Good morning, this is Senate Judiciary. Wednesday, February 24th, 9 a.m. We're taking up S-30, an accruing prohibiting possession of firearms at child care facilities, hospitals and certain public buildings. We have a number of witnesses. The first group are basically supporters of the bill and then we'll hear from others as we move along. Welcome to Senate Judiciary. I'm Dick Sears. I represent Bennington County in the town of Wilmington in the Vermont State Senate. And I chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'll move to the vice chair, can introduce himself and then other members of the committee please. Thanks. I'm Senator Baruth. I'm from Chittenden County. And as the chair said, I'm currently the vice chair. And Senator from Caledonia County. Good morning. I'm Joe Benning from Caledonia County, which is all of Caledonia County and the six northeastern most towns in Orange County that are in my district. Just as a volume test, I found maybe my volume as well. Senator from Windsor County. Oh, you're muted, Alice. You're muted, Alice. Great, sorry. I'm Senator Alice Nittka. I represent all the towns of Windsor County plus Mount Holly and Rulling County and Londonderry in Wyndham County. And the Senator from Wyndham County. Hi, I'm Jeanette White from Wyndham County. I live in Putney. And other than Londonderry and Wilmington, I represent all of Wyndham County. Thank you. We'll start with Seaton, Mack Leroy, Ramam's Demand Action. And if I mispronounce names, I apologize to begin with.  Great, and very close, Seaton Mack Leroy. It's a tricky spelling. So good morning. And thank you, Senator Sears, for allowing me to speak today to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Seaton Mack Leroy. 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 Gunsense in America. I'm speaking today in support of S-30 sponsored by Senator Baruth, which would prohibit firearm possession in certain public buildings, child care facilities, and hospitals. The presence of guns in these places makes us all less safe. Prohibiting guns in public buildings, including the State House, is extremely important, particularly given the recent attack on the U.S. Capitol and related armed protests we've seen around state capitals in the country. Vermont is not immune from the effects of this rise in extremism. It exists here too. Last month, a charter bus of more than 50 Vermonters went to D.C. for the Stop the Steel March. One of them filmed people breaking into the Capitol, later calling it a great time. We've also all been following the stories regarding the slate-rich facility in West Paulette, which was ordered to temporarily cease operations just last month by a judge. Its members have used threats and armed intimidation to terrify and harass neighbors. And the group's Facebook page encouraged followers last February to attend a town select board meeting with weapons and trauma kits. Vermont is an open-carry state, which allows for carrying firearms visibly in public. This policy has been exploited by white supremacists and extremists to intimidate their opponents. One such individual, a self-described white supremacist, even challenged the restrictions on high-capacity magazines passed in 2018. Thankfully, the Vermont Supreme Court recently upheld this law.  Recently, Vermont legislators have received troubling emails related to the resolution they passed condemning the attack on the Capitol. And as someone who has been involved in gun violence prevention advocacy for many years, I've personally been yelled at and insulted by people openly carrying firearms and wearing tactical equipment. I have no doubt this was meant to intimidate me. Armed extremism is not free speech. It poses a danger to our democracy. Laws prohibiting guns in sensitive areas such as polling places and state houses help protect our safety. Fully addressing the dangers that armed extremism poses to the United States will require a whole host of gun violence prevention and other policies. Vermont should eliminate intimidation in politics by prohibiting guns at the state house and other government facilities. I would also urge you to consider expanding this bill to cover polling locations, vote counting locations and other places essential to the functioning of our electoral process. S30 is a strong start to ensure that guns are kept out of our most sensitive places and will help remove armed intimidation from our democratic process in Vermont. I urge you to support S30. And thank you so much for your time. Learning how to unmute and mute yourself under Jim. I have one question or actually a clarification. S30 as currently drafted would cover certain government buildings including town offices. So polling places would be covered in the way that it's currently drafted, I believe. And so clarification. Senator Benning. Thank you, Seaton. Thanks for coming. You mentioned that you saw a video of somebody that was on the bus going to Washington, D.C. and they were at the point of break in. I have, I just wanna make sure I'm clear. I've been actively trying to find out if anyone on that bus actually participated in the break in. If you have a video of that, could you do me a favor and send me a link to that? Absolutely. Thank you. Okay, other questions for Seaton. Thank you so much. Our next witness is Mary Sherrock, Sherrock, I'm terrible today at names. Mary, please join us. Thank you, Chairman Sears. And I thank members of the judiciary for allowing me to speak today. I am Mary Kay Sherrock and I live in Northfield and I support S30. I have lived in Vermont since 1985. I have been a volunteer for gun violence prevention for years and part of mom's demand action for gun sense in America, even before there was a Vermont chapter. I have four grandchildren. I am a retired probation officer and I tell you all this about myself as a context for what I am about to say. I support the rights and blessings of all parts of the Constitution. I believe this bill does not challenge any part of it. Instead, this bill would restrict firearms in public buildings where essential government functions are taking place and in childcare facilities and in hospitals where vulnerable people are being cared for. I support this bill as a grandmother because I want that extra zone of protection when my grandchildren and their friends go to daycare. I don't want someone to forget they are still wearing their gun when they pick up their kid. How do you forget you're wearing a sidearm? And the child, any child in the daycare center grabs it. What if a strange parents cross paths at the daycare center and things escalate as a retired probation officer? I know how quickly things can escalate and violence can erupt. My daughter told me recently how nervous she was at a nearby park when she saw another parent with a gun on his hip up in the play structure with her and the little kids. Anyone of whom could have grabbed that gun. She thought, what if one of those kids has impulse control problems? What if he forgot to put the safety on? These are reasons why guns don't belong in hospitals which are already tense places. I support this bill as a citizen because I want that extra zone of protection when my friends and I and our adult children engage in lawful, peaceful protests as we frequently do. My neighbor has received troubling emails related to positions taken as a legislator. Another neighbor who works for the state of Vermont has chosen to work from home at times like last month because right now there are no rules prohibiting firearms near that state government building. I recall for you the ugly scene when Governor Scott signed the gun legislation in 2018. I was there. I think we have been lucky so far. As one of the moms who demand action, I support this bill. However, if we could make it better, I would advocate to extend firearm prohibition to grounds adjacent to the Capitol and grounds adjacent to the Capitol and other government buildings. Those are usually the areas where protests take place and there has already been violence by a government building. I recall the tragic shooting in Barrie that has made social workers there and others employed elsewhere by the state very, very nervous in the evenings about going to their cars parked nearby those buildings. As a justice of the peace in Northfield, I would like this bill to also prohibit firearms at polling locations and at locations where votes are counted at other buildings essential and any other buildings essential to the electoral process. Carrying a gun to the polls is not free speech and it should not be permitted any more than wearing a political t-shirt or a button. Please vote for safety in sensitive places. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. And our next witness, my e-pad died so I don't. Maddie Amadi, a student at Essex High School representing Students Demand Action. Hi. Good morning, Madeline. I'm sorry, I'd had Maddie here on time. That's okay, I'd go by Maddie, it's all good. Great, well, welcome to Senate Judiciary. Thank you for having me. My name is Maddie Amadi. I am a sophomore at Essex High School, the founder and leader of the Essex High School Students Demand Action Group and I also currently serve on the Students Demand Action National Advisory Board where I strive to keep my community safe through gun violence prevention and advocate for common sense gun legislation like the piece in front of us today. Almost one year ago, I and the entire Essex High School Students Demand Action Group entered the state capitol building to fight for multiple gun violence prevention bills. Three months ago, many of the same members volunteered in our polling places to help support democracy in action. We must protect these opportunities. We must protect these freedoms. One critical way that we can ensure the protection of our citizens and democracy is by eliminating the potential for armed intimidation tactics. As reinforced by the deadly seditious attack on the United States Capitol building on January 6th, armed extremists seeking to undermine our democratic institutions are a chronic and ongoing problem. Data shows at least 85 instances of armed protesters and incidents involving guns at protests at state capitals from May through December, 2020. Vermont legislators have also received troubling emails in their inboxes related to the resolution they passed condemning the attack on the Capitol. And we have seen other warning signs that extremism is growing here in Vermont. This bill is a proactive, sensible proposal that would make sure that my fellow students and I can access the halls of our democracy without the possibility of armed intimidation. People should not be afraid to enter government buildings. Allowing firearms creates fear and it also creates legitimate danger. This bill should also apply to all polling places and other locations essential to the electoral process. Whether it's your first or your 10th time voting, you should not be influenced by the presence of a weapon. Vermont's political conversation should not be held at the barrel of a gun, especially in these times of division and rancor. The people of Vermont need the freedom to talk to each other and their lawmakers without fearing for their lives. I hope students feel comfortable parturning to the Vermont Capitol to advocate what it is safe to do so. However, right now, we aren't only facing the COVID-19 pandemic, but also the potential for armed danger. Students should feel safe using their voice, not afraid that it might be taken from them. