 Good morning. This is Wednesday, January 27th, 2021, Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. Our first item on the agenda today is S-30 and act relating to prohibited possession of firearms, childcare facilities, hospitals, and certain buildings. I have a number of witnesses scheduled and we can continue somewhat of a focus on what are some of the other laws that impact people carrying in places where there's signs that clearly say you're not supposed to hear. So with that, we'll continue with Chris Bradley, who we left off with last week on this subject. Chris represents the Mont Federationist Fortune Post. Chris, welcome again. Thank you very much, Senator Sears. My name is Chris Bradley. I'm the president and executive director of the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs. We represent approximately 60 clubs across the state of Vermont with approximately 11,000 members not counting their families. To review, I think I started off my testimony last week detailing some of the statutes already on the books having to do with a large number of the concerns that were expressed in Wednesday's testimony having to do with threatening or untoward behavior. Interestingly, I didn't hear from any of those individuals that specifically indicated that firearms in any location was a problem. It seemed to me that there was more threatening involved both verbally as well as on social media and the like. So I guess to review, I believe I listed something like eight statutes previously. I'd like to add another two to that. I believe there's 10 that in some way address that. However, and all of those or most of those have some consideration for intent or knowing. So there has to be some intent or knowing involved. I believe I also relayed the fact that Vermont is one of the second safest state in the nation and that what we're trying to do apparently is to make Vermont even safer. So I guess we have a slew of laws already on the books but what I understand with S30 is that we now apparently need a law to address the act of carrying a firearm in let's call it an unusual location. I'd like to start by suggesting that the group I represent is incredibly cognizant of the firearms that they own and how those firearms may be interpreted while being carried by others. I believe the vast majority of the people I represent would never consider walking in to one of these facilities openly carrying at all. I certainly wouldn't. And I guess, you know, while we're talking about this large government operations, I've served on a Norfield Select Board and as a select man, you get put into situations where you have to enforce zoning where certain people in town may have property taken away. I have been in a situation numerous times where I felt threatened and was threatened. And fortunately, Vermont allows me to take precautions against that. I myself, in considering S30, we don't believe that there's really any evidence that such a bill is needed. Furthermore, I think we heard in testimony on Wednesday that there wasn't any evidence that such prohibitions even exist. I guess I would like to understand the intent of S30 is to provide a mechanism that would allow a firearm to be removed from a location where it was not desired to be. And at the end of the testimony, I raised VSA 13, VSA 3705. And I have now supplied a document to you of pictures that I took around central Vermont of locations that have various signs. I started with Maple Woods with the no shirts signage. I then went to the pavilion. That seems to have a sign present. Obviously the state house has a sign present. And then I went to central Vermont hospital. And within five feet of each other, there are two signs, as you can see in the document that say no firearms and even more expensively, no weapons. I submit to you today that the force of law behind every one of those signs is 3705. Senator Sears, with your permission, I ended by asking Eric Fitzpatrick a question concerning 3705. And I was wondering if he could speak to clarifying my question. That would be highly unusual for me to ask. But I do wanna, once you're finished with your testimony, I would like to ask Eric questions about what kind of current laws are available. So I would rather do it that way. The same way, but rather than having a witness ask led council a question. I think it's more appropriate. That's one of my major questions. What else is available to try to prevent people where it's signed and I could be the price chopper down in my neighborhood too. It puts up a sign and says you're not allowed to carry weapons in the store. I thank you for your guidance, Senator. And I'll continue. I guess the statement was repeatedly made in testimony on Wednesday. And correct me if I'm wrong, that there is no law on the books today that would address having a firearm in a location where it was not wanted. And I have to suggest and we'll see clarification later. I believe that there is a law. I believe it's in use today. And in fact, it's far more expansive than what's being called for in S30. I believe the criteria that was sought for was we wanted a criminal violation. Couldn't be civil, it had to be criminal. 3705 is a criminal violation and it provides the same. If you, I'm a computer systems guy. When I look at developing a process, I go through a flow chart to say how does a process work? And when I flow chart how S30 would work in terms of enforcement, it's an identical flow chart to the same enforcement that would be behind 3705. So I guess I need to just clarify the statement that if there is a law in the books today that addresses having a firearm in a prohibited location and it can be dealt with today. So as far as dropping down into the weeds, as far as parking lots and other weapons and knowing and intent, I have to ask, why do we need a completely redundant bill that the only difference between 3705 and what is proposed in S30 is its penalty phase. I believe 3705 calls for three months and or $500 fine. I believe it hasn't been changed since 2013 and it may be appropriate to up the penalties related to that statute as a suggestion. I had really hoped to approach my testimony today as a discussion to discuss with this deliberative body the need for a completely redundant bill when we already have the capability, in fact, more expansive capability. According to 3705, it's a property rights issue. Someone can make the statement that they don't want a firearm on their property or a business can do that. And in fact, there's a consumer aspect to this that if you have such a sign up, people can make informed decisions as to whether they want to go to that location or not. It becomes a property rights issue and it's under that umbrella, I virtually have nothing to say. Under a gun bill that clearly is intended to be expansive and to be expanded when we already have this coverage, I'm really having a difficult time understanding this. I guess I don't want to continue belaboring this point. I'm more than happy to drop into the weeds, if you will, on all the issues that we see with this bill. I just don't see why we need to go to this effort. But by the same token, wouldn't we, we did pass laws regarding schools. Yes, sir. We did pass laws regarding courts. Yes, sir. So somebody found that necessary. I was here when we did all the schools in it. I may not have been here when we did the courts. I can't remember, but I know I was here during the schools. I remember dealing with your group and other groups at the time who were concerned about parking lots, things like that. The same questions that come up here. But we evidently decided we needed those laws then. If I could see this as an extension, I understand your argument. I don't mean to interrupt, Senator. Yeah. With schools, with airports, with courts, a significant investment has been made to provide equipment and personnel to enforce that. Have any of us tried to go to a school recently and actually gain access? It has become exceedingly difficult, courts. I can enter a court without concern because I am being screened by equipment. I know there's a uniformed law enforcement there to enforce that nobody should be acting in an untoward fashion. And the same is true with airports. The fact is that you can see a firearm in an airport. I've flown by checking a firearm in an airport. The real concern here, Senator, is that it's either we're going to get serious and protect our people by taking the steps necessary to ensure that protection. And in fact, I can even point at one state that basically says if you do disarm an individual that has a right to self-defense, that the location takes on the responsibility for their safety. So I look at this and say, yes, schools were an issue. I have to say, however, that I think we've seen that schools have become targets, Columbine, Parkland, possibly Fairhaven. These are situations where a piece of paper has been put up to say, you can't do this. And we heard in testimony that those prohibitions don't work. There's no evidence that they work. Yet here we have 3705 that clearly shows if someone is in a place where they shouldn't, let's be candid. In order for any of these things to work, law enforcement has to be present, correct? So if law enforcement has to be present, either they're already, because we've invested that money to have them there or someone is going to have to make a call to have them come. Well, I answered that incorrectly. Law enforcement doesn't have to be present at a school. Law enforcement doesn't have to be present at a courtroom. In Bennington, law enforcement is there when you go through the metal detector. You're muted. Oops. I'm asking Senator Baruch to take over for a minute. Absolutely. Please go ahead, Chris. I guess we were in discussion concerning the presence of law enforcement to actually enforce some of these things. With schools, you can enter a school these days and just walk in. They're very protected structures. You have to sign in, you have to go through a vestibule, you get your picture taken. It's quite a secure environment. Most office buildings are not that way. And again, I don't want to get down in the weeds because some of the issues concerning buildings and essential government functions. For example, Northfield has its food shelf located in the fire department, municipal town garage. We have a clothing shelf in another municipal building. We have grave concerns over exactly when a building is and isn't providing an essential government service. So again, we come back to the fact that if your intent, Senator, is to have a law in the books that will allow for the removal of a firearm from a location where it's not desired. And frankly, I think I've demonstrated even at Central Vermont Hospital today, some rule of law is behind those signs. And I further think that those hospitals have some security presence if I'm not mistaken. So again, I maintain that in order for these to have some effects, you have to have law enforcement present. And that law enforcement can be present via 3705 as easily as he could under how S30 would work. And I think the chair before he got off was responding in one way. And I know Eric Fitzpatrick will respond. The chair wants him to respond a little later. Do you have other points you'd like to make? At this point, as previously stated, I do have a list of concerns that I will be providing for the testimony. But frankly, for the sake of brevity and realizing that I was only going to have about 20 minutes of your precious time, I felt I should take the high road and ask the really pertinent questions about why S30 in relation to 3705. And at that, I will end my testimony. Okay, and I- Any other questions? I'll ask that in a second. I think it's a fair enough set of questions you pose. If in fact there are other laws that do what S30 purports to do, then I would say that's a strong argument for not passing it. So we'll hear, as I said from Eric Fitzpatrick. Questions for Chris Bradley. Senator Benning. Chris, I'm kind of curious, 3705. I think there's going to be some pushback on your contention, because nobody's ever tried it before that I'm aware of. But let me just think about this a second. Are you saying that if 3705 had teeth given to it, which would clearly make it a notice against trespass, if in fact somebody had a sign up out front that said, no guns, does that satisfy your concern? Let me try to rephrase it, because I'm only thinking about this for the first time. Your argument is that 3705, is a way of saying you've already got a law in the books. That's never been tested in the courts that I'm aware of. I understand where you're going with it logically. But if the legislature was to say officially with an amendment to 3705, that violation of any sign that said no weapons allowed would automatically constitute a notice against trespass and therefore would be subjecting the individual who violates it to a liability of some kind. Is that something that you would be comfortable with? Generally speaking, yes, Senator. And I guess I come back to look at central Vermont hospital, those two signs are in five feet of each other, every main entrance to central Vermont hospital today. And after making a couple of the calls, I believe that most I can't claim all because I didn't make all those calls, but all major hospitals in Vermont have these signs. What is the rule of law behind those signs? Normally I would be looking at this from the perspective of it's a constitutional right. I have the ability to defend myself. An impingement upon that has to be justified. What I heard from some prior witnesses left me very uncomfortable when they said somebody in a given setting should have the right to feel comfortable. To me, that's no excuse for impinging upon a constitutional right. But it seems to me there may be some reason to think about it here. If you're saying that 3705 should be the vehicle to enable a given entity to say no weapons are allowed here. If we change 3705 to make it very clear that there is a sign out front. If it says no weapons and you go in, you are now violating a notice against trespass and then put whatever penalty attached to it is a sign out front. And then put whatever penalty attached to it is desired. I'm only thinking this through in my head for the first time. I don't know where to go with it other than I ask if you're comfortable with that. I'm pleased that that seat has been planted, Senator. I guess as I came back to it, it still would require some law enforcement presence to address this person. And I think that's the difference between say, you're supposed to have a shirt on. And if you don't put a shirt on, I'm going to ask you to leave. That's the typical scenario of the 3705 use. I believe if the person doesn't leave law enforcement is called. Law enforcement can go address that person and handle it. So I guess I'm seeing. The identity. And frankly, sir, I don't want to get into the one. Boy. There's open carry senator and there's concealed carry. The two distinctly different. And I am not going to suggest that. A constitutional challenge about concealed carry. Couldn't be raised. Concerning this. But we have certainly tread upon constitutional issues. And I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. But we have certainly tread upon constitutional issues before. And opted to let the courts decide. I just want to let you know, I've been in criminal law now for 37 years. I have never heard of anybody being prosecuted for not wearing a shirt at the local market. And we're told that they couldn't come in for whatever reason. I'm not sure a prosecution or removal, sir. I believe you will find any number of situations where people are removed. I, I'm going to jump. I think. I think it's clear to me. That the folks that you represent Chris. Feel that this is an infringement on their constitutional rights. This proposed bill. And I guess my question falls back as I was starting to ask is. Why is it any different in a school? And your response was it's more difficult to get into schools today. That's for sure. But I'm concerned about hospitals. I really am. That's my basic place. We have. I think it's similar to schools. In hospitals usually have security. I don't know of any that have metal detectors or anything like that, but there are clearly signs regarding weapons. There's also signs regarding tobacco. And we've had cases in other states where doctors have been injured. We've had in this state hospitals where guns have been pulled on doctors to try to get. So that's, that's, I think it's a, um, a growing concern. And the more we ask hospitals to hand in particularly emergency rooms to handle everything from, you know, a potential heart attack to a psychiatric episode. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. All the more dangerous for staff and workers there. I'm particularly trying to understand the opposition on the office. I can understand concerns about. Certain government buildings. Did you respond to that? And then a Senator White has a comment. My response is a simple, Senator. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Because I think that the people who we need to take the investment needed to enforce what we need, what we're looking to do. Creating a piece of paper that says you can't go in here and do this or else is significantly different than investing in protecting, say our state employees. And their lines. By actually. Combining the equipment. And the personnel necessary to protect that. have not touched upon before. And that is the fact that it's my understanding that there are legislators that are armed today and that they go about their business at the state house armed, whether we want to acknowledge that or not. The fact of the matter is, I'm not sure, and I guess I'd be curious, do any of you have a problem with any of your fellow legislators having the means to defend themselves and possibly you in the event of something bad? I think I would ask the question in the opposite manner. Okay. In the heat of an argument, do I have a problem with a particular legislator having the ability to act on that with a firearm or other weapon? I think I've heard stories over the years, I'm not going to repeat those stories, but in heated arguments where two people across the table in a committee room in the house both are years ago. Yeah, I don't know about, this whole argument, I'm not going to get into this argument today, Chris. I don't want to, I've got to tell you, I'm going to continue to listen to the testimony, but I'm not going to get into an argument that's basically, well, you may or may not be. I've told you my feelings about this, I'm particularly concerned about hospitals and the volatility within those hospitals. Do I think legislators should be armed in the Capitol? No, not only have a police force that we're spending good money on, we're going to hear from the Capitol Police shortly. So no, I know I can't think of anything more tragic than a legislator getting up, feeling threatened or something and pulling a gun on a witness like yourself, who we told you can't be armed. I guess Senator, you hit a key point. It must be nice to have guards. Yeah, it's wonderful. Well, the rest of us don't, and there are those guards. Okay, Chris, I have too much respect for you to get into this pissing. Oh, thank you. No, we are. We are. We're getting into this pissing contest and I'm not interested in that today. I apologize. We'll all do respect for us. That's what we're setting on. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Senator White. No, I think I'll leave my comments to do our committee discussion because I'm having some real, I realize I'm a co-sponsor on this bill, but I'm having very serious concerns about the criminal aspect of it. And I guess what I was going to say was that we did make it a criminal offense to have a gun at schools and in the courthouse. And maybe it shouldn't have been a criminal offense then. I don't know. But I have, I'm beginning to have serious concerns about creating criminal records for people. So that's, but so I will just leave my, because I don't really have a question. I will have some questions for Eric. I don't see Senator Sears, Senator Bruce. At this point, nothing further to say. Thanks, Chris. Eric Davis. Senator Sears, oops, he's not... He is back. Senator Sears, I called Eric Davis, if that's all right. No, that's fine. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Davis. Sorry, I had Marley problems. Okay. Is there a... Good morning, senators. My name is Eric Davis. I am the president of Gunners of Vermont. We are an all-volunteer non-profit advocacy group dedicated to the preservation of right-keeping bear arms. I would like to thank the committee for letting me speak on this bill today. I have never been in front of, said it judiciary before, so I'm a little bit nervous and I apologize in advance if I stumble over my words a little bit. You know, try to bear with me here. I kind of see... Welcome, Eric. And I'm Dick Sears, the chair since you've never been before us before. Senator Baruth is the vice chair. Senator Nick Gears, our clerk. Senator Benning and Senator White are long-term members of the committee and welcome to Senate Judiciary. It's nice to have you. Excellent, thank you. And please don't be nervous. We all... We all... That's all. I'll do better once I get going here. I kind of see my job is trying to represent the view of our membership and kind of how we see this, you know, sort of legislation and give our perspective on it. And, you know, whenever we're looking at gun legislation, obviously we're going to look at it, you know, through the lens of how it relates to the right to keeping bear arms under Article 16 and the Second Amendment. But in addition to the issue of constitutionality, we also try to analyze things from a position of, you know, practicality and pragmatism. And that's sort of what I want to focus on today. When we take a look at anything like this, we generally kind of like to apply a sort of cost-benefit ratio style of analysis to, you know, to these proposed restrictions, where we weigh the cost of the restrictions on our right to keeping bear arms against the potential benefit of this law to ourselves and our communities. This leads us to ask several questions. The first and most obvious question is, what are the potential benefits of this law? Or more directly, will this proposed law keep people safe? And I think we've already been into this a little bit. And Senator Maruth has stated that, you know, the intent of this bill is not so much to prevent the gun from being brought into these locations as it is to provide a mechanism or a vehicle for the property owners to have it removed from the premises, if you will. If I could just interject there, since you're characterizing my views, I would regard the bill as having two major functions. One is keeping the guns out of a building, and another is allowing someone to be removed if they enter the building with a gun. So I think I might have at some time have indicated that one in a certain situation was what I was concerned with, but the bill has both at heart. Certainly. Okay. I apologize if I misunderstand. Yeah, no problem. So, you know, on that note, so there's, you know, the two goals of preventing the firearm and then providing a mechanism to, you know, remove the gun and, you know, assess a criminal punishment to the person that brought it in here. So that leads us to, you know, a few more questions. And, you know, we like to stop and consider what exactly sort of folks it is that might bring a gun into these places in question. And the way we see it, there are two different types of people who would carry a firearm in these places. And the first type of person that we'll refer to as the type A person just for the purposes of our analysis here is the person who carries a firearm most often concealed for their own protection. This person takes the security of themselves and their family very seriously. And this is the kind of person that wouldn't threaten anyone with their gun. You would probably not even know this person had a gun, but they are ready to defend themselves if necessary. The second type of person or the type B person in this analysis is the person who carries a weapon for nefarious purposes and with malicious intent. This person is the aggressor and the one who would be intent on doing harm. If we've already determined that the law will be largely ineffective in deterring the type B person, those who carry a weapon aggressively and with the intent of doing harm, we have to assume that any direct benefit to come from this bill has to be achieved by how it affects the type A person or the person that carries lawfully for self-defense. If we look at a little closer at our type A person who carries for self-defense, we see there's all different subgroups of people who carry a gun. The people who carry for protection, they're all around you. They're your neighbors, they're your friends, they're your coworkers, they're store clerks, volunteer first responders, lawyers, tradespeople, business people, all sorts of different folks. They're young parents, they're single mothers, some of them are older retirees and disabled veterans. And there are a lot of these folks out there. To put this in context, I like to look at a few different numbers that helps quantify just how many folks there are out there who might carry a gun for personal protection. Reports vary. However, the estimates of the total number of firearms in the United States is currently between 350 and 400 million depending on which study you use. The FBI conducted a total of 39.6 million background checks through the NCIS database in 2020 alone. Almost 40 million background checks just in 2020. Now, there's no official numbers to track how many of these were first time gun buyers. However, several surveys and publications that we've dug up estimate the number of new gun owners in 2020 to be somewhere between 10 and 20 million and approximately half of those new gun owners to be women. We think this is relevant because this gives a very strong indicator that people very much value their right to obtain a firearm for their own personal protection. The type A people who acquire a gun and carry a gun, they take their safety very seriously. They're their own first line of defense against the type B aggressor. Many type A people have military law enforcement and first responder backgrounds. These skills, we believe, make them an asset in their communities, especially in a scenario where police or private security cannot immediately respond to the threat. Most type A people are honest and don't want to become criminals and there's a good chance that they will disarm to comply with this law, not to do so. As Chris touched on a good lot of these folks will voluntarily comply with the property's rules about not bringing firearms on there because they respect that. The type B person who seeks to do harm will not follow these rules at all. We think that's a given. So we've heard a lot lately about threats and civil unrest and violence and sort of the general bad behavior of people towards one another in these days. And we think this should not be understated. This is a very real thing. We can all see what's going on around us. We've certainly seen more than enough aggression and conflict over this country in the last few years and especially in 2020. And we understand and respect everyone's desire to be protected. We believe people should be protected. Safety is a serious concern. However, we also believe that lawmakers and public servants and folks who enjoy working in a building that supplies that protection or that outsources that protection, we don't think they should be the only folks who are afforded that sort of thing. But that the average citizen should be as well. They should be able to protect themselves if they need to. It's because of that same uncertainty that the world is a dangerous place that many people make the decision to secure their own personal safety by carrying a weapon. Whether it's a gun or a can of pepper spray or some other device, an exceptionally large number of Americans have realized that the police will not always be there to keep them safe. And in fact, the courts have ruled numerous times that the police are under no legal obligation to keep them safe. These people have accepted the responsibility for their own safety and have taken steps to enhance their personal security. And these are the people that we refer to as the type eight people who will be most directly affected by this law. These considerations lead us to the second obvious question with looking at it from this perspective, which is what are the potential costs of implementing such law or who stands to lose from all of this? I think we've already begun to cover this in our analysis. But apart from our two types of people who carry guns, we also of course have to analyze how this law will affect people who choose not to carry a gun or a weapon for personal protection, but they rely on the system to keep them safe. Considering again that the sort of the underlying theme that we've seen in this bill is that it kind of directly affects the folks that you don't have to worry about, we argue that there's little to be gained for the folks who rely on the system to keep them safe other than the sense of security that comes from the idea of knowing that guns aren't allowed here. So you know that there's that. Additionally, we believe that there could be a potential to increase the risk and compromise the safety of everyone involved by applying this sort of policy. By removing the ability of good people to defend themselves, we remove the deterrence for bad people to do harm. And this is why we see mass