 She was in the house at the time and woke up to the sound of two gunshots and came down to the kitchen to find her mother and her stepfather gone. That was a really powerful experience for me and I appreciate the work that you all have done in putting forward the domestic violence legislation because I think that that will have a critical impact. But I would urge you to be as thorough as possible in eliminating the loopholes and the wiggle room that is allowable in some of those situations. Because sometimes it is the gut instinct that tells you that somebody is dangerous and somebody has violent intention. And I really think we ought to err on the side of human life in those instances as opposed to pretending that the Second Amendment is something that we should hold more dear than human life. My best friend is a kindergarten teacher and she, her husband has guns, her sons have hunted all their lives. And she's very familiar with guns, very comfortable with guns in her home. Believes that there's value in having them in her home for safety. But she's really troubled. She's really troubled by the fact that she is a kindergarten teacher. Her fondest wish for her students is to prepare them for first grade and to make it possible for them to come to school hopefully by the second or third day of school or maybe the second week of school without crying and clinging to their mom's legs as they're being dropped off. She is really disturbed by the fact that she also needs to think about as she's preparing for every school day. If there is a shooter and if they come into our building, I need to decide whether I'm going to go with my 15 or 20 kindergarten students into the bathroom and lock the door for an indefinite amount of time. Or if possibly leaving the building through our exterior door is the safest route. And she said, I am really disturbed by the fact that I have that responsibility and that judgment and I need to decide at the drop of a hat. When I recognize that something is going on, I have to decide based on what I can see out the window of my classroom. Whether it would be safer for me to leave with my students or whether we should shelter in place. And I think that is just an awful, awful choice for someone to have to make. The fact that we have refused so far in this country to do anything substantial with respect to getting guns out of the hands of people with violent intent is really disturbing to me. And so I am so thankful that we are sitting here at this moment with the voices of students and teachers, with the voices of parents, with the voices of community members all around us saying it's time to do something. So, again, I know you guys are in the hot seat and I will support whatever set of reforms you bring out to us on the floor of the house. And I thank you for your work. Amy Sheldon, I represent Middlebury. I don't have, I'm not gonna try to, there was some amazing testimony that you've already heard from our colleagues. And I guess the thing I'd like to add is that I am a hunter and a gun owner myself. And when I first got elected, I went across the street to talk to my neighbor who has, you know, Charlton this and is my president or what I might get the name wrong. But anyway, NRA supporter, 20 guns in his house. And I said, Raymond, we need to talk. I said, I'd really like to talk to you about guns. And how far apart we might be on preventing gun violence. And we went through all the issues, all the things that you're grappling with in this committee right now. We agree on everything. And I wanna remind the committee that responsible gun owners in Vermont also support the work that you're doing. And want our children to feel safe in school and want us to promulgate common sense legislation that protects all Vermonters from people who otherwise shouldn't have access to guns either in the short term, excuse me, or the long term. So thank you so much for doing this heavy lift for all of us. I know it's hard work. I appreciate the opportunity to come in and testify. And I really just hope you'll remember that people on all sides of this issue are ready to act. And I think the time is now for us to follow through, listen to our children. And help them feel safe in school. Thank you. So let's turn to the amendment that we have on our desk to inform. Do you want to go ahead and bring up the American antiques? No, I think he's- He's probably a non-censorship. Yeah. So I'm asking, I wonder if you did, I did reach out to David Cahill to testify. Yeah. And it didn't look like you'd be able to figure out how to get fit into the schedule. But I know you did send it. Yeah. Should I read that into the, or should I just tell everybody that's going to be posted? If you want to read into the record, that's fine. You should. I believe it is posted. So can you pass it? No. See if it hasn't been going to be posted. It is posted. Okay. So maybe we don't have to read it because we're just going to post it. Or I'm not going to read it. Okay. Okay. And then I'm going to ask you to come up here. So Mark, why don't you go ahead and do that? Well, we have heard. I'll find it. Okay. All right. Yeah. Thank you. Good morning. Sorry that I'm late. So should I just start it? Thank you, first of all, for waiting and letting me do this. Good morning for the record. I'm Jesta Brumston. I represent Shelburne in St. George. I want to start with thanking the community for taking up this very important issue. And working quickly to hear testimony and make difficult decisions to protect our state. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and speak both as a worried parent and on behalf of my constituents that I've heard from through emails, letters, and at town meeting a couple of weeks ago. After the horrible events that happened in Florida, I couldn't help but want to come and talk a bit about how important it is that we protect Vermont's children's right to feel safe in school. We need to come together and do something. What happened in Florida almost happened here in Vermont except for a tip from a citizen and excellent work by law enforcement. I've received many emails from constituents in Shelburne and St. George about the heartbreak we all feel for our national community. Many have seen the report that there have been 290 school shootings since the data began to be collected in 2013. We have a national problem that we can no longer ignore. I ran for office to make a difference and to stand up for what is right. I have four children that have been educated in Vermont's public school system. My youngest is a senior in high school. Students in his classes worry about loud noises in the hallway or out of the ordinary events in the building. When I was a high school student, a big test in algebra or the worry that two boys were going to have a fight over a girl at recess. That's what made my heart race. Not that someone might walk into school with an AR-15, pull a fire alarm and start shooting at me. I believe the problem is multifaceted and we need a comprehensive approach to address the issue. I support stronger gun safety laws, improvements to Vermont's mental health care system, and enhancements to school security. Stronger gun violence protection laws like the ones contained in Senate 55, or age 55, sorry, which includes a provision related to the disposition of firearms that have been seized by law enforcement and expanded background check requirement that reaches unlicensed or private firearm sales and a 21-year-old age requirement for the purchase of long guns. I also support a ban on bump stocks, high capacity magazines, assault-style firearms, and a waiting period for the purchase of firearms. I'm not supportive of eroding our Second Amendment right, but why does anyone need an automatic rifle or bump stocks? When the Second Amendment was passed, the guns were essentially muzzle loaders that needed gunpowder poured down the barrel and tamped. A pad was put in and a bullet to follow. After all this gunpowder was put in the breach, the hammer needed to be pulled back, and then you were ready to fire. You could fire one shot before going through that entire process all over again. That's very different. We also need to look towards gun safety and reducing gun violence. Efforts to make guns safer with trigger locks, requiring safe storage units equivalent to a child access prevention law, plus real limits on access to guns for people who are most likely to misuse them should be our immediate focus. And I also just want to mention that I have, as I said, I have four children. Three of them are boys. They've all been through hunter safety. They all hunt. We have guns in our house. They're locked in cabinets. We're very supportive of that whole piece of our culture. It is also time to find ways to help Vermont schools look at whether more security would help. My four children are six years apart, and their elementary school went from K through 8th. Hence, all four of my kids were in the same building for four years. After the shooting at the Columbine High School in 1999, my oldest daughter was in second grade. I was on the PTO, and I started working on locking the doors of our school. It took two years, but we were able to lock all the doors. Obviously, look at this. By the time, three of my children were in that building, and I felt a lot safer. We had to raise money through the PTO in order to do that, and so I'm hopeful that we can think about ways to help schools afford to do this, to protect children. It's not perfect, but it's a beginning. After the shooting in Florida, I spoke with Adam Bunting, the principal at CDU, who told me they had begun a full-out process to look into securing the high school. I don't agree with Army teachers, but we need to seriously consider how can we help schools make the necessary changes to help keep kids safe. I was pregnant with my youngest son when Columbine happened. Sam was born eight months later. This has always been his reality. Shootings in our schools and playgrounds. After Sandy Hook, my son came home one day. He was now in sixth grade. This is the youngest. This is the one who's grown up, and he wondered if for, thank you, and he wondered if for a school project he could build a bulletproof closet for the kids to sit in. When there was a clear halls drill, he wanted his classmates to be safe. Last month, when the Florida shooting happened, he came home from school and talked about wanting to use a chair to break a window and get out when, gosh, I'm sorry. And when a fire alarm goes off, students are scared and angry, and they are standing up and protesting what is right. With science, you protect us, not your guns. Shouldn't we all take this national student effort seriously? Support for the Second Amendment goes hand in hand with keeping guns away from dangerous people. Let us stop fighting about the Second Amendment and start doing something to keep our children safe. Thank you. Sorry. Sometimes I think I don't feel this emotional, and then I start remembering each of these instances where your child comes forward with his fear, and you can't protect him. Any questions? The tax. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So this is David Cahill's email that he wanted me to share. I had the opportunity to review Martin Lowell's proposed amendment to S55, including the High Capacity Magazine ban. There are valid arguments on both sides. Sportsman will point out that it only takes a second for a skilled shooter to swap out magazines, and for this reason, a magazine capacity ban is a government intrusion without a benefit. Conversely, gun control advocates may credibly argue that the same split second that it takes to swap magazines could be used by innocent victims to escape mass shooting and also could be used to attempt to disarm a shooter. Balancing a would-be victim's constitutional right to continued life against the constitutional right of another to bear arms is no easy task. It is my professional opinion, and just for people who don't know, David Cahill is a former Army for Windsor. It is my professional opinion that a ten-round magazine limit fairly balances these competing rights, and if enforced, would offer victims and first responders a brief window to act during the mass shooting incident. In order for this ban to be effective, it must clearly prohibit the offering to sale of high capacity magazines regardless of the federal definition, which I have here. Anybody wants me to read it at this moment? So where were you supposed to set it? So he actually provided the amendment. It would just switch in on number one in the background check. Page six. Number one would say firearms shall have the same meaning as in subsection 4017B of this title. As I say, that's the same thing. It's done in the minors, sale the minors section. And so that way it would attempt to so that the folks follow that. Okay. I think it's meant to do that, actually. So, Luke, are you prepared to do a walkthrough today? Sure. Thank you. Are you in the floor at ten o'clock? Your time is pretty tight. I'm sorry to hear. I think you're on the floor at ten o'clock. We are. Could you go through maybe beginning announcements? Sure. Unless somebody needs to be out there for all the announcements. Go ahead. Yeah. I'm sorry. We have all three of the various June, July, and September teams today. Okay. Good morning, everyone. Luke Marland from Legislative Council. And I think the draft that all of you have in front of you, either paper or on your iPad, has a new or changed text highlighted. So what I'll do is try to focus on that new or changed text, which is highlighted in yellow. If at any point anything is clear, please stop. On page four of this draft, I want to again, as a chair indicated, this is draft 2.1 in the upper left-hand corner. On page four, you see that there's highlighted language on lines 10 through 12. And it talks about the proceeds from the sale, and it states that they will be allocated to a municipality to the extent needed and used to offset the cost of storing in non-evidentiary firearms. So I believe that's something you discussed. I think that language is clear, but it states how the proceeds of sale should be used. Any questions about that? Proceeding then to page seven. At the very bottom of the page, on line 19, you'll see that the phrase was added in, shall not be considered a vendor. And I believe that is based on discussions with, based on discussions to exempt from sales tax. That line would mainly be a little fine-tuned, but that's the intent of that phrase. Proceeding now to page nine. You'll see that there's a number of sections that are due. So the first one is on page nine lines four through eight. And it states that a licensed dealer who facilitates a transfer pursuant to this section shall be immune from civil or criminal liability for any action taken or omissions made when facilitating the transfer in reliance upon this section. It also states that this subsection shall not apply to reckless or intentional misconduct by the licensed dealer. In other words, if the FFL is facilitating the transfer of sale during the background check, he or she will be immune from civil or criminal liability unless he or she is, quote, reckless or intentional in this conduct. I think the intent of that new language is obvious. And it protects from civil liability or criminal liability. So if we're going to be seeing another version of this, would it make more sense for that section to be subsection C4 because subsection C will deal with the licensed dealer and no responsibilities in the life? I think that doesn't matter. I'll pass on your suggestion. Sometimes, sure, I'll pass on. Sometimes I like to have the carve out the very end. I'll leave that up there. Any other suggestions or questions? Going further down the page, these are changes to what was subsection B and what would be the new 13VSA 4020, which is the age limitation. So this is the carve out section. It states the section shall not apply to one law enforcement officer but deletes the land, which I used to focus on or purchase for purposes of his or her duties. So if you're a law enforcement officer, you exempt. And then if you're an active or veteran member of the guard reserves or active duty military, you exempt. So once again, it's taking more of a dire language that has to do with purchasing for purposes of your duties or responsibilities. So it's broadening those two carve out. Going on to page 10. Any questions about that? I know I'm going very quickly. On page 10, you see a new five. A person who provides a seller with a certificate of satisfactory completion of a firearm safety course. So you have a language from previous drafts that's a carve out exemption if you've taken a hundred safety course. Then this would also provide a similar carve out or exemption if you've taken another satisfactory safety course. But that's not defined. I think that is a topic or discussion for this committee. What types of courses over B or who determines that they're