 Okay. Thank you. Now we are now live. So welcome back to remind House Judiciary Committee and we are continuing our discussion on S 30 and attorney Eric Fitzpatrick is going to talk about language that regarding shooting competitions that pass the House and Senate a few years back and was part of a bill that was vetoed. And my understanding is that it is this language is of interest to, to folks so thank you, Eric. Yeah, sure. Good morning again everybody it's Eric Fitzpatrick with legislative council again here to walk the committee through the language that Representative grad just mentioned it's on the website I just pulled it up. And this language as well I think was actually in S 169 that was was vetoed by the governor I mentioned some of the other language you looked at the airport language was also in S 169 and, and this also was in that bill. And this deals with the prohibition and existing law on large capacity ammunition feeding devices is high capacity magazines. This exists in current law was also passed in 2018 was part of that same bill that the background check provision was in which was act I think I misspoke earlier when I said that the ERPO provision the extremist protection order was in that was in that act it was not it was passed in the same year, 2018, but that was in a separate act act 97. But act 94 included both the, the background check provision and this prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Now in the, excuse me, in the, in the language of act 94 as it was passed in 2018, this prohibition on the, on the, on the high capacity magazines did have several exemptions and one of the exemptions that was in existing statute you can see is in the non underlying language in subsection D right in the middle of the page there D one F. And what this refers to is is the use of the high capacity magazines for in devices that are transferred transported into Vermont by a resident of another state for a shooting competition. So there was an exemption. When the, when the ban was passed for high, high capacity magazines that were transferred by by a resident of another state for the exclusive purpose of an established shooting competition if the device was a lot of the use of that state where it came from. However, this exemption had a sunset, so that it only lasted until July 1 2019. So at that time the exemption some sunset and it no longer existed. So the proposal here is to essentially reinstate the exemption. And so it's would be current law, and it makes three minor changes or I shouldn't say my, the three changes to do the exemption as it as it existed for a short time before it sunset. So first you see that the language is changed slightly from established shooting competition to organize shooting competition I think that was proposed by by the sportsmen groups who were involved in these competitions because that language more accurately describes the events. Second, the exception is expanded to include Vermonters as well. So it wouldn't just be an out of state person you'll see in some Roman numeral to exemption would apply if device was possessed and used at an organized shooting competition so again that's not limited to an out of state resident who possesses and uses it at one of these organized shooting competitions, provided that the device was a lossly possessed honor before October 1 2018 and the reason that's in there is because in fact, 94 included a grandfather provision so that the, the prohibition on possession of these high capacity magazines didn't apply if if the magazine was sold by a deal or before October 1 2018 so it sort of gave them some time, I think the idea if I remember the time to to get rid of their existing inventory without violating the law so that as long as you met that grandfather date, then you can still possess it lawfully so the idea here is that okay, you're going to continue the the exemption for organized shooting competitions but only if you had one of the high capacity magazines that was subject to the grandfather that was grandfathered in properly under the October 1 2018 date. And I believe that's pretty, pretty short. So that's the proposal of the of the amendment here. Thank you. Will. Thank you. So, I have a question about the very bottom language Eric. So, if the device was lawfully possessed honor before October 1, 2018, you know straight, mostly straightforward. My question is, does it have to have been lawfully possessed by the person using it. Since October 1 I'm thinking you know, Fred and Georgia brothers, they both want to compete in one of these competitions. George has two of these high capacity magazines that he purchased legally before the band, and he wants to sell or give one to his brother so to compete. Would, you know, would they be able to do that would someone be able to acquire a high capacity, one of these magazines that was legally owned by someone else to use in these competitions or if you did not have one before the band went into effect or you just out of luck, as far as competing in these competitions will go. That's an interesting question. Frankly, I had not thought about it. So, the, the language the existing prohibition says, basically applies to any person to any person can't possess one of these devices that's subsection a above, but doesn't apply. If the device was possessed at an ordered organized shooting competition if device was lawfully possessed. So it, I think it could conceivably apply to another person, other than the person who lawfully possessed it before October 1, 2018. That's potentially correct when I think about it a bit more but I think, I think that the reading would permit, you know, say person a lawfully possess it up on October 1, 2018. If someone wants to let person be use it at the organized shooting competition, I think that probably would be would be exempted. Thank you and yeah and just, just speaking as one member of this committee. If you did look at it and decide that it needed clarifying language if we were going to move forward with this is a moment. I prefer clarifying language that made it clear that someone was able to use one that was lawfully possessed, you know, by someone else by a brother or friend what have you, because otherwise it just seems unfair to me to determine who can fairly compete in these competitions based on whether or not they own this piece of hardware at a certain date. Thank you. And we will be taking testimony on this and getting a better understanding of of of the origins and the intent of the language forward. Yeah, if I remember right when we did this that lawful firearms and I guess you could say, and accessories. It could be lent or borrowed in the, but we obviously covered the sales as being something different. Okay, thank you. We will certainly look into all of that. Any other questions from committee members on this section. Eric, thank you. Thank you very much. Very helpful. I know we, you're right to take longer. So I stop screens screen sharing for now. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Great, very helpful. Good. So, I am going to go out of order because I do see that Dr. Ryan sexiness here and I know. Because I know that you had a time time constraints so if you are prepared to testify find now. That would be great so we could let you get on with your on with your day. So that works for you. I am. Thank you very much. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Yes, good morning. My name is Dr. Ryan Sexton. I'm the medical director of the emergency department at northeastern Vermont regional hospital in St. Johnsbury. I'm also chair of the Vermont emergency department medical directors committee. I'm the immediate past president of the Vermont chapter of the American College of emergency physicians. And I'm the president elect of the Vermont Medical Society. Thank you for the introduction. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm here speaking on behalf of the Vermont Medical Society, and in full support of S 30 to prevent firearms and hospitals, and to allow for healthcare providers to notify law enforcement when a patient poses a serious and imminent threat to the cell, the health and safety of a person or the public. The team of nurses and physicians in a challenging and unpredictable environment, emergency departments and other areas of the hospital that provide critical care can be quite chaotic. Situations can be highly volatile and emotionally charged at times. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon that our frontline staff face verbal threats and physical assaults from patients and visitors. So common in fact, that OSHA accepts that workplace violence is a recognized hazard in the healthcare industry. A recognized hazard. According to the emergency nurses association the in a. OSHA data reveals that in recent years workers in the healthcare sector make up about 50% half of all victims of workplace assault. In 2016 study was conducted that showed 100% of emergency department nurses experience violence from patients. In 2018 ASAP that's the American College emergency physician survey of more than 3500 emergency physicians show that nearly half had been physically assaulted at work with the majority of those assaults occurring within the previous year. 80% of emergency physicians responding to that survey noted that a patient has threatened to return and harm them or their emergency department staff at a later date. I'd like to share a personal story. About a year ago, I took care of a young man with a new onset acute and severe psychosis. Working with our mental health crisis team, it was determined that he was severe risk to himself and cannot safely be discharged home from the emergency department, and that he would require inpatient psychiatric treatment. While being held in our emergency department. I met with the young man's parents to explain the treatment plan to them. And I sat with them in a private small consult room and gently explain the situation to them. I informed them that their son had a new onset severe psychiatric illness, and that he would need to be hospitalized for treatment. To ensure his safety. The patient's father had difficulty accepting his son's condition. And specifically the need for inpatient psychiatric treatment. He disagreed with that. He turned his frustration on me and stated the following. He