 that you have been discussing today are one of really the most important legal options that are available for people who experience domestic violence. And both the ex parte orders and final relief from abuse orders are both essential and time-limited safety tools for survivors. And RFAs can provide many different safety mechanisms such as limitations on contact, temporary custody arrangements, financial support, and may also include firearm surrender conditions. And each relief from abuse order that is issued by the court is really tailored to match the circumstances of the abuse and the abuse that the plaintiff outlines in their affidavit impetition. And essential from our perspective is the fact that RFAs are a civil legal tool, and so they provide an opportunity for survivors to seek legal protection from the court without involving the criminal system. And that's something that's very important to many survivors and the reason why relief from abuse orders are such an important tool. I just wanted in terms of the broad context to state that certainly seeking court or a legal relief of any sort for survivors of domestic violence is an inherently dangerous moment. And victims of domestic violence are at the highest risk for lethality for being killed by their abusive partner when they leave an abusive situation. And unfortunately, as this committee has heard before, domestic violence really domestic violence homicide rather remains a persistent problem in Vermont. And over half of all of our homicides in Vermont since 1994, since this data has been tracked, were domestic violence related. And over half of those were committed with firearms, and there's a higher rate still for the crimes that are murder suicides that are associated with domestic violence. And because domestic violence can pose such dire consequences, really life or death in the worst situations, it's essential that this tailored emergency relief provides protection for victims when they need it the most, which is the importance of the emergency proceeding or the ex parte proceeding. As the committee has been discussing, the network supports the purpose of 133 to really clarify and codify existing court practice. So right now across our state each day, survivors of domestic violence seek emergency protection through the ex parte process to apply for relief from the court. And currently judges may and do include firearms related conditions in relief, emergency relief from abuse orders. If there's a factual basis, which indicates that firearms that the plaintiff may need some protection from firearms related violence or there have been firearms related threats. And I just want to highlight briefly three reasons why we think H 133 will improve the family court's response to domestic violence in significant ways. The first is improving geographic justice. So as previous witnesses have already established the court already has the inherent authority through well established law to include firearms surrender conditions in emergency relief from abuse orders. And while this authority is exercised in Vermont on a daily basis, it's exercised inconsistently. And so it may vary from judge to judge or from county to county. And whether or not a survivor is able to access this important and time sensitive relief in our view should not be dictated by which county you live in or which judge has rotated into the court in your in your area. But that access to justice should be available to all across the state. Chief Burke noted that there is an ongoing effort in Vermont called the firearms technical assistance program. And this is a no money grant that was granted to the Vermont Attorney General's office and has brought together a group of stakeholders to look at various elements of the intersection of domestic violence and firearms. And this bill will really help to integrate with that process and new and improved court forms that are kind of an outgrowth of that project. So as part of that project, Vermont's Family Court Oversight Committee is currently revising the relief from abuse order petitions to collect more detailed information from plaintiffs about the abuse they're experiencing and the extent to whether the extent to which firearms are part of that abuse or whether they are at all. And so H 133 will really help to align these efforts and make sure that orders are tailored to the specific relief that's requested by plaintiffs in each situation. And third, I just wanted to highlight that we believe this bill will really provide clarity to all parties, not just plaintiffs. And while the bill doesn't intend to enhance the authority of the court to include firearms related conditions in ex parte proceedings, it clarifies the circumstances under which a condition may be issued. And it will really help provide clarity to all parties, plaintiffs, defendants, and judges in regard to the conditions. I wanted to take just a few brief moments to respond to a little bit of testimony that you've already heard and speak to three key issues. First is the evidence burden in relief from abuse orders. And I'm sure you'll hear from other witnesses about this. But from our perspective, it's essential that the bill does not enhance the evidentiary or criminal liability on survivors when they're seeking emergency relief at this dangerous moment. Ex parte emergency relief from abuse orders have always used a preponderance of evidence standard for orders and all of the related conditions. And elevating the evidentiary burden to a higher standard, such as clear and convincing, would really have the impact of rendering the relief effectively impossible in the emergency setting. And the vast majority of plaintiffs that are seeking this kind of relief are doing so pro se, they're doing so completely unrepresented. So it's not practical to think that that a clear and convincing standard could be helpful for victims of domestic violence when they're unrepresented in the midst of living in an abusive situation. When they would be expected to introduce significant evidence, and then the court would need an extended period of time to weigh such evidence, which really is at counter purposes to the exigent relief that's provided by ex parte orders. Now just note that there have been numerous occasions where this statute has been amended by the legislature for various reasons since its passage in the in 1979 and 80. And at each one of those has really affirmed the importance of the preponderance standard in emergency ex parte proceedings simply because of the exigent circumstances that are often involved in these situations. And I, in reflecting on Judge Rierson's testimony from last week, he raised some concerns and Bill Moore referenced this in his testimony as well earlier today to really ensure that the language of the bill meets the intent of the bill, which is to truly reflect current practice and ensure that the court retains its current discretion around ordering firearms, surrender provisions when it is appropriate, and when it is sought by the plaintiff. And so we would support any needed adjustments to the language that may be brought forth by the court to ensure that the bill doesn't expand or narrow the court's inherent authority to issue these conditions, but that it meets the stated purpose of the bill. And finally, I'll just make one quick note on firearm storage. I think it has been correctly noted by many members of the committee that this has been an ongoing conversation. And I would just like to say that for the first time in many years that it is not a, as I think Representative Burdett, you correctly noted, there's often a, we need to, which goes before conversations about firearm storage. I would say that the Firearms