 Sarah Kegel, Vermont Legal Aid, or? Do you guys have a copy of the? This is age 562, does everybody have the copies? Grab 1.1. Grab 1.1. Yes, this is what I sent you guys. Day 3.27.18, I learned to march already. We're almost at the end of the day, so see you in class. Go ahead. Good morning, thank you. Thank you for being with us, Sarah. My name is Sarah Kegel. I'm a staff attorney at Vermont Legal Aid. I practiced in Vermont for 20 years, 16 years at Vermont Legal Aid, and four years at the AG's office. So I'm just going to, these are agreed upon changes. Last Wednesday, Wendy Morgan and I met with Michelle, with Susan Murray, and with Kurt Hughes. And we agreed to this language that Michelle has now included in age 562. So the first change is in section 307A2B. Page 22. Thank you. Yeah, page 22. And we just agreed to strike language in B. All of these changes from Vermont Legal Aid's perspective are protective of our clients who are, in this context, biological moms who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. And this is language about when you can challenge a voluntary acknowledgement of parentage. So we just struck language that made it confusing. And B is just about when you can challenge the B.A.P. The next change is in, oh, I'm short. That's just for sex. You want to read it? Yeah. She's absolutely beautiful. We don't do that in the other party. The next change is in section 308A2, which allows a signatory to voluntary acknowledgement of parentage to challenge within a period of two years rather than one year. This is after. This is in 308. This is the bottom of page 22, starting with that. Our speech on 23. Yes. So it said one year previously. And we all agreed to change it to two years, again, protective for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. And also this change to two years was consistent with the Uniform Parentage Act. The next change is in chapter 4 in section 401C. Yes, so page 27. So this is an addition which requires a person who is inserting parentage as a presumed parent to indicate at the outset, which is on the complaint itself. So a parentage complaint is actually an affidavit, as it exists now and presumably as it exists after this becomes law. And they have to indicate at the outset whether or not they have been convicted of domestic assault, sexual assault, or sexual exploitation of the child in question or another parent of the child or if that person was subject to a final abuse protection. Why is this in here? So this is, so it's actually, it's in two places. So it's in chapter 4, which is presumed parents, and it's in chapter 5, which is de facto parents. Does the presumed have the ability to consult the abuse registry at DCM? Well, these are convictions or relief from abuse records. Does the person have, does whoever's making this decision, I assume, the judge, have the ability to check the abuse registry at DCM, and if not, why not? Well, that would be something that somebody might try to present as evidence the judge wouldn't likely, the judge doesn't do. So if they're on the abuse registry, I don't understand that. So can I give an example, because I was thinking about it, where, well, are you saying that you're not comfortable with it being only convictions and final orders for relief from abuse? I think it's not only abuse records. DCF and the data, I don't see it confused with what they are in the mental health group and the development of the disabled. They're all have the news records usually. Why would you want somebody, why wouldn't that be a factor if we're looking at the arrest records and everything else? Many of us on the committee, since last week, talking about the need for this language out of this language, I'll take it. So this language is already in the proposed legislation as passed by the House, not in this place where Michelle added it. So under chapter. I think it would be better if Michelle was, yeah. The answer in this question. Okay. Boston. The scene is in section five. That's high evidence for them. So for the record, Michelle Townsend was a legislative council. So what you have in the bill is passed by the House and the language is not changed in here. It's that in two different sections, there's several things. So under the presumed parentage and then under the factor parentage, there is existing language and we take you to it in four. So if you look at your four, under chapter four, sorry. Okay. So chapter four is presumed parentage. So you have a provision. Well the same language is in chapter five as well. Right, right. So there's two different areas where they're able to consider whether or not there's been domestic violence or sexual violence involving the person who was looking to be a adjudicated parent. And that's in presumed parentage and then take back with parentage. So if you look at section 402, it starts at the bottom of page 27. And this is a challenge to presumed parent. So if you look at subdivision B3, which is on page 20, bottom of page 28. So that says regarding a presumption under subdivision 4.184, and that situation is where the person who was a presumed parent decided to take household with the child for the first two years of the life of the child, including periods of temporary absence in the person and another parent of the child openly held out the child as the person's child. So that in that particular scenario, then going back to bottom of page 28, another parent of the child may challenge that presumption if that parent openly held out the child as the presumed parent's child due to duress, coercion, or threat of harm. So this is where you have, so let's say mom has a child, new boyfriend starts living with them very like when the child is a baby. They're living together for a long time. She, he's looking to be recognized as a presumed parent. She says, well, I did, but we had an abusive relationship. I had different times had orders out against him. He has a conviction for aggravated domestic against me. And then she can use that to challenge the criteria that she openly held him out as the child's parent. She can say, I did it under duress or coercion and then it would be up to the court to be looking at that. So that's under the bill as you received it. There is a similar provision. And if you look under de facto parentage, so under de facto page, so chapter five starts on page 29. And then if you look at 501 subdivision A1 it has the kind of criteria of how you determine who is the de facto parent. So you have those things that are at the bottom, page 29. Person has to show by their dependency evidence and then those factors. There's also a similar provision to what you just had in 402. You have it on page 30 in subdivision A2, which a parent of the child may use evidence of duress, coercion or threat of harm to contest an allegation that the parent fostered or supported upon the dependent relationship as provided. I'm still not getting to my original question. Is why don't you check the abuse registry? You could. I think what it is is that right now is not part of the process at all in terms as far as I know that they go through and the Jewish officer looks at those things necessarily unless somebody brings it up as evidence as to why the parentage, legal parentage should not be established. Again remember it has to be different from the establishing parentage different from the right to responsibility. So it could be that there may be a history of abuse but they still established parentage but they restrict the criminal right to responsibilities. So you could do that, the policy that the house made was that they said- I don't care what the house did, I'm getting tired of the house. I'm just trying to explain to you. I'm really getting tired of their BS over there. So I don't care what they did. What we do is what we do. And this bill is important. If it's important enough to put all these requirements in, then just ask them if you either take it all out or add in the views. You can add in there that whether or not there's been a substantiation of abuse. I'm sorry I got a little rumpial with that Michelle. I'm really sensitive right now about that body. I think you can. I think if that was your policy you said you can totally slip that into these and it is fine. All you would do is you would say add in there that if there's a substantiation of abuse in either the child protection registry or the adult, the vulnerable adult abuse registry within the prior 10-year period. So you can use the existing structure and add that in there. I'm not interested in adding somebody but I'm also interested in having a good time with the kid. I can add that for you. But if the policy is to have these check, I think Joe on the other hand was questioning the policy itself. Now the policy, I'm trying to wrap my head around how this language got built in. The judge knew that the policy, the ability to review the next version, et cetera, these two provisions on 27 and 31 are now placing into the initial petition the red flags, if you will, the judge would be expected to discuss. That's really all that these two provisions would do when it comes to review this. Exactly, and I think the, so that was just something you had asked for the legal aid folks because they had things that they wanted to see on this. And so the committee came up with the original language. The committee said they would be willing to accept something like this. You guys won't obviously have to accept any of it, but I drafted the language so you can take a look at it. So that's just a policy decision. I just didn't know how that was going to be. They asked, legal aid asked for it. Legal aid asked for it, and you guys asked us to go away and try to come up with something that people on the, the various advocates could agree to. Right, we told them to go away. So you don't have to. I agree, we did, and I agree with you. So, so I have a question for you. So the issue of you saying you represent, I'm assuming the mother, I think that's what you said. How many of you would be representing a child? Well, when I say we're representing mom, I'm talking about who our clients generally are. Most people are pro se, so most people are representing themselves. So I'm wondering, could there be a conflict between the mother and the child as to their interests? Are you talking about at the point of filing to establish someone as a presumed or de facto parent? Yeah, yes, I'm just going to be straight here. C. Can I clarify in my mind what this is? So my understanding here is that all this does is the parent who might be considered a parent. Who might, as I can't remember who it was, said, this just gets you into the door as a parent, but even if this came up and the judge still said, I, you are a parent, you have a parentage standard. The judge, they still then have to look at the rights and responsibilities of that parent that's been acknowledged. And the judge could say, you regained the right to be a parent here because, because you were there and because we think that you have a case, but we also think you're a big jerk and we're not going to let you have any contact with the judge. I mean, that comes afterwards. Right, that is a separate proceeding. It could be that they can establish a heritage and they say, but we do see that there is industry abuse. It was a while ago, so maybe we'll start out. We supervise visitation and if that goes well, then we'll work from there. But I just wanted to make a certain question. If there's some, if there may be a divergence between what is mom's interest and what's mom's interest, is you go to, under the presumed parentage, if you go back and you use the standard in section 206 for its unicating competing claims for a parentage and the court is required to be looking at the best interests of the child and making that determination. So I think the court is there for looking out, using what is in the best interests of the child and adjudicating whether or not this particular person who's looking to be recognized is a parent or not. And so they go through that analysis, but there's right, is the vast, vast majority of people who are engaged in these types of proceedings are forsaken on both sides. I'm not sure if it looks... I'm not sure I'm being on the seat. I mean, so it seems to start out with the prejudice right away. May I respond to that? Just that the current parentage complaint for, which is only for biological parents at this point, already requires people to say whether they have filed for abuse against the other person or whether the other person has filed against them. It's filed against them. So the court has at the outset of parentage complaints right now the information about whether the parties are also parties to a relief from abuse complaint or order. Are you ready to move on? So is it an opposition to add any abuse by this case? No, no. That was it. So it's just in... I was just... Well, in both chapters four and five, but I think you picked up on that. No, I mean, how many other changes to the bill that would slow us down? No, not that we're... There's just one that they're technical change and it doesn't change anything substantively. It is on page 54, section 803, federal rights and responsibilities and parentage. It's just on page three. I just added some cross references. So that's it. Yep. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other people who are going for this side of our area? Well, I would move. Are you ready for that? No, I'm not. You're not ready? Not here. I just want you to... You want to have a little walk through again? No, I'm not. You want to be in 30, 15 on Friday work of this summer? So why don't we, 9.15 Friday, 6th of October? So can I ask, is it... I just assumed it's your preference to have a strike on so it's not... There's only a few places that changes. Is it that? No, I don't think we have a strike on that. Okay, so go ahead and do individual instances of amendments. Okay. So it'd be draft 2.1. Sure. And I'll do that today. I'll send it to Peggy. 