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Yes. If I could ask Will Moore to mute himself. Bill, could you? Or if Peggy could mute him. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Any questions for Maddie? Maddie, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. Iris is right. Well, on my screen, she's right next to you, so please join us. Welcome to Senate Judiciary, Iris. I suppose everybody's screens are so much scrambled. Hi. Thank you so much for having me, and I really appreciate the opportunity and all the important work you all are doing. My name is Iris Chung. I'm a junior at Essex High School, and I'm one of the leaders of the Vermont Students Demand Action Virtual Field Office. I'm here today to testify on behalf of S30, but also to emphasize the need to extend the prohibition to grounds adjacent to the Capitol and other government buildings, as those are usually areas where protests take place, as well as extending the prohibition to vote counting locations, and during demonstrations on public property, firearms should also be excluded from buildings essential to the electoral process. I'm not old enough to vote yet, but I still know how important a functional democracy is, as well as the ways it's currently under threat. The first time I testified at a public hearing was in front of House Judiciary in a public hearing for S169. I was 15, I was alone, and before the hearing, I was catcalled in the main hall of the state house by a man three times my size dressed in orange. I'm not sure if anyone heard. I'm not sure if anyone saw, but I know that when I was in line to testify, I saw the man give me a disgusting smile and then chat politely with my representative, and it gave me a visceral feeling of fear. I did proceed to testify, but when I was going down the stairs, another dude man in orange began berating me, and although I lost him as I went to the courtroom, he caught up with me when I was nearing the house out of the exit. He yelled at me, he cursed at me, and he followed me out of the building for 20 feet before slowing and failing to keep up with my pace. These incidents terrified me, because I was alone in 15, but I held on to the fact that I knew they weren't allowed to have firearms in the Capitol building. Though, of course, the same was not true once they were on Capitol grounds. I was assured that they did not possess the means to instantaneously end my life in the Capitol building, but that same comfort is not currently afforded to many of the other public's places in our state. I was at a protest this summer when a man walked up to us. He had a long black semi-automatic rifle slung across his back in a bulletproof veston. He brought extra magazines, and to me, that signaled that he came intending to use the one that was in his gun. To me, that signaled that he had come to kill, and to me, that assured me that my life was an immediate danger and that I might well not make it home. Although he didn't end up shooting, he stayed there all day, occasionally going off before appearing to remind us that we were not safe. Reminding us that at any moment, he could unleash a shower of bullets and leave us all injured or dead. I believe in democracy so fundamentally that I put my life on the line for it, but I should not have to. The riots on January 6th have revealed a lot about this country, and I really hope we choose to learn and grow from it. During the Capitol riots, I saw a man carrying the same guns, the same magazines, and the same stature and attitude of the man who came to intimidate us this summer. They went to the Capitol to stop democracy, and in order to prevent them from achieving this goal, we must prevent future attacks of this nature. Next time I work the polls, I wanna feel confident no one will bring a gun in and hold our democratic process hostage. And the next time I testify in person, I need to have the assurance that as long as I'm on Capitol grounds, I will not be attacked by someone armed. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it very much. And Essex High School is well-represented. I think there's a senator here that represents Chittenden County, so. Yeah. All right. Next is the mayor of Montpelier, Anne Watson. Madam Mayor, where are you? I don't see you. All right. If she's not here, she may join in process. Well, that just caused me to lose my zoom feed. Thank you. Nope. Now I gotta start over. I put my glasses down to make sure I was reading the right thing. All right, why don't we go to Liberty, Rancetta, Vermont, our nurse with SANE, Vermont Forensic Nursing Program. Hello. Thank you, Doug. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Sears. Good morning. Hi, my name is Rainetta Liberty. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I'm a registered nurse and have been practicing for almost 30 years. For the last 25 years, I've been practicing in an emergency room setting here in Vermont. I'm here today in support of S30 to address firearms in places such as childcare centers and hospitals. I think this is a common sense law that will not only protect healthcare providers, but also the patients that we care for. And as you mentioned, my other role is, my other professional role is the clinical coordinator for the Vermont Forensic Nursing Program. I provide training to nurses across the state of Vermont to provide specialized care to victims of domestic violence, sexual violence and other abuses. Forensic nurses provide specialized medical treatment to victims of violence who seek care. We collect evidence as part of a larger effort to document injuries. The vast majority of these examinations occur in the emergency department setting. In the last year, we have seen a significant increase in victims of violence, seeking emergency medical care in the wake of an acute incident of abuse. And often this abuse has not yet been reported to law enforcement. While it may be one acute experience that brings the patient into our care, it is not uncommon that these victims have experienced previous sexual violence, victimizations or have experienced long patterns of coercion and control in domestic violence abuse situations, including frequent threats with firearms. We know that there is a well-documented link between domestic violence and firearms. While we generally think of domestic violence occurring within the home, there are important examples of times when violence is spilled out into public settings, including the healthcare setting. Because forensic nurses provide care to patients who identify as victims of abuse and assault, we are keenly aware of the potential threat that firearms pose, both for our patients, ourselves and other healthcare providers. Unlike patients who have a broken arm from a bike accident, our patients who have experienced abuse are often likely to be targeted by violence within the healthcare setting. Patients come to the emergency department because they are seeking a safe and secure environment to receive care. And healthcare providers need the same assurance in order to provide high quality care. Thank you very much. I hope you support S30. Thank you. My hospital, the Southwest Vermont Medical Center has a big sign that do things on that sign are no weapons and no smoking on the campus. I assume that most hospitals have those signs. You speak a little to that and how often do you like see weapons let alone firearms as an emergency room nurse? Yes, in my hospital, the University of Vermont Medical Center, we do have signs that say no firearms are allowed. Fortunately, it's excluded from the smoking. It is a smaller sign. And while we don't have any other protections such as metal detectors or any pat-down searches, I feel that we do see them fairly frequently. In the past year, I have experienced in my role as a forensic nurse, episodes where domestic violence perpetrators, so the partner of someone who has been abused has been surrounded at the emergency department waiting for this patient to leave the emergency department. While I don't know if they have firearms, there is always that threat that they do because we are an open carry state. And again, there's no assurance that someone who walks into the emergency department for whatever reason for a mental health crisis, seeking medications for pain does not have a gun on them or some type of other firearm. So I think this is really important that we make this law something that we can enforce and something that can not only be enforced in the emergency room setting or the hospital setting, but also in other venues, state house, childcare centers. Thank you. You're welcome. Senator White. Thanks, thanks. Thank you for your testimony and the others too who've given theirs. I just was going to ask one of the things that we have heard is that those signs and the rules of the hospital can be are enforceable because if someone is asked to leave and they don't, then it's considered trespass. So it is enforceable. So I guess my question is, how does this creating this crime differ in your mind from the way it is now that would be a crime? Yes, so I think it's individual hospitals right now where this bill sounds like it would be something that's across the state. So I think that would be the most important thing that it's standardized across the state and it's not only in healthcare settings, but it's also in other areas in the state and it could be in the community health setting. It could be in a private office, a clinic office. I'm not quite sure if they have the same security support that we do in the emergency room or in the hospital. So I think this bill would standardize that enforcement across the state and across all types of medical facilities, childcare settings and other places. Mr. Chair. Thank you. Yes, Senator Baruch. Just a quick comment with regard to Senator Weitz. We have heard from people who opposed the bill that our trespassing statute covers these instances. I don't believe that to be the case myself. I think that there's ambiguity there. And as we've had one witness testify in an open carry state, you often have people who make an issue out of demonstrating their rights, their second amendment rights and they may not honor the hospital's policy in the same way that they would honor a state law. So that's a dispute that's ongoing in the committee. So I just wanted to flag that. Thank you. Lily Markey-Burenna, student at Brattleboro Union High School just across the mountain from me. Thank you, Senator Sears and committee members for allowing me to testify on behalf of S30. Hi, my name is Lily Markey-Burenna and I am from Brattleboro in Wyndham County. I am currently a junior at Brattleboro Union High School. Throughout the last couple of years, I have worked with Clay Lasher Summers on various gunsense projects, including attending a gun prevention summit at Boston University my freshman year. Throughout my childhood, I spent an incredible amount of time in hospitals, in particular Dartmouth Hitchcock with my late mother. One Tuesday in September of 2017, I skipped school to drive with my mom up to Dartmouth to receive her chemo. This had become a little tradition of ours. I would bring my homework in iPad and sit in the waiting room, sipping watery hot chocolate and making small talk with the nurses. Afterward, we would drive to King Arthur Flower Bakery and split a seven layer bar before driving home. However, this Tuesday was different. I personally was fortunate enough to leave the hospital with my mom less than 30 minutes before there were reports of an active shooter at New Hampshire's largest medical center.  