 For the record, my name is Representative Paul Portier from Berry City. I'd like to say that I think this is the first time that I can recall, as I get older, my memory sometimes slides, but I don't think I've ever asked to come before a committee while a field was being worked on by a committee unless I was the sponsor giving an overview. So I appreciate you giving me this time. The reason I'm here is, and I said this briefly on the floor, and I expect I'll take maybe 10, 15 minutes at the most. I said when we had the last issue dealing with firearms and on the floor two weeks ago, whatever it was. I said briefly on the floor that I had a major concern that this reminds me of what we went through in the year 2000 dealing with Civil Union. And I want to share with you why I said that. There's only a handful of us that are still in the building that were here during the 2000 debate, and we saw what happened. And I can tell you, of all my years in the state house and hearing from people that were here before me, that was probably the scariest time that I've ever, as a lawmaker. Many of us got received threatening home calls at home. We received, you know, names were posted just down the street here with X's through it. And it divided this state. And one of the reasons it did is because it was a major cultural change that we were asking people to accept. There was no doubt in my mind that when we started the biennium, some bill was going to work its way to the floor. Just knowing the way the people, you know, the people felt about the issue. But the point was that what made that whole process, from my perspective, very successful, it was then the chair of the committee, Tom Little, you know, walked into a process, and I'm not saying you're not. I'm just saying what I'm trying to relate. The one thing that could not be criticized on the house floor was the process that he used. That bill, I mean, in 2000, they heard from it. Anybody that wanted to be heard, they had a public hearing, and it was packed. But the point was that if you're going to have a controversial issue, try to eliminate the issue that shouldn't be an issue, and that's the process. So what I'm here, and I also here, I'm speaking, I'm up for the record to show because they contacted me, the very fishing game club, all of its offices work during the day. They called me and they asked me if I would at least get their feelings on the record. And their message is, why aren't we having a public hearing? I mean, that's what they wanted to know. And I said I would raise it to the committee, and I explained to them it's a committee process. I mean, they decide how they want to move forward. But I don't think my very fishing game club is the only club in the state that's probably asking the same question. So I just wanted to have that. I've asked the question, and I know you haven't even started your deliberations as to where you're going to go. I'm not expecting an answer, but I just want you aware that there is one group of a large number of people who really believe that we should have a public hearing. And their reason is that you're getting into more specifics now in S55 and in the proposed amendments that I have seen. And so what they're saying is we should have a public hearing, not on just general gun issue as an issue, but rather specifics of what is being proposed to go forward. So that is their request. I leave that with you. The last point I just want to bring up to you is that many of us in the chamber, the work that you do represents and reflects on the work that I'm a Vermont legislator. They don't separate. Well, you're not a member of that committee. They say you're a Vermont legislator and you use the process that wasn't good or bad or whatever. But regardless of how we're going to vote on these issues, okay? The one thing that is the most helpful is the legislative. And I used it a lot and if I had gone by what I heard from my constituents on civil union, I would have voted no, but I voted yes. But I was able to come back to them on everything about you ramming this down on our throats and I was able to come back and say that is not true. I can tell you it's not true. And I had a kind of a thing of how many witnesses they heard and how many of this. So at least I could diffuse that topic. Now, if you don't like the fact that I voted I'm going to vote yes or I voted yes, then that's your prerogative. But don't tell me that, you know, we tried to rush something through down the throats of people of the state of Vermont. I find similarity in the same path that we're on now dealing with this gun. It's going to be a massive culture change, you know, should all of this or part of it change. You know, we're known as a state with some of the least restrictions on guns and if everything passed that I've seen on the list, if everything passed we'd go from that to one of the most restrictive states. And all I'm saying is that's a major leap for people to, you know, to jump to without at least feeling that the process was there. So my plea to you is simply this, as you deliberate what you want to do, take, just stop and think about us who are going to be on the floor so that we can go home and argue about the merits and not having to defend that the process was rammed through and everything else. And I'm not saying, again, I'm not saying you're doing that. I look at your witness list and I mean I see you're trying to hear from a lot of people. But, you know, the best way to hear is to give people off the streets an opportunity to come and be heard. So again, I was here, I see similarities to 2000 and I just know what made 2000 much better for us as legislators was to be able to, you know, to just dispel this idea that the process was not, you know, fair to everybody on both sides. And I think that's my message and I'm speaking as a person who was here when that happened. I thank you and I wish you well in your deliberations. Great job. Can you take a question up on my hand? Sure, yeah. I have a question. So you're, sorry, you had mentioned about OPA Forum's landing human body speak. Are you suggesting that we should have some kind of forum on this issue? Let me just, I mean, I think I'm suggesting you have a public hearing and let people come in. But again, by then you're going to have specificity, I always have a hard time with that word, about, you know, are you doing gun magazines? Are you doing this? Are you