satisfactory. So that's a work of progress. Did you find out anything about that? No. The more I thought about it, the more difficult it seems outside of the state to define that in a way that we're not asking to have that panel to make some determination that they may not be in the position to make. So now I haven't made any progress on how to do that. Should we talk to the Department of Public Safety and see if they're the right to approve certain ones or we can add? Proceeding on to the large capacity ammunition feeding device section. Now we'll say that a person shall not manufacture, possess, transfer, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or import into this state. And then it continues with the language we've seen before. So it broadens the prohibition and includes import into this state. So that would cover the Cade Hill concerns about internet sales? I believe that was the tent of it. It is not focused, yeah, it would offer for sale or import into the state yes. And you saw this language before he said that in real? Great. So my question is, actually not related to, it's related to that sentence sort of section. But I had somebody ask me if given that it says a person and we consider corporations persons under certain, if that's going to create any conflicts that need to be carved out. I understand that you want this to be broad, right? So I don't believe so. In other words it would include a living, breathing individual, your eye, and a business or corporation. So if you want it to be broad, I don't think that's an issue. I don't think that's a conflict. If you want to somehow limit it to just a business or just a living, breathing person, then you would have to do that some other way. Thank you. We're proceeding to page 11 on the top, lines one through four. In C, the language states a prohibition on professional large capacity ammunition feeding devices established by subsection A shall not apply to a large capacity ammunition feeding device lawfully possessed on order for the effective data set. So this is the grandfather clause. We talked about previously what is deleted is possession or transfer. So this grandfather would apply to possession, transfer, or anything else pertaining to that device before the effective data set. And my five, the section shall not apply to large capacity ammunition feeding device, and then it has other carve-outs with shell, a new word. I'm not, I don't know the title. All right. That's assumed that it meant it'd be shell. Okay. And I don't believe there's any other changes. Oh, I'm sorry. Can you explain that for seeing again? Sure. So it, you have to read in conjunction with the line that I read earlier under A. So A now states that person shall not manufacture possession for an offer for sale or to receive or import to the state. Basically the large capacity magazine. And then now C states that the prohibition on possession shall not apply to a large capacity ammunition feeding device lawfully possessed. So it's a grandfather clause but the two words transfer was taken out. It's really focused on possession. So if you have your possession prior to the effective date, your grandfather down. Great. And then also it's not in the thank you of the social work. It's on this draft, the waiting period, the assault weapons ban, and the off duty law enforcement. That's the way to get out of things. Okay. Thank you. So, right, in the bump tax. In the bump tax when we last, right. And I say that storage is still, it's still in here. We were keeping that in here until we got from Putin's jets. The other thing that just would throw up with people's consideration is, is there any need, and we've got to know if you had an opinion on this about putting something in about honorable or dishonorable discharge. I have a feeling we covered that ground. There was a form that was issued, a DD, something. But I just put it on the table as maybe one detail we didn't quite circle back to. And I don't know that we need to, but just putting it out there. So the background check, one of the prohibited purchasers is somebody who has been dishonorably discharged. I mean the federal law, which is essentially. And I made a note about the firearms, I am sorry, anti-firearms issue. My sense of the, that's the consensus of the committee. You want that to be cleaned up. Yeah. And that was just the media talk about it before. And I'm just about to make sure that he's in there. So. Any other questions or potential changes to this document? Thank you. So. Thank you. Thank you. So. It's storage. Well, so, I mean. I believe that all the things I've read, safe storage is probably has the most evidence of that. And that comes next for being helpful in certain instances. However, I think the way it's drafted right now is that it's a little broad. And I've had some other ideas, but and also I will also say that the waiting period is another one that has a lot of problems to be very helpful, but didn't really seem to have enough testimony to really look at all the different facets of that one. That's why I had withdrawn that one. And I would suggest reluctantly that that safe storage just needs more work and it needs more testimony. And if we were given more time and for whatever reason if this isn't going to go out in the next couple of days, I would ask to be able to continue to work on that, but for now I would withdraw that because I just think it needs. It's a little too broad and I've been trying to figure out how best to narrow it so that the bachelor in the woods is not worried about having this 22 by the front door, but that it's really getting at what we're trying to get at. Bottom line, I would seek to