 I won't start anyway. So the first item, we're gonna be joined in a few minutes by the Health and Welfare Committee, Senate Health and Welfare at 10 o'clock. They're new to come in. And I got the wrong agenda here. Better look at the right agenda. I got it. Thank you, Joe. So what I thought would be helpful is that Eric was to go over the veto bill with us. So my plan is at 11.30 to get back together in room one and talk about next steps, if that's all right. And then we're gonna hear at 10 a.m. with the, from the Harvard regarding the research on done waiting periods. So if Eric, if you would go over, many of us may not remember completely the bill that the governor vetoed last June or May. Yeah. Take it with you. Was he waiting for you? Yeah. If you'd go over the veto message as well of what was in the bill that was vetoed and so we can understand what parts he didn't like, what parts he liked, why he vetoed the bill. Sure. Sounds good. Morning, everybody. Eric, Eric, it's Patrick with the Office of Legislative Council with us. Senator Sears was indicating here to talk about S169 as well as the governor's veto of S169 last year. I had to do the same thing. I had to refresh my own recollection to all the pieces that were in this 169 because there were several, it wasn't just one, one particular firearm to aid a piece of legislation. There was a number of different things and that gives rise to the title of the bill, which was actuate firearm procedures that were several different pieces of it and actually several of them were related to firearms legislation that he had passed the year before or he had passed a couple of quite large lengthy bills. It was act 94 that had a number of different firearms procedures. There was the extreme risk protection order legislation that had also been passed the year before and some of what was going on as 169 was some, some, I wouldn't call it cleanup, but certainly some amendments, some clarification of some of the procedures that he would already passed the year before. So has everybody actually had a copy of that 169 as it passed both bodies and have copy of the veto letter as well? I don't have to be. Yeah, they're in the folder. It's such a new case. Yep. It's, uh, very, very high. I'll be down on Harry. Nope. Let's take a one-hater. Looks like that. I don't know. I don't know. There's the, I don't know. Oh, it's, it might seem to be one of the last pages. Oh, yeah, I'll say that. So let's, yeah, okay, great. So let's, let's look at the bill itself first just to refresh all of our recollections of what the different pieces of it were. First section to dealt with the ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices, the high capacity magazine, hey, remember I've been in act 94 the previous year and the general approach of the magazine ban was if it's a long gun, any magazine that had a capacity of greater than 10 rounds, it was a handgun, a magazine with the capacity of greater than 15 rounds was generally prohibitive, right? The criminal penalty associated with it, they were banned, but there was a number of exceptions, fairly lengthy list of exceptions. And what you did last year, what the legislature did anyway, and S169 was to do some amending around some of those exemptions that had already been in. So you remember, one of the exceptions had to do with shooting competitions. Everybody remember that one? There had to be an exemption for high capacity ammunition feeding devices brought into the state of Vermont that had to be brought into the state. It wasn't the ones that were possessed by Vermont residents that had to be brought into Vermont for purposes of use in a shooting competition. You made a couple of amendments, but that had a sunset, but you remember that? That sunset last year, July 1st, 2019. So a couple of different changes were made in S169 to that piece of the magazine. One was that the sunset was repeated. So that actually is an in-section one. It happens to be at the end of the bill in section six. That's a repeal of the sunset on that exemption so that they could be brought into the state for these competitions going forward without any time. I remember that piece. So another change that was made to that exemption, which is right on the underlying language on page one, in subsection C1A, had to do with the fact that originally that exemption only applied for people bringing these high capacity devices into the state. Vermont residents didn't have the benefit to the same exemption. They were gonna use it at a shooting competition which only folks from out of state who were able to do so. So what this proposal was in S169 was it made that also apply to Vermont residents. So if you possessed it, if you were grandfathered in by having possessed the magazine before the effective date of at 94, well Vermont residents as well as out of state residents could use them at these competitions. So that's that piece. You move on down to page two. Another exemption that had existed for the magazine law, the magazine prohibition, was for law enforcement use. So legitimate law enforcement purposes by law enforcement officers. But they were applied to Vermont officers only. The question that does happen sometimes that an out of state officer might either pursue a suspect into the state of Vermont or otherwise be coordinating their law enforcement work with a Vermont law enforcement officer. And the idea of this exemption, or at least the proposal in S169 was to expand that exemption. So it applied not only for Vermont law enforcement officers, but out of state law enforcement officers who were in Vermont off their legitimate law enforcement purposes. That's the second piece. Actually, that's as far as the magazine goes, the kind of sort of minor language piece. You'll see the subsection F on page two, the physical language change, it was proposed that the president saying, establish shooting competition for organized shooting competition. A minor change that you felt that was more accurately described competition themselves. So that covers the magazine piece. Now, another amendment to what you have passed in 1994, which was done in this bill, has to do with background checks. Now, the background check piece was also a big part of that. So-called betting. Yes. That's right, that's correct. That's on the top of page three, exactly. That was the issue. Remember, there's those sort of background checks generally required for private sales of firearms. Federal law requires background checks for sales by firearms dealers. What you have to require for private transactions, not between dealers, but there's a