Although this incident occurred in New Hampshire, it is in no way limited to one state. As a young person who has experienced the loss of a family member, I am all too aware of the extremity of pain and grief that follows. To think that while watching a loved one grapple with an illness, you must also face the reality that they could be shot is horrendous. Furthermore, I believe that it is imperative that our government puts in place protective measures against allowing guns in hospitals. Prior to entering high school, I had the opportunity to serve as a legislative page in 2018. While I was there, three pivotal gun bills were signed into law by Governor Phil Scott. Although this was a great step towards gun reform, it was not passed without difficulty. On February 16th, 2018, an 18 year old male was arrested for attempted murder. Jack Sawyer had been planning a school shooting in Fairhaven for almost two years before he was arrested. This fell coincidentally days after 17 people had been killed in Parkland, Florida. The two events left our state capital shocked. Legislators began scrambling to create laws that would prevent a school shooting from taking place in our state. As a page, I shared the legislators' anxiety over the three bills. Hundreds of people wearing NRA buttons and orange hats would flood the state house every day. It became a skill being able to weave in between the masses. Occasionally, an orange-headed figure would stop me and ask to see the notes I was carrying in hopes of changing a certain representative's mind. One afternoon, I found myself sitting in the house chamber with a fellow page playing Cat's Cradle with two tied together rubber bands. When two police officers with two dogs each asked us to exit so they could perform a cautionary search for explosives. No one in the state house should feel as though their lives are at risk, especially amidst a contentious debate over gun regulations. If there had been laws in place that banned individuals from carrying firearms in our capital, I know I would have felt safe for going to work every day. An eighth grader should not have to fear that they could be shot simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. S-30 represents the next important step in gun violence prevention. By prohibiting firearms from hospitals, childcare facilities, and certain public buildings, such as the state house, we ensure a level of safety in places that this is of utmost value. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Yes. Mayor Watson is with us now. Well, I'm gonna go to the next student from Brattleboro and then go back to mayor, if that's okay. With everybody. Mayor, was that okay with you? That's fine, thank you. Thank you. Senator Benning had a question or comment or? I did. Lily, first, welcome back to the Senate. Thank you. I am curious about a couple of things. The man who shot his mother at Dartmouth. Yes.  I do not. I remember I was, I must have been 14 or 13 at the time. And so I do not personally remember. I do know that like I was listening to the news on the radio as I was driving home and he was reported on the fourth floor. So whatever the fourth floor, I think it was intensive unit cares for is what his mother was shot. I have two questions for you beyond that. First, if we had passed the law such as this one and such a law was in fact, in effect in New Hampshire, do you think that would have prevented this man from doing what he did? I believe that it would have limited his chances of succeeding. I also believe that it's impossible to know. However, having more cautionary restrictions in place would 100% increase the odds that he would not have killed his mother. The last question you said, you said that this is the next important step. I'm curious to know what is the step after that? I believe that there are other places that guns should be restricted or prohibited for the public safety. However, I think that the three places that were included in this bill should have already been in place as they set up a basis for gun violence or gun violence prevention in places of work that are extremely sensitive and already can be a very contentious and stressful environment. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Lily. It is nice to see you back although virtually rather than in person in the state house. Ed, I'm gonna mess this one up too. Good morning. It's Padma, don't worry about it. Okay, great. Thank you. Welcome to Senate Judiciary. Thank you. Hello and thank you, Senator Sears and the committee for letting me speak today in support of S30. My name is Padma Mendelssohn. I live in Wyndham County and I am currently a junior at Gratterborough Union High School. Three years ago, I connected with Clay Lasher Summers. Clay allowed me to travel with a group of Vermont teens to Boston to discuss gun violence prevention with youth and experts from around New England. Several of whom lost children and family members to gun violence themselves. Gun violence is something I have been keenly aware of for some time. Having experienced active shooter drills since the age of five or six. Vermont has preexisting gun bans in schools. Schools are a place where people put aside their political, religious and social differences in the interest of learning. Should we not transpose the same thinking in our legislation regarding childcare centers, hospitals, government buildings and our state house? These are all places where civilians should feel safe and not scared of someone using a lethal weapon. I'm 11 year old brother named Louie. When he was younger, he attended a local daycare called Happy Hands. Over the summer or on holidays, I would occasionally stop in and visit and play with the kids. They did arts and crafts projects, baked concoctions and threw the occasional temper tantrum about nap time. Parents leaves their children on faith, trusting the security of their babies to their childcare providers. Parents deserve to know that their babies will be safe throughout the day. The bill in question would significantly lessen the chances of violence, allowing guardians to capitalize upon critical hours of care. Much as we might not wish to envision the chances of a childcare center coming to violence, of course it could happen. As COVID strange that families compounded by issues such as substance abuse and rising rates of domestic violence, there is ever more likelihood that the pressure cooker of life during a pandemic could erupt into violence, resulting in the deaths of innocent children. This is a reason to act now. Through my experience, instead of time spent both at my brother's daycare and also working as a counselor at Green Mountain Camp for Girls, I came to discover that I love working with children. Additionally, I've always been fascinated by the medical field and hope to become a pediatrician one day. Growing up, my mom volunteered three times a week in the oncology department at Brattleboro Memorial Hospital.  They're high stress, often emotional environments that need to stay safe and orderly run efficiently. There are triage protocols that abide by a hierarchy of values. Medical professionals need to focus on healing patients and not issues of hospital security. Community members need to feel safe coming to hospitals to get help. Importantly, this care includes mental and emotional support. Physical problems can connect with mental health issues. Time spent in hospitals can be an explosively emotional experience, both for the primary recipients of care and equally so for those patients' parties associated with them. People should not have access to guns that have the power to take lives in such a potentially fraught environment. Hospitals are not a place to contend with ideological differences. Hospitals need to be a safe area for our communities. As someone who aspires to work in a hospital, I strenuously believe that the mental and physical protection of both employees and patients should be the number one priority. Keeping out guns would decrease the possibility of a lethal incident, further ensuring the protection of those who are already in need of care. I understand that Vermont has a strong hunting culture and many people own guns for protection, but there are environments where guns can only do harm. Safety should be a number one priority in the locations I've mentioned, childcare centers, hospitals and in our state, house and government buildings. Having grown up in Vermont, I hope that as a state we can work to better protect our communities from gun violence. The next step is to make change through gun legislation as proposed by S30. Thank you. Sorry, I had, I don't have a child here right now, but I do have a dog that needs, I'm sorry, I missed part of your testimony. Senator White. Thanks, Padna. Did you realize that when we heard from the Department of Children and Families around daycare centers, as part of their licensing contract, they have to prohibit all firearms at the daycare centers. So they're already prohibited there. Understood. I think that any basic childcare is basically the same as schooling, just for like a younger age group and kids even outside of schools, any kind of like school arrangement or area where kids are meeting, I think that those need to be protected. Right, love that. When they are withstanding protocols in place. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we can go to the mayor of Montpelier who seems to be in a vehicle. This is true. I was just coming out of an appointment. I'm sorry, I was. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry to have been a little late here. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can and that's fine. Okay. All right, well thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you all today. I'm here in support of S30, particularly the section about prohibiting firearms and certain types of government or public buildings. I want to start with a story about Kirkwood, Minnesota on February 7th, 2008, a man entered the city council meeting with two firearms. There he shot a police officer, the public works director, two city council members, the mayor and a reporter. This kind of violence perpetrated in a government building has sadly happened in both small and large city halls around the country, including New Hope, Minnesota and in New York City. A town or city hall is a symbol of that town. There may be other municipal buildings but the town or city hall represents that municipality as the seat of local government. I'm certain that I don't have to tell you that people sometimes can get very angry with elected officials or municipal employees. In Montpelier, as a part of our new city council orientation each spring, we go over safety precautions for what to do if there's an active shooter situation. This bill F-30 may help prevent injury or loss of life by providing law enforcement a reason to stop folks with firearms from entering a public building before those firearms become a problem. Firearms and democracy should not mix. And democracy is designed to be slow, designed to provide space for differing opinions and therefore in a certain sense, it's effectively designed to be frustrating. That frustration can become heated and even fuel anger in some people. Showing a firearm during a discussion is at the very least intimidation and a distraction from the logic or merits of an argument. I fully support robust disagreement but firearms have no place in that discourse. After the Capitol riots on January 6th, this year we anticipated an armed protest in Montpelier which thankfully didn't materialize but as a part of our precautions, we made sure that Montpelier City Hall building would be closed to the public on both January 17th and on inauguration day. Why did we do that? Because City Hall is an obvious target as a symbol of our city. As a teacher, as well as a mayor, teaching is my full-time day job. I'm glad that it's already illegal to have firearms at school but I think our municipal public servants deserve the same protection teachers and students. Essential government functions should at the very least include workplaces of those municipal employees that have to deal with the public on a regular basis. And as such are often the recipients of significant amount of public angst. I would recommend this bill cover the workplaces of our city and town clerks, police and fire departments, planning departments and the offices of department heads. Each of these buildings house essential government work and the people engaged in those processes deserve to have reasonable protection from the threat of firearms while they interact with the public. Separately, regarding childcare facilities, I realize this is somewhat out of my bailiwick but I want to offer that I think prohibiting firearms at childcare facilities is a logical extension of the prohibition at schools. And I think there's an exception for childcare centers held in people's homes. And I think it would be reasonable that firearms at a childcare facility held in someone's home ought to be locked up while the childcare services are happening. So thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Mayor, appreciate it. And sorry, actually I'm sorry I'm not in Montpelier, right? Never thought I'd say that because sometimes it's really boring up there but I think all of us really miss the whole city of capital of Vermont. And so I look forward to getting back to Montpelier in the near future. I guess my question has to do with your role as a mayor of a city and the police department is right next door to the town offices and the town halls. But I'm thinking of a little town like Ridgeboro and I've heard many of those who are against this bill speak of the need for self-defense. And in Ridgeboro it takes 45 minutes for the nearest state trooper to get there if they're not already up in Wilmington or out on Route 9. So, definitely they would be in a real deep trouble at that town hall, that's the argument anyway. Any thoughts on perhaps allowing towns to make their own decisions about how they wanna deal with this? So I have a couple of thoughts on that. One is that I think by allowing municipalities to potentially continue to allow folks to carry firearms into a building, it's, I think that, speaking for myself here, I think that is a race to the bottom kind of mentality around public safety. And the idea that there is, you know, the need to foster a sense of fear that people ought to be carrying firearms, it sort of encourages a proliferation of firearms versus the idea that if someone brings a firearm into a space and it's visible and someone notices, that's an alert to someone to say something is wrong. And then any number of actions could be taken that don't necessarily involve firearms to help address that situation. So I think there are other ways to address it. And so it's reasonable to think that we can be creative about that and not depend on more firearms to solve the problem. Thank you. Appreciate it. Senator Benning has a question, Mayor. Mayor, it's been a while since I've been in the Montpelier Municipal Building. Is there a sign on the front door that says no weapons allowed? I don't believe so, no. We have, I think the only policy we have at all about firearms in the whole city of Montpelier is posted at the border of the city, which has no rifle shooting buckshot only. That's probably a fairly old law, I would imagine. Do you, you've been fairly recent in a job, but are you aware of any incident inside the municipal building where somebody actually threatened anybody with a weapon? So just for context, I've actually, I've been mayor for about three years now, but I've been on the city council almost for the last decade, which is kind of blowing my mind a little bit, but I know that people have been threatened, but not with a weapon. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate your time with us. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. We're gonna move on to Christopher Ashley on the board of Gunsense Vermont. Good morning, and thank you, Senator Sears and committee for letting us talk. You're welcome. I am speaking in favor of S30, particularly the provision to prohibit firearms from childcare centers. I have three reasons for doing so. I was a Vermont elementary school principal for 30 years. During the last several years, we had a preschool program and hosted an after school program. Both of those situations required that I'd be familiar with the Vermont childcare regulations and operation. The first reason is experience and a personal experience I had. I had few experiences with dealing with weapons and firearms at school. One, that is the foundation of my support for S30 happened in the mid 1980s. Our school personnel as mandated reporters made a referral to DCF, SRS in those days. When a student verbalized physical abuse by a parent, we made the report. What the student said indicated an anger problem was present in that parent. The parent involved worked in the Vermont Department of Corrections Facility. The SRS caseworker arrived at school in the afternoon and interviewed the child. She then asked me to hold the student in the office. She called the parent and asked him to come to school to meet with her. By the time the parent arrived, school had ended for the day. I met the parent at the door and noticed he was in uniform and wearing a gun. I asked the parent to return to the car and remove the weapon. At that time, there weren't rules in Vermont about weapons in schools. I could only make a firm request. After many seconds of staring at each other, the parent grudgingly agreed to do so. The meeting that ensued was loud and angry with fists slamming on tables and threats being made. Eventually an agreement regarding behavior, custody, the next steps, including supervision, was reached. As he left for the parking lot, I locked the door and moved to watch out a window and be next to my phone. To this day, I don't know what would have happened if that weapon was present during such an angry meeting. The SRS worker and I and the rest of the school staff still in the building all waited a half hour to give them a chance to clear the area. It was true relief when the state laws were changed and our district passed the policy banning firearms and could put up signage. And I knew that if that situation happened again, I could simply call the police to enforce the ban before letting anyone in the building. That was a much safer position to be in. Childcare centers, in my opinion, are in the same situation now as our school was back then. They are mandated reporters. And they're relatively open as they are sensibly required, in my opinion, to allow parents access to their programs and children without delay. If a parent is unhappy as a result of a DCF report, even though the person's name who makes the report is confidential, it is usually very clear that the report came from the childcare or the school. The childcare center should be very much and childcare center could very much be at risk like we were those years ago. A state law prohibiting firearms would be helpful to reduce this risk. The second thing, the childcare center, the child-based childcare, sorry, the center-based childcare and preschool program rules, as you've mentioned in this hearing are very clear that firearms and weapons are not allowed in childcare settings. The regulation is <IP_ADDRESS>, firearms and other weapons. The licensees shall ensure that no firearms and other weapons, including honey knives, archery equipment, and weapon accessories such as ammunition are present at the CBCCPP. I would ask you, how does the childcare center enforce the violation of this rule in real time? How can a childcare employee insist that a firearm or weapon be removed if there isn't a state law backing them up? Telling someone that they are trespassing is not the same as calling the police and will certainly inflame passions. Also, serving a letter of trespass takes time, several hours at the least and usually days and it only works after it's been a threatening or actual incident. To address Senator White's question, it is once you've confronted someone and said they're trespassing, you've inflamed the situation. If instead you say, unfortunately there's a state law and we have to call the police if you come in, that's a very different situation. How can our childcare centers follow the mandated rules and keep children safe? When you read through the child, through the center-based childcare and preschool program regulations and implementation guide, as it should be, there are countless phrases about child safety, the safety of children, the welfare of children followed by hundreds of specific regulations regarding child safety and welfare. Specific and detailed standards are stated for background checks, toilets, food, first aid, furniture, supervision, water temperature, equipment, laundry, the cleaning of materials, even backup heat in the event of a power outage, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Safety concerns for children are rightly paramount. Yet the safety standard for firearms and weapons doesn't have Vermont state law backstopping it. S30 would allow it to be more effectively and uniformly enforced. Thank you. I hope you'll support S30. Thank you. Thank you very much. Dr. Bell, welcome back to Senate Judiciary. Thank you so much for having me. I'm Dr. Bell, I am a pediatric ICU physician at University of Vermont Children's Hospital and I'm also the president of the Vermont chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics who I am here speaking on behalf of. I know that you, one of my colleagues, Dr. Ryan Sexton, already