said, if you put my son in the hospital, I will come after you and your children. And it was clear that he meant this. It's not uncommon for patients family members to misinterpret our intent and providing emergent care to their loved ones and respond aggressively. Fortunately, this incident occurred immediately adjacent to the hospital security office and near a hospital exit, and I was able to step out and security intervened. The patient's father was escorted off campus by security. Had this man been armed that day, I do believe this incident could have ended differently. I'm concerned with a growing mistrust of healthcare that's been observed during this pandemic. The ongoing propagation of misinformation has left many questioning healthcare expert opinion. The public in general is frustrated with the pandemic response and the need for frequently shifting guidance and on and off restrictions. As two days ago, I had a patient family member screaming at our ED nurses and physician in our waiting room, verbally threatening them because of our visitation policy. A policy that we have in place to protect patients and staff. So I have concerns that the risk our healthcare workers face pre pandemic is even greater now. I think it's important to acknowledge that our hospitals, much like our schools, house a vulnerable population, many of our patients are bedbound. They don't have the ability to self extricate from a dangerous situation. And our critical patients at times require minute to minute care. Our staff, our nurses and doctors will not simply evacuate to safety and leave their patients untreated in an harms way. Unlike other environments, we do not have the liberty to remove ourselves or our patients from escalating in dangerous situations. I would also like to highlight the extreme staffing shortage that we're experiencing healthcare. We are stretched so thin that we have nurses rotating between units to fill holes in the schedule in areas they've never worked. We're having to modify nurse to patient ratios to prevent ambulance diversion. We have federal teams right now supplementing staffing in our hospitals. There are no staff to engage patients and visitors who ignore hospital signage and bring their firearm into the hospital. Some of our critical access hospitals don't even have security personnel available. Hospital staff should not be burdened with ensuring hospitals are safe and that they're a firearm free zone. It seems like every couple months I read of a deadly shooting in a hospital in another state. We've been fortunate in Vermont to not have experienced an in hospital shooting recently, but we remain at risk arguably higher now than ever before. Vermont can do more to mitigate this risk. Patients and their visitors should know that hospitals are firearm free zones before they ever arrive at the door. A parent being given unexpected devastating news about a child will have strong feelings and may act out with aggression. I'd like to know that they don't have a loaded firearm on their person when I give them this news. I would also like to express my support for the section of this bill that specifically allows for healthcare providers to notify law enforcement. When a patient poses a serious and imminent threat to the health and safety of a person in the public. Physicians strive to maintain patient privacy were required to do so. And we're often conflicted when we have legitimate legitimate concerns that a patient poses extreme risk to another person. It's not uncommon for patients to state homicidal intent toward individuals outside of the hospital. For example, toward their domestic partners and that comes out as we take a history. It's not uncommon for healthcare providers to disclose this information to law enforcement will help resolve this conflict and allow for timely law enforcement engagement and improve public safety. S 30 will protect patients and their loved ones. It will protect frontline nurses and physicians. It will protect the public and I urge you to vote in favor of S 30 and in support of improving safety in our hospitals across the state. I appreciate you hearing my testimony today, and I am available for questions. Thank you very much. Good morning doctor. Thank you. Good morning. When you're dealing with a situation where there's mental health involved. Do you have somebody right close by to deal with that situation if it gets out of control. And by somebody who do you mean security. In my hospital, we now have security personnel who are on site. They may or may not be in the emergency department. We see a lot of mental health disease in our emergency department. And we have one security staff on at all times in the hospital who will be, you know, controlling the grounds and potentially responding to other situations. When we have something situation escalating, we will call them for assistance and they do respond as quick as they can. This is a new support for our hospital. There was a period of time recently when we had no support, no security in house. And I do know of other critical access hospitals that lacks security. Both, I think because of pandemic, but also pre pandemic just don't have the ability to have the resources that in house security available. So deep. So I guess, two things. Do you have actual law enforcement at your facility at all times. No. Okay, so going back to your security. What do they have for security measures that they can use. Are they carrying a firearm or are they carrying some guns. Do they have anything. No, I don't believe they carry any firearm, nor do they carry any taser weapon. Okay. That's it for now. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thank you. I just have a quick question. And actually it's regarding an interaction I had within my work outside of the legislature. I work both as a medical assistant at the medical center as and as an empty. So, I do have some interaction in some interesting places within Vermont's hospitals, and without going into the details as to violate the law, I brought a patient in from a situation where she notified me as we brought her into the emergency department that in her purse. She had her personal handgun that was there for her protection due to the situation that we brought her from. Now she notified me because she was just incomplete shock shared he thought this was a crime. It was terrified by leaving that there by grabbing her purse on the way out. She committed a crime, but she did not intend to commit. Now, we notified possible staff security came put it into their safe that they have for this situation. My concern is that unintentionally. I'm not going to put it in from situations, which is not a cognitive intent to bring a weapon into the hospital. There's not really a lot of decision making that happens on that very emergent side of emergency medicine. I'm not going to bring up belongings, trying to treat the situation at hand, and bring them to the closest, most appropriate medical facility. And with your experience in medical direction, I'm sure that this is something familiar to you. In that instance, what are you recommending that we do. My understanding is that this bill makes a criminal out of her without any intent. So, I have some concern that we are not, we are not taking into account every avenue here and I think it should be on the individuals bringing that patient in to be doing screening. There are more pressing matters in those situations that they should have their hands on. And not all times is the patient in the capacity that they can make a decision or make a conscious choice. It's just grabbing belongings and we don't know what's in them. Not to ever diminish the necessary safety of healthcare providers or the risks that the situations that they're in puts them in. Is there something within that kind of situation that you would recommend on either end, because that's the situation that I've had happen, my colleagues have had happen, and it is not with a malicious intent. But this bill does not make an exception for that. And that is a serious concern of mine. So it sounds like in your example, there was both lack of intent and probably lack of capacity there and I, you know, I don't know how that would proceed within, you know, the legal framework but I imagine it'd be hard to prove guilt in that situation but wouldn't it be great if you as an EMT responding to a situation and picking up a patient if the patient family members present that everyone knew that firearms were not permitted in the ambulance in hospitals that we could do something to guarantee some safety there for our for you and for our staff. You know, I think this is a tool that allows for hopefully hospital staff to not have to confront patients with these situations. I do feel that it that there will be less less less of a likelihood of a firearm showing up in an emergency department. I think that you're right that there will be where accidental occasions. I hope that there would be few and far between. And, you know, I think that signage at the hospital and public messaging around this will certainly be necessary. Thank you. I appreciate your response. Unfortunately, you don't have the same opportunity to have that signage is that we do respond to people's homes, and we do really have a much, much more limited opportunity beyond immediate patient care in many situations to create that conversation or investigatory moment. So, well, I do appreciate your comments. I just there is a delineation and there is a great area here. And that is a serious concern for me. Yeah, thank you and Bob will get to you in a second. Felicia, thank you for that for that comment and when we have time with Eric, we can look at knowingly and what does what does knowingly mean in s 30 is passed by the Senate and and your situation and some other hypotheticals and flesh that out so. So thank you for bringing that to our attention. Go ahead, Bob. Good morning, Dr. Saxon. Thanks for being here. I appreciate your testimony. I noticed when you were responding to representative goes lands. Questions about your security service within your hospitals now I have no idea how many hospitals we have in the state of Vermont, nor do I know who the hospitals contract with for security services. The question to you is, is this a choice of the medical association or the individual