 Good afternoon and welcome to the Vermont House Judiciary Committee. Our schedule is changed a little bit because we were on the floor for quite a while today. So, we're joined by Erick Patrick, the legislative council. And so he is going to update us on S30. And the Senate proposal of amendment. We will need to decide whether or not to occur with the Senate changes. We won't be making that decision today, but we do need to understand what they did. So good afternoon, Eric, go ahead. Hi, good afternoon, everybody. Eric Fitzpatrick with the office of legislative council here to talk to the committee as the chair said about S30. In particular, the, the change that the Senate made, they concurred with one proposal of amendment, which I can explain to the committee. And as well as where it came from, what the basis is for the proposal. I'm going to pull up the language because the easiest thing is the easiest way to think about it is to actually view the language itself. So I'm going to pull that up. And you may recall that the bill as it as it left the house when it passed the house, it included a provision addressing the default proceed firearm sale you remember that says to do with the with the background check. And the default proceed refers to the provision in the federal background check law that has a three day process under which if a person hasn't gotten a positive response yet or if the the firearms dealer who's conducting the background check has not yet received a positive response from Nick's the national and some criminal background check system. Then they can proceed with the transaction and sell the firearm to the proposed purchaser within after the passing of three business days. So, you know, ordinarily, you know, certainly in the vast majority of cases there is a response very quickly about whether the person is prohibited. You know, because their name may be in one of various databases that Nick's is looking at that would prohibit them from possessing the firearm. But if they're unable to get an answer within those three business days then the dealer. The federal firearms licensee the FFL has the discretion to proceed with the sale doesn't mean they're required to proceed with the sale but they may. And that's what's referred to as a default proceed otherwise known, sometimes as the Charleston loophole, but from a legal perspective, we refer to that as the default proceed. So that's the way that it left I'm looking at the language right now you'll see the change that the Senate made this highlighted the way it left the house was that the default proceed process was amended for purposes of Vermont law by adding the underlying language that you see in sub subsection D here so you remember the idea was a firearm transfer is not going to be able to happen unless if the transfer requires a background check, then there has to be a positive response from Nick's and that's what that language is that says a unique identification number is provided that unique identification identification number is only provided when there's a finding by next that the person is not prohibited from possessing a firearm so in order to get to proceed. There has to be this affirmative finding that the person's not prohibited. And then, but you had some qualifying language at the end provided that and this is the struck language, provided that if the identification number has not been provided for 30 days, then the transfer may proceed. The idea being that I remember under federal others this three day default proceed. And the idea was well that after 30 days, at least for purposes of Vermont law, the transfer may proceed but you remember also you had to think about the interplay between this language and a federal regulation which I'm going to switch to right as under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations, which I just switched to. And you'll see, I'm going to move down to and see you see that it refers to what we've just been talking about there's that. Sorry, was somebody had a question. Yeah, are you trying to share your screen because we don't have the shared screen right now. Oh, you don't know. I'm going to go back to zoom. I thought I had that. Well, that's important so you didn't see the language that I just went through. I think we're fine we all have a copy of the hard copy of us 30 so we probably have that. Oh, that's good at least. All right, let's see if this works. Are you seeing it now. Yes. Oh, thank you. So, having said that about the 30 days that provision that had been added in the house version. You'll see there's this ATF regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations and that provides you know the discussion that you see right there is just what we've just been talking about that. And you'll see subdivision to in order for the firearm transaction to proceed next that's to tell the licensee that there's the proposed person buying it wouldn't be in violation. If they possess it, or there's your default proceed Roman numeral to right there, or three, three days business days have passed from the time that they were contacted so that's an option for the transaction to proceed that's the default proceed, but then go down to subsection C time limitation on next checks. So this regulation provides a next check conducted in accordance with paragraph a maybe you're on by the licensee only for use in a single transaction and for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days from when Nick's was initially contact. The transaction is not completed within the 30 day period, licensee shall initiate a new next check prior to completion of the transfer so remember the committee discussed this, and upon more detailed examination and then they came to the conclusion that the language of the proposal that highlighted language. You know I think it was consistent with what was said in in this committee that the idea was to close the default proceed completely so that, you know if you think about how that would work so the language says well the identification number has not provided with within 30 days then the transfer may proceed. But remember the federal regulation you just looked at says that if you don't get one within 30 days then you have to start over. So in other words, as a practical consequence