doing that? I mean, people will come in at least know that this is what's the issues in front of them. Before it was kind of a generic, how do you feel about guns? You know, I'm opposed to gun rights. I'm for it. Now you're getting down to specifics. So I would like a, I look at it as a public hearing is an opportunity for people to come in. And just let me just share with you what we're doing in Berry City. In myself, Tommy Walls, Topper McFawn, and Rob LeClaire, we are holding a community meeting at the Berry Opera House Tuesday at 5.30, and we expect 2 to 300 people based on the responses that, you know, we've been getting. And so we've worked with the, you know, the officials, the city officials in Berry City, Berry Town, select men are going to be there. It's an opportunity for our community members to come out and tell us. I've probably heard from five people in all honesty. Five people have maybe made a point to say, oh, vote no on this, oh, you know, on guns, oh, vote for this. I don't know why. Tom Walls did a survey before the session started, and he put it out on our French porch forum, about 700, 800 people on that. He got about 30 back, but guns was like number eight out of 10. So I don't know. But like I said, I've heard from about five people. I mean, so we're going to reach out to our community and say, tell us what you think. And, you know, each one of us will make a decision based on what we hear and what our conscious tells us. But I'm just asking you to just, you know, reflect on what I shared with you is that we should be able to dispel in our home communities that the process was rushed and everything else. And that way we can just say, you know, and that it worked really well for Civil Union that allowed us to focus on the issue. We didn't probably change any minds one way or the other, but I'm just saying is that we were able to dispel that thing that it was a already predetermined, locked in and everything else. So with that, I thank you for listening to me. I wish you well in your deliberations and enjoy the rest of the day. Thank you for bringing that perspective. Thank you. All right, so Mr. Hughes is next on our list. Good afternoon. By the record, my name is Evan Hughes and the Vice President of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Groups. We are the largest and oldest sportsman's organization in the world. The Berry Fish and Game Club, to which Representative Boyer was referring, is one of our member clubs. I'm also a trustee of the Berry Fish and Game Club. The Federation has always had the policy. The law should be based on sound public policy, in compliance with the state and federal constitutions. I'm now going to address the mandatory background check provision in S55. Well, let me preference that was saying. S55, as it was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was a bill that amended the process for law enforcement agencies to divest themselves of the firearms that were in their evidence lockers accumulated over the years. We worked with the Senate Judiciary Committee to accomplish that, that part of S55. And we thought it was an effective way of helping law enforcement in compliance with the state statutes, get the firearms out of their lockers, out of their safety, excuse me, out of their evidence lockers, in a way that they will return to the Department of Buildings and Grounds. And they would be sold at auction to FFLs. We thought that was a responsible way to deal with the firearms. When the bill got to the floor, there were two amendments put on it. One of them was over mandatory checks. And we're opposed to that portion of S55. And the reason is that criminals don't obey laws. And if they're evading the present background check system, what would make anyone think that they would comply with this background check system? No criminal that steals a firearm is going to run down to a local gun shop and try and get a background check done. There's also the issue of with trying to get a background check that honest citizens will have to pay for these checks. And there was a castle and state poll done, and it showed a high percentage of the public and a high percentage of gun owners that appear to favor these checks. But when you tell firearms owners that when you go to an FFL, if the FFL will do the checks, they're going to pay for the checks. And you get a very stony response, because their opinion is, when they bought a firearm from an FFL before, the FFL has done the check for free. Well, that's because the FFL is selling their own stock. So they perform the background check portion of that because it's a requirement through the federal laws, and they provide that service for free because they just simply add the cost of the administrative portion of doing the checks into the sale price of the firearms. The citizen is going to have to find an FFL willing to do the checks. And if you look at the relief from abuse order storage provisions, there's only one FFL in the state willing to do that. Why would an FFL, let me rephrase that, there are FFLs in the state who are like Walmart and Dix. They're not going to do these checks. They're not going to be involved in dealing with used firearms. There are many FFLs in the state, or the majority of them, who are what we call a kitchen table top FFLs. The only reason they have the FFL is so that they can do background checks for their club when they're purchasing a firearm, like one of our clubs. Or if their club is doing a banquet or a raffle so that they can acquire the firearms at the discount rates from the distributors and be able to do the checks for the clubs. They're not going to do checks for citizens coming in trying to comply with this law. The storefront FFLs, peros is one. Henry Perot came in and testified yesterday. Many of them are not going to want to do these checks. And the reason they're not going to want to do them is because their insurance carrier may not allow that under their policy. When the insurance carrier writes the policy, they do so because the expectation is that their business is going to be taking firearms from an authorized distributor, regulated under the federal laws, and selling them to the public. And to the insurance carrier, there's an additional risk in taking these guns in and out and selling them like that. Some stores are now experiencing that their insurance carrier just doesn't want to be in the gun shop insurance business