Technical Assistance Project for the first time in many years is providing us a, we are doing. And so there is current work underway led by law enforcement to create model policies and protocols related to service of relief from abuse orders, especially when they involve firearms relinquishment conditions. And so I would say that work is really ongoing. It is multi-disciplinary. There's many stakeholders involved. And we're feeling very optimistic about the outcomes of that process. That's it for me. And I'm happy to take any questions. Great. Thank you, Sarah. Committee members, any questions? Dr. Martin. And then Felicia. Yeah. Thank you, Sarah, for the testimony. So I just had a couple of questions about what kind of information that you might have regarding what kind of RFA outcomes we are seeing in the state. It was mentioned earlier as far as, you know, how many orders are we seeing throughout the state that might include a relinquishment requirement for firearms? Is that information that you have or have access to? It's not information that I have. It would be information that would be collected by the court. And so it's probably a good question for Judge Greerson. And I believe that he can confirm this, but the court is moving to a new case management system currently. And my understanding is that in that new system, there will be opportunities to gather that level of granular detail. But I would say anecdotally, we have a very clear sense, you know, our advocates working at 15 member organizations across the state, one of the things that they do is go with survivors weekly to court when they are seeking relief from abuse orders. They will also sit with survivors as survivors, complete their paperwork, seeking emergency relief from abuse. And I would say that what we see is that this sort of relief is fairly rare, but a variable across the state. So there are places where it happens slightly more often. There are places where it happens less often, but that it is certainly not in every order or even in a majority of orders, certainly not. And do you have any insight of why some counties or some judges might be more apt to issue such an order versus others? And, you know, maybe that's too speculative of a question, but I just wonder, since you have 15 different organizations kind of in tune with what's going on locally in those different counties. Yeah, I'll defer to the judge on that other than to say that I think it can have to do with judges seeking and looking for certain facts outlined in affidavits from survivors. And frankly, I also think that just the like kind of cultural practices from county to county have been somewhat well established. And that that simply makes a difference. And in without really any statutory language clarifying the practice, what you see is variability. All right. Thank you. Right. Felicia and then Kate. Thank you. I'd love to get your opinion, Sarah, based on a lot of our existing statute and a lot of testimony that's been given on this bill particularly when you rephrased and really asserted the importance of this bill's necessity in your opinion. It kind of led me to ask, what do you really think that 133 has that we don't have either an existing inherent judicial authority or through the extremist protection orders from my reading of the bill and the testimony given so far, understanding kind of the history of these issues as they've worked forward in Vermont policy. I only see a few changes and those are very concerning to me. So I'm interested to hear your point of view on what changes you see in 133 that don't exist. Some are in our system and what benefit those changes have. Yeah. Happy to answer that. So I would say the benefit that we see is just clarity and consistency. So it is clarity and consistency in practice. And that's where all parties to really understand clearly the court's authority in these settings. And on your on the other half of your question in regards to the extremist protection order, you know, I will all let I believe David Chair is scheduled to testify today. And I know that probably from the prosecutor's perspective, they are the ones that have more insight in terms of how the extremist protection order process happens. I would just offer that it is a wholly separate process that is designed for a completely different purpose. It is applied for completely differently. It is applied for by the state, not by an individual plaintiff operating pro se. So it is a really very different very different purpose and very different process. Yes, my understanding the extremist protection order holds a much higher level of due process than prescribed in 133. I appreciate your comments. Yeah. And I'm happy to David may be able to speak to that. And I would just note that I did submit a chart with my testimony that does highlight the evidence burden of various kinds of protection orders. And in that you'll see that the relief from abuse orders at both stages, ex parte and final are preponderance of the evidence sexual assault stocking orders, but are also applied for by the plaintiff. Most often pro se are also preponderance of the evidence at both stages and the extremist protection order, which is a completely different process, but is also preponderance of the evidence at the ex parte stage. Thank you. Kate, I don't see your hand up that I want to I know it was up before. Yeah, sorry. I think it got swept out. Hey, Sarah, thanks for being here today. And I had a question that's come up in my community, sort of more globally around discussions of guns and access to guns and gun rights. But I'm just it's coming up in my mind as we're talking about this bill. And that's there are folks that tell sort of anecdotal stories about women who are in situations where they might file for relief of abuse and are concerned for their immune safety, obviously, and that want to be able to have a media access to firearms to protect themselves. And I guess I'm curious, like, in your experience with the level of experience that you have in this area, if you could speak a little bit to whether how that, you know, does that play out? As you've seen it, does that play out in in the world in the real sort of world that you are privy to? And with a potential, you know, with this bill, I think it's come up earlier. And I apologize if this is the next part of the question isn't for you to speak to. But if it were if it were true that women who wanted to protect themselves wanted access to firearms in the house, how does that get entangled in any way with this kind of bill, if they sort of share the same home or have sort of, you know, determining sort of ownership of firearms. So anyway, I'm just sort of curious along this line of discussion to hear your thoughts. It's a good question. And I would say that by far, we're much, much more likely to hear from individuals that they are concerned about the presence of firearms in the home as it would relate to their safety in terms of it being used against them. Then the kind of situation you have described, though it's not it's certainly not not unheard of. What I would say is that typically in a relief from abuse order proceeding, the relief is tailored to the relief that is requested by the plaintiff and the facts that are outlined in the affidavit and the outlined in the affidavit and the petition. And so there is some control that that the plaintiff has in terms of what kind of information they would like to provide in those documents. But broadly, I would say that there is a good deal of research that indicates that regardless of who owns a firearm, whether it is owned by a person that is abusing their intimate partner or is owned by the victim of that abuse, that regardless of who