withdraw it at this point. But again, if things are delayed we'll be working on it more. Thank you. So a few things. One, I'm keeping the list as we talked about the other things that the governor is planning on by executive order creating a commission on gun safety and things to look beyond what's done this session. So certainly if that doesn't get passed out here or amended on the floor I would think that the waiting period, safe storage, some of these other things that we talked about would be something that I could send in a letter to the governor. And again, I'm trying to strike that balance between 55 as close to what it came over from the Senate as possible. So I appreciate your wanting to withdraw it. It is interesting that there is that duty for foster parents. Right. But anyway, but I appreciate your wanting to withdraw it. I mean, I understand complications in the need for more research on it. It does seem that we certainly tried to cast a lot of laws that talk about keeping them out of things out of, dangerous things out of the hands of children including marijuana, tobacco, and I again think that if we think it's important enough for children in state custody to benefit from this I don't know if a very narrow provision that says we're children, you know, if there's a danger of children having access or households that have children because it's we know it makes a big difference and accidental child shootings or or not yeah, it just seems like that. I don't think that would be that controversial because people want children to be safe and it is a health risk. I think I think everything in this bill is controversial. So I mean, I think we need to I'm going to call on Thomas. I saw your hand, but he hasn't spoken. I want to thank you because I know we're on opposite ends of the of the spectrum on this bill, which is fine, but I just want to thank you for being conscientious and pulling stuff out that you know, I guess you could say isn't ready for prime time and not just doing something for the sake of doing something. And I mean, just so that, you know, it's done right in your mind because I think I mean, I'll look at it my perspective, you know, the opposite end of end of doing something just for doing something. I just don't want to be doing it. It's just just the way that, you know, you know, the way that I believe in the Second Amendment. And but and then of course on the other end of the spectrum is there's some people that just want to do something for the sake of doing something. But again, I just want to thank you for not doing something for the sake of doing something and doing it you see as the right way. It's it is appreciated. That's the committee process. I have a lot of faith in the committee process. And one of the other issues I did look into trying to figure out how to narrow the storage of households that had children and such. But the opinion I got is that that might have some equal protection problems. And so if it just kind of became complicated as I was looking for the ways to narrow it to get at what you're talking about. It's more time. Everybody, I've got I've just handed Mike an amendment that I had drafted up last week. I am not going to try to attach it to this bill here because I'm going to vote no on it and I don't want to vote no on my amendment because it deals strictly with school safety. And so I'm going to try to find a bill over in the house education to attach it to. But nonetheless I want everybody to take a look at it here some time after we get off the house floor. If we have a minute and I'll explain it to you what I'm trying to propose here and just to let you folks know yesterday I spent the day going around talking to various law enforcement heads, the local state's attorney and the superintendent of schools after they read it and I explained to them what I was trying to accomplish and they surprised surprised all of what so like it's again I'm going to I want you guys to get your say on this before I move forward to see what you think about it but we'll do that I guess this afternoon when we get off the house floor. Is this similar to the school safety bill that Senator Sears has? I have no idea I haven't seen Senator Sears bill whatsoever. That's what I was going to say Jerry if I can if I can the school safety bill and that's why the law enforcement we took that piece out that we had passed on on age 765 regarding law enforcement to know what I'm which one I'm talking about anyway once that it in the stand right now but anyway there was an amendment that it was Janssen's amendment to 55 and it was regarding law enforcement the off duty right so that Senator Sears will look at and if I can bring him either amendment this goes kind of way beyond absolutely but it's school safety oh yeah no but in a nutshell I'll just gloss over it but in a nutshell there is a after 9-11 there was a federal 9-26 C which allows retired law enforcement officers let that be federal state local countywide as long as they need a criteria of various things you know they have to have worked in the field for so many years into their career honorably and if they meet all of this they are allowed to go to like for me I participate in this program where every year I have to go to Pittsburgh which is where the state criminal justice training council academy is I have to go qualify with my weapon to show my proficiency if you do that on a yearly basis you're allowed to conceal carry in all 50 states well there's some car belts involving that one of which is if you're you're not safety's gun free zone well this law will alleviate that where they will be able to and what how I believe this thing should go