 And welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Thursday, January 13th, and we are going to be looking at S30 in actually relating to prohibiting possession of firearms within hospital buildings. This is a bill that passed the Senate and came to our committee last year and we did not take it up at that time. And so we're looking at it now. We will have attorney Eric Fitzpatrick walk us through the bill as passed the Senate and that that is posted on our website. There is also a language that representatives will not will likely propose that at some point, but it is not and it's not being proposed at this time. But again, we wanted witnesses to be able to see the language it's been posted since I believe Monday night that also will be under today's date as well. And then finally, there's language regarding shooting competitions that was in a bill that had passed the legislature, but was part of a larger bill that was vetoed. And I know that there is interest in that language as well. And so that is posted under my name on our committee website for people to look at. And then we have a number of witnesses. There are some witnesses from the West Coast who we will be witness from the West Coast and then a physician who will be fitting in at specific times this morning. So I appreciate your flexibility as we make sure we hear from folks. And then Eric Davis who was scheduled for today is unavailable, but Mr. Davis will be able to join us next week. I'm hoping on Thursday morning at nine o'clock so we can make sure that we get him in when we start. So with that, good morning, Eric, thank you. Yes, good morning, thank you. And good morning to everybody. This is Eric Fitzpatrick with the office of legislative council here to do a walkthrough for the committee of S30 and actuating to prohibiting possession of firearms within hospital buildings as that act passed the Senate, sorry. And the version that you have on the website is the version that passed the Senate. And my plan would be to pull the language up and take a look at it, share the screen first if that's okay with you, Chair Greude. Absolutely, thank you. Very sure. And actually before, well, let's pull up a couple of documents but I wanted to mention by way of background that S30, the prohibition on firearms in hospital buildings is a type of firearms regulation that's known as a location restriction. So you'd sort of think about the different types of firearms regulations that Vermont has on the book. Some address what groups of folks can possess them. Some address what types of firearms may be possessed, what types of firearms are prohibited. This doesn't approach it from that angle. This is a location restriction. So it prohibits firearms on the basis of the location in which they are possessed. And in fact, and this is what I want actually pull up first. In fact, Vermont has two location restrictions already and we'll take a quick look at those because they are helpful for understanding where the language in S30 came from. So I'm gonna pull up what we have on the books right now. First with respect to, and this is in title 13, the same chapter that the proposal is to put this provision on firearms, sorry, on hospitals in. You have this existing section of law on prohibition of possessing firearms in school buildings on a school bus or on school property. So this is existing law it has been for a number of years. You'll see the provision in subsection A provides a person can't, it's prohibited from knowingly possessing a firearm or dangerous or deadly weapon while within, see that's an important word, within the school building or on a school bus. And this is a one-year felony, $1,000, you see in the first sentence there. It also, there was a sort of bifurcation adopted when this statute was passed. So you see that the second provision subsection B, not really relevant but interesting to understand is that also it prohibits possessing a firearm or dangerous or deadly weapon on school property. But in those situations, it's only with the intent to injure another person. So in other words, if you can't possess a firearm at all within a building or on a bus, but as far as on other school grounds, it's okay to have it as long as you don't intend to injure another person with it. So that's obviously to cover the situation where someone may have a firearm in a vehicle when they go to pick a kid up from school or maybe they have one in the vehicle because they're going hunting afterwards, whatever. You don't want to inadvertently sweep in that kind of conduct. So as long as you have it, but aren't intending to injure another person, it's okay to have it on school grounds. Here, yes, please. Yeah, on the school grounds thing, just one thing crossed my mind. What if somebody was open or concealed carry, I guess, at a sporting event? Say at a football game, it's outside on the school grounds, not inside. Yeah, as long as you're not intending to injure somebody, that's fine. That's what I thought, okay. Yep. And you have these standard exceptions which you've seen before for law enforcement officers and those sorts of things. So the next provision I want to take a quick look at has to do with courthouses. That's the other location restriction that Vermont has on the books. So we have two schools and courthouses. And this one, similarly to the one we just looked at subsection B, it's the prohibition that you can't, while within a courthouse, again, you have that within language, while within a courthouse or without authorization from court, can't carry or have in your possession of firearm and you can't knowingly carry any other dangerous or deadly weapon. And this one is a one-year misdemeanor as well. So the book, One-Year Misdemeanors, this one is a $500 fine rather than a $1,000 fine. I'm not sure why that is. We'll have to wait for the criminal classification built to address those sorts of things. But you'll see the subsection C also, there's a notice provision in this one. So the notice