owns the firearm, simply having a firearm in a house where there is abuse occurring increases the risk of death to the victim. And so we certainly do believe that the presence of firearms in a volatile and highly abusive situation most often unfortunately ends up can end up impacting the victim regardless of who the firearm is owned by. Thank you. Can I ask a quick clarifying question? So just to kind of maybe say back what I think I heard you just say that in the process of filing for a relief from abuse, if it were the case that a person would feel a greater sense of safety, for example, with their partner leaving the home but being left in their own home with access to firearms, you're saying that the person filing the relief from abuse sort of would have some agency in terms of what they're asking for or looking for in terms of protection? That is correct. I wouldn't say that it's not completely, once you file a judge is considering all the facts that are in front of them, but a plaintiff has a lot of, they are the ones bringing the claim for the petition for relief. And so they have a lot of agency in terms of what information they provide about the abuse that they are experiencing and the relief that they are seeking. Thank you. Thank you. Can I see if there any other Tom, I can't tell if you're trying to put your hand up or? Yeah, I was looking first to see if Eric was here at Fitzpatrick. The reason I was looking for Eric is I guess I need a little refresher course just to have a better understanding on what ERPOs do and how they may complement the RFAs in protecting the victims. And oh, there he is. Hey, Eric. Yeah, I could follow up on that with you at a subsequent time represented. I haven't reread that entire chapter just recently, but I can tell you that overall the ERPOs intended to create an ability for a prosecutor to go into court and when a person is demonstrating an extreme risk of harm to themselves or others. And if they've demonstrated that they can show that there's an extreme risk of harm, a person's showing that potential harm to themselves or to other people, then the prosecutor, again, that's different than there's a number of ways that it's different. But one of the ways is who can apply for it. So an ERPO generally applied for by a law enforcement officer. Well, you remember when we went back through the relief from abuse order statute, when we first started looking at H-133, those are household or family members. So you have two different groups of people that could apply for it. And if the prosecutor is able to demonstrate and the court finds that the person who's subject to the order presents a risk of harm to themselves or to others, and they can issue an order to temporarily, at least on a, it's set up similarly to the RFAs in the sense that there's an emergency and a final process. So the emergency order could instruct their firearms to be relinquished for 14 days. And then I think the final order might be up to a year, but I'd want to double check on that. So that's kind of at least the initial sense of how they work. Thank you. Yeah, sure. And I can look into that in more detail. That would be helpful. Yes, please. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Eric. Martin. Martin, we can't hear you. All right. It's good that I left it off mute as I was cussing at the fact that I was muted. So my timing, at least for that, any event. Sorry. Sorry about that. Eric, actually it's a follow-up question for you, Eric. Sorry that you disappeared. Are you still with us? Yep. There you are. So I just want to confirm. If you could, if you could tell me if in fact this is the case as far as a key difference, I know there are a lot of differences between an ERPO and a relief from abuse order. But within a relief, a relief from abuse order, there are two things that have to be proven is my understanding. And that is that there has been abuse, that the defendant has abused the plaintiff, the person bringing the request for relief and that there's a danger of immediate further abuse. And my understanding with an ERPO is there's not a need to show that there has been some abuse. It's really more future looking. Am I reading those two regimes correctly? Or is that something you need to get back to us on? No, I'm pulling it up right now. I think you're correct, but I just want to double check. That's correct. So in the ERPO context, there's no requirement of a showing of past harm. Need to show I'm reading the language from the emergency ERPO at the moment. Have to show that the person poses an imminent and extreme risk of causing harm to himself or herself or another person by purchasing, possessing or receiving a dangerous weapon or having a dangerous weapon within the respondent's custody or control. So it does have to have an affidavit. The affidavit has to show specific facts supporting those allegations, including the imminent danger and any dangerous weapons that are believed to be in the person's possession. Okay. And in 131104, the relief or abuse, the court has to find that the defendant has abused the plaintiff or the plaintiff's children and that there's a finding there is an immediate danger of further abuse. And then there's, you know, the affidavit requirement as well. But I just think that's a pretty critical difference between those two ways of proceeding with relinquishing weapons. So thanks, Eric. Sure. Thank you. Anybody else? Looking for committee? No? Okay. Great. Thank you, Sarah. And thank you, Eric, for chiming in. So we'll now move to David's chair from the Attorney General's office. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, committee for the record, David, share with the Vermont Attorney General's office. First, I just want to state up front that the Attorney General does support this bill for many of the reasons that Sarah Robinson stated already and others have stated. The Attorney General does believe this is a very important safety measure for people who are in dangerous situations and who need the protection of the state and the protection of the courts. And for those reasons and for the reasons that have been elaborated more ably by others in terms of the underlying need for this, the Attorney General does support it. One point I would, well, a number of legal points I'd like to address that hopefully will be helpful for the committee. And then I'm happy to answer questions. With respect to what is lawfully allowed now, I would say that it's important to remember that the intent of this bill is not to change the law. It is to codify the common understanding of what the law is right now. And as Judge Greerson explained, and others have talked about, it is broadly understood that the statutes currently allow this and that the relevant case law and the statutory chapter allow for this to happen now. I will acknowledge plainly that that is not a universal viewpoint. And that goes to the heart of why this bill is important. We want to remove all doubt and to make sure that this is relief that every actor in the system knows quite plainly is available to them, that all judges know that this is available, and that plaintiffs, people who need these relief from abuse orders know that it's available, that advocates who may be helping people know it's available. So the importance of this bill is, even though we believe it's codifying what's currently allowed, we want to make sure that there is no more doubt about that and to ensure that it is available to everybody. A couple points I want to address with respect to burdens of proof. We've heard some discussion around preponderance of the evidence burden, which is the burden right now in ex parte orders versus a clear and convincing evidence burden. I'd point