shooters overwhelmingly target areas that are gun-free zones when looking to do as much harm to as many as possible. That's not a coincidence. The absence of a physical means to mitigate a hostile threat will always put those threatened at a greater risk. We believe that possibly the single greatest benefit to the right to keep and bear arms is often the most overlooked and that's the deterrence factor. Killers, terrorists, extremist groups, and bullies of all shapes and sizes will always prey on those first whom they know to be defenseless. Therefore, we believe it is not unreasonable to assume that this law might possibly do harm by removing folks' ability to defend themselves. Simply put, we see this bill as sacrificing not only individual rights but possibly public safety as well to a false sense of security. And we like to mention all the time that Vermont has never required permission to carry a firearm concealed or otherwise. We let visitors carry guns. We have never regulated that and we are consistently one of the safest states in the nation. We like to talk about that all the time too or we're in the top three every every single year. And if we've established that S-30 will likely have little or no influence on the person who carries a gun to do harm but it criminalizes the good law-abiding people, then we have to conclude I think that this policy it could be a net negative for everyone involved except for potentially maybe the criminal. We can't support a bill that makes it a crime for good people to peacefully possess a tool for self-defense. The fact that it's been openly acknowledged that it will likely not deter those who seek to engage in aggression and violence but deters those who proactively take measures to secure the safety of themselves and their families kind of leaves us wondering what's the point. If the goal is to harden security at certain locations against an existential threat then we believe there are alternative measures that could be taken to do so. If the goal is to give property owners a mechanism to enforce their own rules then could we possibly find a solution under an existing law or statute and I think that's that's been talked about a good bit already and I'm optimistic about that. Safety should be of primary importance to everyone and we absolutely commend those who take it seriously. We're hoping that the committee will consider all options when working towards that goal and that it might be accomplished without abridging the rights of good people to defend themselves. In closing that's pretty much all I have for today but in closing I'd like to thank the committee for their time and consideration and I know I've given sort of a broad and and big picture testimony here but we'd also like to request that if we do get more into the specifics of this that gun owners from Vermont could possibly be included in those conversations as well so but that's all I have for today. Thank you. Yes sir. Oh Dick you're muted. I'm muted myself to keep the dog from disturbing the committee. The uh I wanted to my thought and we haven't talked it over in committee that is to provide approximately we will not hold the public hearing I don't think I don't I just don't see how I do that I'm resumed but giving your group uh Chris Bradley are you still there Chris? Yes I am sir. Thinking about having a half an hour for gun owners of Vermont a half an hour for Montt Federation of Sportsman Clubs half an hour for Gunsense from Montt and there's another group that would get a half an hour and you as leaders of those groups would decide who you hear from who we hear from um you know selecting you know you could do five people for 30 minutes or two people for 15 each or whatever you wanted to do um in lieu of a public hearing because I don't under zoom practices and talking with staff and others it's would be very difficult so if we advanced to build that would be my plan and uh so I if that helps with your question Eric and Chris I know you asked about that as well. Yes I did there seems to have been oppressed and I should I um I don't you know my earlier comment I want to apologize publicly to anybody who heard that comment about a contest with you Chris it certainly didn't have to be a derogatory thing to you I just felt like you and I were getting into something that I didn't want to continue on and I I felt that we were going to just keep purling and I don't Senator I apologize as well thank you okay thank you um and Senator Barouf you have a question for the witness just a quick question for Eric are you replacing eddie cutler yes sir I replaced eddie as the president of going owners Vermont um last january okay I just wanted to say that was very well spoken uh you do eddie proud thank you very much senator I appreciate that senator white then I was just gonna say the same thing because Eric mentioned how nervous he was and how he might stumble over his words and he did not at all you did a great job thank you hey thank you senator bedding so yeah you did do a great job and don't worry about testifying in front of this group we don't bite heads um I'm gonna send this message I say very often not very often not very Eric I want to send this message to you and to Chris because I'm only starting to think in a different way about this bill um my initial reaction to this bill was very concerning uh because the descriptions that I heard for advancing it included statements about somebody wanting to feel safe somewhere and when I balanced that against a constitutional right I was feeling very um queasy about how this was being approached but I'm trying to figure out a possible method of compromise here and I I want to run this by both of you to take back and think about some if I'm in a trial care center in downtown gill hall by the way there are no trial care centers in downtown gill hall because there's a whole other argument about what we did in a six county to two trial cares systems but if I'm opening a trial care center in downtown gill hall I'm a good hour away from the nearest Vermont police officer and if a private entity like that uh wanted to have somebody there with a weapon I would be opposed to this bill for that very reason because it carte blanche wipes out their ability to do that but I want you to think about conversely does a private enterprise like that have the right to put a sign out front that says no weapons and if we put teeth into 3705 that enabled an officer to remove someone in violation of that um is that something you are comfortable with and I don't expect you to answer that right now I in fact I would prefer that you had the time to just think about that because if if I sense some way of bridging a gap it is to be able to say that any entity frankly could be able to put such a sign out front you would have the right to go there or not go there your choice but your exercise of a constitutional right would not override an entity's right to say we have the right to govern what's going on inside our facility that's a tough question I'm just asking you to put that in the back of your head and roll with it for a while I think that's an important conversation to be had senator for sure I think that's the conversation particularly about hospitals uh minute I thank you for bringing that up to senator Bruce um two points about what senator benning just said first s30 wouldn't prevent the ability to have law enforcement or uh security on the premises because there is an exemption for um for uh on duty um law enforcement to be conducting their operations so a school resource officer for instance is allowed on school property under a similar exemption um so there's that uh if I understand where the discussion around 3705 is going um I would imagine that ultimately Chris and Eric and their people would realize that what joe is proposing is far more expansive and far more detrimental to gun owners rights than s30 um in other words if I understand what joe is saying he would give all private entities in vermont the ability to put a sign out that would uh constitute a legal trespass notice and somebody who brought a gun in then would be criminally liable so it would make an infinite number of gun-free zones whereas s30 is limiting it to three um so I'm I'm not stopping that conversation from going anywhere but it would amaze me if gun owners of vermont were willing to sign on to what joe is talking about because it would give every location in vermont the ability to declare themselves a gun-free zone with a criminal penalty or violating that's basically why I suggested the both of them to take that and think about it okay um I just found out that jennifer fitch has to leave at um an o'clock so I wonder if we would mind having jennifer speak now and then um I mean maybe if Eric and Chris do you have to go anywhere right away no sir I can stick around you're like me you're stuck here tonight so if we could go to jennifer and then come back to this conversation um I'm sorry I didn't realize you had to leave go ahead jennifer is the new commissioner of buildings and general services welcome to I don't know if senator bennings had its confirmation hearing yet we're going to assume you're you're in good shape so thank you for coming and welcome to thank you senator sears and I certainly hope joe benning is in support of me as the bgs commissioner as you stated my name is jennifer fitch I am the bgs commissioner and I'm here today to specifically talk about s30 as it relates to bgs and our building my testimony today will be short so per 29 bsa section 152 the bgs commissioner is empowered to adopt rules or adopt rules governing firearms while in state buildings per state facility rule number five that was established around 2000 guns are prohibited or firearms are prohibited in state buildings with the exception of law enforcement officers this rule has been working really well for us since early 2000s and at this point I don't feel a necessity to modify the rule that currently exists or a necessity for this bill in in terms of the purposes of bgs at this time well that was pretty short that's why she'll be confirmed by the institutions community okay are there any questions for jennifer um have you had any problems with people not necessarily in the state house where we know there's been some issues over the years particularly during the governors not this governor but prior governors have you had any problems in other buildings in the last four years since I've been at bgs I am not aware of any gun incidences um within our buildings so any government building that's owned by the state of remand or least um they're already prohibited is that correct that is correct both state owned at least um whatever buildings fall underneath the jurisdiction of bgs okay senator baruth you had a question I'm I'm just vaguely remembering an incident and now the pandemic has screwed up my my sense of time but I wanted to say it was a summer before last or maybe it was uh but there was someone who was reported to have gone into one of the government buildings with a long gun and then there was a question they couldn't find uh such a person are you remembering that yeah that was I am you're talking about the incident at 133 that did occur um yes your memory is correct and in that particular incident everything worked as it should have um somebody was suspected of bringing a long rifle into a building um you know enforcement was notified immediately capital police was the first to respond on the scene then shortly followed by montpelier pd and in that case it was handled very well and at the end of the day we found that it wasn't a long gun in fact it was an umbrella that's what I thought I remember an alert that went out or something like that is correct I think highlighting what would you do if have there been incident if there were an incident what what measures would you take at a building that was not covered by security such not the pavilion but rather maybe the office of the secretary of state or so as part of our program at bgs we install physical security measures inside all of our all of our state facilities including least endone as I indicated earlier the types of systems that we put in include a card access right so you have your badge you got to swipe in it also includes cameras in some of our facilities and also includes panic buttons and lockdown buttons so even when we don't have a security guard in a building or there isn't a law enforcement in a building there is infrastructure that our state employees can use to notify local enforcement lock the building down utilize the panic button those types of things so we have all of those measures in our buildings senator bennington senator white so jennifer with respect to government buildings and this builds covering of government buildings do i hear you correctly that you're saying it's not necessary it's not necessary for us at bgs that is correct because we already have pursuant to 29 bsa section 152 i already can govern guns in my in my state facilities thank you senator white so if if that umbrella had in fact turned out to be a long gun that you were still act you were still doing the the same thing and just because if we had passed this bill that wouldn't have prohibited the person from entering with his gun anymore than your signs so i i'm just well because of the prohibition right it allows us to take action immediately so right so i guess i have what i need at bgs to to regulate guns within my state facilities therefore i don't find this bill to be a necessity to bgs good yep that was senator bruce and then i have one question hopefully we can get you out of here by ten this is not so much a question for uh miss phitch but um i i understand that there are lawmakers who carry within the state house um and i've heard that for years and i've also heard that at least one of those persons argues that the the posted rule does not contravene uh his right to carry a a firearm so i think part of the intent of s 30 is to stiffen the um the authority behind the rules that um the commissioner is pointing to i agree having rules in place can work um but if it runs up against uh a person or a movement that declares that only state law um contravenes their right then i think it does give us an additional authority at that point but i i take the commissioner's testimony uh and uh we'll leave it at that i'd like to leave you with one thought commissioner as well as senator benning to look at and that is the disparity in state office buildings and i'll use bennington as an example bennington state office building has sheriffs if you enter the um foyer to go either to a courtroom or any office with one exception in that building whether it be department of labor department of children and families or the courts so you're gone through a metal detector you get into probation and parole you don't go through any of those you have to go