list of exceptions. There are times when you don't have to get a background check when you sell a firearm. One of these times was immediate family member. But you see the proposal from S169, to expand that list of who is an immediate family member. So a transfer between siblings in law and uncles and nieces and nephews also would not be required to get a background check. It's another amendment to what you've done in 1994. All right, so now we'll come to the next piece. It's substantively new. This is not a change to what you've already passed the previous year. This is the waiting period. And then you see what passed the legislature was a waiting period of 24 hours that applied to hands and zones. So generally speaking, you can't transfer a handgun to another person until 24 hours after the completion of the background checks that's required by the federal or state law. Now remember, the federal or state law background checks vary depending on who's making the sale. Federal sales by a licensed firearm dealer, the background check reminds a private sale under certain circumstances. So any one of those sales has to undergo background check that's done through the national instant criminal background check system run by the Department of Justice. So once that background check is complete, the 24 hours law begins. Now it's a 24 hour waiting period that is passed by the state law. You see the way it's phrased is 24 hours after the completion of the background check. Now again, that also, as we just said, not all sales require background checks. So for example, when you look at subsection C there, section doesn't apply to a handgun transfer that does not require the background check. So if it's a transfer between a new family member, law enforcement agency, an emergency situation, any transfer that doesn't require a temporary loan, for example, any transfer that doesn't require the background check in the first place is not going to be subject to the waiting period. You don't have to wait the 24 hours. If I see how that would work. So that was the way that the passcode bodies in S16 act. Next piece, section four relates to the extreme risk prevention order. Remember that also had passed the previous year that legislature established those. Now what had come up in this situation was that remember an ERPRO can be filed for by a law enforcement officer, or sorry, by the state's attorney or the attorney general. They can use information that they get from law enforcement officers, but that the LEO and herself can't file it directly. What had come up was some physicians were concerned that they might obtain or come into awareness about information about a person who was dangerous, but they felt that they couldn't disclose that information to a law enforcement officer, or to the state's attorney, without violating HIPAA, the Federal Health Privacy Act. So this one, which does is it essentially taking back some of the existing HIPAA exemptions. This already has an exemption for the situation in which there's a reasonable basis for thinking that there's a harm that's going to come to somebody that allows information to be disclosed during those situations. So this essentially works that same exemption for HIPAA into the ERPRO law. So that emergency room doctors, physicians, healthcare providers would be able to disclose that information in an emergency situation directly to a law enforcement officer who could then pass along to the state's attorney that they won't file a permit. Is that including the mental health specialization? Yes, healthcare provider does. That definition you can see there. Somebody asked me. I go back to something. Yeah. It's on previous page where it says background check is completed. Pardon me, sorry. On section three of this page, it says after the completion of the background check. Give me my, yeah. I'm assuming that means after the results get tested and reserved return to the ERP or the cell provider. It doesn't mean after you've completed the form with the cell provider. Correct. Correct. I think the reading of it is that it is after the next system sent to the results. Okay, are we? Yes. Next is the report. Yes, we had some reporting about her post. But that was the request of Dr. Brasard, who is a national expert to try that by emergency room doctors to try to keep track of the red flag laws that have developed around the country to try that. So they were looking for reports from all the states that have this central model, but compiled in the infection model in fact there were other ones. Yeah. Yes, so that's exactly that. To try and provide them that sort of data and information so that they can see how their post were working in practice and whether they were getting the information that they needed in a dangerous situation. Section six I already mentioned, that's the reveal of the sunset rather than the context. Exactly, true account. So that's a review of what was in S169. That was passed by both bodies last year and then it was vetoed by the governor on June 10th. Second one has a copy of the veto letter in front of them now. You'll see that it's relatively short and the essence of the rationale for the veto I think is in the second to last paragraph, a quick review of what's in the language before that just sort of an introductory paragraph mentioning that the veto was happening, a review of what was done previous year which I just spoke about. The veto letter reviews the same thing. During the past year, background checks were passed. The ERPOs were passed. Ability of law enforcement to remove firearms from those that should be passed in violence and create an establishing of an age limit so that firearms have to be, person has to be 20 years of age or older to purchase a firearm. So that's a review of, as I mentioned, what the legislature has passed the previous year. And I think the key paragraph to look at is the one following those bulleted points. We'll see that one. It says, with these measures in place, we must now prioritize strategies that address the underlying causes of violence and suicide. I do not believe S169 addresses these areas. So again, paragraph afterward follows up on that, that's moving forward. I asked the legislature to work with me to strengthen our mental health system, produce adverse childhood experiences, combat addiction and provide everybody to monitor the economic opportunity. So I think the real operative paragraph is the one immediately preceding that one and that sort of goes to the rationality. If you say, if you read that as expressing to me that the S169 doesn't address the underlying causes