out a couple of things on this. Preponderance of the evidence is the current burden, and it's been the burden for since the statute's been in existence. I'd also note that in the emergency relief process under extreme risk protection orders, when this legislature had a chance to weigh in on the issue of what the burden should be for potential orders for relinquishment of firearms, the legislature chose again to make that a preponderance standard. And it's important to remember that under these emergency orders, this is temporary. There will be another hearing, there has to be another hearing under both this and the extreme risk protection orders, and that is one of the due process safety nets that's in place. I'd also note that under current law, the court has available to it the ability to limit, constrain constitutional rights, specifically First Amendment rights under A1D of the emergency relief order. So it is currently the law and it has been found to be constitutional that that type of constraint on constitutional rights, on rights of freedom of expression, which are explicitly contained in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that is available, that is relief that's available to the court under a preponderance standard, because of the interests that are vital here in protecting people who need protection from individuals who have been found to have abused the plaintiff and who have been found to present immediate danger of further abuse. I'd like to talk a little bit about the both the similarities and the differences between extreme risk protection orders and relief from abuse orders. There are actually a lot of similarities in the sort of due process aspects of these two statutes in with respect especially to emergency orders, but there's very real and essential differences in terms of what relief is available, and I should say I should say more clearly who the relief is available to, and that's another those differences are another reason why this statute is important, why this bill is important. Some of the similarities are as I've actually just gone over them a little bit with respect to both of them have a preponderance standard, both of them are you know we're talking about temporary orders or a court then we'll have to come back and have a hearing, a contested hearing that's not ex parte that does have both parties involved in order to issue a final order that would be that could potentially last much longer, but I also think it's important and so in that way I actually think there's some similarities in the due process protections between these two statutes, both of them you know again the legislature just passed the extremist protection order relatively recently and found that it was reasonable to use a preponderance standard to order relinquishment of firearms on a temporary basis when there was an extreme risk of harm. There are differences though in some ways you could argue that the RFA statute requires greater findings even than the extremist protection order statute because the relief from abuse order statute which we're talking about here does require that there have been an act of abuse already which is not something that is required by the extremist protection order statute and again I know I'm reiterating some of what's been discussed but these were issues of the law that I do think it's important to establish clearly. But I do want to address the really important differences here and I think the single most important difference between these statutes is that the extremist protection order statute is really a mechanism for state actors to get involved when they recognize or are informed of danger and they an extreme danger that somebody might present to another or to others and it allows for state actors specifically state's attorneys or the attorney general's office to file a motion in court requesting the relinquishment of firearms if certain findings are made. That is an important tool we think it's a valuable tool but it does not allow for the immediacy that is needed for people who have suffered abuse and who need protection to go themselves to a courthouse sometimes after hours and get the protection that they need from a court. They you know if you were to try to substitute an extremist protection order you have to go to the attorney general's office have to go to a state's attorney it's not clear how to it's always clear how to reach those people they're not necessarily available after hours or it would be very hard for just any random citizen to access those people if they may not be willing or able to submit a affidavit in time the court may not hear it in time. So this is a really essential tool and it's not a replaceable tool for allowing individuals to access courthouses quickly and engage the power of the state in order to allow them to protect themselves and to have some protection. I think that actually largely summarizes my comments the only other thing I did want to note is Judge Grierson last time we discussed this bill had some ideas about how to streamline the language and make sure that we were not accidentally restricting the power of the courts and we certainly are open to that discussion and happy to entertain amendments that the court might have in respect to that we certainly wouldn't want to unintentionally go backwards in terms of restricting the options that are available to the court so happy when that comes up when that's appropriate to discuss happy to engage with that process as well. Great thank you thank you very much David. Committee members questions? Tom? Yeah a little more refresher I need so David and I think this question is all right for you but so ERPOS talk about dangerous weapons or firearms or both? I'm just pulling it up make sure I'm looking at the right statue here and they talk about dangerous weapons. Okay and what about RFAs? The proposal right now is limited to firearms. Right okay so why would it be different? Well a couple reasons I think that frankly we are legislating on the side of caution here with respect to not broadening this more than you know more than we need to to make sure we're doing what we need to do to protect victims. Another point I would make is that again while courts have broad discretion to issue orders to keep people safe it is true that the case law is less clear on the authority regarding dangerous weapons as opposed to firearms. I don't think that and to be clear my read of the case law is not that a court could not issue an order with respect to keeping somebody you know having somebody relinquish dangerous weapons or not have possession of dangerous weapons I think that they could it's just that aspect of it is left a little bit more open I think by the case law so we're really just being cautious by making this even more limited frankly than the extremist protection order statute. Okay thank you and just one more thing I'm going to guess you misspoke because you said that you were willing to entertain an amendment from the judge and I would say that that's our job. That's correct representative my apologies for that. An amendment along the lines of what the judge was talking about but I obviously it's up to the committee to to entertain anything like that. Right thank you. Thank you Felicia. Thank you just looking real quickly David you just mentioned something that caught my ear with regards to not including weapons including specifically arms you didn't want to broaden further the authority of the bill. It's a little bit in conflict with Sarah's testimony that this strictly codifies which muddies the waters further for me since we've heard varying testimony on whether or not this codifies exactly what is currently accessible under judicial