that firearms are prohibited in courthouses has to be posted conspicuously at each public entrance. So that's a little bit of background and you'll see very similar language to that when we look at S30 and the proposal in S30 is essentially to add a third location to the location restrictions that Ramon has on the books, to add hospital buildings. And I'll stick up over this language because that's what was not in the bill as past the Senate. The language that passed the Senate begins on page two in the red italics. And you'll see similarly to what we were just looking at for schools and courthouses, it's a possession in a building that is prohibited. So subsection A, person shall not know and possess a firearm while within a hospital building. So in other words, it doesn't include the grounds whether it be parking lot or the property outside the building is not subject to the prohibition it's only within the building where the firearm is prohibited. Again, it's a one year misdemeanor. You see that similar to or actually the same as the penalty for the courthouses and schools that does use the $1,000 fine which is the one that was for schools rather than the $500 one for courthouses. But that's actually one year, $1,000 is standard for the firearms offenses that have been passed over the last few years. You'll see an exception that similar to what we had just seen there's section, subsection C doesn't apply to law enforcement. So federal or state law enforcement officers are not subject to this prohibition so they can continue to possess their firearms in hospital buildings. You'll see subsection D is the notice provision similar to the one that we just saw with respect to courthouses. So notice of the provisions has to be posted conspicuously at each public entrance. So in other words, at each public entrance there has to be some notice that firearms are prohibited within this building something of that nature. And the definitions also similar to the firearm definition is that's the same definition language that cross references 4,017D which is the felon and possession statute the one that prohibits people who've been convicted of certain crimes from possessing firearms. And that's the firearm definition that you've used consistently over the most recent years. It excludes antique firearms, black powder, muzzle loaders, that sort of thing. So those kinds of firearms are actually not subject to the prohibition. And lastly, definition of hospital. That definition comes from licensing statute the Vermont licensing statute for hospitals. I'll read it to you just for it's commonly used but just so you're aware of the language it's defined as a place devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of diagnostic and therapeutic facilities for inpatient medical or surgical care of individuals who have an illness, disease, injury or physical disability or for obstetrics. So that's the licensing definition of a hospital. Next, so that's the end of the section on the hospital prohibition, the first section of the bill. The second section is a study that's directed to be done by the Capital Complex Security Advisory Committee. That's an existing committee that studies effect from the name of it. It's a security at the state house in the capital complex section which is larger than the state house. It's a whole region of the state house area. But what the proposed language does is it charges the study committee with taking a look at the issue of regulating firearms in the capital complex. You see that's the third line of the first paragraph. So they have to, I see the date obviously would have to be changed assuming if this were to move forward it was passed the Senate last year so it still has last year's date in it. But otherwise it's fairly direct as the security advisory committee to look at how the possession of firearms in the capital complex is regulated currently including under rule 26, which does prohibit firearms in the state house of the joint rules. Describe situations when persons have impermissibly possessed firearms at the capital complex and how they've been typically handled and recommend whether this issue should be addressed in legislation. You know, the idea being is the rule sufficient or is legislation needed? That's the issue to the study. And that's the end of the walkthrough of S30. So I could pull the screen down if you want representative grad or just pause for a moment whichever is your preference. Sure, let's pause and I'm looking to see if committee members have questions. I don't see any but also with screen sharing sometimes it's difficult. Right. Tom, there you go. Thanks. But if I missed any committee members, please just ask your question. Go ahead, Tom. Great, thank you. Eric, you'd mentioned earlier with I think it's the existing law that signs have to be posted conspicuously. Right. Is there a definition of conspicuously? Because what went through my mind is at the, well, what I call the junior high school that I went to in Rutland, the basketball team still plays down there, their games, but the high school basketball, but there's gotta be eight doors across the front of that building as the entrance goes. Now, if a sign is posted way over to the left, you know, it may cover the definition of conspicuously, but if somebody enters way over to the right, it's not so conspicuous. So I guess I'm just wondering what the definition is if we even have one. Yeah, that's a good question, Rebson Burt. If there is no definition currently, so it's sort of a plain language approach that's subject to some discretion. But it's certainly worth thinking about that whether or not you think that that term is enough on its space to give folks enough direction as to where the signs need to be posted or whether you need to add a little more detail and provide a definition. There isn't one currently, but it's a good question to raise. Yeah, and I don't know if maybe at some point during the past, I don't know if maybe it's been a