hospitals or just not armed security services that are available to work within the hospitals. And the reason I asked that is it's kind of somewhat placing individuals in a precarious position where they may or may not be expected to respond to an arm incident within a hospital setting, and yet they're not armed themselves. I can't speak to the decision. I don't know of any. You know, this bill would allow for law enforcement to certainly respond to situations and be present with a firearm. Hospital security staff that is not law enforcement not trained to level of law enforcement. You know, I don't know that they should have a weapon on their person. But again, I can't. I can't speak to the decision on how hospitals determine security. Okay, thank you. Any other questions. Good morning again, doctor. Do you find that most of these situations that you're encountering are more mental health related. Well in the example I gave, which is one of the more extreme that I've had in terms of, you know, what I perceived to be a real threat to myself and my family. That was mental health related because, you know, it was a mental health patient but in fact that the family did not, the father in that circumstance did not have any mental illness that I'm aware of. There certainly are a lot of violence directed toward our frontline staff from patients with acute psychiatric illness. That's real. I think that there are also situations where family, as I mentioned, visitors and patients themselves become quite upset with hearing of, you know, a diagnosis or, you know, seeing a family member go through extreme mental illness and reacting. You know, I can't speak if there's underlying mental health for those individuals or not. So yes and no, I do think that with our acute mental health patients that come in, there is a degree of violence that we see when people are acutely psychotic. So, the other question I have, I'm just not sure I heard you properly. Did you say that you don't like the idea of security being armed? I, without proper training, I know I don't think a hospital security personnel should be armed with a firearm. Well, I think we all can agree with that. The first thing that comes to my mind with dealing with society nowadays that are going through a very trying time is, first of all, I think people think they need or want personal protection more than ever for themselves. I know that it's on my mind and I don't carry at the moment, but I would think, just me, in your situation, you would want someone close by that if somebody that was unstable mentally or whatever set it on a rampage, hopefully somebody could help the situation to keep it at a bare minimum because I certainly hope it's not a stable person that's probably going to do something like this. I'm going to keep going back to the mental health situation that we have that is very concerning. And also, the lack of law enforcement that we have along with the medical. I mean, we are really struggling in Vermont to have the right amount of workers that we need. And I also appreciate very much you being here and doing what you're doing and for the health of the state. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. If I could just respond briefly. You know, I in the example that I provided the father of the patient who presented with, you know, was was not intending that day to wake up and come in and, you know, hear that news. He was not intending to threaten a physician. I think that, you know, that's a case and this happens. It's not uncommon that we see patients who are in a right state of mind when they enter the emergency department. React violently and aggressively. And so what I hope is that the likelihood of them using a firearm would decrease in those situations if they knew ahead of time that firearm stays in the car. Well, I'm sorry. Yeah, no. And, you know, to the point of responding to mental health for security to be there to assist the clinical team. You know, I think we work very hard to deescalate situations, mental patient suffering from mental health disease. And, you know, I don't think a firearm in the emergency department for most situations is warranted. You know, I do think, you know, when we need law enforcement, I would love law enforcement to be able to respond as quickly as possible and I would agree that at times I feel like our law enforcement is stretched then as well. So I guess just going back to make sure that my point was getting across is I would think automatically when you're dealing with a stressful situation that you're going to be dealing with parents. And you're about to tell them that there's a mental health situation with their child that you would have backup close by because you don't know how that situation is going to work out. Now, I'm not a medical professional or anything like that, but my common sense approach to that would be I could be putting myself in a very volatile situation, and I'm going to make sure that I've got somebody for backup to control the situation that could get out of hand very quickly for, for everybody's safety. And that's something if the hospitals don't have instituted, I would think that would would be something that they would would be certainly will be at the top of their list. Thank you. Thank you. Nothing in the other hand so so thank you very much thank you for making yourself available to our committee. Appreciate it. I appreciate being your thank you for the work that you do. Thank you. Now I'd like to turn to Devin Green, please. Morning, hi. Devin Green from the Vermont Association of hospitals and health systems. I just want to underline everything that Dr. Sexton testified to today and I'm happy to answer more specific questions but for the broad picture, Dr. Sexton is completely right. The data shows that out of all of the healthcare are out of all of the sectors of work in the United States. 73% of all non fatal workplace injuries and illnesses due to violence happen with healthcare workers. So healthcare workers really are vulnerable to violence, just by getting up and going to their job every day. At the same time, we're trying to create a safe space for patients to so we want to create a safe space for patients and healthcare workers we often. We have suggested putting signs up that say that this is a safe space and we don't think having a gun in the hospital creates that same environment that we need for vulnerable patients and our vulnerable healthcare workers. Since the pandemic we've only seen tensions rise, healthcare workers are burned out their stress, they're dealing with more conflict than ever, and they have a skeleton staff to just provide care to people. Representative your suggestion about having someone nearby when providing that news is a good one but the fact is we've heard from our emergency departments that they're having trouble bringing food to people or bringing people to the classroom because they are so stressed in right now, and they are so full of patients, and they are constantly providing that news. So while that's a great practice we are severely understaffed at this point. This sort of confrontation doesn't happen often but it has happened in Vermont. This year of a emergency department medical director who a parent was upset, a nurse went over and asked the parents to put away his gun and put it back into his car he started debating about whether or not this was an infringement on his second amendment rights. The nurse was trying to discuss it with him. He was very upset. The conflict didn't end until the medical director came over and let the father know that they weren't able to care for his child because they were in discussion with him about his weapon. And so it was only at that point that he finally took it back to his car and locked it up there so this is a situation that happens in Vermont. And when it does it has the ability to just impact other people in hospitals. That means other people aren't getting care. And if you have an actor an active shooter at a hospital that means that hospital gets shut down. So not only are the people in the hospital in danger but the people outside of the hospital are also in danger because they will have to go on diversion and go to a hospital that's farther away. Right now our emergency departments are having trouble placing the patients that they have in their care already they're calling 20 to 40 hospitals to put patients where they need to be. They're sending people as far as way as Connecticut because we have such a capacity issue right now. If one of our hospitals goes down. That's going to potentially impact other people outside of the hospital and could be fatal. We need hospitals to be a safe place for patients and health care workers and we can't waste a minute by not providing care. Please send a clear message at firearms and hospitals will not be tolerated. And to get to some of the questions that were asked before. A lot of the security in hospitals are. They tend to not carry weapons because there are federal regulations against using weapons on patients. So we had an incident. There have been incidents in hospitals where security has pulled a weapon and that hospital has been in danger of losing all of its federal funding. So all of its Medicare money all of its Medicaid money it would have had to close down. So we do have security staff at most of our hospitals not all of our hospitals. They're trained to deescalate they're trained to step in and help. But they are not necessarily able to carry a weapon. And that is to ensure that we do not violate federal regulations. The other piece I want to touch on touch on is that I don't see this necessarily as a mental health issue. I see this as a high stakes sort of emotional issue. I think a lot of times the mental health piece gets wrapped in there when in reality a lot of people suffering in mental health crisis are more vulnerable to violence than actually committing violence. They come in and there are assaults and that is usually happening because you know they need to be restrained or they're in psychosis, but not necessarily because they have a weapon I think this is an everything issue. I think someone as Dr. Sexton said can wake up one morning not expecting to confront someone not expecting to threaten someone but they hear about what's happened to a loved one and things can get heated very easily. There's also not only in the emergency department but in places like, you know, like in areas where babies are delivered there can be heated arguments due to domestic issues. And so, again, these are very vulnerable patients. These are really burnt out stress out healthcare workers who are also vulnerable, who will stay with their patients and protect them. And so the best thing to do is to create a situation where individuals know ahead of time guns in hospitals will not be tolerated. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification and expansion on some of the questions that we heard committee members. I'm not seeing any hands, but any any questions. Witness. I just. I'm trying to understand or trying to figure out. If somebody is going to any building with the intent to do something. If they don't have a firearm signs aren't going to stop them a law is not going to stop them. Nothing is nothing is going to stop them unless they have an accident or something like that on the way. And that's where one of the things I'm really, really struggling with this with this whole situation. There's there's a large part of me that says, helping neighbor, keeping each other safe. And, and I've been in this state. The majority of my life I actually come was born in St. John's very that I think we could be opening up a situation where we're actually in a lot of danger for for people. And this really is weighing heavily on me and I appreciate everybody's testimony on this but this is I think Vermont is is one of the safest states in the nation per capita, and I want to make sure we keep it that way. And, but I do appreciate hearing from everybody and, and thank you. I think we're just looking to decrease the opportunity right you may go into hospital not thinking you're going to confront anyone but you get very upsetting news and you see a firearm and someone's purse and you do something terrible let's take away the opportunity so it's not available in these volatile situations. I don't want to get into a situation with you but I mean, if I, I guess if somebody was to go and fly off the handle and there was a knife right there or something that they could use as a weapon. They're going to do that too if somebody's going to flip out whatever they can have is going to be right there for them to go and explode. And that is one part of the society that we're all facing more than ever right now or certainly all the years that I've been on the face of the service. Thank you. I do understand that but the active shooter if someone takes that gun then that hospital shut down. And that means every other patient who would be going to that hospital needs to go to a different hospital and may lose care that way too so that's, that's where I do see the necessity to have in hospital I hear your concerns, but it does feel like hospitals really need this sort of protection. So, so I'm not trying to argue with you but you're saying we'll have to close down that hospital and move everybody out. We're not. You're locking down that hospital to get the situation out of control nobody is going out of that hospital at that time. We're not going to go to that hospital but anyone on the way to the hospital anyone who has an emergency who has a heart attack who has a car accident can't go to that hospital they will have to go to a hospital that's farther away. Thank you. Tom. Yeah, I don't know who this question is for but I guess the only way I can word it do hospitals allow firearms now or is there. Do you have any rules or in place. Is there any signage or anything like that at Vermont hospitals. Yeah I would say the majority of hospitals have signage and don't allow firearms. But again, what we're saying here is, and I've heard the idea of, you know, you have the sign in the hospital and then. If someone brings a gun, the healthcare worker can go over them and add over to them and ask them to leave and then if they refuse to leave. Then you call the police officer and what I'm saying is what I'm saying here is that really helpful tool for hospitals would be to not have that extra confrontation be necessary in this sort of situation, especially given the attitude towards the healthcare workers now where there's another whole level of suspicion that's happening and we're seeing more and more confrontations. Right, right. I guess this kind of along the same lines is is what Ken was talking about but I think this is going to give a false sense of security. An example of somebody, you know how to some kind of a breakdown in the hospital and somebody else had a gun and took it, you know, and use it that way but I would be more concerned with somebody coming from off site. They had a gun themselves. And we already have laws around violence and shooting people in. And we're certainly when somebody is in a mental state. Because there's a sign that's going to be posted that they shall not knowingly possess, and you know they could be in prison for a year or $1,000, you know $1,000 fine that isn't going to stop. That isn't going to stop them. You know, maybe, you know, like the scenario you brought up if somebody had a gun and somebody took it type thing that's to me that's going to be a real outlier, potentially compared to somebody coming from off site. And, and I just, we have we have lost a covered already. You know, and if somebody we mean even with somebody has a firearm in a hospital now if there's signage there and they're asked to leave, there's laws that cover that there's trespassing laws that that could cover that. And I just, I just don't see where it's going to do any good it's not going to it's not going to stop anybody. We have laws now that don't stop people from shooting and killing people, you know, and that are one hell of a lot more severe than what these are. And, and they aren't, they don't stop people when somebody wants to inflict harm, they're going to inflict harm. I just think, and sort of echoing with Dr sex and said, wouldn't it be nice if our stress nurses could wake up in the morning and have the tool of, I don't have to go confront someone with a gun and ask them to leave today. I know that the police officers have my back and I can call them immediately instead of confronting them. Why can't you do that anyway. Because under the trespass laws you have to ask the person to leave and they have to refuse to leave. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. I much appreciate it. Welcome. Thank you. Madam chair, can I just have one thing. Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't see you. Yeah, go ahead. I didn't. I'm sorry. I guess what I'm trying to say is, is I, I think I, I know what this proposal is trying to do. I am deeply concerned that this is going to go completely the other way, and things are going to escalate into situations where they were never, ever meant to go. And especially when I'm hearing this spur of the moment stuff, it's like somebody, somebody would snap or something like that. I am deeply concerned about this bill from all angles. And obviously I want to protect as many people as we possibly can, but I really wonder if this won't work in the way you don't intend it. Thank you. Thank you. And I, I, and that I encourage you to bring that up when we have committee discussion. Is that something that you would, that you would like Ms. Green to respond to, or was it. Sure. I mean, I think, I think, again, we are trying really hard right now to create a safe environment. And I think the best way to do that at this point is not only for. The best way to do that at this point is for everyone to go into a hospital with the expectation that there will not be lethal weapons involved. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. We will now move on to Steven McElroy. Mom's demand action. Morning. Seaton McElroy doesn't look that way, but I promise it is. No worries. Good morning, everybody. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak to you today. I know it's been a long morning, so I promise I'll try to keep it short. My name is Seaton McElroy. I live in Woodstock with my husband and two kids. I currently serve on the village board of trustees and I'm a volunteer with the Vermont chapter of mom's demand action for gun sense in America. I'm working today in strong support of S 30 sponsored by Senator Bruce, as well as representative knots proposed amendments to the bill. In our state with such a high gun ownership and a proud history of responsible hunting, we have made many strides to pass gun safety measures that embrace our responsible gun owners, while ensuring safer communities. There is however still work to be done. And I thank the legislature for continuing to have these important discussions by bringing up this sensible bill today. I'd like to start with some background information on gun deaths in Vermont. Every year and average of 64 Vermonters die by gun suicide, which is more than 50% of all suicides in the state. Our state also has the 15th highest rate of gun suicides and gun suicide attempts in the United States. This is why the mom's demand chapter in Vermont has centered our advocacy and education programs on the intersection of suicide and gun violence. In the Vermont Suicide Prevention Coalition, I have heard local experts talk about the connection between our suicide rates and the easy access to firearms in our state. It is imperative that we continue to provide tools to ensure guns don't fall into the hands of dangerous people, and to help communities respond to those who may become a risk to themselves or to others. Finally, you all took action in 2018 by enacting the Extreme Risk Protection Order, or an ERPO, which have been shown to prevent gun suicides. In fact, 61 ERPO petitions were filed in Vermont between the time the law took effect in 2018 through the end of 2020 usage of the law has increased each year, as people have become more aware of its availability. Representative Knott's amendments through its collection of data and reporting will provide an even deeper understanding of the use of Vermont's existing ERPO law. And I hope that it helps guide Vermont to eventually expand the ability of family and friends to petition the courts directly. Additionally, I support S30's prohibition on guns in hospitals. The absence of guns in hospitals makes us all less safe and adds an additional burden of concern to our health care workers who have faced so many challenges in the past two years of COVID-19. Finally, Representative Knott's proposed amendments to seek to close the background check, the hole in our background check, known as the Charleston loophole. This gap in our federal law allows a gun sale to go through after three business days, even if the background check has not been completed. This dangerous loophole allows people who are legally prohibited from having firearms to still get their hands on them, which poses a dangerous risk to our community, and in particular to victims of domestic violence. 