 Senator White has just appeared. So I think we'll start with Evan Hughes, representing the vice president of NRA affairs, Mont Federation of Sportsmen Club. I'm gonna say frequent, but not so frequent visitor to Senate Judiciary, but well-known, I think all of us for his efforts on behalf of the Mont Sportsmen's, you're welcome. Evan, I don't think you've been here before this year, but welcome back. Good morning. Morning. For the record, my name is Evan Hughes. I'm a vice president of the Mont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. The Federation is the largest and oldest sportsman's organization in the state of Mont. The Federation was established in 1875 and traditionally has 50 to 60 member clubs in the state. I'm testifying today an opposition to S30. I believe there are structural problems with the bill and I believe there are structural problems with the bill and it's unnecessary given the existing Vermont laws. For example, in the section on government buildings, the term used to describe the government buildings is very vague. There's also the issue of, like in the case of the city of Barrie, the Barrie Municipal Auditorium is the polling place for the city of Barrie. It is also the site of the Barrie Fish and Game Club show, which has run there for decades. The Barrie Club, Barrie Fish and Game Club pays substantial funds to the city of Barrie to lease the property for a weekend in the winter. The Barrie Fish and Game Club pays for police officers and city maintenance personnel to staff the building during the weekend of the show and also donates to project graduation for assistance with the parking lots of the Barrie Municipal Auditorium. This show brings thousands of people to downtown Barrie on a winter weekend when otherwise there's really not much going on in Barrie. Retail stores, gas stations, restaurants, hotels and motels gain substantial business over that weekend. Groups like the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs, rent papers at this show We advise the public of the Mission of the Federation what our clubs do and pending legislation and issues before the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board. We also sell banquet and raffle tickets at this show as do many other organizations. Several hundred tables are leased out to vendors and it covers two floors in the Memorial Auditorium. The Barrie Fish and Game Club uses the proceeds from this show to help pay for its operating costs for running its facilities, its property, its building and to conduct the Gunner Brook fishing derby for Vermont Fish and Wildlife Honor Education courses and operates its firing ranges which it makes available to the public for a modest cost of a range pass. The Barrie Fish and Game Club also makes its building available to organizations like Vermont Fish and Wildlife for conducting meetings and clubs of the Federation for conducting its monthly meetings. In another instance, the town of Essex asked the Federation to arrange for a firearm safety course in Essex Town and that was conducted at the Sand Hill Road Fire Station which is obviously a government building. All over Vermont, fire stations, town halls are used for such activities where firearms are present primarily for training purposes. The bill as worded could lead to someone pulling into the town garage being in violation of the criminal law this bill would create. In the situation of hospitals, if an adult son and his father were hunting in Berlin and as they were just about to get out of the vehicle, the father had acute chest pains and the son were to load him in back into the truck and take him to the nearby Berlin Medical Center. Once they got into the emergency room if they were carrying a sidearm, it could be noticed that they had violated S30 or the law that came out of S30. In such a case, the ER staff or the hospital security would most definitely contact the local police and a criminal law of violation investigation would be initiated. During the course of that investigation, the firearms that the father and son brought into the emergency room with no intention of arming anyone could be seized from them. Police would initiate an investigation which would result in a report. There are two citizens caught up in a web of a law when they never intended to harm anyone. The father and son faced prosecution. Even if the state's attorney opted not to prosecute, they would have a criminal investigation record affixed to them. Do they have to report this criminal investigation report on job applications? The same thing when applying for or renewing professional licenses. Engineer, accountant, architect, lawyer, would they have to report this interaction with the law? Would they have to report it for background checks? For security clearances for government, military or civilian contractor positions. They could seek to have this record sealed or expunged, but most people would have to retain an attorney to try and achieve such a result, especially if a good one. The Federation has cited numerous laws, existing laws that address the issues of S30 much better than the bill itself does. And do not trample upon the rights and peaceful life of citizens. The Federation has long held a position that law should be based on sound public policy. And excuse me, in compliance with the United States and Vermont constitutions, S30 is a needless solution in search of a problem. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Evan? Evan, in your scenario, did they knowingly carry the firearm in? No, they were bringing a father in. Oh, yeah, my read of what it should be is you should knowingly be carrying the firearm and you know you have it, it's not a, that has to be some intent. So your scenario, I would certainly agree with you. Any more than a few years or two ago, I was walking into the airport in Albany, New York. I forgot to take my money clip out which can tear is a small pen knife. The security noticed that they took the knife, they took the money clip from me, said I could go out in the car and take it back but the person who dropped me off had already left. So I didn't have much choice but to lose the money clip but nobody ever charged me with carrying anything in because obviously I didn't know I had it. So I would agree in your scenario that they didn't knowingly bring it in, they were in a rush to save the father. If I might, I'd like to address the trespass issue. Yeah. For years I was a police officer in Vermont and I often was summoned for complaints of unlawful trespass and people have a right to not allow citizens under their property even if they're engaging in a constitutionally protected activity. Just because you have a right to freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go into a supermarket and walk around with a sign saying support my issue and that the supermarket can't do anything about it. The police will be summoned, the person will be given notice of trespass and they'll either leave of their own accord or they'll leave with the police officer. I've done that many times. So the issue of trespass, our current trespass law in 13VSA 3705 is quite viable for the enforcement activities. Senator Baruth has a comment or question and Senator White. Thank you Evan. I'm wondering 3705 has a phrase in it that says without legal authority. And I think Eric Davis' testimony suggested that in his mind, it's still an open question whose rights predominate in that situation. Let's say that there's a restaurant that has a sign up that says no weapons. It seemed to me that Eric Davis was suggesting that it was an open question whether that sign should trump his Second Amendment rights. So my question for you would be, would you support clarifying 3705 to make it clear that it does include a prohibition on firearms? 3705 is as fine as it is. You just don't have a right to go in and exercise whatever activity you want to on somebody else's property. When it says lawful authority, that would be like if you have a lease on the property, you are a co-owner on a lease. Then you have a right to be there. Anybody else doesn't have that right. I would get that sometimes when I was dispatched to a dispute at a residence and one party would want the other party out. If the party that was desired to be removed was a co-lease holder on the rent of the property, you couldn't order them off the property. They have every right to be there. So my question though would be, if not everyone feels as you feel that it's obvious, there are apparently people who believe that their Second Amendment and Article 16 rights would trump the trespassing statute because of the phrase without legal authority. And it would be arrested. Well, so my question is, could we clarify that? Your argument is that it already includes firearms. I'm saying would you support then adding the words, this includes firearms? I think the statute is fine. I think we're gonna... I know that's not responsive to my question. We're gonna differ here. I don't think anything needs to be changed. I don't think you have to say firearms or machetes or signage I don't appreciate. If the person who was in control of the property for the owner or the owner gives notice of trespassing, the person given the notice has to leave unless they have lawful claims to the property, they have to leave or they will be arrested. And again, we would differ on lawful because the ultimate argument in any of these, as you know, any of these gun bills, it always goes back to the Constitution. And the thing about the constitutional argument is as we said earlier in the meeting, it takes several years for courts to settle that. So if somebody walks into a restaurant with concealed carry and while they're eating, their shirt slips and someone sees that they have a gun, they may stand on their second amendment rights, at which point we have that ambiguity in the law produces attention in real life. So... I don't think there's any ambiguity, Senator. I think the law is perfectly clear that that person can be given notice of trespass and removed forcibly if necessary by law enforcement. Senator White, and then we need to move along. So I've got quite a few witnesses waiting. I was just gonna, I guess, clarify with Evan the meaning of lawful authority. So if I go into the Sajonko station down here, which has a sign on there that says, no shirts, no shoes, no mask, no service. And I go in there without a shirt on. The owner or the manager has the right to tell me I'm tresp- to get out or I'm trespassing. But the other patron in there does not have the right to, because they don't have the legal authority, the lawful authority over that property. Is that what you're saying? That's what the statute reads. That it has to be the owner or the person in lawful authority. When I was a police officer and if I was dispatched to a bar, may not be the bar owner who's called, but it's the bartender. The bartender has the authority of the owner to say that customer needs to leave. And I would say to them, okay, give them notice of trespass. And then I would say to the person, you can leave if you're on a court or you can leave with me. And if you leave and you come back, you will be leaving with me when I come back. But the other customer doesn't have the right to say. No, they don't own the property. Right, exactly. That's what lawful authority means in this case. Okay. I just, Mr. Chair, if I could. Yeah, I'm just trying to get to all the witnesses. That's my only goal here. So I'll be good to address this with you off the Zoom meeting. Well, I'd like to respond to the general line of argument. So let's go back