at all anymore. And they drop them, and they go out and get into policy somewhere else. So let's say the insurance carrier says, well, when we wrote you this policy, it was because we expected you to be primarily involved in a business of taking firearms from distributors and selling them to the public. We didn't write your current level of premium policy with the understanding that you were going to be doing these transactions that will be required by this law being booked into your stock and sold out. That's additional risk to us. Premiums reflect risk. So they could see their insurance premiums walk considerably from the end. I think I actually have a question. Sorry. With respect to that issue, because I'm trying to figure out maybe that potential impact. You mentioned before, you said that your clubs currently care the FFL, but simply for those things currently in that capacity, in that limited capacity, is there any kind of liability insurance that even the club has to carry for that? Any club that's out there that doesn't have liability insurance, the expression is going bare, is at severe risk. But the reason I was asking, because I was curious if any of your clubs have been yet contacted, their carriers to try to get an idea of A and F, they would be canceled, or they would expect a premium increase in what that would be. I'm just wondering. It would just be nice if we could get some kind of dollar. I have no way of knowing. And now every club has an FFL who's a member who does that. We wouldn't even know which ones do. So did I answer your question? Yeah, but if you know what they do, because if you might be able to just reach out and see if they would call upon that provider, I would appreciate it. I can ask. If you're an FFL, and you're in a business, and that's the legal term on the United States code, it's engaged in the business, and you take in a firearm from one of these transactions, it turns out the firearm is stolen, and you've booked it into your stock, and you've sold it out. Now, can you just imagine the media headlines? The XYZ gun stock shop is trafficking and stolen firearms. That's another reason why FFLs are going to be buried. We've locked them to take these purchases off. And also, they would end up with the local police and or the ATF coming in to look at the transaction that ended up in them having so stolen a firearm that was stolen. And when a person comes in with a firearm for this type of transaction, and let's say it's an 870 shotgun, the most popular gun in the United States, and the dealer's going to look at this as competition with their own stock. So the dealer goes, you want to buy an 870 or everything? I got five of them on the rack right there. But what I'm going to charge you for this check, it's going to be cheaper for you to buy a new shotgun for me than deal with this person buying their new shotgun. So it's putting on a burden on the FFLs that they may not be willing to bear. And under this law, what would stop someone of Vermont resident from driving over to New Hampshire and buying a firearm over there? So this would place on our FFLs the possibility that they're going to lose business out of state. It just seems that on the background check portion of this, it's not going to deter a crime. Good ones don't get their firearms this way. Some of you may remember the Paul Hynes story about where he bought the used AR-15, the parking lot. Thank you, Paul, because you proved exactly the way criminals don't buy firearms. A criminal wants a firearm. They want a specific type of firearm. They want one that fits their specific type of criminal activity. They also want to know that the person they're buying their firearm from is not an ATF agent. Like happened to the lad over in Barry who tried to buy a firearm. And the story was in Times Argus the same day. The story was run about the bank robber being shot, who he was trying to buy a firearm illegally, the victim fell in. And the seller was an ATF agent and foreman. So they also don't want to risk picking up a firearm that's stolen, because now they picked up an additional felony for all their work. So they don't want to buy a firearm that way. Wait criminals buy firearms as they get a straw purchaser to buy exactly the firearm they want. That way they know that the person that they're buying from is not a law enforcement officer or an informant. They also want to have a firearm that's functional. When Paul bought his rifle, it had an effective extractor. So he bought an AR-15, and it was essentially a single shot semi-automatic. Every time they fired around, they had to work the action. That's why criminals, when they buy their firearms, they know they're a new firearm purchased by a person with a clean record to get exactly the firearm they want. So thank you, Paul, you prove that that's exactly the little I criminals don't buy their firearms in that method. For people under the age of 21 buying firearms. This bill categorically says that people between the ages of 18 and 21 are incapable of maturity or judgment and must therefore be excluded from buying a firearm. Yeah, we allow people in that age group to enlist and the military be drafted, marry, sign a 30-year mortgage, and vote. Those are all based upon their capability to be able to perform responsible and legally binding transactions. Give you an example. A 17-year-old girl enlisted in the military. And she serves a two-year enlistment. During that enlistment, she goes to Iraq. And she comes home. She's completed her enlistment. She's 19 years old. She now cannot buy a firearm until she's 21. She carried a rifle every day. And yet, we're saying you're incapable of the judgment of purchasing a firearm on your own. The reason I used that analogy is my daughter enlisted at 17. She came home after army basic training. She was well versed in firearms long before she went to the military. Well, when she was at Nelson's, I restored. Very. And they had a gun counter in there. And the person working behind the gun counter was not very familiar with firearms. They probably worked in some other part of the store most of the time. And they were trying to disassemble an AR-15. And my daughter at 17, who probably looked about 14, was watching this. And she walked over to the person and said, give it to me. She disassembled the rifle with the parts on the counter and said, if you're having a hard time putting it back together, I'll be right