 Thank you. We're here to make a decision regarding how we would suggest the Senate respond to S30. And before we start to hear from witnesses, I'd like to issue an apology. Yesterday I was guilty of zooming out loud and I should not have done that. I spoke and was picked up by Vermont digger. And I don't want to leave any, I want to first apologize for my comments regarding S30 and I don't want anyone to construe that I don't support S30 as passed by the house, as I do. And I'm particularly apologetic to the pro tem who I may have alluded to having forced us to take it up. My only really the reason for my comment was just changing the agenda. And I feel more ridiculous this morning over changing the agenda when I found out that the item that we had on the agenda for this morning on the judicial numbing boards was actually something that the house is taking the lead on not us and I had mistakenly put it on the agenda. So, quite frankly, I feel a little hot about that I also like to apologize to the vice chair, particularly because I, we had talked about this privately. And I'd indicated to him my support for it. I don't want to make anybody think that I don't support S30 as it passed the house. There are, I think, three issues, one which I hope Judge Zonay can clear up because we never everything else in the bill we passed at one time or another, in one form or another. And that's the issue with the RFAs. And I believe that my understanding is that those judges already do that and can do it this just codifies that practice. Second issue is Senator White or Senator Nick raised about the RF, about the 30 days and maybe the language needs to be a little clearer. And the third issue is in the hospital section. And we had a one year penalty. The house put in a $250 fine. And I, you know, we should at least discuss that but I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that I oppose the house did or any manner. What's the dangers of zoom, I guess you say things that you would like to take back but they are now recorded for history. I deeply apologize. With that. I thank you. And any. Am I accurate in those three things that the committee. Is that what we want to focus on. I think so. Yeah. Can you help us with the RFAs and that section, I believe is the last section. Section six and for the record Tom's own a chief superior judge. And the issue that I understand has arisen is the one about the addition of language that relates to section 1104 of title 15, which says to immediately relinquish until the expiration of the order all firearms that are in the possession, our defendant's possession and it talks about firearms. I know that when judge Greerson testified about this previously where there was in the senator the house I've had a chance to visit with him on that. And our position remains the same that the addition of this language clarifies what many judges are already doing. When there is a temporary order, many judges believe that you have the ability to enter language like this in a temporary relief from abuse order. And addition, adding this language to the statute makes it clear that that is something that is permissible. There are some judges who would not enter this possibly because it's not clearly set forth. And many of the judges already do this. They believe that it is either under inherent power or that the statutory interpretation of the existing language is such that it is a permissible component of a temporary relief from abuse order. And I can explain that in much greater detail if the committee would like or answer any questions. Rather straightforward any questions, Senator Nick. I have a question not necessarily about that but where does the yesterday there was mentioned of the fort of taking the firearms or 14 days and where is that mentioned. That's in the Europo. Okay, too. Okay, and then where in terms of the court system and how it's operating. Are those is that 14 days being honored by having a hearing at the end of that with the court closed etc. I'm unaware of any issues that have arisen with the timeliness of those types of hearings. Okay. I have not checked into it for today but my personal knowledge as of today I have not been made aware of any such issues. Thank you. Just to be clear, section two is the S five, which is something I introduced that at the best of the local emergency room box who would want it to be able to speak without without without violating HIPAA. Yeah, if they felt somebody was dangerous. So we're, I guess just, is it Eric that then will explain to us the the 30 day piece and clarity on that. Is that what's expected now. Yeah. Okay, but we. Why don't we get to it. Are there any other questions for judge zoning. Judge, thank you very much. Thank you. Our next, our next witness is Sarah Robinson. I'm the director of Vermont network against domestic violence and sexual assault of sexual violence. Excuse me. Morning. Thank you very much. Good morning. It's good to be with you all. Thank you so much for the invitation to provide some testimony on s 30 on behalf of the network and the 15 member organizations across the state that serve victims of domestic and sexual violence. I strongly support s 30 