to the masking debate. One of the things that we've seen again and again is the trespassing statute in all of these states is what's being used to eject people who don't wear the masks, that the store has the right to eject you. But the point is that the anti-mask people who are in many cases overlapping with anti-government open carry folks, what they're saying is my constitutional right not to wear a mask trumps your trespass statute. And in Eric Davis's testimony, he even said the constitution gives me a right to carry a gun but it doesn't say anything about clothing or masks that I have to wear. So you see where the ambiguity lies. Someone's a certain kind of person is always gonna go back to the constitutional argument. I'm saying that by clarifying 3705, we do our best to end that debate. And they can articulate that position sitting in the back of the cruiser with their hands handcuffed behind them. They have violated 3705 of Title XIII. They have been given notice of trespass by a person who either owns the property or is in lawful possession of property. They were hired Air Force officers who walked into that lease office and didn't think they had to leave. They left, they left to be escorted by the Burlington Police Department. So I think we need to be careful about assuming that open carry advocates are the same as anti-government advocates. I would say that Senator or Governor Peter Shumlin supported the open carry law in Vermont but I would suspect that he is not anti-government. So I think we need to be careful about assigning groups to each other. Okay, I need to take control of this. I'm worried about other witnesses having time but an interesting discussion but we have quite a few people on the line here and I got 45 minutes left in the session. Thank you. Thank you, I appreciate it. Mr. Wilson, you're muted, sir. Don't feel bad, I do it all the time. I mute myself, don't get unmuted. My name is Ed Wilson. I've been a small business owner in Morrisville since I arrived in Vermont 50 years ago. My wife and I worked together in a business full-time until she became the Morris Town Clerk from which she retired three years ago after serving for 28 years. For the past 38 years, we have owned and operated on amusement machine vending and ATM business and have built the business from just over a hundred machines in 1983 to over 600 now. At 73 years old, 33 tire, which will be more difficult if not impossible since COVID. The majority of our business is directly tied to the hospitality business and to tourism. We have a very diverse mix of customers that I talk to all the time, including Bolton Valley, Mount Mansfield, Smuggler's Notch, Jay Peak, and the restaurants and hotels around those areas. We go from the General Store in Morgan to restaurants and service clubs in Newport, Enosburg Falls, Allberg, St. Albans, down to Burlington for food trucks and bars, to Ferrisburg back east, to the Ice Center in Waterbury and hotels down to Northfield, back to Montpellier, Danville, Lindenville, Westmore, or Barton and Orleans and all kinds of places within that route. I guess I could have just said Northern Vermont, but I wanted to tell you who I really interact with. And what does this have to do with S30? We in the hospitality industry are hurting out here, really hurting. The grants and PPP loans have all helped, but unless the lockdown ends soon, it'll all be for naught unless there are more grants in the pipeline. At the beginning of this biennium, I was sure that I heard Vermont's fiscal situation and the overall wellness of Vermont is so dire that the legislature would only be working with budgets and planning to help Vermont get back to some kind of normalcy as a pandemic hopefully winds down. I know that I heard legislature, legislators declare that this form of legislating by Zoom was not that transparent, possibly illegal and should only be used for the most important issues related to the pandemic. A hearing like this for S30 belongs in a state house open to all with time for all concerned to speak. People who are working desperately to save their jobs and businesses and their employees jobs just don't have the luxury of taking time off for these Zoom meetings. S30 is a solution in search of a problem of all the people that I interact with, hotels, nursing homes, hospitals, service clubs, campgrounds, taverns. No one is asking for this type of a bill. Hospitals and nursing homes and other public places have polite signs on the door stating that weapons are not allowed. But bars in the Northeast kingdom have signs that simply say no guns, no knives, et cetera, but not once in the 38 years that I've been serving any of those establishments has anyone ever mentioned that a law like S30 is any kind of oppressing need? They know that the signs, and this is the most important part, are only there as a reminder for honest guess and that anyone with criminal intent won't be deterred by sign or law. But all of these business owners and employees agree that the legislature main job should be working on COVID relief and repairing Vermont's economy. Regarding firearms at the polls mentioned earlier, I've been a BCA member for over 20 years and I've never felt intimidated or worried about anyone carrying firearms. This year our elections are being held at the local VFW because it has a space to social distance. What about a VFW member who visits his club as usual is in possession of a gun with absolutely no criminal intent? Would they be charged under S30? I've been going to the state house to testify for over 35 years, sometimes for business related issues, but mostly for sportsman's issues. It seems like almost every year after legislators have taken their oath to uphold the constitution, we have to go to the legislature to beg that our constitutional rights not