topic in a court case, if there's any court cases that had discussed it and maybe kind of defined it. Yeah, I'll take a look, that's a good question. Thank you. You're welcome. All right, thank you, Tom. Eric? Yes. There probably is some related cases regarding that in school cases because of the no firearms on school property. And so there probably are some similar language configurations in that. Yes, thanks for that suggestion. Representative Chrissy, I had the same thought. So we were going in the right direction on that one. Thank you. That's scary. Yeah, that's right. Any other committee members? Again, it's hard for me to see everybody. Okay, great. So let's now turn to language that Representative Nott would like us to look at. And, well, I'm not sure, did you want to say anything at this point or go ahead with the walkthrough? Well, I'll just speak briefly. So what we have here in this amendment is nothing that is new to this committee. I'm looking at the year ahead of us and of course anything that doesn't pass this year, anything that isn't addressed just goes up in a puff of smoke have to start from scratch. It started the next biennium. And there were a few things in regards to firearms that I thought was important to make certain that we did talk about when we did address. And one of them is the Charleston loophole which is covered in this proposed amendment. And for those of you who aren't aware, what most of this committee previously had the opportunity to discuss this. You know, the Charleston loophole is unfortunately named after shooting that took place where the perpetrator should not have had a firearm. He shouldn't have passed the background test. And the background check is currently in the state of Vermont as it was where he got his firearm. If it isn't completed in the first three days then the person can purchase a firearm. So if your background check runs longer than three days, the outcome almost doesn't matter. You can walk out with a firearm. And in the state of Vermont over the last couple of years 97% roughly of background checks have passed in three days, some people have been all set. It's a very small amount we're talking about but in that small amount over the last couple of years, there've been 28 retrievals issued where someone got their firearm after three days even though the background check wasn't completed and they were able to take the gun and take a firearm they shouldn't have. And I think that puts law enforcement in a very dangerous situation because they have to go out and retrieve these firearms. And actually of the 28 retrievals only 19 are complete which means they're currently nine firearms that were sold to people who should not have had them over the last couple of years that are unaccounted for in a state the size of Vermont. I mean, nine is a large number. I find that to be very chilling. So I wanted this committee to take another look at closing the Charleston loophole at making certain that instances where people are walking out the doors with a firearm that they should not legally have been able to purchase. I think we should do what we can to stop that for public safety, for law enforcement safety for a number of reasons. The amendment also includes a provision that we had discussed before which allows public health or healthcare providers to share concerns with law enforcement. Quite often, our law enforcement does a great job that they can't be everywhere. In one place they often or not is in a hospital room and we need to create circumstances where if a healthcare professional in treating a patient has concerns that that patient could be a danger to themselves or to their family or to the general public and that person is in possession of firearm that a healthcare professional can speak to law enforcement and share those concerns with law enforcement without creating a legal professional violation of their code as a healthcare provider. At times I think that the bond between say doctor and patient that needs to be split a little bit when the public good or when the safety of family members is at risk. So this would allow for the amendment would allow for healthcare professionals to talk to law enforcement to make certain that concerns they have about someone who may harm themselves or others with a firearm can be properly addressed and doesn't have to be bottled up in confidentiality. And there's also at the end, there's also an annual report in regards to the use of risk protection orders. And that is just something that again it had been talked about before. It's a data that we need as we know as a committee we are frequently talking about the need for data to base our decisions on that the lack of data is often a hindrance in creating good policy. So this was something that we had looked into before it's information that I think could be very helpful to us in future discussions. And so that is included in the proposed amendment as well. So yeah, so I'm not making an official motion at this time, I'm not putting this on the table for a vote but I thought these were all important things. They were at least tangentially related to the subject matter of S30. So I thought this would be a good time to have this conversation through a potential amendment because quite frankly, whatever the committee decides I would hate for us to walk out the doors at the end of the session without discussing these things. I think it's important. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. And so, Eric, if you can please walk us through the amendment and there is some language that in S30 that's not in the amendment. Also, I believe that some of this language is from a bill that is in the Senate, S5 but it is also language that passed the pass the legislature in a bill that was vetoed and that is, so again, is language that is familiar to us. So if you could put the language in sort of historical context I think that'd be very, very helpful. Thank you. Sure. Can everyone still see my screen? I just had a message popped up that suggested maybe I might not still be screen sharing. So I just wanna make sure everyone can still see represent not amendment. I don't have any screen sharing. You're still co-host. You can pull it back up. Okay. Let me try that. I go back into Zoom perhaps and pull it back up. That seems to have worked. Thanks, Amber. All right. How about now? Is that working? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. So as represent not explain his amendment and I'll give a little bit of the walkthrough of the language that is proposed. You'll see actually section one actually just includes the firearms prohibition that I already went through. So this section is unchanged from S30 as it passed the Senate. Eric, is this the draft that's underneath Will's name? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Yep. So yeah, section one is the same as S30. Section two is the background check issue that represent not was discussing. Now this language for purposes of context as represent grad was getting at this language, I believe past the house two years ago in 8, 6, 10. So this committee looked at it at that time. I know not everybody on the committee is the same as the members who looked at it then but some folks probably remember it. So I believe it was not taken up in the Senate or maybe I'm even misremembering that it may have passed this committee but never reached the house floor. I think that may have been a history of it. So it came out a committee but didn't pass. In any event, it was not taken up in the Senate for either one of those reasons but this committee has looked at the issue before. So the issue is what section two deals with is a different provision of law that exists right now. We see 13 BSA 4019 and the issue here is background checks. So under federal law, background checks must be conducted on anyone who want to purchase a firearm from a what's known as a federally licensed firearms dealer an FFL, a federal firearms licensee. So anytime a person wants to buy firearms from an FFL the background check has to be conducted. Now in 2018, the section of Vermont law that you're looking at right now, 13 BSA 4019 that was passed by the legislature in 2018 and this required background checks on firearm sales between private persons. So those sales are not covered by the federal background check requirement. This was an extension of that requirement to private sales. In other words, when firearm is not sold by a licensed firearm dealer. There were some exceptions for immediate family members law enforcement, folks like that. But generally speaking, it applied to private sales. Now under both of these types of background check whether it's a sale by the FFL or a private sale the background check itself actually is conducted by the federally licensed firearms dealer in a private sale to see the language right at the bottom there in the private sale situation the two folks who were involved in the sale the proposed transfer and the proposed transfer you have to go together to the FFL to the firearm dealer and have asked that the dealer facilitate the transfer and that's how that works. So the procedure, whether it's through a private sale or whether it's a sale from the FFL is that once the sale was proposed the proposed purchaser, sorry has to fill out a form providing some personal details. They have to show their ID and then the firearms dealer contacts the national instant criminal background check system, NICS and ICS. And they can contact NICS by telephone or by an online an online system known as the E-check system but they have to contact NICS in order to determine if this person who's proposing to buy a firearm is prohibited or not. So NICS checks its databases and to see if the person who's proposing to buy the firearm is prohibited by either state or federal law. Now, if they're not, so if there's no prohibition comes up when they check their databases then they assign what's known as a unique identification number to the transfer. And they give that number to the dealer and the transfer can proceed. So assuming that there's no red flags so to speak that come up and show that the person is prohibited for one reason or another from possessing a firearm and they give the transfer a number and the transfer can proceed. Now, this brings us to, that's the sort of the background of how the process works. And it brings us to the proposed language in section two. And to sort of understand that it's important to remember or to understand the other point that reps have not made that if under federal law if NICS is not able to provide that unique identification that remember I mentioned they have to give that number back if they find that the person's not prohibited. But if they're not able to do that within three days then the transfer can still proceed. That's what's known as a default proceed the legal perspective on that that sometimes as per percent not said some folks refer to it as the Charleston loophole from a legal perspective is known as the default proceed because the default is that, sorry I was gonna go back up and take a quick look at so you can see this language. We're looking at the language itself and that is in federal law, you'll see that that is down in subsection T this is a lengthy statute but let's just take a peek at the language so you can see it, it is helpful. There we are. So, sorry the, this is the federal language that describes the process that I just went through with the committee so that you'll see it sort of starts in subdivision one there and a little bit halfway through that paragraph, license importer or license manufacturer or license dealer shall not transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter unless, first of all, before the completion of the transfer, licensee contacts the national instant criminal background check system which we just described. So first they have to contact NICS and then what happens? The system provides the licensee with a unique