discretion regarding RFAs or whether or not this broadens and codifies a different level of authority with regards to RFAs so if you could just clarify whether or not you think 133 or the position of your office believes that 133 is codifying precisely what is currently practiced or whether or not we are expanding judicial authority here. It's our opinion that this is codifying what is currently lawful for courts to do. We also acknowledge though that the law is necessary in part because that read of the law is not universal. I appreciate that input it is a little jarring to hear different sides of what seems to be the same statement making making alternate claims if I might if we're not going to include weapons as a definition rather than firearms due to trying to keep it narrow then why would we say judicial authority could include weapons if we're not going to codify exactly what the judges have now so it is non-geographic justice as it's been mentioned then then why are we seeing this disparity if we're going to codify practice let's codify practice if we're going to change the law it's changed the law and I think I'm just getting frustrated at hearing side stepping around the same term so I appreciate clarification on that. Sure so to be clear it's not our position that this bill is codifying every option that is available to a court in a temporary relief from abuse order it is codifying specifically what is available with respect to firearms and we're not attempting to capture in this all possible lawful remedies that a court could issue under the temporary relief from abuse order statute so you know that could be a project that the committee may want to engage in but that is not the purpose of the bill as we read it it is codifying one aspect of the authority that is making explicit in statute I should say one aspect of the authority that is available to the court it's not attempting to make explicit all possible aspects of the authority that is available to a court. Thank you sorry I couldn't find my unmute button there I appreciate clarifying that this is a bill targeting firearms I'm not seeing any other hands I'll just give committee members a moment does gruson I see you are just came on did you want to uh respond to something please if the chair would allow I just want to clarify the last issue that was raised but even more importantly back to the earlier question by representative Lefler and that was about gathering this data while I was listening to witnesses I did check with somebody who I feel is on the ground floor with this new case management system and they reported to me that they believe the new system will be able to capture these orders and which orders contain relinquishment of firearms I don't have the details on it but it's certainly under the existing case management system or if you want the legacy system that is has been shut down now so all courts are now either on the odyssey or they're transitioning to odyssey so the old case management system would not provide this detail but I am told that the new case management system should be able to capture this data I don't think it's in place yet I don't know what it would take to put it in place but I'm at least told that that information should be able to be gathered which is different than what I said before which a couple of things though the question came up about weapons and this bill is designed to address the issues relating to relinquishment non-possession of firearms what I have said or tried to say is that we believe most judges believe and as David said it's not unanimous it's in part not unanimous because not all judges respond to me when I send out a when I try to determine where they are on this but a large number by far the majority of judges feel that they have the inherent authority to order relinquishment of firearms that's what the purpose of this bill is is to clarify and codify that we also have inherent authority to issue orders on any number of things and I could not go into a list of all the things that I think we can do but I will say with respect to the issue around weapons I pulled up our the current temporary order expatriate temporary order provides this language once the court is determined that the order should issue there is a specific section that talks about weapons and firearms and it reads as follows until further order of the court or until this order expires it's blank to so-and-so shall hold the following weapons belonging to the defendant next line delivery of the weapons shall be made in the following manner next line it talks about a receipt of firearms so broadly speaking that's what's in that's what's in the order now so by if the committee decides to adopt this bill or some version of it the fact that it refers specifically to firearms doesn't mean that our authority to confiscate other weapons is gone is lost in fact we will still have that inherent authority one of the difficulties is that anything can be a weapon so if if you want to further codify or clarify you can add weapons to this language but it's already in the order and we have the authority to confiscate weapons now so I don't think there's anything necessarily inconsistent between what this bill speaks to in our authority to confiscate either weapons or firearms so I don't know if that answers Representative Blefler's question or not but I'll be glad to it does answer some of my questions I appreciate you're very quick turn around on the data question and your continued input on this bill your honor I surprised myself with the turnaround on the data I really didn't I did not think that that the system could produce that as apparently as it can so I'm glad that I discovered that myself just Madam Chair just a couple other points that came up during other as I listened other witnesses testimony when I'll go back to Will Morris Mr. Morris testimony he talks about the language in the bill that that I face objected to the reference to affidavit and complaint what I was trying to say was that that language is not necessary because we are going to have a complaint in affidavit they will be filed anyway it doesn't have to reference it in the statute for the judge the only thing that the court relies on in an ex parte proceeding is the affidavit of the of the plaintiff and that if an affidavit isn't filed we can't order anything so it's the affidavit that creates the factual basis for any any court's decision it was the feeling of many judges that by just referencing specifically the complaint in affidavit that it somehow restricted them so my suggestion was that we eliminate that part of the language and simplify the bill as it's now written to say that the court can order relinquishment of firearms or non-possession of firearms so it that information will still be available to us there there was also some testimony by number of folks the question is is this going to increase the number of relinquishments or not and I think it was chief work that said you know it's speculative to say that and I would agree with him and the other day when I testified I think my testimony was that I said I two things one I think representative Burdett said he thought it was a mandatory and it is not mandatory the court still with this language has to exercise their discretion in the sense that is there there are there facts before us that warrant a relinquishment of firearms and that is very dependent on what is in the the affidavit and the complaint and as one other witness I believe it was mr. Robinson testified we have a standing uh it's referred to as a family oversight division committee we have standing committees for each division family criminal civil probate and so forth and they periodically review