be violated. Zoo meetings are not the venue for constitutional rights to be debated. During a hearing on guns at the state house several years ago, a female senior citizen was there to testify. She was dressed plainly and I was sure that her testimony would be in favor of the anti-gun law and would garner sympathy from such a grandmotherly person. I think that everyone was surprised when she told the committee members in no uncertain terms how foolish the proposed law was. She then related how in better times during deer season, her young sons would get up early to get their barn chores done. They would hunt their way over the hill and board the school bus to go to school. The guns would go into the lockers until school was over when they would once again board the same bus, get dropped off where they could hunt their way home. Her message was plain, simple and pointed. You do not stop crimes by targeting law abiding citizen and that is exactly what S30 would do. In summary, S30 is not necessary would do nothing to enhance public safety but even more importantly, the legislature working outside of the state house should not be working on any bills that are not related directly to the physical situation caused by this pandemic and how we're going to recover from the ravages of the pandemic. Your attention and activities should be directed to helping Vermont citizens who are hurting from a situation they had no part in creating. Thank you. Did I muted myself? Thank you, sir. Any questions or comments from Mr. Wilson? Mr. Wilson, thank you very much for being here. Chris Bradley is our next witness who had Chris has provided written testimony. You're muted. You're muted, Chris. I've been caught. Damn. Thank you, Senator Sears. Thank you, committee. I have prepared testimony for the record. My name is Chris Bradley. I am the president and executive director of the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs and his avenues related. We've been in existence in Vermont since 1875. And in fact, we were the organization that was pivotal in starting the department of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. I began by stating that I believe we are all aware that there are at least 10 existing statutes that can come into play whenever someone acts out with a firearm. I also remind all of us that Vermont is consistently one of the first or second safest states in the nation when it comes to violent crime as reported by the FBI. With the advent of S30, however, there is now a stated intention to address the basic possession of firearms with strict criminal liability. When a firearm is carried into a designated prohibited location even when there is no intent and even without any consideration for the basic human flaw of being forgetful or being distracted. To quote the sponsor of this bill as to its purpose. As it stands now, if someone carries a gun into a hospital or if they carry a gun into a childcare center and someone sees the gun and asks them to leave, they have no recourse. A police officer can't get rid of that gun and the person can stand on their rights to have the gun in the environment. You then went on to say, so part of the idea is preventing people from bringing it in. The other half is that once you have determined that someone has a gun on that property, the statute, if we pass it, would give them that right to escort that person off the property. And then obviously there are questions about how or when or if you could prosecute them but a law enforcement officer could get them out. While we are not exactly sure of what was meant by suggesting there would be questions about how or when or if someone would ever be prosecuted, the above were the stated reasons why this bill was brought forward. In response to this, the Federation pointed to 13 VSA 3705 as an existing law that not only appeared to address those precise concerns, it is already in use for that exact purpose at state buildings, at hospitals and at other locations in Vermont. Further than that, the manner in which 3705 would be enforced is absolutely identical to how S30 would be enforced. The committee has heard from Mr. Campbell who expressed concerns that there would be, should be wording about knowing and then he referenced 13 VSA 4004, that would be firearms at school statute as having the elements of quote intent and quote knowing that he thought should be considered language. He suggested that the definition of a public hearing was vague, excuse me, public building was vague and that there could be an issue with leased office spaces. When defender general Matthew Valerio testified, he shared with us his four criteria he uses for evaluating bills. They were, are there any constitutional rights implicated? Are there current laws in the books that cover the activity? Will the bill achieve its intended purpose? And will the bill make anything worse inadvertently for those intended to be protected? In regards to those four questions, the thoughts he shared seemed to indicate that three out of those four tests were not met. As he indicated that you thought there were laws in the books that address this, such as 13 VSA 4003, which references intent and his thought that simply carrying was not the problem. He stated that in his opinion, the bill would quote, probably not achieve its intended purpose. And he suggested that this bill would effectively prevent an employee at a daycare, government building or at a hospital from being able to respond in any manner to a threat should one present itself. Defender general Valerio then shared with us that he served on the governor's violence prevention task force. And in referring to that effort, he then made the statement, one of the things that became pretty well recognized when you were talking about actual safety was that more criminal