over there. Give me a call and I'll put the rifle back together for you. Now, she can handle the firearm very well. She's still in the military. She's served 17 years now. She's currently on her third deployment. And I'll tell you as a parent, it's very hard to watch your child, your son or daughter, lead this country knowing that you may never see them again. Because I've gone to over six deployments ceremonies with my son and daughter. My son has done three deployments. And she's now caught up to him on deployments. And he's slated to go back on his fourth deployment next year. That will be the third since my grandson was born. So freedom isn't free. The freedoms that we are interested in protecting are paid for by somebody. Somebody pays for all the freedoms you enjoy. And it's people in our community in this state. If we're going to try to get youngsters, young adults, to be responsible, categorically saying they can't be responsible because they're 18 to 21, doesn't seem a good way to do that. Seems counterproductive. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. And that's one of the reasons the Federation doesn't oppose the under 21 law enforcement firearms. Also, that 18 to 20-year-old can drive over New Hampshire and buy a firearm. They're used to be, and I don't know if there still is to be honest with you, a gunshot in Whitefield, New Hampshire, Vermont, they used to advertise itself as the best Vermont gunshot in New Hampshire. Because folks would go over there buy a firearm because of the volume that they were dealing with, they got better prices on the firearms, and also avoid a paying sales tax. So it's not like that state line is an international border. People go back and forth, and they purchase this all the time. So that's the reasons for our opposition. The two amendments to S-55 isn't passed this Saturday. And then, of course, there's the recent amendments that are in the process of being considered. They were introduced by a member of this committee. And one of them is magazine sizes, the capacity of a magazine, and how many rounds it can carry. Well, 10 rounds is an arbitrary number. And I heard, said, that there was a shooting in which the one person was shot on the 13th. Well, there's lots of shootings that have been more than 10 rounds, more than 13 rounds, or eight. It's just a completely arbitrary number. And magazines are just an item that there's no way to identify them. There's no serial number in them or on them. There's no way to tell when it was manufactured, where it was manufactured, where it was purchased. A magazine that somebody has could have been purchased long ago. It could have been manufactured in another country and brought into the United States. There's just no way of knowing where the magazine came from, when it was purchased, and when it came into Vermont. We also, nobody owns the magazine capacity of what law enforcement carries. And most citizens would tell you that they hold their life in just as high a value as those of the offices of law enforcement. So it's not going to be enforceable. There's no way to control magazines going in and out. There's easily over 100 million magazines in this country that would fit into this category. So the Federation is opposed to the magazine limitations of the portion of the amendments. The modern sporting rifle, the AR-15 and others like it. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle platform in this country. And the reason it's so popular is when the AR-15 was built, like the M16, the designer of the rifle was Eugene Stone. And the AR stands for armor-like rifle. And that's the company for which he manufactured, designed the rifle. And it looks frightening to people because it has composite materials that has plastic stock and aluminum. So Stone appeared in the aircraft in this year. And he questioned, just like Gaston Glock did, when he built his guns, why is it perceived that firearms can only be made out of wood and steel? The composite materials are lighter, cheaper, more durable and they just as durable, especially in the weather, than what's traditionally used in a firearm. So when he designed that rifle, he designed it using those composite materials. They tend to be black, so it seems to frighten people to run familiar with them. But they are functioned much the same as other firearms that have metal and steel. A rifle that functions very similarly is the Mini-14 or Mini-30. Yeah, people look at that rifle and they're not concerned with it. The rifle is a semi-automatic rifle. It's one, sweeties, and the trigger is one round discharge. My son made a video, one of those YouTube type things that shows up everywhere. And he's standing there with a firearm and he's calling it an AR-15 and it's an evil gun and people think you shouldn't own it and it takes these 30 round magazines, it's got a capacity for a bayonet on it so you can jab, jab, jab, you know, have a stream of death and they're invisible. They don't show up on metal detectors. The whole time he's doing this, he's holding a 12 gauge pump, an actual shotgun. Because he thinks and knows that many of the people who are opposed to an AR-15 wouldn't know the difference, it would not, because it's black and it's got a black plastic stock. And the reaction to the AR-15, and it's just, it was before that, it was the AK-47, that was the political bad guy and before that it was the Uzi. They're just a firearm based upon a military prototype, but they function completely differently. And as far as military-type firearms, the Winchester Model 94-30-30 was probably the most popular deer rifle we've ever had in the state of the world. It was a military firearm, as was the 19th or 30th Springfield, the 1917 Eddie's Donner, Winchester, they were military firearms. And as far as semi-automatics being an acceptable military firearm, the United States military went away from the M-14, went from a semi-automatic only in the M-1 Grand in about 1957 to the M-14, which had a selective switch for fully automatic. And then in the 60s we switched over to the M-16, which is the military version of the AR-50. So for over 50 years the semi-automatic has been held by the United States military to not be sufficient to be a military firearm. So that's this confusion on that, on the AR-15 being a military-type firearm. It's simply the most popular rifle platform in the country because it's light, it's durable, it holds up extremely