through your normal security that you have but there have been assaults and staff at probation and parole and it's a complaint that i've heard from state uh other state employees in other parts of the state where there isn't the same level of security and some as others so i hope that the institutions committee and and you're as a new commissioner will take a look at that problem um it seems to be a disparity in that many state officers please ignore that it may have nothing to do with this bill i think we have you out of here at ten um where we yep thank you where we still have we finished with mr davis i think we have eric thank you you're welcome to hang here in the in the meeting and and listen to commissioner shirling who's our next witness of department of public safety mike good to have you with us good morning mr chairman um i think thank you for making time i know you're glad out with various things it's a little brisk um i think i will also be uh probably as brief as commissioner fitch for the record mike shirling commissioner of public safety we're here to provide any requisite background the committee might need i think commissioner fitch touched on a couple of the key points there are no known incidents in state buildings involving firearms in recent history um she touched on their um their regulatory posture and i think other witnesses have touched on some of the other tools that are used in circumstances where property owners have opted to post and prohibit firearms on premise under existing statutes um i would of course note for the record uh the recent uptick and threats to government buildings is pretty widely publicized so that's a piece of background information for the committee to certainly consider um i would also note that the prohibition itself if you're looking to achieve security at any given location um the prohibition itself is a piece of a larger fabric um of security precautions some of which the commissioner mentioned are in place at some state buildings screening tools and then now ultimately what you know what the the back end looks like if someone's found to have um a prohibited item whether that's a firearm or or something else those are really the the key considerations from our perspective um we don't have a particular position um on this bill that um we've developed um i would note uh one last thing which is sort of tangential and note that the the bill is crafted as a potential new misdemeanor there are limited options in terms of what law enforcement can do with witnessed misdemeanors given the evolution of the rules of arrest rule three in particular that the legislature has undertaken in recent years um so the you know the the tool set available even if this were to become a new crime um is relatively limited could i mr chair yes um could i just ask for clarification i i wasn't sure at the end you referenced commissioner a rule or a law that i'm not familiar with what if you could just unpack that last part a little bit certainly the Vermont rules of criminal procedure specifically rule three uh outlines when a physical arrest custody of a person can occur uh subsequent to a probable cause existing for particular violation the circumstances under which law enforcement can take physical custody of a person versus releasing them on a citation to appear at a later date are severely constrained by rule three so that's something that uh you'd have to take a look at um if you were to go down the road of creating a new misdemeanor and wanting to actually um you know physically uh incapacitate someone who might be posing a perceived threat as a result of violation of s30 um they're inextricably blinked okay thank you i i just wanted to say uh also i really appreciated your approach during the um recent you know alert that state capitals were under i felt like we were all very well briefed i felt personally the situation was very much in hand so um just hats off to your department uh thank you if i might before i didn't see senator white has a question but for eric the Patrick eric when we get to committee discussion can you do a little research on what uh commissioner shirling just spoke about in terms of rule three and the ability to enforce a minor misdemeanor which i believe this is like your maximum sentence um and i just considered a misdemeanor so what is i'm assuming that an officer could tell the person to leave the building but what else could one do so if you could look at that as well eric please sure we'll do i think if it's witnessed it's okay but i'll follow up on that if it's witnessed it can be arrest yes would you follow up on that please and uh senator white you had a question then senator belly well i was just going to ask commissioner um is that it does rule three only apply to misdemeanors because surely if if um somebody is presenting a threat um an obvious threat with their with their fire i mean there would be a difference between um just having the firearm and presenting uh some kind of a threat that the so does rule three only apply to misdemeanors or when there isn't an active threat no it applies to everything uh senator and um the uh ledge council is accurate the a witnessed misdemeanor has greater latitude but um well i think what we're envisioning uh will typically happen is uh you know unless someone is an active shooter and forcing their way in which you have a whole different problem right at that point um they're going to be turned away at the door or they might step inside and then be removed and then when law enforcement arrives um it is no longer a witnessed misdemeanor occurred prior to their arrival so in the event you've got fragments of information that indicate that the person was trying to gain access and has some underlying criminogenic or mental health or other issue um the constraints on further action are significant thanks am i correct that in terms of state buildings there already is a rule in effect so unless the person is exhibiting behavior that would indicate that they're a threat to arguments to that building they they're already not allowed to carry firearms in the state that's correct and that's the rule that commissioner which was talking about so the way that uh an enforcement action might play out is a person's prohibited they choose to go inside with a firearm uh they're asked to leave they refuse to leave it becomes a trespass under 3705 thank you senator benning and then senator white again michael you've been in law enforcement for a long time have you ever actually cited someone for that very series of events not that i can recall there certainly have been uh myriad of trespass cases as you can attest senator on a variety of different topics and refusals to leave premises uh i don't recall one that's related to a firearm in uh in the cross section of events that i'm aware of that doesn't mean it doesn't exist like senator baruth indicated covid has not only bent time but reality and and memory in many ways how many years have you been in law enforcement now 31 on and off i had a hiatus there in commerce which i enjoyed very much okay thanks senator what so um i just if let me get this straight so somebody comes in they're carrying a gun in a state building where it's posted and there's a rule against it they refuse to um leave then you can cite them under 3705 so would that not be also true for a non-government building that a hospital for example that had their rule about not carrying a gun in there and somebody came in and they refused to leave could they also not be set cited under 3705 they could senator that that rubric exists for anyone who's lawfully asked to leave uh any premises okay thank you senator baruth i'm i'm uh i'm remembering the opinion that eric issued the committee and i believe it was a contrary opinion to what what we're hearing so i i know that the chair wants to save that for the end but um i i think we're running the risk of not being able to question the witnesses with regard to that opinion um so i just i just note that i'm not familiar with that opinion senator so i can't no no it was it was just like just to the committee um because you're going to be taking over the committee in three minutes while i go to help some welfare we have one other witness before the 1030 break in that so chief rome but you're welcome senator romey i romey i i'm gonna um i stand corrected senator white thank you for your miss miss shirling thank you for your um oh my god he's had a beach in the caribbean with a palm tree behind him i'm already jealous looks like a beautiful day uh out there chief romey uh so uh you're taking over senator bruce thank you very much i'll be back thank you have a good day as soon as i can thank you okay uh chief romey i welcome good morning um centers and other uh chair treasure guests um Matthew romey i capital police chief and the first thing i'd like to do and unfortunately they're gone already but i would like to thank uh the commissioner of public safety for breaking the bad news to you about rule three um he probably explained it much better than i can um i'm still um adjusting to the idio secrecies of uh vermont procedure even though believe it or not i've been up here for almost four years now as your police chief i have given peggy um uh and senator sears a memorandum that uh i won't drag you all through because i think that for the most part many of those things have been addressed already today but i did explain just for clarity how the capital police functions in the sphere um of dealing with firearms i would like to note that um no one currently in the capital police department or the sergeant and arms office is uh aware of a carriage of weapons in the building incident if you will um there's been the rumor mill swirls um and i've heard them um other officers have heard them but we have not had any incidents since i've been there with members at all uh and we know for sure that uh even uh sergeant manning is the longest currently serving capital police officer and he is not aware of of any in the history of the capital police department so that goes back to to 99 um we in this kind of world we well really in everything we do we work through a lens of first amendment protections so we have to look at any enforcement action that we take in the capital police department whether it's in the state house um on the lawn in another uh state building we have to make sure that we steer clear of any first amendment grounds um there is an outline in that uh in that memo about some of the relevant statutes and rules because it is different we have rules in the state house which are different than rules in other state buildings different than rules and a law in the supreme court building that prevents the carriage of firearms and then we have a a couple of sets of rules actually that govern the lawn and so we deal with weapons in each of those different places or we um we would deal with weapons in each of those places somewhat differently uh senator bruce you were correct the first thing that we would always do with someone as long as they're capable of de-escalation and um conversation we would uh we would certainly try to reason with them i think that's something that we want to do with anyone that we can but if we were alerted to someone carrying a firearm in the building we would ask them if they are we would make sure they're not law enforcement they're on a on an official visit and you know if they're not we would we would ask them to take to take it back out to their car and lock it up secure it and come on back in enjoy the rest of the day um there are many state houses i i sort of anticipated a question regarding this there are many state houses across the country where the carriage of concealed weapons by citizens is permitted within the building there are some rules and some procedures that govern that for instance the florida state house um which has four separate law enforcement agencies working within it um if you present your concealed carry permit from the state of florida or from another state that florida recognizes to the screening station they hand you a card about where you can and cannot take it and what you can and cannot do with it in the building and what you're responsible for and they they welcome you to the florida capital caveat to that that's how it was 18 months ago when we visited i don't believe anything's changed down there but there are several state houses that do permit that when we go into other state buildings there's a tribe ranch mo you that kind of negotiates procedures within the capital complex when we are conveyed the authority to enforce bgs rules um in bgs buildings and on the grounds when we go into those grounds absent an active violent situation we defer to bgs or their representative which is usually in the form of bgs security and if they want the person removed from the building we'll have them instruct them to leave and if they don't then we're back to a 3705 trespass arrest um same thing for the supreme court we are over there fairly routinely to assist judicial security with issues that they may have going on there is a particular state law of 13 vsa 4016 that prohibits the carriage of firearms in the courts and we would certainly make an arrest on that if if we needed to the lawn is an interesting conundrum for us it is a first amendment sanctuary place if you will it is uh it is it is it is holy ground considering the first amendment and the rules are actually ratcheted back in that place where there is not a prohibition against carrying firearms there's a discouragement and that discouragement is in the set of rules that bgs sends out to people that book the lawn our practice has been and this was something we took from Montpelier police that seemed to work well for them out there if we see someone you know carrying a long gun swung across their back we approach them engage with them we're usually able to break down the barriers pretty quick we encourage them to take it and secure it in their car and if they are adamantly intent on exercising their rights we give them some dos and don'ts and we explain to them what we'll get them you know sideways with us namely that slung weapon coming off their shoulder um there is a current state statute and this is one of those um additional things that that you may wish to consider with this of aiming a gun at another it is um yeah the first the first offense fine is $50 um and if you discharge it if you aim a gun at someone it's $50 any person it's uh 13 vs a 40 11 any person intentionally point or aim a gun pistol or other firearm except in self-defense the law or the law for discharge duty fine not exceeding $50 and if you discharge it um punished by imprisonment for not more than one year fine more than $100 I would submit that if you discharge a firearm with another person that's not the statute that I would look to charge you with it would be an