laws and prohibitions on weapons were not going to be the way to increase public safety. Towards the end of his testimony, Mr. Valero made one other comment, quote, I understand that there are times to pass bills that in and of themselves aren't going to have any major effect on anything. And this might be one of those times. When commissioner Brown testified, he stated and I quote, we have not had any issues with the implementation of these regs or the enforcement of those regs up until this point. He also suggested that if S30 was passed, quote, it could really complicate our ability to continue to regulate in a way we have in the relationship we have established to our providers who are used to these rules and working within these rules. When commissioner Fitch testified, she is quoted as saying, quote, at this point, I don't feel a necessity to either modify the rules that currently exist or a necessity for this bill in terms of the purposes of BGF at this time. She then further stated, quote, I have what I need to regulate guns within BGF. I don't find this bill to be necessary for BGF. When commissioner Sherling spoke, he indicated, quote, known known incident with firearms in recent history. When Devin Green of the VA HHS testified, he stated, quote, there is security at hospitals. At most, if not all hospitals at this point, there is security there. When police chief Matthew Romiai testified, he indicated that he has the tools he needs to handle firearms showing up at the state house. In regards to defensive uses of firearms, President Obama issued executive orders which directed the CDC to study the causes and prevention of gun violence. That study was subcontracted to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Specifically, that study found that the defensive use of firearms is, and I quote, a common occurrence. Quoting further from that study, quote, almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals with estimates of annual uses ranging from about half a million to more than 3 million per year in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes. To suggest that firearms are rarely used in self-defense is a rather severe misstatement. As we look closer at why Vermont is so safe, we actually see a number of things that work against that. For example, we know Vermont to be quite rural overall, and we also know that for 2019, Vermont had the lowest number of full-time equivalent law enforcement officers of any state in the nation per 100,000 residents, the lowest in the nation. Obviously then, our continued ranking as the first or second safest state in the nation cannot be due to an overwhelming police presence. Today, approximately 200 Vermont towns rely solely on the Vermont state police to provide law enforcement coverage without equating to approximately 50% of Vermont's population and approximately 90% of Vermont's land mass. Further than that, Vermont state police's coverage is not 24 hours. They, by necessity, only run two 10-hour shifts, leaving 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. with on-call coverage only because of our rural character. Vermonters have had no choice but to learn that they are not only the first persons affected by crime, they are usually their own first responders. As a basic issue of propriety, firearms owners fully realize that openly carrying firearms is not suitable or appropriate in any number of locations due to the simple fact that seeing firearms can make people uncomfortable. This is especially true when firearms are seen at locations where they're not normally seen, such as perhaps hospitals and government buildings. Since the NCIS background check system came in into being November of 1998, the FBI reports that more than 630,000 firearms were sold to Vermont residents with a record 57,965 being sold in 2020 alone. Firearms are quite literally everywhere in Vermont with the average of one firearm for every Vermont resident, not counting the hundreds of thousands of guns that existed in Vermont before 1998. Well, that may be a staggering number of firearms for some to consider. The vast, vast majority of these firearms are held by honest and law abiding citizens who know enough to not make others uncomfortable by purposely bringing a firearm to a location where they are not normally seen. The creation of quote, gun-free zones where there is no investment security personnel or screening equipment does not make anyone safer. In fact, they only create an illusion of safety. There is no true safety at all. In point of fact, it is now known that people with evil intent are far more likely to target quote, gun-free zones for the simple reason that there is a much greater chance that they can cause even more death and destruction than another place. For that reason, I have chosen to call these areas zones of illusionary protection or a zip, as that is why what they really offer people that may go there for safety reasons, they get zip. When Vermont became the 14th State of the Union on March 4th, 1791, firearms were ubiquitous and being proficient with a firearm was very highly regarded. Since then, Vermonters have enjoyed the freedom and liberty that our constitutional rights grant us and as we are a pretty rural state, firearms continue to play a role in significant number of Vermont lives. Now, after 230 years of clear history that demonstrates responsible firearms ownership which must and has contributed to Vermont's continued ranking as one of the first or second safest states in the nation in regard to violent crime and the third lowest in the nation for property crime. Vermonters are presented with a bill that would right out of the gate impose a strict criminal liability on a Vermonters right to keep and bear arms when this is clearly not based on any demonstrated need, but instead based only on conjecture. The Federation does not support this bill. I close with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, quote, laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides. For an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thank you very much for your time. I'll take any questions that might arise. Thank you, Chris. I appreciate it. Any comments, questions for Chris? Thank you very much, Chris. Thank you, sir. I had to follow your testimony that was provided written. So I don't know if you want to update or if you want to update what's on the web, our webpage, you're welcome to do that. Our next witness is Darren Gohans from the NRA IL. Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Sears and members of the committee. It's good to be here. Certainly this is a different unprecedented year. I'm here today on behalf of our Vermont members. I would also point out that the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs is our official state association. I know that they've been engaged and they have spoken at length, testified at length on these issues. We're today at least in the ninth inning on this. So I think there's maybe only one other speaker to go. So I'm gonna do a big favor to the committee in the entire world and sort of set aside by written remarks and do a little bit of a summation and hopefully speed things up and add a little brevity. I don't think there's any need to keep making the same point over and over again. Our members are opposed to Senate Bill 30 and it's pretty simple why. We view this as completely unnecessary. It's not a problem that is afflicting the state of Vermont. And in the process of trying to come up with, as Evans would say, a solution in search of a problem, we feel that you're only gonna create additional problems that are going to ensnare gun owners who have no criminal intent, who maybe cross an imaginary line and they get ensnared with these laws. And we've seen this in some of the neighboring states like New York and New Jersey that have created very, very complicated laws by coming back year after year on the same issue. I guess one of the unique things that I will say that maybe deviates from some of the testimonies, we heard a lot of talk early on in the committee hearing about fear. And I think that there's fear on both sides. There's rhetoric on both sides. I think everybody can acknowledge that. You know, as far as the stuff that goes on, I can tell you after 15, almost 16 years of doing this at NRA that I could show you fax logs, email logs, phone call logs, police reports. Our folks are targeted at their homes. I mean, the stuff that goes on is just absolutely unbelievable and it's on both sides. I've walked out of a committee hearing in another state and have been poked in the chest by, well, I won't tell you what color T-shirt they were wearing but you can probably guess. And it's just unnecessary. It's unnecessary on both sides. But I hope to reel this in. And the thing that I've seen in Vermont over the 10 years of being up there is when we have these large gatherings in the house chambers, I see doors being opened by the people in orange shirts and saying, yes, ma'am, thank you. Please and thank you. Very courteous. And for a crowd that is advocating for gun rights to the best of my knowledge, I've seen nothing but courtesy. I also remind people that usually when I look around, there's at least a dozen police officers and in recent years that number's been growing. So if people feel threatened or fearful, certainly some of that stuff should have been documented at those hearings. But again, I wanna get away from some of that and really reel this back in to Senate Bill 30 because we've heard testimony about magazine bans today and other issues that really don't deal with this bill. This bill is simply, as Eric said in the original walkthrough, a location restriction. Our objection on a location restriction is that it does not take into account criminal intent at all. Interestingly, the bill also doesn't deal with things that are non-firearms like knives, clubs, baseball bats, explosives. And a lot of these places are demarcated with nothing more than a posted sign. And I think that at the end of the day, we haven't heard testimony about how this is a problem in Vermont. Quite to the opposite. I've listened over the last month to hearings. We've heard from the superintendent of the buildings. We've heard from the captain of the Capitol Police and they've all but said there isn't a problem that the current law is working as it should. If someone trespasses, it's usually easily resolved by simply asking them to leave. In fact, the worst case that I've heard through all of this ended up being an umbrella in a public building. So to the extent that this just simply is not a Vermont problem, we're really just trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. And I think that ultimately, that's gonna create more problems for the law abiding citizen. I mean, this is a constitutional right. I get that some people are afraid of firearms. They see them, they're afraid. But you can't restrict someone's constitutional rights based on a fear. And at the end of the day, because this bill is unnecessary, it's ineffective, and it's going to cause more problems than it solves, we ultimately are gonna ask you to oppose Senate Bill 30. And with that, I thank you for your time this morning, Chairman. I muted myself again. Thank you, Darren. Appreciate your testimony. Are there any questions or comments for Darren? Appreciate it. Will Moore is our final witness for the day. Well, welcome to Senate Judiciary. Good morning to you folks. Good morning to Evan. I haven't seen Evan this year in the cafeteria. It's hadn't seen his face at all, but I've seen the rest of you, Darren. Welcome. I