8.62 and then you could send Peggy for a run on Friday at night. Thank you all very much. So, we've got the final piece for you then. Wait until you see it, Senator Stewart. Thank you very much. I want to make sure that everybody is clear for them to get the idea of what the Senate and the District Committee's responsibility is and what we want to look at this. So unless there's changes made by the House it's very good decided by both parties. What is in dispute with you well is the issues of I can't take responsibility and I will not take responsibility. It's not my decision. And all of those of you with abandoned public hearing, we've never in like 25 plus years here held a public hearing on what in the sense is a conference committee report or excuse me, whether or not that happens on this committee. Our choices are that we can recommend to the full Senate that we have a conference committee and can recommend that we agree with the House of Changes or we can recommend we agree with the House of Changes with the proposals of the medicine. Those of this committee's free choice is not a choice whether or not to kill the bill. I will also remind everybody we are citizen legislators. Yesterday I turned off my iPad at nine p.m. Monday night, I got here at 10 a.m. 9.45 actually, Monday, Tuesday morning and had 9.40 minutes. I'm not able to answer those e-mails. I don't have a staff nor do any other members with the exception of the Pro-10 have any staff members and the Pro-10 has a chief of staff and that's it. We are truly a citizen legislator and to those of you who have been sending e-mails wondering why I haven't responded yet, my first priority is to respond to my constituents if I can. If they identify themselves. If they identify themselves. And I'm looking back at stuff that's two weeks old that has nothing to do with firearms and catching up with constituents worried about other things. In our citizen legislature and the level of discourse indicates some people think differently that we have large staffs that can handle all this stuff. We don't. So what we have is a non-partisan legislative council and a committee assistant who works triple over time to get himself to that. Again, I appreciate it, but did you completely walk us through the House's 101 changes? Right, thank you Senator Sears. Yes, I mean. I know it's 101s. Right, it's a few. It's a few, yeah. It's at least some that would require some explanation. So when we go over the ones that require explanation the first one I know that you know two or three years ago. By you is on page four something about the proceeds. They even got into that. What is that all about? This is, yep. You remember that this has to do with the section regarding storage of firearms by the Department of Public Safety, right? So that this whole transition that came out of Senate judiciary regarding the responsibility for those firearms being transitioned from the treasurer's office to the commissioner of village general services. And there have been some discussion in the judiciary committee centers here about how those proceeds would be allocated after the sale. So I think this was just a, there was intent by the House to make sure that they say that the proceeds, two-thirds of them, if you look at line seven of the existing statute, two-thirds are already returned to the municipality. So this language just says, you know to the extent that the municipality needs it they can use some of those proceeds for the cost of storing non-adventure firearms is just to try and offset the issue that we've discussed about how storage is challenging for local law enforcement officers. Here, where are you? I'm on page four of line seven. Well, I apologize. I started out on page one. Well, sorry about that. Now I'm only doing this, the shaded area. Oh, you're doing it shaded, I got it. I got it. Yeah. And I should add too, generally speaking, as you're just following up on your first point, there were probably in the neighborhood of 15 amendments that were integrated last night, late last night. So I was working last night to try to put them into this document to look at. So I may have missed one or two, it's possible, but I think we have a long, but just bear that in mind that it may be, in the final version that we, that it's actually posted on our website as of this exact moment. It may be a little bit numbering and slightly doesn't remote hanging out now, that kind of thing. This is just the technical type of amendment. This one, we just looked at. Yes, exactly. The first one. Yeah. Right. Then the second amendment appears on page six. Yep. Appears to be technical. Yeah. They're online at nine. Yep. That is in a sense, but there's also some substance behind it that you'll, the definition of firearm that struck 4016, that's the one that's in the statute that you've had in the books for a long time about weapons in schools, weapons in the courtroom, those two. And that's a much broader definition of firearms. And what you had done here, if you remember correctly, there have been some discussion about keeping the definition different in two different sections. So for example, if you take a moment and turn to page 10, line eight. Now this is the transfer of firearms to minors. That used the 4017 definition of firearm, which is the one that we put in the Thelon's Impossession statute that you passed a couple of years ago. Remember, that's the more narrow one. It doesn't include, for example, antiques, musket, musket shot, replicas of antiques. That's what, it tracks exactly the federal definition. So this allows the transfer of, without being subject to the backer job. Exactly. Like anyone? Anyone, exactly. Anyone who can otherwise lawfully possess, or buy one, right? And that's the federal definition? It's the federal definition. So a convicted felon, is it a convicted felon owned of musket or antiques? The answer to that is yes, under both federal and state law, because of the exemption for muskets, yeah. And then they added more people to the immediate families under? Yes, remember the immediate family members, these transfers are not subject to background checks, right? From one immediate family to another, and they added some relations to the types of inter-family transfers that wouldn't have to be a background check. When you're going through these, would you also let us know when these things were added in the process? I mean, if they were added in the last? Yeah, yeah. These here, everything we've looked at so far has been, was in committee, not on the floor. Yeah. Do you want me to? Yeah. I'm reading the edition of Steps to the Great for Anyone. Yes, and then I'm noticing the continued absence of my father-in-law. Any discussion as to why that would be? Not that I recall. We have the powers to propose to amend the bill to, excuse me, get it right. We have the power to recommend to the Senate that we concur for the proposal that opens up everything. What it also does is if you, if I were to propose that, I would be voting for the bill. Proposing to accept the proposal. Yeah, I'm accepting the things that we don't amend. So. On that particular question, is a parent error? Sorry, I don't know if I'm guessing parent isn't defined in this particular section of statute, but do you know if parent is defined somewhere as necessarily biological? There's still a long period of time. Yeah, we just did parent. Did it have its definition? We haven't voted it out yet, but yes it does. But it defines parent to include in-laws? No. That's my question. Is what parent is narrowly defined to be, you know, custodial parents versus? I don't think Joe had defiled for parentage rights under a parentage statute that we just did. No, I don't know. There's no concern that he couldn't accept a firearm from his father-in-law. Yeah, I see what you're saying. So the question is, what then the question is, does parent here, are we clear that parent doesn't involve, right? Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. No, I can't say that. It's ironic that we just did the bill. Maybe we have a discussion of that issue with regard to the in-law situation. Technically, if Joe were to put that amendment in, then that means he's voted for the whole bill because there aren't any reasons he was in charge. The only way, the only three choices we have are asked for a committee, asked for amending the bill, or incurring with proposals of amendment, or simply concurring with the house of cash. So the only way I can think of it, the committee, if it so chose, would be to amend with further proposals of amendment. And we could make one of those amendments be that it be added in in-laws to that group. We do that all the time. I don't know why anybody expects us to deal with this bill any differently than you haven't been told that we should. But I believe what you just pointed out is that if we did propose for amendments, for example, you would go on the floor and incur with further proposals of amendment, which means you're concurring with everything that's already in the bill. I'm prepared to do that, by the way. OK, but I'm just saying. If that's what it takes to get this bill right, I'm prepared to do that. All right. I just want to do it. Some people may be encouraged to do it, so I would say you don't like the changes period of the bill, but we have the interest. Well, yeah, voting no would be sort of like asking for a committee to confer and stop it. Yeah. And it's all the difference between. Yeah, theoretically. And theoretically, that's a no. I mean, I suppose it can be construed as a no-vote. But in my experience here, we ask for a committee of conferences on much less than having any grant permits. I believe it was a horse bill. The bunny bill. The bunny bill. Well, the committee, as a motion on the floor, many motions would be in order. So typically, we'll say something like concur with further proposal amendments or concur or go to conference. It could be not to concur in the review of the bill that you made. I think I would tell you that an amendment could be made to change the in-laws and that you could then start changing other parts of the bill with an amendment, a proposal amendment that the House could choose from that to go to a committee conference, accept our amendments, or. So technically, what is the bill's status right now is still in the House of Representatives. And it's not, to my knowledge, it wasn't for the rules that were suspended. So my guess is it would go on our notice calendar to come on to our model, which is Thursday, and then be voted on on Friday. But it's full Sunday. It's not in the possession of our committee. It's not in the possession of our committee. It's really our technology. It will never be in the possession of our committee because unless we make a motion to send it back to committee, which I think would probably fail. Because we don't have possession of it unless it comes to that. But we are the committee of jurisdiction, and therefore we can make recommendation. Thank you, Eric. Appreciate you going to do this bill. Of course. Absolutely happy to do it. Would you please continue? Yes, definitely. So we had just spoken about the definition of family members. So now there's another change to the background checks provision over on page seven. Yeah, I was scratching my head over this one. This is because the feeling was that there's some redundancy here. So if you read for a second, so remember what happens with the background check, is two people conduct the entire sale. They go to an FFL, and they have the FFL conduct the sales, or they are selling it from their own inventory, and they conduct the a. Can you start over? Yeah, sorry. Min or two background, give sort of, so to speak, background on the background check. You recall that the way they proposed when it's being sold by privateers, and two people go to the FFL, the FFL conducts the sales if they were selling it from their own inventory, including conducting a background check on the proposed purposes. So that's sort of the general structure. So if you look at, before we look at the struggling, but if you look at the bottom of page seven, subsection C said, the licensed dealer would be able to facilitate this transfer, shall comply with all requirements of state federal law, and shall, unless otherwise expressed, be provided in section conduct the transfer in the same manner as the licensed dealer would be selling the file to his or her own inventory. So that encapsulates the conducting of the background check and determining which is not prohibited from possessing a state law. The professional judgment is so disreviewable. Yeah, from a technical perspective, it's disreviewable. Well, let me ask you a question. In terms of our re-interpreting with something. Literally, we're gonna get backed up here. Are we, are we doing something here that interferes with the responsibility of the FFL? In other words, in fact, consider themselves a vendor. In fact, what happens is when they do the background check, if the person were to fail the background check, the person who does it has to be transferred to fails it. Then, in fact, what has to happen under the requirements are, and not under this requirements, but under the federal requirements, the licensed dealer has to run, if the person has failed, and the licensed dealer has to run per the seller through a background check before he can let it go back. Alice, I'm totally confused. No, I'm sitting, I'm on the top of page eight. So we have a copy here, so we just got there. No. He hasn't called to talk about it. Oh, all right, all right, it's all right. What does, what does the top page eight? Never mind. That's all right. So the vet, you're doing it, the highlighted vendor. Yes. Okay, so the reason behind that is a little different. That is addressing the question of whether or not the, whether or not the transfer of the firearm, let's assume that the, that the background check comes out, comes back okay, though the person's like, okay, the sale can proceed between these two folks. Would the, and you said, provided here, I'm sure what you could repeat, there's a provision that permits the FFL to charge a fee. Right, right. The question was under tax law, does that mean that the transaction is subject to the sales tax? Even though the, the FFL is not the one actually selling the firearm. So review the, our tax attorney reviewed the appropriate tax provisions in tax law and said it is arguable that the person could be subject to the sales tax. So in order to make sure that that person is not considered a vendor for purposes of the sales tax, that might be the same. I think that's, so where else would my question be? The yard sales. Right, there's a yard sale exemption and specifically in sales tax. The yard sale amendment? Yeah, for want of a better term, I think that's a good one, yes. Yes, it was to make it more now against to a backyard yard sale or where there's language I can get for you that's in the tax law. That's what, so this is just making sure that they don't have to pay the sales tax and always people come rushing down the road to transfer the firearms. Exactly, exactly. Which they wouldn't have to if they were just selling it, you know, under current law right now, one person would have to pay the sales tax. Right, because they do it anyway. Exactly. All right. Next thing. Page nine. Yep, this is an immunity provision. Now you may remember this issue coming up in the Senate as well, in the Senate floor and it is true that there is federal immunity there's a federal statute that I believe is called the protection of lawful commerce and firearms act and have it