identification number or three business days being a day on which state offices are open, have a lapse since the licensee contacted the system and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by the other person would violate subsection G.R. in other words that somehow the person is possessed or sorry prohibited by state or federal law from possessing the fire. So that three days have a lapse and they don't, the system NICS doesn't get back to the FFL with a unique identification number then the transfer can proceed and that's what's known as the default proceed. So to address that situation, but I got a lot of documents up here so let's see if we can find the right one. No, no, no. Yes. The proposal in S30 addresses that default proceed by extending that three day period to 30 days. You see, so what it provides is that person shall not transfer a firearm to another person if the transfer requires a background check under this section or federal law. So if the transfer is one that for which a background check is required then the license dealer who facilitates the transfer if they haven't been provided with that unique identification number then the transfer cannot proceed. Provided that if that identification number has not been provided within 30 days then the transfer may proceed. So you see essentially it's still a default proceed. It's still, you know, if the answer if the unique identification number is not provided within a certain period of time the transfer can still proceed. It's just that it's not three days anymore it would be a 30 day situation for purposes of transfers in Vermont. So that's the proposal regarding background checks and representative Nott's amendment. So I'm gonna skip to the next section and I'm sort of pausing in case there's any questions or we can save questions for the end whichever folks prefer. Sorry, go ahead. As I say, yeah. Why don't you keep walking through these things? Yeah, definitely. So the next section, section three has to do with Vermont's ERPO law which also passed in 2018. The same bill as the same act as the background check provision we were just looking at. Now ERPO, and this is sorry not the section of not the proposal didn't pass in 2018 what I mean is the ERPO law itself. That's when Vermont put the ERPO law in the books and ERPO stands for extreme risk protection order. And that's that statute basically permits the attorney general or state's attorney to obtain a court order that prohibits a person from possessing a dangerous weapon. If the court finds that by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses an extreme risk of causing harm to themselves or another person by possessing or purchasing a dangerous weapon. Now that's an exact quote from the statute and you'll see that I wanted to use that exact language because that's important for purposes of this proposed amendment. But the ERPO statute was put on the books in or it's passed in 2018. And this provision of law is an amendment to the ERPO procedure. And this amendment that you see this language you see was in S169, which was a bill that was vetoed by the governor a couple of years ago. So this language as well has also been seen by the House Judiciary Committee or at least some members of it a couple of years back before the bill was vetoed. Now the proposal that it makes to change the ERPO statute has to do as represent not mentioned with healthcare providers. And it has to do with a situation that came up because evidently healthcare providers were concerned that they could not provide law enforcement officers with relevant information without violating HIPAA. HIPAA being the Federal Healthcare Privacy Act which protects the privacy of people's healthcare information. And that HIPAA statute generally prohibits disclosure of a person's healthcare information by providers. So generally speaking, it prohibits that kind of disclosure. However, as with most statutes, there are exemptions and I'm going to bring up one of them right now so that you can see the language. Let's go back to this and we'll look at the Code of Federal Regulations which provides where these exemptions are from the HIPAA disclosure prohibition. And that's in Subjection J, let's find that down here. So these are all exemptions to the general prohibition on disclosure of protected health information under HIPAA. And we're looking in particular at one of them which has to do with the type of situation that healthcare providers were concerned about which led to the language that you're looking at right now. So Subsection J, this is an exception to the general prohibition on disclosure of protected health information by healthcare providers covered entities. And the exception applies, you see, under Subsection 1 there, covered entity may, consistent with applicable law and standards of ethical conduct, use or disclose protected health information that's known as PHI, that's generally prohibited from being disclosed. If the covered entity in good faith believes the use or disclosure, the 1A there and B are the ones we're focusing on is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or to the public. And the disclosure is made and says to who it's made is to a person or persons reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat, including the target of the threat. So this is an exemption. If the healthcare provider thinks that this disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious or imminent threat and they give it to some, provide the input of somebody who could prevent that threat, then there's an exception. So there, as you might think from being that language, well, doesn't that sort of the same idea that the IRPO statute is getting? Remember the language I read in the beginning is very similar to that, not identical, but conceptually you're looking at a dangerous situation, imminent, dangerous situation. So what the proposal does in the language that we're looking at, and let me see if I can, I'm gonna have a hard time finding