agree, time's a little short, so I won't read through my testimony. I did submit several written documents back in the early part of the month. They're reposted. I asked Peggy to repost them on today's date so they'd be easily found by you. You haven't read them already. My main concern initially with the bill was similar to those that have been expressed, simply that it's superseded a process and a capability by private landowners and in this case, specifically hospitals that already exists, that the trespass law was robust, it was accessible, easily accessible by agents and staff of a facility like a hospital, which are obviously trained for very different purposes, but as a person who has been a hospital security, unarmed hospital security personnel for several years, a year in Copley, the smaller hospitals do not have armed security. I'm not even certain that except for the UVM police, there are any armed security at the largest hospital in our state, but the trespass order has apparently been working. Again, the differential for the current draft and I appreciate Senator Sears and others that have at least put the element of intent knowingly into that effort. Certainly that's in response to much of our testimony and others in the past. I appreciate that however, it is still a de facto criminal charge and doesn't offer that opportunity that has seemed to have worked so well to simply say, this is our policy, you need to leave. We have, again, I'm gonna repeat some of the previous testimony, we've only heard anecdotes about Dartmouth and so on that rely on a criminal intent and a criminal act, but we have heard no statistical or anecdotal evidence that the current trespass order and the ability for these institutions to post, instruct, educate, interact, respond, discharge a person from the facility, ask them nicely or scream and yell at them to get them out, whatever it takes. We haven't heard any evidence to the contrary. This is doing anything working well. So barring that as much as I appreciate the element of intent being inserted into the newest language, I would stand with my original position in my first letter stating that it is really an unnecessary bill that would place lawful gun owners at hazard in the normal day-to-day. The traditional coalition represents a lot of different sporting interests, including snowmobilers here in Memorial County who may or may not be carrying and show up at a hospital for a variety of reasons, not necessarily related to the riding a snow machine, but they're tourists. We have skiers from other states that have second homes up here and so on and they may or may not be fully aware of what can or cannot be done, but the fact that the system seems to be working and that the, although the hospitals have not started this hue and cry for an extra law, they certainly have expressed their awareness of the current trespass capabilities by posting and engaging with the police when necessary. So I think that recaps the basic position. I did write a rather extensive response to Senator Baruch's amendment that apparently is no longer on the table but would create a strict liability criminal offense. It's reposted today, I direct you towards that if you're interested in that, but I think if you skim it, even though that amendment for a crime of that nature is no longer in the amended version of the bill, it does give you a quick primer on what intent means with regards to criminal acts and prosecution and the capabilities of people to make unintentional mistakes, lawful acts leading to the criminal act are often unintentional and perfectly lawful. So I think it's something you may, some of you, if you haven't read it, you may wanna consider scanning that and give yourself a primer on intent. I wanted to make a few notes on some of the testimony today and then I'll finish up. Again, I wanna thank those folks who did try to draft a new version of the bill that includes the element of intent. But I think the whole argument can go back to that basic question which is, is it working? And it seems to be working. And I think we've established that or at least those supporting a new restriction haven't established a need. And that is about intent, that if we step away from the fact that it's a hospital or childcare center or whatever, in this case, just hospitals, it really has come down to a question of intent. And if we don't step away from that, we're only acting on emotions. And again, the references to January 6th are meant to play on our emotions. Ms. Scheer pointed out correctly that the evidence showed that it was largely an unarmed event. However, whatever crimes were committed were certainly intentional. And we're already illegal. So the parallel, I think, is unfair. I wasn't gonna bring this up, but I want to because it was already brought up the decision from the Vermont Supreme Court. I've read it once. I haven't studied it, but I've read it once. And I don't think it's a very scholarly, it's not, I wouldn't give it a high grade as a scholar. It's jurisprudence is, I would say, fairly weak. It is a throwaway decision in the sense that it simply submits that reasonableness and rational basis test for any government regulation on Vermont's gun rights is acceptable and basically because we say so. It's not high art. And if anyone's who'd read the Baker or Brigham Decisions, they know the Supreme Court is capable of some pretty fine work and some pretty superb jurisprudence research citations and so on. And my respect for that case, this recent decision is pretty low. But I think drawing a parallel to the First Amendment would reasonableness be a test that any of the senators would want to allow the court to apply to restrictions on the First Amendment or freedom of the press or political speech or ads. I think that you need to