quite a lot. If the firearm dealer approves it, first it goes out and shoots up a local high school they're not liable. They can't be liable for any extra emissions as long as they facilitate the transfer and compliance of the law, yes. And that I should say also that that status that immunity already exists when they sell it from their own inventory. There's a federal law that gives them immunity but there was again, it was arguable because are they the one actually doing the transfer? Probably not. They're just facilitating it. So it was unclear what they have immunity under the existing federal law or not. This makes sure they have it under this. Yep. What happens when they run the check and they find that the person is in the next registry and they're there and so the licensed dealer says, I'm sorry that this, you can't buy this done and they both go away and he buys it anyway. I mean, what does the licensed dealer do at that point? It's that they get the firearm back to the proposed seller and the client to continue. And they go away. They go away, okay. I don't know. The fee that you missed. Is there anything in there that charges, that makes it clear that if the transaction is avoided that the fee is still paid to the dealer? I don't know. It's an interesting point. And the language on the fee is on page eight, line seven or nine. Well, you think about amend, amend for the remendments that would be one along with the in-laws. Oh, I hear it says they return it to the, I should get it. Well, they return it, I don't know clearly that the firearm dealer still gets his or her fee. Well, I think it says that the fee is to facilitate the transfer itself. But the transfer wasn't facilitated. So if they're denied, would the person who just went through all this effort not receive a fee? I think under the language, it's, because question being, what would that be reasonable? Would it be reasonable to say, hey, I did the check even though it came out, my time's the same. So I think you could argue it. You could read it to permit, but you, oh. So how it works, if the person is, turns out to be on the FBI list. Right. Then before the shot, the FFL person can't just give it back to the person who wanted to sell it. He has to run them through a check. That's not what it says. Those should work with the FFL service. You have to, you've got to know, would you've entered the number of the gun on your list in order to do the check? It has to be on there. So in order for the person who wanted to sell it to get it back, the FFL has to run. The person who wanted to get it, the person failed. Now for the seller to get it back, the FFL has to run that person who was selling it through NICS in order to transfer it back. And what does the seller, what does the FFL has to do with the fire? If they're both. They both failed as we've got to keep it. It's like it's in his inventory. When he puts that number in, just run the record check. It says it's in his inventory. I don't know if that's true. I can't give you that definitive answer on that, but this statute, I think the requirement that Senator NICS is talking about applies when the vendor, the seller actually is the transferor. And in this case, they are not to profit. So I don't know if that's true. It is true, I would as well, we should look that up. Let me see. Well, I'm thinking there's where you can get the money, because he's got to go through it now. So let's give both of them, okay, moving on. Now we're down to section seven, the minor, the E, who was an amendment for Eddie E. I don't know, I'm sorry about that. For who? There was a clause on the floor. It had 73 different amendments. So we've just changed minors to persons under 21. Yeah, the actual definition of minors in the statute is 18. So to be clear, it's a persons under 21. Also, you'll see that when you talk about, remember, this is the prohibition on selling a person under 21. And there's some exceptions in subsection B as it starts on line 15. The determination made upstairs was that, well, the exception move should apply to a law enforcement officer who's a minor, period, you know. Is this a floor amendment? That was in the, this part of the committee. And there's a break up for you. Exactly. So they did that for both one and two, for both law enforcement and military folks. And they added, that's, you see, not just an active member, but that's- Well, they took out Senator Asher's provisions. I don't know, are you okay with that? Yeah, I think that either way, it's fine to be honest. Questions on the Senate floor, or how do you know, operating on a good faith, which is almost our lawsuit, so it's such a same, simple claim. And you're okay with the further, or veteran on the line 15? Yeah, same thing. So three and four, you'll see, ads, there have been some discussion this on the Senate floor as well. This is adding another exemption for a person under 21 who has taken a 100 safety class. Please, can we get some, are we gonna hear some of those quarters? It's not on the list. Well, I used to be a commissioner official in my life. When I first mentioned this to somebody as a good idea to add to the bill, and I was told no, because we don't know if there's these certificates there, valid, et cetera, et cetera. So I'm curious as to, I would like to add a minute or a quarter to talk to us about these three and four, these exemptions. Do you want me to try and get them today, or? Well, probably gonna have to cancel most of tomorrow as well. So try and get them for tomorrow? Yeah. Okay. I'll probably push 87.7 down the road, okay? Yeah, get a little background on those two subdivisions. Does anybody want to do a check on that to make sure that that's, I mean, I've heard that some law schools, I've heard there's some universities that aren't real, but they'll give you a diploma for a certain amount of money. Or gave you as a minister. Right. So I just want to make sure that this is okay with the administration. Yeah. But this language is right out of- No, I mean, not that it's okay. I didn't mean it that way. I meant that this will work. Right. When the commissioner testifies you- I mean, is there a certification, is it not a ride, what does it look like? It's something that the Fish and Wildlife does. Yeah. So I want to hear from the commissioner. Yeah. Okay. And speaking of that, you'll see on lines 12 and 13 that we had used the word commissioner, but I hadn't specified who it was. Sorry, just fine 12. So let's add a clarification there. That's what the commissioner said. We go to section eight. Yes. And not in section eight housing. Now these are, so you see this entire section is highlighted because this was not in the senate version. And we skip this for this very moment to go to Monkstas. Yeah. And then the back of this section. Uh-huh. It's page 14, section nine. So- Sorry. This is a federal definition. This definition, there have been a couple of a couple of states that have passed prohibitions on bump stocks of California. And it was in the Florida legislation that passed a couple of weeks ago. And I believe Massachusetts is the other state. This is based on, and there have been a number of bills and abuses of the Illinois Bill language, but the language is relatively common. Key is the definitions. And I think everyone sort of knows by now what a bump fire stock is. It's an attachment to a firearm that allows us to, the rate of fire to be increased, just allows you to activate trigger more quickly by a hurt shoulder. Bumps against your shoulder when you hold the firearm. So that's essentially what it is. There's, as I say, a couple of states that have passed these. The commissioner of fish and libel, I'd like to ask you about this. Oh, excellent. Excellent. All right, go. Obviously he was just naming her. I know. Just happy to find her. That's great. So this section is not effective till October 1st. Why are we allowing us to name this thing? Yes. Has a delayed effective date. What was the policy choice there and that was that a late amendment or? That amendment was a floor amendment and the choice there was that there may be folks who are in possession of these now who will find themselves in possession of the illegal device as of the effective day of the act. So they want to provide those folks time with something to do with their existing bonfire stuff. And that's why you also. One do. You can see under subsection C, this is also a form of the Department of Public Safety is required to develop an action and collection process that permits people to voluntarily and anonymously think of the group prior to the October 1st event. We also hear from the Commissioner of Public Safety on whether or not he agrees to do this. Sure. Peggy, do you hear me? I know. I just wanted to hear from Anderson. He's being given the duty of promoting and executing the collection process that permits persons voluntarily and anonymously to link with bonfire stuff prior to the event. Do I hear from him tomorrow? Yeah. Yeah. I know he's here. He's probably wondering right here. I'm sure he would be. We also, I see there's a report from the Department of Public Safety, the Executive Director of the Department of State's attorneys, and one association of chiefs. Is that a floor amount, too? Yes. They were very active. That's called Drive-By Listing. So may I ask a question about the bonfire stuff? Is my understanding is that there's some initiative at the federal level, I think? So if you and if this were not in here, the federal level may, and we would have to comply with that. I'm not asking if there is. The status of the federal proposed public stock ban is that on Friday, the United States Attorney General provided notice of a rule that will redefine machine guns to include bump stocks so that they will be illegal. That means it's got a code. They're doing it by rule. So it has to go through similar to the rulemaking process in Vermont. There's a comment period. It'll be published in the federal register. They can receive comments. They can amend the rule and respond to the comments if they want it. And it will go up to effect. I'm not sure the APA or the federal, even if it's 90 years after, comments close, something like that. So if we pass this, and it says in Vermont, it won't take effect until October, and they pass something that ends up taking effect, assuming they can move fast enough, which I don't believe they can, but takes effect in August. Is our October date hold, or is their August date hold? Depends on whether they preempt. OK. And I don't know if that's in their final rule yet. OK. Good question. I don't know why. So and then there's section 9 as a repeal of the. That's related to the. Section 8. Romans, October. And then section 10. That's the report you mentioned. That was the floor amendment. Yeah. And the idea here is that there was a proposal considered in the committee upstairs that, if you remember, sort of how the idea of the background check works under the Senate, though, you go into the FFO. There was a proposal made, and some of the proposals in the committee considered, whether or not there might be an alternative way to do a background check between two pilot folks. And that idea was, what if one of the people could just go into a law enforcement agency and the agency could conduct the background check on the person, give the person a certificate. All right. You're clear. Go ahead and do the sale. The committee thought that was an interesting idea, but they didn't feel like they had the time to develop it, so there's a study of it instead to consider the issue. It was whether there might be another means of development. My understanding is I'm trying to follow all of this and I read through the weekend what the house did on Friday night, on this private understanding and then they ended it several times yesterday, as I understand. So you can help us through the confusion. I think I can walk you through it. I understood what they were trying to do in the first place, but then I thought that I was exempting more people and more the things. So basically the overview, correct me if I'm wrong, the overview is this band, the manufacturer, the sale, or transfer of any magazine over 10, then they amended it. If it's a pistol, it's over 15. Correct. But it makes it legal to possess what you had before. The bill takes effect. There's a grandfather caught. Anybody who has a magazine larger than 10 for a rifle or larger than 15 is allowed to keep that, but not sell it, but give it away. Is that correct? I think you've got it there too. So that's what they started. Well actually they amended it to 15 rounds. Right. The last bill. Just to make sure I understand, this draft says 1 p.m. 325. The House worked on this yesterday afternoon. Is what we're about to be walking through exactly what the House has ended up with? 99.5%, yeah. There's a couple of section re-numberings and things like that that I just went over with the House court before I came down here, right? And my version, maybe I did this after, mine says 11 o'clock last night, but it didn't. I think I just changed. Maybe I didn't get that, printed that out or sent it prior to doing that. Assuming that this is what we voted on last night. It is. Yeah. I'm sure they all read it. So you described sort of the big picture sentence here, but it's these large capacity magazines, these clips that are, and in fact, Senator Sears, the possession is also great. You were mentioning transfer, sale, and receipt and all that, but it's possession itself is great once it goes into effect. I would assume a serial number of something on them so that you know that what was new and what was old. My understanding, I'm not going to let the witnesses talk about this, but I think my understanding is that they don't have serial numbers. That's an element that makes enforcement. The details of enforcement are going to be something that you want to hear from the state's attorneys and those folks. I would have liked to hear from law enforcement and the state's attorney general as well. So this was a committee amendment from law enforcement. Correct. Although there were amendments made to the committee amendments on the floor. A committee made amendments to the committee amendments on the floor. Another people would do that. Yeah, a number of others. One of them is in the second... Sorry, Senator, I'm going to interrupt you. Go ahead. I was just going to say one of them is in... Well, it sort of helps to understand the sense that you first look at, on page 11, lines 3 to 7. All right. That's the grandfathering provision. So that's it. That's grandfathering. So possession, the possession, the prohibition on possession, so that's key because it's only the possession part that's grandfathering. The prohibition on possession of large-capacity animation feed devices, established devices