attempted murder just but you know it's it's it's interesting um sometimes finding some of these statutes I don't actually it doesn't have a a note in there about when that that statute was passed I suspect it might be a little older there is a another statute that may apply with these things with uh the conversation you're currently having and that's the carrying dangerous weapons it would require us to improve and approve excuse me it would require us to prove intent to harm um and that's a two-year felony um if the person intends to injure multiple persons such as uh in a mass shooting or something it's a felony punishable by not more than 10 years or $25,000 so there is um there are some other things we can apply to the to these situations uh should um should we need to one interesting thing that I did want to bring to the committee's attention and again in my memo I'll tell you the capital police uh take no position on this bill um we rarely take a position on any legislation but we want you to understand how it would affect uh us and the operation of the state house and and the greater capital complex one thing that I know senator benning is uh dreading is the conversation concerning screening in this in the state house and one of the things that legislative council has previously identified to me as a barrier to screening in not only the state house but in government buildings that are not a courthouse or part courthouse is that it's not illegal to carry a weapon in the building so we can't actually search you for things that aren't illegal and you know in a fundamental way I I understand that so this bill is drafted right now I believe and I should have said this at the beginning I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a holiday and express last night so please take your legal guidance from others um but I believe that that this would probably lower that barrier to us implementing a screening program at the state house I will follow that up immediately by telling you that that is by far not the only barrier but it appears to be the only legal barrier for us to screen in the building um there is a a modification that begins online 13 and I'm sorry I didn't put the page number but I think it's I want to say it may be one of the first modifications but it's the the line that says it's currently in use for the performance of essential government functions and I would just ask you to think for a moment that if we were to implement a screening program at the state house which again not saying we should or we shouldn't it's a discussion for another day um we probably couldn't screen during farmers night because that's not an essential government function or it would still be going on through the pandemic is kind of my my train of thought with us right so if we don't screen when people are coming in during farmers night and the way our building is constructed they could come in and secrete anything uh not secrete secret I apologize something in the building for use later so it would minimize the effectiveness of that screening program uh chief if I could just yes ask sure when uh when we were in the building and particularly when there was a state of estate address uh there was screening or I'm remembering wrong and yet you seem to be saying that you couldn't do screen how does it work on that day so we don't screen on that day we do bag checks and so you mean no detector kind of thing correct we do bag checks and we have deputies at the doors to discourage the entry with unauthorized things for instance last year during the state of the state that was interrupted by the by the protest quite frankly it shows how a screening program would be beneficial in some cases because we were able to prevent that group from bringing in pots and pans that they were intending on using for their their disruption so much like a lot of things that we talk about things like screening programs have a butterfly effect and we see that a couple of days out of the year but you know we take the extraordinary step of doing bag checks and having those deputies on the doors during those large events because of the enormous risk that we take by having the entire entirety of government in one place which is a huge risk one other thing I would like to mention there's a modification about or the there's the exemption that applies to legitimate law enforcement purposes whether the officer is on or off duty and it seems to me to sort of contradict itself because I wouldn't want an officer doing legitimate law enforcement purposes off duty however one of the interesting things that this brings up is a problem that we have seen with the the guns on school property and the guns in schools statute and that particular I'm trying to bring it back up for some reason I can't seem to find it I have that tab somewhere yep possession of dangerous weapon in a school bus or on the school building or on school property and that already prohibits the carriage of firearms on school property and it does not apply to the exemption in there is a law enforcement officer while engaged in law enforcement duties and basically what that means is that I violate that statute twice a day when I drop my children off at school and when I pick them up in the afternoon because I'm not engaged in official law enforcement duties while I'm doing that however we have taken the stance that you would absolutely want me to be armed and prepared to react should something happen in that school while I'm on my way to work or home or while I'm dropping them off for picking them up so I think that's an unfortunate exemption over in that statute and I would certainly like to see that exemption in this statute you know kind of cleared up to help us through that an interesting thing when you look at the federal gun free school zones act in the in the US code is it does not apply to persons carrying it with persons possessing a concealed carry permit so for instance when I lived in Alabama my wife had a concealed carry permit from Alabama so that federal gun free school zones act exempted her from the restriction against carrying on school property when she dropped the kids off or picked them up so there was a nod towards that permitting process or and it would also exempt of course law enforcement the last thing I guess I'll just mention is that you know without and this kind of goes back to what the commissioner of public safety said we can pass the stat or you could pass the statute I say we the royal weave Vermont could have the statute but it's not going to change the safety of the occupants absent a comprehensive full-time screening program it you know we are strictly reactive in the state house right now we don't have anything that would prevent you from coming in there we're also not alone in that there's six or seven it's what it kind of changes a little bit every year state houses across the country that don't have any screening methods we can take a long dive down the road of what it may be appropriate for us or may be inappropriate for us but without a comprehensive screening program a bill such as this is almost like an add-on charge much like the seatbelt law you know I've stopped you for speeding but I'm going to add a secondary violation of a seatbelt act so this would be one that with very few exceptions I don't think would be applied except in the case of we we have something else going on oh and we're going to add this one on this as well Alabama right before I left and I say right before I left I'm um there's 20 they did it in 2015 and they came back and amended it in 2018 they actually passed a prohibitive places act such as this and I found that statute very interesting from a citizen standpoint as well as a professional standpoint and one of the things I found interesting about it was that as you were saying the price shopper down the street can decide that it doesn't want me to shop there with a firearm and it's my decision whether or not I carry in there or not the the interesting thing that they did down there was that if you had a concealed carry permit a place of public access like a grocery store or a gas station those kind of things could not prohibit you from carrying on their property unless they posted the doors and had a screening program in place and it seemed to me as a citizen with that it seemed to me that if they're taking away for instance I think of my wife a lot she reminds me to think of her if I fail to think of her um is that if you're going to take away her right of self-defense you have to protect her when she's there they included some interesting things in there about if you're an employer you can't prohibit firearms and personal vehicles on your property because the your employees have a right to defend themselves between work and home so I found those interesting and you know again I'm not saying that y'all should do anything like that I just think it's interesting within the discussion process I just before I turn it back over to senators here as I just wanted to respond to the honor off duty I agree that should be looked at that piece personally one of the things that I find most troubling about what happened at the capital was as they begin to charge these people there I think 400 active cases it's turning out that many of them are off-duty police officers um retired military active duty military and that's within the group that were the most coordinated and violent at the at the US capital so I I think sometimes people think of off-duty police officers and you cited yourself as somebody who should be allowed to use their weapon in case they are out of school and something happens but I would I would just caution us there's there's growing evidence of radicalization in police forces military national guard etc and so any provision that would allow those people to carry off duty seems to me to be um really asking for trouble these days senator sears yes I'm I would prefer to have senator berouf continue I'm okay sorry I missed most of your testimony and then when the committee is finished with cheap with the cheap I'll take okay I know we're we're hard on a break but send it away so I just wanted to ask the uh chief about that about the off-duty and on-duty because um if if it if we don't allow it for off-duty then your contention I thought I thought I misheard I either misheard you or I misunderstood you that when you drop your kids off you're off-duty and yet you are carrying so you would you would be in violation of of that so is is that in conflict with what senator berouf just said about removing the off-duty because you're not on duty when you're dropping your kids off well you know I think globally we have we've looked at our law enforcement officers and to senator berouf's point yes there were a few law enforcement officers and military members that took part in the the January 6th invasion of the U.S. Capitol I would temper you your view of that to look at the raw numbers in comparison to the numbers of law enforcement officers across America I'm not even sure what our current population of law enforcement officers is but you know just like there's there's bad teachers and bad politicians and bad high school students there's a there's going to be a few bad cops out there the numbers just don't allow there not to be I think the overwhelming majority of law enforcement especially here in Vermont are stand-up good quality people and I you know I I just I think about the the density of law enforcement in Vermont and to senator benning's point about places being an hour or more away from the the the nearest on-duty police officer we just do not have the density of law enforcement officers here on duty at any one time and we rely so much on the ability and the in the willingness of our law enforcement officers to respond to things when they're not on duty I know our department takes a stance that you know unless you are intoxicated or otherwise unable to discharge your duties we consider you to be a sworn law enforcement officer and support your ability to carry your weapon well if I could if I could just cut in we've had this discussion many times in senate education and people have advanced the argument unsuccessfully that off-duty police officers should be allowed to if if they are on school grounds in effect act as a resource officer and I I have to say I think it's it's in other words if they perceive trouble they should be allowed to go in with their firearm and I personally I've always opposed that because I've never written a gun safety bill that didn't have an exemption for active duty or on duty because I think that's important but there was a push some years back to allow retired or off-duty to carry on school grounds and I think that would be in effect just getting rid of the prohibition on weapons so um I I I know we're supposed to one second I just want to ask the chair um Mr. Chair so we're 10 minutes past our break time I don't want to cut into the other witnesses um what would you like to do I'd like to have a oops I just oh god I just I just messed up back to full screen um I would like to have a full discussion and committee and there's continued questions for uh Chief Romy did I get it right no Romy I Romy I I will like Romeo I'm sure we can get him back from his proper vacation to continue the discussion I think we need further committee discussion on this bill a number of issues have come up that lead me to um I could not support the bill is currently in some testimony and some of the concerns but I remain concerned about people carrying weapons in places where um they might I'd like to continue the committee discussion and hear our testimony that we've set up and then get to the heart of some of these issues rule 30 with Eric and 32 30 is it 30705 I'm better understanding some of these things and having a full discussion with the committee uh Senator White can I just respond to something that Philip just Senator Ruth just said about the schools and I understand if you want to have the discussion about schools but my understanding of law enforcement officers in Vermont is that when they're sworn as a level three officer they're assumed to be capable of responding to something whether they are on or off duty so if you're in bed in the middle of the night and there's murder happening down the street from you and you're called you're my understanding is that that is a um a duty of sworn law enforcement officers in Vermont and I might be wrong but I will check that out just to make sure because if you're called then then you're on I was going to say if you're called to the scene then you're on duty well if you're um well I think that there are some nuances in there but will I'm gonna say that I think the witnesses today have brought up some issues with the effort um that weren't there uh when we dealt with schools way back when but we look at school security today um when we first