90% of federal background checks are completed within minutes, 90%. However, those that take longer than three business days are four times as likely to be denied. It's estimated that in 2020, almost 600,000 checks took longer than three business days, and nearly 6,000 illegal purchasers obtained guns through this loophole, more than any other year on record. Background checks are a well-established, widely supported policy, and you all demonstrated your commitment to requiring them back in 2018 when you expanded our laws to require background checks in private sales. It's time that Vermont closes a loophole and ensures that all firearm sales have a completed background check. I urge you to support S30 as well as Representative Knott's proposed amendments. Thank you very much. Thank you. And are you able to submit your testimony for us to post on your website? Perhaps you already have, I haven't checked. Yes, I sent it over to Amber last night. Okay, great. I'm sorry. Okay. So, Tom, I think your hand is up from before, but I just want to make sure that you don't have a question. It's down. Okay. Not seeing any other questions. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Yeah, thank you. Okay, we will, we will now go to Allison. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing your name correctly, but it is still morning. Good morning and welcome. Thank you. That's perfect. Good morning, Chair Gradd, committee members. My name is Allison. She pronounced it perfectly. And I serve as counsel for every town for gun safety or I'm responsible for supporting state legislative efforts in Vermont. Every town is the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country. We've nearly 6 million supporters, including moms, mayors, survivors, gun owners, and everyday Americans who are fighting for public safety measures that can help save lives. Thank you for hearing my testimony today and thank you for your careful consideration of this important life saving legislation. I want to focus my testimony today on one particular aspect of the amendments that will ensure the effectiveness of Vermont's existing background check system. As legislators in Vermont, you've continually demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that people who pose a risk to public safety to do a history of dangerous behavior are unable to purchase firearms. From requiring a background check on all firearm sales, to passing an extreme risk law, as Mr. Fitzpatrick described earlier, you all have made significant strides to enact common sense gun laws to protect Vermonters and keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them to do harm to themselves or to others. However, there is more work to be done. Since 1993, a dangerous loophole in federal law has permitted firearm sales to proceed after three days, even if a background check has not yet been completed. This undermines the efficacy of the laws you have passed to help keep people safe. This loophole has proven to be deadly. It's known as the Charleston loophole because of the horrific shooting in 2015 in Charleston, South Carolina, when nine worshippers were shot in church by a man who was legally prohibited from owning a firearm but was able to buy one because of this dangerous loophole. Recognizing the danger, 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws to address it. We urge you to make Vermont the 21st state. I want to focus a bit on why some background checks take longer than three business days. Nearly 90% of all background checks are completed within a matter of minutes, and 97% are completed within three days. And that's because most checks are quite simple. It's typically easy and fast to determine whether someone has a felony conviction in Vermont or another state or for federal federal crime that would make someone ineligible to carry a firearm. Often though, the checks that take longer that are the ones where it's more complicated to decipher a person's history. And we also know that those are the cases that are more likely to result in a denial. So take for example, misdemeanor domestic violence records, searching misdemeanor records is often a bit more complicated. The person performing the background check needs to determine whether conviction for misdemeanor assault, for example, was domestic abuse or not. And this requires the person to dig deeply into courts records to identify the allegations and the person's relationship with the victim. And this kind of record searching just simply takes longer. From 2006 to 2015, nearly one out of every three gun sale denials to attempted buyers convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse took longer than three business days. And importantly, checks that take longer than three days are four times more likely to result in a denial. In response to a FOIA request, the FBI reported that over 5800 illegal purchasers acquired guns through the Charleston loophole that later had to be retrieved by law enforcement between January 1 and November 12, 2020. That's more than in any other entire calendar year. And as representative not shared earlier, 28 firearms had to be retrieved in Vermont from over the last couple of years. And because ATF agents are responsible for retrieving these guns, it's their lives that are placed in jeopardy by having to go into potentially dangerous situations to recover guns that never should have been sold to begin with. Allowing people to purchase a firearm before a background check is completed directly undermines existing Vermont laws and puts all Vermonters at risk. Extending the background check to 30 days will protect victims of abuse and would have prevented the mass shooting in Charleston. 30 days is the period of time that will make sure the background check system Vermont has is effective as possible. Good gun safety policy is proactive. This bill could prevent Vermonters from experiencing a similar tragedy. The violation will not unduly burden law abiding gun purchasers. The vast majority of their background checks will be completed within a matter of minutes. And nearly all of them will be completed within three days. Very few people that are legally able to purchase a firearm will have a background check that takes longer than three days. And those that take longer than three days will still be able to purchase a firearm once the background check is completed. This law will stop many prohibited people from obtaining firearms in the first place. It will help protect victims of abuse and also protect law enforcement, their lives and their resources. And importantly, it will close a gap in the law that undermines your existing efforts to protect Vermonters by ensuring guns are sold only to people legally able to possess them. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this important legislation and I'm happy to take any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions I'm not seeing any hands quite yet I'll give people a minute or so. No, thank you. Thank you very much and I do see your testimony is on our website so and as well as another document. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll now turn to Ari Freilich please. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and my name is Ari Freilich. I'm an attorney and state policy director at Giffords, the gun safety organization founded by former commerce women gun owner and gun violence survivor Gaby Giffords. On a personal note, as someone who's raised in Chittenden County, whose family and community in the state of Vermont I'm especially proud and thankful for your work in recent years to better protect Vermonters from from preventable acts of violence and self harm. I'd like to focus my remarks today as well on the need to pass legislation before this committee to close what has been called the Charleston loophole. I apologize in advance if I am repeating some statistics, hopefully agree a good statistic is worth hearing twice but as you've heard in 2015, a gunman perpetrated a horrific shooting targeting black worshippers at an historic church in Charleston, South Carolina, with gun use legally prohibited from buying the shooter actually under when a background check to buy that from the Charleston gun store. He did not pass that background check. We got the gun anyway, under federal law, the dealer was legally authorized to complete the sale deliver the gun solely because the FBI had not completed the check within three business days. The proposal to close this gap in Vermont raises a straightforward question for this committee. Simply put, should someone be able to purchase a firearm in the state of Vermont without actually passing a completed background check. Many people actually probably assume that Vermont lawmakers answered that question already when the state enacted its background checks law a few years ago. Vermont's law now generally requires people to conduct gun transactions through a licensed dealer who contacts the FBI to conduct the background check on the buyer. However, unless states act to close the federal loophole for their own residents. This is a poll cost thousands of people every year who are legally prohibited from accessing guns to walk into gun shops, submit to a background check and return three days later armed weapons designed to take an end human life without ever without ever passing that background check. And I'll be the first to emphasize that this bill affects a relatively small portion of the tens of millions of people who undergo firearm background checks every year nationwide. The FBI's most recent operations report indicated that in 2019 the firearm background check system directly processed about 8.2 million firearm transactions. And state