it again. Here we are. Addresses that situation through essentially a definition. It defines the IRPO standard to include the language that we just read from the HIPAA stand. So what it provides is under subsection D1, says for purposes of petition, five percent of this chapter, this is an IRPO petition, someone asserting that the person is a danger to themselves or others for the use of a firearm. Now, when a petition like that is filed, a healthcare provider may notify a law enforcement officer when the provider believes in good faith. See this language should be familiar because we just looked at it, it's in the HIPAA statute. When the provider believes in good faith, that disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or the public. So that's the exact language from the HIPAA exemption. Basically takes the language from the HIPAA exemption, puts it right in Vermont statute. So it's a hundred percent clear that that is a permissible disclosure of information by the healthcare provider. And then closes the loop and subdivision B by saying not only that, but when we use that language necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat, et cetera, include circumstances when the healthcare provider reasonably believes that the patient poses an extreme risk of causing harm to themselves or others through the use of a dangerous weapon. So that's the ERPO stand. So it's a bit of a definitional drafting connection to close that loop and make clear so that healthcare providers can provide, can disclose this information to law enforcement officers without being concerned that doing so would violate their obligations under HIPAA. Excuse me, Eric. So this language is really, it's clarifying language. It's not adding healthcare providers as another entity that can petition for extreme risk protection order, correct? Because I think- Yes, that's right. They can't file the petition themselves. They can just provide some information to a law enforcement officer. And also actually law enforcement officers can't file the petition either. It has to be a state's attorney or attorney general. But the LEO, the law enforcement officer is permitted by statute to let the court know that an ERPO petition is being filed, but no, it doesn't change that procedure at all. So it's not expanding our current procedure. It's clarifying that there would not be a HIPAA violation. Exactly, right. Thank you. Yep. Section four was a reporting requirement that also was included. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention, as you pointed out, Representative Grad, not only was this language in S-169 as vetoed by the governor, it's also in a bill that's in Senate Judiciary right now that was introduced this year as five. So it's also in a bill that's currently on the wall down in Senate Judiciary. And that bill as well as S-169 included this reporting requirement section, which requires the court administrator to annually report to the Judiciary Committee's data on the use of ERPOs. And this data will include several things that you see on the next page. It's the number of ERPO petitions that have been requested and issued, where they were filed, whether they were renewed or terminated and whether the subject of the petition ever violated it. There's also a provision in subsection C that requires the agency of human services to include an analysis of ERPO on suicide rates. So I remember one of the purposes of ERPO was to have an impact on suicide rates. So the task, the report, AHS is tasked here with also including in the report an analysis of whether that impact actually occurred. And there's an effective date of July 1st, 2022, which I think is the same as S-30. And that brings us to the end of the walkthrough. Thank you, Eric. And then what is not in this amendment is the study regarding firearms in the state house. Yes, that's right. Thanks for that reminder. That's right. So this amendment doesn't include the piece of S-30 that required the Capital Complex Advisory Committee to look at firearms in the state house complex. I jump in. Sure. Thank you. When Representative Knot was given his walkthrough, he said there was nine firearms that still weren't accounted for, I believe out of 26 or something like that. Is Eric, is there a law, is there something that says that the nine firearms that are missing, the people that purchased them, is there a law that says that they're fine, they're in jail, there's some sort of consequence for not coming up with a firearm? If the person is, again, I don't know the facts of those particular cases, but if sort of hypothetically, some of those folks or all of those folks would have been prohibited, or if the reason that they should not have obtained the firearm is because they are prohibited by law from possessing it, like let's say just a couple of examples, perhaps the person had been subject to involuntary inpatient mental health treatment, they've been confined to a mental health facility, or let's say the person had been convicted of a certain felony that disqualifies them from possessing a firearm under state or federal law. If that was true, then yes, there would be a law that prohibited that person from possessing a firearm. So we don't know if those, we don't know if the people that broke the law, we don't know if they're been recommended, we don't know anything about them. Not that I know of, there may be others who would have more information on that, but I'm not aware of anything, no. Okay, thank you. Sure. And Eric, in terms of the 30 days, can you tell us a little bit about if other states use 30 days, if there are other timeframes, have there been court decisions on that? No, that's something I'd have to look into. That's not something that I'm aware about the top of my head. Okay, all right. Yeah, if you could check that out, I think there are states that have different, I think I've heard 10 days, 30 days, I'm not sure, but that'd be good to find that out, please. Okay, so. I agree, yeah, there