legislation that's coming their way they will make recommendations for the judiciary to propose legislation but we also and it's almost a never-ending process sometimes to continue to review forms we review them for errors we review them to improve the readability for litigants particularly in the family division many of you know many of the litigants the majority litigants are self-represented without benefit of counsel so we're continually looking at these these forms and as one of the witnesses said we are in the process of looking at changing language in the forms to further identify or for the plaintiff to identify whether uh whether there are firearms uh the affidavit now has a general reference to it and these forms will call for information from the plaintiff if they have that if they know that information it's a two really a two-step process for the plaintiff one are they aware of um the existence of firearms um and even if they are aware of them um it's entirely up to the plaintiff whether they disclose that in the affidavits um so when we talk about will the relinquishment of firearms be increased by virtue of adding this language or this the suggestion I've made to simplify it even more um you know it's not I can't imagine that the number of relinquishments ordered that we don't know right now anyway will go down let's start with that there's no reason for it to go down so that means it either stays exactly the same or there could be an increase and so in that sense I'm there could be an increase um but the question really is is that this form the the language putting into this form um causing any increase let's let's assume for the sake of argument for the committee's discussion that there will be an increase just assume that the question is not whether that increase is attributable to adding this language to this bill it may be that the information that is available to the court through these revised forms um will provide more information than the court has so I just think the committee needs to be careful and and I understand the concern from from uh Mr. Moore Mr. Davis and others that have testified um but if there is an increase I don't know how we're going to identify it attributable to this change language um because there there will be changes coming to the form that I think will provide the court with more more information um around this this subject um the last points I want to make um the first witness today Mr. Davis talked about search warrants and I don't want to confuse the issue but I want to again remind the committee it has not been my experience um and and as many of the committee members know I continue to sit in these dockets when I'm not in legislative sessions so that I still sit on criminal dockets relief from abuse dockets so forth it has not been my experience it's a rare experience if a search warrant and a request for relief from abuse were requested at the same time I am not telling you that it can't happen but we have to remember that the relief from abuse process is a civil process number one in and of itself does not provide a basis for a search warrant there may in fact be an underlying criminal charge at the same time it could be a domestic assault it could be something involving a weapon firearm or otherwise that the police are independently in investigating um and therefore they may have information separate and apart from the relief from abuse order that provides a basis for a search warrant so that when they receive the relief from abuse order they may in fact serve a warrant at the same time there's nothing that prevents them from doing that um but it it is they are two separate proceedings um and it although there are sometimes when a um plaintiff will be in a police station seeking a restraining order that doesn't necessarily mean there is police involvement in the underlying circumstances they may be using the police station as a safe place to seek out an order but not necessarily reporting a crime uh having said that I think it's important to understand that there's nothing that prevents the police from getting them assuming they have the evidence that is necessary to seek out a warrant and there's a basis for the warrant separate and apart from the from the restraining order um and I think I'll just I'll just close with this and I think I testified to it the other day when we're talking about the burden of proof and and I understand both from the domestic violence witnesses from law enforcement from from the Mr. Moore, Mr. Davis, Mr. Bradley, the I guess the attention that any time we're involved with gun legislation it creates a certain amount of discussion as we're seeing here but the burden of proof um isn't related to whether or not we take firearms or whether or not we remove somebody from the house or whether or not we give one parent um custody of the children um what we're determining by that preponderance of evidence is whether or not there has been abuse that's what the that's what the burden is the rest of these issues whether it's who gets the house what contact if any is between the plaintiff and the defendant or the defendant and the children uh who gets possession of vehicles what happens with firearms or any other uh weapon are all matters that come within the discretion of the court depending on the particular facts before them so I just think it's important to remember when we're talking about the burden of proof we're not talking about the burden of proof as it relates to whether or not someone should relinquish firearms it's whether or not there's been abuse and the rest of this is the relief that is granted in in an individual case depending on the individual facts before the court so I just thought it was important to clarify at least from my perspective some of the issues that came up today and hopefully I didn't confuse the the issues anymore than there already are but I'm glad to answer questions about any of those topics that would help the committee or committee members sure great now thank you very much um so tom we'll take your question and then I see that we do have commissioner shirling from DPS here and I want to make sure that we can get to him especially since he joined us with very little notice so tom all right judge you did confuse me a little bit so uh no you talked about the forms you're going to revise yes and and and I think I understood you when you said that a new question that's going to be put on there is about firearms in a household yes so if if somebody came in for a relief from abuse or erpo I don't think it would matter which and that wasn't a concern uh if firearms weren't a concern and they weren't brought up is are they given that form to fill out with that question about firearms on it well the affidavit the complete and affidavit are forms so the the information is there but they do not have to fill it out there's nothing that requires them to complete that portion of the affidavit right no I understand that and uh I would hope that that would be explained to the person filling it out that they don't need need to because what's going through my mind is uh to me you know being a layperson it seems to me that it may be skirting on some privacy issues uh when the firearms weren't at this point aren't an issue and but there's questions by uh the the judiciary to me slash government asking for information about firearms and and then once you know that information is had by you know judiciary slash government is the way that I look at it is at the start of a list uh because if there is there is no issue at all while this stuff is being filed then to me there's no business even asking about firearms um if I guess if there was a distinction on there of some kind