shall not apply to a large-capacity animation feed device lawfully possessed on it before they've activated its app. So if you've got it on... possessed it, then it's legal going forward for you to continue to possess it. But I can't transport it out of state and back instead. That goes back to our channel on the bottom, page 10. Yes. So this was a floor amendment that was made out of concern for hunting competitions that go on out of state. So people use these devices at hunting competitions elsewhere, other than in Vermont. And technically, you look at line 16, the question was, well, if they then do that and they bring it back in, are they importing it? So they want to make sure that that was not the case. Well, yeah. If somebody lives in New Hampshire, can they bring this into Vermont? That's another floor amendment. We'll get to that. Okay. So... But the first one, as you were just mentioning that she was undergifted, clarifies that import does not mean bringing it out of state and then bringing it back in. Okay. So, indeed, we criminalize... Yes. The one-year misdemeanor. It's a one-year misdemeanor. Yep. I don't want to be misdemeanor, but we are criminalizing a certain behavior. I remember being on the floor of the Senate trying to explain the criminalization of the defendant and assailant, as well as in the Senate, the question, why do we create crime? I've always taken that as we want to be careful about creating criminal act, creating crimes. And we're creating the crime here, but we're making exemptions to the crime. There stands a theory behind it. I'm told by some people about you that if you do this, that you would have the monarchy generally law-abiding citizens, the second sector, and who they are. Looking at putting somebody in jail for up to a year. So, it doesn't become a criminal act, and I think that's a policy choice in this regard. That's right. So, speaking of... You were mentioning exemption centers here. So, we just looked at the grandfathering exemption on page 11 to go down to subdivision 2 there, which is line 7 through 12. This is, essentially, you might even look at it as a safe harbor provision or a delayed effective date provision. This allows if you are an FFL that currently has one of these large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed, it gives you until October 1st, 2018 to sell your stock. Anybody see that? Yeah, can I ask a question about that? Mm-hmm. So, I can't... As of July, I can't buy it, but the dealer has until October to sell it, so who's going to buy it? Yeah, the... Actually, I think on the top, you can't possess it. It says here, shall not manufacture, possess, transfer, offer for sale, purchase. So, on passage, I can't purchase it, but the dealer has until October to sell it. So, I guess my question just is, logistically, who's he going to sell it to if I can't buy it? And I think we'll probably have to be out of state after July. It would have to be sold to somebody from out of state. Okay. Come to the front and buy it from the FFL. Okay. Is that it? I think that's the reading of it. Yeah. That's what they did. Yes. So... Okay. I just wasn't sure. Is that it? I mean, the only way to put it is that what the house did. Yeah. I believe that's what the language says, because the... As I read it, this section says the purchase, the prohibition on the purchase also doesn't apply to stock that was in place prior to the effect of the date. I would like to know if a buyer can buy and have multiple firearms to deal with a magazine above 10 to 15 years. Yeah. So if you could, if I could just say something. So on page 11, starting in line 7, you're right. The prohibition on possession, transfer, and in this case, the sale and purchase of magazines which would subsequently exceed the limit, that are in possession legally prior to the effect of the date of this and before October 1, are okay. Yeah. Okay. So if it's in stock, a person could still purchase it up until that point as long as it was in the store on the effect of the date of the passage of this section. Okay. Right. Yes, I apologize. I misspoke earlier. Senator Ash is correct. I was mixing this up with a different format. But yes, that's right. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. So, next is the section that shall not apply. Yes. So these are a number of exemptions that the first few that you look at and several of them are actually, I did mention earlier that these bands on large capacity, ammunition, feed devices are in effect in about nine or ten other states. And there was a federal audit that was in effect from 1994 to 2004. So this language is based in large part on some of the other state statutes and the federal process in Massachusetts in particular. And these exemptions also several of them come right out of the existing statutes in other states. First is an example of one of them. You can see any one of these devices as a manufacturer transfer to possess by the United States, Department of Agency of the United States, or by a state or any, so it's basically any state agency. That's an exemption for them. Subdivision B is an exemption for law enforcement person, person, either federal or state law enforcement officer certified by the Criminal Justice Training Council. That's a form of it as well to beef that subdivision up. Turn over to page 12. It's obviously a federal piece of the exemption language that came from federal law originally. It's the Atomic Energy Act related possession in transfer to these devices. Excuse me. Subdivision D as well, retired law enforcement officer. That's also constantly statutes in other states in the federal one. Now Subdivision E is something that was done on the floor with some committee discussion and this has to do with the companies in Vermont that manufacture these high capacity competing devices. You may have heard that there's several companies in Vermont that do this. So the idea was excuse me, to provide an exemption for them, to transfer them and continue to sell them and manufacture as long as it's done out of state. Subdivision E, page 12. That's it, exactly. Subdivision E, page 12. So you see, it permits or sorry, I could say it exempts the device from the application of this act so it's not illegal. As long as it's done for one of those three purposes, testing authorized by the attorney general, product development, repair and return the person from whom it was received so in other words, that's what some of these companies do as well if you have one already and you want it fixed, you can send it in and get it back to the violating act. Subdivision E is a transfer for possession, purchase and possession outside the state of Vermont. Can you see that? Sorry. We're going to make you a colleague. We are going to be making the product in Vermont as illegal to possess. Yes. The committee tech testimony was very effective in their work. They did talk about that. They didn't come up with a hard number but I think they were in the range of five or six, four or five. There was another exemption, something that was NEP. Senator Sears, this is the point you made earlier. He said, well what about somebody who's just bringing one of these devices into Vermont for a competition? That's Subdivision F, page 12. That's the one in the Sunset? Yes. Exactly. They won't be able to do that next year? No. They won't be able to do that next year or see the date. It was July 1st, 2019 when it's repealed. We'll have to do that. We think we'll be able to bring those in for them. Yes, that's right. There's no answer to questions. I'm just curious as to why we would Sunset that we're continuing to manufacture them and sell them to the rest of the world but we're going to have competitions after July. I mean, just that's not yours to answer, I guess. That's just some music of my own my own feeling. I don't understand the policy that the state of Vermont and the state of the policy are not having competitions on the product we're making in Vermont. I feel like we're not having a competition on the basis of the company. I think that's what happens in St. August every year. I believe there's a a fest that goes on out there in St. August. I don't know what they think they call it the maple fest or something like that. We could certainly ask the senator to clean it. Knowing Yes. We're nearing the end. We're approaching the end. We did some at the end already. The subdivision is really that's just you just went through all these examinations and this is just saying, if somebody is examined under one of those ones you just looked at, it's transferred to them. It's got to be transferred by someone and it just says that if you're a dealer who transfers it to one of those people you're also exempt. Does that make sense? No, that's okay. This is really Yes, it says if you qualify as one of the exempted categories that we just looked at then it's got to be transferred by someone in that exempted category by somebody. So this just says if you're in one of those categories and you're a dealer who transfers it to one of those people you're also exempt. So that you can't basically check. If the feeding device strives capacity magazine as more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a long gun and more than 15 for a handgun do we define a long gun at handgun somewhere? No, in those terms I would want to I mean the guy I wanted did it alive I believe it was at least a few at a long handgun. Yeah If I'm understanding that those are the terms that are just frequently used. I bet you never realized that. Wait a minute. I didn't see that. Great. You had a long handgun. Yeah. Yeah, the category was great. I remember that. I digress it. Can you date it myself? I can't educate you on that. I don't know either. But that's my name that comes directly out of the federal and state of other large capacity devices. So what is your expertise as you know about that one? All of our manufacturers have managed to manufacture such a device and it had 35 rounds of physicality. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's as long as it otherwise fits in that exemption. Right. Could I ask a question about my understanding is currently when you're hunting you can't have anything more than six rounds that's current law. Does this impact that at all and actually negate that you could have 10? No. Definitely not. That's good news. Right. So there are a few more exemptions there just you might want to run through real quick. Right. A, B, C and A, B and C I guess are yes, further exemptions to general prohibition and ban on possession. So then A, B and C are exemptions to the whole... Correct, exactly. When were these? The A, the one that Senator Banks just mentioned, the two viewers' advice, that was in the bill in committee. B and C were formats. So the C one you see as a reference to curios or relics there are actually Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms Regulations that define those that you can apply at least 50 years old that's when they make the process. I know, it's a nice terminology. Just to let you clear from the large capacity of curios and feeding, internal capacity to feed more than a number of curios? Yes, it refers to the clip and the magazine of the weapon itself. Simply their exempting unit. Yes, exactly. Antiques you get in line 16 and 17. And if you remember that you remember that's the definition you remember from the bill you did two years ago that's 1898, manufactured 1898 or earlier or a replica. You said it was a replica. It's an antique style. But that is existing law that if you already passed with respect to the balance of possession statute can you just, I would like to repeat the answer to that. So antique style of who's built today you're saying it's what? What's the treatment of it? It's exempt. Just the way there's exempt under the balance and possession statute you passed a year ago. And I should say also there's exempt under the federal balance and possession statute. That language comes right out of the federal law. We already have questions for Eric about changes made by the other body. There were there were a bunch of amendments on the floor yesterday I believe. The ones that were all incorporated in here. That's what I was doing late last night. Taking the floor amendments, integrating them into this document. Now as I said it's a very technical thing but as it happens in the version that we see on the calendar for example the repeal that is now section 9a line 16 page 14 that's going to be section 11 and the effected it's going to be section 12. Things that are doing upstairs right now. Think about the floor when we will get there on Friday without a right toward Senate version House version of the changes. Know what's technical and what's policy. Obviously all of section 8 would be all of section 10. So more of a big picture kind of statement. People can understand what the other body did before they made the decision on how to vote on their bill. So you want to include things like I'm just picking some of them. I'd like to include I'd like to make sure that it's clear that they play on page 6 a for federal definition page 6 lines 8 and 9 are technical in nature and lines 12 and 13 are policy choices that the House made that the Senate did. I don't think it would be bad. I think it could be pretty high level. I want to have people actually who may not read the bill. And we'll have this document in addition to that. I know you were under the I know that it was difficult to put this together given that they just finished voting on it at 8 o'clock last night. So I apologize to everybody who was on the agenda between 9 and 10. It took a lot longer. We'll get to you in 1030. We'll start working through the agenda this morning at 830. We'll take this up again and hopefully hear from everybody who's on the agenda. I cannot it would be impossible to hear from everybody who has to testify. Actually we normally don't have any testimony when they make a decision where the council member is. So we are going against one problem and we're hearing from witnesses from both sides I think because there were very few people when we started it might be worth repeating your comment about how the choices that know the fact that we're not responsible for the House not holding a public hearing. I'd be happy to I think wanted to make clear that it wasn't archwood we're not responsible for the other body not holding a public hearing. We held a public hearing in January there was an opportunity to talk about everything that has either passed the Senate or passed the House except the provisions that were added to SB 55 by the other body. I realize that there wasn't a discussion of the under-21 that happened at a capacity that was certainly about the universal background checks during the public hearing in January this committee heard that