 I genuinely had an armored eagle that I could fly around in. I love the intro and it does, you can't help but watch it and not smile. Hello, everybody. Welcome to Generally Eartable. I am really excited today to have Chris Bradley joining me. And he, so you are the director, right? Of the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs. Did I get it right? President and executive director, yes. President and executive director. So I am super pleased to have Chris on with me today to talk about the Second Amendment gun rights, general gun rights and all things related to guns and what's happening in the legislature this year and what's happened previously that has gotten us to the point that we are at now. So Chris, I want you to take a couple minutes before we really get into it and start, before I start pouting you with questions. I'm gonna- How about me? Take a moment to introduce yourself to everybody and make sure a little bit about why you decided to take the position of president and executive director and why this stuff is so meaningful for you. I'd be happy to. I guess first and foremost, I am the son of a career military officer who served immediately signed up after Pearl Harbor. He served in Korea and World War II with distinction and was also under the Kennedy administration, an early advisor in Vietnam. So I am an Army brat. I've been, I had kindergarten in Taiwan. My father was stationed there and serving in Vietnam. So I learned a great deal from my father who had a strong belief in this country constitution and served in three areas, three theaters to protect and preserve those rights. So frankly, my love of shooting came from him. And at a very early age, I was instructed on firearms. They're safe handling that they were a tool. And frankly, that exposure stays with me today. I am another hat I wear is on past president and current secretary treasurer of the Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association. We exist to foster competitive shooting in Vermont under NRA and CMP disciplines. And our mission is to raise money to support junior shooting programs in Vermont. So not only do I wear the hat of the Federation, but I also wear the hat of the Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association. And I'm passionate about the rights that allow us to do these things. There was a time in this country where shooting was venerated. The ability to hit your target was held in very high esteem. And somewhere along the way, we've lost that. And we've lost a great many other things in this country. But sticking just with firearms, I view this as an essential difference between the democracy that we have here in the United States and what separates us from other countries. Frankly, the ability for someone like me, take a look at the history of our amendments, the First Amendment, so you could have the freedom of speech. The very next amendment was a second amendment that said, you know what? You need a way to make sure you have a voice. And that voice is not going to be taken away from you. As we take a look at Vermont, and this is something that all Vermonters can be exceptionally proud of. And you've heard me say it again and again and again. Vermont enjoys being in the top three safest states in the nation, concerning FBI violent crime statistics without exception. We go back and forth with a state of Maine. Right now we're currently second. New Hampshire is always in the top three or four, but it's usually coming down to Maine and New Hampshire as being the safest states across the broad category of violent crime. And we're gonna take a look at what differentiates those three states from, say, our neighbors to the South and to the West, Massachusetts and New York. It's our firearms laws. And one of the core firearm laws that hold this all together is the right to keep and bear arms, both openly and concealed in the state of Vermont. So, Eric, I want to think you're gonna have to learn, you're gonna have to interject with me because once you put my string, I get very passionate about this. And frankly, I believe that frankly, firearm safety should be taught in schools. So it's demystified, perhaps along with the civics course, which there, believe it or not, there are two house in the Senate bill out there right now requiring civics courses as a prerequisite for graduation. Really? Believe it or not, yes, there is. And I see these as holy mackerel. This is some good stuff. Of course, in our current political climate, I'm not really sure they have lights go anywhere. Yeah, I'm just gonna say, well, I think it's fascinating, when I was running for state Senate, I got questionnaires. Thank you for telling us. Yeah, my pleasure. One of the, I can't remember if it was, it had to have been like Vermont Sportsman's Club or some, because it wasn't the NRA questionnaire about would I support gun safety classes in schools? And I said, yes, because I'm thinking to myself, we are giving kids sex ed classes younger and younger and younger. And if we're teaching middle schoolers how to have sex, put condoms on and that anal sex is a substitute for vaginal sex to avoid pregnancy, which is actually in the curriculum, we're gonna teach little kids to have to do that. Then why aren't we teaching them gun safety, which guns are prevalent in our homes, they're prevalent in our lives? Why wouldn't we give the same attention to something like that as we do other things that have life and death consequences related to them? Well, certainly, one of the interesting things that I've found and this occurred under the Obama administration, under the Obama administration, there was a push to try to understand the reasons behind violence and especially violence with guns. Several studies were conducted. One of those studies went to the CDC and a very interesting, very interesting study. It found that the defensive uses of firearms was at least as common, if not more so, than the offensive or criminal uses of firearms. The fact of the matter is that the fact that United States citizens can be armed and in Vermont are most definitely allowed to be armed, that's a deterrence. That is the one thing that will actually keep someone with evil intent in check. They don't want, they want victims. They don't want adversaries. So, I mean, and as I said, as we were discussing earlier, I don't know if you read science fiction. Robert Heinlein is a very favorite author of mine in the book New Horizon, he had a quote, an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you must, you may have to defend your life based on your acts. And, you know, there's a lot of truth to that. I think as we go about our day today here in Vermont, just walking around, well, masking and everything else now today, but as we walk around, we really have no idea the people around us that may have the means to self-defend and that's a powerful, powerful deterrent. You don't, this is not the Wild West, by the way. If it was, we would have violent crime after the window, but clearly that's not the case. And then you start taking a look at our state police. God bless our state police. We don't have enough of them. And in this current climate, we can't hire enough of them. I'll leave that white elephant off to the side. The simple fact of the matter is that over approximately 200 Vermont towns today have state police coverage only. They don't have local police departments. That represents 50% of our population or 90% of our land mass. So when you start thinking about who's covering these people, a policeman and even furthermore, they only run two shifts a day. So there are from two to six in the morning, there are no state police on duty, they are on call. So if something should happen in the middle of the night, frankly, state police could be many, many, many, many. Many miles. If not, absolutely. So I think- I think- You're pulling my string. Okay, hold on, 90% of- Landmass. You said that's Vermont specifically. That's Vermont specifically, by the way. And then what was the other statistic you said? 50% of our people. Yep, this is the first paragraph of the Vermont State Police website, by the way. Wow, okay, so basically unless you're in Chittany County or maybe some of the other more public, I know Montpelier has a police force and stuff like that. So basically the majority of people and the majority of Vermont do not have an active police force that like, I think Burlington, the 9-1-1 response time is between three and five minutes depending on where in town you are. So then you're talking about the majority of the state is actually 30, 40 minutes an hour or more at minimum before somebody could arrive to protect you or to help you. And what's the implications of that? The implications of that are that Vermonters in rural settings, which is what we're known for, frankly, not only are