that if in the initial filing of a rfa or erpo that may be a different situation as far as I'm concerned to be able to ask about the firearms but again just to I'm going to repeat myself but when when firearms are not an issue why are they being asked about well we don't know whether they're an issue or not and right now um the the the current affidavit does have a reference uh to either firearms or weapons I'm trying to track it down right now for you representative bradette but we don't we don't know when anyone calls or really from abuse we have no idea what the information is in our order already provides that we can relinquish order relinquishment or surrender of firearms um in the affidavit and I'll try to as I said track it down um or you already has a reference to it so it's not as if we haven't raised the question before within the affidavit but it's up to the plaintiff whether they want to provide that information or not there's nothing that compels them to do so right I guess I'm a little confused because I thought that the plaintiff had to at some point say that there was uh a fear because of the firearms well well no they don't the the affidavit um and what they complete in the affidavit is entirely in the hands of the plaintiff there may be firearms in the house there may be the defendant may have firearms the plaintiff doesn't have to identify them doesn't have to indicate that right right but that's what I'm saying is if if if the plaintiff files or is looking to get a relief from abuse of some kind or and and to them uh they don't bring up firearms because they don't consider firearms uh they don't feel threatened because of the firearms that somebody is going to use the firearms on them but then they're handling handed a you know uh quotations around it I guess an official document that asks about firearms it again to me that that seems like it's uh it's almost fishing in in looking for a potential problem that uh isn't there because the you know the the victim or defendant or whatever not the defendant the victim doesn't think they're an issue um representative bradette all I can say is if they don't think they're an issue then they're certainly not required to to fill that out right right but I guess my question is why even ask at that point why ask we're trying to if you if you come from the perspective that the purpose of a relief from abuse order assuming that the plaintiff has demonstrated the that there has been abuse or fear of imminent fear of imminent abuse then the question becomes what is necessary for the safety of of the plaintiff and or children involved so firearms certainly are an issue for any court considering this this type of case and that's what I'm saying we grant we grant orders now of surrender even without this language so I guess with that form what kind of instructions are given to the person that's that's filling it out or answering the questions is there any guidance as far as uh very uh I would want it very specific that they they knew exactly what they were filling out and uh that they um again with guidance that they don't have to answer those questions because some people may not may not want to if they had that guidance but being a an official form they may feel compelled that they have to fill it out yeah I you know they the forms are made available to folks they can come to the courthouse and pick up the forms if they're so inclined some of them fill out the forms with the assistance of uh uh advocates of sometimes they're filled out with attorneys assisting them very rarely but it does happen um if there's an ongoing divorce case um and the court provides a personnel after hours but in in providing someone after hours to assist them it's assisting them in the processing of the complaint they're not there to give them uh advice um on on you know the unless questions are asked about the form but they're not there to say here's the form you don't have to fill out certain sections yeah thank you I also think it'd be helpful if we could get a form that might also be helpful if we could if we could see it as we have um had in the uh in the past this committee um I did see the commissioner's hand up uh commissioner I don't know if you are responding to to representative bird it or I was madam chair thank you for the record Mike charlin commissioner of public safety I was just gonna add I think uh judge greerson covered most of it but uh as a risk assessment is taking place um not only for the court but often um these orders uh the the statements and affidavits are filled out at police departments in the presence of law enforcement who then have to serve the orders and the information that's contained there not only helps the court to determine um whether an order should be issued but then if one is issued or if it's not uh it helps law enforcement to safety plan uh with the person who's requesting the order um and it helps uh safety plan for any potential service of an order by the law enforcement agency so there's a variety of reasons why uh knowing whether there are weapons in the house is important it doesn't always go uh to a specific risk of those weapons but it's it's certainly something we would not want to overlook in uh in that initial assessment of uh of the overall um context of uh the request for the order thank you commissioner I can certainly appreciate that so so with that said um you've gone through the whole process uh papers served uh it's uh determined uh you know an extended order or permanent order isn't done what what happens to that information uh it's contained in uh law enforcement databases uh in perpetuity they're not accessible to the public I think you would uh be surprised to learn how much information's in those uh databases around weapons well people people report them stolen um people report you know damage to firearms the people report that firearms have been involved in things so there's a lot of intersection with people's personal information but it is not publicly uh available right no and I can understand and appreciate that I just I just have issues with people giving up uh private uh information I guess you could say uh for no reason and and going into a um again a government database so to speak and I can appreciate the reasons why I mean if something else happened down the road you'd have some information about somebody but um but you have information uh that was collected in my eyes uh for no reason because nothing happened there was no charges or anything that that were filed but anyway that's I have that concern with uh with information and lists so thank you all right thank you so Judge Greer it's okay I'm gonna um stick with the commissioner for now given um given the time and I do see other hands up but commissioner um thank you so much for joining us on such uh short notice uh so I wanted to um hear thoughts on the on the bill I know there's um concerns about storage that have been um expressed and uh so welcome you thank you uh thanks for having me uh I won't reiterate now major Jonas's testimony I think she spoke to the department's position on the bill as uh in a fairly um simple and effective way uh I uh am aware that there were um uh concerns raised around uh storage I think uh Chief Burke and Judge Greerson's assessment that we don't know to what extent uh this would change uh the number of firearms that would require storage there's no way to assess that but if the committee recalls testimony from last year um this ongoing narrative around lack of storage capability for firearms is real for some agencies but I just want to put folks at ease that um that the the state system to back up agencies and offload firearms that are no longer uh no no longer needed to be