the House could hold a public hearing they chose not to and I'm not going to that was beyond our control but we would never I've never seen a public hearing held after when we're making a decision whether to concur or agree with the House agree with proposals with the amendment or pass for a committee conference so those are basically our decisions as a committee and we make a recommendation for the full Senate the Senate can either accept our recommendation or reject it and do any one of those three things or send it back to the judiciary committee it's doubtful they would do that we very rarely do that that's where we're at we'll be back in ten or thirty we'll be brief I think it's going to come I'm just going to speak first because he has a meeting with the ATF so why don't you come on up here please, we'll be brief I know you are one of the largest firearm dealers in the state underach Senator White senators I guess we have our name nice to meet you nice to meet you let's go ahead well I guess I'd like to just speak to the economic impact not only for federal firearms dealers but the state of Vermont I'm one of three law enforcement distributors for New England I have huge contracts all over New England with primarily a lot of the larger departments in Massachusetts and what happens is we inventory three hundred block pistols which they are the primary firearm law enforcement they all have higher than 10 rounds or 15 in this case capacity magazines but one of the big impacts is I'm not sure I've read this over quickly if there's going to be an exemption for me to bring in these two to three hundred firearms at a time load them in my car and deliver them to Massachusetts Maine Connecticut all over New England with the high capacity magazines I saw there has been an amendment and it looks like there's an exemption to sell to people who are disqualified under this under this bill and they can legally possess them but one of the bigger impacts is I grabbed one of my documents for in apartment in Massachusetts on my way up here part of the contract is that I have to take their used firearms law enforcement in general will rotate out their firearms anywhere from five to ten years because they actually they really need to work to talk about the magazine pardon me when you say the impact are you talking about section eight well specifically section eight because part of the contract is I have to take in their used firearms and their used firearms have high capacity magazines has defined in this bill I grabbed one sheet a quote I had worked on for middle sex county in Massachusetts they're purchasing two hundred million this is for the jail upon the hill in middle sex county in bill rickard mass so I'm taking in just on this one purchase order two hundred and thirty nine of their used firearms those two hundred and thirty nine come with high capacity magazines because they are law enforcement firearms so what I did I took this one line of two hundred and thirty nine and I just some quick math the average person who buys one of their used firearms will purchase a couple of boxes of ammunition in a holster maybe something else but the average sale could be three hundred sixty four dollars which will net the state of the month twenty one dollars and eighty four cents twenty one eighty four times those two hundred and thirty nine items I will be selling just on this one line this one contract is a lost revenue to the state of Vermont of five thousand two hundred nineteen dollars in sales tax I'm one dealer and this is one line on one contract and there's many lines on here some of them are affected by the high capacity bill and some of them aren't some of the issues in the one that would stand out so you know my thought is it's more than just with the FFL the state of Vermont it's going to lose five thousand dollars on this one line can I ask a question about that so I just want to understand your example your your selling to law enforcement agency or state department or county possibly a number of firearms and possibly magazines that exceed the limits that are in what the house passed but there's an exemption for items that are being transferred to a law enforcement agency so can you just say again how your business is impacted in that example by the way that bill actually was passed it's on the trades on the on the trade ends so I'm supplying 239 brand new firearms to the middle sex county sheriff's department they are exempt they're also exempt from federal tax and state tax but part of the contract is I have to take in 239 used firearms these used firearms have a higher than 10 capacity so therefore under this bill I would not be able to sell them you would not be able to sell them to non law enforcement yes so law enforcement wouldn't buy used firearms from another agency they would buy brand new ones and I understand the exemption for law enforcement I do understand that there's no exception for these used firearms this is one department I just grabbed the folder and it was 239 239 firearms that will be coming in with high capacity magazines that I'm not going to be able to sell so it's the magazine itself yes and I will be the first to admit that I am not familiar with guns but the magazine itself is what's over the capacity not the firearm so you can still sell the firearm you just can't sell the magazine it goes with that people would want to buy it but you can still sell the firearm itself yes but it would not function without that magazine without that particular magazine before can you sell a high capacity firearm or is it a banding magazine the magazine and the clips is all that's covered here so if it's built into the gun itself you could still sell that yes but the law enforcement I just want to understand the way this is graphed that could someone possess a handgun with that could use 20 rounds what is it how many rounds are in the block depending on the model 15 to 17 is the most popular could they own could they purchase the handgun but not allow more than 15 rounds into the magazine as long as the clip doesn't exceed the limit but is it the clip or is it the number of rounds so let's say that I owned a handgun with 17 rounds but I only put 15 rounds in well the handgun isn't covered it's only the clip or the device or the magazine my understanding is that would be a violation because the magazine has a whole second beam be illegal or is it legally it's the capacity not how you utilize the capacity not 17 so can I ask one more time are there guns that have the capacity as part of the gun itself and then there are guns that have a magazine that you put in the center from the gun itself so the gun itself that has the fire capacity than 10 or 15 is allowed because that's not covered under here only the one where you put a magazine into it separate from the gun itself am I completely off base here or do I just am I so far off that I don't know I believe the way I understand the bill it's the magazine itself and if that particular piece of plastic holds more than 10 or more than 15 that is the problem the firearm itself is not the problem it's a piece of plastic that goes into it if you had that gun that you wanted to sell the paint would from the police have that the magazine itself was more than that would a different magazine fit into that gun are they interchangeable can I put different sizes of magazines into the same gun so I don't have to buy the one that has 30 in it I can buy one with 10 and put it into that same gun yes alright okay I think thanks would you support this bill with the section 8 and so I would have to read it over a little closer I have to be honest are there other I'll ask it differently are there other objectionable parts for you as a family licensed firearm do I want to read over the exemption on the sales to make sure it's crystal clear on law enforcement the part about the hunter safety course perhaps it was an unfair question yeah it I would really like to thank you I think you answered well I'm in Waterbury I'm sorry how many people do you employ six right now if this section 8 passes what is the impact exactly on the business as you see it the impact would be the number one selling firearm which is the Glock would be restricted down to 10 or 15 rounds it would change the market it would change how we do business in the sense that it's we would have to stock two different magazines for the same gun so because my business is split between retail and law enforcement law enforcement would be exempt so they use three magazines per firearm they carry two and they carry one so I'd carry the three there and then I'd have to bring in additional inventory for civilians and then we would have to check to make sure who's qualified does this have an impact on your desire to stay here well that's a tough one because I'm in that 250 process now I'm trying to expand so I'm committed at this point because I have so much money involved in my new my new project if you weren't in that position would this bill in the past have an impact on your decision of whether to remain here yes it would I'm reaching retirement and at this point with everything going on I see no reason to really stay in Vermont I could move to another state and enjoy a lot of different freedoms that we're not enjoying now or trying to be opposed on us just one more because my daughter's in Montana and my understanding is that Montana has a limit does that have an impact on their commerce in Montana do you know I don't know but is it for hunting or for possession for possession I honestly don't know I know in Colorado I forgot the exact number but approximately maybe 20 million dollars into the state in taxes and revenue and unemployment they passed a 10 round and they said we're out of here and they moved to another state that does not have that restrictions even though they were going to be exempt there was an exemption from the manufacturer they felt strong enough that they didn't need to stay in Colorado and they pulled everything all the jobs but it was a very thank you very much David Kerr and the Attorney General prefer that the testimony be respected to the areas without a change to the Senate bill Understood Senator, thank you very much for having us for the record my name is David Chair, Assistant Attorney General here on behalf of the Attorney General as the Attorney General is personally testified he does support this bill as a whole and in terms of the changes that have been made I'll start with bump stocks our office sees no issue with that I believe it's an important public safety measure that we fully support with regard to the high capacity magazine issue the Attorney General does have serious concerns about the practical enforceability of this measure our office and the Attorney General believes it'll be extremely difficult to tell the difference between magazines that were possessed before this passage and the passage of this bill and magazines that come into possession or sale or transfer afterwards he also believes that the additional exception for the licensed dealers creates similar problems compounds those problems to some degree given the fact that as we read it I believe we're in agreement with Senator Asch to provide further safe harbor for sales to continue until October so for those reasons we give reservations with the current with the section I should say and we're not yet in support of that section but we do support the bill as a whole so can you just maybe I can understand that sort of an unmarked clip or magazine you won't be able to distinguish whether it's free day to be affected by it a lot or not I get that I keep hearing that it's unenforceable and I think that's depending on the circumstances it'll obviously be very hard to make that determination if someone is pulled over in a car and they've got a 30 clip on the passenger seat and they say yeah I did just buy it that's after the effective date that changes the circumstances so I get that but I'm not quite sure what the Attorney General's office is saying reservations about the section if the Attorney General supports the section if it doesn't it should have come out completely or be changed but what's the actual position of the Attorney General? The position is that sorry for lack of clarity the position is that we don't support the section at all? That's right and again I'm concerned about the forcibility potentially confusion issues the exact types of circumstances you're talking about whether there's edge cases as to whether or not somebody had just sold them or not you know the hypothetical where it's clear where you would be able to enforce is you catch somebody in the app of the sale but outside of that what I would anticipate is an extremely limited hypothetical we just don't see it serving purpose. So then let me ask you and I'm just asking does the hypothetical if let's say we conceded that it was 100% impossible for a force why does the Attorney General's office care one way or the other? I think generally a crime or enforcement of protection of the law would be on other grounds. Why would it care one way or the other on this matter enforcement? I think that when we're talking this is one third of the why does it care but it's enforceable? No, no, no opposing the section altogether is different than saying oppose as written and propose to change it. So let's say from the Attorney General's office it was not going to be a tool to promote public safety and enforce the laws of the state because they don't believe the provision could really be utilized. Then the question is then the question is why do you care even if you take as an assumption that it's not going to be something that is litigated? I think I guess I give two answers the first one is in terms of why do we care generally speaking when we're introducing new crimes we want those to be very clear and to make sure that law enforcement can in fact enforce the crime and that there won't be sort of cherry picking or anything like that that could happen from something that's over broad or vague or hard to enforce so having clarity on the laws is important. If a store let's say a past as is and a store has on the shelf in January 1 of 2019 and 30 why would that be hard to enforce if the person was actively trying to sell something beyond the effective day why is that obscure from the point of view of the Attorney General's Office? I think as I testify to a moment ago that is the hypothetical where it isn't hard to enforce I think the hypothetical that's hard to enforce and the ones that we anticipate being the most likely to come up are the simple possession hypotheticals and those seem extremely difficult but then why is the Attorney General's Office opposed to the whole section and not just the parts that it feels are more gray or difficult to enforce? So the second answer