as amended by the house and I'd like to briefly speak about the earlier sections of the bill, but plan to focus the bulk of my testimony on section six that judge zoning was just referring to the network supports the language in section related to banning firearms and hospital buildings. And last year when this language was originally taken up by the Senate, we heard from forensic nurses across the state who provide support to victims of domestic and sexual violence and hospitals. They spoke in support of the language and related stories about threats they experienced in their work and the importance of hospital settings being safe environments for health and healing. On behalf of those nurses and other clinicians serving survivors, we support that language. Likewise, we support the language in section three, strengthening our existing extreme risk protection order statute by clarifying the pathway for medical providers to notify law enforcement if they are concerned about a serious and imminent threat to a person or the public. In our view, both of these provisions are common sense public health proposals that strengthen existing laws. We also support section to closing the so called Charleston loophole data indicates that of the background checks that take longer to be completed and of those denied many of them pertain to domestic violence related circumstances. According to an analysis of FBI data from the government accountability office, it takes close to an average of 10 days for Nick's background checks check denials related to domestic violence. And this means that for some of those denials that can take far longer than 10 days for the check to be completed and the denial to be made. Let's move on to section six, which is really the most critical component of this bill for victims of domestic violence. And that relates to emergency relief from abuse orders. As judge zone a indicated, the purpose of section six is to clarify and codify the existing court practice related to emergency relief from abuse orders. Making court or legal relief from domestic violence is inherently dangerous for survivors and victims of domestic violence are at the highest risk of being killed by an abusive partner when they leave an abusive situation. Countless studies affirm that the two leading risk factors for domestic violence homicide are the presence of firearms in a violent home and recent estrangement or leaving. According to a meta analysis of those studies published in 2018, a perpetrator's direct access to firearms was the risk factor that increased the likelihood of domestic violence homicide by the highest percent. Because domestic violence can pose dire consequences for survivors families and all of our communities. It's essential that tailored emergency relief, provide protection for victims when they need it the most. The other conditions set by a judge for an emergency relief from abuse order are determined on a case by case basis by a judge and are tailored to meet the particular circumstances of the abuse. In fact, there are already order firearms related conditions and emergency relief from abuse orders when the circumstances warrant such conditions. Section six simply makes this authority explicit for judges to temporarily remove firearms from a defendant, if necessary to keep a plaintiff or their children safe. These firearms removal provisions in temporary orders do so currently because they feel compelled to based on the grave circumstances before them, but they must rely on the inherent authority of the court. This can place judges in a difficult position and more importantly, deprives all litigants plaintiffs and defendants alike of the clarity and certainty of knowing the type of possible relief available through an emergency relief from abuse order. Section six ensures that there remains judicial discretion in ordering firearms related conditions does not expand or narrow the court's inherent authority to issue these types of conditions, it simply clarifies it. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions that you might have. Senator Sears you're muted. Sorry in my life. Thank you, Sarah appreciate your testimony. I asked if there are any questions Sarah and I didn't realize I was muted last. Thank you. Our next witness is Allison slay counsel for every town for gun safety. Thank you very much for joining us this year's an honorable member of your judiciary committee. My name is Allison she and I serve as counsel for every town for gun safety where I'm responsible for supporting legislative efforts in Vermont. I want to thank you for your apologize for messing up your last name happens all the time it's simpler than it looks. It's a great opportunity to testify today on behalf of s 30. It's great to be with you. And I really appreciate your having me. I've submitted comprehensive written testimony into the record for your review. But in the interest of time, I would like to focus my comments today on addressing some of the questions that have come up as this bill has moved through the legislative process that I hope I can help to clarify. This is a legislation that you all passed into law in 2018. Vermont law requires background