of the interplay of those two things. That would mean that the transaction would not occur until after there was a positive response received from next because if they haven't provided a response within 30 days, even though according to the language in s 30 the transfer may proceed, it actually wouldn't be able to proceed because under the federal regulation it would have to start over. And that would continue to happen until the person was able to get a positive response from next that you know they weren't prohibited from possessing a fire. So the Senate decided, rather than have that interplay, you know what's had the exact same result but have the language be clear. So, they just struck that 30 day reference completely because I think it was Senator white who mentioned that, saying that if the identification number has not been provided within 30 days, then the transfer may proceed. That's, you know, ambiguous, because as a, that may be true as a matter of state law if this bill passed then the transfer may proceed under state law, but technically it couldn't proceed because of that federal regulation with this look that wouldn't be able to go ahead until they got a positive response so they said purposes of clarity we're going to strike that completely. And that way, the language would read, I think, effectively doing the same thing that it did when it passed the house, but just more directly just state that the transfer can proceed until the licensed dealer gets a unique identification number from Nick's, and in other words if Nick's doesn't produce a, a positive response that the person is not prohibited from possessing a firearm, then the transfer cannot go forward. It's been the same effect under the language as it passed the house. It's just clarifying that. So that's the, the only change that the Senate proposed to ask 30 otherwise it concurred with with all the other additional pieces that the house added. I could pull down my screen now that would be helpful. Any questions anybody wanted me to see the federal language again. Okay. I guess my question is, do we hear from Tim. Tim is a Tim me and Chris rally did they weigh in on this at all. You mean in this in the Senate side. Yes, on this on this particular change right here today weigh in on this. I think, yes, I think they were proposed, sorry, opposed. I don't want to put words in their mouth but I'd say at least with respect to Chris, they were, they were opposed to this section generally, either with or without the change. I think. I think that's accurate. Thanks, sir. Yes. So Eric, if we didn't make the change. I mean, obviously the Senate could, I get those sort of mechanics but let's say the Senate concurred. What exactly do you think would possibly lead to a consequence of it being ambiguous. Would it go to court with somebody's gun sale not go through because it got canceled on the morning of the 30th day, and we had in mind the night on the 30th day or. I think yeah, it could absolutely be litigated because of the ambiguity probably would be surprised if it didn't end up in court at some point to try and figure out what, whether that meant. Whether that phrase, you know, the transaction may proceed, what it must have meant in light of the federal regulation saying it can't. So, yeah, I think that that's probably one of the results that would happen. Thank you. Any other questions for Eric. We're not going to vote on this today. I believe we'll have to report on Thursday is unnoticed today but I'm going to ask for just to delay one legislative day and then so it is either tomorrow or I think that's that's it. Great. Well, thank you Eric so let you go early. I don't think 10 minutes. Certainly not enough time to do a walkthrough so we're going to see if we can get you maybe tomorrow morning or maybe for all the witnesses or something to do a walkthrough of the other bill. Either way, I mean we could start and obviously you're right we wouldn't finish the walkthrough but could start now for a few minutes or put it off till the morning, you know, either whatever works better for for you guys. I mean, if, if doing it for eight minutes is I, if that if that makes sense in terms of you walking through sure I just I'm not familiar enough with sort of the flow of it as to whether or not be a good idea but Oh, yeah, I mean it maybe it wouldn't hurt I suppose to sort of give the committee the flavor of it. Give a big picture of what it's attempting to do and then and then in an actual walkthrough you can do it section by section. Yeah, sure. Yep. Okay, so it is a age for 75. And this is part of the reclassification as you know with property crimes. And being a drug crimes, and these are criminal offenses. That's right if offenses against the person, you know, a bodily harm those sorts of offenses. And I think, as you said I'm sure that in this, because you've already been working with h505 you're sort of a little bit more up to speed on the on the topic that maybe you would have been if we were starting fresh with age for 75 but it's all part and parcel of the bigger picture initiative to establish this criminal classification system. I remember last year. This committee passed and the house passed 87, which was the first bill that started the criminal classification initiative or at least the first bill. During this biennium I remember correctly I think it passed in the previous biennium as well at least at least partially, and it's an outgrowth of the work of legislation that has passed this committee over the years which work that the Sentencing Commission has been has been conducting for several years now to to try and make the criminal laws in the state more consistent through not only internally consistent with themselves but consistent statewide in terms of sentencing consistency and other policies of that nature. The idea being to ultimately have a type of criminal code that the majority of states to have, which right now, each offense in Vermont criminal law, particularly states, its own amount of jail time it's own fine and states it right within the within the offense itself, whereas the majority of states have a uniform code so that you use like for example which we have in H 475 which you looked at in 505 and past last year in H 87 you know class a through e