said that you can't carry a firearm into a school or into a courtroom times have changed and looking at this bill I think that to give due depth I want to hear from the league of cities and towns and the other witnesses we have left today and then do some serious committee discussion and as I said also have opportunity for the four four groups to provide testimony to the video ideas senator benning just so you know senator sears um Matt Valerio has been listening to this conversation with especially with respect to the law enforcement officers descriptions of some of the rules in criminal procedure um he's sent me an email I've copied you all with that if the continuing conversation leads us to go down that path he would like an opportunity to talk about okay um with that why don't we take a break until about five minutes of 11 and we'll pick up with um we'll get the right one Devin Green and Karen Horn and Kagan Mays Williams great can everybody mute and shut your video off please yeah before we before I do Peggy can I talk with you briefly um we're on YouTube is that okay yeah I don't care okay yeah of course it's not a it's not a big secret I just wanted to be some idea of what I was looking at for an agenda item yeah of course um when I talked about DCF I would like a I'm going to call it a roundtable discussion about aggressive behavior with juveniles in a juvenile justice system um and I start with having DCF uh department of mental health department of aging and independent living um John Campbell Marshall Paul um somebody from Beckett and somebody from CO from from there what was the last one depot street what's it called well for depot oh Jim Henry Jim Henry oh okay jump and um just have a kind of a round table table discuss call it a roundtable discussion I don't know get a round table but um given the aggressive behavior of some of the the that has become a danger to staff as well as residents of um to staff but not just inside programs and we had that case in the hotel that they described yesterday be a discussion about some of the aggressive behaviors that they're seeing with juveniles and out of view and when do you want this to happen well you know I don't know how our agenda is for next week but as we look at the agenda for next week next week would be okay or the following week so during and during a committee meeting time right yeah say two hours okay you know like a nine to eleven or something on or ten to twelve on a Tuesday or whatever okay so my guess will be the week after but let me let me see if I can fit in what you want for next week and then okay week after okay all right uh I'll see you five minutes ten minutes then oh okay yep ten minutes I'm sorry I thought we okay sounds good I guess we can get back to our committee meeting on s-30 and are we ready to get going Peggy our first witness is Devin Green from the Vermont Hospital Association yep Vermont Association she can tell you represent yes good morning Devin Green from the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems we represent all of Vermont's hospitals and they are all non-profit and mission-based entities thank you for having me in today to testify on s-30 I will say when I was preparing for this testimony I was taken back to the fall of 2017 when I received an emergency email that there was an active shooter at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center and that patients would have to be diverted to other hospitals um a couple weeks after that I talked to one of the ICU nurses who had been there during the shooting and she was clearly traumatized by the event um now this is an ICU nurse so she's seen a lot of things but this this really shook her so with that um Vaz is happy to support s-30 uh it makes a lot of sense uh because knowing that what happened at Dartmouth Hitchcock could easily happen across the river in Vermont uh we want to support this it allows patients visitors and health care workers to secure their firearms in their car with with a less chance of conflict for the people who are working at the hospitals it's hard to ask someone to put their firearm away um when you're working at the hospital and this will give uh hospital workers something to point to that's in the law earlier Eric Davis testified that there are two different types of people carrying weapons law abiding and those with criminal intent I would say that in a hospital situation there's another individual you need to consider which is the individual who is in in an altered mental state um this could be either through psychosis or use of substances we have a lot of hospital workers who have seen individuals in an altered mental state grab for a weapon from a law enforcement officer now law enforcement officer knows what to do in that situation but a regular law abiding citizen carrying a weapon may not know what to do and so we think that that could create a danger for patients and the loved ones in the hospital who are already in an incredibly vulnerable situation um S30 would also help protect health care workers um as an emotionally charged environment hospitals hold a high risk of injury to health care workers in 2018 according to us bureau of labor statistics health care workers comprised 73 73 percent of all non-fatal workplace injuries and illnesses due to violence so that's 73 percent of all the injuries that were non-fatal were put upon health care workers uh this law would help ensure now it wouldn't protect those health care workers from injury but it would help ensure that those injuries are not lethal um and due to firearms as 30 will also protect lives outside of the hospital um as the Dartmouth Hitchcock shooting showed the repercussions do not end at one hospital if a hospital goes into lockdown patients must be diverted to other hospitals in the area and in emergency situations those extra minutes could be the difference between life and death please consider voting in favor of S30 and I thank you for your consideration I have a couple of questions Devin and I appreciate your being here this morning um first is are all hospitals in favor of this bill or do we have yeah urgent use so that every hospital in state is in order for this yeah secondly um have we and I I was amazed at how I had to try to get to into inside the Rutland hospital what I had to go through for an appointment one of the medical offices there um and now that we're having screening uh for um people going into any hospital you know the technical temperature all that fairly automatic unless it's a real emergency I've been able to go right into the emergency room I think people are able to get it easier um I'm wondering what there seems to always be security now at the front doors of our hospitals um and that was one of the issues Mr. Davis brought up earlier in his testimony not having that and people feeling the need to be able to defend themselves and why they care I wonder if you'd be comment on that yeah there is security at hospitals um and I can at most if not all hospitals at this point there is security there um so I would say that that does go to what was brought up earlier in the testimony um what about I I believe I hope I didn't dream it but I believe there was a a hospital in Vermont where I heard heard from them that a patient who had a gun was using that gun in a way at this hospital to try to procure opioids had an actual incident or did that was that something that somebody made up you know I do not know I definitely have heard incidents of patients reaching for guns for a lot from law enforcement officers I've heard from several chief medical officers about those incidents I have not heard about that one. Senator White. Thanks Devin um so do you feel do the hospitals feel that they have no other ability to do this because one of the things we've been hearing is that um if you put up a sign that says no weapons allowed and um somebody is confronted and asked to get rid of their weapon they may do it or they may refuse to do it and if they refuse to do it that it can constitute a legal um an illegal trespass under 3705 so I'm curious as to why the hospitals would not use that um to get people off the premises if they had a gun. So I first of all I'm not sure if they all know that that is what they I think they all have policies to not have weapons in their um in their hospitals I think you know that it would just be much easier to point and less conflict to point to a law and say this is this is something that the state is imposing as opposed to what the hospital is trying to do I think with the hospital people are coming in for illnesses it gets emotionally charged um staff is stretched thin and so this would provide greater protection um than having to uh it may lessen the conflict to be able to point to this instead of just a policy no but the policy could be backed up with that other law so but if you gave some teeth to it I mean right now it I agree with senator benning it would need more teeth um but we would not be we would not necessarily uh be opposed to that proposal either okay thanks senator sears yes senator benning devin do all hospitals in vermont now have a sign out front that says no weapons I don't know I can check on that I'd like to know okay thank you um I know my hospital has a sign saying no weapons and no tobacco so but it may say this is a tobacco free campus and I'm not sure which and actually devin if I can follow up I'm assuming you also uh have supervision over entities like here in my neck of the woods corner medical which is a smaller size facility not a hospital um and if you do I'd like to know similar signs out front of them as well I may not but I can I don't know if that entities hospital affiliated if it is I can check on that if not I can work with vms to try to get that the vermont medical society to try to get that information right I know this one is associated with nvrh I'm assuming conquered the conquered facility is the same way but I'd like to know whatever you can find out things okay other questions uh senator bereuth uh not a question although I thank devin for being here um I would just say that if you look at the masking debate I guess I would have to call it um there there are a large number of people in vermont and nationally who believe that it's unconstitutional for them to be told to wear a mask and so we see um you know we see ongoing friction violence in certain areas over this and there is no amendment of the constitution that protects against mask wearing so when we're talking about firearms we're talking about a group of gun owners who very fervently believe that their constitutional right will overcome a hospital's policy or a store's policy and so just to reiterate one of the things we're trying to do is say to those people this is not an administrative rule this is uh in statute that this location like courthouses and schools you you cannot carry a weapon and that way we take it out of the realm of you know a policy passed by a private organization and we elevate it to something that's clearly understood to be in the law um so I I take the point that senator wight and senator benning and others have been making about that that there may be ways in which these rules could connect to existing statute I think that's an important discussion for us to have but just just to be clear what the bill tries to do is say it's important to let people know that it's against the law to carry in these areas because as senator sears pointed out there's not only the opiate epidemic as a flashpoint the addictive power of opiates and people needing to have them but there's also now the anti-masking thing as well as I would argue the the kind of radicalization of the open carry movement so there's a lot of things at once that are converging on these buildings and that's what the law is attempting to speak to or the the bill is attempting to speak to but I appreciate that are there other questions Devin Devin thank you and if you could just find out what the general senator sears could I ask her one more question so can I just finish my comment oh I'm sorry if you could just find out the uh regarding that all hospitals have signage and etc and have they had any encounters with violations of that signage not just even even tobacco had been arrested how they then forced that you know if somebody walks into the I saw a picture yesterday of somebody smoking a joint in the capital of the united states of america I think that they took that selfie because they were so proud of themselves I'm not sure I'm proud of them senator sears I can say that many hospital policies require the healthcare worker to call security to they have sort of they go through a list of what you do which is first to ask that person to secure the weapon in a locked place in their car and come back and if they refuse to do that then security is called and if security doesn't work then I could go back and check and see if the and what happens after that but again if you could just check on the incidents as well as the policies of the all senator white has a question no I'm fine thanks senator benning has a comment or question just a question dark myth incident correct me if I'm wrong did that involve a son who shot his terminally ill mother he shot I don't know if the mother was terminally ill she was in the ICU for and I'm forgetting the word I'm I don't know if she was terminally ill I believe she had like a blood clot and a brain aneurysm okay that she was recovering from all right thank you thank you Karen horn of the Vermont League of Sittles Sittles cities and towns Karen welcome thank you sherry thank you for having me yeah um right happy new year uh this is my first time in the in your committee this year um and thank you for asking our opinion on s 30 uh we had a board meeting last week on thursday and the leak of cities and towns board voted unanimously to support the intent of this legislation clearly they are frontline with the the general population and they're frequently called on to make decisions that might anger somebody who the decision affects so we find that that it's very important to address this issue so the the board did have a few suggestions regarding language the first thing that we think it would be helpful to be very clear that we're talking about public government buildings because there are other places in the statute where public buildings are defined it might be an apartment complex and um you know there's a lot of public buildings but i think what's what's key here that you're trying to target is government buildings uh they were a little bit concerned about the phrase essential government functions that that might um encompass a a really wide range of responsibilities that's difficult to define in statute and if you're going to use that term we feel like it does need to be defined but maybe the more targeted way to to approach the whole issue is to uh