checks for all firearms sales. It's an important foundational common sense gun violence prevention tool, which helps prevent people from purchasing guns, who are legally prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a history of dangerous behavior background checks help keep guns out of the hands who use them to do harm to themselves or the others. Because of a dangerous loophole in federal law known as the Charleston loophole or default proceed period. People have been able to evade Vermont's background check law in the rare instances where their background checks have taken longer than three days. We know that because of this loophole, each year in the United States, thousands of people who are legally prohibited from owning a firearm are able to purchase one anyway. The FBI reported that nearly 6000 illegal purchasers acquired guns through the Charleston loophole that later had to be retrieved by law enforcement between January 1 and November 12 of 2020. That's more than in any other entire calendar year. These transfers are happening in Vermont. As the director of the Vermont Crime Information Center testified a few weeks ago in the house, over the last few years, at least 28 guns were sold to illegal purchasers due to this loophole in the state of Vermont. And because ATF agents are responsible for retrieving these guns, it's their lives that are placed in jeopardy by having to go into potentially dangerous situations to recover guns that never should have been sold to begin with. As counsel walked through yesterday, lengthening the background check period to 30 days effectively ensures that no one can evade Vermont's background check law and purchase a firearm without first passing a background check. That's because under ATF regulations and next background check is only valid for 30 days before it must be reinstated. Exactly this reason, several of the states that have passed legislation addressing the Charleston loophole have, by design, chosen 30 days as their default proceed period to ensure that no one receives a firearm without first passing a background check. This legislation is not going to unduly burden law abiding gun purchasers, nearly 90% of all background checks are completed within a matter of minutes, and 97% are completed within three days. Very few people that are legally able to purchase a firearm will have a background check that takes longer than three days. And those that do take longer will be able to purchase one once a background check is completed. In the rare instance that a person experiences repeated delays, the FBI has a process to rectify the issue. We should be particularly concerned about background checks that take longer than three days, because those are the cases that are four times more likely to result in a denial. Many of these cases involve misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, meaning that allowing checks to proceed without a background check has particular implications for victims of domestic violence. Lengthening Vermont's default proceed period to 30 days will effectively close the Charleston loophole and ensure that no one will be able to evade Vermont's background check law. It will help protect victims of abuse and protect the lives and resources of law enforcement. And importantly, it will close a gap in the law that undermines your existing efforts to protect Vermonters by ensuring that guns are sold only to people legally able to possess them. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today and at this point I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Did you say there were 28 Vermonters last year who tried to, who tried to purchase, who purchased firearms after the three day waiting period, and we're able to obtain that shouldn't have. Correct. Yeah, 28 guns were transferred to illegal purchasers that guns are 28 people. I mean, it was a 28 different instances or 28 people 28 people buying buying guns. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Allison. Thank you very much for being here this morning Allison very helpful, and we do have your testimony on our webpage. Thank you. Alright, the final witness is Chris Bradley of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. Greetings. Peggy, can I have a very short PowerPoint and am I able to share my screen. Yes, you are. Thank you. Hopefully you can see that committee. Yep. My name is Chris Bradley for the record executive director and president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. Quite simply, I'm going to keep this as quick as possible. Section one 13 BSA. We've already discussed this we can't support it. I'm not going to belabor it any further. Majority is spoken. Section two, regarding the committee, we can't support that and discussion follows. Section three, this has to do with the reporting. I think this gets to the crux of where we can actually see some difference. We do have strong concern. And we're wondering about further vetting with a committee on healthcare or whether in Donahue you might be able to address the committee. Section four 13 BSA 4062. This is a reporting section. No difficulties here. We would request if possible. And if it's not already