felonies class a through e misdemeanors, as well as a through e. And each a each sub each a through e category has an associated amount of jail time and a maximum amount of jail time and a maximum fine. It's unless there's no fine which it could be or no jail time which is also a possibility depending on the category. The point is that you would then have all the criminal provisions in law, instead of saying, you know, a person who violates this section shall be imprisoned not more than two years and find that more than $1000. It would say a person who violates, you know this section commits a, you know, class the misdemeanor, whatever it may be. So you have the penalties are listed elsewhere in statute. And ideally, it provides a way to compare penalties more readily to make sure that you have an idea before and we'll have, you know, how much what's the culpability with the severity of this sort of offense so what makes sense for the type of category to fit it into and you can compare to other offenses that are in that category think about whether it makes sense, as opposed to, you know, it having been done more. Have haphazardly is the wrong word but it was just done more individually over the years without that sort of a code and there was less of an ability to sort of comparatively think about. And of course we always made that effort and try and find it some other similar offenses when you're thinking about what an appropriate penalty would be for a new crime, for example, but it's certainly not as easily done as it would be as if you had this structure in place. So that's the idea of establishing, I think, and there's more to it than that which I think for example long can talk about being on the sentencing commission himself but that's part of part of what's driving this I think, and you passed H87 last year which established these categories that I just mentioned, the felony categories a through D the misdemeanor categories a three, and as well as establishing the categories ha seven last year, took all the property crimes, and put them into each one of those categories. So, you know, whether it was larceny embezzlement, those sorts of things, you know, computer fraud, all kinds of fraud, anything that was a property crime. And that's sort of may indicate that the way the sentencing commission has been going about this, because there's so many criminal fences on the books. And I think kind of remember the count we added it was somewhere. I'm blanking whether it was 700 or 900. I think I'm leaning toward 900 but I can't recall exactly. But it's a lot. And the rather than try and bite them off all at once in one. And still, I think what the, what the idea is is the sentence and commission has been trying to approach it by topic. So, last year you did. And sense and commission put forward a proposal for property crimes. And that's what passed the house last year and that's still down and it's on the wall and Senate Judiciary right now as H87. And what H475 does is it takes on a couple of other topics, or sorry, also H505, which you've already been looking at, that's takes those are the topic of drug offenses. So that was taking drug offenses and fitting those into the categories, the classifications. And now H475 takes offenses against the person assault battery offenses against the crimes of violence against the person and puts those into the classification system. I should add something that I missed that should have been in here is sexual offenses as well. And if not in the draft of H475 as introduced so those will be added there is a proposal from the sentencing commission to cover those offenses as well. But those have not yet been integrated into H475 so so that I will do next so that would be part of a probably part of a committee amendment. So what you have in front of you covers however all offenses against the person originally had the drug offenses as well, but those were taken out, because they were being dealt separately in H505 which I understand the committee's been working on quite a bit. So that's kind of the background of what's going to be in there and why it's all set up the way it is. Great. Thank you that was actually very helpful. Yeah. Okay, well, again, I'm looking at the time and I, I know you have a hard stuff so. So I'm going to ask folks to write down their questions if they have any. When we see our tomorrow so we can let him. We can let him go. Thank you. Hey, thank you. Thanks. Thanks for being flexible with this gathering this afternoon I appreciate it. Thanks. All right. Bye everybody thanks. Thank you. Yeah, we should. Yeah, let's keep going. So, private testimony on this tomorrow and kind of see if we can get everything maybe. I think we have more time and we need it nine o'clock tomorrow morning so maybe Eric can do the walkthrough at some point but but actually that is every was great. We read the bill. We'll see having done 87 and 505 that it makes sense. Yes. I will get to amber the recommendations from the sentencing commission that led to these so that they'll be posted under my name on this bill. Okay, great. And then even me and has submitted testimony. I think he's going to be testifying tomorrow but he also submitted. I think out there. Amber. Oh, okay. Thank you for correction. So actually, I'm not sure it will be. Discussing evidence written submissions. It is evidence still going to be on on the screen with us at all. Okay, thanks. So, yes. And then the security update will be scheduled for next. Jesus doing probably doing most. And then I know it's been a long day. Let's just take a few minutes, like to get a sort of weather report on age 631 and actually relating to raising the age of eligible to marry. Because we have a number of us together. I've been coached time didn't need to leave. Generally, again, we're not voting today, but generally our folks. Okay, with it, not okay. You like we've had enough testimony before. We've only heard from one group of people right. Well, I heard from credit to you people I know that Barbara has reached out to some organizations that we weren't sure but we did try to think who might be opposed to this. And so Barbara did reach out to some organizations and I believe has not heard back or shaking her she has not heard back. There's no groups out there