spoke to all of you and I did watch his testimony and also the testimony of the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. So I don't want to repeat what others have said and I've tried to be thoughtful about what I could potentially add to this conversation. So I would like to talk a little bit about violence and violence prevention in general and I've spoken to you all as a committee in the context of suicide prevention. And so I'd like to use that frame again when I talk about violence prevention in this setting. So in suicide prevention work, what we know is that the act of suicide is not a foregone conclusion. It's not something that is definitely gonna happen. It's something that is preventable and we know that the risk of suicide ebbs and flows and that the key to suicide prevention is to keep people safe during those high risk times. Similarly with violence prevention, violence is not, a violent act is not a foregone conclusion. There are not inherently violent people and nonviolent people there. We're all human, we are all capable of violence. The idea is to keep people safe during times when violence is more likely to happen. And so if you have a situation where somebody faces an unexpected event, a heightened emotional sense, perhaps some impulse control issues, perhaps substance use or not, on top of that, you also have, if you also have access to a firearm, what can happen is you can then have a violent act that leads to a tragedy that is preventable. And so when we do violence prevention work, community violence prevention work, we think about not so much the people involved, but the situations involved. Like how can we make the environment and the situation safe? So I would like to try to step back and not think so much about that there are good guys and bad guys. Like there are people who are going about their lives, doing their thing and some of them carry firearms and some of them don't and everyone has good intention and no one has ill intention and those are all the good people.  Really violent acts occur in the middle in the situations that I just mentioned where you have this event that happens and then also access to lethal means. So where I work in the hospital, you've heard a lot about the intense situations that happen in hospitals. So I won't go into that too much, but I do meet people on sometimes the very worst days of their life. I have been verbally threatened in the past and situations where parents losing a child, it's very intense.  And that is when someone says something like that to me, they're not a bad person. They did not wake up in the morning. They did not walk into the hospital thinking, I'm gonna threaten someone. This is coming from an unimaginable place of pain and anguish and suffering.  We don't know how they're gonna react. We don't know how we would react in that situation. So I would say instead of thinking about the person with malintent who's walking into the hospital trying to hurt someone, it's all of us being human, being in a very intense place, where if we walked in with a firearm because we have it, again, not with any ill intention and it's there, we don't know exactly what could happen from that. And similarly, a lot of very intense situations I've dealt with at work are related to parenting and interpersonal relationships with parents and people have mentioned issues around child abuse, they've mentioned issues around custody. And so there have been 10 situations too that's related to parents. And that, I could see that happening also in childcare centers. So when we think about where are places where tensions can flare up, there are places where people know their partner or former partner might be, might be working or might be picking up their children or where their children might be.  It's I'm gonna meet this person here, we're gonna have a conversation, but then that's where tensions can sort of flare up. So I know that there is, these are places where, people can put signs up and say, no firearms, no firearms allowed. I do think that there is, what I appreciate about this bill is that it lifts some of these really high risk environments up to the level of courthouses and schools where Vermonters are gonna think, okay, this is not, do I have my firearm on me? I need to leave my firearm at home. I need to not bring my firearm into this place. This is like schools, like courthouses, hospitals, childcare facilities are on that list as well. And again, it's really thinking about the environment and the place and keeping that risk of a violent act lower. So... Thank you, Dr. Bell, I appreciate it very much. We are, I think just about on time, we have Hannah Shearer left on the witness list from Giffords and then we're due to move to Eric Davis. But thank you again, Dr. Bell and Hannah Shearer. Thanks so much, Senator, good morning. I'm an attorney and the litigation director at Giffords Law Center to prevent gun violence. And thanks for inviting my testimony in support of S30. This legislation, as others have mentioned is the necessary response following the January 6th violence at the US Capitol and the surge in armed intimidation at state capitals across the country that are aimed at shutting down legislative debate. This legislation, the government buildings piece, but also the restrictions for daycare centers and hospitals will also put the state on the right side of all the evidence, which is telling us that the absence of laws like this is harming public safety. What we know after January 6th is pretty clear. Washington DC's strong gun restrictions around the Capitol and in city streets, actually, there in Washington DC, those restrictions were helpful and they actually worked. My organization and others monitored online conversations around the DC event and many people were leaving their guns at home because of DC's laws. And then we saw that the violence was less lethal because people did that. Because lawbreakers who are breaking other laws who broke into the Capitol actually did leave their guns behind and used other weapons. And so this tells us that enforceable laws around the carry of firearms and places where you can bring them can be effective even with those people who are radicalized and are prepared to break other laws. And that's the reality of what happened that day. And I think that's an important function of this legislation to try and have that same effect and to preempt similar types of radicalized actions in Vermont. So based on what happened in Washington DC, we know that it works to have an enforceable law restricting guns in locations like government buildings, the Capitol. But we don't know that it works to rely on posting signs or on a general trespassing law that doesn't mention firearms. And as Senator Bruce explained earlier, it doesn't necessarily foreclose open carry and could be challengeable. I think if the committee members see any ambiguity there with that, that goes to show that it's a good idea to adopt a clear law. It's always gonna be better to have a clear law on the books. For the additional reason, it gives people the explicit reassurance that they aren't going to encounter guns when they enter or visit public buildings. It explains the rules for gun owners in a way where their responsibilities are easier to understand. And then it sets a crystal clear expectation for the bad actors who are wanting to push the boundaries that what they wanna do is not allowed. I think if it's left up to a vaguer trespassing statute under a current political climate, there's inevitably going to be people who push that limit and it'll be harder to deal with that after the fact than it is now preemptively. So I urge the committee not to wait for a toxic volatile standoff to arise before acting to protect the safe exercise of democracy. I wanna briefly address the objection that has been raised to the legislation that it interferes with self-defense. The US Supreme Court and Justice Antonin Scalia have clearly found that prohibiting guns and government buildings and sensitive places which includes daycare centers and hospitals certainly is consistent with the right to use firearms for self-defense. And that's because using guns for self-defense does create dangers for other people in our shared public spaces. And so it can be limited in that circumstance. The fact is that lawful gun owners who are caring for self-defense can still cause a tragedy. They've done so in the past when by making a mistake in the heat of the moment, misperceiving a threat or even by unintentionally hindering police responses to an active shooter making it hard to identify who is the wrongdoer. There's evidence that gun carriers can overreact to perceived threats and escalate conflicts that could otherwise be resolved without violence. There's an enormous body of evidence that we've gotten on that subject from citizen standard ground laws which encourage people to use lethal force in public but contrary to what's been argued about the self-defense value of those policies, standard ground laws actually have increased violent crime where they're in effect and have led to racially biased killings and vigilante behavior. And all of these consequences result from encouraging armed self-defense in public and including in sensitive places where it would be better to try and deescalate conflict by removing guns from the situation. And this is on top of everything that Dr. Bell just spoke about, which is people who have an emotional impulsive response to intense situations and might carry out violence in that situation coming in not intending to do anything wrong and that's also well documented. So just to wrap up, there is evidence that we need to worry about lawful gun carriers doing harm. What I don't think there's evidence of is a law abiding person that has needed to defend themselves with a gun at a public building or during a government function. I don't know an example like that and I don't think it's supported in public buildings or in childcare centers or in hospitals either. So thanks so much. That concludes my remarks and thanks for your attention to this important bill. You're muted, Dick. In your analysis of the as litigation director, have you looked at the 16th Amendment to the Vermont Constitution? Articles, I'm sorry, articles 16 of the Vermont, not an amendment, article 16 of the Vermont Constitution that seems to provide more of a shall we say defense position than the second amendment so that the right to defend oneself, which goes back to my question about the little town of Reedsboro on the mass border where it literally does take 45 minutes to get there even a state police officer traveling at the highest rate that they can safely travel. Thank you for that question. The Vermont Supreme Court actually just issued a landmark decision on article 16, interpreting it for the first time and they also held that gun restrictions are supported under article 16 and are consistent with just historically the fact that guns have been regulated including in insensitive places. I think the example that you're talking about, first of all, it seems like the actual evidence on self-defense abuse of firearms doesn't show, it seems to suggest that