there, we get some numbers on the number of times firearms are being handled in erpo cases. Regarding the section five 13 BSA 4021. We support that at 100%. This is actually a bill that the Federation asked to be considered on behalf of our member club, the Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association. Section six, holy mackerel. We cannot just, we cannot support this. And major discussion follows on that. Just speaking to the background check piece. We hold that the bill as amended has the potential of creating what could be an endless loop with nicks because of a 30 day reset. And the 30 day limit in that is contemplated in Vermont law, meaning that an entire process can run and at 30 days. And in federal law, the next process resets of the form has to be submitted again, and you enter another process as I believe, Mr Fitzgerald explained. We think the committee deserves to hear testimony on background check processing from Henry Perot. Mr Perot is an expert in as an FFL probably does more background checks in Vermont than any other individual. There are some interesting stories about problems with same names, security clearances, even a police chief that has issues because of his name. So we see some issues there. So as a side, I'm going to drill for the rest of my time, and I appreciate the committee allowing us to speak to this section six speaks to 15 VSA. I need to be crystal clear because there was a discussion yesterday with Matt Valerio in this committee concerning the alignment of federal law to state law and the potential overlap between the two and the supremacy clause. And it is very clear in state and federal law that you cannot, you cannot take properly property in an RFA situation or temporary RFA situation, unless the defendant or representative has their day in court and are represented in court. Federal law and this is borne out by the Benson versus Mascari Supreme Court case. Federal law says in a temporary hearing temporary RFA you cannot possess the defendant cannot possess. It says nothing about relinquishment. And as I've already said, relinquishment can only happen when the defendant has their day in court under federal law. This is a huge sticking point for us. This is a constitutional issue. Due process for this bill. I believe H 133 is on Senate schedule for full discussion. What we're seeing in this section is H 133. It requires vetting. There's issues here. We have concerns I believe I heard yesterday that other speakers might be allowed in. I reached out to Eric Davis, Eric Davis as a working man simply could not clear his schedule. So, and in fact, I had 20 less than 24 hours to pull this together. We really, really have a concern or their jumaneness of installing this title 15 bill into a bill that is addressing title 13 issues with firearms. The reason for that is if you look at chapter 21 of title 15, the word fire weapon confiscate or relinquish, never show up there. I guess I'm going to. I'll just mention this is passing because it is, it is baffling to me. I've just stated that this is being done already. If we take a look at the order of statutes 15 BSA 1103. This is the final hearing language, and it's cool. It's very clear the court can do anything that they feel is necessary. And that clearly, and we don't argue that that speaks to firearm relinquishment or confiscation. The problem we see is in 1104, which followed the final hearing language so there was a great deal of thought put into what could and could not be done in a temporary RFA. These are restrictive. In fact, if we're looking at making a change here, then 1104 should be changed to say, you can't possess. And again that would align with Benson versus muscarii to suggest that relinquishment should occur is is a reach. In my opinion, and I'm not as far as judicial. I forget the term that was used inherent power. I need to do some research there. Finally, very quickly, just looking at raw numbers and these are from 2019. This is a chart directly from the Vermont judiciary and statistical report. 207 RFAs filed and they break down this way. A couple of change of venues, 6, 617 were immediately denied, which left 2,674 moving forward through a temporary RFA process. This portion shows that of those 2,674 fully over 55% over half, never made it to a final hearing. So far, we believe situations, not all of them certainly, but the RFA never went to a final hearing, yet we pulled firearms, or we could have pulled fire. I know time is short and the committee really needs to discuss further action. I won't belabor this point, but we really feel that 15 BSA is not germane to the current structure of what's being contemplated, because it doesn't mention anything about confiscation of weapons. Are there any questions I can answer. No, I think you've been pretty clear, at least to me, I don't other committee members may have questions. I don't need to address any of them and I cannot thank you enough for this time. You're welcome I'm sorry that it. It's saying one more right. Yeah, it's on the agenda. It's on the excuse me not the Senate doesn't have an agenda it's called the calendar. It's on the calendar for today for action. So, with that, I second bleached the testimony. Thank you, Chris. Were there any other questions from Chris committee members. Thank you Chris. Really appreciate it. Judge zone I see you're still there and I do have a question just of curiosity. If you wouldn't mind. Yes, judge. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Do judges. Do they see their ability to. Ask for the relinquishment of firearms in an RFA. Initial RFA. Many judges do believe that there is. I mean, it's more than just you shall not possess and I've never figured how you don't possess if you already have. And the law allows them under the current structure to order that. The police that the spend dance. In those cases relinquish their firearms to the serving officer or other process but yes. Okay, thank you. Senator Benning. So judge while you're on the screen. Tell me how in a temporary hearing. Where the person who owns a firearm is not present and not presenting any information whatsoever. Can have property removed from them. Without what I was always trained to understand was due process of law. The structure of the relief from abuse order. As judge many judges look at it is that if the affidavit indicates facts and circumstances that cause the judge to believe that the abuse has been committed by a firearm or that firearms or something that can be used to to abuse someone or kill them or injure them that the structure of the statutory framework to allow for a hearing in a timely manner. Permits that type of order for the for the protection of the individual. It's not in every case. It is in a case where the judge finds that it does exist as the as a factor that needs to be considered. So if I hear you correctly. The judges who are granting these orders are using the statute construct. And I think that judges who are ordering the relinquishment of firearms are utilizing their view of the law. In a way that is considering the statutory structure. Whether it's for the final hearing or the temporary hearing. As designed to provide protection in accordance with the law and they believe that the orders they are entering are in full accord with the statutory law. They're inherent and or their inherent authority and certainly with constitutional protections that an individual may have. The latter phrase you just used. I'm assuming is based on the temporary nature of the removal. That would be my understanding. I have not had a constitutional challenge to that personally. And I'm unaware that the Supreme Court has addressed it so I cannot speak for all the judges as to the legal analysis which they employ. Thank you. Thank you. Eric, can you come back on please. Thank you, Eric. There was a little discussion yesterday. I believe it was Senator White, but it might have been Senator Nick. Concern about the way that the section dealing with the Charleston loophole is drafted. And that It may not be clear. Senator White or Senator Nick. Yeah, I think that it the way it the way it reads isn't in the bill is that after 30 days. The transfer goes ahead. But federal law says that after 30 days, you start all over again. So on day 31. Does the transfer go ahead or do you start all over again and that I think that that's even if you said after 29 days, the transfer goes ahead. Then the transfer would go ahead but you can't say after 30 days the transfer goes ahead because federal law says you start all over again. And so I don't I don't understand that I mean you can't say after 30 days the transfer goes ahead because federal law says you start all over again. After 30 days the transfer will go ahead. Is that correct. Well, that's what it says. I know that I know what it's what it says. How would we are you asking me Senator sorry. Yeah is the was. What would happen what what will happen after the 30 days if it takes that long. I'm assuming that most are cleared by 30 days. Well, I think that that the intent of the language and how it reads maybe two different things and I would say I had time to think more about Senator whites point yesterday and last night and I think the more I thought about it the more I think she's right. And that that and this is my fault my responsibility because I didn't catch that ambiguity in the language as it came out of the house. But I think the point Senator White is making is that that the, even though what that is intended to mean I believe is that then the transfer may proceed as a matter of Vermont law, you know that's what it's getting at and that's accurate. But it's also miss, it could be read as misleading because of the federal law that also applies that I think that myself and and the other witnesses talked about this morning I think everybody is in agreement on the fact that that that 30 day period after which the background check expires and it has to be restarted I think everybody agrees about how that works and that the effect of that is that the default proceed or Charleston new poll or whatever you want to call it I refer to as the default proceed as the legal terminology that that would be fully, fully closed by this statute by this proposed statute if it were to pass because that would mean that even though the language seems to imply that that there is in a 