagues probably is not a greatest idea in the world. So I think your suggestion is a good one, Senator Moore. So I just don't wanna leave anybody with the impression that I don't wanna wait to vote. I have no problem waiting to vote. I have no problem having a caucus. I just thought the way- I understood. But I think in the meantime, I think there's general agreement to add a notice of provision that Matt Valerio made and there's general agreement. Or is there not? That's just so Eric can prepare up an amendment. Is there general agreement to have some form of notice required? Yes. Okay, so that should read it. Is there general agreement to remove the study? No, I wouldn't agree to that at this point. Okay. I think it's three to two on the study. So, can I ask- If I'm counting the hands, oh, okay. Go ahead, Senator- I'm thinking of the study being amended to say firearms and not the cake knife. Okay. So- That... Oh, Jenna. No, I don't think we need a study at all. I think that we have a committee that actually looks at security in government buildings and including the state house and that they should continue to do that. And for us to... And they do it all the time. They've been doing it for years. They've been looking at, should we have cameras? Should we not have cameras? Should we have metal detectors? Should we not have metal detectors? They've been looking at this all along. And I think that we should let them continue their work. I don't think that we need this at all. And I agree with what you're saying, Senator White. I'm just suggesting that we hold on- Let's leave this, okay. Let's leave the study until for now, Eric. But add the language on the notice. Eric, can I just ask, Devin? A quick question. On the language of the notice, and we were talking about this, would it be, I think, acceptable to say, posted conspicuously at the primary public entrance of each hospital or at each primary public entrance? I would think any public entrance. Yeah, I think public entrance is fine. I think many of our hospitals do this. So I think public entrance work. Perfect. Any, thank you. Are you saying, are you saying any? I mean, I think any is important. Somebody- Any public entrance. Main public, do you mean- Any public entrance. Public entrance, skip the main. Skip the main, but I think that's fine. My hospital has public entrances, but one of them, you have to have a code to go through and the only way public can get in is if the hospital employees allow you in. Yeah, that would be a private entrance, I would think. That would be a private entrance. So that wouldn't need to be posted, but the public entrance would be interesting, no, and the other, it's an odd shape because there's a public entrance and then the emergency ambulance entrance. Well, Brattleboro, for example, right now, there's only one, the main public entrances closed and you go through the emergency room, but there are, in fact, in the building itself, in the main building itself, there are at least four public entrances. And the other thing I think we should explore before we vote on this is, what is the definition of the hospital? To me, that seems covered by what Eric has done because it seems to me the important thing is that it be licensed as a hospital and that's what this captures right now. Oh, okay, all right, thank you. So we have to be on the floor. Oh, are we, is it time? We're on the floor, it's seven minutes. Can I just ask, if a caucus is gonna be discussing this, what is it that the caucus is going to be discussing? If I wanna get Randy to try to join with your caucus and the mutual conversation, which version of this bill are we pitching to the caucus? Well- The one that we just amended, yes. Joe, I don't know, usually we do all Senate caucuses for things that are, you know, not specifically policy or that are broad policy like the budget. We usually talk about individual bills as individual caucuses. So I'm not saying Randy shouldn't speak with Allison, but I think it may well wind up being two individual discussions in the Republican if you wanna have a caucus and then the Democratic caucus. We need to adjourn, thank you very much. Thanks, everybody.