introducing guns into that situation is gonna be more harmful than enforcing gun restrictions in sensitive public places, thereby reducing the number of situations where you'd need to call in police. I think it's hard to say absent any evidence that it's actually happening. So I'd wanna look into whether it's inhibited people, the fact that police are far away or whether the answer to that should be enforcing a law that you can't bring guns into public spaces that are supposed to be free from violence where people aren't expecting to encounter firearms. This minute. Thank you. Okay. Other questions for Hannah? Senator Bruce. Thank you for your testimony, Hannah. This is not a question. I just wanted to add on to what Hannah said. The decision that was issued by the Supreme Court was issued from the entire court and that's an important thing to note. It wasn't disputed, it came from the entire court. So I thought that was an important indication of their stance. Well, it may have come from the entire court, but it wasn't the entire court. As a matter of fact, three members of the Supreme Court were not involved in that decision. Justice Cohen stepped down because he was a district court judge in Bennington. I got on the Supreme Judge in Bennington who heard the original case. So he had to step down. For some reason, Justice Ryber accused himself of the justice eaten. So it really was two members of the Vermont Supreme Court and two other cities. I believe that it was four, but I don't mean to belabor the point. It's not part of the witnesses' knowledge, but I think saying it's... I would just add that the reason why people speculate that they did that is to avoid intimidation by putting the names of certain people on the decision. So that's the way Vermont Digger framed it was that this is typical in cases where they want to avoid essentially threats to Supreme Court justices. I know the point is that if Justice Cohen had been there, Justice Eaton and Justice Ryber on a different case, you might have a slightly different outcome. Absolutely. Senator White. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I found Hannah and Dr. Bell's testimony pretty riveting, but I think that even just looking at this bill and some of the testimony that we've heard, there's still a lot of misunderstanding about what the bill actually does because we've heard that this would extend to all healthcare facilities and possibly even private offices, healthcare centers, et cetera, it doesn't. It only applies to licensed hospitals. We've heard that it would apply to all government build, well, it does say all government buildings, which can also means the salt shed, but we've also heard that it should apply to the grounds of the government buildings and the perimeters and the parking lots, which this does not at all. And so there are still a lot of misunderstandings about what the bill actually does, I believe. And I don't know that even if we passed this, that many people would think it went far enough. So I just wanted to make that comment. Appreciate it. And now I have to switch my positions here because I have to go upstairs. Okay. I'll be back. All right, we'll look forward to seeing you back in a different position. Senator Benning, finally comment because we're moving behind now. I'm sorry, Hannah, I just wanted to ask you a question. I haven't read the case. I understand that the case centered on the question of whether or not a 30 round magazine was something that was necessary for self-defense. There weren't any other issues in the case that I understand, although I've only read the news reports. Are you aware of any other issues that were decided in the case? No, that's correct, Senator, that the law issue was the large capacity magazine ban, but they also did decide the standard that they would use in Article 16 challenges going forward. And under that standard, the legislature can pass reasonable gun regulations that further public safety consistently with Article 16. So I think that's significant for this bill. Okay. One last question. I saw Giffords next to your name. That's not Giffords Memorial Hospital you're from. No, sorry. It's Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. We were founded by former US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Where are you located? I'm actually in Oakland, California. So three hours behind you all. Thank you. Well, thank you for joining us early in the morning. All right, our next witness is Eric Davis, representing Gun Owners of Vermont. And Eric, welcome to Senate Judiciary. Thank you for being here. Hey, good morning. Thank you, senators. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Eric Davis and I am the president of Gun Owners of Vermont. We are an all volunteer nonprofit advocacy group dedicated to the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms. We appreciate the allotted time of 30 minutes for our speakers today, but unfortunately since we're an all volunteer organization and do not employ paid lobbyists, it seems we are somewhat short on witnesses. Most of the folks who we represent and who would normally take the time to participate in a public hearing could not arrange to get the time off today during a work day so they could testify. So I will be giving this whole testimony for Gun Owners of Vermont on their behalf. We consider ourselves a grassroots advocacy group and we feel that we represent all people who support Article 16 and the Second Amendment. We ask humbly for a small donation each year from our official members, but we like to think that we represent all gun owners in the Green Mountain State and not just those who can afford to pay for a membership. We very firmly believe that the right to keep and bear arms is for all peaceful individuals, regardless of race, religion, place of birth, social status, net worth or other differences. In short, the right to keep and bear arms is a human right. When we got word that we would be testifying today in this unconventional format, we realized that our usual methods of having a large number of our members or member lobbyists as we like to think of them, testify in their own words, would likely not be practical in this setting. We took to the comms to ask our folks to submit testimony to the committee via email in their own words and I asked specifically for folks who don't feel comfortable composing something to reach out to me directly and I would try to convey their concerns to the committee during my time here today. In my last testimony, I highlighted the two different types of people who carry a gun, the person who carries aggressively with malicious intent and the person who carries defensively as a precaution. In my testimony today, I will do my best to give the committee the perspective of not only the person who carries for protection, but also of all those gun owners who elect not to carry their firearms on a daily basis and even those who do not own a gun but are still concerned with the unrelenting efforts by those in government who propose to restrict civil rights. Today, I will be speaking for all of them. Guns are an important and vital part of the American culture whether anyone likes it or not. The people of this country place a high value on their right to acquire a gun as a utilitarian tool, a sporting device, a piece of history, a means of deterrence and protection and many other combinations of reasons as did those who authored our founding documents. It is no surprise that in a country born of violent political revolution and founded on the principles of protecting individual rights from an oppressive government that firearms remain an integral and crucial part of our society today. Indeed, the firearm is seen as a symbol of independence by those who choose to own one. It is something to be safely kept, maintained and respected and it is something that is not likely to be surrendered easily because those who fear guns succeed in outlawing the possession and carriage of devices now on legally. While gun rights advocates may seem particularly stubborn and unrelenting, we feel like we are the ones who continue to get the raw end of the deal. Gun owners have been told, not asked, to compromise by accepting progressively more malicious and effective and sometimes downright dangerous restrictions on their rights for almost 100 years now with nothing in return. We are constantly berated with buzzwords and empty platitudes suggesting that every successive set of restrictions is simply another necessary common-sense safety measure or reasonable restriction. As the latest rounds of legislation are introduced every year with an emphasis on tightening any restrictions possible, we are condescendingly assured that no one is trying to take your guns. These bills are proposed constantly and by the dozens, yet we see few if any proposals to restore individual rights and zero acceptance of the idea that any previous restrictions might have been excessive and should be repealed. Ignoring the myriad of federal laws passed since 1934 and the countless restrictions and outright bans on certain classes of firearms and accessories by unconstitutional bureaucratic and executive action, we would point out that as far back as 2013, the author of S30 has proposed legislation which outlaws firearms in current use from common law abiding people. When we point out that this never seems to stop and that gun control has historically been a one-way street and for a government that isn't trying to take your guns, it sure does seem like you're trying to take our guns, we are admonished as paranoid and branded as extremists. It has been suggested that this bill was drafted in response to incidents in which so-called extremists have protested government overreach and certain public places will open carrying firearms. We would point out that this sort of posturing has never been a popular tactic of the gun culture and in fact has historically been frowned upon. It has only increased recently with the calls for more gun control. We have seen massive protests for numerous reasons in this country over the last several years. The people who protest for gun rights do so for the same reason as people who protest the government over any other issue. They feel like their government is not working for them and in many cases is actively working against them. When they feel that their concerns are not only being ignored, but openly dismissed, they understandably become more acrimonious. When the thing that they are protesting continues to occur, the tensions increase and the situation escalates. When we put the question to our membership of what message they wanted us to convey to the committee, we received many responses, some broad and generalized and others narrowly focused. They came from many people of different backgrounds and occupations and offered many different angles of view on the current state of gun rights in Vermont, but there was one clear and omnipresent theme in the underlying tone of all the responses we received and that was one of frustration. Frustration that in a year of unprecedented events and civil unrest, a year when Americans have suffered through global pandemic and financial hardships, a year that has seen us shackled with previously unimaginable restrictions on life and liberty that the legislator's priority is once again, gun control. In a year that has seen over 20 million Americans come to the realization that the system cannot and will not protect them. And if chosen to hedge their bets against the uncertainty of a deeply troubled society by acquiring and carrying a firearm for their own safety, they find the only thing they can count on for sure is that come January, when the legislature reconvenes there will be renewed calls to restrict their right to make that decision. These people feel bullied and attacked by a government which repeatedly bludges them with new restrictions on what was once a proud and independent lifestyle. They realize that no amount of gun control will ever be enough to satisfy those who advocate it. And whatever small restrictions are being pushed this year, will always be a stepping stone to more restrictions next year. The absolute proof of this can be observed by simply looking at the number of anti-gun bills proposed over the last 10 years versus legislation that protects the right to keep and bear arms.  