30 day default proceed that in other words if you don't get an answer within 30 days, then the language can go forward, but it can't because of the of the federal provision in the code of federal regulations so. So that means that one could read the language and not get that point, you know, not understand that that the that that federal regulation exists to to prevent that transaction from going forward until you get a positive impact from next, which I think is what the intent of the language was. And that's, you know, I think the committee just as a policy matter could think about I think center series you mentioned this the other day. You know, do you want to think I could sort of almost think of a couple of different policy choices and the language can be drafted either way but let's say you wanted to, to have this continue to be the policy. In other words that the language has passed the house. That's exactly what you wanted policy wise to continue in other words you don't want there to be a default proceed process. I don't want any ambiguity I'm fine with the house. You know, policy. I just, I think it's in the ambiguity comes in by saying the transfer may proceed and then the gun owner, I'm excuse me the gun store owner or the person. And selling the fire and would be in a kind of a curious situation. Well Vermont lost says that the transfer may proceed but federal law says it can't. I don't expect that they would have to call their lawyer to figure it out. Right. From my perspective, that's what the goal would be, would be to do what the house did, but clean up the language. And all you need is a period after the word system. That'd be the way to do it. Easiest way to just strike that glass claws entirely. So why did they go with 30 days why not 20 days or 28 days or 15 days. Why, why did they settle on 30 days when they should have known that this was a. It's like a catch 22. Senator Bruce. You're muted, Senator. I would say it's not a catch 22 it's, it's an actual attempt to close the Charleston loophole. If you go with 15 days, you're closing the Charleston loophole halfway on purpose. Whereas the whole intent from the beginning has been to actually close the Charleston loophole, which is 30 days. So, if you have 15 days or 20 days or 28 days, you are deliberately leaving a loophole in which firearms can be sold to people who don't pass a background check. And the whole point of background checks is to make sure that nobody gets on without one. So, I, I find this whole discussion of, you know, problems around 30 days as very curious because that is the only way to close the Charleston loophole. And I would point out to the committee, we passed language that said in S 169 the Senate passed language this committee passed language that said you couldn't get a firearm until a background check had been complete which was 30 days or it could be 100 days could be 120 days. So, you know, this language is perfectly in line with what we've already passed, and the attempt to make it seem like an endless loophole or something like that is just ignoring the idea that that we're trying to entirely close the loophole. I think that the 30 day, the way it's written, it is not clear. It says the transfer may proceed. I take that is wrong. It can't proceed. I think we're all of it. I think if I could just and what Eric suggested would get rid of that problem that may proceed, but it would keep 30 days and entirely close the loophole. And people start the whole process again they have to file. Is that the way we want them. We want them not to get a weapon if they didn't get a background check. And so if they have to reinitiate the process and and or appeal to the FBI through that pre established appeal process. That's how the system is designed to work. So anything less than 30 days is deliberately leaving the loophole open. Got it. Senator, excuse me, Eric. Thanks. Just to clarify there is the language. I had suggested that 30 days wouldn't be mentioned at all. It would just read. It would come before that. And it would just say person shall not transfer a firearm to another person if transfer requires a background check. And the licensed dealer facilitating the transfer has not been provided with a unique identification number for the transfer by the national criminal background check system period. And that way. It's clear that that the transfer can't go forward until they get a positive result from next. Right. Is that agreeable to the committee. That is the area before. No, I think it is too. Senator Benning. I've never been happy about this bill, but I do agree. That language ought to be changed as has just been suggested. I have another question about a different section. Okay. Eric, with respect to. I'm on the top of page five. Can I just make sure, Joe, that we've all agreed with this amendment. Whether we agree or not, it's clear. Okay. No, I think we're all okay with the amendment. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Now I'll go ahead, Joe. Thank you, Eric. Thank you. Thank you. By the way, Eric, I've heard you. Been called Fitz Gerald twice in the past 12 hours. I know what your last name is. So I want to make clear for the record. It's Fitzpatrick. I'm looking at the top of page five. I am not an expert on HIPAA law by any stretch. But I understand that is a federal. Regulation. My safe so far. It appears to be. Giving. Immunity. To a healthcare provider. In a state statute. How does that dovetail. With the federal HIPAA regulations. Well, I think that it's, it's. To me, I view it as identical. And that the, the HIPAA regulation. Uses the exact language you just referred to center betting to say that. Healthcare providers can provide information in these circumstances. So that language is to help. It's not a HIPAA violation. If a healthcare provider provides. Information about a patient. When the provider believes in good faith, it's not a HIPAA violation. It's not a HIPAA violation. It's not a HIPAA violation. It's not a HIPAA violation. Or less in a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or the public. So all this is doing is restating what already exists in HIPAA. And then. And that's why, and I, I asked our healthcare attorney. Jennifer Kirby about this. And when I'd sort of describe the circumstances of, you know, potential, whether it's a hospital patient or whoever this might apply to. And I said, yeah, I think it is. But this language is being passed. It just sort of provided an extra level of comfort level to providers and. To make clear that. That that HIPAA language. Which I think would already cover. A in ERPO situation, but just to be clear. And so that everyone has full level of comfort. That HIPAA language is then repeated again in subsection B. And defined to include. An ERPO situation. Would it already. Would it already include that? I tend to say yes, but. At least this makes it clear. My, my, my goal. And when I introduced that was conversations with the. Emergency room docs at the South West from my medical center, who were concerned about violating HIPAA. If they went to law enforcement. And obviously. They're not attorney. So the doctors. I may have missed that explanation earlier, Eric, if you gave it to us that this is actually mirroring language in HIPAA. Right. Missed that conversation. I apologize, but thank you for clearing that up. Sure. I might not have been as clear about it the first time. Senator White. I think we also dealt with this one. We were doing the Kulagowski case. I'm sorry. That also mirrors the HIPAA language and does the same thing. Yep. Chris badly. Did you have a brief question or comment? I see your hand up. That's all. Yes. If I may. I just had a couple of quick corrections. Part of the issue with the. Background check is so that. Somebody that's looking to have a firearm. It can have a legal basis to which to challenge. The fact that they're denied. I'm the only, I have a couple of other things that you may want to consider. There's some new domestic violence forms. That came in within the last year and a half. You really need, in my humble opinion, to take a look at those and how they might affect. People looking to. Have guns. The, the primary reason for section six and our understanding. Was that. County judges were not treating RFAs. There was a disparity in the, in the granting of RFAs. This was nothing to do with guns. This was how many times one. A judge was issuing a temporary RFAs. Just one other further thought. We've always been concerned. When you have a domestic violence situation, and it is now risen to a point where there's a clear. Danger. Such that we're looking to contemplate taking firearms. We've been baffled that. You have a domestic violence case with guns. We've been baffled that. You have a domestic violence case. Why cannot that spawn an ERPO case? Because you have language specific in ERPO. To handle removal of firearms. So you have a judge, they have an affidavit. It's from the person. At that point, if the affidavit is of a sufficient. Level that this is really. Is in serious problem. Why can't the judge say, here's the affidavit. I'm going to send this over to a state's attorney. Could you please look at this for an ERPO process. Thank you. That's. There's much more to say. And I'm sorry. Thank you. Chair chairs. You're welcome. All right. Are there any other issues? I just want to raise one, Eric, the $250 fine and section one. I think it's in section one. That's it. Can you just help us understand a little bit why they didn't choose the one year. $1,000 fine. I think it was just a matter of. Discussion during committee and the legislative process and they're being. Different points of view about whether the. Whether the one year was, was the right penalty or not. The one year was the right penalty or not. I think it was a different point. That was a different point on a. A fine only crime. So it's still a crime. It's not a civil offense. So it would not be. A judicial bureau traffic ticket civil offense. It's still crying. You know, there are some fine only crimes on the books. And this would be one of those. So it's, would still be prosecuted by the state's attorney. Handled that way, but there wouldn't be any. Potential prison, prison time. Does that mean they wouldn't be allowed to have a defender. couldn't represent right. Yes, that's correct. If I'm the only one that is concerned