well to the weather. And a lot of people who have been in the military are very familiar with the action on the right hand. So it's rather demonized as being something that it's not. People refer to it as my son does jokingly in his video about instruments, bullets, and death. And it's nothing like that, but as my son parodies the misconception that the AR-15 is bandied about as being something that it's not. So the modern sporting rifle, and Jake would speak the right way, he'll give you much more accurate numbers of them, that there aren't in this country. But there's probably between five and 10 million of them. It's not a rare firearm. And under what Justice Scalia talked about in Heller, about it's a firearm of common use. And I think you'd be surprised to know, and I'll bet you there's some people around this table who might only AR-15s who will have them in this country. Like I talked about with the magazines, the number of magazines and number of these firearms, and talking about banning them is just counterproductive. When a lot of folks saw the amendments that were introduced, of course, first seen by our folks yesterday, it really sparked the reaction of our folks that whoever was drafting this did not know anything about firearms. And as Chris Bradley related this morning, a lot of the aspects of what's on that list are simply don't exist. And no concern was like with a ban catalog on a rifle. So you're worried about a firearm with a knife on it? It just seems, that seems rather questionable. Why would anybody want to do that? There's folding stocks on these firearms. The reason for the folding stock is that M4, which is this military version of AR-15, that my son and daughter in the military use can be adjusted so that my five foot, three dollar can carry up and a six foot brother. They can adjust the stock to fit the person. Also based on clothing that they're wearing. The heavier clothing you want to adjust the stock. And it's the same thing in the civilian world. People can share the same rifle and have it back to me. They can adjust the folding stock. People can alter the stock to fit the clothing they're wearing under the circumstances that they're using the firearm. Mandatory storage. I believe in Heller, that was the whole reason for the case was that the city of Washington didn't allow people to carry, to have firearms in their homes in a condition which they could use in for self defense. And then that's where Heller overturned the city of Washington. Ordinance in Heller that I read about. Our 10 day waiting periods on the first firearm. The very efficient game has the biggest gunshot in the state. And as I said, I'm a trustee of the British game. And our greatest source of revenue is our gunshot, which is held on the first weekend of February each year. That's how we were able to keep our club open, provide a range for people to use, and it costs us $40 a year for a range, but I'm not going to pass. It also provides the capability for doing hunter education, another training. The Moana Valley Fish and Game Club will have their gunshot this weekend, fairgrounds. That gunshot is where the Moana Valley Fish and Game Club derives most of the revenue they have for being able to provide the same resources to the public. Also, a substantial amount of police departments in this state, a number of police departments, use these ranges for their training, practice, and qualifications. And the 10 day waiting period, we kill the gunshoters in which they derive their income. So they wouldn't be in a position, they wouldn't exist. They wouldn't be in a position to provide these services to the public and the communities and law enforcement in which they exist. So, in summary, the Moana Federation of Sportsmen's Loans, which has existed since 1875 when we've been up here, quite a bit, most of you have seen us up here, find the amendments on it and the proposed amendments, something we have to oppose. We just, I apologize, on the waiting list, I just want to make sure I understood what the objection was. The way a gun show exists is the sponsor, the very efficient angle, rents tables to vendors. So an FFL rents a table and they sell their products. Many of them are firearms. Many of them are books for collectors of civil war, paraphernalia, they have tables, too. But for the FFLs, they rent a table. And FFLs, obviously, there's not that many in the Bay Area or the Chittin' County area, come from all over. They come from New Hampshire, they come from all over, and they rent a table and they do business here. If they have to wait for 10 days to be able to... Got you. They can't, they can't. I don't understand. Therefore, they will not rent a table at a gun show and the gun show won't happen. So it takes that capability for fundraising away from these clubs who provide a vital service. And the same, we hold the FFLs in the morning. The ones that have gun shops are very highly guarded. They do an excellent job of screening who they sell firearms to. And they also provide resources, money, and their time for hunter end courses, for firearm safety courses. So, in a short, the Barry Fish and Game Club Gun Show, the Barry Fish and Game Club requires on private transactions to happen at the show that a background check has to be done. Not because the Barry Fish and Game Club thinks that a background check is necessary between the private parties, it's because the vendors have bought tables. And if people can come in with a firearm and sell without having bought a table, then they're placing the FFL at a disadvantage of selling their product. So that's, you may hear that these gun shows have checks there for private citizens, and they do. But it's not because they support the requirement to have transactions performed to a private citizen. It's because they're protecting the FFLs and renting a table from them for the gun show. So, in summary on the background checks, the Federation does a support, as I said. And the Federation has worked very hard over the years on public safety, especially with firearms. In 2001, we worked with Dick Sears and Bob Held in updating the NICS records, the criminal records in Vermont to be taken into the NICS system. In November 1998, we rolled into the NICS system, as we know it today, the Computer System. Vermont, our criminal records were in such poor shape, the FBI wouldn't accept them to go into the NICS system. So, we had to have our system in