William R. Tonso might have best summed up the feeling in his 1990 book, The Gun Culture and Its Enemies when he stated, quote, I find it rather ironic and somewhat amusing as well as intimidating that many enlightened people who righteously condemn ethnic and religious prejudices readily display similar prejudice toward another category of people to which I belong, gun enthusiasts. Upon requesting our members opinions on S30, the one detail specific response that we receive more than any other was the observation that this bill or more importantly, the idea behind this bill relies entirely on the good faith of all participants. Regardless of the proposed penalty for violation, the only mechanism S30 provides to keep people safe is to put up a sign that reads no guns allowed and hope everyone follows the rules. It seems the author of this bill has envisioned some fantasy scenario, presumably in Vermont where hospitals, childcare centers and municipal buildings who are being terrorized by gun brandishing political extremists might have these dissidents heroically escorted out of the building presumably by people without guns and tried for their crimes against humanity on the back of this new law. In reality, what will happen is the same thing that happens every time gun control is passed. Peaceful people get stripped of their right to the security and deterrence guaranteed by the Second Amendment and Article 16. Gun-free zones have been proven to attract people seeking to inflict as much harm on as many people as possible. By removing the ability of good people to defend themselves, you remove the deterrence for bad people to do harm. Gun-free zones are dangerous and should not be expanded under any circumstances, rather they should be abolished entirely. When we consider this bill by itself, we have serious concerns. When we consider this bill being pushed simultaneously with another bill, S63 that prohibits resource officers in schools and thus ensues, ensures that only an on-duty law enforcement officer would be able to legally respond to a school shooting, our concerns grow more fervent and we are left contemplating if the true motive of this legislation is actually to keep people safe. There's another important and specific conversation to be had regarding the gray and often blurry area where property rights and constitutional rights overlap. Does a property owner have a right to ask that a person check their Second Amendment rights at the door? If the answer to that question is yes, should the owners or managers of that property then be held liable for the safety of the people within their area of operations? Furthermore, should the owners and operators not be required to provide some sort of armed security as they are arbitrarily depriving the individual of the ability to provide it for themselves? And finally, should there be a different precedent for private property than for public property? And where do we draw that line on places like hospitals which are privately owned yet frequented by the public? These are all important questions to ask and they require slow and deliberate consideration to be answered if in fact they can be answered. The point is that the impetus for this bill is not to answer those questions but to intact the independence of Vermont gun culture by creating more laws to turn them into criminals for something that has never been a problem. Lastly, regarding the specifics of S30, we received a high volume of correspondence from folks asking us to convey their concerns with this bill and there are a wide variety of them. Some were specific as outlined above and some were very simplistic and concise almost in the nature of a plea, i.e. why do you keep doing this to us and please stop. It would be impossible today to list every single submission and concern but one in particular stood out and deserves a specific honorable mention. This notable correspondence came from a person who works in the field of childcare and was very reluctant to offer their opinion on the matter for fear of political retribution. I encouraged them to send their thoughts to the committee to which they politely declined but asked me if I could convey them during my testimony today with the assurance that I not give their name. Rather than paraphrasing, I will read directly from their letter as follows. Quote, I work as an elementary childcare provider and I'm also a gun owner who is an advocate for the right to armed yet responsible defense of oneself and one's civil liberties. I have struggled trying to reconcile the two in a country that has seen many tragedies happen at schools because of the actions of unstable and willfully harmful individuals. These events are random and unpredictable. The only truly foolproof way of preventing them would be to have armed police or guards in every shop, every home, every street corner and every building to stop any threat from taking the lives of others. Not only is this incredibly unpractical but it also goes against everything our country and way of life is based on. We are not a police state nor should we strive to be one with constant surveillance and police presence. The trade-off to all of this is when we need them though they react as quickly as they can they don't always show up immediately. The several minutes it takes from when a phone call is placed to when a police arrive could be a matter of life and death and those tasks with teaching our children should have the option to provide effective and efficient protection for the lives of the children they look after. I feel if we are serious about protecting our children we should have all options on the table including the providers directly intercepting and ending a threat. We've seen armed citizens time and again stop mass shooters before they are able to claim more victims within the store, church or other location they've chosen to prey on. Again, I feel that if done in a safe and responsible manner and approved by those running the facility the physical means of providing that protection should be an available tool. End quote. This is a poignant statement from someone who works directly with children has obvious concerns for their safety and is willing to accept the fact that children need to be protected by more than just empty words on a sign proclaiming some area to be a gun-free zone. The fact that having the audacity to voice this simple opinion causes them to fear for their job speaks volumes to the fact that the debate is rigged and that the proponents of gun control have little use for discussion of ideas which don't fit their narrative. In conclusion, it should be obvious by now we cannot and will not support this bill with its questionable intent in any form. Real solutions, which actually keep people safe will never involve removing good people's right to self-defense and deterrence. We look forward to a day when we might be able to work with our legislature towards the goal of keeping people safe and not have to do so from a defensive position. We once again assert that the right to keep and bear arms and everything implied therein is a natural human right. We do not see gun rights as a left or right issue. Rather, we see them as a point of unity that should transcend partisan politics. We would implore all interested parties to break from the approach of focusing on objects rather than individual well-being in specific actions or behaviors. We would point out the traditional approach of going after guns and criminalizing those who peacefully possessed them has resulted in thousands of federal, state, and local firearms regulations currently on the books in the United States. Considering this, we have to ask if gun control has worked, why do we need more gun control every year? And furthermore, if gun control has not worked, why would we assume that more gun control would work this time? S30 is at best a solution in search of a problem. It is gun control for the sake of gun control. At worst, it is a deliberate and obligatory continuation of the openly hostile assault on Vermont's gun culture and its tradition of independence. An objective observer might note that stripping of motivated and independent people of their dignity and then rubbing their noses in it has historically not been a unifying tactic. In fact, it only leads one way. We would once again like to thank the committee for hearing us today and respectfully ask that no more action be taken on this bill or any other that infringes upon the rights of honest Vermonters. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Senator Baruch. Thank you, Mr. Davis. So I have a comment and a question. I wanna note but put to one side the characterizations you made about my intentions or my own personal actions in the sphere. I will say that when you talk about what you're calling gun control, what we call gun safety laws, you characterize them as attacking people, bludgeoning people, rubbing their nose in it. And you say that only leads in one way. And I take that to be an indication that anytime what the Supreme Court calls reasonable regulation is proposed, you and your group communicate to your members that they are being attacked. They are being bludgeoned. And we shouldn't be surprised then if some unstable individuals take that as a call to action or a call to arms. We saw that January 6th. So I'll note that. My question is you in talking about the trespass legislation, you said, should a law abiding gun owner be required to check their second amendment rights at the door? And it seemed as though you were saying that you didn't believe a private property owner should be able to bar a gun from coming in. That's a dispute we've been having in the committee. Can you just elaborate a little on your thought there? Well, Senator, I guess my thoughts on the matter is like I said, there's an important discussion to be had over which takes precedent, whether constitutional second amendment rights take precedent over a property owner's right to ask that a gun not be brought on that property. And I believe that that is a very important conversation to be had. However, I'm attempting to convey the concerns of our membership and the folks that I represent. And honestly, they feel attacked, Senator. I mean, they feel harassed by this year, after year, after year. And it seems to them that no matter what small niche that you carve out into existing law for what you call the gun safety, that it will never be enough. And it will always lead to more next year. And frankly, I'm gonna go off script here with I guess my better judgment, but I would say that these people in fact, resent the fact that the folks that authored these bills use the term gun safety. We have never once seen anything in any of these bills about the safe use and handling of firearms in the sense that we grew up with them. I mean, we grew up knowing that gun safety meant the four rules of gun safety. You treat them with respect. You don't point it at anybody.  