about that I'm fine with it. Let it go. I will say that I think if I remember correctly I think I might have voted against this bill when we first passed it around the hospitals. And I like this version of it better because of the no jail time so All right. So is there anything else besides the one amendment? So we would concur with further the motion would be to concur for the proposal of amendment and the amendment would be the in section the section for Eric. I thought it was to yeah, section to striking putting a period after the word criminal background check system. Period I'm striking provided that if the identification number has not been provided within 30 days and the transfer may proceed. So it basically goes back to the language that was in S 169 that we passed two years ago or last year. The same concept. Yes, the language is different. But yes, conceptually exactly the same. All right. Any further discussion? Senator Bennett, Senator Ruth. I would move that the committee support concurring with further proposal of amendment as just described. Right. Is there any further discussion? Senator Benning. I guess in order to avoid having to make a speech on the floor, which I would prefer not to do for the committee's benefit. I just cannot find it in myself to codify a decision that would remove someone's constitutional right. Even though the excuse is that it is only temporary. I just cannot reach that point. And I have I have heard similar language on other issues. This never really is compared with anything else. But as soon as I hear that coming up, I'm listening not to an issue about guns, but an issue about a woman having a 48 hour waiting period prior to an abortion. And I don't want to make that comparison to sound silly. To me, it's the constitutional concept. And that just leaves me feeling terrible about removing someone's due process rights when in previous legislation that we've dealt with. I worked very hard to try to get those due process rights installed. And I took a lot of heat from various quarters because I ended up voting in favor of the relief from abuse language that incorporated that spent quite a bit of time with the victims, advocates, groups trying to explain why it was important to have a judge involved in the conversation and getting due process. And I feel like we've abandoned that principle. So accordingly, I'll vote no. I'll respect the committee's decision and leave it at that. OK. Any further discussion? Senator Nica, I would just like to say I appreciate being able to have the time today to go over these issues that I was very disturbed yesterday about the same part that Jeanette was, but I didn't even get a chance to say anything. And, you know, we were pressed to get out of the committee, but I'm grateful that we did have a chance to go over that today because apparently things are being rushed. So glad we were able to do that. So thank you. Thank you. Again, things. Yeah. Thank you. I think I've said enough already. So Peggy, unless there's any other comments from committee members, I'd ask you to please call the roll. Senator Benning. No. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. Senator Baruth, would you be willing to report? Absolutely. Thank you. Appreciate it. Senator Patak, I did it again. Sorry. That's all right. At least it wasn't Fitzgerald. So just a question, as far as I'm not sure, I know the bill is on the calendar. Sounds like Senator Baruth is going to report it. Does that mean it happens today? Do you need, should I, in other words, draft up an amendment? Our preference would be to have it happen today and that you send the amendment, I think, to Senator Secretary Boomer. And then Peggy sends a copy to Senator Baruth, who then confirms the vote was four to one, zero, four, one, zero. I think that I think it works the same as a bill. OK. How does it get taken up today? I'm not quite sure. It's on the calendar. Oh, it's on the calendar already. And it's just a calendar for action. Yeah, well, no, this is concurred with further proposal. Right, right, right, right. But yeah. But I have to wait for the clean copy for you from you. Right, Eric, from editing before I can send it to Senator Baruth. Yeah, we'll turn it around quickly and we'll get it to you. What is it, one o'clock on the floor today? Yeah, and it's the last item on the calendar. So even I think we're doing the budget adjustment first. So even if we didn't get, you know, if it got there at one fifteen or something, you should be fine. Right. And the amendment, I think the way it will sort of appear is that it is up to however you'd like it to appear visually. Ordinarily, you know, we probably just say strike subdivision. You could do it. You could strike you. Would you like to have in front of you, Senator Baruth? The entirety of a new D, in other words, the language would just say from the beginning, a person shall not transfer a firearm to another person if it requires a background check and the language we just described with the period. That way, yeah, people aren't sort of flipping back and forth. I think that makes it easier for people on the floor to see what's going on. Yeah, I think you're right. Thanks, sir. Yep.