agencies access the same system to conduct an additional 20 million more fire transactions that you're alone talking about a lot of transactions a lot of checks, a lot of guns. The FBI is 8.2 million direct checks blocked just over 1% of those transactions by people who failed the background check. So those millions of transactions those numbers still add up the system prevented about 103,000 illegal gun transactions in 2019 alone. The system works with the trust and loophole in that system creates known intolerable risks and failures for public safety by thousands people every year who are legally prohibited from accessing guns, majority of whom because of their serious criminal history to nonetheless acquire deadly weapons because the background check was not completed in time. As our speakers noted, the background check system generally works quickly and efficiently. This isn't just a matter of bureaucratic waiting of the tens of millions of firearm background checks the FBI completes every year the vast majority of checks are completed immediately. As you've heard the FBI is issued immediate determinations and firearm background checks to an 89 and 92% of the time every year for at least the last 15 years for which these records are available. The FBI is generally required by federal rule to aim to provide immediate determinations at least 90% of the time. However, in about 3% of cases every year, the FBI is not able to resolve the background check within three business days. So that's the universe of cases we're talking about today. And importantly, this 3% of checks takes longer for a reason in 2019. These background checks taking longer than three business days to complete were more than four times as likely to involve purchasers who are ultimately found to be legally prohibited from accessing guns. As you've heard these cases disproportionately or disproportionately likely to involve purchasers with a significant history of domestic violence in particular, in part due to the complexities of conducting background checks in that area. The federal law and now Vermont law generally prohibits firearm access by some people have committed certain violent crimes against a family or household member, but not people who have committed the same crimes, the same act against other victims outside the context of that family or domestic relationship. So if FBI records indicate that prospective gun buyer was convicted of violently assaulting a victim, but the records don't specify the relationship the victim had to the perpetrator, the FBI will often have to conduct further investigative review. This is human staff time. They will often require contacting local state or tribal courts or agencies for arrest conviction protected in order hospitalization records, a process that simply depends on many cases and how quickly the other agency responds to the FBI with the needed information to determine the relationship, the perpetrator victim may have had to one another in order that for the FBI to make a final determination about the legality of the sale. That's another statistic you've heard as a result of these complexities the US government accountability office reported that from 2006 2015 nearly one third of all background check denials involving people convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault and other violent offenses took longer than three business days. In other words, they put that a little more simply when undergoing a fire background check people prohibited from buying guns because of their history of criminal domestic violence and nearly a one third chance of being able to illegally receive a firearm anyway, because of the Charleston that's just not the right balance in my view for public safety. The FBI needs more time to complete these checks not because of bureaucracy, but because accuracy matters and getting the right answer can meet a world of difference for survivors domestic abuse and violence and so many others. I grew up in Vermont speaking today from California, which is a state that opponents of this proposal this legislation may point to is having the strictest gun laws in the nation. In this state gun buyers must wait at least 10 days and nearly all cases of waiting period to receive a firearm and state law enforcement conducts fire and background checks in California have up to 30 days to complete a background check when necessary. None of the opponents hyperbolic warnings have come to pass self defense and gun culture is alive and well in California as well as other states 1.2 million guns were legally sold in the state of California, last year alone. Many leading gun sellers including Walmart have made the responsible decision to only deliver firearms to a buyer once they receive a green light from the FBI affirmatively indicating that the buyer passed a complete background check. Responsible businesses like those face unfair competition from less scrupulous sellers who choose to profit and roll the dice and wash their hands the consequences by delivering firearms to people they know may be prohibited from accessing guns by law. Vermont can fix that problem better protect its residents from violence and self harm. The US House of Representatives has repeatedly passed legislation supported by Vermont's Congressman Welch to close the Charleston loophole at the federal level. Instead of waiting for the US Senate to act 18 other states have passed their own laws to close this loophole for their own residents for some are all firearm transactions, including rural and urban states, Republican and Democratic Governors. Thank you for your work and time and I'm happy to answer any questions about that provision or other provisions of this bill and urge your support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ken. Thank you. As a state of Illinois. Have they closed the Charleston loophole. Yes, they have they provide 30 days for quite a minute 30 days for these firearm background checks. So this bill now we're we're, I thought, a rich. This isn't a question for you. Thank you. And is your testimony posted. I'm not seeing it looking really quickly, but. I'd be happy to share it. Okay, and. So I know you mentioned California Illinois 30 days. Other states. What type of time frames do they use. Of the E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. The E.T. What type of time frames do they use. Of the 18 States. A reference that it closes the poll for summer all transactions. A majority of those. I have. Long 30 days or longer for the background check period when needed to complete the background check. That is when a person can when a dealer can go ahead and deliver the firearm. But a majority of the states have matched with this bill proposes 30 days or longer. A majority of the 18 states that have closed the loophole. Okay, thank you. Can give another question. No, sorry, thank you. Okay. Okay, I'm not seeing any other questions. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Take care. Okay. We will hear from Chris Bradley, and then we will break for lunch and I'm hoping that the witnesses that we have not been able to get to this morning can be available this afternoon when, when we return. So Mr Bradley, welcome. Thank you. I see that it is 1139. And I believe you want to break for lunch at 1145 I am easily going to exceed 12 minutes. Would you like me to start and then stop, or what's your pleasure. I was going to go until noon does that work for you. I will do my best. And then if not, if, if you aren't finished, are you able to come back after lunch. I am at your disposal. Okay, so then why don't we get get started. So we can get you on please thank you. Thank you. Amber, could I share my screen please. Yes, I'll make you co host. Thank you. I hope that you can all see that. Yes, yes. Thank you very much. My name is Chris Bradley. I am the president and executive director of the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's clubs. And I am here today for allowing us to give testimony on this. And just as far as some of my other credentials and my former selection of Northfield, former Lister, former grandeur. I'm currently the secretary treasure of the Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association. And I also serve as president and executive director of the Federation of Sportsman's clubs. Just moving along here. I'd like to review on section one, which has to do with guns and hospitals. We have in Vermont, innumerable laws specific to guns. This is a short list of them. I believe there are 12 that have to do with people acting out in some way with firearms. And we are now considering a 4023 possession of guns in hospitals, but you can certainly see. We've weapons and court were mentioned, we have aiming a gun at another, whether it's loaded or not. A number of existing laws having to do with firearms. I'm going to stop for a second and look at the genesis of S 30, because this is a quote from the lead sponsor of S 30, as to what and why he put the bill out. Well, read it as it stands now if someone carries a gun into a hospital, and someone sees the gun and asked them to leave. They have no recourse, a police officer can't get rid of that gun, and the person can stand on their rights to have the gun in the environment. That was the premise for S 30. The Federation responded to that by pointing at 13 vsa 3705, which is unlawful trespass. He pointed out that we believed that 3705 handles the exact situation described by the lead sponsor. And that, in fact, that statute is already in use, not only at hospitals, but also at other locations across the state of Vermont. As far as examples of signage. So here we see the signs that when you enter central Vermont hospital, you go through multiple doors. This is one example of one of the sets of signs you have to go through. There are multiple sets of signs that you have to go through. So to say that we don't tell people that guns or weapons shouldn't be in hospitals is a bit of a misnomer. These signs and I believe we heard testimony that these signs are at virtually all hospitals, although they don't have security apparently. Over here we see another example this is not having to do with guns, but it speaks to the other, some of the other things that the trespass law can address. No shirts, no shoes. And loitering loitering is a lot, but this is examples