focus on public government buildings and then the third recommendation that board members had was that you might actually look to the tobacco statutes your committee had a discussion last week about what about outside of buildings and in the tobacco statutes and i and i copied the the language in my memo to you uh it says that um you can't smoke within 25 feet of state-owned buildings and offices except if that 25 foot zone uh goes on to another person's property you know but that there's some there's some standard there so if if we were asking people to secure weapons in their cars for instance that they would be able to do that in the parking lot but they would not be able to bring them closer than 25 feet to the building it's um something for the committee to consider and um those are essentially are finally given recent events and actually not so recent events in some local jurisdictions around the country so we've been fortunate to date in Vermont but but that's it we've been fortunate there's no another reason i've had kind of a over the weekend uh email conversation with the town manager of Manchester regarding the bill and some of the things that he suggested and that i suggested talking about it are similar to what you suggested certainly making clear which public buildings but maybe leaving it to the towns to decide for example um is it necessary yes the town hall which is the office building for the town of Manchester obviously but what about the salt shed um is it necessary there um you know those types of decisions leaving that up to the communities to determine which buildings which government building yeah we had a conversation about that letting municipalities establish the parameters for their community but we do think apologies to senator white we do think that in this instance um it's important to be clear and to have one standard that applies across the state to government buildings so well that does mean that we need to better define central government what you suggested yeah senator white oh i'm sorry go ahead no that's fine or or to define the the building i mean if you wanted to specifically exclude salt sheds but i don't know why you would need to carry a weapon into a salt shed i don't need it but uh no you i'm more parking lot except for those issues i would point out that in bennington a town office building i can park right next to the building so a 25 foot um perimeter wouldn't help me at all because i right wouldn't wouldn't be allowed to park at any of the locations right near the building that's what i was going to say to is there are many town halls where you park right beside it and if you had a 25 foot perimeter you couldn't even put it in your car right and if i go to the other side of the parking lot i'm at the courthouse right can't so yeah right right anyway just uh senator white did you have a comment or question no that was that was my comment was that the 25 specifying 25 feet is um problematic and problematic and i and i think that while it uh takes some burden off the town uh local select board to make those determinations um i'm always at the my uh goal is always to allow the local select boards to make their own decisions and so um so garen garen knows this but um and i just i i guess i i don't um um and nothing nothing okay i'm other questions for garen senator benning garen i'm just going to respond you made the statement why would anybody need to carry an assault shit um i'm going to try to red flag this every time i hear this is a constitutional right we're talking about and when somebody starts the conversation by saying why do you need to have that right at this location to me it turns the constitution right on its head i understand that there is a desire to protect people in certain places and we're walking a very fine line trying to do that uh earlier i don't know if you heard the testimony about 3705 being a remedy potentially for this problem but it seems to me if everybody put a sign out front of their business and said no weapons here um eventually you get to the point where your constitutional right is literally useless and i'll just caveat all this by saying i don't carry a gun i used to be able to say i don't have one until i had my father-in-law's ancient shotgun handed to us as a hereditary um memory of him but the long and the short of it is this constitutional right shouldn't be having to be defended on the question of why do you need to exercise it here i can understand many of your businesses may have a legitimate concern about why they should be able to say we don't want this here for whatever reason and i'm trying to walk through a fine line in my own head on how to approach this subject but i really get nervous when a constitutional right has to be defended on the basis of why do you have to do it because that really sets us up on a slippery slope that i'm uncomfortable with and i i suspect your businesses really ought to have that conversation so that we can at least narrow down who really is in need of having some kind of protection as opposed to us issuing a carte blanche government top down statement that all businesses under a given category are simply prevented because there are little nuances like the earlier example of a child care center in gilho there may be very good reasons why we don't want to incorporate them in this conversation um and i guess i'll leave it at that well senator um yeah go ahead garen comment is your your comment is well taken that was careless of me sorry um but uh we are talking about local government not businesses and the statutes have pretty significantly constrained the authority of local governments regarding uh bulk manner of issues relating to firearms so we do think it would be very helpful for the legislature to state quite clearly where those firms may not be carried in in government buildings um but i guess i'll i'll leave it there but i just want to say i didn't mean i didn't want to put you on the defensive that wasn't my intent i'm actually hoping that in conversations about this as we go forward you would go back to your businesses and ask that very question uh because i think it's important for all of us we're we're not really talking about businesses though right but at times my personal uh someone's personal rights for example to post their land and suggest that they don't want hunting on their land going you know is somebody else's right where they've always gone to that land it's the personal property right you see those battles over the years side and then if if store a doesn't want somebody to bring a firearm into their store they have a right to say no that's a personal property right and yes i agree that i agree that they do they they might come in conflict the both constitutional rights could come into conflict that's one of the right yeah my my neighbor just happened to post property that has been unposted for eons i think he has that right but if government was to say all property is posted but that's the conversation we're in right now i understand but if if 40 businesses in bennington decided to post a sign saying no weapons they have a right to do that your private businesses senator bruce i i just want to make it very clear because whenever you present any bill regarding firearms the number one argument against you is that it's the entering wedge it's the nose under the tent it's a slippery slope and so i'm leery about having this conversation drift off into private businesses etc because ultimately it won't hurt the argument of those who oppose the bill it will hurt the bill the bill is very purposefully tailored around three locations and the reasons for those i've repeated a number of times so i i wouldn't want to send our witnesses off to produce additional pieces of legislation or mission creep in terms of our conversation as far as i'm concerned s 30 is only concerned with hospitals government buildings and child care centers so when we when we begin to have a discussion about private businesses i i feel as though we're we're just drifting from where the bill very clearly intends to to go i think child care centers are private businesses philip and that's they are conversation we have to have um senator white uh for the wit let's get back to the witness yeah no i just was going to say karen that um if if if it's all government businesses um i mean all government buildings of any sort that does include the the town garage and the salt shed and the um and it and i don't think it just i don't know in this case of government includes all municipalities so if it would include the the transfer stations um i i don't know how government is um defined here so there are many many um municipalities that are not towns or schools that are um private nonprofit um fire fire stations that are a municipality um and water districts and transfer stations so i i don't know how um far the definition goes here i hadn't thought about that before okay um other question for karen thank you um karen thanks for being here well i'm sure we'll see you again on some issue thank you very much you're welcome uh the next witness is keegan maize williams council for everyone everyone i'm sorry every town for gun safety i knew i screwed something up thank you good morning chairman sear thank you thank you very much uh and good morning um i am uh from every town for gun safety my name is keegan maize williams and i serve as legislative council here this is my second session working in vermont i had the privilege of testifying before the house judiciary committee so i really do appreciate the opportunity last session so i really do appreciate the opportunity to be with you all here today in the senate uh thank you so very much i do want to thank senate beruth for introducing uh what we feel is a very important bill uh and a bill that i think will offer common sense gun violence prevention protection uh for people in vermont uh people who are at their most vulnerable moments in hospitals daycare centers and public buildings i agree that um while right now i can define an essential government function this wonderful con conversation that we're having right now it may not be clear to others what what that government function means i have my own ideas of what an essential government function is um but it would be great for the bill to be more clear about what that is but what we do see is that this bill is responsive to uh you know the current rise and threat of armed extremism in this country today uh over the past year and over the past couple of days of this year legislators all over the country uh i'm hoping not present company included have received multiple threats uh simply for doing their jobs i believe between may and december 2020 there've been at least 85 instances of armed protests at state capitals involving guns uh so i think a bill like this removes the likelihood that any death threats or threats of violence from afar will materialize into any actual violence where someone is able to legally access a building um i understand that there has been a lot of conversation uh during this meeting about the intention of the person holding the firearm uh it is our view that carrying a firearm or being in possession of firearm uh necessarily intimidates citizens and emboldens uh people who are presently possessing that gun those guns for the purpose of intimidating others um and as we can see as earlier this month what can start as a peaceful protest can morph into an insurrection or escalate into a gunfight um i've listened to a number of the witnesses the commissioner of buildings and general services did make clear that her department is in charge of deciding whether or not there will be firearms inside of the buildings um and uh we i'm sure the people of remont are so grateful that she has continued that prohibition however if there is another commissioner who decides differently uh it would be great to have a law in the code that protects cap to state capital and other buildings uh that are publicly leased in the future i i also noticed that uh the department of buildings and general services does not exclude firearms from the grounds um there have been a lot of conversations about concerns about the perimeter and the ability to park um i think the ability to uh add a provision which requires lock storage of a gun in the vehicle could cure that concern while also having the added benefit of ensuring that people who are entering a space where a government function is taking place um are doing so without the ability to carry a weapon um you know i i know that our our view or the way that we are thinking of this as more in terms of defense of first amendment rights peaceful protest is an essential form of an expression of an pillar of american democracy and the dangers that are inherent in carrying firearms at demonstrations are really clear so i would argue that sp 30 could go even further uh to prohibit uh firearms uh during at public locations uh or at least i would include that into the definition as an essential government function though counting facilities that that's also an essential government function that should not bear the intimidation of uh firearm um also during demonstrations on public property i would argue that guns should be prohibited from that place as well um and and i understand that that may be an unpopular view but given the current the current state um i think that it is necessary i wanted to add a fourth type of person uh to this uh bad person good person uh sick person analogy that uh seems to have been presented i want to introduce introduce a fourth person who may otherwise be reasonable who is incensed um when protesting or advocating for a belief of which they hold very deeply and dearly and so all i'm saying is that i would not want one constitutional right to overpower another let's take the possibility of lethal violence out of the equation um you know there have been other people who have said that safety is the true concern that the ability to possess your firearm may necessarily make you feel more safe um it you know it cannot be ignored that uh at times it's been shown that introducing guns into a high stress situation can only increase the threat of injury or possibility of death uh so i would the last thing i'd say is that uh you know uh if vermont were to act on this bill it would not be alone uh just last week in the virginia house of delegates um they passed five bills which are now headed to the floor um and that legislation includes a ban on guns in the capital and the capital square and guns at polling places in washington state there is legislation that's pending banning firearms from capital grounds and a public demonstrations in oregon there's a hearing on legislation to prohibit guns in public buildings uh and also in michigan there are two bills that would prohibit carry on capital premises so vermont would not be alone um and