they the person's first affected by crime, they are also the first responders. I think Vermonters have proven themselves to be exceptionally well-mannered. I mean, as I said, this is not the Wild West, but the fact of the matter is when you're in a rural setting and law enforcement, who by the way, do not really have a responsibility to protect us. Says the United States Supreme Court, but go ahead, please, Ben. That's precisely it, but that falls on us to do that. And we're not seeing, we're not seeing shootouts in the street, quite the opposite. We have a public safety record here in Vermont that is exceptionally sedour. Now, which is why I keep coming back to say, okay, let me get this straight. And let's use S30 as an example. And that's coming up this year, right? Well, that's already in play in the Senate. S30 is a bill that is designed to prohibit firearms in specific named places. And currently that is the hospitals, daycare centers and certain government buildings or public buildings that quote, use, provide essential government services or whatever they are. Okay. So we're obviously, this is right up our alley. We're already heavily involved in this, but here we have a bill that, let's start with hospitals. When was the last time you walked into a hospital? I'm just curious. Oh God. I had to get blood work done last year and I had to go to UVM to get it done. That was the last time I've been at a hospital. Well, I will assure you that almost every hospital we are aware of in Vermont, as you walk through the door and I just went up to CBA, Central Vermont and actually took pictures of their signs and used it in testimony to the in Senate judiciary, there are two signs that say no firearms and weapons at the door. So that private enterprise decided they wanted to have that. They need the state to tell them to. Well, they established rules that said, this is what we don't want to have happen. And that's, by the way, that parallels the state buildings that also had rules and regulations that say that you can't do this. The underlying law that actually enforces that is 3705, 13PSA 3705, unlawful trespass. That is a law that says, you can't go into a store without a shirt and guess what happens? So if you walked into the hospital carrying a firearm that was obviously visible, then what we have today, you don't have to approach them. In fact, the sign has already been shown to be in a case called Pixley, it was already shown that the sign itself was adequate notice. So you just being in the hospital and seeing someone walk into a, with a gun, long gun, you can immediately call the police. The police will immediately show up. They can immediately correct the situation and they have arrest and citation powers and they can certainly remove the firearm. That's in place today. It's in person. So we already have a law. Already have a law that, by the way, the state buildings are the same thing. They have, if you go into the state house, if you go into the pavilion office building, no firearm signs, the rule of law that enforces those signs are unlawful trespass. So basically, when this bill was presented, it was presented by the lead sponsor as being a bill that was needed because today, according to the sponsor, there is no law that would prevent somebody from walking into a building and with a gun. There was no law that would force them to be removed because that person could stand on their second or article 16 rights. And we looked at that and said, that's not what is happening today. What are you trying to do? All right, so really- Yeah, what is the actual goal of this bill given the fact that we already have laws in place to mitigate the situation that you're describing? It's, if that's the problem, we already have that solution and it's already there. I mean, it is, now, here's the rub. It's very clear that the lead sponsor of the bill doesn't even like seeing guns. Right. Just the fact you're seeing a gun is all sorts of problems. Now, forget the fact that historically, you could walk around all, and you still can today legally, both carrying concealed or openly. And there's no law that stops it. Well, he doesn't like that. We wanna start cutting down the areas where this occurs. And he's using as an example, court buildings as well as airports as being places where, gee, that citizens are used to being disarmed there and schools and why would this be any, who wants to go into a hospital or a daycare with a gun? I'm a sensible and responsible firearms owner. I certainly know that the firearms I own may make other people uncomfortable. So the fact of the matter is the people I represent would think long and hard about walking into a hospital with any sort of firearm openly. Open carry. Yeah. First of all, you don't, anybody that I know that does open or concealed carry, first of all, well, almost everybody that I know, for first concealed carry, because if you go into a scenario where you're open carrying, you are automatically the first target and automatically the first person that's gonna be taken out. Tactically, you're absolutely right. Absolutely right. You become the target. If the purpose of carrying an openly carrying a firearm is self-defense, it is self-defeating for the exactly the same reason you just mentioned, you are gonna be the first target taken out. Now, as you probably are aware, people go to a great deal of trouble to conceal a firearm that they may carry. Furthermore, a legitimate firearms owner is not going to carry a gun into a court, is not going to carry a gun into a airport for one simple reason. There's been a huge investment made in personnel and screening equipment so that when I go into that airport or I go into that courthouse, not only do I have armed people there to protect me, I can trade my ability for self-defense off with the fact that somebody else is there. I guess if we take a look at gun-free zones, which is really what the intent of this bill is, let's create a gun-free zone. I don't like that term. I like the term zones of illusionary protection, which is zip. You are getting zip. Zones of illusionary protection is what you're getting. So as we look at this, the fact of the matter is that there are good, honest, law-abiding citizens that can have the ability to conceal and carry in the state, keeps us all safer. And the one reason for that is deterrence. It just is logical. My husband literally has said that the problem nowadays, now he jokes, because he's black, and he says the problem with white people but the first time we had this conversation was actually specifically about being in downtown Austin. And he said, the problem with being on 6th Street in Austin is all these white college kids do not fear violence for their behavior. So whereas he grew up in a military town in Colleen, where if you were out at a bar or whatever and you acted like an idiot, somebody was going to fight you. Like you can't run around acting like a jerk, insulting people, swearing at people, calling them names, spitting at people, doing whatever. You can't do that in Colleen and not expect somebody to fight you for it. But in Austin, where it's very liberal, where it's all these college kids who don't have any sort of understanding of the greater world or fear of retribution for their behavior, they'll run around and be absolute jerks. They'll run around and call people names. They'll do nonsense because there's no fear of retribution for their behavior. As part of that conversation, I said, it used to be back in the day if you were a politician and you said a bunch of nonsense and you maligned people's character or whatever, you'd be called out into the street for a duel. Well, I'm not sure, certainly that was, I come back to my Highland quote, manners are good when you may have to pay for your acts with your life. So that is an underlying tenant of deterrence. And frankly, I think it's what separates Vermont from the rest of the country, with the exception of Maine Hampshire, for being why we are who we are and why we enjoy such safety. So, I mean, I do understand that perhaps things like S30 are perhaps well-intentioned, if not horribly misguided. But really what you're trying to pass is a blanket thing that says, what bothers me is the things I see. But I want this blanket to go for even the things I don't see. Now, frankly, when I go up, interestingly enough, we may have just recently heard of an incident that happened at the University Mall. Yes. Interestingly enough, that never presented itself in testimony from the lead sponsor. Well, not only that, Chris, but there was actually, so one of the places that Senator Baruch, can I say it? Can I just call him out for it? You're being kind and not saying it. I'm just saying lead sponsor, that's fine, isn't it? So one of the places that they wanted to ban guns is childcare centers, but there