of where no trespassing laws can be enforced. Just as an aside, if you walk into the pavilion office building we see this sign. And if we walk into the state house we see this sign. So what we do with the Genesis as 30 as originally written it applied to not only hospitals that applied to state office buildings, as well as daycares. And I wish to point out that both state office buildings and daycares were stripped from this record from this statute proposed bill when individuals representing the state house, buildings and grounds. And as well as children and families said that they didn't need it. They are already covered they have rules and regulations that made this not necessary and in fact in one case. It may even make their job a little bit difficult. So they support 13 BSA 3705 which is the underlying law, which supports daycares and state office buildings. And the second just to describe what I believe is a flow chart if you will, of how s 30 is going to work. So here we have a location posted for no firearms the hospital. Obviously we're going to see somebody is seen with a firearm so the first question comes into we have security at this location, because if we have security at this location. That is addressed. That may be as result of calling the police, but we have a method already in place if security is there. However, we just heard testimony that most of our hospitals, despite being what 73% of healthcare workers are subject to violence. And are there for vulnerable. So what we have here is that a situation with no security the police get called. So the police get called and I'd like to just take a just brief section. I believe somebody said that earlier that 13 BSA 3705 requires that somebody confront the person. So 5 is very clear. It says that law enforcement acting as an agent of somebody can do that confrontation. Nobody at the hospital has to do that confrontation. All they have to do is pick up a phone, call the police and the police will handle the confrontation. So we have police are called. Obviously police are then going to arrive. Under 13 VSA 4023, we are now going to have a strict criminal liability, which will then possibly lead to an arrest citation, and at least the criminal record. So what we have here is once the police arrive. The problem gets resolved. And it gets resolved with strict liability, and most likely a criminal record if not an arrest. That's how I believe is it is a discussion that this is not representative of how 4023 would work. I'll assume that we agree that this is somewhat accurate. Let's take a look at how 13 BSA 3705 works today. Well, interestingly enough, everything is the same up until the time the police arrive. All right, but now the police are here. So if you have enough, once the police get there, they can hopefully peacefully resolve the situation. Um, sir, you know, there's a sign over there that says you can't have a gun here. Why are you carrying a gun in here. Could you take it out to your car. And if they refuse at that point, law enforcement is perfectly within their right to arrest, put him in the back of the cruiser and say. We have an option here once police are there to resolve the issue peacefully. And if it's not resolvable peacefully, we're going to issue an arrest criminal citation and possibly even a record. So this is how 3705 works today. And we see the same problem, the same solution. Once police arrive. Once they're there. We resolve the problem. So I'm just going to come. So I'm going to come back just in a second, but to back to the lead sponsor of this bill. I'm quoting from testimony as a Senate judiciary. I think it is a fair enough set of questions you pose. If in fact, there are other laws that do what third S 30 purports to do, that I would say it is a strong argument for not passing. It appears we have a law that does exactly what was wanted. So a quick comparison of these two laws. Here we see 3705 on the top. Here we see S 30 or the proposed 4023 on the bottom. Again, we see the problem being resolved. The problem is that in one case, we have a police officer being able to use discretion. So to the point brought up earlier where someone inadvertently forgot that they had a pistol in their purse. Police officer can resolve that no problem please just take the gun out. It's all set. Not a problem. With option two, we have strict liability. That woman has to be arrested. That's the way the law reads. So, again, we're resolving the problem. Once police arrive. And again, we do not need a hospital employee to make a confrontation. It allows law enforcement to act as an agent in that regard. Moving forward, there is one other flow chart, if you will, and that's the guy acts out the person acts out. There was no police involvement and police are going to get involved after the fact. Once this bad person starts doing things. So, I look at this and I go, you've put up a sign. Is a sign, or even a misdemeanor going to stop someone with evil intent. We already have signs up that say these places shouldn't have weapons or firearms, yet an evil person is not going to pay attention to that. What we have is the definition of hospital as it shows up in this bill. That refers to 18 vsa 1902. This is pretty expansive. This is a huge list of facilities and I believe central Vermont hospital. Actually, while it's the main hospital building has something like over 30 satellite facilities to those satellite facilities also constitute a quote unquote hospital. We understand the intent we want to keep people safe, but this is an extremely expansive definition. And it is not just main hospital buildings. And referring back to the Senate judiciary. Many people testified and defender general Matt Valerio had some specifically pointed testimony. When he testified he basically said that he uses for criteria for evaluating the bill. Are there any constitutional rights implicated. Are there laws on the books that cover that activity. Will the bill achieve its intended purpose. Or will the bill make anything worse inadvertently for those intended to be corrected. Well, his answers. Yes, there are constitutional rights. Yes, there are laws on the books that address this activity will achieve it. It's assembled. It's intended purpose. I'm quoting, probably not. Will the bill make anything worse inadvertently for those intended to be corrected. Yes, they will. And he further indicated that this bill would prevent an employee from in the hospital from being able to respond to a threat right. Anyway, this testimony defended Valerio shared that he served in the governor's violence prevention task force. And he then made this statement. One of the things that became pretty well recognized when you are talking about actual safety was that more criminal laws and prohibitions on weapons were not going to be the way to increase public safety. This is our own violence prevention task force, speaking and addressing Vermont issues. He also stated. I find this. He also stated, I understand that there are times to pass bills that in and of themselves aren't going to have a major effect on anything. And this might be one of those terms. In looking at the S 30. In looking at the House judiciary wishes to move forward with this bill, even though that it does appear to be completely redundant to 3705 except for the outcome. The Federation respectfully requests that section a of 4023 be changed from a person shall not knowingly possess a firearm well within a hospital building to be a person shall not knowingly possess a firearm with intent to injure within a hospital building. Amendment intent with with intent to injure does appear in state statute. Just, I'm going to switch gears now to talk to section two having to do with 13 BSA 4019 do you have any questions for me on the hospital section. I cannot. I cannot see all my committee members. Committee members if anybody does have questions. And I'm not seeing your hand please. Please go ahead. No, no. Thank you and is this this is posted right your. Yes, this was sent to Amber this morning. Okay, great. Thank you. I just want to provide an updated version because there have been a couple of notes that I've made as as I've been listening to other testimony. Okay, thank you. I just want to make sure that your proposed languages is in there. Thank you. Yes, it most assuredly is thank you chair. Just as a quick review and I'm switching out to the background check. This is an extremely regulated profession by federal law. Just taking a look at the voluminous regulations that one must comport to is is pretty daunting. An F F L as you know is is not obligated to sell to anybody. And in fact, an F F L is the last person on earth that wants to sell a gun to someone it's going to do anything bad with it. In fact, most F F L's are exceptionally conscientious. We are looking and have screening questions that they ask people to try to weed out people that may be a jeopardy. And frankly, if the F F L doesn't like how somebody is acting and responds or answers questions. They don't have to sell and there's no. There's no requirement to do that. As we know when an F F L transfers a gun a Nick's background check is done. And as except for rare situations, backgrounds are virtually instantaneous. As an aside here, I've heard testimony this morning concerning the increase in the number of background checks that have been done, as well as the number of default proceeds that may have occurred. In the case of every year, breaking records every month breaking records as far as gun sales, given the situation we're seeing in the United States, and unrest in some cities, and just as an aside. Most of those new gun sales are to women and people of color. If a problem develops within the interpretation of Nick's information. It's usually due to trying to interpret state law. What is a felony in one state may not be maybe a misdemeanor and another. In fact, this this has to do with with how records are entered. So it is it does provide a daunting task to make sure that somebody who is not supposed to get a gun doesn't get a gun. So moving forward under federal law, if a definitive answer cannot be determined within three business days. This constitutes what is called a default proceed. Now, in considering a default proceed. I think it's important to understand that again, most of these things are being