to your question is relating to what you're getting at which I think is do we have an ad written versus a philosophical opposition? I think that our short answer is we're not on this type of bill we're foresaying for sure that we would support ban on magazines that doesn't have to enforce quality issues which would be the language very specifically so I wouldn't be prepared I'm afraid at this moment to give the audience a bill that doesn't make sense. I believe that I'm going to get in trouble for saying but I believe if you ban, you actually ban and what's usually happened in other states is they make the possession of that item of crime they give people a time sometimes three years because a buyback period where the state will buy the item the state will then whatever the buyback period is people have a certain time and that's actually banning an item or a weapon or whatever it is that you do this is different with the number of exemptions that have been established and the fact that you can possess what you own before so if I'm listening to what you're saying is if the individual went to New Hampshire and bought a 30 round clip there is no way to prove I mean you'd have to get a search warrant or have to be at the border like Massachusetts did a few years back with people buying alcohol in New Hampshire and then arrest the person when they got across the border other than that what could you do to apprehend somebody who was buying a new clip since they're still legal if they were old we already know but I knew that before I asked the question so I think that's what he's saying is if you're going to ban something then ban them and have the courage to do that well but that's not quite what the testimony was he said it's unenforceable but then it turns out it's enforceable in part I think it's a dark spot in part that's enforceable it's only the gun dealer who would still sell the item where you would have enforceability and I don't know why a gun dealer would sell something that's illegal and face losing their license or whatever whatever the consequence is right and just to be clear if I didn't say I believe I said it was largely unenforceable but did produce that what you're talking about in the one case but again we feel like that's an edge case and to also be very clear we are talking about an as-written objection here but I don't want to speculate on what a bill that isn't out there might be the Attorney General ran a not-blocked bill as much at least not violent others how do you feel about creating a crime? as we've testified in many other bills that is something we're wanting to do and think that as a philosophical matter something that we should be very careful about doing and that certainly feeds into some of our concerns so so Dave had a great time yesterday the President kind of understand between some police officers and I think it was across them and all the same frame of mind this was unenforceable I want to step one step further down the road where any crime that has ever happened in the state of Vermont that would require us to actually bend these devices at this moment most I can think of with Jodie Herring and the four murderers with a bold action right now and I'm struggling to understand what this is actually going to accomplish that has been a problem here with this and I'd want to have a little more time to think about it but off the top of my head I don't hear I can't think of specific examples I'd want to check with the criminal division to give you a more thorough answer if I understand your constitution correctly if the state seizes any person's property they are supposed to be compensated for that same charge is there anything about this bill that would create the crime to be a possession of something that I'm kind of thinking of normally the ones who said that if we would tweak this somehow if we were suddenly banned in that period is there any provision in here that you see that would allow the state to compensate for that? I don't see a provision in the bill that does that I suppose that's something that could be discussed by this committee and the legislature with regards to constitutionality generally that isn't actually the basis of our objection to this provision it hasn't been found constitutionally in the cyber sector I have one last question so the concern about a new crime does that extend also to the background check section or just the magazine section? does that extend to the background check section? Do you think that's an essential tool for public safety that's clear and enforceable and only ambiguous provision? Would you oppose the amendment to include five N-laws to the people who would be able to That isn't something we considered in talking to Senator Benning's question this morning but the Interim General has generally been fine with that family exception I believe that we would be okay with that as well and I can check on that to give you a precise answer but I would preview it by saying that yes I believe we could keep on with that Any other questions? David thank you very much Appreciate the testimony Attorney General's position Next is John Campbell the Executive Director of the Department of State Attorney's and Sheriff's we will hear from the Secretary and I'm reminded to let everybody know that State Attorney's and Sheriff's Yes, first of all John Campbell for the Executive Director of the State Attorney's and Sheriff's however I'm here at the request of the committee to answer some questions that will come under the State's Attorney's hat rather than the Sheriff's hat so I believe that Sarah Farniak is here to test and Mr. Chairman we again we just got the amended bill I think most people didn't get the bill I didn't have spent ever I was working until 11 o'clock last night trying to make sure that we had a copy this morning to go over so as we know Aaron he's been working extremely hard he always does every year after year that he's getting his cold you know cold at this time we do support the bill again the State's Attorney's would be a position where we support anything that we feel would help protect the health welfare and safety of the systems that we want I believe that the background checks would definitely assist there are many other parts of this bill as you pointed out the bump socks we do believe that this is a good way to deal with this the high capacity magazines or other capacity magazines whichever way you define them seems to be that's one of the critical issues concerned for the committee and while we do agree that there is the way it's written there will be some enforceability issues here because of the as pointed out by the previous two witnesses it's just like anything we would get crimes a lot of times that we have to prove it and sometimes we have the evidence, sometimes we don't and there is if the bill allows pass we've got to prove that the person knowing we had to possess this after the ban was in place and there's a myriad of proof that we have to go through again there is it's not something that happens where you use a smoking gun that's probably not a good term to use but there is no, clearly there is not any identifying markers on these so any type of evidence we have to gather in a different fashion this is a perfect example of a law that would be require a significant amount of resources to actually improve and that question comes down to what are we really trying to get as a person that we're trying to that has been presented or at least the evidence that has been presented by the police is this something that we would pursue if we feel that it's worth some resources of that are right now very slim into the investigation I see nowhere in here with the word knowing I then I'll take the knowingly far back just the possessing so it's not a intent I get that it's just the I'm sorry no that's okay I don't see any knowing I miss I miss smoking so I will take that back I think is actually an issue I think really now getting back to the discussion about this about a ban you clearly other jurisdictions have had this they found that it does fit into constitutionally protected however there are still issues like California is actually the issue of that is the enforceability of a high capacity magazine ban what happened was they actually back in I believe it was 2000 they had said they banned magazines high capacity magazines but they had some grandfathered and then in 2016 the legislature passed a bill that did in fact ban them they provided their grandfathers and they also had buyback their buyback provisions then they did a proposition that bill was 63 which actually did an outright ban and so that is currently being litigated now for the enforcement reasons so I believe that can understand and I do feel the state has a legitimate interest constitutional interest in banning high capacity magazines but I think you are going to have to balance not a constitutional balance but balance it from a policy decision as to what role is going to go in and how much effort is going to be put into defending this any of the challenges that will come up or do you wait for another jurisdiction to deal with it one other issue that we could do we could to try to take a lesson the concern would be if you did an outright ban but that had a buyback position or a provision in there or if you and this is not one recommending but you can even license them these are other options but again I would not recommend that it be just full regulatory issues so the magazine ban I believe they went up to the 15 rounds which the House voted in the 10 so I think it would pass constitutional disparity however you're going to have as we always talk in your committee about the practical aspect of this and is it going to be more difficult for us not just the states attorneys but also for law enforcement to enforce this so that's where I that's a good question the government representing criminal defendants 35 years I would say at that time probably about 2,000 criminal clients I've never thought that intelligence was a prerequisite for being a criminal but I don't know too many of those people who have ever self reported and there's no date on any of these devices that I'm aware of if you don't have a self report and you are in a vacuum of any other kind of evidence how is it you would go about prosecuting as far as for direct possession I would think that you would need to have people that you know witness this person who might buy a magazine of the sort and it could be somebody in the same house it could be family member it could be anything so you need to have in a proper corroboration in that fashion I never said it was going to be easy and I agree with you there's a lot there's not many people who have been in crimes that will readily admit that I think there's always there's a number of exemptions I don't know that I have to look at the number of exemptions I did not look at I mean the exemptions the Attorney General's office testified that the exemptions also complicate the enforcement of the bill because you're allowing something that is the other to be purchased to be manufactured in this day in the line so you probably would have an equal protection challenge on this in fact actually California had had an equal protection challenge on theirs based on movie insurance and having a movie insurance movie insurance to have possession of large capacity magazines that the court so they might circuit ruled that it was not worthy of a people protection challenge however that doesn't mean that there won't be one and that doesn't mean that this under the factual basis a factual situation have here and as applied can you think of any other example where we would allow a manufacturer to produce something that was illegal instead of excess I heard that question earlier as pointed I don't think that I can remember when we've done that before and I think it is something that you can expect to have after you visit from an associate time the one other thing too is that one of the some folks had talked about the fact that this would happen I think as if you have a magazine that we're going to have done or said that it's somehow traced back to an individual and then that individual says I'm sorry the gun was stolen I didn't transfer I didn't sell it to somebody it goes back to another portion but I think that one deficiency we do have is that we don't have a reporting period for guns being stolen in the state so there's what's saying to it now next year when we revisit this you might want to consider that because if it's not a stolen I think if this becomes law we'll be revisiting it next year any crimes that are ever taking place in the Montego knowledge that has involved a high capacity man that strikes you as a reason for this legislation I don't believe I don't recall one where high capacity magazine was used or anything that were in the past however I don't think that that's the rationale that a court would look at to find out if the state has a specific interest in doing this I think it's clear anybody would have to do if they're going to defend a challenge on this would have to produce evidence to the court by showing that there is evidence that high capacity magazines or the scene of assault type rifles have shown to create more of a risk to the general public and that's really what all of these cases are actually based on so if you can't prove that there's going to be some risk or an attack risk then you will have a problem reading the constitution the questions determine whether or not you've ever been exposed to such risk in the case of the next question has had the state's attorneys collectively taken a position on whether this particular provision should be well I cannot say all of the state's attorneys we discussed this at our meetings but not all of the state's attorneys were present so I could not answer that any further and the pose of where we're to the other state's attorneys specifically I appreciate the way that you find the question so this is more kind of a comment but I had heard the comment about the unenforceability before but you also talked about being unenforced and it reminds me a little bit about the crime that we had small amounts or one plant marijuana that was not enforced by a lot of law enforcement because it's too it takes too much of their time and too much of their resources to do that and so my guess is that this is not only unenforceable but it will be unenforced because you're not going to spend a lot of resources going after somebody who has one that has 30 rounds in it or something it's going to take too much of your time to prove it so right now we have state's attorneys' offices where the state's attorneys are handling anywhere between three to five hundred cases where the northeast kingdom where we have just one state's attorney two