was actually an incident recently where a man attacked a childcare center and harmed people. Where those people were armed and prepared, they could have actually defended themselves and the children inside. Because here's the thing, is you can put a gun ban, but the guy with vicious and malicious intent does not care about your gun ban. They're gonna go do whatever they want, regardless of whatever sign it says. So where does this idea come from, that if you disarm law-abiding people from the ability to defend themselves, that we're somehow safer? Like, where does, do you know where this comes from? I'm a computer engineer by trade. I work by logic. When I'm a programming or doing programming, it's a series of logical steps to reach a conclusion. I have no basis whatsoever to understand this logic. It's, if we pass, let's just pass a law, no more crime. I mean, isn't that the solution? I mean, we all put on rules- You are no longer left. Well, here's the thing, what's funny about it is the same people who are trying to criminalize gun ownership are also defunding the police. So now you wanna make it, first of all, you wanna make it so that the police can't defend us. You wanna make it so I can't defend myself. And I just go, like, and you don't wanna prosecute criminals. So when people do, you know, you have like, Sarah George from Chittany County, they're murderers that she was saying should not be in jail and she was not gonna prosecute. So not only are you not prosecuting violent criminals and releasing them back out into the street immediately, you are taking away the police and their ability to protect us. And also you want me to not be able to protect myself either. Yeah, that summarizes it pretty well. And I have no basis in rational thinking to think that any of those things are even same to be candid with you. I mean, I just don't understand how these people can approach, apparently they think by adopting laws that have failed states elsewhere, we can make Vermont even safer than it already is. Now, wait a minute, what does make Vermont so safe? Why are we different than New York and Massachusetts with rates of violent crime two times higher than ours? I mean, it really comes down to your honest law abiding citizen who respects the rule of law, but understands that first and foremost, they are responsible for their own defense and the defense of their family and in some cases, their neighbors and their community. The fact that you have, go ahead, I'm sorry. No, please, Hensh. Oh, no, the fact that you have, as you walk around your day to day, you're seeing people who you have no clue whether they're armed or not, you really don't. And I'm sure some people are going to, that would just blow their minds, you know, they can't get their head around it because there would be just evil things all around them. Well, I choose in my life to have a measure of protection. I was a Boy Scout, I mean- Always be prepared. Be prepared, so as far as that goes, this just makes common sense to me and what we're seeing now, especially with the unrest across the country, virtually every month you were setting a new record for firearms purchases. And by the way, the majority of the people buying those firearms were people of color and women. So, and these are people that likely had very legitimate concerns for their life and their property and wanted to take concrete steps under the constitution to take action to be able to defend themselves. And God bless them, a lot of people in the middle, I mean, people that never would think of buying a gun. And maybe possibly in two years or something, we're gonna see a massive sell-off of used firearms by people that said, why did I ever buy that? But the fact of the matter is, it's peace of mind. And if you are knowledgeable or yet knowledgeable on how to handle a firearm safely, how to shoot it correctly, these things just don't jump up and start killing people. Yeah, well, I want you to talk a little bit, Chris, about, so you mentioned that a lot of these first-time gun purchases over the last couple of years have been a lot of women and not white people, basically. And I'm curious, you mentioned a couple of things I wanna highlight and wanna make sure we highlight. I believe, oh God, I'm gonna get it wrong. Was it H-133 that is the one that is the domestic violence thing? Yes, the H-133. So H-133, I wanna talk about a little bit about, because this one is controversial and we need to be able to put some practical information out there. But you were talking earlier about how Vermont has, what did you say, Vermont had the first, like all women's coaching for the NRA or something? Tell the folks about that program. Absolutely. About that opportunity. Well, first of all, the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, well, it is one of the primary lobbying organizations in Vermont for both fish and wildlife and firearms rights. And we do have associated groups like gun owners of Vermont and Vermont Traditions Coalition that we collaborate with. We do far more than just lobbying. We send kids to conservation camp. We run Operation Game Thief. We have purchased property to allow access to wildlife management areas. We do a lot, we were involved in suicide prevention because we've acknowledged that firearms do play a role in guns. But one of the, in suicides, one of the things we have sponsored along with the Vermont Sports Shooting Association is Women on Target, which is a program specifically for teaching women to shoot. And one of the hurdles that we thought we wanted to overcome there was that the traditional instructor is a man. And a female student may not feel comfortable with a male instructor. And that may inhibit asking very good questions. So, Vermont Federation of Sports and Clubs paid for five Vermont women to be trained in rifle pistol and shotgun instruction. And right now those five women, and we were told by the NRA that this is the first time, first state in the nation that had constructed an all-woman team to instruct women. So, and frankly, when we put these things on, and yes, COVID has done a great job at curtailing a lot of activities, not the least which is the shooting. Every time we pull on one of these things, it fills up almost immediately. There's overflow, there is a genuine interest on the part of women to not only learn how to shoot, but learn about firearms. Because frankly, I believe the new old quote is, God created man, Smith and Wesson made them equal. Erica, the difference, let's bring this back to domestic violence. There's an old quote, you can't beat a woman who shoots. Yeah. And there's a lot of truth to that. Now, the DDT's. One of the things that I found so disturbing about some of the gun bills that were coming out the last couple of years, like the waiting period and all that kind of stuff was you heard story after story, testimony after testimony from women who were victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or something like that, who needed to be able to defend themselves against the person that had either harmed them or were threatening harm. And I just thought to myself, why wouldn't you want women to be able to protect themselves in circumstances like that? Like, is that not, can that not be part of the conversation? Well, I did suggest that, being the gentleman that I am. I do interact with domestic violence folks. In fact, this year we have made it a point of reaching out to Vermont Network on domestic violence and sexual abuse because we always seem to find ourselves in odds on firearms issues. Clearly, they view this as, if you have a firearm in your home, you're much more likely to have a problem with it. And frankly, I look at this and say, that's roughly akin to saying you're much more likely to drown in a swimming pool if your house has a swimming pool than you are drowning in a pool if your house doesn't have a swimming pool. So it's like, what are we really proving here? But I do understand that from the domestic violence standpoint, they're looking at it and saying, if firearms are in the household, then this is maybe a recipe for a problem. But wait a minute, domestic violence people, at the point in time that you level a relief from abuse order or an RFA against a person, that can be done ex parte, which means the plaintiff can level a charge of domestic violence against the defendant, have that taken to court and have the court make a ruling without the defendant even being present. That RFA ruling can remove the defendant from their house. They can enforce distancing. You can force no communication, no threatening behavior. Just jumping back for a minute to what you mentioned on 1133, excuse me, H-133. That's a bill. There are two domestic violence statutes. One is ex parte, which I just described where an affidavit is filled out by a victim who's