see these as not being parallel in order to be able to put Article 16 rights and Second Amendment rights down that far on the Code and Pole. You need to actually deny that these are individual constitutional rights. And I think that case will prove at the federal level to be insufficient. Again, the anecdotes have been all based on criminal intent. The current law allows, for instance, Montpelier City Hall to have every right to put up a sign, vote to put up a sign that restricts and they can access 13 BSA 30705 for the trespass for their meetings as to many town and city governments across the state. I disagree with the characterization that was repeated here that the Mish case somehow is the first word on Article 16 rights here in Vermont that is patently not true. The Carlton case and the Rosenthal case specifically represents 140 years of jurisprudence on Vermont's particularly specifically right to carry open or concealed. And anyone who doesn't know that will fall prey to the idea that this is the first spot, the first speech from the court on Article 16, it's simply not true. If I can end with an anecdote of my own as a hospital security personnel. There are a lot of things that happen in hospitals as anyone knows who spent time there with a loved one or after a terrible accident or something that shake your world a little bit. But I can tell you that working a hospital security in a small hospital is a, the way I was trained was that I was one of the caregivers. We were not trained, we were trained by a Newport training officer from the prison up there and take downs and restraints and being able to wiggle our ways out of a situation in order to gain safety and ensure the safety of others in the facility. But our first order was to call the police and reference anything that we didn't understand or couldn't handle. And very close by in Morristown, they're very close by. But we never have a problem we couldn't deal with at least intermediately with relational tools with the caretaker attitude with a neighbor to neighbor discussion because we were trained first as staff security as caretakers, not as police officers. We were taught that that was really we're just another part of the ongoing continuum of caretakers and caregivers here in the building. So there is not what I would consider to be a desperate need for armed police officers standing in the emergency room. And there certainly isn't a need for having to call the police every time some lawful gun owner unintentionally or unknowingly walks into the building. And is left in a quandary at hazard, simply because being notified of their having a gun and them not being wanted is no longer a defense under even this version of the bill. And I think people deserve that who are exercising lawful and unknowing and unintentional acts that they deserve that. And certainly because there's no history of violent acts and violent anecdotes that we've seen I think we should put a hold on this one. Just put a hold on it for now. Appreciate your time. And I would point out again, the RAND study that I provided in my earliest documents I had a research document. Basically, they've come to a statement where they do not see significant studies that meet their standards showing that 100% gun free zone, in other words, the total ban on a particular type of facility actually affects the goals that have been stated by the sponsors as well. Thank you very much. Thank you, Will. I appreciate it. And I appreciate everybody's testimony this morning. I will say one thing, a number of folks who brought up the issue unknowingly and I think I can't speak for over the 16 sponsors and the bills because I know one can, but I think they would all suggest that knowingly should be an element of any criminal offense at any rate. Could I ask one question about that? Yeah. It occurred to me and I don't know if it's really appropriate questions for you, whether it's council questions or not. I don't know. Would your version of 1.1, would your version of the bill, the current version of the bill, would it negate the access by a hospital institution to exercise the trespass option? In other words, would they have the option to say I'm notifying you that you're trespassing if you do not leave? I don't know. And if you leave end of it? My guess is it would not negate that. The clarity on that I think should go a long way here. Okay. So committee, Jeanette. Jeanette, you have a question or comment? Well, I just was going to say about the knowingly language. Somebody could knowingly have their gun with them but there's a difference between knowingly and intent. So I just point that out. Understood. That is true. That is actually, there are two elements of the strict liability criminal act and knowingly and intentionally are both in there. In other words, they're denied as defense. I want to say something else that I think is important. I agree with Senator Baruth that we should all tone down our rhetoric. I thank you for mentioning that others have mentioned it. We went out of our way to tell people, to discourage people to show up on the 20th at the state house. That was our effort. I think using words like radicalized and anti-government to denote a certain group is okay when you're making a case in a written article or something, it's fine. But throwing it out in conversation, I think it's a little bit of a trigger. So just so you know, Senator Baruth, I think that some of us are sensitive to that. So just to put it now. Well, everybody today has raised certain issues and from their perspective, all the witnesses have different perspectives. I appreciate that. I appreciate all the witnesses. This has been extremely helpful to me anyway. I don't know about others. And so ending the hearing, thank you everybody for being here. I've got a couple of...