What you're proposing, Senator, is not gun safety. It is restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. And quite frankly, they resent continually being told otherwise. They do not see these measures as safety measures. They see them as, at this point, harassment, to be very honest with you. Thank you. So Mr. Chair, I would just again, know my contention about the trespassing statute is that it is not clear to everyone that it prohibits or supersedes their Second Amendment rights. And in Mr. Davis' testimony, that's what I'm hearing is that for him, it's an open question whether or not the constitutional right to bear arms takes precedence over a sign that a hospital puts up or a child care center puts up. So- Or a state house. Right, so that's been my- I mean, there is a sign in front of the state house that says no weapons of that. That's been my contention all along, is that a uniform state law will be observed more consistently than a patchwork of regulations or individual policies. So thank you, Mr. Davis, I appreciate it. Thank you, Senator Benning. I don't wanna get into a debate, but that's not the way I interpreted Eric's remarks. I don't think a person can walk into your house. Which way? I'm confused. Which- Okay, I'm hearing Phillip say that a person who has the idea that they have Second Amendment rights has the right to supersede the rights of a private property owner. And I don't believe a person can walk into your house, Phillip, just because they haven't done it. Any more than my law office, would I allow somebody to come in and I have every right to boot them out for whatever reason, because this is my property. They can't come into my property just because they have a gun. That doesn't make any sense. Well, I was talking about what the witness said. I understand your point of view. I did not interpret his remarks as being that. He said it was an open discussion and a good debate to have. Right. But I wanna take this moment to say to Eric, I also see William Moore, Chris Bradley, Evan Young- He'll be on later. I understand that, Senator, but we had a very bad incident at the National Capitol on January 6th. And every sign was for intelligence purposes, telling us that we were gonna have a bad incident at the State House on January 20th, I believe it was. And I wanna thank the individuals on this screen for having the forethought to say to their owners, the gun owners, this is no time to be showing up at the Capitol. And we never had an incident. And that's important because these are responsible people who are exercising intelligence in trying to look at what's going on in the national situation. I guess for now I'm gonna leave it that and I'll save the rest of the comments for later. I appreciate that. Generally, I have only supported legislation that might restrict who is to carry a firearm. For example, I think the so-called extreme risk protection order or red flag law that I sponsored that went through the legislature on 79 to zero vote, I think it was. Our laws that seek to make sure that it doesn't impact our mighty citizens, but that it would people who may be dangerous. And so I also don't think Montwa should allow murderers, robbers and rapists to carry firearms, frankly. So I did support that law. You can respond or not, or anybody can respond. I remember a conversation with Tim, me and about a year ago in the State House, we were before the pandemic emergency orders. And I was sitting just outside the Senate Judiciary Committee with Tim Mayan who acts as a law and is for the law federation and sportsmen clubs. And I said to Tim, I can't for the life of me, understand why someone needs to carry a firearm inside an emergency room. When I'm there with my wife, who just fell in as a gastric or skull. And the doctors and nurses are doing their best to try to help her. And there are people in there, frankly, who are unstable mentally. And should the doctors and nurses need to worry about that? And I don't remember Tim's response and I'd let him respond himself at some point of being like or anybody else. But for me, that's, I just, I don't understand. And I'm trying to get that to my head why that, it seems to be an infringement on my right to feel safe within that emergency room. When you do have security within the hospital, at least itself, but not many of us. People can respond to that or not, but that's just something that I wanted to raise and just point out from my perspective. I can understand, you know, and I brought up the reads for example because that's a real example. And I've heard from people over there. I've been over there, it's been a lot of time over there takes a long time to get there. And they would feel defenseless and I talk to people there and I understand their position. But you may or may not comment. I just needed to get that up. Thanks, I'm sorry, it was, was there, I'd understand. Was there a question for me in there? Not necessarily. Other than if you want to answer the question, why somebody needs to carry a firearm inside the emergency room? Well, Senator, I think first, and I always point this out, whatever we're talking about firearms, it's a bill of rights and not a bill of needs. To your specific concern, it is the legitimate concern of why, anyone would bring a gun into an emergency room. And I, the only scenarios I should have added intentionally are. Yeah, yeah, of course. The only scenarios that I can think of, my job is to represent our membership in the gun culture and sort of how we see things. And I don't see any sort of instance where a person would bring a gun into a hospital or an emergency room just specifically for the reason that they can or to make a point. The only scenarios that I see would be someone who conceal carries every day and doesn't tell anybody about it and doesn't make an issue about it and just forgets to leave their gun in their car or something like that. The other scenario obviously would be somebody who went in there with the intent to do harm to those people in that facility. And in that case, I think it would be very unfortunate if there was nobody there with the ability and the means to engage that person and to make them stop if that ever did come about. Senator Bruce. Just a quick addition there. I can think of a situation that we've all seen a hundred times over the past year, which is the mask mandate in various places has produced violence when the person is told that they need to put on a mask. We've all seen videos of brawls that have ensued, violence that's ensued, threats that have ensued. There was a hospital in Washington that was stormed about three weeks ago by the Bundy organization which has shifted its focus in various ways over the last five or six years and now they've moved to opposing lockdowns and masks. And so they actually took an armed group into a hospital to demand the release of a patient that was under COVID-19 restriction. And so that's exactly the sort of thing that we're all talking about is taking a setting that's trying to deal with a pandemic and the kinds of emergency situations the chair described and then throwing in this radicalized open carry movements in various open carry states. That's one of the reasons for this bill in the first place. I just wanted to add also in talking about my point before about the rhetoric that's used. And I take Mr. Davis's point his people don't like some of the bills I've produced or all of the bills I've produced but I have been sitting in my office and had Chief Romy, Romy I call me up and tell me that he's referred information to the FBI about threats to my life.  And I had to then scrub my address from various online sites. So this is not duty free for me. I don't do it to make trouble for anybody. I do it because I think that the situation we're facing is growing more radicalized, more unsafe. And I think the open carry movement in open carry states is at a point where we need to say there are some places where we don't want weapons and hospitals during a pandemic are one of them. Mr. Davis, if you'd like to final thoughts or- Yes, sir. Thank you for that, Senator. And to your concern, I'd first like to point out that we certainly do not condone or encourage any sort of violent or violent behavior. We specifically weed out any sort of people that we get that impression from. We are very, very adamant that the right to keep and bear arms is for peaceful purposes and not aggressive ones. To your point about these laws being for safety, I mean, we can see that. But to give you the perspective from the other side as best I can, I guess, many of these people, you've got to understand these are very independent people and they're, you know, they have a live and let live mentality and are kind of not used to being told what to do with every aspect of their life for lack of a better description.  So when these people that feel like they have been pushed around and bullied and bludgeoned by their government when they speak out against it and the response that they get are more calls to restrict more of their rights, I would respectfully submit that that is pushing our groups further in opposite directions. But I guess what I'm saying, and maybe we're missing each other, I'm saying that they feel bludgeoned because they're being told by groups like yours and the emails they receive and the websites that they read that they are being bludgeoned. So, you know, it's not as though the feeling is, you know, unconnected to the level of rhetoric that gets used around gun safety legislation. So that's my only point is that, you know, proposing what the Supreme Court called reasonable regulations. And I would point out that the governor signed one gun bill since he's been in office and he's rejected any other. So it's not as though there's been a windmill legislation coming out. So I think stepping down the level of rhetoric is not a bad direction. Thank you, Senator Baruth, you're the final word before a five minute break. We're gonna limit us to five minutes to be back here at, you know, we need to hear from Evan Hughes, Ed Wilson and Chris Bradley, Wilmore and Darren Gollums. Actually, I don't know if Darren's here today, but those were witnesses, so we need to have time for them. So we'll be back in five minutes.