are definitely other time periods used in other states. I'm just not sure exactly what they're, but I do recall that too. There are other state statutes that use different time periods to get the specifics of that though, I'll take a look. Okay, great. Sure. So I do see some hands. Can I, is your hand up from before or do you have another question? Oh yeah, I never really finished my whole thought process. And now you brought up another one. These other states that are waiting for 30 days, if I'm being threatened and I need something to protect myself with, have these other states, have they enacted something that allows protection for me? I don't know about other states, but actually that's one of the exceptions that we have in the Vermont background check. Statute has an exception for, I'm looking for the exact language. It's an emergency situation. And I can pull, if you give me a moment, then I can pull that up so I can read you the language. I don't, I'm not having it right now, but if you give me just a few seconds, I should be able to read that to you. I appreciate that. Yeah, sure. All right, we're just about there. Okay, so the exception in the Vermont statute as I'll read it to you, I mentioned it doesn't apply to, law enforcement agency transfers or transfers between immediate family. And then there's one other exception, which is doesn't apply to a person who transfers the firearm to another person in order to prevent imminent harm to any person provided that this subdivision shall only apply while the risk of imminent harm exists. So while there's an imminent harm provision, I mean, while the imminent harm exists, sorry, then the exception applies. But once there's no longer no more imminent harm then it would sort of go away. So who determines imminent harm besides a person that's worried that they're going to be harmed? Who else would do that? Yeah, that's a fair point. I think you're right. It's probably going to be based on the individual circumstances. In the first instance, it's going to be the person who is subject to imminent harm who's probably going to be making a call under the exigent circumstances that exist. And then if for some reason, someone later on said, well, that there wasn't really imminent harm, maybe they could, they could, they would have to be a situation where it's sort of thinking out loud. But the only way that someone might challenge that, I suppose they could say, well, there wasn't really imminent harm. And because this is a, it was a crime if they don't get the background check when required, it's a one-year misdemeanor. Someone I suppose could report it to the state's attorney and say, hey, this person transferred a firearm to another person and they claim there was imminent harm and there really wasn't. I want you to look into that. Would that ever really happen? I don't know, but I think that's, you're right, in the first instance, the person who's got to make that imminent harm call is probably the person who's subject to the harm. Okay, I want to be fair to others. I'm going to go back to the original question that I was going to ask. We're already really far behind in a lot of license plates, transfer vehicles, I know at one point, licenses, renewal, everything. If this was even begun, the thought of this 30 days, I mean, is it the state? I don't know if this is a question for you, Eric, where this is going, but we're already so far behind and our computer systems are so antiquated. I'm not really sure how we're doing due diligence to the majority of citizens that's fair at all. My question is, are we even capable of having an answer in three days, let alone 30 days? Yeah, you're right, that's the information that I have, but you might ask, you know, when Jeff Wallin from BCIC comes in, that might be some information he might have, or if you have any federally licensed firearms dealers, FFLs who are coming in, that's questions for, they might be able to help you out with as far as how their timing is currently. Yeah, okay, great, thank you. Yep. Okay, Bob and then Tom. Yes, thank you. It seems like we're all kind of like honed in on that 30 days, Madam Chair. What I was gonna do was go directly to the presenter, the amendment and ask where that 30 day process came in, if there's any shade to 30 days, or just a number that he came up with on his own, if that's appropriate. Yeah, sure, so I didn't come up with that on my own, and as I mentioned, and this is before you had joined the committee, Bob, as a committee, we passed this out in the previous biennium. This was something that this committee had discussed and voted to approve. It wasn't a unanimous vote, but it was something we had voted out of the committee. And I couldn't take back through my old notes, but what I did to revisit this was just take what we had passed and ask that to be placed into an amendment. So the 30 days is what we had previously passed out. So I didn't wanna, I wasn't trying to invent anything fresh. I wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel what I thought process was. This is something that I was concerned to see stall out. I wanted to see if we could get it moving again. So I just took the exact, I just requested the exact same language that we'd previously passed. And the 30 days was in that language. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. I might as well stick on topic here with the three day, 30 day thing. Eric, is the three day transfer between two citizens, I guess you could say, and not an FFL. Is that law now? Yes, I think it would apply. Yes. If I'm understanding your question right. Yeah, just let me hang on a second. Let me find it here. Maybe I can be a little clearer. Yeah, well, we wanna go to the 30 day waiting period or well, some of us not necessarily want to, but is the law now three days with when a licensed dealer has to facilitate the transfer between just two people, a private sale? Yeah, I think so because what the background check, the state background check language, which is the one that applies to, as you're pointing out, between two private persons, as opposed to a dealer that says that the licensed dealer who agrees to facilitate has to comply with all requirements of state and federal law and conduct the transfer in the same manner as the licensed dealer would have signed the firearm from his or her own inventory. Okay, great. I think the same procedures would apply. Yeah, so that wasn't in a bill that was vetoed then. That was passed. So I guess with that, and I know you don't have the answer and maybe Jeff does is I'd be interested to know how many of these types of dealer facilitated transfers were done and the reason I asked that if there's, I know in Vermont in years past, people buy, sell, trade guns all the time, before this was law. And it wouldn't surprise me if there was more firearms in Vermont bought and sold and traded between individuals more than there is bought and knew through an FFL. So with that, I'm kind of interested in the number of transfers that were done since this law has been put into effect. And because I know there's people who are gonna look at that three days and think it's too much. And if we went even more than that, that's gonna bring even more people into the fold that are gonna ignore the law even more. Just my personal opinion. But going down to page five, the healthcare provider has the same meaning. What is the definition of healthcare provider under 18VSA 9432? I can pull that up for you, I'll just take a moment. Yeah, great, thank you. And my concern is, well, I'll wait. Okay, so I can make it to you. The healthcare provider means a person, partnership, corporation, facility or institution licensed or certified or authorized by law to provide professional healthcare service in this state to an individual during that individual's medical care treatment or confinement. So would somebody, so that covers, sounds like it covers like the institution itself? Yeah, I'd say so. So would say an orderly, would that qualify an orderly to potentially lack of a better term, turn somebody in? Is the definition that broad? Because an orderly is a healthcare profession. To me, as soon as I'm hired at the hospital, I'm a healthcare professional. Well, I don't know, because it does say licensed. So I don't know for what level of different healthcare employees have to be licensed in which don't, I'm not sure. So yeah, that's great. That sounds like it narrows it up. But the definition does it, does it allude to a mental health license at all? Because a doctor or even a nurse in an emergency room in that situation isn't necessarily qualified to make a mental health diagnosis other than go on a hunch. Yeah, I'm not an expert in the healthcare specifics of this, I could certainly follow up on that. I would say that yes, it does include, because it refers to health services, which means activities and functions of a healthcare facility that are directly related to care treatment or diagnosis of patients. So yes, I would say it does include mental healthcare treatment. Right, and that would be my hope. And then it's that whoever is making these diagnosis, I guess you could say would have some kind of mental health background other than, again, a doctor or a nurse who hasn't got any of that training, again, say in an emergency room. And I would love to be able to, I mean, I still want to keep people safe and I certainly don't want to see anybody to get hurt, but I also don't want people unjustly accused of something either. So, and my next question, what is the Capital Complex Advisory Committee and who's on that? It is an existing body that includes commissioners of buildings and general services and several other commissioners, public safety. It includes the sergeant at arms, it includes the chief of police in Montpelier and it's a body that has been charged with examining issues related to security in the Capital Complex. And they have a sunset, it's interesting that originally it's supposed to sunset this year, but last year in the Capitol Bill, the sunset was extended. So right now the sunset is to I-1st, 2023, I believe. So that's a sunset on the committee itself? Correct. Oh, interesting. And other than that, I guess, just a comment on section four, I kind of look at this, the rest of the bill as being pretty narrow as far as what some may call firearm safety. And to me, section four looks more like a standalone bill potentially, I kind of mean the term that comes to mind and I don't mean it derogatory at all is Christmas tree. And this is just to me, just something that's added on just because and not that it doesn't warrant some looking at at some point, but I just don't think it goes with the topic for the rest of the bill, but thank you. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Yeah, thank you, Tom. And we could also find out if that information is readily available, if the slang, which we're not in here, if that information is readily available. Okay, so Bob. I'm sorry, just a quick follow-up question. When Will was speaking earlier, he had mentioned that prior to my arrival, they were working on a bill or amendment or whatever it was they're working on. That's where he used the 30 days or whatever. Was that a bill? Will, and if so, was there a vote taken on that? What was it? Do you remember? I don't remember the vote total, it was a bill and it was voted out of this committee favorably. Like I said, it certainly, it wasn't unanimous, so I would have to go back a few notebooks to get those details, but I'm sure actually we could find them online quicker in our old records, but this is, like I said, this was a bill we voted out. The language was lifted directly from an old bill. I think it was H610. You're good. I don't remember the vote to how he though. Thank you, Bob. I'm not seeing any other hands. So why don't we take a, let's take our 15 minute break and then Eric, after that I'll have you please walk through the language that also was in a prior bill and...