and really responding to this particular moment thank you all so much thank you um i have a couple of questions and i'll go to senator baruth um how do you respond to mr davis's uh testimony by removing the ability of good people to defend themselves we remove the deterrents for bad people that you are well thank you so much uh senator sears i i know that there are of course no law can completely take away the ability for a person who would like to do harm to another to do harm but we do have a wealth of laws on the books for the purpose of deterring people from committing certain actions um as i've listened here today it appears as though the firearm prohibition in schools uh and in um excuse me in courts in vermont has been terribly effective in preventing any type of harm and it appears that sp 30 uh you know i've heard everyone say that there hasn't been any incidents yet um but given the current climate i would hope that sp 30 could ensure that uh that there would not be a future event where someone was hurt senator boo that a question you're muted senator it gives me great pleasure to finally say that to you that you're usually me that's muted i did want to thank the witness uh for her testimony and then to pick up on um what miss keegan williams said about keegan mays williams said about uh the different pieces of legislation in motion around the country those are all areas that have that have seen real violence attempted takeovers of their capitals plots against their governors uh you know almost science fiction like events um and that's what's moving them to act i think some people would then say well we haven't seen exactly the same thing in vermont but the point and and i think this is missed sometimes by gun rights advocates vermont is inextricably linked with the rest of the country via the internet and the way this radicalization spreads is via the internet and you know i'm not telling you anything you don't know uh gun rights groups like every other group organize using the internet and radical groups like the oath keepers the three percenters etc the proud boys they also use the internet as their main recruiting and information dissemination tool so it's not an accident that we're seeing uh a radicalization in many open carry states that's the place where it makes sense uh for people who have in their mind to destabilize government to do their organizing that's one of the reasons why this bill comes forward in vermont so as the witness says we've been fortunate thus far but we are not immune from what's going on in terms of the national online radicalization um and you know i think if i point back to when we passed the uh the ban on high-capacity magazines within a few days there was a rally on the statehouse lawn where they gave away high-capacity magazines for free and that's not something that i would associate with traditional vermont that's a kind of radical radical posture that we will freely distribute high-capacity weapons um to individuals as a way of making a political point and that happened in vermont and it i found it very unsettling to have that happening on the statehouse lawn so um all the way of saying that i think we have been fortunate but we need like the rest of the country and especially the other open carry states to be rethinking exactly where we do and don't want weapons well i i uh i want to just comment that i've found many protests to be inappropriate over the years but people have a right to those i just wrote this you know i i found the protest uh on the inauguration of you so i had a right to do that so i you know i don't want to get into which wasn't appropriate which wasn't the question here really is how do we deal with what is a dream um how do we deal with this issue that you've raised which is firearms and public buildings or government buildings excuse me and hospitals and um healthcare centers i i've heard from a number of folks about that and that's from this discussion i appreciate the discussion about what's going on nationally but i'm i'm more concerned with what's going on in vermont and how vermonters are doing and how's what's our best what do we do with this bill senator white well i was just i was just going to say and i i'm not i you know i have some concerns with this but i also want to say that one of the things that's happening in vermont and i think i'm right in saying this is that um while there were calls for um people to protest and um all kinds of things on the inauguration day that my understanding is that the four major gun groups in vermont actually asked their members not to do it because um of the fear of of um what might happen and so i i i don't want to look at just what's happening nationally but what's actually happening in vermont and i think that i'm right in saying that that they did ask them and i i also wonder if um there is a fear of radicalization and um it seems that and i don't know if this is true or not but i wonder if if the more the more um actions we take against the right to be armed if that um gives fodder for even more radicalization because it gives more reason to i i don't know that for a fact but i just wonder sometimes um with kids when you tell them not to do something then they get angrier about it and the more you tell them not to the more fodder they have for um doing doing it so just just a thought okay senator benning so first i'd just like to respond to senator bruce that he was uncomfortable about that group that met to protest on the state house lawn on the 30 brown mags um you described that as being anti vermont i personally would counter that well you you made a reference to vermont and that being i can't remember your exact words i just wanted to say in my eyes that's exactly what vermont is all about people have a right to protest in support of their constitutional rights um we're going to have more of this conversation i should say for all the folks especially the witness now testifying senator beruth and i have been on opposite sides of this equation but we also go out to lunch every week when it's not covid blocked so by any stretch um that far into opposite camps that we don't have the ability to reach out and try to figure out what the other one is up to um but mrs kagan mays williams you did say that with respect to this bill you thought there should be some tightening up of the description um and i believe you were talking about public buildings and where things actually would be i didn't know whether you had any language that you were going to propose as a result of that but if you do i'd like to see what that is hi thank you senator benning i i think my i wanted more clarification as to what constituted an essential government function um i appreciate that and vermont for example um i'm not exactly sure where polling takes place where the polling stations are they may be at schools they may be um you know obviously firearms are prohibited at schools at all times but just to ensure that firearms are prohibited for example during the essential government function of conducting an election or so i just wanted to be clear because i'm making assumptions of what i think to be an essential government function uh committee meetings uh committee votes a house floor votes um so i but happy to offer examples um if if if that would be appreciated yeah i i don't know how long you've been watching on this testimony over the past couple of days but the bottom line is we've been struggling with that question and um you're now talking about polling places which are a municipal uh form of government and i didn't know whether if you had some clear thoughts on what suggested language would be whether it be municipal state level or even federal level for that matter but if you did i would love to see whatever that is thanks sure i would happy i'd be happy to offer thank you uh senator baruth uh just just a quick comment and then i'll i'll not beat a dead horse but um to back to uh senator benning's comment about that demonstration where they handed out high capacity magazines being vermont those high capacity magazines were provided by an out-of-state interest that purchased them transported them into the state and then gave them out for free to vermonters that's exactly what i'm talking about in terms of the radicalization of vermont it didn't come that rally and those um the rally may have started by in-state interests but those particular weapons or the the magazines were provided by people from out of vermont and so the idea that vermont is increasing one's arsenal i i don't go along with i am all for traditional hunting and shooting i'm all for people being able to have the weapons they choose to have but we are naive if we don't believe that there are forces larger than vermont that are in play in our state both for and against bills like this so i i want to um just clarify that uh what i was trying to say is that in terms of open carry states being flashpoints in government buildings we are not immune from that fortunately we've been spared it so far but uh you know i i said this before when we've had public events in the state house where gun rights people have come in i have myself had to walk the gauntlet from my committee room to my car passed hundreds of people dressed in hunting clothes who recognize me and act aggressively toward me in the state house it's not a comfortable feeling i am comforted by the thought that probably those people left their weapons in their car i would be additionally comforted if it was illegal for them to bring them into the state house i would love to have this conversation i miss our lunches frankly but um when one of us may suggest that you and senator baruth have a virtual lunch someday week um to do it but but may i further suggest that we come back to the witness and after our questions for the witness um that um we have we thank uh being here um we are uh i don't have any further questions thank you so much for your testimony we appreciate it we are going to take this bill up again um friday at 1145 and let me explain why that was the only time that we could schedule a position to represent the vermont medical society so at some point in the near future um i would like to hear as i said earlier about devote two hours of committee testimony to um mr bradley's group and mr davis's group and two other groups that you have senator baruth maybe a half an hour each they can choose their own witnesses that will make it easier for peggy to organize um what would then be more of a public you would let peggy know which to and karen you had a question or comment yes uh thank you i just wanted to follow up on my comment about municipalities in particular being constrained um the statute at title 24 section 2291 sub eight allows menace prohibit the use or discharge but not possession of firearms within the municipality or specified portions thereof that's the law that's on the book today so i wanted to just point that out to you thank you senator thank you and then another witness that we may have is uh garen goings from the national so let me know uh or peggy know and eric you're continuing to research other laws and their impact but i i think it's clear at least that um if we go forward with the bill we need to make a few amendments on a couple of places there we are what is an essential government function and uh there's a couple of other places where we really it means needs to be yeah i've been taking notes as we went along and i'm sure committee members also will have thoughts about language that that needs rework if we get to that point but i've also got some record of that but i i'm intrigued by twenty seven no thirty seven oh five i don't know why i want to make it senator bruce uh i'm wondering and tell me either way i'm i'm fine either way would it help if i were to work with eric uh having listened to uh the committee discussion to work on a draft another draft that would come from me or would you prefer that we all as a committee uh work on a next draft um i'm happy to to do that have you do that but i'm not sure there are three votes to move a bill out of committee without a lot of committee discussion and i hate to have you spend your time on that okay all right so we need to we need to arrive at some consensus if we're going to have three votes to move the bill forward um i will be up right on the table i have concerns about um about the bill uh but i also am trying to be open-minded um to the fact that um i think there are issues in hospitals that folks are facing a lot more testimony in there i think um i'm having trouble with government buildings being so broad we haven't really and that's one one that worries me i didn't realize you know i assume we were talking about the town hall or the you know municipal office building in the state house and surrounding campus but it seems like it's really expanded to what is a municipal building um and to to clarify i'm i'm fine with uh clarifying those things tightening it down even whittling it to the buildings themselves but i did want to make clear that i don't i don't even at this point um want to be targeting only three votes i'm i'm cognizant of the fact that alice and joe often vote against a bill like this but i am definitely still open to trying to find a way that uh that not just a bare majority but a a strong majority of us could agree to go ahead that would be nice to have a five zero senator white so when you're looking at um um the definition of government buildings or essential government functions uh things like um our state's attorney office is in another building they rent a floor on another building that's a commercial building so if it is the entire building would be um prohibited here so i think we need to there really is some fine tuning that needs to be done and it you know um just to put my cards on the table if it turned out that the committee was only able to agree on you know town halls and the campus of buildings that we deal with in Montpelier then i would take that as the committee's will so it may be that there are other um decentralized offices that we can't cover because it becomes just too difficult so you know i'm i'm fully open to narrowing this down to a core protection thank you i think what we are going to do now is adjourn um another great discussion tomorrow i want to we're going to have a joint hearing with the house judiciary committee on the uh art act report and um so at 1045 we're gonna yep so you'll get two different zooms for me today guys one for the nine to 1030 and then one for the joint hearing and um i will let you know um as you listen to the testimony on the art act report i believe the house has agreed to go first on the legislation that goes with the report but there are things that government operations would also need to look at in that report senator okay thank you uh we'll see you tomorrow or probably see all of you at one o'clock