traditionally a woman goes to the court, the judge looks at the information and says, based on a preponderance of evidence, if there's any hope or any chance that this abuse would continue, then the court can take action and really take any action in statute. It says they can do anything that they feel is necessary to protect the victim. Now, as originally written, that statute separated people, separated the two people who were having problems domestically, put distance between them, and that was all that it was designed to do. Yeah. Somewhere around 2010 through 2012, a judicial person looked at that and said, boy, you know what? We think that means you can take firearms. Now, let me back up here for a second. When we think of standards of evidence in a courtroom, you have basic preponderance. Well, if you want to think of preponderance, think of an evenly balanced scale, and you drop a feather on one side or the other. That scale doesn't have to radically move, it just has to move in the slightest little bit. And that's what a preponderance of evidence is, essentially, just... Some evidence. Anything basically above 50% certainty. Okay. All right. It seems like a pretty low bar. Yes. And I would have to say, at least in terms of ongoing domestic violence, if in fact it's been proven that there has been violence and it's likely to continue, I'm not sure I personally have a problem with preponderance to get that wife beater or husband beater, whatever, because women do this, too, to... We're not allowed to talk about that, Chris. Come on now, women are perfect and we never do anything wrong ever. Okay, Chris? Yes, Lord. It's great. No, I'm sorry for interrupting. No, no, that's absolutely fine, but... Right, so for that kind of scenario where there is evidence and you can prove it and you want to keep somebody safe, okay. Okay, and that temporary order is only for a short period of time, because if it's delivered ex-partee, the defendant isn't there. He never had a chance. It's like having a debate and only one team shows up. How can they not get a preponderance? They showed up in her breathing. I mean, so, all right, but under a preponderance, a defendant is kicked out of their house. A defendant is forced to separate himself even from his children or her children. No threatening, no contact, all that other stuff. That's what the original relief from abuse order was written to do. Okay. Somewhere along the line, it was interpreted without legislative approval that the words can do anything they feel is necessary. It was interpreted to be able to room firearms. And the judiciary started doing that. So, now along comes 1104. Excuse me, I'm sorry, 133, H-133. What they really wanna do is attempt through amendment to codify what has become common practice, but was never ever sanctioned by the legislature, i.e., the relinquishment of firearms under a preponderance of evidence. Now, I'm gonna jump back here for a second. Federal law, if you are a defendant in a domestic violence action, by federal law, you cannot possess firearms. And I have to say that at the point in time when you're kicked out of your house, the police are gonna allow you to take your guns with you. You are going to be separated physically from your guns. You can't possess them. So, we've comported so far with federal law. Federal law, when it comes to the taking of property, does not recognize ex parte. No. The defendant has to be in court. They have to have their day in court. So, there's a notice process that allows that to happen. Oh, wait, wait, do you mean that innocent until proven guilty? Oh, wow, what a novel concept. If only that were true. Shocking, sorry for interrupting you. Let's take a little bit of a feather and say, Erica, you just lost your guns. That's what we're really saying. You've lost your right to self-defense. And if we start thinking in terms of common property, when things get relinquished, what is getting relinquished? What if we're actually going to disarm the very person, the victim who may need it the most? So, this is one of those things, Chris, that is hard to have a conversation with folks that we like to call the moderate middle, right? So, you and I are both big, gun, two-way self-defense advocates. My husband, I got an A rating from the NRA when I ran for Senate. My husband is a member of the NRA, black ATX tactical and all this stuff. We're a very, we're a very gun friendly family. Good. And God bless you. Thank you. Thank you. But when you're talking to people who like didn't grow up in a military family, didn't grow up shooting, hunting, and stuff like that. You know, they say, they look at that kind of law. And they say, well, yeah, if you're a wife beater, of course you shouldn't get to have your guns. Of course not. But then, but it seems like that's where the conversation stops. You go, okay, well, yeah, that sounds reasonable, but we also have something called innocent and still proven guilt, habeas corpus in this country, which is one of the reasons why the United States is as amazing as it is and is different than other countries is you actually could prove that somebody has done something wrong. Otherwise you end up like, I'm never, I was gonna insult some other countries. Nevermind. Anyway, so, habeas corpus. But also the logical conclusion to that is, okay, well, we'll say for the sake of ease of conversation that the guy is removed from the home and now the woman is there by herself. And now, especially if we're talking about somebody who's in rural Vermont, where there's no cops within 40 minutes or hours of help, now you've left that woman who's gotten a relief from use order helpless and unable to protect herself or her children. I guess, forgive me, I know we talked before this concerning the state police coverage. I'm not sure we actually got it as part of this segment. Is that- I think we did. I think, yeah, we were talking about it while we were recording. Okay, just curious, because clearly police coverage in Vermont is not what it could be. And we certainly don't want a police state, but the fact of the matter is we cannot hire enough police officers today. And then under the current cloud, damn good officers are being vilified for doing nothing more than what we want them to do. And yes, there are exceptions. And yes, there's all sorts of bad things and overreach. And I'm not defending that at all. But the fact of the matter, we owe a great deal of gratitude to the people. And if you think of, you go about your day, you may see some jerks and bad people. Law enforcement typically deals with the seedy underbelly of our society that we never see. I think it's very difficult not to get jaundiced, not to go to get a sense of- To be cynical. To be a bit perhaps cynical. And God bless them, they're a very insular group. They don't typically hang out with other people. Which is a shame. I've pretty personal friends. I've been a selectman here in Northfield. I've taken a great interest in my police department. And I was very active in ensuring that we had a fully staffed police department, according to what FBI said that we should have per 1,000 people. And right now we have one officer per 1,000 people, which is the generally accepted rule. But even so, the fact of the matter is, we have in Vermont, a constitution. And damn it, if people wanna change that, if they don't like what's in it, then change it. And let's have that fight, let's have that discussion, and it's not gonna be a pretty fight. And instead, we keep taking some very, very clearly worded, which we know the historical intent of. And it gets perverted. It gets twisted. Oh, you can't have a gun because you're not part of the militia. Well, I don't wanna be a part of militia. I just wanna defend myself. And it is, for somebody like me and perhaps you, it's unconscionable. The attacks were under for basic human rights, a basic right, my ability to defend myself. Or, and we talk about waiting periods. Oh, good heavens, okay. We're going to, we're gonna have a waiting period so that we can hopefully prevent somebody who is intent on killing themselves, from killing themselves. And I readily admit, I have lost an uncle by suicide with gun. I've lost a very, very dear friend by suicide with gun. Unfortunately, we don't know today. We assume that most suicides by gun are done with guns already owned. And even more importantly than that, I don't know if you've looked at the doctor-assisted suicide law. It's pretty invasive. Basically, if I have a terminal disease, sufficient enough to know my quality of life is not going to be what it was in order to qualify for under current law, because they are looking at possibly changing it. I have to go to my primary care physician. And in my case, my doctor said he wouldn't do it. I mean, I was just asking. I don't have any problems or anything. But I