the state where the Sheriff of Chittany County did background checks. And the state police had $135,000 taken out of their budget to pay for that contract, whereas other states, which had NICS systems, didn't have to pay anything at all on the state police budget. So, we thought that this was not the way to go. We wanted Vermont to be a NICS state. So, we went in, worked with Dick Sears and Bob Held, and Bob Held, $300,000 was allocated to upgrade our criminal records to get them to the state where the FBI would accept them. And on February 1st, 2002, that happened. We rolled over seamlessly into the NICS system, saving the Vermont state police, was $135,000 in 2001, which would be considerably more today. In 2015, we worked with the legislature, again, on updating our mental health records into the NICS system. So, what became Act 14 has now resulted in, as reported recently in the Burlington Pre-Pres, 589 records being uploaded into the NICS system, 589 individuals. Not all of them were felons of custody or the control of the Department of Mental Health before that day, but on the date that the system went into effect, the upload into the system went into effect, that's how many people were already in there, substantial number of them, and then some have been uploaded since. So, we have upgraded our record system to report to the NICS system. And then, at this point, we're done doing the same with S-221, trying to come up with a bill that would protect due process, but also achieve public safety. And I won't get into any more on S-221 and that, but we've been doing this a long time. I've been doing this 20 years. And we want to enhance public safety, but at the same time, with the mission of the Federation that I started out with, it's the mission of the Federation to have laws enacted that reflect some public policy and compliance with the state and federal constitutions. Thank you. Any questions? Hey, thanks for your testimony, I appreciate it. And I had a question about, actually, something you talked about very early in your testimony, which is just about the, you've had some information and some scenarios about how criminals or people with criminal intent acquire firearms. And I'm just curious to learn more about the sort of information for that, like is that based on your experience talking to gun dealers or based on studies or you know what I mean, like how, where did that picture come from? I read a study that was done on inmates in Cook County, Illinois, and the researcher went in and asked those people where they had caught, where they had acquired their firearms and how. And that's what they related is we often hear about the gun show loophole. There's no such thing. There is no exemption or exception in the federal law for gun shows. And it's a misconception that they go out in the street and look for a gun. They find somebody who they know has a clean record, who's not an undercover law enforcement officer in the format, who will buy the firearm they want for them and then that's how they acquire their firearm. That's what the study, as I recall reading it, related. One more thing I'd like to say about buying a firearm back from the check. This law went into effect. And a law enforcement officer came to believe that two people had sold the firearm back and forth illegally. So they went to the two people and they asked them, did you sell her the firearm? And of course they both say lawyer. There's some attorneys in the room that are not paying attention, but they might enjoy this. So the law enforcement officer asked, when did you purchase that firearm? Lawyer, where did you purchase the firearm? Lawyer, now the law enforcement officer can't prove that the transaction ever took place, and it took place after the law went into effect, and it took place in the state of Vermont so that the law enforcement officer has jurisdiction. So that's another reason that that law is unenforceable. And if you have no further questions, thank you. Thank you. So we'll hear from Mr. Merrigan next. The chair asked whether you're able to... Yes, I'm staying over this evening. If you want to do it tomorrow morning, if you guys are running short on time, I'd be more than happy to do it tomorrow. If you're available, I think the committee would appreciate that. If you want to question the incident-way tournament, basketball tournament, no, that's fine. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. I appreciate your flexibility. No problem. Maybe we'll talk tomorrow until a lot of these. I hope we'll be all right. Mr. Merrigan, I'm a major with the state police. I run our field force division. That's the uniform division. But as my mom says, I only recently took a respectable job. I spent most of my career doing undercover drug work. And I think that's why I'm doing this. I think that's why I'm doing this. I think that's why I'm doing this. I think that's why I'm doing this. I think that's why I'm doing this. I think that's why I got asked to come here today. I've got some personal experience and some supervisory experience in trading guns for drugs in Vermont. I've been involved in a lot of these cases. I once traded a submachine gun for cocaine to a gentleman. He didn't get to keep it. But I know how this operates in Vermont. And if that's what you want to hear about, I can talk to you about that a little bit. That would be great. And if there are things in the bills that's in front of us that you think would help law enforcement address those issues or that you think are not particularly useful to law enforcement, that would be helpful for us to know. Okay. Most of the bill is outside of my area of expertise. And I don't think I'm qualified to comment on some of it, on most of it. What I am, I think, qualified to talk about is how guns are moved in Vermont and outside of Vermont for drugs. And about, and it's anecdotally, but about how often this happens. And it's a common occurrence. And it's very hard to regulate. But it's hard as we don't regulate person-to-person sales in Vermont right now anyway. So if we're going to accept the fact that 95% of the drug transactions that happen in Vermont go undetected, uninvestigated, and everybody gets away with it, I would say that the rate of the gun transactions is at least that high, or not higher, if not higher. Generally speaking, how drugs move through Vermont, there's three, I'll keep this brief, so it's not, I know it's late