that opposed to this at all. Not that we've not that we've heard. Thank you. I think they mean I continue to have questions about whether there may be some unintended consequences but I think those questions were really heavily in the remote women's commission when they looked at this and they tried to they reach out to a number of groups by the identify folks who might be opposed to it and also I think failed to turn up. So that's a late summer my questions like. We're not thinking out there. As I've asked questions about it, that's what I've understood is that there was a pretty thorough vetting of it in the women's commission and knowing came forward in opposition. Okay, it could be useful camera carry test or not because I had missed some of the first introduction of the bill but it might be. Now I'm thinking I'm a valuable witness. But we may have to check we may have a testimony but I will help check and if she has not, then yeah thank you. I will reach out to her. Thank you. Yeah, I think my only persuasion at this point is you haven't heard any opposition and whether it's that because there isn't any or there isn't any coming forward. But I think there's, there's more than a compelling argument to really consider the change. And I kind of get the same thinking into my commission and then their work on this and looking for the unintended consequences. Any. So far, I definitely want to hear if there's anybody else on the bill that we should be hearing from and considerations we should be taking but the initiative has a nice forward. Thank you. Yeah, and yeah I'll say yeah I shared the concerns already expressed with unintended consequences because it seems so. This was a learning experience or there were unexpected things in other states, but I feel like you know we're not the first to look into this I feel like we can sort of build off what's been done before. I feel comfortable with the idea of the mobile or the bill moving forward at this point I certainly could support it I feel like, you know, the, it's been looked at very thoroughly. I feel like we've got a good handle on what the potential outcomes would be. There's a very strong support from it from the group who's involved, and you know, and as been mentioned we haven't heard from people who are opposed and are they out there maybe. But I have to perfectly admit we, we heard testimony that the vast majority of these instances of child marriage are, you know, girls, you know, teenage girls marrying adult men. And honestly, I don't give her some, you know, adult dude that wants to come in and argue for his right to marry a 16 year old. I'm not certain I need to hear his point of view. Period. That's a question at the risk of like going down the rabbit hole of hypotheticals. Yeah. So here's the old medical that comes to mind. Let's say you have a young person under the age of 18, let's say a 17 year old who is with another 17 year old and has a child. I'm just going to go down the sort of hypotheticals for a moment. So we know that in our current system marriage provides financial incentive in our tax structure and whatnot. Often young people having children are in financially vulnerable. And so I'm just wondering, is there a hypothetical scenario involving young people. They might have a family unit and not have access to marriage that would provide them with certain financial securities that others would never know marriage to save you money. If they would, they would want access, they would want a parent to find for them to marry, they would have access to the law that we're thinking that. Yeah, like if they, if they would want to be married, my understanding is they would, they would not be allowed to be under this law. Yeah, I don't like that. If I can have that better on for a second. Is there more potential harm in letting them marry early when there is financial harm and not letting them marry. I think we're going to weigh that out in the hypothetical and then is there a remedy to that that doesn't involve some of the methods of time manipulation or abuse that we put testimony on. I respectfully don't think that parents should consent for children in that situation. I think that leads to really gross situations which we put testimony about. We used to have in Vermont law that we put testimony that was a judge permitting the marriage. Right, probate court. Yeah, that we were appealed. Yeah, Michelle did discuss that with us. I'm not wildly comfortable is it like in that situation, you could say with prevailing circumstances. It could appeal to a court. So they have an avenue but it's, it's between like the court representing the state's interest and protecting youth and the youth themselves and parents may not apply to that situation. Yeah, I think it would have to be like between two youth. If the judge it gets below the age of majority, just because there is such avenue for misuse of of that, I think we've heard that makes me nervous but I want to like presenting a hypothetical I wanted to present a hypothetical solution. And mine is what you can ask Michelle. Any legislative histories to why once repeal why the, why the ability to go to a judge to marry was taken out. That would be helpful. Yeah, and I'm not necessarily advocating for anything in particular I think it just comes to mind for me. Thank you. And I'm looking at Kerry Brown if she. But any. Anything else. So have we specifically heard from the commission on women. equity. Yes, I'm January 28. That's right. Oh yeah, she actually she's just a really great tool. equity impact assessment tool. So, did she testify or not in person she that's that's not really. Is that saying that they support this or not. I would refresh my memory. Yeah. They definitely worked on, on the concept a bunch I know. Okay. They did give testimony in the women's progress in support of the bill and give me really good data points I might be completing testimony here with testimony received. I'll start. I apologize if I. No, I see this is also, yeah. Thank you. Yeah, so, um, we should take a look at this quite, quite detailed. All right, well, I can get in touch with Michelle and see if she can answer that question. Take it from there. Anybody else before we turn. All right, well thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you.