just wanted to know, doc, how would you handle this? And he said, I couldn't do it because it's against my Hippocratic oath. I would have to refer you to a doctor to somebody else, all right. You need one doctor who will sign off on that. You then need a second doctor who will support the opinion of the first. You then need to find two people not associated with your estate who will also witness this and say, yeah, it's okay. All of this for a very, very personal decision. You know, I don't wanna raise any alarm dolls or anything, but I blessed with good health. I don't know what I would do if I was suddenly faced with some horrible, horrible, yeah, exactly. I'm not sure I want to suffer the indignities of having somebody else wash me or bathe me or feed me. And at some point, I do think I have any suicide is tragic, it's a loss of human life. But I think there's other factors in play here that are not really looked at. One of the things that makes me so furious about the dishonesty in arguments for gun control is that it's suicide prevention. I think it is one of the most disgusting and shameful reasons that our legislature could use as their reasoning for gun control because we know they don't actually care about that. We know for a fact that they don't actually care about people and their mental health. And we know this based on the things that they prioritize in the legislature. It is a national statistic, as an example, 30% of suicides are related to lack of job opportunities, economic issues, financial issues. And we have one of the highest problems in the country with lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, lack of moving up vertical movement in businesses because we've stifled our economy so much. And it's like, okay, well then look at the actual statistics. Look at drug abuse. We have one of the highest rates. Our drug abuse rate is twice the national average. So if we are serious about suicide, why aren't we actually addressing the drug problem that we have? If you put drug dealers from New Jersey and New York in prison, then you're a racist. And if we look at what is actually driving the drug abuse in our state, well, that makes you racist, homophobe, sex, whatever big it you are. But we're gonna take away guns instead. So we're not gonna address the actual problems that are causing people to die from despair. Take a suicide. We're gonna just take away the mechanism people are using to kill themselves instead of actually addressing their problems. And you've read it absolutely correctly under the guise of trying to save that one life that chances are we can't say what we should try. We are going to infringe on the rights of everybody else to protect themselves in a critical time period should they find themselves a woman like yourself being stalked by some crazy person, your daughter, fill in the blank. Read the paper. These things happen every day. It's not like I'm making this stuff up. So I guess you try to look at this interesting statistic in Vermont, 99% of suicide attempts are not done with a gun. Well, it makes kind of sense if you think about it because if you do use a gun, it's probably going to be fatal. But I can show you the numbers. 99% of suicide attempts in Vermont do not use a gun. Drowning, stabbing, cutting, burning. It's amazing. The second thing you have to remember is that yes, they will tell you that suicide and frankly, I've never had suicidal thoughts. I can't really get my head around it. I do know people who suffer depression. I know it's pervasive. I know it's likened to a black hole where there's no daylight, there's no hope. I get all that. I do. But the fact of the matter is that when we have these situations, and yes, there are good organizations, Suicide Prevention Council is out there. Vermont Center of Health and Learning is out there trying to educate people on suicide prevention. One of the things the Federation has done is to adopt and work with the Department of Mental Health on something called the Vermont Gun Shop Project, which is specific to helping, to sportsmen, spreading the word on the possibility of suicide by gun and how we can hopefully prevent it or at least slow it up. But yes, suicide is a horrible, horrible thing, here you are. We had a suicide in Vermont or a suicide attempt in Vermont that took a car and drove it the wrong way on the interstate. I mean, killing five or four or five, I just couldn't. That's what that was? And so it is not just- Oh my God. I mean, these are not, so yes. And then let's, okay, let's talk about the waiting period. Okay, yes, suicide can be very impulsive. It can be, and they speak in terms of minutes of having something automatically go and something snaps and that's it, I'm gonna do it. Yeah. And so now with the waiting period, you're gonna have some period of reflection. You're gonna think about it. Well, another thing that we know about suicides are these are not typically one-off thoughts. These are thoughts that come up again and again. And at some point, and we saw it in the case done in Vermont Law School some years ago, the woman involved planned. If you put a 72 hour waiting period on the purchase of a firearm, all you have to do is wait 72 hours one minute, 48 hours in one minute, 48 hours in one day or God forbid you can buy a firearm somewhere else. And as you probably know, the idiosyncrasies and just weirdness in firearms laws is unbelievable. And I guess I don't have to go any further than mentioning black powder, a type of powder that was used to great effect in the Civil War, taking the lives of something around 600,000 United States citizens. Black powder is completely unregulated. Did you know a felon can go out of someone who is prohibited from buying a gun, can buy a black powder firearm completely leeway? What? No, I say this going, oh my God, here's Chris opening up his mouth. Now we're gonna see a law that closes the door on black powder, but black powder is viewed as an antique. But yet it's no less effective as far as a means to do somebody in, but nobody's gonna talk about black powder. Well, okay, fine, we have a waiting period on a gun. Nothing stops that person from going off and buying a black powder pistol and doing the same thing with it. So- Well, and that's, we see that all of the time when they, you know, some tragedy happens that we all agree is a tragedy and that's shooting or whatever. And they go, oh, see, this is why we need to regulate guns. But when you look at places like England or Europe where it's much harder to buy guns or they're banned completely, you have stab mass stabbings. You have asset attacks. You have people buying trucks and driving it into a crowd. Like if a person is intent on doing harm, it does not require a gun. So where does this idea that you can legislate a man's heart? You can legislate the evil out of a man's heart. Where does this come from? Again, I approach things as logically as I can. And the fact of the matter is, if you put up a sign that says, you shall not do X as a law-abiding citizen, I may not do X. And in fact, I'm inclined in that direction. And as we mentioned earlier, courts and airports, I know I'm going to get caught bringing a gun in those places if I try to. So I'm trading my own personal safety off because of the perception that somebody else is going to be there. You put up a sign at just the university mall. I mentioned that previously. Did you know that was a gunfree zone? That doesn't surprise me. Well, maybe that's why it was never mentioned by the sponsor. But be that as it may. I mean, we look at these things and we try to find simple solutions. A sign is not going to stop someone who is intent on doing harm. I mean, it is simply, it simply is not going to work. Well, and that's, Chris, I remember, oh my God, where was it, the movie theater that got shot up? Was that in Colorado? Was it Aurora? Yep, because I have family in Colorado, I remember that. My, when I dug into that a little bit more, I discovered that the theater that was chosen, part of the reason it was chosen was because it had a sign that said it was a gunfree zone where the other movie theaters in the area were not gunfree zones. It was a target-rich environment. Honest law-abiding citizens were not going to go in there, or if they did, they were jeopardizing their own legal standing by trading off their ability to defend themselves and protect people around them. For some false sense, a zone of illusionary protection or zip, they didn't get anything. And yes, the shooter in that case, I understood the same thing, purposely selected that location for just that reason. I mean, these people aren't stupid. I mean, as I said before, they want victims. They want a high victim count as possible. They don't want adversaries. And Erica, that's what you and I represent as we're walking around in our