deputies there for the first time in history are facing four different murders many sexual assaults our resources are as low as they can get right now to prosecuting crimes and we have to make a we basically triage and there are oftentimes it used to be the fact is that you judge on a case decided whether to prosecute based on whether you believe your success would you success with prosecute because this case no longer has now come down to a situation where every year with all their respect the legislature continues to pass laws and unfortunately sometimes they pass laws without any type of resources associated with them and we have to go about making sure that we are able to prosecute now also with the advent of video cameras cameras not only with cars but also the person of the law enforcement state's attorneys have to go through hours and hours and hours of body cam tapes just on cases and I've got people who are just they're working so many how in fact most of them are working at least six they say most of them are coming out they're seven days from and it's very difficult so your answer to my question was it probably won't be enforced I can say that I think you have to take every case as it presents I mean if we find that you suspect might be ready or having planned some type of mass shooting we're going to seriously look at them at anything we can possibly get to bring them in so you have to take it by case basis I didn't expect to ask this question but there are at least three products committed in this bill none of them have the word knowingly that normally we create products knowingly so for example sale of firearms to persons under 25 years of age is prohibited a person should not sell a firearm for a person under 20 when you're developing for background checks knowingly doesn't exist there in terms of the magazine knowingly doesn't exist what do you refer to obviously as you know Senator will be specific intent crimes and where you would not have to prove that just the act itself in the act this race versus the men's race will be sufficient I'm really pointing out that the most heinous crimes in the state are committed and as I stated earlier I have not been able to prove the fun to promote this amendment here but in order to break the direction out regarding the intent aspect of this where it's American although they discussed the specific intent about it I think they were comfortable with it not requiring intent so there was a policy decision obviously made on the part on the part of the other body I believe you probably look to the alcohols or specifically no in order to say or DUI or drug and sales drug and sales there are certain ones that even the reason why legislatures would make those decisions are going to say fielded why where there is no intent is required selling alcohol to lawyers and the reason is you have to look at the policy of that saying that what we're doing here is something that because the state interest is of course preventing harm being caused to the third party so thank you thank you the next act of witnesses is Evan Hewitt the federation of sportsmen's clubs my name is Evan Hewitt vice president of the Vermont federation of sportsmen's clubs the oldest and largest sportsmen's organization in Vermont if there is a club sportsmen's club near you it's almost undoubtedly a member of the federation and about 50 clubs around the state speaking specifically to section 8 the magazine ban is what our testimony is directed to today the ban is ineffective and unenforceable the magazines do not bear serial numbers nor are they dated there's no way of knowing when they were manufactured where they were manufactured when they were sold or acquired and it denies the property element of that magazine the value of their property they cannot sell it they cannot give away they cannot pass it along it's a taking of the value of the property if a Vermont resident tries to venture with a magazine that carries more than 10 rounds and they come back into Vermont is that an importation of the magazine if an enhancement for that but only until July I'm reading it correctly so what's July? no that exception is ongoing we have a question actually it's the same person that's on page 10 lines um manufacturers and matches will certainly encounter customers or participants that will boycott the purchase of their property or the events in the state in protest of such a magazine ban they just not going to travel to or participate in an event in the state where they think that the laws are hostile to the products that they enjoy there are numerous types of matches in the state of Vermont but people simply will choose not to participate here and that denies tourism revenue to the state the impact on the magazine ban I have a serious impact on several types of businesses manufacturers and this can be tested by FFLs FFLs already have to compete in a joint state excuse me so that they're already at a disadvantage in some aspects and it would simply be the straw that broke the camel's back for many of these FFLs the magazine ban as I have said is ineffective and simply not forceful there's no way to tell from a law enforcement officer's perspective of when that magazine was acquired and people that are going to fall into the ground of being questioned by law enforcement over a magazine that they have acquired perfectly legally do do Massachusetts in New York also ban the size of the magazine yes they do but in the case of Massachusetts they allow the magazine that existed before to possess and sold with transfer and also if you possess before the date of the ban there are a lot of the transfer of themselves given to their kids and they also allow people to buy what they call pre-banned magazines so they can still acquire magazines and people can still sell let me go over to the New York state play golf there is a numerous signs no safe back does the New York state ban the magazines completely or what there's so much more position in more than both sections does that actually help write ban the magazines I'm not sure but I can confirm what you say my son was a drunk and his son was a buried like me and he was only dad when I go back and forth I drive through upstate New York and I just see long sign after long sign of repeal the same fact the federation's position is long ban the law should be based on the sound public policy in compliance with the state of federal constitutions the constitution does not meet that standard it creates a whole new class of unintended criminals and it would seem like we certainly have enough criminals in the state of the law without creating people that are nobody intended to take do not intend to take property from anybody illegally and it just doesn't seem with all the problems we have with DWIs and opiate directing law enforcement prosecutorial resources towards a situation that is not really a crime it's a solution in search of a problem I don't want to put words into the problem the record of state attorneys I just heard that they probably so could I ask you aside from just the outright prohibition on possession why can you try and explain to me what the thinking was behind there's the provision in here that if somebody from another state where it's legal brings it in for a shooting competition that exemption is in here yet it's sunset do you have any idea what the thinking was behind why it would be sunsetting there are matches always scheduled for 2018 right but I'm saying why would they because this gives an exemption to people bringing it in but after a certain date that exemption so that means that if you have a I believe that it is exempt it's repealed on July 1st 2019 so if you have a competition set up for October of 2019 they nobody's going to be able to bring in those magazines right that's correct do you know why they thought that made sense no I'm not sure were you able to testify yes I did Chris Brown with the President of the Federation will testify later and he will tell you he will tell you he worked very hard to get a match brought to this state so may in March we should it's called the traveling games and it's a very well structured match where it's one of the few types of activities or a match where a person can qualify for the distinguished reference match the NRA match very highly sought out there and it takes years to earn that badge and this match brings in hundreds of shares from around the Northeast to compete that match and he had to compete with states like New Hampshire that had sites that wanted to host the match it's very likely that if Section 8 were to be enacted that shooters from other states would not come here to participate thus causing the Sling March program to move the match to a site in New Hampshire that very much wanted to have actually that match present on their property so it's really a solution to such a problem we don't really have a problem with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of use in current second previously was the Joey Herring her family members and a social worker she used the stolen multi-action rifle and it's just a little digging background check she didn't take her stolen rifle carrying it back to the back there are other there are many of them owners don't realize that there are numerous types of competitions in the state of Vermont the Memorial Public Fish and Game Club in Morrisville hosts USPSA matches where people come from all over I was out there helping with the running of the match up there the people that I was sitting with for lunch were from Baltimore that they come in to beat more of these area matches so a lot of these matches competitors will not come in to a state where they cannot use their magazines a whole more than 10 rounds somebody told me that you could just quickly quickly have five magazines the Florida shooter did not use 30 round magazines or did not use 30 round magazines he used 10 on magazines and he specifically did that because the magazine is shorter and it's easier to conceal it certainly is not that promoting committing his crime so it's you tend to change them quickly but it just doesn't make any sense for people who have 30 round magazines they have to go on by 10 on magazines and it accomplishes nothing as far as that they're in crime thank you very much Kerry I I I must say I'm going a little bit out of order because I would like to hear one sorry thank you by surprise by the way thank you very much for the very nice few games my name is Clale after some reason I'd like to say I'm not here to talk about forcibility I'm not a lawyer I can't do that um cheers here some members of the community my name is Clale after some of us I was born in Vermont and my family members still live in the northeast kingdom and now I serve as the executive director of Gunsense thank you for the opportunity to speak today Gunsense Democrats Republicans independent gun owners countries who understand that there's no other threat to public safety in the United States that looms as large as gun violence it's a public health issue Gunsense Vermont advocates for universal background checks legislation and other measures that are aimed at reducing violence and death from firearms I'm here today to urge your committee to support that house version of Senate Bill 55 which includes two types of policies first guns and broad guns this bill sets up a better background check system Vermont and it prohibits purchases of those that are untrained under the age of 25 second to reduce casualties if haven't forgotten there's a mass shooting here the bill limits the brutality of semi automatic guns stepping back it is our sense that these gun violence prevention provisions can help make the community safer we do not claim nor do I claim that these laws are going to stop every bad actor instead together they are proven to lower the incidence of gun violence harm Senate Bill 55 requirements for criminal background check is a single most effective policy for keeping guns out of the hands of people with dangerous histories Vermont needs a background check law that is comprehensive one that covers unlicensed sellers people that we have already identified as too dangerous like convicted felons domestic abusers and the severely monthly ill can now too easily avoid a background check by purchasing from an unlicensed dealer such as the whole second lot of sales auctions orange list we support the minor changes made by the house Senate Bill 55 requirements for a person under the age of 21 to be certified or trained to purchase a gun makes sense recent school shooting tragedies in Florida, Maryland and Kentucky show us what's happening with guns and many else of youth who lack maturity before late reasonable responses to traveling life situations while those states may feel far away they all know that closer to home an 18 year old who was accused of planning a shooting affair in high school was too easily able to be really purchased about first youth 18 to 20 commit gun homicides that are 8 nearly 4 times greater than adults 21 and older and in the most recent year available CDC data more than 1,600 American children were killed with guns and nearly 7,000 were injured and average of 20 children shot every day common sense tells us that if we can slow a dangerously ill teenager down there's a better chance for mental health and social interventions to work we support the minor revisions the house made to this provision that clarify the training opportunities for people under 21 Senate bill 55 also includes two provisions aimed at reducing the lethality of both everyday gun violence and the potentially horrific unthinkable of a mass shooting in Vermont the ban on bomb stocks and limits on sales of high capacity feeding devices we support both of these provisions large or high capacity magazines allow a shooter to fire more bullets without reloading the danger posed by high capacity magazines is apparent the more bullets a shooter can fire the more gunshot wounds he can inflict state high capacity magazine prohibitions are associated with lower rates of high casual shootings Michael Siegel who is a leading gun violence researcher found that states with high capacity magazine prohibitions experience shootings with three or more victims not necessarily fatalities at half the rate of states without high capacity magazines mass shootings involving high capacity magazines also see higher numbers of fatalities and injuries of the mass shooting incidents tracked eight of the top highest casualty incidents involve the use of high capacity magazines Las Vegas Orlando Fort Hood Zander the mass shootings for high capacity magazines who's has been confirmed are associated with twice the number of fatalities in nearly 40 times the number of injuries these entities disable people from life limits on high capacity magazines can lead