for everybody. There's basically three tiers of individuals involved in drug distribution. Now we're a consumer state here in Vermont. We don't get pallets of heroin or fentanyl, or any other different type of opiate here in Vermont. We gotta go get it and bring it back. We're a consumer state, not a source state. So that top tier, that's the fewest number of people that are bringing the big quantities in. Some of them are Vermonters. Most of them are out-of-staters that are business-venting. This is what they do. And everything that I'm gonna say in here is generally speaking, I'm not talking about a specific case or that it's always this way. Generally speaking, this is how things go. Somebody comes from out-of-state, they come with a large amount of drugs, and then the second tier, which is usually us, it's Vermonters, we provide the infrastructure that allows those drugs to get distributed out. We give people, and that's because where that second tier is almost exclusively addicts, or family members of addicts, that allow these top tier players to stay in their house. We give them rides, we introduce them to our friends, we introduce them to their customers. And because we're in that culture of opioid abuse and addiction, we have lots of these people to introduce to this top tier player. And then the third tier on the bottom are the hardcore addicts that aren't able, and we sort of classify that second tier as people that are moving opiates above their own addictive needs. So they're making money on it. They're no longer working, they're making money on it, and it's part of, this is what they do. And then there's the third tier, which is the addicts that aren't, they're not together enough to participate, like the second tier do, or they don't, or they choose not to. So the gun angle plays in from the top tier and in the second tier. Guns are worth more money out of state than cash is. So if I'm a top tier guy and I come to Vermont, and this panel are the people that I meet first, if this is part of my business, I'm going to tell you that if you have $200, I'll give you X amount of heroin, for example. But if you can produce a gun, which is worth $200, and that's the cash value on the street or in a store of $200, I'll give you $400 worth of heroin. That's about it. We'll give you about twice what that firearm is worth for drugs. So it's an attractive thing. A lot of the people that are in this game aren't holding down jobs and committing crimes to not only either just to feed their own habit, or to go beyond their own addictive needs. So that's a powerful thing. That's twice as much drugs for you. That means that you're going to make more money out of that drug, so that's that much longer. You don't have to worry about trying to get drugs because you're addicted. So it's a real thing and it happens a lot. Major, may I ask, sorry, I'm just going to say, why is the gun worth more than cash? I think cash is more fungible, you know? You can trade more easily in cash than a gun. Why is it worth more? So most of these top tier people are not from Vermont. They're from Connecticut, they're from New York, they're from where it's harder to get guns, and you don't want any record of that gun. They're not worried about federal restrictions on what you do with it. So the first thing that they do is get rid of the serial number, so it can't be traced back to Vermont, if they're willing to take that risk, and that is a risk in and of itself to do that. But these are risk-taking people, and this is what they do. And they expect, and again, this is in generally, most of these guys, and I've talked to hundreds and hundreds of them, they're professional drug dealers, they're second, third generation drug dealers, and they fully expect to go to jail for a good portion of their life. It's all acceptable risk. Generally speaking. So, Gary, I'd like to let Major Meredith, after your question finishes, that's when I know we can ask the smartphone. Go right ahead, because I've got them written down, so I won't forget them for a change. Well, I mean, I'm just about at the end, it's a real thing, and I can say that, and you know, you measure up whether you think this is credible or not. I can say it because I spent so much time in the drug unit doing undercover operations, hanging out with these people, making friends with these people, spending time in their living rooms, and see these are the things that they talk about. They talk about how to get their doctor to keep prescribing pills when they're addicted and the things that they say. They talk about how to continue making money here so you don't have to work, because it's hard to work and be a heroin addict. And then there's some people that are in it for the money talk about how valuable guns are out of state, and you become the prestige of being a second tier guy, does that tier thing make sense to everybody? Okay, if you're at the prestige of being of a monitor, part of that consumer population of being able to provide guns to out of state players, that is a big deal. You are now, you are in a private in this little organization. You are a captain, maybe. This is, you've got juice. You're gonna pay less for the drugs. You're gonna be introduced to better contacts out of state. You may develop multiple sources. And for me, as that second tier guy that wants that, that's my life. I want that. I want to be a guy that moves guns out of Vermont. And they're easy to get. Guns are easy to get. I can, as a guy that I'm a hardcore junkie, I can go to your house and buy your your grandfather's shotgun. And that old shotgun has got value elsewhere. Gary. I think you answered half of that in my first question, but the majority of the guns that these that are used in these transactions, are they stolen or are they straw purchased or like you just said, you know, purchased by third party or whatever. I would think all of the above, and I don't have exact numbers with the majority of them. The investigations I've been involved in where we did get some guns, excuse me. Yeah. It was both. They were stolen. They were, they were guns that one guy had just for an example I've had in this family for years. And because of his addiction and as the road he chose, and this was a guy that was making a lot of money, he traded every gun that he had from his family for money. And for that prestige thing, this wasn't a guy supporting his habit, which would be sad