lives. Frankly, I'm a rather tall gentleman. So at the point in time where testimony started turning to intimidation, I stand near you, I'm intimidating you. I mean, and let alone what you think I may have hidden on my person. And really, honestly, Erica, I think that is what's really driving the lead sponsor of this bill. I do think he is a very intelligent gentleman. I mean, and I believe he's sincere at wanting to keep people safe. It's just horribly misguided. He does, he cannot grasp what is so clear to the rest of us. And that is that an armed citizenry, law abiding citizens who do obey the law are your best defense in deterrence against the wing nut, the crazy, the guy that wants to do as much damage as he can. Orgal, it's just, it makes sense to me. All right, we're gonna put up a sign. Nobody can do this here. Great, all you've done is invite problems. Now, if you wanna now go to the extra step of putting security there, putting a screening there, I still come back to the point you made. Did you know the lead sponsor also serves on the education committee? And he actually let slip in testimony that he has been consistently against allowing off-duty police officers who may be on school grounds in the face of an incident from being able to intervene. I kid you not. Here we have, if you become a law enforcement officer by your training, you have to step in when things are happening. That's what you're scared to. Yep, and people don't realize that. Like, even when you're off-duty, you're not off-duty. You actually have a responsibility to act. Yes, you do. And frankly, okay, think of day cares for a minute. How many parents going about their day may feel more comfortable with their own defense by providing concealed carry? And now, twice a day, when they go to drop off their kid or pick up their kid, they are actually in violation of strict liability and now have a criminal record for doing nothing more than defense. And of course, all this assumes that we actually have prosecutors that will actually prosecute the case as opposed to slapping them on the wrist or doing something like what you referenced earlier in Chittenden County by a certain woman who really has a interesting perspective on what works and doesn't work in our criminal justice system. I mean, when you come in, what was I reading in New York? Literally, they have a revolving door there of somebody, hundreds of arrests that literally they bring into the station. Oh, but he bail laws, go right out the door again and he's right back on the street to do it. Chris, you don't have to go to New York for that. So first of all, yes, the violent crime rate has skyrocketed in New York, but in Vermont, and this was just a year or two ago, a police officer was relaying a circumstance to me where he got called to a house for a domestic. So this guy was beating up his girl and the police were called by a neighbor. They pick him up, they bring him to the station, they call the judge, the judge orders no custody. Nope, just let him go. And they were like, well, this guy was doing pretty bad thing. And the judge said, nope, let him go. So the guy shockingly goes immediately back and starts beating her up again. And this time it's worse. And there are children involved and in the house. So the cops get called again, they go back, they arrest him again, they call back and it's in the middle of the night. So apparently there's only one judge on duty in the middle of the night for this stuff. The judge says, again, no custody, release him. He goes back a third time and nearly kills her in front of the children. And this time, okay, fine, I guess we'll hold him overnight. And it's like, this is what you believe is going to be better. Like, oh, this guy's just a victim of society. And so we need to give him some grace. And it's like, well, but he's going out and creating more victims of society. I can't get my head around it, Eric. It doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I grew up knowing that if you broke the law there were consequences. And frankly, you know, one of my first times I gave testimony in front of Senate judiciary on a domestic violence bill, I had gone through statute looking specifically for things like aggravated assault, simple assault, endangerment, criminal threatening. And I was looking at all these things and saying, why do we have these laws? And yet over here, we have domestic violence laws that are seemingly the same thing, but different. And it's always bound me. Be that as it may. I mean, simple assault is simple assault. Aggravated assault is aggravated assault. But somehow if I go to the court and say I need a relief from abuse because these things happened in the past, why didn't we do it? Why did, how did that happen? Why didn't we take that guy and do something, or gal and do something with him? I don't, I don't, I don't. So then that person is now stuck, that woman who in theory thinks that they're going to be police officers to protect her, right? The police come, they arrest him. She believes that she's now safe because they've arrested this person who's attacked her, but we don't actually protect people. And then we say, oh, and by the way, you need a waiting period to buy something to defend yourself from the person who's clearly got it out for you. We're not going to arrest them. We're not going to, we'll arrest them, but we're not going to put them in jail. We're not going to keep you safe. You're on your own. And also by the way, you are not allowed to have the thing that you'd be able to protect yourself with. It's just, let me just touch on some numbers for RFA because they're pretty staggering. Fiscal year 2019, there were 3,307 temporary relief from abuse orders filed. Wow. In Vermont? In Vermont. Of those, now these are temporary orders. These are an affidavit, traditionally a woman filling out an affidavit that goes to a judge at night for action that judge is going to, actually doesn't even have the plaintiff in front of them, all they're reacting on is the affidavit. One in five of that 3,307 are immediately dismissed. One in five, about 620. Okay, so 620 get thrown out for some reason. That's leaving a summer around 24 or 2600 cases. Those cases now start moving towards the final hearing usually to occur within 14 days. Of those cases, approximately 1500 of them, over half are either dismissed or withdrawn before they get to the final hearing. Now let's back up for a minute. Temporary hearing happened where we may have to relinquish, the defendant may have to relinquish his firearms. Within 14 days, half of them disappear. So did we just go down a path of impacting potentially, given the fact that there are a large percentage of households with firearms in Vermont, we know that. And furthermore, we're doing all of this on the weight of a feather, preponderance. No, I'm sorry, it does not rise to the level where with 1500 Vermonters having their rights removed based on the weight of a feather when eventually the case goes away anyway. So it just blows my mind. And here we are actually poised. And just the history of that domestic violence statute, 1104, we are challenging because federal law is pretty clear. They don't recognize ex parte. You can only take a property from a person after a hearing where the defendant is present. That's basic constitutional due process that has been completely abrogated with this fuzzy interpretation of what 1104 meant when it said a judge could take whatever action was necessary. And we're calling them on it. Frankly, I will be candid. Strategically, we are making our case right now before the house judiciary. Something you ought to be aware of. You may recall the emergency protection order, the ERPO laws we just passed two years ago. Emergency relief protection orders or ERPOs, our situations basically came out of the Fairhaven situation where what do we do when we have somebody that is really acting out? These are, hold on, sorry. These are like the red flag laws, right? Yes, perfect. Yes, these are the red flag laws. Got it. Now that started in the Senate as S-122, I believe back in 2018. We worked very hard with Senate judiciary. And at the end of the day, remember the evidence standards we were talking about, you've got preponderance, which is a feather. The next level up is clear and convincing. And if you want to think in terms of percentages, that's about 70% certainty. Beyond that, you have beyond reasonable doubt, which is approximately 90% certainty. But that's usually reserved for criminal cases. We're dealing with a civil case here. So all we want, and when the extreme risk protection orders for both the case where an ex parte hearing was happening, as well as the case where the defendant would be present, both of them, the Senate agreed to clear and convincing. It left the Senate judiciary, and there was, we hours and