of violence and suicide. So that's the rationale that's there in line that the elements, the provisions of the S169 that were passed, including the background check, don't actually impact violence and suicide. I think that would sort of imply that it's a data issue, that's an information issue, that there is no evidence, no evidence or a connection between the provisions of S169, including the background, sorry, a waiting period, for example, there's no evidence indicating that there's a correlation between a waiting period, for example, and a reduction in violence or reductions in suicide. I'm sort of extrapolating a little bit as to what's in there to be throughout the brief, but that's the way I agree. Yeah, I would just say, I'll be right back. I feel that there's a built-in contradiction here, which is the governor is touting his signing of at 94, and he's saying, among other things, that the ability of law enforcement to move firearms from those accused of domestic violence makes our community safer from violence that he's proud of that. But he could easily have vetoed that and said it doesn't get at the root causes of domestic violence. So in one case, he's saying removing the gun from the situation makes our community safer. In the case of S-169, he's saying, removing the guns isn't what we need to do. We need to go to the root cause. It seems in both cases you would want to have to do the cause and potentially remove the gun from the situation. So I don't know if this letter doesn't strike me as overly helpful in anything but understanding what is, you know, it's not really a rationale for detail, it seems to me it's more like a failure to provide a rationale. That's a good one. Well, I was surprised when I read the letter here and that's all it said, and I agree with Bill if there's, because there wasn't any projection to any particular thing in the bill itself. I mean, that was, did he object to the weighting area or did he object to the, we don't know at all except that it doesn't attack the root causes, which is true, it doesn't attack the root causes but we aren't trying to do that in other bills. So I agree with Bill on this, it's a pretty, I think there were some public comments by the governor regarding the weighting period, but this letter doesn't provide a direction as to what he would support. I do feel picked on this year, two bills he may have reported, I feel messaged he was very clear as to what he objected to and what not clear what he would support in very vague, as I see, you know. Of course we want to deal with it, the governor comes in and overrides and decides what to do. We can take this bill, rewrite it, put it in 48 hours, see if he likes that better. So I would suggest that this was probably is the opportunity to explain because that's what a veto letter is, is explaining why I'm vetoing. I mean, we could have them come in and further explain but the veto letter is the explanation of why I'm vetoing. Probably. I think that we can internally have a debate about our own respective interpretations of what he was talking about. I understand it doesn't give clear guidance on what specific provision that he's objecting to in the veto letter in total. I understand we're gonna take in from in support of the ones laws I believe the committee is thinking is the source of conflict. I would think that it would be only fair if we're going to open that door up that we have the administration come and be specific because if that is the provision that we are now taking evidence on, yes. I think Joe's point makes good sense assuming we're writing a new bill. If the committee's decision is to override the existing bills that I don't think it's necessarily at this point that we need to be taking testimony from the administration because the veto is, he has made it with the veto and the letter. But yeah, if we make a determination to write a new bill then I think we would ask for all kinds of witnesses to speak to it and the administration would be a normal route of trying to figure out a direction. Does that make sense? My only reaction, Phillip, we're about to take what I believe to be evidence on a provision people are assuming is the one source of contention. I see the door being open for a full discussion of that. I see two folks on the schedule who I understand are gonna come in in support of one provision that is the source of contention. I would therefore question we're not gonna have an open discussion on both sides of it, why we are taking testimony from these two individuals now. We could have a full-fledged conversation and vote in the committee based on what the governor's veto message says. But once you open the door to provide evidence, it seems to me at least uncomfortable that the door doesn't get open to both sides. Sorry, Senator, but nobody said the door wasn't open to both sides. The committee who have citing waiting periods that's that simple in support of the markets necessarily when we make a decision, make that decision, we're probably happy to hear from the governor if the governor wants to come down and meet with this committee. But I'm not willing to hear from every person about whether or not we should attempt to override the governor's veto. If we do a new bill, I'm perfectly happy. If the governor's legal counsel, while we're making decisions, or the governor himself wants to come to this committee, he's more than welcome. In terms of us making a decision whether to try to override his veto. I'm more than happy to hear from either he or his legal counsel. I think I'm taking testimony. I think we're taking from two people who have offered to drive bridge masks to us about their national expertise in waiting periods and it's not really, I don't see it the same as what you were, how you see it. So maybe I'm missing something. This is the exact process we used on S37, exact process. We heard from some people regarding the veto message. The people to help us understand the decision made by Judge Crawford, which had changed things. The veto message on S37 was clear. So I don't see the difference. That's why I didn't schedule J. Johnson or Phil Scott. But if the governor's got or his legal counsel want to come down and talk to us, we're not happy to hear. I hope an invitation. I happen to have a meeting with him at noon time and perhaps if we can at least agree not to hold a vote on anything prior to getting the answer that not have a vote. We will not hold a vote on whether to override until after we hear from him. If the governor wishes to testify, we'd like to welcome the hello for witnesses from Cambridge are here.