and happens all the time. Probably more often than the example that I'm giving now. But this guy made a conscious decision to elevate his rank outside of state, make those contacts by providing those guns. And there was quite a few of them that way. And there was all types. The thought that only high capacity pistols or high capacity rifles are the only thing these guys want, it's not true that they take anything. Second question, or last question, be when you talked about these gun sales between dealers and importers, is there anything that we can do or any law that we can act to stop these sales between the drug dealers or at least slow it down that you can think of? Well, everything about it is illegal already. So it's hard to think of an additional thing that we could do that would curb it. There are additional things that we could do that would add more teeth to it if you get caught on that. But a lot of these cases that are involving guns, we're prosecuting at the U.S. Attorney's Office. And that's a healthy, that's a robust system for this type of crime. Thank you. Oh, and congratulations again on your promotion to major. Thank you. Yes, I do. Yeah, I do. I think a little bit also, I want to utilize this piece of information because of some of the work that we've also been doing on here has been dealing with opioid addiction and heroin and all drugs and different ways of doing it. I'm curious in your capacity of working on those, are these kind of cells largely heroin-based or is it really a broad mix of different illegal drugs? Yeah, it's a broad base, though because most of our work involves heroin these days, that's a big part of it. Marijuana investigations almost all, the big ones, large ones, when we're talking about large amounts of marijuana, almost always involve firearms because large amounts of marijuana involves large amounts of cash. So if you've got $300,000 worth of cash and you're a professional, you're armed. So that's the other case and we don't, frankly, we don't do very many of them because we're worried about the overdosing and the opiate issues. So the limited resources we have and everybody knows we're at a small state and it's a small drug unit and we're doing the best we can, but there's not that many people doing this full-time. So most of our resources are going towards that. So that's, but when I did the submachine gun, that was for a crack and coke. Other questions? So just to put a fine point on things, you started out by saying that in your experience, the vast majority of the drug transactions that go on are, we don't know about, we're not able to prosecute them. They happen without law enforcement knowledge and that you expected the same was true of transactions involved with firearms. So from just the perspective of guns and drugs and combinations, I'm taking up your testimony that you don't think that a universal, a wider background to that system would make very much difference in that, specifically in that realm. I don't because they're not following any of the rules already and everything is happening behind closed doors, if you will. So no, I don't think that it'll have virtually any impact at all that I can think of, but maybe I'm wrong. You want to make sure that works? That's the issue we're discussing. I just want to make sure we get your testimony on that. So, and again, kind of queuing off of what I heard with drugs. So if you were doing this work, think for yourselves, your colleagues, except for feeling that 95% of it, did you feel you weren't making any new impact? You woke up every day to go do it. And you say, well, it's too hard, it's too much. We're not going to catch anybody while I bother? I mean, I just, I'm trying to... Usually not. Usually not. Usually, especially when the opiates, which has been, now it's been around so long, it's hard to remember a time when that wasn't the issue. Some of the success stories that we would have, I met a guy in Home Depot that was, when I arrested him, was shooting 40 bags a day. And that was a lot. And he did some time and state. It wasn't the biggest case in the world that he had against him. And he was grateful for the intervention. And I wasn't at the time, but he put it. So that's good. And so that, we probably kept him and his wife alive. So, those are successes. And so you take him as they come. But I would think, and I think I can speak for, everybody does this kind of work, that usually we're feeling pretty good about it. But it is overwhelming and it's not getting any better. The opiate issue here in Vermont and the associated gun transactions, this is not getting better, which is depressing. But that's, there's more heroin today in Vermont and more opiates in Vermont than there was six months ago. And I don't see any reason why there's not more in six months than there is now. And I've been saying that for two years. And does that lead you to any conclusions or proposals? When I think about it, in terms of that, I start thinking about, this is outside of what Vermonters and what Vermont law enforcement and what Vermont federal law enforcement can do. And this is, I mean, maybe this is out too far out there off what we're talking about. But it almost all of this comes from South America. So we've got to work there. But I don't know what else that we can do short of getting a $20 million grant and somehow finding drug cops that want to work like this to do it. I don't know what else we can do within what we're doing. We've been more efficient. And I'm not selling anything here, by the way. We've just, we happen to have been more efficient over the last couple of years in our collaboration with our federal partners and with the U.S. Attorney's Office. We've arrested more people, got more people in treatment, participated in more educational campaigns than we ever have before. And we really have embraced that sort of trifecta approach of where each one is equally important. I think we lead the nation in doing this. And we're still where we're at. But it's not all bad. I mean, we are making, we're making progress, but the amount of opiates that are available are unprecedented. And if you didn't know that, that's what I think. I wish I could end, but Gary's congratulating you on seven. Yeah, I'm sorry. We brought everybody down. We really appreciate your testimony. Thank you so much. Great to have you here. Thank you. You're welcome. All right, team, tomorrow at nine o'clock.