stored is now functioning um and moreover that we stand ready to assist any agency that has uh a storage overflow problem with creative solutions in the event that uh that issue presents itself so um that should not be something that stands in the way of if it if in your judgment this is a good piece of public policy um storing items should not be something that stands in the way of victim safety okay thank you appreciate that uh Felicia and then Bob thank you um just uh something that kind of popped out at me uh from Representative Brennan's line of questioning you mentioned that all the records that are received regarding gun ownership related to testimony given in F. David's uh for RFAs would not be public it's my understanding that affidavits are public record could you yes correct he was asking about what happens after uh things have passed so the affidavit filed in court would be public the application or the report that if it were to come through a law enforcement agency and important to note that a cross section of things do pass through law enforcement agencies when they're requests for um abuse prevention orders and some go direct to the court some go through advocacy organizations so they don't all come through law enforcement but to the extent to which there is a a document that is created and then the adjudication happens uh the contents of that document in the law enforcement database are not necessarily public okay i appreciate that clarification that law enforcement database not public affidavit still public yes and to be clear the an affidavit of probable cause filed by a law enforcement officer the copy that is in law enforcement's hands is public this is a different um this is a civil process to obtain protection it's a different thing appreciate that uh two more questions for you you mentioned creative solutions to storage um which bears my interest on quality of storage and comes back to who carries the burden of uh damage if there is any humidity damage damage from improper storage just general wear and tear nicks and banks here and there um who currently bears the responsibility um and do you believe that that would transfer as written i can't speak to liability transfer because uh i did not go to law school um i can just speak operationally um having spent uh a few years in burlington where we stored thousands and thousands of firearms uh i cannot recall an instance where there was a damage claim on a firearm um and they were stored in cold storage so not a significant amount of humidity control um you know at one point actually early on in my career they were stored in the basement of an ancillary building and same uh same answer we that just that never became uh an issue if it were ever an issue because the responsibility lie just looking to kind of parse out yeah i mean i can speak to uh whether if it was a case that uh either burlington or uh now the state police at i think that would be um the agency who's got control of that piece of property whether it be a firearm or a piece of electronics or anything else okay thank you very much i've forgot to write down my third question so i might circle back um felicia i think i heard you say something about the storage and this bill liability and this bill could you restate that question please so the commissioner can respond to that sure it was if so the bill could propose that an rfa could order a thorough inquisition of firearms i would presume to the serving law enforcement officer as has been testified my curiosity lied as to who is responsible for any damage or anything we're in from when it leaves the owner's hands to when if it is returned that was the corrects the question and i believe you answered it but it lies with the law enforcement agency the whole possession if that's correct that's correct and uh i i guess i would further clarify that uh or or expound that um in cases where a government is involved everyone gets sued when something gets damaged so it's that ultimately is for the court to decide who bears the liability but everybody's name ends up on the other side of the movie that's a fun take on it if only everyone could afford to sue um and commissioners is my understanding that this bill doesn't change anything currently or does it um again that would be my understanding uh as well representative that this clarifies and codifies existing practice but i would defer to uh judge greerson as the definitive uh source of information on that i was referring to the storage piece of it oh the storage piece yes that uh i don't see a substantive change relative to storage uh as drafted thank you uh bob commissioners thanks for being here uh the question i had i heard you use use the term risk assessment now that's been used in this committee for quite some period here for the past week or so so i can assume for clarification for my purposes when you refer to risk assessment you're talking about a risk assessment for a matrix you may or may not be using upon sending to present or officers back to a particular residence to seize any potential firearms yes uh both the risk assessment for that kind of law enforcement operation as you're uh well aware and also uh we use uh now risk assessments for um domestic violence cases to assess the the level of risk posed to a victim or survivor okay so there's a law enforcement risk assessment not a court risk assessment correct correct there may be i should say there there are instances where the courts use risk assessments as well um i don't know the answer to uh under what circumstances thank you any other questions for the commissioner thank you so much as commissioners is there anything else you'd like to to add at this point i i don't think so um i think i'm good great thank you thank you right thank you very much um so judge greerson i i did cut you off um i don't know if you want to add anything at this point that's all right it gave me time to uh check on the existing affidavit that's used now and the language currently reads um from the affidavit other past incidents of serious violence or threats that support my request for an order include and then there's a space obviously for the person to fill it out but underneath that there is a another clause that says be specific for each incident state when and where it happened who else was there in details about any injuries resulting or weapons used and then they fill it out in a narrative form and then there's another line and again i'm reading from the current affidavit to my knowledge the defendant is or is not in possession of a dangerous weapon and then as i indicated earlier the the order the present form order calls for relinquishment if you will of dangerous weapons and there's a reference to receipt for firearms so essentially what we're doing with this new form is revising the form but it already speaks to who uses the term dangerous weapons and then you have to describe it so great that's all i had great thank you very much and and again my understanding is that the judge works with what he or she has in front of him in that affidavit correct sure yeah and right i mean the judge we do not get involved i mean the affidavits are presented to us and and we don't engage in a discussion with the plaintiff about the the contents of the affidavit and the the the court personnel who are involved in these after-hours calls understand they're not giving legal advice to these folks they're there to assist them in processing the the complaint and the the information right great thank you thank you very much okay anything else before we before we adjourn and go off youtube can you members great all right well thank you i uh thank everybody thank the committee and witnesses and uh we will now adjourn