forward is in fact I was under the false assumption that there's SROs in every school in the state of Vermont I was blown away to find out that that isn't the case because what I really saw this bill doing is augmenting public safety in these schools I found that I said whoa okay in the superintendent John Castle up there who used to be in your area as a superintendent he said well Jesus is perfect there I didn't hire these people as SROs and so basically some of there's a couple of reasons why we don't have SROs in all these schools costs obviously as one the lack of lack of officers trained officers would be number two but again this brings a whole another category of people into the mix they're completely trained they're readily available they're cheap because they're they're all retired they all have their benefits they all have their pensions and everything so you'd be able to hire them relatively inexpensively I guess but it it allows for a whole new level of safety inside these schools so that's what I'm trying to accomplish and there's I'm sure a lot more questions and there are answers and we got a long way to go because of the various policies that have to be written who implements and who's in charge of these people on and on and on and on and on and then anybody believes that this is a good way forward to to make our schools safer safer in the state yeah, no thank you I will ask Senators here to consider the bill no, I just wanted to say Wes Rowan cut their SRO last year because of budget and maybe if it was you know half the price you know because to hire pretty expensive and somebody was just going to be supplementing a little bit of income I gotta believe a lot cheaper where I get $15 now it was a person in there that's what was my mind last night we had a training form with senator Sears Anderson and we'll come and they'd mentioned I think about 3 million appropriation that's been asked for for school safety grants to help you do some of that pick up some of those cars just one through my mind you could probably hire two or three I don't know what they get for a nest in our own it's huge because you know you're talking basically of the full price of an officer including Denny's and everything like that you're talking bare minimum of forty fifty thousand dollars a year right where this could be a confidence because they're only going to work in schools in session and I did to come into play of other things like I've been around the block a time or two I very much remember 9-11 in the changes that took place after what after what happened on 9-11 TSA was adopted we brought that brand new agency and we also the whole hiding of the of the cockpit doors and everything like that and one of the things oh and the most important thing was the additional hiring of thousands of additional rock sky marshals well it all basically with an year a transfixed transformed the safety of air travel to where today you know it we well we haven't had another hijacking like that since 9-11 but one of the things that that the one of the things that has always intrigued me about about sky marshals is a fact when each and every one of us gets on a plane we have no idea if there's actually a sky marsh on board or not no idea so and and I kind of look at this program much the same way because we might not be able to put an SRO on SRO every school but but just the knowledge that they might well be there it will be a deterrent as far as I'm concerned as far as school safety so again this is all in the initial stages here and but I think it's some it's a way forward where we can actually put up put a checkmark that we're actually doing something for school safety and the safety of our children go and look at it I just want to make sure everybody knows that it does include replicas as long as they haven't been converted to use modern ammunition and black powder so we would have a discussion later about all this yes yes I'd like folks to get back if we can or if we have breaks when we're hanging around a lot just want to come back I know so we're going to produce a new draft safe storage out safe storage out the new definition of firearms and then was there a typo or an extra word that came out this morning? I think that was correct so once that's done Luke it's easy to please send it to Mike to have to committee members but hopefully we can you know have it while we're on the floor and and see it I have a I think I mentioned this maybe a week or two ago I have a large manufacturing company in our community manufacturers used to produce firearms in the past for billions of years and that's set forward to 2-1 we have a large manufacturing first century arms that's been around for probably a hundred years that's a big international company it's got 200 people employed this would be I mean I've contacted them given them copies of this I haven't heard back from where they are they could testify or call in or something section 8 on this new version a person that shall not manufacture possess transfer of armor for sale their distributors they they sell all of the world they sell you know they've been around for a long time they have a lot of people employed we've gone towards and looked at all their stuff and they've given us you know it's a major employer right and I know that we've only talked about it a few weeks ago I asked you to contact them we haven't heard they haven't come back with anything specific they told them if they wanted to they were sending it on to someone they put the higher ups well they can certainly e-mails if they have any they talked about it coming in this afternoon and then we had their back yeah I have heard back from you