hours and hours of discussion on this, and they agreed that if you're going to pull constitutional light out from under, it can't be the weight of a feather. It has to be substantially more. Went to the Senate, passed the Senate, left the Senate, went over to the house. There's an interesting expression that I heard in the Senate judiciary in referencing the house. You've heard of the expression hosed. So you hosed something, you hosed it up. Senate judiciary referred to bills as being housed under the same type of understanding. So just an interesting side note. But anyway, that bill went over to the house judiciary. House judiciary immediately reached into the ex parte and reduced the level of standard of evidence to preponderance. However, they left the other portion where you have a defendant present. They left that as clear and convincing. So we don't even have consistency in these laws because remember we have domestic violence where we could do things either ex parte or with a defendant court. Then we also have these ERPA laws that have the same sort of parallel. The Senate was pretty clear. If you're gonna take a constitutional right from somebody, it has to be a high bar. Okay, so they came down to the wire, the bill ended up getting passed. The Senate didn't have the will to fight what the house had done, but now this is where we are now. So thank you. Well, and that's what it always, we always have these circumstances where people say, where folks like us would say, well, this is a slippery slope. We see what you're saying. We understand there's a need and there's a concern, but when you start opening up this stuff, then you've really opened up a floodgate for infringement on constitutional rights. If you say, well, it's okay to infringe on your rights in this circumstance, well then what's the limiting factor? If we've said we can do these things that are clearly unconstitutional like the ERPA laws or the way they're dealing with the relief from abuse stuff, that stuff is clearly unconstitutional. Well, if we're gonna get away with other stuff that's constitutional, what's the limiting principle? Well, it comes back to what I had said a little while ago. If you don't like what the constitution says, the dammit, belly up to the bar and change the constitution. Stop namby-pamming around trying to whittle it away until it's a shadow of its former self. There are people like you and I that were going to fight this tooth and claw at every step of the way. These rights- Well, it's like, oh, go ahead, sorry. No, no, these rights have served this country exceptionally well. And in fact, it's these rights that have made Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, what they are in terms of states. So you're not gonna be able to race, let's be candid. Anybody that wants to get a gun can get a gun. I will say that right up front, as a gun person, a person with criminal or bad intent is not going to have it. And I hate to make this relationship or this analogy. Look at the amount of illegal drugs coming into this country. If there's a buck to be made by bringing in something illegal, it will happen. We can't stop it. So what is knowing that, I come back to saying, you know what, the best line of defense for people like you and I and others out that are hopefully listening to this, saying my ability to protect myself and my family and my community is what I can do today right now to stop this stuff. And I'm certainly not going out and saying, you know, this should be, everybody should have a gun on there yet. I mean, I am totally appreciative of the fact that that can make people uncomfortable, which I think we can all agree to. None of us would walk into a hospital with a shotgun. But then again, if I'm out hunting with my friend and when I hunt, I typically have a sidearm and my friend has a heart attack and I now have to take him to the hospital or even worse, I'm in a car accident, I'm concealed carrying, I'm unconscious and taken to a hospital. Did I just violate the law? Are you really? Because I was in a car accident? No, there's so much that's wrong with things like S30, which don't even speak to intent or knowing you're breaking the law. These are almost every other law, even the school laws. There is the element of intent or the element of knowing in both of those. And it's completely absent here. What the devil are you thinking? I mean, and furthermore, that is not going to stop some crazed person. I would like to see a daycare worker if they felt comfortable with it, being able to defend themselves and their charges if the unthinkable should happen. And frankly, here and today in Vermont, we put on guards and banks to keep our money safe. And there is actually a bill that has been released in the Senate that says we are going to prohibit the possibility of school resource officers. School resource officers are typically law enforcement individuals trained to be able to understand bad situations and react to them. What are we doing? Fortunately, there is another counter bill out there and it's just how our legislator works, is that there is a bill that says, not only do we want school resource officers, we're going to fund them. And God, but that's, our kids are our most important resource. No, it's really, it's more important that we protect our money more than our children's room. Well, I got called out because in a Senate judiciary, I actually made a slide comment about the fact that it must be nice to have guards in terms of the state house and the fact that the rest of us don't have guards. And that's, this is the thing. And, oh my gosh, I just realized how long it's been. I do this every time. I'm like, oh my God, we've been talking for an hour and 15 minutes, it went so fast. But this is the thing. And I, before, when I, I want you to have a few minutes before we close to talk specifically about the bills that are coming up that people need to be aware of so they can talk to their legislators. But I really just want to point out that, you know, a lot of these bills seemingly are for the, how do I want to say this? Basically they're being written for the exception and not the ruler of it. So it's this idea that, you know, I mentioned earlier, like there's this idea that you can legislate a man's heart and that if we just create more bills and more legislation that somehow all the bad things are gonna stop happening. And I think that that is not only misguided but irresponsible because you create more scenarios for people to be harmed because of the legislation you're passing that is supposedly to keep people from being harmed, it never ends up the way that you want it to. And so I just, I would really, I'm really gonna ask anybody that's listening, all of you who are listening, that don't think that you need a gun, that don't understand what the big deal is, that think some of these things are common sense. I challenge you to start really discussing this with your friends and your neighbors. Ask people for their experiences with guns, with safety issues. You know, I had a peeping Tom, I've had assault situations before where like I needed to know that I could protect myself. And when we know that the police can no longer protect us because the judicial branch does not want to do its job, you need to stop and go, okay, well, what does it mean to have a right to life? What does my right to life actually mean? What does my right to liberty actually mean? What does my right to pursue happiness mean? And what does it mean when my legislature, because of a few bad apples, wants to take that right away from me? We really have to think about that and really consider that. I couldn't agree more. And frankly, I spend a lot of time trying to think how the middle thinks. I mean, let's be candid, there's the extreme right, there's the extreme left. In many cases, they're not even worth talking to. So I try to temper a lot of what I do to the people in the middle, the people that may not have had the privilege of being educated as I was educated or taught how I was taught and being exposed to the tools of liberty that I have been. So I can get it. I do understand that if you haven't been brought up around guns, that the whole thing may be abhorrent to you. I'm amazed at how many times, I teach high power rifle clinics with a velocity rifle and pistol. And I get a lot of people that I've never shot a gun. I don't know. So you take the time, you explain how it works. You explain what the safety mechanisms are. You explain how to use it correctly, what your backstop is. It's so fundamental. And you know what? Without exception, the first time they've squeezed off around at 200 or 300 or 600 yards and they're hitting the black, they have a smile that is really, truly rewarding. They've now gotten it. These things aren't bad. And frankly, they are a tool of not