the alley in mass shootings in two high profile instances lives are safe for the government have to pause to reload the government in Tucson, Arizona and Gabby get from shooting killed six people and injured 13 others in a supermarket parking lot in 2011 and used a hand contact equipped with 33 round magazine the shooting spree was only interrupted when it was tackled by bystander as he finally stopped to reload his weapons in the trap to Newtown shooting nine children were able to run from a targeted classroom while the government paused to change out a large capacity fairly round magazine reloading allows for a pause that pause can mean everything these types of life-saving moments matter that's why I'm grateful for your efforts to advance these centers about violence prevention policies now I apologize for crying but I know many of the survivors of these shootings and I will tell you that limiting life-saving magazine whether however the state decides to do to do that matters thank you thank you very much a little more Mr. Cutler first travel ways if you may not be here tomorrow okay thank you senator we'll hopefully get to Mr. Chapman first off my name is Ed Cutler president of gun owners from Montana I'm here representing over 6,000 people who are there are a few things I want to talk about most of this bill but first I want to thank this committee for the original bill especially you as we know you haven't been trying to get this started for a long time I'm also getting tons of emails I'm receiving over 100 emails a day I'm getting 30 to 40 emails phone calls a day I get home my answering machine is buried so we're both in the same thing I'm apologizing for what's happened to you but I'm getting it I would like to explain we are a citizen legislature don't matter the staff people in New York a lot of people respond immediately to their I know okay I'd like to start with the 18 and 21 year olds in this state kids have been learning to shoot and shooting without restrictions for as long as one has been for a month all of the 18 to 21 year olds I think this is partly a thing is you have to take the underfaith of course there are many programs out there that don't include the underfaith of course we have junior rifle instructors we have junior rifle teams we have the camp that teaches archery and violence we have dozens of different programs for kids shooting including special early seasons for learning and we have better programs than the underfaith of course as far as the actual handling and using the firearms so it's not just underfaith I myself don't have on the target shoot I have 115 years magazine ban as everybody knows and everybody said is pretty much unenforceable it's not only unenforceable but part of this bill is said for resulting manufacture I've been a schoolmaker for 40 years and I can make a magazine in about 10 minutes it's nothing but a piece of sheet metal a spring and I've actually done that that would be U.S. I saw a woman in the van came home I actually sat there and showed Bernie Sanders right in part of his face how to take one piece of sheet metal cut two of them apart and put a space in there do you think this exemption would allow you to make an exception I'm sorry what do you think the exemption in the house bill would allow you to make an exception no it won't not legally because I'm not a manufacturer I have no FF though I don't have a manufacturer and I wouldn't do it I don't even have a semi-organic other than my Ruger 10-20 total I'm really anymore in the same shot of rifles in the same shot this was the end of the house I think you have to be licensed oh right alright it's correct so is it going to stop the bad guy from getting a high-capacity magazine no there's millions and millions of them out there not only that our research department you know we've got one hell of a research department hasn't been able to find any deaths in the state of Vermont but final ones would buy cat magazines ever most of the people in the state that are dying are dying by people who are already forgivable from having buy-in arms our last two incidences prove that I don't know where they get the guns but even those people weren't using high-cap they were prohibited they should have been jailed if they were I keep harping on that I'm sorry but we've got to figure out a way to lock these people up the guy in Burlington who shot that girl was a multiple felon I think the guy in Randolph had a a rest record about the length of my arm and they walked into streets and they thought this had got nothing to the bill I wasn't sure which excuse me? I wasn't sure who you were referring to so thank you but realistically a lot of this stuff in his bill is a good legislation that isn't a good thing your original bill was great don't get me wrong and sure I know so I'm saying your original bill I don't know what happened to it the house was even worse I know the first time I testified in the house committee they sat there we walked in not knowing whether I would be able to speak or not and I got told I had five minutes and I had a good presentation for what they were trying to propose I didn't have time to do it second time they gave me the time and I pretty much convinced Representative Alon not to do the assault weapon from the video I'm going there today I appreciate the fact that they could have had more sort of like throwing everything at a wall to see what's next that's my description and not yours so what stuck was in front of us I appreciate your comments I have a question and did you have more things that you wanted to let us know about did you have more things that you wanted to let us know about the new output version well we're pretty much against every amendment I understand I don't we all expected that we didn't expect you to support them but are there things in there that you find particularly in Section 8 to be particularly egregious yes absolutely again magazines are unenforceable I think that's the one you talked about there have been so many changes in the process I agree with that I think the Attorney General and the Attorney's agreed so I guess the question is why does it matter it matters because there are people in this state who are going to make a mistake not a visor's not trying to do anything choose to cross with the amount of firearms and everything else in this state somebody who doesn't understand the law comes out and says they sold the magazine to their buddy they go to jail for a year that is the major problem the innocent I've always been here trying to take the music from the guilty and not everybody is going to know this law excess they can do do something wrong that's not wrong but they will be punished for it and that is an major problem in other words if you were to give Evan a magazine by mistake why that 15 rounds when it turned out to be 17 you'd be committing a crime a crime with no criminal intent and a state's attorney would have to then decide to prosecute yeah but some states I'm pointing out though not all times when someone has or even purposefully done something do they make a decision to prosecute so if it's an inadvertent running a file of a month after the effective date the state's attorney's office might not actually decide to prosecute my question was based upon the attorney general's testimony and the state's attorney's testimony as in terms of resources to prosecute my question was why does it matter in his response if somebody could get caught up in without any intent to right and I didn't mean to I didn't do the parts of Mr.Cubb also but he said that it would be a process why it doesn't matter is because it's not going to affect anyone it will affect the incident and the big problem if I get prosecuted it's going to cost me minimum $20,000 to get out from under or at least to try to defend myself I'm sorry I retired I get $1,200 a month I can't afford that so I take that guilt deeply with a slap in the hand but now I am a criminal for no criminal, for no harm or no bad intent that's the kind of people I'm trying to save so we're there Mr.Chapman my name is Scott Chapman I reside in Monty, Vermont I am a federally licensed firearms dealer I've been impacted in the manufacturer of firearms for over 30 years I was initially here to present a letter from the Caspian Arms in their stance against all of this the entirety of S-55 with the exception of the disposition of firearms they have chosen to hold their letter back the activity in the house intimidated them into insulating with legislation that they don't agree with that is not my feeling that's theirs I came here today to pass that message along it's still unclear that I'm presenting their century arms as any evidence the Caspian Arms does not present evidence because they don't feel comfortable they don't feel comfortable they feel they were intimidated by the house representative that being said I've been in the firearms industry I have to stop the process because I wanted to make sure I heard you correctly did you say you have a letter or do I have a letter from the Caspian Arms that they have decided with a letter an email with a letter from Caspian I think it's a different different different firm their century arms there's Caspian Arms and then there's another C-Arms yes there's many I felt that because the I'll just let you said they felt that they were intimidated by the house of representatives and therefore they were not going to provide testimony and they had withdrawn their testimony but you're here for your time I am I've got 30 years in the firearms business and I would like to say a couple of things first can I offer some clarification for a couple of things that you asked about magazine limits in Montana there are no magazine limits in Montana for possession there are magazine limits in Montana for the use of hunting but not for possession there's been a lot of talk here about what people are calling a in my my testimony here is soul way to section 8 there's been a lot of talk about the high capacity magazine I feel that that is a fallacy 98% of the firearms manufactured in the United States are semi-automatic and of that 98% another 98% of that subset are shipped with magazines more than 10 rounds almost 100% of double-sided handguns hold at least 13 rounds 12, 13, 22 some of them up to 27 the idea that that anything over 10 rounds is high capacity is just not true there are more 30 round magazines in the United States than anything else some estimates put that at 400 million magazines so the idea that these are uncommon not common use that are extremely more dangerous than a 10 round magazine is simply not true it does not alter the impact of the ground being exited from the barrel I just want to clarify that additionally I've been working with some attorneys Robert Kaplan the legality of limiting magazine size under the Vermont Constitution we've heard a lot of testimony about under the U.S. Constitution as we all know the Vermont Constitution creates the U.S. Constitution and is much more explicit in its content and Robert Kaplan put together a letter of opinion on magazine size restriction in conjunction with Vermont Federation's spokes and I would be happy to submit this for the record and I am happy for each of you and I would be happy to answer any questions on anything I said I'm just scratching my eyes about this I will pause though at this moment of time to say that if you're trying to hand me something before I order to respond I just want to ask you that there are over 65 manufacturers in the state of Vermont 65 firearms manufacturers today is an early test one today is someone here in the government house you think that information is free to get on the ATF website I downloaded it the other day they're on class 7 manufacturers there's at least 56 and then there aren't class 10 manufacturers you said that some source thinks there might be as many as 400 million larger magazine capacity larger capacity magazines can you just say what the basis of that estimate is and if you know whether that was based on an NSSF survey in the sunset of the 1994-2004 federal survey came around the box magazine that contains cartridges up to 100 rounds goes back to the 1860s and it's been used in history throughout that bit the common magazine holds more than 10 rounds generally in the vicinity of 30 and at 400 million is that since the beginning of firearms in the US or at present they estimate there are 400 million that estimate is actually from 2004 so at 14 years of production on top and was that referring to both I would say commercial use or individual use that's in civilian use not military did I hear you correctly most firearms dealership did in the state of most semi-automatic firearms sold have magazines of more than 10 rounds capacity so it's that question so most semiotic can you say the term again just so I'm clear which guns coming into the line that was used in semi-automatic handguns as an example do you know what I don't mean to bore you with this point do you know what percentage of guns that are purchased in semi-automatic handguns is it a small percentage no it's actually quite high more handguns are sold than long guns in Vermont probably at a ratio of 5 to 1 I'm not sure if this is for you but you answered my question about Montana so I'm just curious why would we have a limit on the number of rounds you can have for hunting but not for anything else I do not know honestly most of the laws go back well I don't I don't really like that answer because we're not giving the details but I'm just curious I know for target shooting but why else most of those laws go back to the early 1900s thank you thank you for clarifying that I think I've seen his letter I think he sent it to all of us but I would I would find out how he was on on your figure who is that can't see a letter no how do you put drawn on the book no he has I'm confused about who don't ask me stay out stay out tomorrow morning at 8.30 we will take off for year 25 once again our witnesses will be I might miss somebody Bill Warren Jared Winan Lewis Porter another petition did I miss anyone who was a few I would prefer to be on this side of the table but I see that Jay Persian Johnson was invited will she be participating in this dialogue I don't know I don't think so the reason I ask of course is because you know the the throw things at the wall and see what sticks which have been described as the House proposal of course the governor issued a memo which had many proposals but I'm not sure it's what Jay Johnson would offer and support Bill so I just wasn't sure she'll be attending or not she could why didn't she said that she was still going on for Bill which many of us were so maybe it's a maybe maybe thank you all very much once again for it could be simple I know you wanted to answer not the right one for us so