done, almost instantaneously or certainly in vast majority within three days. The fact of matter, the default proceed was put into federal law to ensure that the ATF and FBI did their jobs in a timely fashion, so that they were incentivized they were pushed to get an accurate answer within three days. And just so we can if I go to a gun shop on Thursday, file the 4473 asking to purchase a gun. They try to do a background check if there's something wrong with my, they don't get an immediate response. Friday goes by the weekend goes by Monday goes by Tuesday goes by on Wednesday I can then go back to that ffl and pick up a gun under default proceed. At least three people testified earlier this this morning that the Charleston loophole allowed a prohibited person to get a gun. That's not correct. The Charleston shooter. Yes, received his firearm through a default proceed. However, once the default when all was said and done. It was determined he was not repeat not a prohibited person. Now he still went out and acted up, but the fact of matter is records did not support. Him not being able to receive a gun. So loophole. It's not for 2018. And these are numbers are somewhat dated because this actually hit me fairly quickly. So I have not had time to research. And in fact, I believe. Mr note had come up with some statistics on back default proceeds that I guess I didn't see in the records of the committee I'd like to possibly peruse those but anyway for 2018. There are 26 million background checks of those 4,240 went to prohibited persons through a default proceed. That does not mean that the ATF or the FBI does not continue researching in fact they continue researching for three months to make sure that they make an accurate determination. Looking at for 2019. There were 35,000 transfers in Vermont. Of which nine went to prohibited persons through a default proceed. So testimony we heard from Mr wall and who's the director of the criminal information center, and he testified that seven of those nine had already been recovered. And the remaining two may have been recovered or we're in the process of being recovered. And by the way, the ATF, not our local police department does this recovery. But impacting our local law enforcement. As far as amendments go, when problems are encountered with next data those problems typically result with records not being properly entered by individual states. Given that there were nine, I believe in 2019, I have to wonder whether those Vermont based records, or records based from some other state that were in error, or we're not entered correctly. There's another aspect of this in 2017 Congress passed the fix Nick's act. And it's been underway, I believe since 2018 to specifically address instantaneous, the increase in instantaneous responses, as well as to review all records to clean them up for anything that might not be clear for an instantaneous response. Design is Nick's system as has been previously testified to is working as designed and it's being constantly improved. I guess, in one section in F4 states the person who can receive it was imminent risk. It speaks to an allowance to have someone under imminent risk be able to purchase a firearm despite the 30 day law. How does a person convince an FFL that they are in danger, and that FFL should ignore the 30 day requirement and not be in danger of a $500 or one year fine, a $500 fine, or one year in jail. As far as we certainly acknowledge the need under 4057 that there are people with severe problems, and that one very valuable source of information is healthcare providers. By the way, I'm now jumping to section three I apologize. In 18 VSA 9432 we see the definition of a healthcare provider means a person partnership corporation facility institution license blah blah blah. To individual during that individuals medical care treatment or confinement. Earlier today we heard from Eric Fitzpatrick, he referred to 45 CFR, however 45 CFR refers to something called a covered entity. In looking up the definition of a covered entity. We see that can be a healthcare plan, a healthcare clearinghouse healthcare provider who transmits any health information electronic for. How does covered entity square with healthcare provider section three still affect on people with problems. This is a major concern. I think we all want people in jeopardy to be able to speak candidly with people that they trust and will help them. Will this have an effect on people speaking candidly to their healthcare provider. If they know that there could be a negative outcome. Along those lines, veterans are particularly of concern to us. These are men and women who have endured things we can't even imagine carry with them every day. They need to be able to talk to somebody and they are going to be exceptionally leery of talking to somebody when they may have their rights at risk. I don't know what you addressed, but we still have some issues, some very serious concerns about patient confidentiality and its potential conflict. Any questions on my testimony on that section because I'm about ready to jump to a new section, the competition shooting. Any hands. I also do want to mention that Mr Henry power will be will be with us this afternoon. And I think it will be very helpful and supplement your testimony as well. Excellent. Thank you very much. Just concerning the chair grab the last day rifle pistol and the Federation are grateful for the consideration of this amendment. As we know in Vermont, the second largest source of revenue to Vermont is sporting activities shooting and of all flavors. And these are both organized shooting competitions NRA matches CMP matches, but it's a wide variety of events, everything from say an egg shoot at very efficient game club to other organized sporting activities. So I guess our thought, our request would be. Thank you for picking this up and looking at this. We would ask however that organized shooting competition be considered to be changed to organize shooting activity, or historical or educational events. And I'm happy to provide background on this specific to the Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association. We shoot matches matches are always conducted on ranges we're they're conducted under very strict rules for how things can proceed. We have such things as designated range safety officers. We have a designated officer in charge range safety officer cannot do anything except watch everything that's going on to for any possible problems. We, and I guess that I am not aware, although I'm sure they're out there of any situations where organized shooting activities were any problem whatsoever to to Vermont. In fact, it's, it's a draw our Vermont State Rifle and Pistol pulls in competitors, which is why we were asking for this from all over New England when we run the CMP New England games, we get people from all over the country. Hundreds of people showing up at Camp Ethan Allen and Jericho Bolton to compete against each other. I believe that that concludes my testimony stop screen share at this point. Did I cover everything that I hope I did. Excuse me I'm not sure I talked to section for having to do with 4062. Erpo. I do see. Representative not let's have a question that is on what you need to cover. So if we could take that question and then, and then have you continue. Go ahead. Well, thank you. It's actually more of a request than a question which is going back to what you just spoke on the potential amendment on organized shooting events. And you know my concern with it doesn't matter whether it's an organized shooting event or a music festival or anything. I mean there's got to be some regulations so that it's not abused so that you know someone who who doesn't know what they're doing who is in over their head doesn't have an event that is out of control that where something goes wrong. So if we're going to move forward with this event I would love to see and I'll make this request for multiple people. I'd love to see some like guidelines that could be referenced as far as like what sort of safety requirements like you had mentioned you mentioned briefly what sort of safety requirements. What would you think should be in place for a shooting event like this to be responsibly held so that we can be certain that if we have these, you know they're only conducted by responsible organizations responsible parties. So I would love to it doesn't obviously doesn't mean need to be now I don't expect you to be able to just shoot this out of the top of your head. Comprehensively, but I would love a list of like the sort of safeguards for these events that have previously been held that you think should be a requirement for people who might have them in the future. If I could respond to that chair grad, my suggestion at least off the cuff would be any organization that is recognized by the state of Vermont. So, for one example, speaking to the remote state rifle and pistol where an organized group, we are registered with the Secretary of State. I mean my capacity is Federation President I represent over 50 member clubs, most of which are fishing game clubs, most of which have ranges and they're conducting anything from practices to events. There are activities that are not necessarily competitions, but are still organized shooting events. I guess as long, would it be something to consider as long as it is being run by a recognized organization recognized by the state of Vermont. All right, thank you. That does make sense. Okay. Great. So, Chris, I would like to, to adjourn in five minutes so either we can launch or what's I don't I don't want to rush you but I also did say that you're at our disposal so I placed myself at your disposal, and certainly concerning the, the most recent amendment. I'm more than happy to provide any further information that the committee needs on why this should really be supported. Okay, I appreciate it. So, how about if we come back at 130 I know the agenda does say 115 but I know people have with them to get lunch and have other meetings and things so let's say 130 and we'll can continue. Chris with you with you if you do have more testimony and then go down our witness list and like I said we do have Mr power joining us. Thank you so much Chris you had requested him and he's he's visited us with us for us is is very helpful so I'm looking.