only freedom, but your own life if you train yourself properly. So look, I guess the biggest issue I see is that a lot of people look at somebody who is a gun advocate. And frankly, I ran for the house of the Senate. I had my keister handed to me and probably a large reason was cause I was a gun guy. And I defend, I don't care if you don't ever want to own a gun, but I'm going to defend your ability to own a gun if you're a law-abiding citizen until the day I die because I believe that you have that right. And you can give up that right if you want. You don't have to pursue that right. I'm not saying everybody should have to go out and buy a gun, but for those people that value their family, their community, their own lives, their property, that especially after we've seen the cities burn and people getting prosecuted simply for being out front of their house and saying, no, you're not going to burn me out. You're not going to, it's, my head explodes. It really, something is wrong. And I guess just, I know we're running out of time and you pulled my string, I warned you and I'd happen to not do it. But the fact of the matter is, please understand that we are not knuckle-dragging the Andrew Thalls. We're common white collar, blue collar, dentists, doctors, journalists, we are just regular people. We just don't want to be victims. And we've taken the step to give us a means to protect ourselves from becoming victims. Eric, I can't, I have a sense you're probably close to the end of year. No, that's okay. No, that was good. That was a really good point. It's like, there's this perception that anybody who is pro-gun, pro-self-protection, that we're all just a bunch of nuts and kooks and it's like, no, no. I guess I'll leave you with one other thought. Historically, the NRA has been in the forefront of civil rights by allowing people, especially oppressed minorities, to defend themselves. That is something that we have always stood for. So the fact of the matter is, if we want to take a look at the liberal democrat history, it is the liberal democrats who have always consistently restricted the rights of minorities, the underprivileged, and people that they just don't like from being able to defend themselves. Yep, that's the historical context. And this is true for gun control relate to disarming black people. You saw it in the South. When after- But Jim Crow laws, oh, absolutely. I mean, it's a litany down there. After the Black Panthers marched on the California legislature, they also banned guns, or they started the gun control stuff there. And it really is. If you look into the history of gun control measures, they are targeted specifically at black people and minorities that the ruling class did not want to be able to defend themselves against them. And frankly, Irish, same way, Chinese, the same way. I mean, these are not just Americans who are out of color. So it's just something to keep in the back of your mind that conservatives, by and large, have always defended everybody's right to be able to defend themselves. And until such time as somebody changes the constitution so that I am not allowed to do this, I am going to follow the constitution because I believe what it says. So, Chris, tell everybody the main bills. So we know H-133, S-30, those are two bad bills that are coming in. Well, those are the only ones that are currently moving. If you go to our website, vtfsc.org, every day I go in and maintain and update a list of bills that we have concern on. There's anti-trapping bills. S-31, oh my heavens, above and beyond the two school resource officer bills. S-31, let's see, it's a waiting period. It's a safe storage. It's just a whole parcel of stuff, but also it's attacking Vermont businesses. You may be aware of organizations like Century Arms, they make magazines. They employ a hundred plus people in Vermont. And those magazines are going worldwide and certainly across the United States just because they can't sell them here. Because with arcane law that we are currently in the Supreme Court of Vermont challenging. And I am very hopeful that we're going to have some good news to report on that ban or the overturning of that ban very shortly. Oh, the MagVan. The MagVan, so lots to talk about here. So what are the best ways that people can, you said that there's the website, so state the website again and then tell people the best ways to get in touch with you, ask questions, stay involved, be informed, give a little light list of best places to contact. Sure, one of the things, the initiatives we took on last two years ago was we purchased a website called Nation Builder. I would, that can be reached at going to www.VTSSC. Vermont, there it is on the screen, vtfsc.org. Or.com goes to the same place. You can right there, just give us your email address. We don't sell it to anybody, but we put out alerts on the website for information on where the MagVan is, other initiatives we're doing, copies of the testimony we give, statements on various aspects like waiting periods and things like that, as well as bills in play. So frankly, across the last six years, or the last three bienniums, over $460,000 has come in from out of state, Giffords Group, every town to attack our rights. As an all volunteer organization, we've raised over $90,000 across those same six years to fight them with professional lobbying. We are getting outspent, and that has consequences. So when you're hiring the Crescent Group and other groups that are in it for the money, and frankly, right now a gun sense Vermont has diminished remarkably as a force in Vermont, because they didn't get the results that the out of state money wanted. Yeah, billionaires from New York City funding. Yes, indeed, yes, indeed. So I have to warn you, Erica, you're gonna have to pull the plug on this at some point. It's like, I can keep going here. All day, okay, all right. So the main takeaway is go right here, legislator, call them, write to them, do what you need to do. And more importantly, most importantly, and I've been talking to people about this, if you value your second amendment, your first amendment, and all of those things, and you have given up, if you're one of those remoders who's become apathetic and doesn't think your vote matters, and you don't try, and you don't reach out to your legislators anymore because they don't listen, then you must put in your energy and your effort to get moderates and conservatives elected to office. If we cannot force these people to change their minds, our legislators, many of them will not listen to reason. They will not listen to those of us who have a difference of opinion. And so trying to, you're just blowing into the wind on deaf ears. How many cliches can I put into one sentence? Like, they will not listen. And so if these things matter to you, the best thing that you can do, number one, write to them anyway, even though you don't think that they're gonna listen, but donate money and donate your time to get conservatives and moderates elected to office. That is the best and most effective way that we can actually make a difference in this state and keep fighting against these out-of-state building our corporate interests who want to change our culture and change our way of life. I couldn't agree more, Erica. And frankly, if you'd like to get educated on what's out there, we have that information available. Yeah, putting out a plea, you just heard me say the money we're up against. And just as an aside, the Federation is the only Vermont organization that is sponsoring the movement of the mag ban through the Vermont Supreme Court. Oh, wow. That's more money that we had to come up with because we weren't gonna walk away from it. So after left Superior Court, we were faced with a dilemma on how we were gonna get it through the Supreme Court. And we ponied up that money. And that's something that, you know, we haven't evangelized that because frankly, the people that need to know it know it. And if you don't know it, then please go to our website and take a look at what we are doing and how you might be able to help. It'd be most appreciated. Well, and that's what, you know what? That's, let's put our money where our mouth is. So y'all go donate to Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs so they can fight in the Supreme Court. Like that's what it takes is donate your money, donate your time. If you want to fight back, we have to actually fight back. So thank you, Chris, for what you do. My pleasure. Thank you for your leadership in these areas. And hopefully we'll have you on again soon to find out what happened during the legislative season. I would welcome it, Erica. Thank you so much. Really appreciate the opportunity. Yeah, yeah. All right, now hold on with me here for just a second, Chris. We're gonna close, all right? Bye, everybody. Bye-bye.